greg ogilvie & william dunn [email protected]@ualberta.ca...
TRANSCRIPT
Greg Ogilvie & William [email protected] [email protected]
University of Alberta
Task Repetition as a Pedagogical Strategy: Interactional Effects
and Affective Responses
. . . I think our field must soon be known for the incredible leaps in
logic we make in applying our research findings to classroom
teaching
Hatch, 1979, p.123
If language acquisition research wants to feed into teachingmethodology, the research
environment has to be willing to move out of the laboratory and
into the classroomFoster, 1998, p.21
Effects of Task Repetition• Repetition of identical tasks
has resulted in improved linguistic output for immediate repetition (Lynch & Maclean, 2000, 2001), and repetition ranging from 3 days (e.g., Bygate, 1997) to 10 weeks (e.g., Bygate, 2001; Bygate & Samuda, 2005)
• Repetition of types of tasks has not yielded positive results (e.g., Bygate, 1999, 2001; Gass et al., 1999)
Research conducted on task repetition has largely been
conducted in a laboratory setting
Exact task repetition is usually unlikely to be the best way of
implementing this [ways of using task repetition] in classrooms
Bygate, 1999, p.43
Research Questions
1) What influence does task repetition have on students’ interactional patterns?
2) What are students’ affective responses to task repetition?
Context
• ESL program in the Faculty of Extension at a large Canadian university
• Two intermediate courses and one advanced course
• 31 students participated
The Study
• Story re-telling task using Mr. Bean videos completed in dyads
• Identical task completed on consecutive days
Interactional Patterns
• The interaction of dyads was recorded and transcribed
• Two dyads from each class were recorded• Data from four dyads included in analysis• Analyzed for language related episodes (LREs)
based on categories established in Swain (1998) – lexical, grammatical or orthographic
Affect1) Questionnaires administered after completing
task on two occasions • Assessed two aspects of affect - feelings and
needs (Stevick, 1999)2) Semi-structured conversational interview
conducted with participants after repeating tasks
3) Time spent on task
Results
Interactional PatternsGroup Number of
Lexical LREsNumber of Grammatical LREs
Number of Orthographic LREs
Total Number of LREs
Group #1a 16 11 1 28
Group #1b 9 2 2 13
Group #2a 9 5 2 16
Group#2b 8 10 2 20
Group #3a 21 23 6 50
Group #3b 9 17 3 29
Group #4a 28 25 12 65
Group #4b 15 35 30 80
Total LREs/Minute On-Task
Task Group #1 Group #2 Group #3 Group #4
Task #1 1.06 1.84 1.89 1.91
Task #2 0.56 1.18 1.02 1.89
Proportion of Grammatical toLexical LREs
Affective Dimension• Perceptions about the task were generally
positive “Good exercise because promotes the
interaction and improve our skills in speaking and listening.”
“The process of the task is good, and group discuss helped a lot. The story is funny as well.”
Assessment of Task
Student Response
Horrible(1)
Poor(2)
Fair(3)
Good(4)
Excellent(5)
Outstanding(6)
Average
First Task 0 0 2 21 10 0 4.24
Second Task 0 0 3 16 12 0 4.29
Drawbacks to Task Repetition
“It is a little boring maybe because you write the same things twice and it is a little boring.”
• Boredom
Drawbacks to Task Repetition• Boredom
“Actually, second is kind of losing interest. It is kind of boring. So I pretty enjoy it the first time I watched the video and write the summary . . . But I lose interest, I don’t have the passion and the stuff to re-write everything. First time I almost write one page but the second I just wrote half a page.”
Benefits of Task Repetition“Although it was a repetition, the second time
was useful for learning and look for synonyms.”
“I think was a little boring because write again about the same, but in the other way it is interesting because addition, some parts, some details more important in this time and I want to understand more clearly about the message.”
Benefits of Task Repetition
• Empowering lower-level students“Because first time just, just thinking how to
write the, describe the story and ignore the grammar and vocabulary. Second time we think about that, about that grammar and vocabulary and then use the better way to describe the story.”
Time On-Task (Minutes)
Task Group #1 Group #2 Group #3 Group #4
Task #1 26:20 8:43 26:25 33:59
Task #2 23:07 17:00 28:26 42:33
Implications
• Completing the task on two occasions reinforced previous learning and enabled learners to collaboratively focus on more complex issues
• Reinforced cognitive benefits of task repetition in group interaction in an intact classroom setting
• Learner perceptions of task repetition are largely based on individual preferences
• Three categories of learner emerged:1)Bored and exhibited limited effort2)Bored but recognized pedagogical value3)Enjoyed repetition
ConclusionThe benefits of task repetition found in other
studies are likely applicable to the classroom setting
Teachers should not be deterred from experimenting with task repetition, in particular with low level learners who may benefit from the confidence gained in completing a task on multiple occasions
Task repetition is a viable option for classroom instruction despite
intuitive fears about boredom
References• Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: appraising the developing language
of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146). Oxford: MacMillan Heinemann.
• Bygate, M. (1999). Task as the context for the framing, re-framing and un-framingof language. System, 27, 33-48.
• Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of orallanguage. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching
pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of taskrepetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a secondlanguage (pp. 37-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. AppliedLinguistics, 19, 1-23.
• Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M.J., & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). Theeffects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549-581.
• Hatch, E. (1979). Apply with caution. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2,123-143.
• Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition andrecycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4,221-250.
• Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M.
Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 141-162). Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Stevick, E.W. (1999). Affect in learning and memory: From alchemy to chemistry. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 43-57). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
• Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J.Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
