5th UNTELE conference
University of Compiègne
March 2004
An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning
environment designed for learner autonomy
by
David Rees Ph.D.
Institut National d’Horticulture, Angers
www.multimania.com/davidrees
[email protected]
CONTENTS
1. The learning environment
2. A typical language lesson
3. Negotiation
4. Vygotsky’s concepts of internalisation and the ZPD
5. Discourse analysis
6. Corpus analysis
7. Results
8. Conclusions
1. The learning environment
‘Grande Ecole’ with two colleges (Bac 0+5 and Bac 2+3)
Applied engineering in horticulture and landscaping
2 foreign languages (for specific purposes)
with compulsory minimum levels
Compulsory foreign professional training period in Year 1
Highly positive attitudes for learning foreign languages
Over 50% of students on inter-university exchanges
All lessons in 25-post multimedia rooms, and available via intranet.
2. A typical language lesson
The Tandberg pilot
Pedagogy based on Mutual Scaffolding
1. Separate the class
into two equal groups
2. Select the sources
3. Diffuse the sources
Video 1 Video 2
4. Form intragroup dyads
Macro/micro-comprehension
4. Intragroup dyad: micro-comprehension
5. Intergroup
dyads
(negociation)
3. Negotiation
The repeating, rephrasing and restructuring of phrases
in L1 or L2 between two or more learners to enable
them to understand the meaning of the messages they are
communicating (Long)
Interlanguage (Selinker)
Input 2
Input 1
Student 1
2
Student 3
1
Student 2
1
Intragroup negotiation
1
2
Student 4
2 Intergroup negotiation
Negotiation of comprehension
NNS
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
G
A
P
Negotiation of content
NNS
negotiation and the ZPD
ZPD
ZPD
2
NNS
linguistic
or
semiotic
‘self’
NNS
Each learner assists the
other since each has
internalised different
semiotic, linguistic or
conceptual competences).
Mutual scaffolding
takes place.
linguistic
or
semiotic
‘self’
5. Discourse Analysis Model
1. Problem source
2. Repair type
3. Discourse code
Problem Source
Problems can be due to production mistakes or comprehension difficulty
Ph
Phonological (caused by pronunciation or accentuation)
Gr
Grammatical (caused by the syntax of a word or phrase)
Lx
Lexical (caused by unknown or incorrect vocabulary)
Cn
Content (caused by lack of comprehension of the content or concept)
Ds
Discourse (caused by pragmatic, social or cultural misunderstanding)
Ps
Pause (a pause can indicate a problem and incite repair)
Repair Type
XL2
Explanation in L2
XL1
Explanation in L1
GT
Grammatical Transformation
TL1
Translation into L1
TL2
Translation into L2
Mod
Model (the repair is an attempt to provide the ‘correct’ word or form)
Syn
Synonym (a synonym or alternate version is provided)
Rep
Repetition
Con
Confirmation
Com
Completion (normally following a pause; the completion of a word or phrase)
Discourse Codes
SR
Self Repair
‘she disperses, it disperses …’
RA
Requested Assistance
‘how do you say disseminer’?
RR
Response to Request
‘disseminer is to disperse’ / ‘I don’t know’
AC
Acceptance
‘disperse, okay’
UR
Unrequested Repair
A. ‘who mutates ’ B. ‘that mutates’
UA
Unrequested Assistance
A. ‘It’s a scented fruit’ B. ‘Like the guava’
CC
Confirmation Check
‘A power station, okay?’
6. Corpus Analysis
7. Results
Negotiation triggers
45% lexical
11% due to silence
25% content problems
Repair type
15% explanation in L2
15% translation in L1
10% repetition
19% confirmation
15% completion
Discourse type
44% Request for help
20% Unrequested help
23% Confirmation check
Self-repairs
43% Grammatrical transformation
50% Provision of a model
Comparison of student/teacher intervention
Mostly grammatical, phonetic
and discourse triggers for the
teacher
Mostly lexical and content triggers
for the students
Comparison of teacher / student repair types
Teacher: high degree explanation in L2
and provision of correct model
Students: a wide-variety of repair types
Teacher: high level of non-requested aid
Students: high level of aid requests
Laughter
An average of 10 laughter ‘events’ per dyad per lesson
8. Conclusions
Dyadic, task-based pair work maximises negotiation opportunities
Negotiation leads to acquisition
Negotiation is effected by:
a) task type
b) familiarity of partners
c) cultural similarity of partners
NNS-NNS negotiation appears to be more suitable than
NS-NNS negotiation
Technology can enhance a dyadic learning environment
A technology-structured environment can enhance learner
autonomy
5th UNTELE conference
University of Compiègne
March 2004
An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning
environment designed for learner autonomy
by
David Rees Ph.D.
Institut National d’Horticulture, Angers
www.multimania.com/davidrees
[email protected]
Descargar

GERAS 2002 Lyon