Presentation on theme: "Presenter: Leonora L. Mingo, Ph.D."— Presentation transcript:
1Presenter: Leonora L. Mingo, Ph.D. Research Title: The Negotiation of Meaning in the Talking Circle in the Tertiary ESL ContextPresenter:Leonora L. Mingo, Ph.D.
2KEY CONCEPTS Negotiation of Meaning Classroom Interaction Language Learning Tasks
3KEY CONCEPTSCommunication StrategiesInterpersonal ValuesGroup Work
4INTRODUCTIONThe discipline known as Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has gone a long way in terms of identifying what processes an individual has to undergo in acquiring one or more second or foreign languages. - Nunan (2000)
5INTRODUCTIONSLA researchers are interested in both product (i.e., language used by the learners) and process (i.e., the mental process and environmental factors) that influence the acquisition process.
6INTRODUCTIONA growing body of research has been conducted with regard to - learning processes,- types of classroom tasks, - kinds of classroom organizations that appear to facilitate SLA
7INTRODUCTIONThis implies that research in SLA considers the different factors in the classroom and finds out how these factors contribute to second language acquisition.
8INTRODUCTIONIn English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom, for example, the major concern of the second language (L2) teachers is how to generate rich and meaningful interactions that will aid SLA.
9INTRODUCTIONThe essence of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is the engagement of learners in communication in order to allow them to develop their communicative competence.- Murcia (2006)
10INTRODUCTIONIn recent years, the use of group work in ESL classrooms has become a widespread practice.
11INTRODUCTIONIn the Philippine setting, Bautista (1996) and Genuino’s (2000) studies on group work offered a host of research possibilities that learner-learner interaction may offer, one of them is negotiation of meaning.
12INTRODUCTIONFor more than a decade now, group work has been widely used by the teachers in Notre Dame of Dadiangas University (NDDU) in General Santos City not only in the ESL classrooms, but also in the classrooms of the other disciplines.
13INTRODUCTIONThe idea of considering group work as one of the variables in the present study lies in the fact that:
14INTRODUCTIONFirst, this type of classroom organization is commonly used by L2 teachers in the locale of the study, yet there has not been any empirical study that unravel the dynamics of group work
15INTRODUCTIONSecond, there is that inquisitiveness in finding out what processes students undertake when they are asked to accomplish a task.
16INTRODUCTIONWithin the goals of this study, it is deemed necessary that at the outset, the use of Talking Circle, a term adopted from Ernst (1994), is established to refer to a group of five students engaged in a language learning task in the classroom.
17DEFINITION OF TERMS 1. Negotiation of Meaning This study looks at negotiation of meaning beyond incomprehensibility of input.
18DEFINITION OF TERMSIt extends its scope by looking at negotiation of meaning as a collaborative work which second language learners undertake to achieve mutual understanding.
19DEFINITION OF TERMS In this manner, this study takes note of: the emerging patterns on how students negotiatehow they employ communication strategies while negotiating
20DEFINITION OF TERMSwhat nature of interaction takes place in the Talking Circlehow students’ interpersonal values may shape group interaction
21DEFINITION OF TERMS2. Talking CircleTalking Circle (a.k.a. group work) pertains to a classroom event composed of five members who are engaged in a language learning task in an ESL classroom.
22DEFINITION OF TERMS 3. ESL Context This pertains to the classroom context of an English 1 course where the teacher and the students are part of the community.
23DEFINITION OF TERMS 4. Communication Strategies The way communication strategies are referred to inthis paper is anchored on the idea that they are elements of interaction.
24DEFINITION OF TERMSIts working definition is taken from Corder (1981) which says that communication strategies are systematic techniques employed by a speaker to express his meaning when faced with some difficulty.
25DEFINITION OF TERMSOnly those verbal and nonverbal strategies used by the speaker which have direct contribution to negotiation of meaning are taken into consideration.
26DEFINITION OF TERMS 5. Interpersonal Values They pertain to certain critical values involving the individual’s relationships to other people or the people’s relationships to him.
27DEFINITION OF TERMSThe interpersonal values mentioned in this study were derived from the Survey of Interpersonal Values (SIV), a standardized instrument developed by Leonard V. Gordon, Ph.D. in 1960.
28DEFINITION OF TERMSIn his instrument, he only highlighted the following interpersonal values whichare:SupportConformity
29DEFINITION OF TERMSRecognitionIndependenceBenevolenceLeadership
30DEFINITION OF TERMS 6. Ethnographic Research This is a qualitative research approach used to examine in depth the negotiation of meaning which involves personally attending, observing, and audio-video taping interactions.
31DEFINITION OF TERMSThis ethnographic study employs other ways of gathering data i.e., by document analysis, survey of interpersonal values, focus group discussion, journal writing, and the use of playback sessions.
32RESEARCH OBJECTIVES1.Describe the emerging pattern on how students negotiate meaning in the Talking Circle
33RESEARCH OBJECTIVES2. Identify the communication strategies students employ as they engage in the negotiation of meaning
34RESEARCH OBJECTIVES3. Find out how the identified interpersonal values may have influenced students’ involvement in the Talking Circle
35A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM SHOWING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
36THE NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN THE TALKING CIRCLE IN THE TERTIARY ESL CONTEXTSECONDLANGUAGE ACQUISITIONTHEORIESPRAGMATICSANDSPEECH ACT THEORYSOCIOCULTURALLEARNING THEORYMonitor Model(Krashen, 1979)Discourse Model(Hatch, 1978)InteractionHypothesis(Long, 1978)Linguistic/CognitiveFocusInteractive(Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969)(Vygotsky, 1978)
37A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM SHOWING THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
38Second Language Acquisition Theories ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDYAMODELOFNEGO-TIATIONMEANINGINESLCONTEXTTSecond Language Acquisition TheoriesSocio-cultural TheoryPragmaticsand Speech Act TheoryI N T H E T A L K I N G C I R C L EN A T U R E O F I N T E R A C T I O NSupportConformityRecognitionBenevolenceIndependenceLeadershipE S LC O N T E X TVERBAL STRATEGIESNONVERBALSTRATEGIESNEGOTIATION
39METHODOLOGY Research Method Ethnographic research method was used in the study.
40METHODOLOGYIn using ethnographic research method the primary concern is to analyze the data as they are, rather than to compare them to other data to see how similar they are. Therefore, generalizability of findings is not the concern of this study Van Lier (1988)
41METHODOLOGY The Participants The participants of the study were 45 first year Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) students enrolled in the English 1 (Communication Arts and Skills 1) course.
42METHODOLOGY The Setting The study was conducted in Notre Dame of Dadiangas University, a Marist school in General Santos City.
43METHODOLOGYAs a classroom-based research, the English 1 classroom located in Bro. Henry Ruiz Building, Room203 served as the setting of the study.
44METHODOLOGY The Talking Circle A total of nine (9) Talking Circles having five membersin each group was organized.
45METHODOLOGY The Language Learning Tasks This study had used two-way information gap tasks or the so-called required information gap tasks as well as jigsaw tasks.
46Phase I (Pre-Classroom Interaction) METHODOLOGYData CollectionPhase I (Pre-Classroom Interaction)Document AnalysisSurvey of Interpersonal Values (SIV)
47Phase II (Actual Classroom METHODOLOGYPhase II (Actual ClassroomInteraction)Audio-Video TapingStudents’ Journals
48Phase III (Post Classroom Interaction) METHODOLOGYPhase III (Post Classroom Interaction)Play back Sessions (PBSs)Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
49METHODOLOGYThe transcript of the videotaped interaction was the main source of the data. The other sources such as students’ journals, playback session notes, and focus group discussion transcripts were used for triangulation purposes only.
50METHODOLOGY Micro-level Analysis The transcripts were analyzed by episodes for the negotiation of meaning and communication strategies.
51METHODOLOGY Macro-level Analysis Summation of the micro-level analysis, together with the results on how students’ interpersonal values might have influenced their involvement in the Talking Circle.
52FINDINGS The emerging pattern on meaning negotiation is shown in Figure 1.
54FINDINGSThe recurrent adjacency pairs in the 90 episodes showed that clarification requests and confirmation checks were frequent, agreeing with Long (1983) and Scarcella and Higa’s (1981) claims on learner-learner interaction.
55FINDINGSIn some cases, allocating a turn to the next speaker or introducing the next item/phrase/picture to be negotiated signaled that mutual understanding was reached between the speaker and the interlocutors.
56FINDINGS During the negotiation process, the following occurred: -To make input comprehensible to the interlocutors, it was evident that speakers made language modifications.
57FINDINGS- When a certain item was not available in the speakers’ interlanguage, they tried to admit their inadequacy but worked hard to put the message across to keep the communication line open.
58FINDINGS-When the speakers felt uncertain of their ideas, they tended to conform to the ideas of the interlocutors, a manifestation of the influence of a student’s interpersonal value.
59FINDINGS-When faced with language difficulty, the speaker opted the easiest way out of the difficulty, i.e., to give out the correct answer or information.
60FINDINGSSpeech acts under the categories of representatives, directives, and expressives were predominantly used.
61FINDINGSInstances of metacognition occurred, i.e., when students talked about the procedures of the task or expressed their emotional reactions to the task.
62FINDINGS 2. Communication Strategies The verbal strategies commonly used by the speakers were ranked as follows:
68FINDINGSThe frequent use of message abandonment as a communication strategy allowed interlocutors to provide scaffolds leading to meaning negotiation.
69FINDINGSThe use of code-switching (i.e., from English language to Cebuano, Ilonggo, or Filipino language) enabled speakers to compensate for an unavailable item in the target language to convey the message and to carry on a conversation.
70FINDINGS 3. Interpersonal Values Influencing the Interaction in the Talking CircleThe male members’ high value, support, tended to influence their involvement in the Talking Circle.
71FINDINGSThis is manifested by giving and sharing ideas, confirming one’s ideas, reminding the group of what to do, cooperating and participatingto finish the activity fast.
72FINDINGSThe low value, leadership, might have influenced the male members’ involvement in the Talking Circle since nobody from the male members wanted to lead the group.
73FINDINGS The female members’ high values, conformity and support, were likely toinfluence their involvement in the Talking Circle.
74FINDINGSSeveral occasions showed during interaction where female members conformed to the group mates’ ideas.
75FINDINGSFemale members’ support was not only confined to assisting each other to finish the task, but also to reminding the group of their schedules on playback sessions and focus group discussions.
76FINDINGSThe female members’ low value (leadership) tended also to shape the group’s interaction as manifested by their anxieties to lead, lack of leadership skills, and distressing experiences on leadership.
77CONCLUSIONS1. Most of the episodes generate a pattern of asking for clarification-clarifying, asking for confirmation-confirming, inquiring-answering, guessing-rejecting/agreeing, co-constructing-agreeing/disagreeing, and giving the correct phrase-confirming.
78CONCLUSIONS2. In the negotiation of meaning, students experience comprehensible input and undergo interactional modifications to produce comprehensible output.
79CONCLUSIONS3. L2 learners resort to communication strategies like message abandonment, code-switching, filled pauses, self-repair, etc. in order to finish an utterance as they grappled for words in their interlanguage.
80CONCLUSIONS4.The ‘unobservable’ aspect (i.e., the interpersonal values such as support, conformity, and leadership) students may bring with them as they participate in group work seems vital in shaping the interaction.
81CONCLUSIONS5. A picture emerges of L2 learners conforming to others’ ideas and supporting one another not only during small group interaction in the classroom but also even outside classroom activities.
82CONCLUSIONS6. The use of other data gathering techniques such as students’ journals, play back session notes, and focus group discussion transcripts provides information crucial to understanding Filipino second language learners.
83RECOMMENDATIONS1. The role of task is very significant in meaning negotiation. Therefore, ESL teachers should design language learning tasks which can elicit negotiation of meaning for the students to experience interactional modification, essential for second language acquisition.
84RECOMMENDATIONS2. Since L2 learners are communication strategy users, students should be taught on how to cope with communication failures. Teachability of communication strategies is encouraged and should receive support from ESL teachers.
85RECOMMENDATIONS3. Students should also be taught socioaffective strategies on how to request for clarification, ask for repetitions, slow down, and explain.
86RECOMMENDATIONS5. For future researchers, the following are suggested:-To explore other variables like gender and L1 background to find out their effects in the negotiation of meaning
87RECOMMENDATIONS to learn in an ESL context -To conduct more research in L2 classroom using ethnographic research method to give an accurate picture of what it is liketo learn in an ESL context
88A Model of Negotiation of Meaning in the ESL Context
89TRIGGER INFLUENCE PROCESS OUTPUT Support Conformity Leadership LANGUAGE LEARNINGTASKSTRIGGERSupportConformityLeadershipCOMMUNICATIONSTRATEGIESVerbal:Message abandonmentCode-switchingFillersSelf-repairRepetition of words within the utteranceAssociationAppeal for help (direct/indirect)CircumlocutionGiving out of the correct item/phraseOther repairAccentuationApproximationComprehensionConfirmationOutright admission of not knowingSubstitutionNon-verbal:GesturesNodding of headShaking of headEye contactRECURRENTADJACENCY PAIRSAsking for clarification – making a clarificationAsking for confirmation – confirmingCo-constructing – agreeingCo-constructing – disagreeingAbandoning – co-constructingInquiring – answeringGuessing – rejectingGuessing – agreeingGiving the correct item/phrase/sentence –confirmingINFLUENCEPROCESSNEGOTIATED MEANINGOUTPUTINTERPERSONAL VALUES
90REFERENCESAllwright, D. & K. Bailey. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 83, Nos. 3-4: Bautista, M.L. (1996). Pair work and group work in English for specific purposes. In Castillo, E. (Ed.). Alay sa wika: essays in honor of Fe T. Otanes on her 67th birthday ( ). Manila: The Linguistics Society of the Philippines.
91REFERENCESChappel, P. (2005). Exploring the nature of small group interaction of Thai adult learners in the English language - learning classroom. Retrieved June 7, 2007, fromCook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Genuino, C. (2000). Communication opportunities in the tertiary second language classrooms: An analysis. MA Thesis. PNU, Manila.
92REFERENCESGordon, L.V. (1960). SRA manual for survey of interpersonal values. Chicago, Illinois: Science Research Associates, Inc.Hatch, E. (1978). Second language acquisition. USA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.Kinginger, C. (1994). Learner initiative in conversation management: An application of van Lier’s pilot coding scheme. The Modern Language Journal,. Vol. 78. NosKrashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
93REFERENCESKrashen, S. D. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. UK: Prentice Hall International.Long, M.H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,. Vol.5, Nos. 177 – 193.Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics,. Vol. 4 No. 2.
94REFERENCESLong, M.H. (1997). Group work in the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language - problems and potential. English Language Teaching Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4:Long, M. & P. Porter. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 19, No.2:Mehan, H. (1986). Ethnography of Bilingual Education. In Trueba, H. et al. (Eds.). Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography. Mass.: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
95REFERENCESMurcia, M. (2006). Teaching English as a foreign or second language 3rd ed. Singapore: Heinle & Heinle.Nakahama, Y. et al. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, Vol.35, No.3:Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 90, Nos. 1-2.
96REFERENCESNunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nunan, D. (1990). Second language classroom research. ERIC Digest Retrieved August 6, 2007, fromNunan, D. (2000). Second language acquisition. In Carter, R. & D. Nunan (eds.). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. (87-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
97REFERENCESNunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classroom. USA: Prentice-Hall.Pica, T. et al. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol.11:Scarcella, R. & C. Higa (1981). Input, negotiation, and age differences in second language acquisition. Language Learning. Vol. 31, Issue 2:
98REFERENCESSchmidt, R. & J. Richards. (1980). Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 1, No. 2:Tsui, A. (2000). Classroom Interaction. In Carter, R. & D. Nunan (Eds.). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. (120 – 125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tsui, A. (1998). The “Unobservable” in classroom interaction. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from
99REFERENCESVygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. MA: Harvard University Press.