Investigating the Empirical Links between Learner Uptake and Language Acquisition through Task-Based Interaction Wenchi Haung 2019/1/16

Outline Introduction Literature Review Methods Results & Discussion 2019/1/16

Introduction All areas of education are undergoing changes and revolutions in the way teaching and learning are perceived. (teacher-centered student-centered) Hatch (1978) argues that interaction should come first, and that out of this interaction grammatical knowledge would develop. Pica (1999) mentioned that student’s pushed output during interaction can facilitate learning. 2019/1/16

Statement of the Problem Whether the conversation or interaction is successful or not depends on the shared ideas between the interlocutors. The role of the teacher’s feedback would be extremely significant for students during the lessons. The way they repair and correct students may affect their language acquisition. 2019/1/16

Purpose of the Study Both positive (i.e. elicitation) and negative (recast) feedback may turn learners’ attention to the mismatches between input and output. Such feedback can draw students’ attention to forms to modify their incorrect use of language. The purpose is to investigate what interactional features are beneficial and in what way it can be helpful. 2019/1/16

Significance of the Study The role that learner uptake plays in students’ language acquisition. The application of task-based interaction. (It would be more suitable in EFL context.) 2019/1/16

Research Questions To what extend does learner uptake promote language acquisition through task-based interaction? How do the four characteristics of type, source, complexity, and response through task-based interaction influence learner uptake? How do the four characteristics of type, source, complexity, and response through task-based interaction influence the success of learner uptake? 2019/1/16

Literature Review~ Interaction The development of second language emphasizes on the role of negotiated interaction between native and non-native speakers and between two NNSs (Gass, 2003). Interaction facilitates comprehension better than learning conditions without the interaction component (Gass & Varonis, 1994; Loschky, 1994). 2019/1/16

Literature Review~ Uptake It is a student move during interaction. The move is optional. The uptake move occurs in conversations where learners have demonstrated a gap in their knowledge. The uptake move occurs as a reaction to some preceding move in which another interlocutor either explicitly or implicitly provides information about a linguistic feature (Ellis et al., 2001). 2019/1/16

Example S: How’s your weekend? T: Just fine. How about you? S: Great! I go to the cinema. T: Oh, you went to the cinema. So what did you see? S: Oh yes (noticing)…I went to see Transformers. 2019/1/16

Literature Review~ Uptake Only 23% of uptake may occur in relation to teachers’ feedback (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). In Ellis’ (2001) study, however, about 75% of uptake may occur in response to teachers’ feedback. 2019/1/16

Literature Review~ TBLT TBLT views the leaning process as a set of communicative and interactive tasks. Pica et al. (1993) proposed that the most effective tasks in terms of generating negotiation of meaning are information-gap and jigsaw tasks, while the least effective is the opinion-expressing task. 2019/1/16

Method The Teaching Context A public elementary school in Taiwan. One English teacher is in charge of one whole grade of classes. The purpose of my research will be introduced to them briefly, but not the focus and procedure. Students have English classes twice a week, and each class has forty minutes. 2019/1/16

Method Participants five intact classes which include 170 students, and all of them are sixth-graders. All of the students have learned English since they were at the first grade (school policy). One full-time English teacher with formal license for English teaching. Her teaching experience is about five years. 2019/1/16

Method Procedure The researcher was present during all instruction and observation as a non-participant observer. The video-recording can capture the verbal, non-verbal, T-S, and S-S interaction. The observer would take some notes about the students. (As there is only one recorder.) 2019/1/16

Method Procedure Afterward, the structured observation sheet was used to critically identify the characteristics of participants’ interaction. 2019/1/16

Method Instrument & Tool Video-recorder: to record the verbal and non-verbal interaction during the task. Audio-recorder (supplementary): to overcome the problem of students’ noise in the classroom. (In the future study) 2019/1/16

Observation scheme The scheme that the researcher had observed employs a sign or category system. The observation scheme requires the documentation of high inference behavior which necessitates the observer to interpret the behaviors they record. The observation scheme allows a particular event to be assigned to more than one categories or event. 2019/1/16

Identification of the communicative dialogues Discourse from the point where the attention to linguistic form starts to the point where it ends, due to a change in topic back to message or sometimes another focus on form (Loewen, 2004). 2019/1/16

Coding of communicative dialogues An observation sheet modified by Ellis et al. (2001) and Loewen (2004) will be applied. Another graduate students will be invited to interpret the communicative dialogues to avoid the situation of being subjective. Kappa Coefficient 2019/1/16

Data analysis Quantitative approach The raw frequency data were subjected to Pearson’s Chi-square tests with the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS 15.0). The emphases will be put on the characteristics of type, source, complexity and response. 2019/1/16

Response Provide Elicit Inform: direct correction Recast: reformulation of a student’s utterance Elicit Clarification Request: Sorry? Huh? Repeat: Repetition of student’s answer Elicit Solution: More explanation & elaboration 2019/1/16

Frequency of uptake Frequency of uptake Percent Uptake 257 75.1 -Successful 190 73.9 -Unsuccessful 67 26.1 No uptake 85 24.9 Total 342 100.0 2019/1/16

Discussion Based on the recording evidence, learner uptake through task-based interaction did occur at the rate of 75% (ranging from 58% to 88%). Compared with the study by Lyster and Ranta (1997) with the rate of 23%, learner uptake appeared to play positive role on language acquisition through task-based interaction. 2019/1/16

Discussion Uptake was notably higher and more successful in Reactive interaction than in Teacher-Initiated & Student-initiated interaction. Reactive interaction reached a higher level of successful uptake(74.8%) than Teacher-Initiated (55%) & Student-Initiated interaction (71.4%). The complex communicative dialogues also led to more uptake than the simple communicative dialogues. 2019/1/16

Discussion The four focused characteristics that proved important for the overall quantity of uptake also influenced the degree to which the uptake was successful. The response provided by the teacher may play the most dominant role in contributing learner uptake, even successful uptake in this study. Elicit resulted in a relatively high level of successful uptake (78.8% of total uptake). 2019/1/16

Potential Problems encountered and Proposed Solutions The familiarity with the students The order of the whole class Regular approach vs. Task-based interaction Quantitative statistics 2019/1/16

Thank you for attention 2019/1/16