1. Whose turn is it anyway?: A study of the effects of tasks and grouping on interaction turns Pattamawan Jimarkon Pattamawan.jim@kmutt.ac.th

2. What’s TBL? ► Task-Based Learning provides learners with manifold opportunities for group- and peer-based interaction, which is believed to encourage authentic use of language and meaningful communication (for example, Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 1989; Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Willis 1996) ► ‘Task’ is viewed as a teaching tool which “involves communicative language use in which the user’s attention is focused on meaning rather than linguistic structure” (Nunan, 1989, p. 10)

3. My questions ► TBL requires a certain level of pre-existing language competency ► Thai university students have low language confidence and low competence (Watson- Todd, 2001) ► How can we facilitate this?

4. Literature Review ► Group work provides learners with more opportunities to use the target language than teacher-led and teacher-fronted instruction (for example, Crookes & Chaudron, 2001; Long & Porter, 1985) group work and group discussion tasks are common practice in language teaching ► Working with peers in a group setting provides opportunities for learners to engage in dialogues which act as “instructional conversations” (Lantolf, 2002, p. 106) and create zones of proximal development for each other “where intellect and affect are fused in a unified whole” (Vygotsky, 1934/1987, p. 373) ► Nunan (1989) puts forward the idea of the use of tasks that provide language practice yet at the same time fostered classroom interaction ► In A Framework for Task-Based Learning, Willis (1996) categorises types of task with regard mainly to their different degrees of cognitive challenge. Tasks can engage learners in listing, ordering and sorting, comparing, problem-solving, sharing experiences, or involve creativity (see Willis, 1996, p. 149-154; Willis, 1999).

5. Independent Variables Task Listing 1 Listing 2 Ordering and sorting 1 Ordering and sorting 2 Matching Comparing Problem solving 1 Problem solving 2 Sharing personal attitude 1 Sharing personal attitude 2 Creative task 1 Creative task2 Grouping ► Mixed-proficiency ► Homogeneous- intermediate ► Homogeneous- elementary

6. Data ► Audio-recording of group interactions 32 KMUTT engineering students: 32 KMUTT engineering students: 8 female 24 male 8 female 24 male 144 interactant cases 144 interactant cases 3 groups x 12 tasks = 36 episodes 3 groups x 12 tasks = 36 episodes

7. The specific research questions that were addressed when analysing the results were: ► Were there grouping effects? That is, did the learners interact differently when in mixed-proficiency groups and homogenous-proficiency groups? If so, in what way or ways were the interactions different? ► Were there task effects? That is, did the tasks, which were categorised into six types, affect the learners’ linguistic performance in different ways? ► Were there any interaction effects between grouping and task? That is, did the combinations of grouping types and tasks affect learners’ linguistic performance in a manner different to the simple sum of the individual effects of task and grouping?

8. Dependent Variables A. Quantity of interaction Words per minute Turns per minute Words per turn B. Quality of interaction T-units per minute Words per t-unit Language switches Negotiation of meaning

9. ANOVA Tests

10. Figure 1. Turns per minute for the three grouping types Figure 2. words per turn for the three grouping types Main effects for factor A: Grouping

11. Main effects for factor B: Task Figure 4. Means of turns per minute Figure 5. Means of words per turn for for the 12 tasks the 12 tasks

12. Interaction effects for factors grouping x task Figure 5 Means of turns per minute for the Figure 6 Means of words per turn for three grouping types across 12 tasks three grouping types across 12 tasks

13. ANOVA Analysis Turn per minute ► there was a combined influence of the two factors on the number of turns per minute. ► crossing lines in the interaction effect suggested some influence of the interaction of the two factors, the directions of the three lines were generally similar ► task factor was more noticeable and was considered to be more important Words per turn Words per turn ► no significant interaction effect for the two factors ► Effect size of main effects for task was bigger ► Inverse correlation between the two variables More turns – shorter turns More turns – shorter turns Fewer turns – longer turns

14. What does that tell us: ► Simpler tasks – lexical cohesion which may entail: indexicality = “expressions whose interpretation requires the identification of some element of the utterance context, as stipulated by their lexical meanings” (Nunberg, 1993, p. 1) indexicality = “expressions whose interpretation requires the identification of some element of the utterance context, as stipulated by their lexical meanings” (Nunberg, 1993, p. 1) minimalisation =, the language was produced in a way that reflected the participants’ limited vocabulary and poor syntactic knowledge but the communication was carried out successfully minimalisation =, the language was produced in a way that reflected the participants’ limited vocabulary and poor syntactic knowledge but the communication was carried out successfully Pidginisation = use of their mother tongue and their habit of sounding out a few key words of the target language and the grammatical forms arising from the pidginisation resembled neither that of the target language nor that of the mother tongue (Bickerton, 1977).

15. ► Discussion tasks - long turns and idea organisation which may come at expense of topic monopolisation

16. Tips for teachers Vocabulary – easy, less complex tasks Long Talk – discussion & narrative tasks

17. Thank you. You’ve been such a great crowd!!!