Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24, No. 0, pp.375-394
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
Received 14 Feb 2024 Revised 08 Mar 2024 Accepted 20 Apr 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202404.375

The Effects of Convergent and Divergent Tasks on Language Related Episodes in Tertiary EFL Classrooms

Hyekyeng Kim ; Robert C. Kerr
(First author) Dept. of Liberal Arts & Teacher Training Kumoh National Institute of Technology 61, Daehak-ro, Gumi, Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea 39177, Tel: +82-54-478-7874 kimhk@kumoh.ac.kr
(Corresponding-author) Dept. of English Education Keimyung University 1095 Dalgubeol-daero, Sindang-dong, Dalseo-gu, Daegu, Republic of Korea 42601, Tel: +82-53-580-6919 rkerr@kmu.ac.kr


© 2024 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate how convergent and divergent task designs affect learners’ attention to form during interaction. Previous investigations into task types have revealed that varying task types can lead to changes in focus during learners’ meaningful language exchanges, but many specific task designs remain underexplored, which leaves a gap in the understanding of the effects of particular task types in language classes. To address this gap, the study divided an intact class of English as foreign language learners at a Korean university where half the students performed a convergent task (CT), and the other half performed a divergent task (DT). To measure attention to language form during interaction, language-related episodes (LREs) were identified, categorized, and then analyzed. The results revealed that while both groups produced a similar number of LREs, with lexis-focused LREs being the most common in both groups, there were differences in how the groups attended to language during their task. It was found that the CT group produced a similar level of lexis-focused and form-focused LREs, while the DT group’s LREs were mostly lexis-focused. Also, only the DT group produced pragmatic-focused LREs while the CT group produced more mechanical-focused LREs than the DT group did. These findings suggest that the use of CT and DT in language classes provides teachers with a tool to encourage a focus on specific, different language features. The results and implications are discussed in more detail.

Keywords:

TBLT, convergent and divergent tasks, LREs, interaction, meaning-focused tasks

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by Research Fund, Kumoh National Institute of Technology (2024).

References

  • Aubrey, S. 2020. The Role of Task-Based Interaction in Perceived Language Learning in a Japanese EFL Classroom. In C. Lambert and R. Oliver, eds., Using Tasks in Second Language Teaching: Practice in Diverse Contexts, 281-305. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Basterrechea, M. and M. J. Leeser. 2019. Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness 28(2), 97-113. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1606229]
  • Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161–170. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161]
  • Dao, P. 2021. Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 59(3), 315-334. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0188]
  • De la Colina, A. A. and G. Mayo. 2007. Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In G. Mayo, ed., Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, 91-116. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-008]
  • Duff, P. 1986. Another look at inter-language talk: Taking task to task. In R. Day, ed., Talking to Learn, 147-181. Newbury House.
  • Ellis, N. C. 2015. Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P. Rebuschat, ed., Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, 3-23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.01ell]
  • Ellis, N. C., and N. Sagarra. 2011. Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(4), 589-624. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000325]
  • Ellis, R. 1993. The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 27(1), 91–113. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3586953]
  • Ellis, R. 2015. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. 2017a. Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching 50(4), 507-526. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000179]
  • Ellis, R. 2017b. Task-based language teaching. In S. Loewen and M. Sato, eds., The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 108-125. New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-7]
  • Ellis, R., P. Skehan, S. Li, N. Shintani and C. Lambert. 2019. Task-based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108643689]
  • Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(3), 299-323. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047]
  • Gass, S. M. 2018. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315173252]
  • Hulstijn, J. H. and B. Laufer. 2001. Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning 51, 539-558. [https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00164]
  • Jackson, D. O. 2011. Convergent and divergent computer-mediated communication tasks in an English for academic purposes course. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language 15(3),1-18.
  • Jung, J. 2020. The impact of task complexity on the development of L2 grammar. English Teaching 75(1), 93-117. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.1.202003.93]
  • Kaivanpanah, S. and M. Miri. 2017. The effects of task type on the quality of resolving language-related episodes and vocabulary learning. TESOL Journal 8(4), 920-942. [https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.311]
  • Kim, Y. 2008. The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal 92, 114-130. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00690.x]
  • Kim, Y. 2009. The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System 37, 254-268. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003]
  • Kim, Y. and K. McDonough. 2008. The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research 12, 211-234. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288]
  • Kim, H. 2020. The effects of task types on Korean university students’ oral performance. Studies in British and American Language and Literature 136, 217-239. [https://doi.org/10.21297/ballak.2020.136.217]
  • Lee, L. 2001. Online interaction: negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL 13(2), 232-244. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344001000829a]
  • Lim, C. W. and J. H. Lee. 2015. The effects of task modality and type on Korean EFL learners’ interactions. The Journal of Asia TEFL 12(2), 87-123.
  • Liao, B. 2020. Language-related episodes in learner-native speaker collaborative writing interaction. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 17(1), 135-153. [https://doi.org/10.56040/bozh1720]
  • Lichtman, K. and B. VanPatten. 2021. Was Krashen right? Forty years later. Foreign Language Annals 54(2), 283-305. [https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12552]
  • Loewen, S. and M. Sato. 2018. Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language teaching 51(3), 285-329. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125]
  • Long, M. H. 1981. Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379, 259-278. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x]
  • Long, M. H. 2016. In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 5-33. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000057]
  • Long, M. H. and G. C Crookes. 1992. Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly 26(1), 27-56. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3587368]
  • Mackey, A., R. Abbuhl and S. M. Gass. 2013. Interactionist approach. In A. Mackey and S. Gass, eds., The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 7-23. New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612564]
  • Mayo, G. 2002. The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12, 156-175. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.t01-1-00029]
  • Mostafa, T. and Y. Kim. 2021. The effects of input and output based instruction on the development of L2 explicit and automatised explicit knowledge: a classroom based study. Language Awareness 30(1), 17-41. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1760292]
  • Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nunan, D. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336]
  • Ortega, L. 2015. Second language learning explained? SLA across 10 contemporary theories. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams, eds., Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, 245-272. New York: Routledge.
  • Pica, T., R. Kanagy and J. Falodun. 1993. Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In S. Crookes and S. M. Gass, eds., Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice, 9-34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Révész, A. 2011. Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom‐based study. The Modern Language Journal 95, 162-181. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x]
  • Schmidt, R. 2010. Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan and I. Walker, eds, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, 721-737. Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
  • Skehan, P. 2003. Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36(1), 1-14. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X]
  • Smith, B. 2003. The use of communication strategies in computer -mediated communication. System 31(1), 29-53. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00072-6]
  • Solon, M., A. Y. Long and L. Gurzynski-Weiss. 2017. Task complexity, language-related episodes, and production of l2 Spanish vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(2), 347-380. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000425]
  • Storch, N. 2008. Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness 17, 95-114. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146644]
  • Storch, N. 2013. Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954]
  • Storch, N. 2018. Meaning‐focused versus form‐focused instruction. In J. Liontas, ed., The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-6. Wiley. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0690]
  • Svalberg, A. 2021. Engagement with language in relation to form-focused versus meaning-focused teaching and learning. In P. Hiver, A.H. Al-Hoorie and S. Mercer, eds., Student Engagement in the Language Classroom, 38-55. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer, eds., Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson, 125-144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel, ed., Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 471-484. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Swain, M. 2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes, ed., Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95-108. London: Continuum.
  • Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82, 320-337. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x]
  • Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2000. Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Learning Research 4, 251–274. [https://doi.org/10.1191/136216800125087]
  • Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2001. Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain, eds., Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing, 99-118. London: Longman.
  • Swain, M., S. Lapkin, I. Knouzi, W. Suzuki and L. Brooks. 2009. Languaging: university students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal 93(1), 5-29. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00825.x]
  • Swain, M. and Y. Watanabe. 2013. Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C.A. Chapelle, ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 3218-3225. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0664]
  • Tocalli-Beller, A., and M Swain. 2005. Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15, 5-29. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00078.x]
  • Williams, J. 2001. Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning 51, 583-625. [https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00103]
  • Willis, D. and J. Willis. 2007. Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman.
  • Yilmaz, Y., and G. Granena. (2010). The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22(1), 20-38. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009990176]
  • Zabihi, R. 2022. The effects of task type on the resolution of grammatical cognitive conflict episodes and grammar learning. The Language Learning Journal 50(3), 297-309. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1795913]