• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Presentation16 10-2010

Presentation16 10-2010






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 20

http://learning2gether.posterous.com 20



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Presentation16 10-2010 Presentation16 10-2010 Presentation Transcript

    • The Use of Negotiation of Meaning Functions in Second Life
      Sedat Akayoglu16.10.2010
    • Outline
      The purpose of the study
      Data Collection Procedure
      Data analysis
      Conclusion and Recommendations
    • “a sociocultural perspective toward interaction research emphasizes the need for teachers and researchers to better understand the context of interaction of second language learners and accordingly there is a need for ‘ethnographic and discourse-analytic methods’ with their emphasis on the broader context in which the learning takes place...”
      Chappelle (2004, p.595)
    • The purpose of the study
      The purpose of the study was to determine the discourse pattern of a course carried out in SL in terms of negotiation of meaning functions and to find out which functions were used the most frequently and the least frequently.
    • Negotiation of Meaning (NoM)
      Pica (1994) defined NoM as “modification and reconstructing of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility”.
    • Method
      a mixed-methods approach including both qualitative and quantitative data analyses
    • Participants
      60 freshman students - Department of Foreign Language Education, Middle East Technical University
      Freshman students were divided into four sections regardless of their gender, academic achievement or any other variables.
      18-20 years old
      Not familiar with SL before the class
      Advanced Reading and Writing I (a must course during the Fall Term)
    • Content of the course
      Related to reading and writing skills
      SL was used for writing activities (it was used for a reading activity only in the first session)
      Only paragraph types were introduced (No essay)
    • Data Collection Procedure
      A classroom (Classroom B) was used as the home place of the course.
      Activities started there and sometimes students were asked teleport different landmarks.
    • Classrrom B
    • Data Collection Procedure
      1 Reading text (for the first session )
      6 Writing tasks (about different types of paragraphs)
      Descriptive Paragraph (This activity was an individual activity and thus there was no interaction among the students.)
      Classification Paragraph
      Process Analysis Paragraph
      Narrative Paragraph
      Compare and Contrast Paragraph
      Argumentative Paragraph
    • Activities (Descriptive Paragraph)
      Some landmarks were predetermined
      They were asked to teleport to these previously determined landmarks and to take some snapshots.
      After that they wrote a descriptive paragraph to publish on their blogs.
    • Activities (Classification Paragraph)
      Students were asked to teleport to some places and interview with people in those places
      Students interviewed about the reason why those people were using SL
      They categorized the users of SL after discussing it with their classmates
    • Activities (Process Analysis Paragraph)
      Students created groups with their classmates and started to build houses in Classroom B
      Students were told how to build some basic objects (walls, doors)
      After they finished building, they wrote a paragraph describing the process they completed step by step
    • Activities (Narrative Paragraph)
      SL used as a discussion platform
      Students were divided into groups and they were given prompts for a story and each group wrote a story including the prompts they were given.
    • Activities (Narrative, cont.)
      For example, the first group chose
      “A homeless child” as their character
      “An expensive restaurant” as the setting
      “Late at night” as the time
      “A secret needs to be confessed to someone else” as the situation
    • Activities (Compare and Contrast)
      Students were asked to choose topics from the board built in Classroom B
      They were grouped according to their compare and contrast paragraph topics and they discussed on the similarities and differences of the given situations
      Finally, they published their paragraphs on their blogs
    • Activities (Argumentative Paragraph)
      Two message boards were created in SL and students received the argumentative paragraph topics touching the objects.
      After they had chosen their topics, they discussed these topics with their classmates in groups
      They determined pros and cons of the argument
    • Data Collection Procedure (Cont.)
      During the tasks, chat logs were stored on students’ computers; and they sent it via e-mail.
      Screen was recorded by means of Camtasia.
      In order to capture the whole class view, an account was created called “Observer Elton” and the screen was recorded from his point of view.
    • Data Analysis
      A taxonomy prepared by Akayoglu & Altun, 2008 was used to analyze the data.
      It was previously modified from the taxonomy prepared by Patterson and Trabaldo (2006)
    • 21
    • Data Analysis
      The collected data imported into the software Hyper Research Qualitative Analysis Tool (version 5.2).
      The codes were applied to the chat logs and the data was analyzed.
    • 23
    • 24
    • Conclusions
      It was found that the most frequently used NoM functions were confirmation, elaboration request and clarification request; and the least frequently used functions were reply vocabulary, reply comprehension and vocabulary check.
    • It was notable that the findings of this study is in parallel with the studies carried out before (Sotillo, 2000; Jepson, 2005; Patterson and Trabaldo, 2006; Akayoglu and Altun, 2008) on the NoM functions in text based computer mediated communication.
    • Recommendation
      This study might help
      researchers studying on discourse analysis of online environments
      teachers and students in terms of creating a greater awareness of these environments
      teachers to take the mostly used functions into consideration while preparing courses
    • References
      Akayoğlu, S., & Altun, A. (2008). The functions of negotiation of meaning in text based CMC. In R. V. Marriott & P. L. Torres (Eds.), Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition (pp. 302-317). New York: Information Science Reference.
      Chappelle, C. A. (2004). Technology and Second Language Learning: Expanding Methods and Agenda. System 32(4): 593-601.
      Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations - and Negotiated Interaction - in Text and Voice Chat Rooms. Language Learning & Technology 9(3): 79-98.
      PattersonP., S. Trabaldo (2006). Negotiating for Meaning Across Borders with CMC. Teaching English with Technology. 6(2).
      Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse Functions and Syntactic Complexity in Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication. Language Learning & Technology 4(1): 82-119.
    • Res. Assist. Sedat Akayoglu
      Middle East Technical UniversityFaculty of EducationDepartment of Foreign Language EducationAnkara, Turkeyakayoglu@metu.edu.tr