Master's defense

1. Flow, Discourse Maxims, and Studying
Southern Min in the Dyadic Language Learning
Context at a Private Language School in
Taiwan
Timothy R. Erb
Advisor: Robert Emil Johanson
Department of Applied Foreign Languages.
National Taiwan University of Science & Technology
June 10, 2009

2. 1. Instructor: Goa chiok huan-hi koa tiu li. Li gin-a-jit ho bo?
[16:03:25] (I am very happy to see you. How are you today?)
2. Participant: Ho. Ho. Goa gin-a-jit fei-hsiung ho!
[16:03:37] (Good. Good. I am really well today!)
3. Instructor: [3-second pause ] Pai-sei, ho, it dieng ai gong “hui-
hsiung” ho. Goa ka li kong, “fei-hsiung” si kok-gi.
[16:03:43] (I’m sorry, um, you should say “hui-hsiung” good. Let me tell
you, “fei-hsiung” is Chinese.)
4. Participant: A ne oh. “fei-hsiung” shi kok-gi. Pai-sei. Goa it-dieng ai
gong “hui-hsiung” ho. Dio-bo?
[16:03:58] (Oh, so that’s how it is. “Fei-hsiung” is Chinese. I’m sorry. I
really should say “hui-hsiung” good. Right?)
5. Instructor: [4-second pause] Dio, dio! Li gin a jit bei bai.
[16:04:20] (Correct, correct! You’re in good form today.)
Introductory Data Sample

3. "My heart begins to sync with the rhythm"My heart begins to sync with the rhythm
[physiological] of the class and it's like a[physiological] of the class and it's like a
language tango with the teacher. My body islanguage tango with the teacher. My body is
into it and I feel myself feeling interestedinto it and I feel myself feeling interested
about something again and I move aroundabout something again and I move around
and get theatrical and act things out."and get theatrical and act things out."
The instructor opens class effectively allowing
the focal participant to achieve flow
This is probably due to her pausing (wait time)
and positive reinforcement
The participant’s comment regarding this
class.

4.  Introduction
 Csikszentmihalyi’s Concept of Flow
 Flow SLA Applications
 Purpose of the Study
 Research Questions
 Dyadic Language Learning Context
 Grice’s Discourse Maxim’s
 The Study
 Research Site
 Focal Participant
 Pilot Study
 Data Analysis
 Results/Findings
 Limitations
 Discussion
 Pedagogical Implications
Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

5. IntroductionIntroduction
Csikszentmihalyi’s Concept of Flow
(A metaphor for the learning
process which includes full
concentration on an activity to the
point that one loses all sense of
space and time.)

6.  Challenge/skills congruence
 Merging of action and awareness
 Clear proximal goals
 Intense concentration on the task
 Perceived sense of control
 Loss of reflective self-consciousness
 Time distortion
 Autotelic experience
Components of Flow

7. Flow SLA Applications
 Schmidt & Savage (1992): Thai EFL students
comparing English learning with other activities
 Schmidt, Boraie, and Kassagby (1996) on
Egyptian EFL learners exploring the
participants’ flow experiences in the classroom
language learning context
 Snyder & Tardy (2001): Turkish University EFL
teachers’ in-class flow experiences
 Egbert (2003): Spanish FL classroom language
learning tasks to investigate flow occurrences

8.  Mitigate the dearth of studies
conducted in dyadic LL context
 Apply concept of flow to LL context
 Address gap in the SLA research
relating flow to infrequently studied
languages, Asian languages, or
languages at risk such as the Southern
Min Language (SML)
Purpose of the Study

9. I. To what extent (if at all) did the focal
participant achieve flow?
II. What are the indicators (if any) that the focal
participant achieved flow?
III. Which factors (if any) prevented the focal
participant from achieving flow?
IV. How did the focal participant react in situations
in which flow did not occur?
V. What pedagogical and practical implications
can be derived from this study?
Research Questions

10. Vastly different than large group learning settings
 A “balancing act among potentially conflicting forces”
(Wolff, 2000, p. 44, as cited in Thonus)
Classroom discourse takes on characteristics different
than other forms of spoken language (Atkins, 2001)
 “(C)ontact zones” (Pratt, 1991) where two cultures meet
Sites of interactional dominance can arise (Thonus, 2004)
Teacher as mediator between two cultures (Gibbons, 2006).
Dyadic Language Learning Context

11. GriceGrice’’s Discourse Maxims Discourse Maxim’’ss
Grice divided normal discourse between two or moreGrice divided normal discourse between two or more
parties into the following fourparties into the following four maximsmaxims::
1. Quantity1. Quantity: An individual: An individual’’s contribution to discourses contribution to discourse
should be adequatelyshould be adequately informativeinformative and not be overand not be over
informative;informative;
2. Quality2. Quality: Contributions within discourse should be: Contributions within discourse should be
based on evidence, should be truthful;based on evidence, should be truthful;
3. Relation3. Relation: Contributions should be relevant;: Contributions should be relevant;
4.4. MannerManner: Ambiguity, unnecessary prolixity, and: Ambiguity, unnecessary prolixity, and
obscurity of expression should be avoided and orderobscurity of expression should be avoided and order
should be maintained.should be maintained.

12. Evolved from conversations between the researcher
and the focal participant regarding the importance of
learning SML to decrease social distance (Schuman &
Johnson, 1976) and increase intrinsic motivation
(Gardner, 1985)
The focal participant enrolled in SML courses
The researcher set out to conduct a case study of the
focal participant ‘s SML learning experience
The Study

13. To establish the research site and ensure “prolonged
engagement”, the researcher also enrolled in SML
lessons at the research site with the focal participant’s
instructor
The researcher entered the study and research site
without a specific research agenda
The researcher did not initially intend to investigate
instances of flow in the focal participant’s SML learning
After many discussions of what the focal participant
reported concerning his SML learning the concept of
flow was decided to be representative of what he was
experiencing in class

14. A city in northern Taiwan
Views itself as leader in the teaching
and learning in Chinese and SML
language education in Taiwan
The Research Site

15. North American forty-odd years young
Had lived in Taiwan for seven years
First came to Taiwan in 1989
Ten years prior, had studied one year of
intensive SML in Taichung, Taiwan
Was studying SML for autotelic reasons
The Focal Participant

16. Shaped in advance of the main study as the chiefhaped in advance of the main study as the chief
researcher endeavored to set its parameters andresearcher endeavored to set its parameters and
examine in detail the relevance of the researchexamine in detail the relevance of the research
Began as the chief researcher’s self study of his ownegan as the chief researcher’s self study of his own
learning of SML and was conducted over a three weeklearning of SML and was conducted over a three week
periodperiod
Data consisted of class recordings, the chiefata consisted of class recordings, the chief
researcher/participant’s class notes, the chiefresearcher/participant’s class notes, the chief
researcher/participant’s reflective journal, and his dailyresearcher/participant’s reflective journal, and his daily
log of his SML learning and acquisition experiencelog of his SML learning and acquisition experience
Pilot Study

17. Data Gathering Instruments
(structured and semi-structured) interviews;
the participant’s reflective journal;
audio-recordings of class meetings;
class notes;
non-participant observation;
personal communication;
and stimulated recall sessions of
aforementioned data sources
Data Analysis
Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) grounded theoretical
recursive coding procedures (open, axial and
selective)

18. Upon completion of the open coding the
researcher looked for salient features in the
data
Next, the researcher selectively separated the
most salient features in the data from which
the findings emerged
Triangulation implemented by comparing
salient features that emerged from the several
data gathering instruments

19. Flow experience both physiological and
mental
Focal participant appeared to be addicted to
the “flow state”
Focal participant frustrated with himself (e.g.,
for wasting the time and money) and the
instructor (e.g., for not letting him converse
freely during class)
Results/Findings

20. If instructor proffered scaffolded review within the
first 5 to 7 minutes of class participant reached flow
This ‘flow window’ set the tone for the remainder of
the 50 minute class period
If participant entered flow at the beginning of class
he was able to engage in discourse throughout the
class period and have an autolelic experience
His immense enjoyment of the autotelic
experience prompted the researcher to term this as
an “autotelic buzz”

21. When unable to achieve flow,
however, the focal participant
experienced extreme discomfort
"Can’t believe I’m spending so much [flow impedance]
money on “listening class”. I should be prepping for my
teaching classes. Waste of time." (online chat interview)
“Today things were over my head, great to listen to her
accent, but can’t understand many things…I politely tried to
slow her down, [flow impedance] but didn’t' know how to do
it, [desire to prolong autotelic buzz] and was overwhelmed"
(discussion interview)

22. The focal participant found this
‘autotelic buzz’ to be addictive
He often sought means of ensuring
that he would reach the flow state
He drafted a ‘top fifteen’ list of
previously-covered terms to usurp
control of the class to regain his
autotelic “fix”

23. Method kept the teacher on-track ensuring
that scaffolded review occurred at the beginning
of class, facilitating flow and allowing the
participant to have an autotelic experience
A problem in the area of interactive
dominance emerged
The teacher challenged his attempts to slow
down the pace of her instruction
Instructor often thwarted his efforts at
controlling class content

24. The participant did not reach flow when
beginning of class scaffolding did not occur
He “jonesed” for flow achievement and was
unable to enter flow at a later point during
class
 He then encountered a ‘flow downer’ as the
result of his apparent addiction of sorts to the
in-class autotelic subcategory of flow while
learning SML

25. Participant was distraught and experienced
negative physiological symptoms when
instructor impeded his flow experience
The focal participant reportedly achieved
flow on several occasions, and his reaching of
the flow state was a physical and mental state
that appeared to have addictive qualities
He reported that these ‘flow downers’ led to
his abandonment of the study of the language

26. Chief researcher is primary research instrument in
QR
Focal participant studied several languages
previously
Findings herein not generalizable to other
languages
LIMITATIONS
Flow defies quantification (like Krashen’s SLL
Hypotheses)
Others might have interpreted things differently

27. Investigation of flow in dyadic student-teacher language learning
important
Nature of student-teacher interaction might influence a learner’s
chances of entering flow
This study argues for a more aggressive stance to be taken on
what it means to “enable” or “disable” a learner from achieving
flow
When flow is viewed from this perspective, it might gain the
credibility it deserves as an accurate depiction of the give and take
that exists in the dyadic one-on-one language-learning and
teaching environment
DISCUSSION

28. Participant experienced an ‘autotelic buzz’
when able to converse freely with the instructor
This echoes Well’s (1992) notion that "(T)he
prevailing tone of discourse emphasizes the
dialogic co-construction of meaning rather than
the teacher's authoritative transmission of
information” (p. 22)
When the focal participant was unable to
reach flow, it was evident that the instructor was
completely ignorant of the need for an advance
organizer (Ausubel, 1968) to assist in guiding
the learner into the lesson

29. The instructor not being aware that the
tone of in-class teacher-student discourse
influences the dialogic co-construction of
meaning impeded flow entry on a
number of occasions and the participant’s
fluency in SML was impeded (Wells,
1992).

30. The instructor often impeded the focal participants flow entry by
failing to adhere to three of Grice’s four Discourse Maxims (1975),
When the instructor spoke in detail about private matters in her life shethe instructor spoke in detail about private matters in her life she
violated the first maxim of Quantity, as her contributions were overlyviolated the first maxim of Quantity, as her contributions were overly
informativeinformative
The instructor’s violation of the third maxim of Relevance, was closelyThe instructor’s violation of the third maxim of Relevance, was closely
related to her excesses when not adhering to the parameters of the firstrelated to her excesses when not adhering to the parameters of the first
maxim in that her contributions were over-informative and completelymaxim in that her contributions were over-informative and completely
irrelevant to the participant’s SML studies.irrelevant to the participant’s SML studies.
Finally the instructor violated Grice’s fourth maxim of Manner, byFinally the instructor violated Grice’s fourth maxim of Manner, by
exercising a complete lack of order, spoke ambiguously and obscurely,exercising a complete lack of order, spoke ambiguously and obscurely,
and during class time wasand during class time was unable to avoid unnecessary prolixity

31. Dyadic L2-context instructors should prepare
advance organizers (Ausubel, 1968)
Teachers should offer scaffolded review at the
beginning of class and allow balanced turn-
taking in the classroom
Flow should be considered as a teaching goal
rather than merely a passive state
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

32. REFERENCES
Atkins, A. (2001). Sinclair and Coulthard’s ‘IRF’ model in a one-to-one
classroom: An analysis. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from
http://www.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Atkins_4.pdf
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Education psychology: A cognitive view. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal
experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as
data (2nd ed.). Boston: MIT Press.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and motivation. London:
Edward Arnold.

33. Geirland, J. (1996). Go with the Flow: An interview with Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi. Wired, 4, 9.
Gibbons, P. (1999). Discourse contexts for second language development
in the mainstream classroom. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation,
University of Technology, Sydney.
Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL Classroom: Students,
teachers and researchers. New York: Continuum.
Nelson, G. L., & Weigle, S. C. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL
tutees: Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial
success. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 203-225.
Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33-40.
Schmidt, R., & Savage, W. (1992). Challenge, skill and motivation.
PASAA, 22, 14-28.
Schuman, H., & Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitudes and behavior. In A.
Inkeles (Ed.), Annual Review of Sociology (pp. 161-207). Palo Alto:
Annual Reviews.

34. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research.
Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage
Productions
Wells, G. (1992). Language and the inquiry-oriented curriculum. Paper
presented at the annual National Council of Teachers of English
Conference. Louisville, KY.
Wolff, J. M. (2000). Tutoring in the “contact zone.” In L. Briggs & M.
Woolbright (Eds.), Stories from the center: Connecting narrative and
theory in the writing center (pp.43-50). Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
.

35. Kam Hsia LinKam Hsia Lin
(Thank You!)(Thank You!)