Presentation16 10-2010


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentation16 10-2010

  1. 1. The Use of Negotiation of Meaning Functions in Second Life<br />Sedat Akayoglu16.10.2010<br />
  2. 2. Outline<br />The purpose of the study<br />Method<br />Participants<br />Data Collection Procedure<br />Data analysis<br />Findings<br />Conclusion and Recommendations<br />2<br />
  3. 3. “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...” <br />Chappelle (2004, p.595)<br />3<br />
  4. 4. The purpose of the study<br />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. <br />4<br />
  5. 5. Negotiation of Meaning (NoM)<br />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”.<br />5<br />
  6. 6. Method<br />a mixed-methods approach including both qualitative and quantitative data analyses<br />6<br />
  7. 7. Participants<br />60 freshman students - Department of Foreign Language Education, Middle East Technical University<br />Freshman students were divided into four sections regardless of their gender, academic achievement or any other variables.<br />18-20 years old<br />Not familiar with SL before the class<br />Advanced Reading and Writing I (a must course during the Fall Term) <br />7<br />
  8. 8. Content of the course<br />Related to reading and writing skills<br />SL was used for writing activities (it was used for a reading activity only in the first session)<br />Only paragraph types were introduced (No essay)<br />8<br />
  9. 9. Data Collection Procedure<br />A classroom (Classroom B) was used as the home place of the course. <br />Activities started there and sometimes students were asked teleport different landmarks. <br />9<br />
  10. 10. Classrrom B<br />10<br />
  11. 11. Data Collection Procedure<br />1 Reading text (for the first session )<br />6 Writing tasks (about different types of paragraphs)<br />Descriptive Paragraph (This activity was an individual activity and thus there was no interaction among the students.)<br />Classification Paragraph<br />Process Analysis Paragraph<br />Narrative Paragraph<br />Compare and Contrast Paragraph<br />Argumentative Paragraph<br />11<br />
  12. 12. Activities (Descriptive Paragraph)<br />Some landmarks were predetermined <br />They were asked to teleport to these previously determined landmarks and to take some snapshots. <br />After that they wrote a descriptive paragraph to publish on their blogs.<br />12<br />
  13. 13. Activities (Classification Paragraph)<br />Students were asked to teleport to some places and interview with people in those places<br />Students interviewed about the reason why those people were using SL<br />They categorized the users of SL after discussing it with their classmates<br />13<br />
  14. 14. Activities (Process Analysis Paragraph)<br />Students created groups with their classmates and started to build houses in Classroom B<br />Students were told how to build some basic objects (walls, doors)<br />After they finished building, they wrote a paragraph describing the process they completed step by step<br />14<br />
  15. 15. Activities (Narrative Paragraph)<br />SL used as a discussion platform<br />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.<br />15<br />
  16. 16. Activities (Narrative, cont.)<br />For example, the first group chose <br />“A homeless child” as their character<br />“An expensive restaurant” as the setting<br />“Late at night” as the time<br />“A secret needs to be confessed to someone else” as the situation<br />16<br />
  17. 17. Activities (Compare and Contrast)<br />Students were asked to choose topics from the board built in Classroom B<br />They were grouped according to their compare and contrast paragraph topics and they discussed on the similarities and differences of the given situations<br />Finally, they published their paragraphs on their blogs<br />17<br />
  18. 18. Activities (Argumentative Paragraph)<br />Two message boards were created in SL and students received the argumentative paragraph topics touching the objects. <br />After they had chosen their topics, they discussed these topics with their classmates in groups<br />They determined pros and cons of the argument <br />18<br />
  19. 19. Data Collection Procedure (Cont.)<br />During the tasks, chat logs were stored on students’ computers; and they sent it via e-mail.<br />Screen was recorded by means of Camtasia. <br />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.<br />19<br />
  20. 20. Data Analysis<br />A taxonomy prepared by Akayoglu & Altun, 2008 was used to analyze the data.<br />It was previously modified from the taxonomy prepared by Patterson and Trabaldo (2006)<br />20<br />
  21. 21. 21<br />
  22. 22. Data Analysis<br />The collected data imported into the software Hyper Research Qualitative Analysis Tool (version 5.2).<br />The codes were applied to the chat logs and the data was analyzed. <br />22<br />
  23. 23. 23<br />
  24. 24. 24<br />
  25. 25. Conclusions<br />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. <br />25<br />
  26. 26. 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. <br />26<br />
  27. 27. Recommendation<br />This study might help <br />researchers studying on discourse analysis of online environments<br />teachers and students in terms of creating a greater awareness of these environments<br />teachers to take the mostly used functions into consideration while preparing courses <br />27<br />
  28. 28. References<br />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.<br />Chappelle, C. A. (2004). Technology and Second Language Learning: Expanding Methods and Agenda. System 32(4): 593-601.<br />Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations - and Negotiated Interaction - in Text and Voice Chat Rooms. Language Learning & Technology 9(3): 79-98.<br />PattersonP., S. Trabaldo (2006). Negotiating for Meaning Across Borders with CMC. Teaching English with Technology. 6(2).<br />Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse Functions and Syntactic Complexity in Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication. Language Learning & Technology 4(1): 82-119.<br />28<br />
  29. 29. Res. Assist. Sedat Akayoglu<br />Middle East Technical UniversityFaculty of EducationDepartment of Foreign Language EducationAnkara,<br />29<br />