GERAS 2002 Lyon

1
5th UNTELE conference University of
Compiègne March 2004
An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning
environment designed for learner autonomy
by David Rees Ph.D. Institut National
dHorticulture, Angers www.multimania.com/davidre
es rees_at_angers.inra.fr
2
CONTENTS
1. The learning environment
2. A typical language lesson
3. Negotiation
4. Vygotskys concepts of internalisation and the
ZPD
5. Discourse analysis
6. Corpus analysis
7. Results
8. Conclusions
3
1. The learning environment
Grande Ecole with two colleges (Bac 05 and Bac
23) Applied engineering in horticulture and
landscaping
2 foreign languages (for specific purposes) with
compulsory minimum levels
Compulsory foreign professional training period
in Year 1
Highly positive attitudes for learning foreign
languages
Over 50 of students on inter-university exchanges
4
All lessons in 25-post multimedia rooms, and
available via intranet.
5
2. A typical language lesson
6
The Tandberg pilot
7
Pedagogy based on Mutual Scaffolding
1. Separate the class into two equal groups
8
2. Select the sources
9
3. Diffuse the sources
10
4. Form intragroup dyads Macro/micro-comprehension
11
4. Intragroup dyad micro-comprehension
12
5. Intergroup dyads (negociation)
13
3. Negotiation
The repeating, rephrasing and restructuring of
phrases in L1 or L2 between two or more learners
to enable them to understand the meaning of the
messages they are communicating
(Long) Interlanguage (Selinker)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Negotiation of comprehension
INFORMATION GAP
Negotiation of content
16
negotiation and the ZPD
17
negotiation and the ZPD
Mutual construction between two ZPDs (the two
learners negotiate something non-internalised) Slo
w mutual scaffolding (linguistic,
conceptual, etc.) takes place.
18
negotiation and the ZPD
Each learner assists the other since each
has internalised different semiotic, linguistic
or conceptual competences). Mutual scaffolding
takes place.
19
negotiation and the ZPD
Communication takes place, but there are
no stimuli (task) to require the speakers to go
beyond their existing internalised semiotic and
linguistic structures. No scaffolding takes place
20
Teacher
21
5. Discourse Analysis Model

1. Problem source
2. Repair type
3. Discourse code

22
Problem Source
Problems can be due to production mistakes or
comprehension difficulty
Ph Phonological (caused by pronunciation or
accentuation)
Gr Grammatical (caused by the syntax of a word or
phrase)
Lx Lexical (caused by unknown or incorrect
vocabulary)
Cn Content (caused by lack of comprehension of
the content or concept)
Ds Discourse (caused by pragmatic, social or
cultural misunderstanding)
Ps Pause (a pause can indicate a problem and
incite repair)
23
Repair Type
XL2 Explanation in L2
XL1 Explanation in L1
GT Grammatical Transformation
TL1 Translation into L1
TL2 Translation into L2
Mod Model (the repair is an attempt to provide
the correct word or form)
Syn Synonym (a synonym or alternate version is
provided)
Rep Repetition
Con Confirmation
Com Completion (normally following a pause the
completion of a word or phrase)
24
Discourse Codes
SR Self Repair she disperses, it disperses
RA Requested Assistance how do you say
disseminer?
RR Response to Request disseminer is to
disperse / I dont know
AC Acceptance disperse, okay
UR Unrequested Repair A. who mutates  B. that
mutates
UA Unrequested Assistance A. Its a scented
fruit B. Like the guava
CC Confirmation Check A power station, okay?
25
6. Corpus Analysis
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
7. Results
29
Negotiation triggers
45 lexical
11 due to silence
25 content problems
30
Repair type
15 explanation in L2
15 translation in L1
31
15 completion
19 confirmation
10 repetition
32
Discourse type
44 Request for help
20 Unrequested help
23 Confirmation check
33
Self-repairs
43 Grammatrical transformation
50 Provision of a model
34
Comparison of student/teacher intervention
Mostly grammatical, phonetic and discourse
triggers for the teacher
Mostly lexical and content triggers for the
students
35
Comparison of teacher / student repair types
Teacher high degree explanation in L2 and
provision of correct model
Students a wide-variety of repair types
Teacher high level of non-requested aid
Students high level of aid requests
36
Laughter
An average of 10 laughter events per dyad per
lesson
37
8. Conclusions
Dyadic, task-based pair work maximises
negotiation opportunities
Negotiation leads to acquisition
Negotiation is effected by a) task type b)
familiarity of partners c) cultural similarity
of partners
NNS-NNS negotiation appears to be more suitable
than NS-NNS negotiation
Technology can enhance a dyadic learning
environment
A technology-structured environment can enhance
learner autonomy
38
5th UNTELE conference University of
Compiègne March 2004
An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning
environment designed for learner autonomy
by David Rees Ph.D. Institut National
dHorticulture, Angers www.multimania.com/davidre
es rees_at_angers.inra.fr