EFL Students’ Turn-Taking Strategies in Face-to-Face and Online PBL Discussions
Keywords:
Turn Taking, Face-to-Face Discussion, Online Discussion, Problem-Based LearningAbstract
This study aimed to explore EFL students’ turn-taking strategies in two different contexts of PBL discussions—face-to-face (FTF) and online discussion board. Twelve college students with sufficient English to carry on discussions were recruited on a voluntary basis to participate in the research project. Data derived from the description of video recordings and all entries of online discussion boards revealed two major findings. First, in the FTF discussions, turn allocation was determined by current speakers, through verbal and non-verbal language, and yielded linear and immediate interactional discourse. In contrast, the message system synchronously managed turns in the online chat discussions. The function of the system drew the participants’ attention to be engaged in discussions which appeared to be dispersed into threads of messages. Second, while overlapping randomly took place during turn allocation in the FTF discussions, taking turns via self-allocated strategies in the online discussion boards seemed to be the underlying form of interaction. In doing this, the participants needed to use a variety of techniques to both extend from previous relevant messages and manage their turns via prints as well as emoticons. The significance, implication, and discussions of this study provide contributions to foreign and second language instruction.
References
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455-464.
Beisswenger, M. (2008). Situated chat analysis as window to the user’s perspective: Aspects of temporal and sequential organization. Language@Internet, 5, 1-19.
Boyd, M. and Maloof, V.M. (2000). How teachers can build on student-proposed intertextual links to facilitate student talk in the ESL classroom [case study of Japanese, Korean and Thai students in the United States who were studying English as a second language]. In J.K. Hall and L.S. Verplaetse (Ed.), Second and foreign language through classroom interaction (pp. 163-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Society, 10, 383-421.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: NY, Routledge.
Herring. S. C. (2003). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612-634). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Huls, E. (2005). Emoticons: A corpus-based analysis of their forms and functions. Retrieved from www.ericahuls.nl
Jepson, K. (2005). Converstions-and negotiated interaction-in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79-98.
Jibril, T. A., and Abdullah, M. H. (2013). Relevance of emoticons in computer-mediated communication contexts: An overview. Asian Social Science, 9(4), 201-207.
Kato, F. (2000). Discourse approach to turn-taking from the perspective of tone choice between speakers. Master’s thesis. University of Birmingham, UK. Retrieved from http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/matefltesldissertations/fkdis.pdf
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mehrabian, A. (2009). Nonverbal communication. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
Murrey, D. E. (1989). When the medium determines turns: Turn-taking in computer conversation. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Working with language: A multidisciplinary consideration of language use in work contexts (pp. 319-337). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Okuyama, Y. (2005). Distance language learning via synchronous computer-mediated communication. JALT CALL Journal,1(2), 3-20.
Reiser, R. (2001). A History of instructional design and technology: Part 1A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 1042-1629.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 369-391.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy in CALL environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sharifabad, M. R., and Vali, S. (2011). A comparative study of native and non-native body language: The case of Americans’ kinetics vs. Persian English speakers. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 26. Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr26/sharifabad.htm
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., and Yates, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Discourse as data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Xiao, J. (2007). Language learning strategies in distance English learning: A study of learners at Shantou radio and television university, China. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(2), 141-164.
Yew, A., and Schmidt, H. (2007). Process study of verbal interactions in problem based learning. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/yew.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
1 All articles will undergo a formal peer-review. A panel of experts from within or without the university will examine the article; approval from a minimum of two experts is required for publication. Revisions posed by the experts must be completed by the research prior to publication.
2 Once published in the ASEAN Journal of Education, the article becomes intellectual property of Suan Dusit University. Duplication, in full or part, requires permission from Suan Dusit University.
3 Excluding errors incurred during printing, author(s) are responsible for the content of their articles.
