2 ABSTRACT An abstract of the thesis of Jasmin Stephanie

167 Pages·2009·5.01 MB·English

by  Jasmin Kratzer

ABSTRACT

An abstract of the thesis of Jasmin Stephanie Kratzer for the Master of Arts in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages presented October 30, 2008.

Title: Task Orientation Practices by Pairs of Low-Level Adult Immigrant Learners of
English.

One of the primary goals of language educators teaching adult immigrant
students is to design tasks that engage learners in meaningful dialogue. But, teachers
cannot always know if their tasks achieve their intended outcomes, so it is necessary to
evaluate and improve upon task design through task based research. In my study I use
a qualitative methodology, conversation analysis (CA), which documents the
participants’ perspectives on social actions and talk occurring in their natural talk-in-
interaction as they perform teacher-assigned tasks.
At the ESOL Lab School database at PSU I observed ten pairs of learners from
five different class sessions performing a similar role-play task designed and
implemented by the same teacher. I transcribed all of the teacher instructions along
with the student pair interactions. My aim was to detail the methods that the students
used to carry out a role-play task with their partner, to compare the different pairs of
students performing the same task, and to determine the relationship between what
students did in a task and what they were instructed to do by the teacher.
2
I found that students rarely oriented to the role-play task as a conversation, and
instead oriented to it as a language-learning task wherein they focused on reading and
accuracy. This orientation stemmed from being in a classroom environment and to
how the teacher modeled the scripts. Most student pairs read the script, focused on the
accuracy of pronouncing each line, and used the vocabulary items as the teacher
instructed. However, to achieve these objectives every pair relied on creative resources
to construct their turn of talk, to repair a partner’s line, and to manage the progression
and completion of the task. Occasionally, they even provided unscripted responses,
demonstrating that they possessed the interactional tools and competencies needed to
engage in the role-play scripts in a conversational way. Although students
demonstrated their ability to orient to the role-play as a conversation, in the classroom,
they choose instead to orient to their role and responsibilities as a student, which
committed them to following the teacher instructions.

2
TASK ORIENTATION PRACTICES BY PAIRS OF LOW-LEVEL
ADULT IMMIGRANT LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

by
JASMIN STEPHANIE KRATZER

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
in
TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES

Portland State University
2008
2
DEDICATION
To my husband, Nathan Kratzer,
for his absolute and unconditional love.

i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My sincere gratitude goes to the many professors, colleagues, friends and
family that helped me to complete this master’s program and thesis. First, none of this
would have been possible without the guidance and support of Professor John
Hellermann to whom I credit this thesis and my introduction to conversation analysis.
Thank you for the many hours you spent teaching me, reading over my drafts,
providing practical advice and encouraging me. I now realize what I am capable of
achieving. In addition, I would like to thank the other members of my thesis
committee—Professors Keith Walters and Kathryn Harris—for their insights, praise
and wise counsel. I would also like to thank the entire applied linguistics department
for creating such a unique and inspiring program. I am deeply impressed with the
knowledge and kindness shared so generously by the professors in this department.
Many of the insights and analyses that I gained from observing video of pair
interactions came from those who attended the numerous conversation analysis data
sessions. Especially, I am indebted to Dominique Brillanceau for her unique
perspective as both an ESOL Lab School teacher and a researcher, and I owe much to
the perceptive and detailed observations of Randy Mussilami. Thank you both for
investing so much of your time in helping me with my presentation and thesis. I would
also like to thank the staff at the ESOL Lab School for their technology support.
Also, I thank the many friends and colleagues who aided me along the way.
Thanks to Hsiao Yun Shotwell for her translation help and to my thesis writing
group—Alison Brown, Olysea Kisselev, CheeYoung Min and Jason Ghaz—who
ii
helped to clarify my ideas and who motivated me to continue when I did not think I
could. Thank you for listening to me and for your thoughtful comments. I would not
have gotten this far without you.
I will always be grateful to the Kemp family who gave me the mental support
and encouragement to finish this project. Thank you for always believing in me and
for bringing me into your family.
And of course, none of this would have been possible without my parents,
sisters and husband. They gave me the strength, emotional support and love to
complete this degree. To my parents—Jacqueline Bride and Steven Hanson—and
sisters—Keely and Devlin: Thank you for believing in me and giving me the courage
to face overwhelming obstacles. A final acknowledgement to my husband, Nathan
Kratzer, for encouraging me to pursue this master’s degree and for carrying me
through the ups and downs of the last two years. I could not have asked for a better
partner. Thank you to everyone for your love, encouragement and patience.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
List of Excerpts ix
List of Abbreviations xi
Transcript Conventions xii
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature Review 4
2.1. TBL—Task-Based Learning 4
2.2. Task design 5
2.3. Quantitative vs. Qualitative approaches to tasks 6
2.4. Task process 9
2.5. Participant roles 13
2.6. CA theoretical foundation 18
2.7. Statement of Purpose 24
2.8. Guiding Questions 24
3. Methodology 26
3.1. Research Setting 26
3.2. Research Participants 27
3.3. Data Selection 29
3.4. Data Analysis 34
4. Analysis and Results 38
4.1. Introduction 38
4.2. Greeting sequences 40
4.3. Script design 42
4.3.1. Basic sequential structure of scripts 43
4.3.2. First adjacency pair 45
iv
4.3.3. Second adjacency pair 46
4.3.4. Final closing turn 46
4.3.5. Third adjacency pair 47
4.4. Teacher Instructions 49
4.4.1. Presentation of task content 50
4.4.1.1. Vocabulary practice 53
4.4.1.2. Pronunciation 56
4.4.1.3. Modeling of task—Role allocations 57
4.4.2. Development of interpersonal competence vs. language support 61
4.5. Student methods for carrying out teacher instructions 62
4.5.1. Script line timing 63
4.5.1.1. Script turn delay 65
4.5.1.2. Vocabulary selection delay 70
4.5.1.3. Printed resource and student gaze 74
4.5.1.4. Teacher modeling and delay mechanisms 75
4.5.1.5. Students’ regulation of task timing 77
4.5.2. Automatic unscripted responses within scripted dialogue 78
4.5.2.1. Fen’s automatic unscripted response 79
4.5.2.1.1. Automaticity in responding to “how are you?” 80
4.5.2.1.2. Coordinating orientations to peer and script 82
4.5.2.2. TaiHuan’s unscripted and expanded responses 88
4.5.3. Turn management—Alterations in script sequence 94
4.5.3.1. Partner provides next script line 95
4.5.3.2. Partner provides candidate word 97
4.5.3.3. Expanded script sequence 99
4.5.4. Task management talk 103
4.5.4.1. Role allocation 104
4.5.4.1.1. Role allocation using teacher’s model 105
4.5.4.1.2. Pair uses alternative role allocation method 108
v
4.5.4.2. Task Closings 113
4.5.4.2.1. Coordinated non-verbal disengagement 115
4.5.4.2.2. Student waits for teacher’s task closing 117
4.6. Chapter summary 122
5. Discussion and Conclusion 130
5.1. Summary of findings 130
5.2. Discussion 131
5.2.1. Goals of literature review and methodology 132
5.2.2. CA’s contribution to research on language-learning tasks 134
5.2.3. Pros and cons of RP tasks 137
5.3. Limitations 138
5.4. Pedagogical implications and applications 140
5.5. Suggestions for future research 141

Notes 144
References 146

vi
LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Pair Information 33

vii