Uzlaşmaya Yakından Bakış: Çevrimiçi Eşzamanlı Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğrenme Ortamında Görev Temelli Etkileşim

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Yabancı Dil olarak İngilizce (EFL) öğrenenler arasında üç tür çevrimiçi eşzamanlı görev (yapboz, karar verme ve problem çözme) sırasında ortaya çıkan anlam uzlaşması (NoM) rutinlerini araştırmaktadır. Görev Temelli Dil Öğretimi (TBLT) ve etkileşimci İkinci Dil Edinimi (SLA) teorilerine dayanan araştırma, 32 orta düzey üniversite öğrencisinin katıldığı 13 saatlik transkript edilmiş sözlü öğrenci etkileşiminin nitel söylem analizine dayanmaktadır. Üç görev türünde toplam 225 müzakere rutini tespit edilmiştir. Yapboz görevi en fazla sayıda rutin üretirken (n = 79), bunu karar verme (n = 74) ve problem çözme (n = 72) takip etmiştir. Açıklama talepleri tüm görevlerde en sık görülen talepler olsa da, her görev farklı bir örüntü ortaya çıkarmıştır: yapboz görevleri sık sık bilgi ile ilgili açıklama talepleri ve onay kontrolleri üretmiştir; karar verme görevleri prosedürel anlama kontrolleri ve koordinasyona dayalı kontroller istemiştir; ve problem çözme görevleri, soyut ve duygusal olarak karmaşık içeriklerini yansıtan daha derin kavramsal onarımlara ve açıklama bölümlerine yol açmıştır. Bulgular, görev türü ve karmaşıklığının uzlaşma rutinlerinin hem miktarını hem de kalitesini önemli ölçüde etkilediğini ve bilişsel görev karmaşıklığı teorisi ile etkileşimci SLA'nın iddialarını desteklediğini göstermektedir. Çalışma ayrıca, çevrimiçi eşzamanlı görevlerin anlamlı öğrenci etkileşimini, dille ilgili bölümleri ve işbirliğine dayalı problem çözmeyi teşvik etme potansiyelini vurgulamaktadır. Pedagojik çıkarımlar ve dijital aracılı TBLT ortamlarında gelecekteki araştırmalar için öneriler tartışılmaktadır.

Keywords

• anlam uzlaşması
• görev tabanlı dil öğretimi
• çevrimiçi eşzamanlı etkileşim
• yabancı dil olarak İngilizce
• söylem analizi

Zooming Into Negotiation: Task-Based Interaction In An Online Synchronous EFL Setting

Abstract

This study investigates the patterns of negotiation of meaning (NoM) routines that emerge during three types of online synchronous tasks—jigsaw, decision-making, and problem-solving—among learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Grounded in Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and interactionist theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), the research draws on a qualitative discourse analysis of 13 hours of transcribed spoken learner interaction involving 32 intermediate-level university students. A total of 225 negotiation routines were identified across the three task types. The jigsaw task produced the highest number of routines (n = 79), followed by decision-making (n = 74) and problem-solving (n = 72). While clarification requests were the most frequent across all tasks, each task elicited a distinct pattern: jigsaw tasks generated frequent information-related clarification requests and confirmation checks; decision-making tasks prompted procedural comprehension checks and coordination-based checks; and problem-solving tasks led to deeper conceptual repairs and clarification episodes, reflecting their abstract and emotionally complex content. The findings suggest that task type and complexity significantly influence both the quantity and quality of negotiation routines, supporting claims from cognitive task complexity theory and interactionist SLA. The study also highlights the potential of online synchronous tasks to foster meaningful learner interaction, language-related episodes, and collaborative problem-solving. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for future research in digitally mediated TBLT environments are discussed.

Keywords

• negotiation of meaning
• task-based language teaching
• online synchronous interaction
• English as a foreign language
• discourse analysis

References

1. Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford University Press.
2. Almaiah, M. A., Al‑Saraireh, Y. M., & Almaiah, T. (2020). The impact of technical factors on student motivation and performance in online learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECTI-CON46265.2020.9118714
3. Brown, A., Smith, J., & Taylor, K. (2019). Collaborative learning in digital classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
4. Deng, F., & Tavares, N. J. (2013). From moodle to Facebook: Exploring students’ motivation and experiences in online communities. Computers & Education, 68, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.028
5. Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). "Information gap" tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586546
6. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
7. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
8. Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.1

9. García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Task repetition and focus on form in EFL primary school children. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 736–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815612405
10. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). Routledge.
11. Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2012). The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL, 24(2), 116–137. DOI: 10.1017/S095834401200002X
12. Kalkan, G. (2003). Görev temelli öğrenme yaklaşımı ve yabancı dil öğretiminde uygulama örnekleri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
13. Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner–learner interaction. System, 37(2), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.002
14. Klohr, A. S., & Hennig, S. (2022). Zoom fatigue and EFL learners: A mixed-method study during emergency remote teaching. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 190–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/llt.2022.18
15. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. DOI: 10.2307/2529310
16. Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259–278). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
17. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Multilingual Matters.
18. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
19. Martin, F., Sunley, A., & Turner, R. (2017). The impact of interactive synchronous online learning tools on student engagement. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1276
20. Monteiro, K., & Morrison, J. (2014). Negotiation of meaning in synchronous task-based interactions. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 99–119. https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2791
21. Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588038
22. Newton, J. (1991). Options for vocabulary learning through communication tasks. English Language Teaching Journal, 45(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.1.30
23. Nguyen, T. (2023). Gamifying language learning: Motivational effects of online speaking games. Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Instruction, 39(1), 22–37.
24. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x
25. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Multilingual Matters.
26. Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-olds take control in the second language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074604
27. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27
28. Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 3–38). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2
29. Satar, H. M., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on the negotiation of meaning in EFL context. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x
30. Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53(3), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.3.149
31. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
32. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
33. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.
34. Toksöz, M. (1998). İletişime dayalı yabancı dil öğretiminde anlam pazarlığı. Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
35. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.1.71
36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
37. Yoon, P., & Leem, J. (2021). The influence of social presence on group efficacy and performance in virtual conferencing environments. Sustainability, 13(4), 1988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041988
38. Willis, J. (2004). Perspectives on task-based instruction: Understanding pedagogic task. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 10–20). Macmillan. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.