İşbirlikçi Diyalog Parametreleri: Etkileşim Örüntüleri, Anadil Kullanımı ve Dil Odaklı Tartışmalar

Yıl 2020, , 711 - 732, 25.10.2020

Burak Aydın , Elif Aydın

https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.777592

Öz

Bu çalışmada işbirlikçi diyalog, etkileşim örüntüleri, anadil kullanımı ve dil odaklı tartışmalar açısından incelenmiştir. Bahsi geçen unsurlar, öğrenci gruplarının dil seviyeleri ve verilen görevlerin zorluğu gibi değişkenlere bağlı olarak analiz edilmiştir. Bu amaçla, bir vakıf üniversitesinin hazırlık programından farklı seviyede ikili öğrenci grupları (yüksek-yüksek [Y-Y] & yüksek-düşük [Y-D]) örnekleme alınmıştır. Ayrıca, bu çalışmada üç farklı görev tipi (sözcük türetme görevi, hata düzeltme görevi ve kompozisyon görevi) kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda her iki öğrenci grubunda da (Y-Y & Y-D) işbirlikçi etkileşim örüntüsünün oluştuğu gözlemlenmiştir. Anadil kullanımının ise Y-D ikili öğrenci grubunda daha yaygın olduğu ve kompozisyon görevinin daha çok anadil kullanımını gerektirdiği görülmüştür. Ayrıca, anadil kullanımında üstdil işlevinin üstbilişsel işlevden daha çok kullanıldığı görülmüştür. Dil odaklı tartışmalar açısından ise Y-D ikili öğrenci grubunun öne çıktığı ve kompozisyon görevinin diğer görevlere göre daha fazla dil odaklı tartışma gerektirdiği tespit edilmiştir. Yapılan çalışma, ikili öğrenci gruplarındaki dil sevilerine bakılmaksızın, işbirlikçi etkileşim örüntüsünün öğrenci etkileşimini ve öğrenciler arasındaki bilgi aktarımını etkin bir şekilde sağladığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, aynı zamanda, anadil kullanımı ve dil odaklı tartışmaların bu etkileşimler için yardımcı araçlar olabileceği fikrini öne sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İşbirlikçi Diyalog, Etkileşim Örüntüleri, Anadil Kullanımı, Dil Odaklı Tartışmalar

The Parameters of Collaborative Dialogue: Interaction Patterns, Use of L1 and Language-Related Episodes

Öz

This study investigated collaborative dialogue in terms of patterns of interaction, use of L1 and language-related episodes (LREs). These elements were analyzed as to different pairings and task complexity. To that end, two different levels of student pairs were sampled (high-high [H-L] & high-low [H-L]) from the preparatory class of a foundation university. In addition, three different task types were used (word formation task, error correction task and composition task) in the study. The results showed that in both pairings (H-H & H-L) collaborative pattern was observed. As to L1 use, it was more prevalent in high-low (H-L) pairing and the composition task required more use of L1. Moreover, L1 metatalk was used more than its metacognitive function. In terms of LREs, H-L pair experienced more episodes and the composition task required more LREs than other tasks. The study suggests that collaborative pattern, irrespective of language levels of pairs, secures effective interaction and transfer of knowledge between learners. Also, it is suggested that L1 use and LREs can be mediating tools for these interactions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Collaborative dialogue, Interaction patterns, Use of L1, Language-related episodes

Kaynakça

• Bao, R. (2018). Collaborative dialogue between complete beginners of Chinese as a foreign language: implications it has for Chinese language teaching and learning. The Language Learning Journal. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09571736.2017.1422136
• Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, J. V. (1997). When are they going to say it right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 524-541.
• Colina, A., & Mayo, M. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL, 47, 325-345.
• Cowie, H., & van der Aalsvoort, G. (2000) (Eds). Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
• Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235-257. Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254-268.
• Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In. B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (p. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81.
• McMahon, M. (1997). Social constructivism and the world wide web: A paradigm for learning. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243618245_Social_Constructivism_and_the_World_Wide_Web-A_Paradigm_for_Learning Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories. Oxon: Routledge.
• Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form. Language Awareness, 19(4), 261-279.
• Rayati, R. A., Yaqubi, B., & Harsejsani, R. (2012). L1 use and language-related episodes (LREs) in an EFL setting. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(4), 99-125.
• Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pairwork. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
• Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760-770.
• 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: Oxford University Press.
• Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning (pp. 95-109). London: Continuum.
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Baygate. et al. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (p. 99–118). London: Routledge.
• Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1-8). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142.
• Wells, G. (1989). Language in the classroom: Literacy and collaborative talk. Language and Education, 3(4), 251-273.
• Zülfikar, Z. (2018). Rethinking the use of L1 in L2 classroom. Englisia, 6(1), 43-51.