Students’ interactional strategies for resolving lexical issues in computer-assisted collaborative EFL writing

Författare

  • Nigel Musk Linköping University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63774/asla.v31i.51739

Abstract

In the last decade interactional studies have been addressing the strategies of teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) to teach impromptu vocabulary items. However, there is still a dearth of interactional studies that focus on students’ own strategies to resolve lexical issues. Since the Swedish syllabus for English calls for students to be able to use different strategies when their language is lacking, we need to know more about what skills they use and whether there are ways in which their skills can be improved. The current study thus examines students’ interactional strategies for resolving lexical gaps and other lexical issues in their collaborative writing, sometimes with recourse to digital lexical resources. It also explores the learning potentials of both collaboration and digital tools. The collection of students’ lexical strategies comes from 31 hours of video-recorded data from collaborative computer-assisted writing tasks in the EFL classroom of four Swedish upper secondary schools.


The findings reveal five principal interactional strategies, three of which are unique to collaboration. Moreover, one strategy involves using digital resources by looking up lexical items in an online translation tool (e.g. Google Translate). Both collaboration and digital tools can create opportunities for learning lexis by extending access beyond individual knowledge resources. This is particularly so when it comes to students’ lexical gaps. Moreover, training students to develop different strategies when using online translation tools should be particularly beneficial for both collaborative and individual writing.

Referenser

Balaman, U., & Sert, O. (2017). The coordination of online L2 interaction and orientations to task interface for epistemic progression. Journal of Pragmatics, 115, 115–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.015

Broth, M., & Keevallik, L. (Eds.). (2020). Multimodal interaktionsanalys. [Multimodal Interaction Analysis]. Studentlitteratur.

Broth, M., & Mondada, L. (2013). Walking away: The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 47(1), 41‒58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016

Burch, A. R. (2014). Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on communication strategies. Language Learning, 64, 651–684. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12064

Čekaitė, A. (2009). Collaborative corrections with spelling control: Digital resources and peer assistance. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 4(3), 319‒341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9067-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9067-7

Duran, D., Kurhila S., & Sert, O. (2022). Word search sequences in teacher- student interaction in an English as medium of instruction context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), 502‒521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1703896 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1703896

Eskildsen, S. W., & Majlesi, A. R. (2018). Learnables and teachables in second language talk: Advancing a social reconceptualization of central SLA tenets. Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 102 (Supplement 2018), 3–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/modl.12462 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12462

Fredholm, K. (2021). Google Translate search strategies used by learners of Spanish L3: A complex lexico-morpho-syntactic weave of trial and error. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 39(72), 9‒48. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/enallt.01852647p.2021.72.926 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/enallt.01852647p.2021.72.926

Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62(1), 51‒75. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.51

Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). On the contingent nature of language‐learning tasks. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 25‒45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463011003750657 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463011003750657

Herder, A., Berenst, J., de Glopper, K., & Koole, T. (2018a). Reflective practices in collaborative writing of primary school students. International Journal of Educational, Research, 90, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.06.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.06.004

Herder, A., Berenst, J., de Glopper, K., & Koole, T. (2018b). Nature and function of proposals in collaborative writing of primary school students. Linguistics and Education, 46, 1‒11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.04.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.04.005

Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 30‒52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685

Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 370–394). Wiley-Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch18

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation Analysis. (2nd ed.). Wiley. Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the Wild. The MIT Press.

Jakonen, T. (2018). Retrospective orientation to learning activities and achievements as a resource in classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 758–774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/modl.12513 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12513

Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt031

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13‒31). John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

Kääntä, L., Kasper, G., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2018). Explaining Hooke’s Law: Definitional practices in a CLIL physics classroom. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 694‒717 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw025

Keevallik, L., & Ogden, R. (2020). Sounds on the margins of language. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 1‒18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712961 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712961

Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2

Kunitz, S. (2018). Collaborative attention work on gender agreement in Italian as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 64‒81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/modl.12458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12458

Lazaraton, A. (2004). Gesture and speech in the vocabulary explanations of one ESL teacher: A microanalytic inquiry. Language Learning, 54(1), 79‒117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00249.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00249.x

Laufer, B. (2016). The three “I”s of second language vocabulary learning: Input, instruction, involvement. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Volume 3 (pp. 343–354). Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315716893-25 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716893-25

Majlesi, A. R. (2014). Learnables in Action: The Embodied Achievement of Opportunities for Teaching and Learning in Swedish as a Second Language Classrooms. (Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences, 610; Studies in Language and Culture, 24) [PhD dissertation]. Linköping University. http://dx.doi.org/10.3384/iss.diva-104920

Markee, N. (1995). Teachers’ answers to students’ questions: Problematizing the issue of making meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 63–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/L462005218

Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256‒270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283

Mortensen, K. (2011). Doing word explanation in interaction. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 Learning as Social Practice: Conversation-Analytic Perspectives (pp. 135–162). National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Musk, N. (2016). Correcting spellings in second language learners’ computer- assisted collaborative writing. Classroom Discourse, 7(1), 36‒57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2015.1095106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2015.1095106

Musk, N. (2021a). “How do you spell that?” Doing spelling in computer-assisted collaborative writing. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom- based Conversation Analytic Research: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Pedagogy (pp. 97‒125). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_6

Musk, N. (2021b, 17 Nov.). Designedly Incomplete Utterances (DIUs) in Digital Collaborative EFL Writing. Nordisco (6th Nordic Interdisciplinary Conference on Discourse and Interaction), Uppsala University, Sweden.

Musk, N. (2022). Using online translation tools in computer-assisted collaborative EFL writing. Classroom Discourse, 13(2), 119‒144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.2025119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.2025119

Musk, N., & van der Meij, S. (accepted). Critical interactional strategies for selecting candidate translations in online translation tools in collaborative EFL writing tasks. Linguistics and Education.

Musk, N., & Čekaitė, A. (2017). Mobilising distributed memory resources in English project work. In Å. Mäkitalo, P. Linell & R. Säljö (Eds.), Memory Practices and Learning: Interactional, Institutional and Sociocultural Perspectives (pp. 153‒186). Information Age Publishing.

Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858656 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858656

Oxford, R. L., & Amerstorfer, C. M. (Eds.). (2018). Language Learning Strategies and Individual Learner Characteristics: Situating Strategy Use in Diverse Contexts. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: ‘‘Limited access’’ as a ‘‘fishing’’ device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186‒19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Blackwell.

Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education] (2022). Ämnesplanen i engelska [syllabus for English]. https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/gymnasieskolan/laroplan-program-och-amnen-i-gymnasieskolan/gymnasieprogrammen/amne?url=-996270488%2Fsyllabuscw%2Fjsp% 2Fsubject.htm%3FsubjectCode%3DENG%26version%3D6%26tos%3 Dgy&sv.url=12.5dfee44715d35a5cdfa92a3

Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 3‒24). Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002

Stoewer, K., & Musk, N. (2019). Impromptu vocabulary work in English mother tongue instruction. Classroom Discourse, 10(2), 123‒150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1516152 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1516152

Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44‒63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.1.44 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.1.44

Tai, K. W. H., & Khabbazbashi, N. (2019a). Vocabulary explanations in beginning-level adult ESOL classroom interactions: A conversation analysis perspective. Linguistics and Education, 52, 61‒77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.06.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.06.006

Tai, K. W. H., & Khabbazbashi, N. (2019b). The mediation and organisation of gestures in vocabulary instructions: A microgenetic analysis of interactions in a beginning-level adult ESOL classroom. Language and Education, 33(5), 445‒468 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1596122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1596122

Vetenskapsrådet [Swedish Research Council]. (2017). God forskningssed [Good research practice]. Vetenskapsrådet. https://www.vr.se/analys/rapporter/vara-rapporter/2017-08-29-god-forskningssed.html

Waring, H. Z., Creider, S. C., & Box, C. D. (2013). Explaining vocabulary in the second language classroom: A conversation analytic account. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(4), 249–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.08.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.08.001

Waring, H. Z., Box, C. D., & Creider, S. C. (2016). Problematizing vocabulary in the second language classroom: Unilateral and bilateral approaches. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 10(1), 87–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/japl.17144 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.17144

Downloads

Publicerad

2024-04-11

Referera så här

Musk, N. (2024). Students’ interactional strategies for resolving lexical issues in computer-assisted collaborative EFL writing . ASLA:S Skriftserie, 31, 56–82. https://doi.org/10.63774/asla.v31i.51739

Nummer

Sektion

Artiklar