Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T22:54:58.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A framework for learner agency in online spoken interaction tasks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2017

Janine Knight ,
Elena Barbera  and
Christine Appel
Janine Knight
Affiliation:
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain (email: janine@uic.es) Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain (email: jknight@uoc.edu)
Elena Barbera
Affiliation:
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain (email: ebarbera@uoc.edu)
Christine Appel
Affiliation:
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain (email: mappel@uoc.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Learner agency, the capability of individual human beings to make choices and act on these choices in a way that makes a difference in their lives (Martin, 2004), is instrumental in second language learning because attainment is only arrived at by learner choice (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). If attainment is understood as learner engagement in synchronous, collaborative, spoken interaction which is thought to lead to gains in second language acquisition (SLA), then design considerations that harness learners’ agency towards that end is important. This study explores the relationship between learner agency and two different task types, namely an information-gap task and an opinion-sharing task in two peer-to-peer synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) spoken interaction events. Students’ choices and how students act on these choices during tasks are analysed using a discourse analysis approach. Audio recordings of four dyads as cases were examined using three analytical dimensions: language functions of verbal interaction, cognitive processing and social processing. The results show that most learners used their agency to reconfigure the tasks from spontaneous to planned interaction, with some choices and actions relating to technology impacting detrimentally on interaction time in the target language. The different tasks were found to filter and channel different types of agency that learners could exercise, namely representational, organisational, and strategic agency as speech acts, and directional agency as a physical act. These types consisted of different natures and purposes and are presented as a framework. The information-gap task supported strategic agency and an opinion-sharing task supported personalisation and identity construction or representational agency.

Keywords

learner agencytask-based learning and teachingTBLTsynchronous computer-mediated communicationSCMCspoken interactiontask design

Information

Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 276 - 293
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahearn, L. M. (2001) Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30: 109–137.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Appel, C., Nic Giolla Mhichíl, M., Jager, S. and Prizel-Kania, A. (2014) SpeakApps 2: Speaking practice in a foreign language through ICT tools. In: Jager, S., Bradley, L., Meima, E. J. and Thouësny, S. (eds.), CALL Design: Principles and Practice. Dublin: Research-publishing.net, 12–17. doi:10.14705/rpnet.2014.000187 Google Scholar
Appel, C., Robbins, J., Moré, J. and Mullen, T. (2012) Task and tool interface design for L2 speaking interaction online. In: Bradley, L. and Thouësny, S. (eds.), CALL: Using, Learning, Knowing. Dublin: Research-publishing.net, 15. doi:10.14705/rpnet.2012.9781908416032 Google Scholar
Blin, F. and Jalkanen, J. (2014) Designing for language learning: Agency and languaging in hybrid environments. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8: 147–170.Google Scholar
Breen, M. (1987) Learner contributions to task design. Language Learning Tasks, 7: 23–46.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P. and Duff, P. A. (1994) Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In: Lantolf, J. and Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 157–172.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit.Google Scholar
de la Colina, A. A. and García Mayo, M. P. (2007) Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In: García Mayo, M. P. (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 91–116.Google Scholar
Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, E. and Vitanova, G. (eds.) (2015) Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J. (2009) Individual differences in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 623–646.Google Scholar
Dooley, M. (2011) Divergent perceptions of telecollaborative language learning tasks: Task-as-workplan vs. task-as-process. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2): 69–91.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2009) Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: Future research directions. In: Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 350–356.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3): 50–80.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2000) Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3): 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. and Ohta, A. S. (2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied linguistics, 26(3): 402–430.Google Scholar
García, O. (2009) Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Mohanty, A. K., Panday, M., Phillipson, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan, 140–158.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A. (2006) Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19: 3–17.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1989) Language, context, and text. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kumpulainen, K. and Mutanen, M. (1999) The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: An introduction to an analytic framework. Learning and Instruction, 9(5): 449–473.Google Scholar
Lafford, P. A. and Lafford, B. A. (2005) CMC technologies for teaching foreign languages: What’s on the horizon? CALICO Journal, 22(3): 679–709.Google Scholar
Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011) Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2): 498–521.Google Scholar
Lamy, M.-N. (2006) Interactive task design: Metachat and the whole learner. In: García Mayo, P. (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 242–264.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luckin, R. (2010) Re-designing learning contexts: Technology-rich, learner-centred ecologies. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (2004) Self-regulated learning, social cognitive theory, and agency. Educational Psychologist, 39(2): 135–145.Google Scholar
Mercer, N. (2010) The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Mercer, S. (2011) Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39(4): 427–436.Google Scholar
Miller, E. (2012, Sep 2) Chapter proposals: Agency and SLA. http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-3666.html Google Scholar
Novick, D. G. and Sutton, S. (1997) What is mixed-initiative interaction? In Haller, S. and McRoy, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Models for Mixed Initiative Interaction. AAAI/MIT Press, 114–116.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1997) Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1): 82–93.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. and Lantolf, J. (2000) Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In: Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 155–177.Google Scholar
Reeve, J. and Tseng, C. (2011) Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4): 257–267.Google Scholar
Roebuck, R. (2000) Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 79–95.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. and Bygate, M. (2008) Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. and Okita, S. (2009) The productive agency in learning by teaching. Unpublished manuscript. http://aaalab.stanford.edu/papers/Productive_Agency_in_Learning_by_Teaching.pdf Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996) Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In: Willis, J. and Willis, D. (eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann, 17–30.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In: Byrnes, H. (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum, 95–108.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Deters, P. (2007) ‘New’ mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1): 820–836.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2008) Agency in the classroom. In: Lantolf, J. and Poehner, M. (eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. London: Equinox, 163–186.Google Scholar
Wang, J. (1996) Same task: different activities. Unpublished research report. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Xiao, J. (2014) Learner agency in language learning: The story of a distance learner of EFL in China. Distance Education, 35(1): 4–17.Google Scholar
Yim, Y. K. K. (2011) Second language students’ discourse socialization in academic online communities. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. (2010) Learner agency, motive and self-regulated learning in an online ESL writing Class. IALLT Journal, 43(2): 57–81.Google Scholar