Advertisement

How Wild Can It Get? Managing Language Learning Tasks in Real Life Service Encounters

  • Arja Piirainen-MarshEmail author
  • Niina Lilja
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 38)

Abstract

This chapter explores how experientially based pedagogical activities that involve participation in real life service encounters provide occasions for developing L2 interactional competence. The data comprises novice L2 students’ self-recorded interactions in service settings and videorecordings of classroom planning activities and de-briefing discussions, where the students reflect on their experiences. The analysis traces what kinds of occasions for learning arise as the students move between the classroom and the real-world service settings. The findings show that the different phases of the task complement each other in supporting the development of interactional competence. The preparation phase enables students to plan initiating actions, but does not prepare them for contingencies of interaction in the wild. When carrying out the task in real world circumstances, occasions for learning can arise as students adapt to the interactional contingencies of the encounter and put their repertoire to use in interaction with others in the full ecology of the activity. Retrospective discussions enable detailed analysis of experiences as well as focused learning activity, whereby the participants develop an experientially based understanding of the interactional tasks, language practices, actions, organization and communicative norms pertaining to the social activity.

Keywords

Task Service encounters Learning project Action Interactional practices Contingencies 

References

  1. Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bygate, M. (Ed.). (2015). Domains and directions in developing TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, B., & Lindemalm, K. (2011). Språkskap: Swedish as a social language. Stockholm: Folkuniversitetet and Interactive Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskyan approaches to second language research (pp. 173–195). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  6. Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, D. (1994). Script formulations: An analysis of event descriptions in conversation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(3), 211–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eskildsen, S. W., & Theodórsdóttir, G. (2017). Constructing L2 learning spaces: Ways to achieve learning inside and outside the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2013). Recurring and shared gestures in the L2 classroom: Resources for teaching and learning. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S., Piirainen-Marsh, A., & Hellermann, J. (this volume). Introduction: On the complex ecology of language learning ‘in the wild’. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action (pp. 1–21). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a ‘reconceptualised’ SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 800–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonzales Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62(1–2), 51–75.Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica, (191), 257–286.  https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0063.
  18. Hall, J., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  19. Hasan, R. (1985). The structure of a text. In M. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text: Aspects of language in social semiotic perspective (pp. 52–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hayashi, M. (2003). Language and the body as resources for collaborative action: A study of word searches in Japanese conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 109–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). On the contingent nature of language learning tasks. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hellermann, J., Thorne, S., & Fodor, P. (2017). Mobile reading as social and embodied practice. Classroom Discourse, 8(2), 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hellermann, J., Thorne, S. L., & Haley, J. (this volume). Building Socio-environmental Infrastructures for Learning. In J. Hellermann, S.W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.). Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action (pp. 193–218). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kasper, G., & Burch, A. R. (2016). Focus on form in the wild. In R. A. van Compernolle & J. McGregor (Eds.), Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts (pp. 198–232). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keisanen, T. (2012). “Uh-oh, we were going there”: Environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica, (191), 197–222.  https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0061.
  29. Kendrick, K. H. (2015). Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics, 1, 164–190.  https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kidwell, M. (2000). Common ground in cross-cultural communication: Sequential and institutional contexts in front-desk service encounters. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 17–37.Google Scholar
  32. Koshik, I., & Seo, M.-S. (2012). Word (and other) search sequences initiated by language learners. Text and Talk, 32(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kunitz, S., & Skogmyr Marian, K. (2017). Tracking immanent language learning behaviour in task-based classroom work. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 507–535.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kurhila, S. (2006). Second language interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurhila, S., & Kotilainen, L. (2017). Cooking, interaction and learning: The Finnish Digital Kitchen as a language learning environment. In P. Seedhouse (Ed.), Task-based language learning in a real-world digital environment: The European Digital Kitchen (pp. 157–179). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, J., & Burch, A. R. (2017). Collaborative planning in process: An ethnomethodological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 536–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, Y.-A., & Hellermann, J. (2014). Tracing developmental changes through conversation analysis: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 763–788.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Lilja, N., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2019). Connecting the language classroom and the wild: Re-enactments of language use experiences. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 594–623Google Scholar
  41. Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63(3), 629–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mondada, L. (2012). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 32–56). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nguyen, H. T. (2012). Social interaction and competence development: Learning the sequential organization of a communicative practice. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(2), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nguyen, H. T. (2016). Interactional practices across settings: From classroom role plays to workplace patient consultations. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 213–235.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: on language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pekarek Doehler S. & Berger, E. (this volume). On the Reflexive Relation Between Developing L2 Interactional Competence and Evolving Social Relationships: A Longitudinal Study of Word-Searches in the ‘Wild’. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action (pp. 51–75). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–268). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  53. Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rossi, G. (2015). Other-initiated repair in Italian. Open Linguistics, 1, 256–282.  https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Seedhouse, P. (2005). “Task” as research construct. Language Learning, 55, 533–570.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00314.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Seedhouse, P. (Ed.). (2017). Task-based language learning in a real-world digital environment: The European Digital Kitchen. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  60. Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 391–411.  https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.5.391.29489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 82–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Theodórsdóttir, G. (2011a). Second language interaction for business and learning. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. P. Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 93–116). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Theodórsdóttir, G. (2011b). Language learning activities in real-life situations: Insisting on TCU completion in second language talk. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 185–208). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa: National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
  65. Thorne, S. (2013). Language learning, ecological validity and innovation under conditions of superdiversity. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 6(2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thorne, S. L., Hellermann, J., Jones, A., & Lester, D. (2015). Interactional practices and artifact orientation in mobile augmented reality game play. PsychNology Journal, 13(2-3), 259–286.Google Scholar
  67. Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–102). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language and Communication StudiesUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of Information Technology and CommunicationTampere UniversityTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations