Park2018a

From emcawiki
Revision as of 02:26, 1 August 2018 by ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Yujong Park |Title=Task-in-process During Information-gap Activities in Korean Middle School English Classrooms |Tag(s)=EMCA; Korean; L2...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Park2018a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Park2018a
Author(s) Yujong Park
Title Task-in-process During Information-gap Activities in Korean Middle School English Classrooms
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Korean, L2, Task-based learning
Publisher
Year 2018
Language English
City
Month
Journal English Teaching
Volume 73
Number 2
Pages 59-86
URL Link
DOI
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

A growing number of task-based learning (TBL) research has employed a process-oriented research framework to analyze second language data in L2 classrooms using a task-in-process vs. task-as-workplan dichotomy (e.g., Seedhouse, 2004). Adopting the task-in-process framework, the current study analyzes how students in Korean EFL classrooms interact during information gap task activities. How do sequences of interaction during information gap tasks differ from the task-as-workplan? What are the specific institutional goals that the participants orient to while completing these tasks? This article attempts to answer these questions by analyzing the interactions that occur during a series of information gap tasks performed by different groups of Korean middle school students. The findings show how information gap tasks create minimized and truncated sequences that are different from the task-as-workplan as well as from how people would interact in ordinary conversation. Rather than promoting more talk by engaging in negotiation of meaning, learners engaged in a series of completion-oriented sequences to find the correct response in the most efficient way possible. The paper ends with suggestions for improving the design of tasks in pedagogical settings.

Notes