Iraqi EFL Learners’ Interactional Competence in Opinion Exchange and Jigsaw Tasks: Face-to-Face Versus Virtual Learning Contexts
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمهKarwan Othman Azeez Zanganah 1 , Elaheh Sadeghi Barzani 2 , Parween Shawkat Kawther Qader 3 , Fatemeh Karimi 4
1 - Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Salahaddin university/ college of Education, Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq
4 - Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
کلید واژه: Interactional competence, virtual learning environment, face-to-face learning environment, opinion exchange, jigsaw,
چکیده مقاله :
This study used opinion exchange and jigsaw activities to assess EFL learners' interactional ability in face-to-face and virtual learning contexts. For this objective, 40 elementary Iraqi EFL learners were convenience sampled and assigned to two groups (face-to-face vs. virtual learning environment) and two task groups (opinion exchange vs. jigsaw activities). ANOVA and MANOVA were used to evaluate Oxford Quick Placement Test, story-telling jigsaw, and opinion-exchange task data. Topic management and interactive listening were the most important factors for Iraqi elementary EFL learners' opinion exchange assignment in face-to-face learning. Topic management was also most important for Iraqi elementary EFL students undertaking the jigsaw activity face-to-face. Jigsaw task performance increased turn and subject management ratings of interactional competence, while opinion exchange task performance increased interactive listening. Topic management was the most influential component for Iraqi elementary EFL learners when doing the opinion exchange and jigsaw tasks in the virtual learning environment. Iraqi elementary EFL learners scored higher in subject, turn management, and interactive listening in the virtual learning environment after the opinion exchange exercise. In conclusion, the virtual learning environment promoted topic management and interactive listening competences in the opinion exchange task, while the face-to-face environment promoted turn management and these skills in the jigsaw task.
This study used opinion exchange and jigsaw activities to assess EFL learners' interactional ability in face-to-face and virtual learning contexts. For this objective, 40 elementary Iraqi EFL learners were convenience sampled and assigned to two groups (face-to-face vs. virtual learning environment) and two task groups (opinion exchange vs. jigsaw activities). ANOVA and MANOVA were used to evaluate Oxford Quick Placement Test, story-telling jigsaw, and opinion-exchange task data. Topic management and interactive listening were the most important factors for Iraqi elementary EFL learners' opinion exchange assignment in face-to-face learning. Topic management was also most important for Iraqi elementary EFL students undertaking the jigsaw activity face-to-face. Jigsaw task performance increased turn and subject management ratings of interactional competence, while opinion exchange task performance increased interactive listening. Topic management was the most influential component for Iraqi elementary EFL learners when doing the opinion exchange and jigsaw tasks in the virtual learning environment. Iraqi elementary EFL learners scored higher in subject, turn management, and interactive listening in the virtual learning environment after the opinion exchange exercise. In conclusion, the virtual learning environment promoted topic management and interactive listening competences in the opinion exchange task, while the face-to-face environment promoted turn management and these skills in the jigsaw task.
Al Ruheili, H., & Al-Saidi A. (2015). Stu-dents’ perceptions on the effective-ness of using Edmodo in EFL Classes. Journal of Global Academic Institute, 1(1), 23-33.
Alhawiti, M. M. F. (2017). The effect of virtual classes on the student’s Eng-lish achievement in Tabuk Communi-ty College. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(5), 17-25.
Al-Qahtani, M. H. (2019). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of virtual clas-ses and the effectiveness of virtual classes in enhancing communication skills. Arab World English Journal, Special Issue: The Dynamics of EFL in Saudi Arabia, 7, 223-240.
Al-Said, K. (2015). Students’ perceptions of Edmodo and mobile learning and their real barriers towards them. The Turkish Online Journal of Education-al Technology, 14(2), 167-180.
Andyani, H., Setyosari, P., Wiyono, B. B., & Djatmika, E. T. (2020). Does tech-nological pedagogical content knowledge impact on the use of ICT in pedagogy? International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(3), 126-139.
Atkinson, D. (2011). Alternative approach-es to second language acquisition. Taylor & Francis.
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action. Cambridge University Press.
Babbie, E. R. (2010). The practice of social research. (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.
Baker, D. A., Burns, D. M., & Reynolds-Kueny, C. (2020). Just sit back and watch: Large disparities between vid-eo and face-to-face interview observ-ers in applicant ratings. International Journal of Human–Computer Interac-tion, 36(4), 1–12.
Balasubramanian, K., Jaykumar V., & Fukey L. N. (2014). A study on “stu-dent preference towards the use of Edmodo as a learning platform to cre-ate responsible learning environ-ment.” Procedia - Social and Behav-ioral Sciences, 144(2014), 416-422.
Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated commu-nication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Be-havior and Human Decision Process-es, 87(1), 156–179.
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy dur-ing online versus face-to-face interac-tive tasks. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 35(4), 689-725.
Bataineh, R. F., & Mayyas, M. B. (2017). The utility of blended learning in EFL reading and grammar: A case for Moodle. Teaching English with Tech-nology, 17(3), 35-49
Bicen, H. (2014). The role of social learning networks in mobile-assisted language learning: Edmodo as a case study. Journal of Universal Computer Sci-ence, 21(10), 1297-1306.
Binder, J. F., Cebula, K., Metwally, S., Vernon, M., Atkin, C., & Mitra, S. (2019). Conversational engagement and mobile technology use. Comput-ers in Human Behavior, 99, 66–75.
Bøhn, H. (2015). Assessing Spoken EFL Without a Common Rating Scale: Norwegian EFL Teachers’ Concep-tions of Construct. SAGE Open, 5(4), 27-36.
Borger, L. (2019). Assessing Interactional Skills in A Paired Speaking Test: Raters’ Interpretation of The Con-struct. Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies, 13(1), 151-174.
Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing, 26, 341-366.
Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). De-velopmental issues in second lan-guage conversation. Journal of Ap-plied Linguistics, 1(1), 29-47.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Educational re-search: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualita-tive research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Dayag, J. (2018). Reaching out: Facilitating EFL learning through Edmodo. Inter-national Journal of Advanced Multi-disciplinary Scientific Research, 1(2), 1-7.
Dimitrova-Galaczi, E. (2004). Peer-peer interaction in a paired speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English. (Doctoral dissertation), Co-lumbia University.
Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). As-sessing paired orals: Raters' orienta-tion to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423-443.
Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversa-tion. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 23(2), 283–292.
Emrani, F., & Hooshmand, M. (2019). A conversation analysis of self-initiated self-repair structures in advanced Ira-nian EFL learners”. International Journal of Language Studies, 13(1), 57-76.
Galaczi, E. D., & Taylor, L. B. (2020). Measuring interactional competence. In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second lan-guage acquisition and language test-ing (pp. 338-348). Routledge.
Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interac-tional competence: Conceptualisa-tions, operationalisations, and out-standing questions. Language As-sessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219-236.
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice. Taylor & Francis.
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 8-11.
Geiger, I. (2020). From letter to Twitter: A systematic review of communication media in negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 29(3), 207–250.
Hamouda, A. (2020). The effect of virtual classes on Saudi EFL students’ speak-ing skills. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Transla-tion, 3(4), 175–204
Herrera Mosquera, L. (2017). Impact of im-plementing a virtual learning envi-ronment (VLE) in the EFL classroom. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 22(3), 479-498.
Jungheim, N. O. (2001). The unspoken el-ement of communicative competence: Evaluating language learners’ nonver-bal behavior. In T. Hudson & J. D. Brown (Eds.), A focus on language test development: Expanding the lan-guage proficiency construct across a variety of tests (pp. 1-34). University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teach-ing and Curriculum Center.
Kear, K. (2007). Communication aspects of virtual learning environments: Per-spectives of early adopters. Retrieved from: http://oro.open.ac.uk/8623/1/KearCommunicationAspects2.pdf
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). 11. Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and re-search. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243–260.
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task com-plexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37(2), 254-268.
Knapp, M.L., & Hall, J.A. (2002). Nonver-bal communication in human interac-tion.Crawfordsville, IN: Thomson Learning.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Pettit, J., Bradley, L., Carvalho, A. A., Herrington, A., Ken-nedy, D. M., & Walker, A. (2011). Mature students using mobile devices in life and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 3(1), 18-52.
Lee, J., & Choi, H. (2017). What affects learner’s higher-order thinking in technology-enhanced learning envi-ronments? The effects of learner fac-tors. Computers & Education, 115, 143–152.
Levinson, S. C., & Holler, J. (2014). The origin of human multi-modal com-munication. Philosophical Transac-tions of the Royal Society, 369(1651), 20130302.
Liu, L. (2022). Interactional features of Chines EFL learners' discourse in a paired speaking test: implications for L2 teaching and testing (Doctoral dis-sertation), Macquarie University.
MacKey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
Martin, F., Stamper, B., & Flowers, C. (2020). Examining student perception of their readiness for online learning: Importance and confidence. Online Learning, 24(2), 38-58.
Mathew, N. G., Sreehari, P., & Al-Rubaat, A. M. (2019). Challenges and impli-cations of virtual e-learning platform in EFL context: Perceptions of teach-ers. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 100–116.
May, L. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language Assessment Quar-terly, 8(2), 127–145.
McCarthy, M. (2002). Good listenership made plain: British and American non-minimal response tokens in eve-ryday conversation. In R. Reppen, S.M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 49–72). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mensah, R. O., Quansah, C., Oteng, B., & Nii Akai Nettey, J. (2023). Assessing the effect of information and com-munication technology usage on high school student’s academic perfor-mance in a developing country. Co-gent Education, 10(1), 1–16.
Meredith, J. (2020). Conversation analysis, cyberpsychology and online interac-tion. Social and Personality Psychol-ogy Compass, 14, Article e12529.
Milis, K., Wessa, P., Poelmans, S., Doom, C., & Bloemen, E. (2008). The impact of gender on the acceptance of virtual learning environments. KU Leuven Association.
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multi-modality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Socio-linguistics, 20(3), 336–366.
Morales, M. C., & Lee, J. S. (2015). Stories of assessment: Spanish-English bilin-gual children's agency and interac-tional competence in oral language assessments. Linguistics and Educa-tion, 29, 32-45.
Muijs, D. (2010). Doing quantitative re-search in education with SPSS. (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Mukasheva, M., Kornilov, I., Beisembayev, G., Soroko, N., Sarsimbayeva, S., & Omirzakova, A. (2023). Contextual structure as an approach to the study of virtual reality learning environ-ment. Cogent Education, 10(1), 1–22.
Nayak, D. (2021). E – learning during COVID -19 and student’ s satisfac-tion. Education, 4, 287–299.
Nisa, L. Z., Prameswari, T. N., & Alawiyah, Y. I. (2021). The effect of using small group discussions through zoom breakout room to increase the fre-quency of individual speaking partic-ipation in the speaking courses. Jour-nal of Digital Learning and Educa-tion, 1(3), 109-117.
Nordquist, R. (2019). The cooperative prin-ciple in conversation. ThoughtCo.
O’Leary, R. (2004). Virtual learning envi-ronment. Retrieved from: https://www.alt.ac.uk/sites/default/files/assets_editor_uploads/documents/eln002pdf.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 inter-actional competence: evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence or-ganization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Ca-dierno, & W. S. Eskildsen, (Eds.), Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp. 233–268). De Gruyter.
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-Based Virtual Learning Envi-ronment: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effective-ness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426.
Raman, A., & Rathakrishnan, M. (2018). FROG VLE: Teachers’ technology acceptance using utaut model. Inter-national Journal of Mechanical En-gineering and Technology, 9(3), 529–538.
Ramirez, A., Jr., & Burgoon, J. K. (2004). The effect of interactivity on initial interactions: The influence of infor-mation valence and modality and in-formation richness on computer-mediated interaction. Communication Monographs, 71(4), 422–447.
Rashid, A. H. A., Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., & Na, K. S. (2021). Teachers’ percep-tions and readiness toward the im-plementation of virtual learning envi-ronment. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Educa-tion (IJERE), 10(1), 209–214
Rusk, F., & Pörn, M. (2019). Delay in L2 interaction in video-mediated envi-ronments in the context of virtual tandem language learning. Linguistics and Education, 50, 56–70.
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9(2-3), 111-151.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of re-pair in conversation. Language, 53(ii), 361-382.
Seuren, L. M., Wherton, J., Greenhalgh, T., & Shaw, S. E. (2021). Whose turn is it anyway? Latency and the organiza-tion of turn-taking in video-mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 172(4), 63–78.
Syukur, H. (2016). Building up students’ speaking achievement through jigsaw technique. Journal Adabiyah, 16(2), 122-137.
Tuzlukova, V., Al Busaidi, S., Coombe, C. & Stojkovic N. (2016). Research on technology-based language education in the Sultanate of Oman: Perspec-tives for student skills’ enhancement. Journal of Teaching English for Spe-cific and Academic Purposes, 4(1), 1-8.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Mis-communication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in society, 14(3), 327-343.
Wahjono, H., Wiyono, B. B., Maisyaroh, & Mustiningsih. (2021). Development of blended-learning-based semester credit system implementation model to improve learning service. Infor-mation, 12(12), 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12120511
Wang, L. (2015). Assessing interactional competence in second language paired speaking tasks. (Doctoral Dis-sertation), Northern Arizona Universi-ty.
Waring, H. Z. (2018). Teaching L2 interac-tional competence: Problems and pos-sibilities. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 57-67.
Warner, R. (2013). Personal and profes-sional skills of TESOL practitioners of the future. In P. Davidson, M. Al Hamly, C. Coombe, S. Troudi & C. Gunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th TESOL Arabia conference: Achieving Excellence through Life Skills Educa-tion (pp. 22-28). Dubai: TESOL Ara-bia.
Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for understanding: The key role of col-laborative knowledge building. Ad-vances in Research on Teaching, 9, 1-42.
Wilson, M., & Wilson, T. P. (2005). An os-cillator model of the timing of turn-taking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Re-view, 12(6), 957–968.
Yildiz, L. M. (2011). English VG1 level oral examinations: how are they designed, conducted and assessed? (Master's thesis), Universitetet i Oslo.
Zhu, M. X., Yan, X. L., & Yuan, Q. J. (2018). A review of researches based on media richness theory in MIS dis-cipline. Journal of Modern Infor-mation, 38(09), 146–154
