Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:33:40.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INFORMATION GAP TASKS: Their Multiple Roles and Contributions to Interaction Research Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2006

Teresa Pica ,
Hyun-Sook Kang  and
Shannon Sauro
Teresa Pica
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Hyun-Sook Kang
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Shannon Sauro
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes how information gap tasks can be designed as instruments for data collection and analysis and as treatments in interaction research. The development of such tasks is illustrated and data are presented on their role in drawing learners' attention to second language (L2) forms that are difficult to notice through classroom discussion alone. Because the tasks presented here are closed-ended and precision oriented and require the exchange of uniquely held information, they promote modified interaction among participants and orient their attention to form, function, and meaning. These processes can be observed by the researcher during task implementation. Thus, the tasks reduce researcher dependence on externally applied treatments and analytical instruments not integral to the interaction itself. To illustrate this methodology in use, we report on a study in which six pairs of intermediate-level English L2 learners carried out three types of information gap tasks in their classrooms. They first read passages on familiar topics, whose sentences contained L2 forms that were low in salience and difficult to master but developmentally appropriate. To complete the tasks, the learners were required to identify, recall, and compare the forms, their functions, and their meanings. Data revealed close relationships among learners' attentional processes, their recall of form, function, and meaning, and the interactional processes that supported their efforts.In carrying out the design and implementation of the tasks in this article, we have worked most closely with Kristine Billmyer and MaryAnn Julian, and also Jin Ahn, Marni Baker-Stein, Mara Blake-Ward, Lyn Buchheit, Junko Hondo, Sharon Nicolary, and Jack Sullivan. Among the many graduate students who have provided assistance are Vivian Chen, Yao Chen, Yi-Chen Chen, Cathy Fillman, Leslie Harsch, Hanae Katayana, Ji Hwan Kim, Atsuko Matsui, Lisa Mullen, Amy Nichols, Matthew Salvatore, Margaret Skaarup, Lauren Smith, Cheng-Chen Tseng, Debbie Tsui, Melissa Yi, Wei-Chieh Yu, and Mira Yun.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 301 - 338
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anger, L., Fuchs, M., Pavlick, C., & Segal, M. (1988). On your way: Building basic skills in English. London: Longman.
Boyd-Kletzander, R. (2000). Student responsibility in a whole language classroom (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 2279.Google Scholar
Brenner, P. (n.d.). [Review of the motion picture Philadelphia]. All movie guide. Retrieved March 16, 2003, from http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:119903
Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K. (Eds.). (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrnes, H. (2000). Meaning and form in classroom-based SLA research: Reflections from a college foreign language perspective. In J. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 125–182). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Crookes, G., & Rulon, K. A. (1988). Topic and feedback in native speaker/non-native speaker conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 675–681.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.
Demme, J. (Director). (1993). Philadelphia [Motion picture]. United States: Columbia.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Conditions, compensation and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–325.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147–181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ebert, R. (1990). Roger Ebert's movie home companion. Kansas City, MO: Andrews and McMeel.
Ellis, J. (n.d.). Philadelphia: An Illusion review by Joan Ellis [Review of the motion picture Philadelphia]. Retrieved March 16, 2003, from http://www.joanellis.com/reviews/PHILADELPHIA.htm
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323–351.Google Scholar
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation of meaning. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 141–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–301.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and second language acquisition in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–260.Google Scholar
Harmer, J., & Surguine, H. (1987). Coast to coast. London: Longman.
Hicks, C. (1994). [Review of the motion picture Philadelphia]. Deseretnews.com. Retrieved March 16, 2003, from http://deseretnews.com/movies/view/1,1257,1425,00.html
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.Google Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.Google Scholar
Kang, H. (2006). Negative evidence: Its timing, explicitness and linguistic focus as factors in second language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation in preparation, University of Pennsylvania.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77 (pp. 144–158). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Krashen, S., & Seliger, H. (1975). The essential characteristics of formal instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 173–183.Google Scholar
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–64.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (1997). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467–505.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (Rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 5082.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Creating structure-based communication tasks for second language development. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–588.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & McDonough, K. (2000). Communicative tasks, conversational interaction and linguistic form: An empirical study of Thai. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 82–91.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.Google Scholar
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interactions: A case study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 43–63.Google Scholar
Newton, J., & Kennedy, G. (1996). Effects of communication tasks on the grammatical relations marked by second language learners. System, 24, 309–322.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–482.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1–25.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1991). Classroom interaction, participation, and negotiation: Redefining relationships. System, 19, 437–452.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 49–79.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2001). The content based curriculum: Does it provide an optimal or optional approach to language learning? In W. Renandya & N. Sunga (Eds.), Language curriculum and instruction in multicultural societies (pp. 145–174). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 85, 1–19.Google Scholar
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985a). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115–132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985b). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233–248.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., Berducci, D., & Newman, J. (1991). Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 343–376.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners' interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.Google Scholar
Pica, T., & Washburn, G. (2003). Negative evidence in language classroom activities: A study of its availability and accessibility to language learners. ITL Journal of Applied Linguistics, 141, 301–344.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Washburn, G., Evans, B., & Jo, V. (1998, January). Negative feedback in content-based second language classroom interaction: How does it contribute to second language learning? Paper presented at the Annual Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Tokyo, Japan.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1981). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214.Google Scholar
Plough, I., & Gass, S. M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Renshaw, S. (1994). [Review of the motion picture Philadelphia]. Retrieved January 21, 2005 from http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/click/author372/reviews.php?cats=&letter=p&sortb=movie&page=5&rid=768413
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rosa, E., & O'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece of the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Shah, I. (1999). The sheltered classroom as an environment for second language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 961.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition and the classroom (pp. 91–103). Lexington, MA: Heath.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). London: Longman.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.Google Scholar
Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversation: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 71–90.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.Google Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). Which kind of focus on which kind of forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.Google Scholar