SLAT7809 Discourse Analysis Project
Title
Commented [PM1]: Give your report a title
Introduction
Second language acquisition (SLA) research on students’ collaborative work in group
activities has demonstrated positive effects in language learning as interaction provides
learners with the opportunity to solve linguistic problems and co-construction knowledge
(Swain & Watanabe, 2012). However, research on the influences of gender in classroombased interactions has not been investigated in depth (Azkarai, 2015). Therefore, this paper
will address the relationship between students’ gender and their conversational interactions
and explore whether different communicative tasks affect the number of language-related
episodes (LREs) produced. By partially replicating Azkari and García-Mayo’s (2012) work
on gender influences on interactive tasks and LREs, this study will analyse small segments of
a social interaction between two Japanese ESL students during two different types of
communicative tasks. The results of this study will then be compared with the results of
Azkari and García-Mayo’s study to find differences and similarities in the participants’
communicative patterns in LRE production. Although the context is limited to two
participants, this research aims to apply the methods in Azkari and García-Mayo’s work to
discover outcomes which may complement the findings of their original study.
Literature review
A language-related episode (LRE) is any part of a dialogue where language learners
‘talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct
themselves or others’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p. 326). Based on the Interaction Hypothesis
(Long, 1996), LREs are used in classroom research as a unit of analysis in learners’ language
output, and demonstrates how producing the language in collaborative activities may offer
the learners to notice grammatical features (Jackson, 2001). Because LREs are considered to
Commented [PM2]:
be the site where L2 learning occurs (Swain & Lapkin, 2002), many researchers have been
challenged to find the relationship between students’ LRE production in learner-learner
interaction and language development. As an example, in García-Mayoayo and Zeitler’s
(2017) research, they investigated the benefits of collaborative writing tasks and figured out
that working on writing tasks in groups promoted students’ production of LREs and resulted
in a higher percentage of correctly resolved LREs. Similarly, Fernández Dobao’s (2014)
study compares the learning outcomes between group and pair work in vocabulary learning
and found that students working in groups were able to produce more lexical LREs which
resulted in a higher retention rate of lexical knowledge than those who worked in pairs.
Research in LREs have also been interested in investigating various types of feedback
provoked by learner-learner interactions. For example, in Renner (2017) study which
investigates LRE occurrences in an audio-based Chinese-German eTandum context, she finds
that learners benefit from their partner’s corrective feedback when error-related LREs are
produced in areas such as lexis, grammar and pragmatics. Moreover, Ewald (2005) explores
students’ interaction in a collaborative assessment context and finds that the occurrences of
LRE during group grading promote scaffolding and provide the opportunity for students to
receive feedback from their peers. Thus, she concludes that collaborative assessments are
necessary to co-construct knowledge through LRE interactions and to afford students
scaffolded assistance and feedback opportunities.
Overall, the role of conversational interaction and peer/group collaboration is vital in
L2 development because it encourages students to pool their various linguistic resources to
achieve a level of performance that is beyond their individual level of competence when
working collaboratively. Studies that analyse LREs in students’ collaborative dialogue
demonstrate that LREs represent language learning in progress and show evidence that
learners can solve their language-related problems and co-construct new knowledge through
communicative activities (Swain & Lapkin, 2001). Moreover, studies in LREs have also been
interested in finding the variables and conditions which may affect the frequency of students’
LRE production and subsequent L2 learning. Some of the variables under investigation are
the learners’ sociocultural and individual factors such as learners’ proficiency level (Leeser,
2004), the level of engagement (Storch, 2008), as well as the influences of different task
types (Nassaji & Jun Tian, 2010). Since the occurrences of LREs are considered to be
directly related to language learning, these variables and conditions are crucial aspects in
SLA research and further investigation is needed to expand the potentials of collaborative
learning processes (Fortune & Thorp, 2001).
Research Questions
Although extensive research has been done in exploring the individual variables that
impact LRE production in interactive tasks, only a few have been done in finding how
learners’ gender play a role in producing LREs (Azkarai & García-Mayo, 2012). Because
research has evidenced that the communicative patterns differ between male and female
(Tannen, 1990), the study in gender differences is an important theme in SLA to reveal
whether gender affects LRE occurrences during collaborative activities. Therefore, this paper
aims to fill the gap in the research of gender and LRE production influenced by Azkarai and
García-Mayo’s (2012) research on gender differences in task performance and LREs. In their
study, they examined twelve Spanish-Basque bilinguals (6 males and 6 females) from the
University of Basque country, and the students were put in mixed and matched gender dyads
in different communicative tasks to see how the type of dyad influences LRE production.
Further, they aim to figure out whether the different types of tasks (picture differences,
picture placement, picture story, and dictoglosses) affect the degree of LRE production. The
findings in their research revealed that there were no significant gaps in the LRE generated
by the difference gender dyads but showed a significant task effect in the production of
LREs. They explain that the type of task which the participants engaged in affected the
production of LREs as students produced LREs the most in the picture story task followed by
the picture placement task and the picture difference task. Finally, their research reveals that
most of the LREs produced were resolved in a target-like manner especially when the mixed
gender dyads worked on the picture story task whereas all of the dyads had difficulties in
resolving the LREs in the picture difference task.
Overall, by replicating some aspects of Azkarai and García-Mayo’s (2012) research,
this paper aims to answer the following questions:
1. Does gender difference influence the initiation of LREs?
2. Does the picture story task (task 1) generate the most LREs comparing to the picture
difference task (task 2)?
3. Are the LREs resolved in a target-like manner the most when the mixed dyad work on
the picture story task?
This paper thus seeks to find similarities/differences in the outcomes of Azkarai and
García-Mayo’s (2012) research by answering the above questions. In particular, this paper
will examine two Japanese ESL learners (Daiki; male and Naomi; female) with similar
English proficiency (higher intermediate level). They are both exchange students from Jochi
(Sophia) University in Tokyo, Japan and study at the University of Queensland for a shortterm intensive English program. Additionally, they both claim to be highly motivatedproactive English learners that are willing to improve their English skills to expand their
career options after graduation. Although each student has identical characteristics, the study
hypothesises that Daiki will initiate more LREs than Naomi due to the cultural aspects.
Commented [PM3]: You don’t need to answer all RQs
from the original study. You can just choose 1.
Moreover, the study will focus on two task-based activities; the picture story task
(task 1) and the picture different task (task 2) from Azkarai and García-Mayo’s (2012)
research, and the collaborative work between Daiki and Naomi will be voice-recorded. Daiki
and Naomi’s initiation of LREs will be counted during the activities and some of the
interactions involving LREs will then be transcribed for data collection and analysis. The
task-based activities are then followed by an interview to find the students’ insights into
carrying out the two different tasks types. The follow-up interview is an important
component of this research to capture the participants’ opinions as Azkarai and GarcíaMayo’s (2012) point out that the absence of this procedure of one of their limitations in their
study.
Findings and discussion
This research aimed to answer three questions: 1. Whether gender influences LRE
initiation, 2. Whether picture story tasks produce more LREs than picture difference tasks,
and 3. To what extent LREs were resolved in a target-like manner. The results indicated that
there were no significant differences between LREs initiated by male and female, the number
of LRE production in the picture story task was slightly more than those in the picture
difference task, and most of the LREs were resolved in a target-like manner for both tasks.
In regards to the first question, Daiki and Naomi tended to initiate a similar amount of
LREs in both communicative tasks (Daiki=2 Naomi=3 in task 1, and Daiki=1 Naomi=2 in
task 2), although Naomi produced slightly more. Generally speaking, in Japanese culture,
females are considered to behave modestly and usually tend to be more passive in
educational settings than males. However, Naomi contributed in initiating more LREs than
Daiki did in both tasks and as a result, this example did not support the study’s initial
hypothesis which stated that Daiki will be more likely to initiate more LREs than Naomi.
Commented [PM4]:
This may be the case because of Naomi’s high English proficiency and her strong motivation
in studying English. Because she mentioned in the follow-up interview that she has
confidence in her English abilities, her confidence in English may have led to greater
engagement in LRE production. Hence, although gender differences did not significantly
affect the amount of LRE production, Naomi showed to generate slightly more LREs than
Daiki. Excerpt 1 and 2 illustrate Naomi’s LRE initiation in both tasks.
Excerpt 1. Example of Naomi’s self-initiated, self-resolved LRE
Task 1. (version A: Two travellers who accidentally switch luggage)
1. Naomi: What is… ‘mawaruyatsu’ called? Tashika baggage…something. (What is the
‘rotating thing’ called? I remember it’s baggage…something)
2. Daiki: umm… belt conveyor maybe?
3. Naomi: Demo kūkō de sore tsukau? (But do you use that word at the airport?)
4. Daiki: umm… tashikani…(You’re right…)
5. Naomi: Ah! Bagēgi kāsoru jyanai? (Isn’t it called baggage carousel?)
6. Daiki: Sore kītakoto aru! (I’ve heard that before!)
Excerpt 2. Example of Naomi’s LRE initiation and Daiki’s resolution
Task 2. (Predicting Daiki’s version B picture which shows people on a beach)
1. Naomi: Is the location outside?
2. Daiki: Yes.
3. Naomi: Does the picture have animals… at? in? a zoo? Are docchi dakke? (which is
correct?)
4. Daiki: In ga motto shizen ni kikoeru. (In sounds more natural)
5. Naomi: Wakannai…Doubutsu to ningen kankei aru? (Not sure…Does animals or
human matter?)
6. Daiki: Tabun docchi demo daijōbu. Depends on situation, maybe. (I think both are
ok)
The second question sought to answer whether the task type influences the initiation
of LREs. The data revealed that there was a minor difference between the 2 task types (Task
1=5, Task 2=3) which was in line with Azkarai and García-Mayo’s study. A plausible
explanation for the different outcomes could be based on the nature of the two tasks as task 2
is an information-gap task (picture differences) whereas task 1 (picture story) is a
collaborative task which involved not only conversational interaction with a specific goal but
also the production of a written text co-constructed by the two members of the dyad. In the
picture story task, the learners were required to work together to arrange 8 pictures in the
correct order to tell a story and then to write a story. To complete this task, Daiki and Naomi
were required to collaborate in a two-way manner to achieve a single task outcome. In the
picture difference task, learners’ needed to work together to guess what kind of picture their
partner had by asking questions and providing hints. Similar to task 1, task 2 required a twoway interaction to reach a common goal but the primary focus was on filling the
informational gap, rather than working on the task collaboratively. Although task 2 does
require students’ interaction to some extent, it does not require a high degree of collaboration
between the two students to complete the task. The fundamental differences of the task
orientation could be one of the reasons why LREs production seemed to be task-dependent.
The students’ thoughts on task differences are illustrated in Excerpt 4.
Excerpt 4. Daiki and Naomi’s thoughts on task type
Daiki: ‘Tasuku 1 ha futaride raitingu shinaito ikenaikara motto yaritoriga fueta to
omoimasu.’
(Task 1 had a writing part with my partner which I think made the task more
collaborative.)
Naomi: ‘Tasuku 2 ha aiteni shitsumon dikirukedo kihon jibunde kangaenaito ikenai kara
aitetono yaritori ga herunndato omoimasu.’
(I think even though you can ask questions to your partner in task 2, the task
basically needs to be carried out by yourself so it makes less collaborative.)
The third questions focused on the resolution of the LREs; that is, to find whether the
LREs produced were resolved or not and if resolved, to what extent were they resolved in a
target-like manner. Across the two tasks, there were a total of 8 incidents of LREs which 6 of
them were resolved in a target-like manner, and 2 were not resolved (Excerpt 5). Regarding
the task types, all of the LREs in task 1 were resolved correctly whereas in task 2, only 1 out
of 3 was resolved. This result was also in line with Azkarai and García-Mayo’s study which
showed that most of the LREs were not resolved in the picture difference task. The results
suggest that Daiki and Naomi might have faced difficulties in resolving LREs in task 2 than
task 1. In the interview, Daiki expresses his difficulties in carrying out task 2 because of his
vocabulary-related issues which hindered the communication flow (Excerpt 6). Because a
wide range of vocabulary is needed to predict the opponents’ picture in task 2, the research
speculates that the task type influenced the resolution rate of the LREs produced.
Excerpt 5. An example of an unresolved LREs in task 2 (Daiki predicting Naomi’s picture
which illustrates people in the park)
1. Daiki: Are the people sitting on a bench?
2. Naomi: Some people are.
3. Daiki: Are there any children playing on…Are nandakke? Yūgu tte Eigo de nante
iukke? (Umm..what is it called? What do you call ‘yūgu=playground equipments’ in
English?
4. Naomi: No idea…
5. Daiki: Gym..something?
6. Naomi: Swing toka slide ga aru toko desho? Sōshō tte aruno kana? (The things with
swings and slide right? Is there a generic term for them?)
7. Daiki: Wakaran…anyway, hokano shitsumon surune (I don’t know…anyway, I will
ask you something else.)
Excerpt 6. Daiki’s insight into task 2
Daiki: ‘Shashin aterutameno tango wo kangaerunoga muzukashikatta desu. Goi ryoku ga
hitsuyou na tasuku dato kangimashita.’
(It was challenging to come up with the words to predict the picture. I thought that
vocabulary skills are important for this task.)
Conclusion
This research sought to compare the outcomes of Azkarai and García-Mayo’s (2012)
original work to find differences and similarities in a different context. The findings were in
line with those reported by the original research which showed that gender was not a
significant factor in LRE production, and the initiation of LREs were task-dependent. The
results of the third question were also in line with the original research as most of the LREs
were resolved in a target-like manner. Nevertheless, because this study is limited to two
participants with a similar English proficiency and cultural background, the results are most
likely to vary when applied to a greater number of participants with various types of variables
that may affect the production of LREs. As an example, the use of the learners’ L1 is another
source of variability in learner-learner interaction and LRE production (Moore, 2012).
Indeed, the examples provided in this research mostly involves the students’ use of their L1
during their interactions to solve linguistic difficulties. Thus, further research which
compares a robust number of participants with various types of communicative tasks as well
as focusing on different types of variables are necessary to provide clearer evidence of the
role of gender in LRE production.
(2312 words)
Commented [PM5]: Please include the word count
Commented [PM6]:
References
Commented [PM7]: Are the references all correct?
Are they all “good” references? What is a good reference?
Azkarai, A. (2015). Males and females in EFL task-based interaction: does gender have an
impact on LREs? 27.
Azkarai, A., & María del Pilar, García-Mayo. (n.d.). Does gender influence task performance
in EFL? Interactive tasks and language related episodes. 31.
Dobao, A. F. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and
small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497–520.
Ewald, J. (2005). Language-Related Episodes in an Assessment Context: A ‘Small-Group
Quiz’. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(4), 565–586.
Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing
group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58.
Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and Entangled: New Light on the Identification,
Classification and Value of Language Related Episodes in Collaborative Output Tasks.
Language Awareness, 10(2–3), 143–160.
Garcia Mayo, M. del P., & Zeitler, N. (2017). Lexical language-related episodes in pair and
small group work. International Journal of English Studies, 17(1), 61.
Jackson, D. (2001). Key concepts in ELT. Language-related episodes. ELT Journal, 55(3),
298–299.
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue.
Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81
Long, M.H. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds), Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition, New York: Academic Press.
Moore, P. J. (2012). Chapter 8. Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based
EFL classroom. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-Based Language
Teaching (Vol. 4, pp. 163–186).
Nassaji, H., & Jun Tian. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on
learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397–419.
Renner, J. (2017). Negotiation of meaning and language-related episodes in synchronous,
audio-based Chinese-German eTandem. Language Learning in Higher Education, 7(1).
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a Pair Work Activity: Level of Engagement and Implications
for Language Development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95. doi: 10.2167/la431.0
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring
task effects. 20.
Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task
effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds), Researching pedagogic tasks:
Second Language Learning, Teaching and Assessment, London, UK: Pearson Education.
Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2012). Languaging: Collaborative Dialogue as a Source of
Second Language Learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics (p. wbeal0664).
Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best
friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 73–90.
Appendix
Commented [PM8]: Please include the task you used in the
appendix
SLAT7809 DA Project Marking Rubric 2020
Content (i)
Intro,
Literature
review, RQs
& methods
(20%)
Content (ii)
Results,
discussion
and
conclusion
(40%)
Exceptional
Advanced
Proficient
Functional
Developing
Minimal
The aims and scope of
the study are extremely
clear. The brief
literature review has
covered the area of
study thoroughly with
up to date and seminal
references, and shows a
very high level of
understanding and
critique. The RQs and
methodology, including
the focal task, are
clearly explained with a
high level of criticality.
The analysis has been
done clearly and
incisively, including
high level analysis of
original data The
discussion has been
written with flair and
thoroughly explains the
research findings in
comparison with the
original study, showing
evidence of enhanced
understanding.
Thoughtful and useful
conclusions have been
drawn, showing some
originality.
The aims and scope of
the study are very clear.
The brief literature
review has covered the
area of study thoroughly
with up to date and
seminal references, and
shows a high level of
understanding and
critique. The RQs and
methodology, including
the focal task, are very
clearly explained with a
good level of criticality.
The aims and scope of
the study are clear. The
brief literature review
has covered the area of
study well with up to
date and seminal
references, and shows a
good level of
understanding and
critique. The RQs and
methodology, including
the focal task, are
clearly explained with a
good level of criticality.
The aims and scope of
the study are clear. The
brief literature review
has covered the area of
study with references,
and shows a satisfactory
level of understanding
and critique. The RQs
and methodology,
including the focal task,
are explained with some
criticality.
The aims and scope of
the study are unclear.
The brief literature
review has covered the
area of study with
limited references, and
shows a limited level of
understanding and
critique. The RQs and
methodology, including
the focal task, are not
adequately explained.
The aims and scope of
the study are poorly
explained. The brief
literature review has not
covered the area of
study well, or has
limited references, or
shows a poor level of
understanding and
critique. The RQs and
methodology, including
the focal task, are not
explained.
The analysis is thorough
and well written and
shows signs of enhanced
understanding. The
discussion is very clear
and clearly explains the
research findings in
comparison with the
original study, showing
evidence of a high level
of understanding. The
conclusions are
appropriate to the
research findings and
cogently presented.
The analysis of the
findings is good, but
fails to reveal deeper
levels of understanding.
The discussion is clear
and explains the
research findings in
comparison with the
original study, showing
evidence of a good level
of understanding. The
conclusion is good,
showing a clear
understanding of the
implications of the
findings.
The analysis of the
findings is just adequate,
but its outcomes are
modest. The discussion
explains the research
findings in comparison
with the original study,
showing some evidence
of understanding. The
conclusion is
satisfactory, but lacks
depth and understanding
of the findings.
The analysis of the
findings is inadequate,
as are its outcomes. The
discussion does not
clearly explain the
research findings in
comparison with the
original study, or shows
gaps in
understanding. The
conclusion is overly
simple.
The analysis of the
findings is poor, as are
its outcomes. The
discussion does not
explain the research
findings in comparison
with the original
study. The conclusion is
poor or missing.
Communica
tion
(20%)
Presentation
(20%)
Academic writing is
excellent, including a
clearly coherent
structure and excellent
use of cohesive devices
to structure the
argument. No noticeable
errors in syntax,
vocabulary (including
lapses of academic tone)
or spelling.
The writing is properly
formatted and
referenced, with
attention to detail,
following APA
guidelines. Presentation
is excellent.
Academic writing is
very good, including
well-structured
sentences, with few
errors of syntax,
vocabulary or spelling.
Academic writing is
good, including wellstructured sentences,
with some errors of
syntax, vocabulary or
spelling.
Academic writing is
acceptable, with
generally wellstructured sentences, but
there may be some
intrusive errors of
syntax, vocabulary or
spelling.
Academic writing is
ineffective with
intrusive errors of
syntax, vocabulary or
spelling.
Academic writing is
poor.
The writing is properly
formatted and
referenced, following
APA guidelines, with
few if any mistakes or
missing components.
Presentation is very
good.
The writing is generally
properly formatted and
referenced, following
APA guidelines, with
some errors or missing
components.
Presentation is good.
APA formatting is
followed, but with
errors. Referencing is
adequate but restricted.
Presentation is
satisfactory.
Formatting and
referencing are
inconsistent and/or
inadequate. Presentation
is unsatisfactory.
Poor formatting and
presentation.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment