when I speak English, I feel
Level 4 Ben proposes that Martin tell him whether or not he liked the film
4) Further techniques:
8.4 Results and discussion
The following sections contain the results of the investigations and the discussion of the results.
Section 8.4.1 will present the frequency of the different grounding techniques the participants used in the chat dialogues, and the results will be discussed. Section 8.4.2 will chart the distribution of the use of grounding techniques between the beginning and the end of the project.
8.4.1 Grounding techniques used in the chats
Research question 4 a) addressed the process of achieving common ground in the role-play chats of the EFL learners. In order to get a general picture of the grounding process in the chat logs, we calculated the mean occurrence of each technique per chat log in the role-play tasks. The results are given in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3 Mean frequencies of the grounding techniques
Type of grounding technique Mean frequency per chat log (1) side-sequences related to the form of the contribution
1 self-correction 1.94
2 self-translation 0.22
3 other-help 0.78
4 other-correction 0.33
5 other-language 0.72
6 ask for help 0.17
7 explicit question about word 0.67
Mean total form 4.83
(2) side-sequences related to the content of the contribution 8 comment on language 0.89
9 question about content 0.94
10 self-expansion 0.05
11 checking understanding 0.33
12 constituent query 0.28
Mean total content 2.49
Online chat in the secondary school EFL class Chapter 4 Research Methodology
(3) techniques of acknowledgement 13 concluded contribution 3.33 14 continuing contribution 0.67 Mean total acknowledgement 4.00
(4) further techniques related to task or medium
15 task 2.05
16 joke/playful language 1.22
17 emotion 1.83
18 sign 2.38
Mean total further techniques 7.48 Overall mean use of grounding
techniques
18.8
As we can see in Table 8.3, the learners used an average of 18.8 grounding techniques per chat log.
Given the fact that the chats consisted of an average number of 55.5 turns, the proportion of side sequences in their communication is considerable. If we compare the four different categories of grounding techniques, the high proportion of techniques related to the chat medium and the task (7.48 = 40%) is remarkable.
The most marked result is thus that most of the grounding techniques addressed the specificity of the task and the medium. This suggests that chat communication within the framework of a specific task demands considerable extra effort from the learners if they want to ensure successful
communication in chat. Furthermore, the form of the utterances also necessitates a considerable amount of grounding. This confirmed the hypothesis in which we stated that learners would make an effort to ground what they have to say. Besides, a considerable number of techniques aim at correcting the message the participant themselves produced. Techniques like self-correction and self-translation are often initiated because the speaker anticipates a problem that their partner will have. These instances clearly illustrate the collaborative attitude of the chatters, and the attempts they made to add to their common ground at the level of form as well.
As for acknowledgement, this technique is about as frequent as form-grounding, but within this category, the most striking result is the number of concluded contributions. This number is 5 times the number of continuing contributions. This is probably an effect of the medium. The time interval between each turn or reaction does not only create overlap between the turns, but also renders more or less pointless the supporting of one’s partner in communication by means of continuing
contributions. This property of chat most likely accounts for the difference in frequency between the two techniques.
8.4.2 Longitudinal changes
The change in grounding techniques in the chat logs was investigated using a pre- and post-test design. In order to gain insight into the longitudinal changes in grounding behavior in the texts, the chats produced at the beginning of the project were compared to those at the end. The analyses dealt with two groups of texts: the first two (1,2) and the last two role-play sessions (5,6) of the project (see Table 8.1). The reason for the selection was that on these four occasions, all of the participants worked in dyads.
Table 8.4 shows the mean frequency of the individual grounding techniques of the two text groups.
Sessions 1 and 2 are treated as measurements at the beginning (Moment 1), and were aggregated.
Sessions 5 and 6 were treated as measurements at the end of the project (Moment 2), and were also aggregated. The difference between the occurrences of the beginning and the end sessions were tested by t-tests for independent samples. Although the same students participated in the beginning
and the end sessions, the composition of the participants within each chat varied, thus making it impossible to treat the contributions of the learners in the chat-units as pure repeated measures.
As the figures in Table 8.4 show, grounding intensity decreased significantly for the form- and task- and chat medium-related techniques categories. The mean use of content and
acknowledgment techniques also decreased, but not significantly. If all types of grounding techniques are taken together, the decrease is again significant.
Table 8.4 The mean frequency of the individual grounding techniques Type of
grounding technique
X- frequency Moment 1
X-frequency Moment 2
t-value (df=12) p-value
n-chat logs 6 8
X-words 640 450
Form 7.3 3.0 2.37 0.035
1 Self-correction 3.33 1.13* 2.23 0.045
2 Self-translation 0.5 0 1.17 n.s.
3 Other-help 1 0.38 1.27 n.s
4 Other-correction
0.33 0.38 -0.15 n.s
5 Other-language
0.83 1 -0.22 n.s
6 Ask for help 0.17 0.13 0.20 n.s.
7 Explicit question about word
1.17 0 3.40 0.005
Content 3.7 2.0 0.93 n.s
8 Comment on language
1.17 0.75 0.54 n.s
9 Question about content
1.5 0.75 0.89 n.s.
10 Self-expansion
0.17 0 1.17 n.s
11 Checking understanding
0.33 0.5 -0.33 n.s
12 Constituent query
0.5 0 1.71 n.s.
Acknowledgeme nt
5 3.7 0.84 n.s.
13 Concluded contribution
4.33 3 0.96 n.s.
14 Continuing contribution
0.67 0.75 -0.20 n.s.
Task- and chat medium-related techniques
10 4.6 2.84 0.015
15 Task 3 1.25 2.68 0.020
16 Joke/playful language
2.17 0.25 1.73 n.s.
17 Emotion 3.33 0.63 3.21 0.007
18 Sign 1.5 2.5 -0.83 n.s.
Total 26 13.3 2.91 0.013
Online chat in the secondary school EFL class Chapter 4 Research Methodology
The independent-samples t-tests revealed that, if considered individually, the grounding techniques of self-correction and explicit question about word decreased the most at the end of the chat project. The mean occurrences of almost all other techniques also showed a decrease, although it was not significant in any of those cases. One can safely assume that these decreasing numbers contribute to the significant overall decrease in form. The grounding techniques that are oriented towards content also show a decrease. As for the terms of acknowledgement, both techniques remain at the same level of use. Within the cluster of task- and chat medium-related techniques, the number of task-related contributions and expressions of emotion decreased significantly.
The comparison of the mean occurrences of the grounding techniques revealed a decrease in techniques addressing the task and the chat medium on the one hand, and the form of the utterances on the other hand. The former result indicates that at the end of the sessions, the students had become more used to the medium, and also more familiar with the roles they played. Both of these aspects of the task had become part of their common ground.
The latter result shows that the chatters had fewer problems at the form level of their utterances.
This indicates that their English, at least at the level of their wording, did not need to be grounded as often as it did at the beginning of the chat lessons. It could also mean that their English had improved to such an extent that less grounding was needed. The investigation of the chat texts also revealed that the participants’ utterances were longer in the second group of texts than the first one.
The fact that at the end moment, they didn’t inquire at all about the meaning of a word suggests however that their vocabulary in English did improve. This assumption is corroborated by the fact that their score on the language use part of the proficiency test (Table 6.1) increased significantly between the two points of measurement. The absence of questions about unknown words also implies that the participants became better at estimating their partner’s linguistic abilities, and also the elements that are common ground between them.
Grounding of content issues remained, statistically speaking, at the same level. This means that at the end of the course, the number of problems associated with content matters was comparable to the number at the beginning of the course. This is quite plausible if one considers that content problems can be independent of the problems caused by proficiency factors. It is quite conceivable that content grounding would occur in communication by native speakers as well.
A similar picture arises for the grounding techniques which address the management of the interaction: the acknowledgement techniques. The frequency of their use at the end of the school year was comparable to that at the beginning. This confirms the idea that this form of grounding functions as a general tool for grounding the interaction and is not influenced by the level of proficiency of the interlocutors. The parties in conversation need to add to their common ground in order to complete their joint projects.
In view of the results of the longitudinal comparison, the second hypothesis, which predicted a decrease in the number of grounding techniques over time, is only partly justified. There is an overall tendency for numerical decrease in the frequency techniques. The intensity of grounding form, task and the chat medium, and the overall grounding activity decreased significantly. The change in grounding behavior was probably influenced by factors like the learners’ development in English, their getting used to the context of the classroom chat, and the increased common ground between the participants. However, the use of content and acknowledgement techniques did not alter significantly. These two types of techniques are the ones which are least influenced by the medium, and by the use of a foreign language.