A Conversation Analytic Investigation into the Impact of Task Design on the Emergence of Information Gaps

Abstract

This study employs conversation analysis methodology to examine interactional unfolding of multiparty online task-oriented English as foreign language (L2) interactions. The participants of the study are 20 undergraduate students who are members of a conversation club based in their department. As part of a club activity, L2 learners meet online once a week in groups of four to complete a task using “Google Hangouts” video chat environment. The task is called web-orienteering which comprises of three on- screen audiovisual clues on a website in which the learners try to find a single keyword for each task and complete the task collaboratively before the opponent teams. Each week, there are three consecutive questions which the learners should answer to accomplish the task, and they cannot pass to the next question until everyone in the group finds the answer. The only rule of the task is that the participant who finds the correct answer cannot tell it to his/her teammates directly, but can add new clues to help them out. The multiparty interactions on the video chat software has been recorded via a screen capturing software, transcribed, and then examined using conversation analysis. The data is from a corpus of online task-oriented interactions across 20 weeks (i.e. 20 hours). The preliminary results showed that the design of the task has an impact on the naturally occurring interaction especially after one of the participants find the answer and starts hinting. Given that the learners align with the task rules and do not share the answer explicitly, the information gaps found in the study are dynamic, emergent, subject to constant change. Therefore, the results establish a new way to implement information gap tasks through the use of emergent gaps which unfold in and through talk-in-interaction.

This study focused on the impact of task design on online task-oriented interaction in English as a foreign language with reference to information gap as a task type. The design of the task has been informed by research findings from the fields of technology- mediated TBLT (Gonzalez-Lloret & Ortega, 2014), task-oriented interaction (Seedhouse, 1999; Seedhouse, 2005; Seedhouse & Almutairi, 2009), epistemics in L2 interaction (Heritage, 2012a, b; Sert, 2013; Jakonen & Morton, 2015; Sert & Jacknick, 2015), and conversation analysis for second language acquisition (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Markee, 2000, Markee & Kasper, 2004; Kasper & Wagner, 2011, Sert, 2015) research. Technology-mediated TBLT informed the study with Gonzalez-Lloret and Ortega’s (2014) five-step task framework in that the task had (1) a primary focus on meaning rather than form(s); (2) a completion point that is a keyword; (3) engaged participants without the presence of a teacher; (4) a real-world relationship through collaboration and group discussions (5) with their own words ensuring a hands-on experience. On-screen activities (e.g. web searches and answer trials) and video chat interactions have been screen-recorded for transcription and further analytic treatment using conversation analysis which is a data-driven methodology that has been largely used in second language research in the last decade (Markee, 2000; Markee & Kasper, 2004; Kasper & Wagner, 2011, Sert, 2015). Conversation analysis does not impose any codes or categories based on theories, hypotheses, or constructs. The analytic focus is completely on emergent interactional patterns that can be explicated on sequential basis driven by on minute-by-minute, turn-by-turn examination of the naturally occurring interaction data. CA has been used in task-oriented interaction research by some researchers (Seedhouse, 1999; Mori, 2002; Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004; Seedhouse, 2005; Hellerman, 2008; Hellerman & Cole, 2008; Hellerman & Pekarek Doehler, 2010; Markee & Kunitz, 2013) particularly because it offers a robust method to describe the nature of task-as-process (Seedhouse, 2005) and puts an emphasis on the interactional processes of task-engagement rather than keeping the focus on the task-as-workplan (Ellis, 2003). The results of the investigation into these processes showed particular instances during which the learners orient to the emergence of information gaps in relation to their current epistemic status (Sert, 2013; Jakonen & Morton, 2015) in the epistemic gradient (Heritage, 2012a, b) and accomplish the task collaboratively with successful management of these gaps.

Full text

1

2
Task Design & CALL
Proceedings
Universitat Rovira i Virgili
6 - 8 July 2015
Composed by Jozef Colpaert, Ann Aerts, Margret Oberhofer, Mar Gutiérez-Colón
Plana

3
Proceedings, 2015
Cover: Nieuwe Media Dienst, University of Antwerp
ISBN 9789057284786
EAN 9789057284106
Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niet uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd,
opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand, of openbaar gemaakt, in enige
vorm of op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen of
op enige manier, zonder voorafgaandelijke schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system of transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Uitgave en verspreiding:
Universiteit Antwerpen
Prinsstraat 13
2000 Antwerpen
www.uantwerpen.be

4

5
WELCOME
It is my pleasure to welcome you to the XVIIth International CALL Research Conference
at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona. Almost 100 participants from more than
20 countries have submitted papers which all focus on the conference theme Task design
and CALL.
The choice of this theme was the result of an ongoing discussion among members of our
editorial board. Although we all agree that pedagogy should come before technology,
even a task that complies with all possible pedagogical and didactic criteria does not
necessarily lead to willingness and acceptance in the learner’s mind. What if psychology
came first? What if we tried to design tasks that visualize the roadmap to the Ideal SELF,
as Dörnyei suggests? What if we use Deci and Ryan’s motivation scale in order to gauge
the process of identification and internalization? One thing is certain: the quality of a task
is not the sum of its properties. The specification of a meaningful, useful and enjoyable
task is the result of a process that takes into account the learner, the context, language
pedagogy and findings from task-based language learning and teaching (TBLT). The
question is not so much about which new affordances we can distinguish with every new
technology, but rather: are there technologies which afford the tasks we specify this
way?
In recent CALL articles, conference presentations and project proposals, we notice a
renewed interest in the motivational side of tasks, and less emphasis on technology or
theoretical pedagogy. Tasks, elective or compulsory, can be subdivided into three partly
overlapping categories: (a) focus-on-form tasks which can be defined as meaningful
tasks in which the focus on particular forms is tightly embedded; (b) focus-on-meaning
tasks which should lead to communication (CMC approach) or any kind of non-linguistic
outcome (TBLT approach); and (c) form-focused exercises for specific phonological,
lexical or grammatical targets, such as improved and enriched drill-and-practice
exercises.
We have asked all presenters to focus on the design process behind these tasks: How do
we decide on task types? How do we shape them? How do we monitor and evaluate
them?
Submitted presentations address questions such as:
 How do we design authentic, meaningful, useful and enjoyable tasks?
 To what extent do tasks depend on context?
 What can CALL learn from TBLT?
 What can TBLT learn from CALL?
 What affordances and limitations of technology should be considered in task
design?
 How does technology impact on non-technological tasks?
 What are the specific challenges for LMOOCs, OERs, WebQuests, Interactive
Whiteboards, Student Response Systems, Synchronous Collaborative Writing
Tools, Serious Games… ?
 How do our tasks fit in with Complex Dynamic Systems Theory,
Socioconstructivist environments, Flipped Classroom approaches …?
 What is the role of corrective feedback in tasks?
 What are the consequences for Learner Analytics?
 Which tasks are best suited for which skills?
 Which tasks are most appropriate for developing intercultural competence?
I wish to thank my associate editors, the members of our editorial board, Mar Gutierrez-
Colón Plana and the local organizers at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili, our keynote
speakers, conference manager Ann Aerts, and all the participants.

6
The International CALL Research Conferences were initiated by Keith Cameron, the
founding editor of Computer Assisted Language Learning, at Exeter University. In 2002, I
was asked to take over both the editorship of the journal and the organization of the
conferences. Since then, the following have been organized:
Xth edition: CALL Professionals and the future of CALL Research (Antwerp, 2002)
XIth edition: CALL and Research Methodologies (Antwerp, 2004)
XIIth edition: How are we Doing? CALL and Monitoring the Learner (Antwerp,
2006)
XIIIth edition: Practice-Based & Practice-Oriented CALL Research (Antwerp, 2008)
XIVth edition: Motivation and Beyond (Antwerp, 2010)
XVth edition: The Medium Matters (Taichung, 2012)
XVIth edition: Research Challenges in CALL (Antwerp, 2014)
It is our intention to make the CALL conferences annual instead of biennial, and to
change the continent every year. Should you be interested in hosting one of our
conferences, just let us know.
Jozef Colpaert
Editor CALL Journal
Organizer International CALL Research Conferences

7
CONFERENCE ORGANISATION
Chair
Jozef Colpaert
jozef.colpaert@uantwerpen.be
University of Antwerp
Conference manager
Ann Aerts
ann.aerts@uantwerpen.be
University of Antwerp
Local organising committee
Mar Gutiérrez Colón Plana - Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain
International Conference Centre of Southern Catalonia - Fundació URV, Spain
Scientific committee
The editorial board of the CALL Journal

8

9
CONTENTS
WELCOME ........................................................................................................................ 5
CONFERENCE ORGANISATION ........................................................................................... 7
CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 9
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS ........................................................................................................ 15
Kris Van den Branden ..................................................................................................................................... 17
What can CALL learn from TBLT? ...................................................................................................................... 17
SELECTED PLENARIES ...................................................................................................... 19
Preet Hiradhar................................................................................................................................................ 21
Task-based pedagogy in technology mediated writing ..................................................................................... 21
Masatoshi Sato .............................................................................................................................................. 27
The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in video-based interaction ................................... 27
Shona Whyte .................................................................................................................................................. 30
Taking to task(s): exploring task design by novice language teachers in technology-mediated and non-
technological activities ...................................................................................................................................... 30
PAPER PRESENTATIONS .................................................................................................. 37
Antonie Alm ................................................................................................................................................... 39
Technology-mediated task-based listening: from authentic input to authentic response ............................... 39
Maha Alghasab .............................................................................................................................................. 45
Wiki-based collaborative writing activities in EFL classrooms: exploring teachers’ online interventions in the
collaborative process ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Christine Appel & Joan-Tomàs Pujolà ............................................................................................................. 53
Tandem MOOC: a new approach to LMOOC course and task design ............................................................... 53
Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir & Kolbrún Friðriksdóttir ............................................................................................... 56
Tracking students’ behavior online: tasks and retention .................................................................................. 56
Katja Årosin Laursen & Karen-Margrete Frederiksen ...................................................................................... 61
The notion of authenticity in the context of the course: Danish for knowledge workers ................................ 61
Ghada Awada & Abir Abdallah ....................................................................................................................... 66
Effect of using the glogster technological model on enhancing speaking proficiency and decreasing
presentation apprehension of communication skills students ......................................................................... 66
Nune Ayvazyan .............................................................................................................................................. 72
Task-based translation activities in an English as a foreign language class ...................................................... 72

10
Mohammed Bahnaz ....................................................................................................................................... 77
Learner autonomy and web–based language learning (WBLLl): a triangular approach to invistigate the
teacher’s role within the multimedia environment .......................................................................................... 77
Ufuk Balaman ................................................................................................................................................. 95
A conversation analytic investigation into the impact of task design on the emergence of information gaps 95
Ahmad M. Bataineh ..................................................................................................................................... 105
The effect of mobile audio-visual chat on the prosodic and non-verbal competence of foreign language
learners. .......................................................................................................................................................... 105
Marie-Thérèse Batardière ............................................................................................................................ 109
Redefining the teacher's role in an online task-based language learning environment ................................. 109
Anke Berns, Manuel Palomo-Duarte, Alicia Guerrero Garrido & Mercedes Paez Piña ................................. 116
Learners’ expectations and needs: some practical clues for designing foreign language apps ...................... 116
Christel-Joy Cameran.................................................................................................................................... 124
The role of corrective feedback in the L2 German grammar teaching system COMPASS .............................. 124
David Campbell ............................................................................................................................................ 130
A simple four skills activity using the Moodle database module .................................................................... 130
Daniel Castaneda ......................................................................................................................................... 132
The use of synchronous and asynchronous activities to improve cultural knowledge. .................................. 132
Luis Cerezo, Ronald P. Leow & Nina Moreno ................................................................................................ 140
Are tasks at all possible in fully online language learning? Introducing talking to avatars and the maze game
........................................................................................................................................................................ 140
Ching-Fen Chang .......................................................................................................................................... 147
Case study of EFL students’ learning to write through an online corpus-based corrective feedback system 147
Howard Hao-Jan Chen .................................................................................................................................. 150
Investigating in-service teachers' perceptions on using a serious game for second language learning ......... 150
Howard Hao-Jan Chen .................................................................................................................................. 152
Uncovering the collocation errors of Asian learners with the help of automatic corpora comparison ......... 152
Yueh-Tzu Chiang ........................................................................................................................................... 154
Attitudes and learner autonomy of EFL Students toward filmmaking task in a semi-flipped classroom context
........................................................................................................................................................................ 154
Ka Yu Kelvin Chong, Allen Ho, Olive Cheung, Ella Leung & Peter Clarke........................................................ 162
Automated prediction of the written errors of tertiary level ESL and EFL learners ........................................ 162
Ka Yu Kelvin Chong & Marie Durand ............................................................................................................ 181
Investigating the effectiveness of a post-task transcription activity on focusing on form ............................. 181
Dorothy Chun & Anna Turula ....................................................................................................................... 198
Cognitive and social presence in task-based telecollaboration ...................................................................... 198
William Collins ............................................................................................................................................. 208
Story recording and peer feedback in an online forum improving motivation............................................... 208

11
Frederik Cornillie, Kris Van den Branden & Piet Desmet ............................................................................... 214
From language play to linguistic form and back again. Lessons from an experimental study for the design of
task-based language practice supported by games ........................................................................................ 214
Lieve De Wachter, Jordi Heeren & Kirsten Fivez ........................................................................................... 223
Meaningful and enjoyable writing tasks in an academic writing workshop through observation of peers ... 223
Melinda Dooly & Randall Sadler ................................................................................................................... 226
The design process of a technology-enhanced teacher education flipped classroom: a case study .............. 226
Carolina Egúsquiza ....................................................................................................................................... 234
Task design for intercultural communication in Business Spanish MOOC modules ....................................... 234
Christine Fourie ............................................................................................................................................ 242
Putting a face on the dynamic nature of tasks ................................................................................................ 242
Stephan J. Franciosi ...................................................................................................................................... 249
Using simulations and flashcard games in task-based language learning ...................................................... 249
Linda Gijsen .................................................................................................................................................. 258
The effects of task design on students’ collaboration in a telecollaborative project ..................................... 258
Peter Gobel & Makimi Kano ......................................................................................................................... 268
The complexities of digital storytelling: factors affecting performance, production, and project completion
........................................................................................................................................................................ 268
Myung-Jeong Ha .......................................................................................................................................... 272
Rethinking telecollaboration in the Korean EFL context ................................................................................. 272
Bi He, Pannathon Sangarun & Andrew Lian .................................................................................................. 276
Improving the English pronunciaiton of Chinese EFL university students through the integration of CALL and
verbotonalism ................................................................................................................................................. 276
Heng-Tsung Danny Huang & Shao-Ting Alan Hung ....................................................................................... 286
Effects of a Video-Dubbing Task: Perspectives of EFL Learners ...................................................................... 286
Philip Hubbard ............................................................................................................................................. 289
Training learners for self-directed listening tasks ........................................................................................... 289
Shao-Ting Alan Hung & Heng-Tsung Danny Huang ....................................................................................... 297
Constructing multimodal peer feedback: Exploring strategies employed by L2 learners ............................... 297
Fenfang Hwu ................................................................................................................................................ 301
Task promoting hypothesis-testing and providing communicative need via comic-creation ........................ 301
Ana Ibáñez Moreno, Anna Vermeulen & María Jordano .............................................................................. 305
VISP, an enjoyable app to enhance idiomaticity in English ............................................................................. 305
Kristi Jauregi ................................................................................................................................................. 312
Task development for telecollaboration among youngsters .......................................................................... 312
Kristi Jauregi & Linda Gijsen ......................................................................................................................... 322
Task design for telecollaboration .................................................................................................................... 322
María Jordano de la Torre, Elena Martín Monje & Lourdes Pomposo Yanes ................................................ 326
The importance of task design in a distance learning context (in terms of participation, motivation & interest
of the students) ............................................................................................................................................... 326

12
Nicole Keng .................................................................................................................................................. 331
Using QQ to supplement EAP task: the challenges and affordances in China ................................................ 331
Brandon King, Jhon Cuesta-Medina & Yi Zhang ............................................................................................ 335
Engaging with native speakers: looking at conversation openings in second life chat-logs ........................... 335
Kurt Kohn & Petra Hoffstaedter ................................................................................................................... 338
Flipping intercultural communication practice: opportunities and challenges for the foreign language
classroom ........................................................................................................................................................ 338
Hsiao-chien Lee ............................................................................................................................................ 346
Picture storytelling task for less-proficient English learners: a blended learning ........................................... 346
Yow-jyy Joyce Lee & Ming-Han Lee .............................................................................................................. 350
Using an automatic training system for enhancing learning English public speech ....................................... 350
Chenxi Li ....................................................................................................................................................... 356
The pedagogical values of a peer evaluation task........................................................................................... 356
Jia Li & Zheng Zhang ..................................................................................................................................... 365
A task-based approach to developing authentic instructional materials for teaching English: Canadian and
Hong Kong university students collaborate in creating open educational resources. .................................... 365
Jia Li, Yan Wang & Kevin Mooney ................................................................................................................ 368
University ELLs’ perception on learning academic vocabulary through reading tasks using text messaging as
the scaffolding ................................................................................................................................................. 368
Xiaobin Liu, Jianli Jiao & Han Xu ................................................................................................................... 375
Developing critical thinking through TBLT and SCMC-based peer feedback in EFL classes ............................ 375
Tusn-Ju Lin, Sarah Hsueh-Jui Liu & Yao-Ming Yeh ......................................................................................... 380
Implementation of task-based language teaching through near-field communication technology .............. 380
Xavier Martin-Rubio ..................................................................................................................................... 387
Improving spoken interaction in the foreign language through video-recorded group oral reviews of films 387
Martha Mendez ........................................................................................................................................... 391
Immersive learning and collaborative work in foreign language learning for developing intercultural
competences in virtual worlds ........................................................................................................................ 391
Pilar Munday & Jaya Kannan ........................................................................................................................ 394
Task design challenges: the meta task of building PLNs for foreign language acquisition ............................. 394
Alma Ortiz .................................................................................................................................................... 403
An online course in language testing for in service teachers of English: how important are task instructions?
........................................................................................................................................................................ 403
Cristina Palomeque & Joan-Tomàs Pujolà .................................................................................................... 408
Analyzing MUVE tasks in action ...................................................................................................................... 408
Marielle Patronis .......................................................................................................................................... 411
Using mobile devices for developing reading comprehension students’ perspectives .................................. 411
Martine Pellerin ........................................................................................................................................... 416
Blending new mobile technologies (MT) and tasks: promoting meaningful, engaging, and reflective language
learning tasks for young language learners .................................................................................................... 416

13
Goretti Prieto Botana & Sofía Ruíz Alfaro ..................................................................................................... 421
Writing instruction in CLIL classrooms ............................................................................................................ 421
Martí Quixal & Detmar Meurers .................................................................................................................. 426
The missing link? Task characterization and task product characterization as a means to accommodate TBLT
and CALL .......................................................................................................................................................... 426
Ana Sevilla Pavón & Ana Gimeno Sanz ......................................................................................................... 430
Fostering communicative skills while raising awareness about gender-related issues within a Business English
class ................................................................................................................................................................. 430
Simon Smith ................................................................................................................................................. 437
Construction and use of thematic corpora by academic English learners ...................................................... 437
Vance Stevens .............................................................................................................................................. 446
Minecraft as a model for gamification in teacher training ............................................................................. 446
Glenn Stockwell ........................................................................................................................................... 450
Insights from replication on the factors affecting successful task implementation in mobile learning ......... 450
Yan Tian ....................................................................................................................................................... 454
Authentic translation task in the class of computer assisted translation for MTI postgraduate students .... 454
Phuong Tran Thi Ngoc .................................................................................................................................. 457
Integrating learner training into task design of vocabulary activities on mobile phones ............................... 457
Vincenza Tudini ............................................................................................................................................ 460
The role of reciprocal corrective feedback in multilingual online social interaction ...................................... 460
Rong-Jyue Wang & Wen-Chi Vivian Wu ........................................................................................................ 465
Using a task-based flipped classroom to enhance language proficience and learnign experiences .............. 465
Monica Ward ............................................................................................................................................... 467
CALL for Irish for parents for pronunciation and reading ............................................................................... 467
Inigo Yanguas ............................................................................................................................................... 471
Type of task in an oral CMC context ............................................................................................................... 471
Anne Zanatta ............................................................................................................................................... 473
Wikis for collaborative writing tasks: affordances and limitations of the tool according to student perceptions
and use. ........................................................................................................................................................... 473

14

95
Ufuk Balaman
Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
ubalaman@gmail.com
A conversation analytic investigation into the impact of task design on the
emergence of information gaps
Bio data
Ufuk Balaman is a research assistant and PhD candidate in English Language Teaching
at Hacettepe University, Turkey. He is also the vice-director of Hacettepe University
Micro-Analysis Network (HUMAN) Research Center. His doctoral work focuses on
conversation analysis for online multiparty task-oriented interaction.
Current research
This study employs conversation analysis methodology to examine interactional unfolding
of multiparty online task-oriented English as foreign language (L2) interactions. The
participants of the study are 20 undergraduate students who are members of a
conversation club based in their department. As part of a club activity, L2 learners meet
online once a week in groups of four to complete a task using “Google Hangouts” video
chat environment. The task is called web-orienteering which comprises of three on-
screen audiovisual clues on a website in which the learners try to find a single keyword
for each task and complete the task collaboratively before the opponent teams. Each
week, there are three consecutive questions which the learners should answer to
accomplish the task, and they cannot pass to the next question until everyone in the
group finds the answer. The only rule of the task is that the participant who finds the
correct answer cannot tell it to his/her teammates directly, but can add new clues to help
them out. The multiparty interactions on the video chat software has been recorded via a
screen capturing software, transcribed, and then examined using conversation analysis.
The data is from a corpus of online task-oriented interactions across 20 weeks (i.e. 20
hours). The preliminary results showed that the design of the task has an impact on the
naturally occurring interaction especially after one of the participants find the answer and
starts hinting. Given that the learners align with the task rules and do not share the
answer explicitly, the information gaps found in the study are dynamic, emergent,
subject to constant change. Therefore, the results establish a new way to implement
information gap tasks through the use of emergent gaps which unfold in and through
talk-in-interaction.
Task-based language learning and teaching
This study focused on the impact of task design on online task-oriented interaction in
English as a foreign language with reference to information gap as a task type. The
design of the task has been informed by research findings from the fields of technology-
mediated TBLT (Gonzalez-Lloret & Ortega, 2014), task-oriented interaction (Seedhouse,
1999; Seedhouse, 2005; Seedhouse & Almutairi, 2009), epistemics in L2 interaction
(Heritage, 2012a, b; Sert, 2013; Jakonen & Morton, 2015; Sert & Jacknick, 2015), and
conversation analysis for second language acquisition (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Markee,
2000, Markee & Kasper, 2004; Kasper & Wagner, 2011, Sert, 2015) research.
Technology-mediated TBLT informed the study with Gonzalez-Lloret and Ortega’s (2014)
five-step task framework in that the task had (1) a primary focus on meaning rather than

96
form(s); (2) a completion point that is a keyword; (3) engaged participants without the
presence of a teacher; (4) a real-world relationship through collaboration and group
discussions (5) with their own words ensuring a hands-on experience. On-screen
activities (e.g. web searches and answer trials) and video chat interactions have been
screen-recorded for transcription and further analytic treatment using conversation
analysis which is a data-driven methodology that has been largely used in second
language research in the last decade (Markee, 2000; Markee & Kasper, 2004; Kasper &
Wagner, 2011, Sert, 2015). Conversation analysis does not impose any codes or
categories based on theories, hypotheses, or constructs. The analytic focus is completely
on emergent interactional patterns that can be explicated on sequential basis driven by
on minute-by-minute, turn-by-turn examination of the naturally occurring interaction
data. CA has been used in task-oriented interaction research by some researchers
(Seedhouse, 1999; Mori, 2002; Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004; Seedhouse, 2005;
Hellerman, 2008; Hellerman & Cole, 2008; Hellerman & Pekarek Doehler, 2010; Markee
& Kunitz, 2013) particularly because it offers a robust method to describe the nature of
task-as-process (Seedhouse, 2005) and puts an emphasis on the interactional processes
of task-engagement rather than keeping the focus on the task-as-workplan (Ellis, 2003).
The results of the investigation into these processes showed particular instances during
which the learners orient to the emergence of information gaps in relation to their
current epistemic status (Sert, 2013; Jakonen & Morton, 2015) in the epistemic gradient
(Heritage, 2012a, b) and accomplish the task collaboratively with successful
management of these gaps.
Short paper
Information gap tasks, originated in Long’s seminal dissertation (1980), have been an
important part of almost all widely recognized task typologies in second language
research (Crookes, 1986; Prabhu, 1987; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993; Richards, 2001;
Nunan, 2004). Doughty and Pica (1986) defined information gaps as “the existence of a
lack of information among participants working on a common problem” (p. 307) and
divided the task type into two as one-way and two-way. Two-way information gaps are
the tasks that each interactant holds a different piece of information and information
exchange is required to complete the task, while in one-way information gaps, the
information is held by only one interactant and the information exchange is optional.
Doughty and Pica suggest that two-way and multi-way gaps promote group interaction
although they do not provide any explanations to multi-way information gaps. Doughty
and Pica, Pica et al. (1993), Ellis (2000, 2003, 2009), and Pica, Kang, and Sauro (2006)
also refer to the existence of information gaps as one of the necessary conditions for an
effective task design. Therefore, one might say that there is a consensus over the
usefulness of information gaps for facilitating task-oriented interaction, however, how
such interaction occurs around information gaps remains uncovered. It is mainly because
the focus on information gaps as a task type were limited only to the task design
process, thus to the task-as-workplan. How information gaps are talked into being in
and through task-oriented interaction of the learners have not been described in detail,
which means that a focus on the task-as-process have been neglected (Breen, 1989;
Seedhouse, 2005). Such a focus on the process aspect of an online L2 task has shown
that information gaps might be co-constructed by the interactants minute-by-minute and
turn-by-turn, which adds to the notion of information gaps in that the gap unfolds in and
emerges from the interaction in accordance with the current epistemic status of the
interactants rather than pre-determined information flow patterns.
The holder of the information is an essential component of the ongoing task-oriented
interaction in that it is what determines the direction of information flow and the learners’
orientation to the information transfer (Mori, 2002). It has also been evidenced that the
knowing interactant usually dominates the floor (van Lier, 1984) in a way to bring new
insights to turn distribution around referential information (Jenks, 2007). In this study, I

97
set out to inform information transfer, flow, and gap in task-oriented interaction in light
of epistemics research in (L2) talk using conversation analysis (Sert, 2013; Jakonen &
Morton, 2015; Sert, 2015; Sert & Jacknick, 2015). Heritage (2013) defines epistemics as
“knowledge claims that interactants assert, contest and defend in and through turns-at-
talk and sequences of interaction” (p. 370), which completely aligns with information gap
tasks that require knowledge claims in order to accomplish tasks through the information
transfer. However, these claims occur in action on sequential basis, and it is not always
possible to predict how exactly they will take place in interaction even if the holder of
information is determined by the task design prior to the task-oriented interaction. It is
mainly because the interactants are positioned in the epistemic gradient in accordance
with their current epistemic status, that may be knowing (K+) or unknowing (K-)
(Heritage, 2012a, b), and this positioning is dynamic itself in that it is altered with the
knowledge claims that may emerge from the interaction at any minute of talk.
Conversation analysis (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) as a research methodology
provides analytic tools to understand the nature of task-oriented interaction (Seedhouse,
2005) through micro-details of online L2 talk (Jenks, 2014) and to reflect participant-
relevant (emic) perspective of the learners around their dynamic epistemic status (Sert,
2013; Jakonen & Morton, 2015). Following CA analysis, I will try to exemplify how the
learners manage their epistemic imbalances minute-by-minute and then accomplish a
task through minimizing epistemic differences, therefore creating and filling information
gaps in and through talk-in-interaction.
The following extract, which is 96 seconds long, comes from the fourth week of the
process (i.e. 20 weeks) and four participants of a single team try to find the answer gula
based on the clues on the screen (Figure 1) which are from Mccurry’s lens, last name?
and a photo of the famous Afghan Girl (National Geographic cover) with her family. None
of the participants has found the correct answer before the beginning of the extract,
which means that there is no information gaps which has emerged from the task-
oriented interaction of the participants. The extract will be presented in small fragments
to make it easier to follow, therefore the subsequent extracts are actually pieces of a
single extract as one might tell following the line numbers.
Figure 1. The clues and the game screen
Extract 1.1 – Team1 Week5 – Gula

98
The extract begins with TAN’s orientation to the clues on the game screen and his
request for information in line 1. In line 2, IKL responds to TAN’s request with a piece of
information based on his current image search that directs him to National Geographic
website. IKL ends the turn with epistemic stance marker i think. TAN shows uptake to the
previous turn in line 3 with an acknowledgement token (huh) that functions as a non-
minimal post-expansion, which is followed by a 4.2 silence in line 4. In line 5, SAR
requests for confirmation to his contribution to the clue on the game screen, which
receives a confirmation token and repetition of the clue from YEL in the turn-initial
position of line 6. YEL also adds to SAR’s clue and elaborates on the photographer. SAR
takes up YEL’s confirmation and contribution to his clue in line 7. After the 3.1 second
silence in line 8, SAR orients to another clue on the screen (last name). TAN’s
information request in line 1, IKL’s candidate clue in line 2, YEL’s confirmation of SAR’s
clue, and her upgrade in line 6 all add to the first clue on the screen (from McCurry’s
lens). Thefore, knowledge has been co-constructed turn-by-turn by the interactants. This
co-construction of knowledge is managed through the orientation of the interactants
towards their peers’ dynamic epistemic status. TAN positions himself in the unknowing
(K-) position in line 1 while the other interactants who responds to TAN are positioned in
knowing K+ position. It refers to the emergence of an information gap given that an
epistemic difference is evidenced on sequential basis. It brings about the first emergence
of an information gap which does not direct the learners to task accomplishment because
none of them has found the answer yet, however some information which might take
them to the answer has been co-constructed.
Extract 1.2 – Team1 Week5 – Gula
The second part of the extract begins with IKL’s acknowledgment of previous turns
overlapping with SAR’s possible orientation to next clues. In line 13, TAN who positioned
himself in K- back in line 1 starts an i-mean-prefaced turn which usually projects a
reformulation but does not apply in this particular turn since he has been the one
requesting for knowledge and responded to accordingly, thus he has not formulated
anything that can project a reformulation prior to the turn. This extended turn is
continued with a same-TCU self-initiated self-repair (Kitzinger, 2013) (the /mʌn/- >the
man<) which prefaces the ongoing hinting action. TAN’s hint refers to McCurry (>the

99
man< who (.) took the afghan girl) and adds to previous turns with a new piece of
information that is Afghan Girl. In line 14, he combines this clue with the one on the
screen that SAR oriented to in line 9 before, and shares his opinion on the answer and
marks the girl with rising intonation, therefore referring to the last name of Afghan girl as
a candidate answer. He reports that he is about to try his candidate answer on the game
screen in line 15. In line 16, SAR complies with TAN, however he uses the verb search
instead of try which explicates that SAR does not have access to Afghan Girl’s last name
but he intends to search for it. In line 17, SAR reads some part of the text on the web
page he is checking for a clue. This line shows that SAR has not taken up that TAN is
about to try the last name of Afghan Girl as a candidate answer (lines 13-15) even
though he complied with it (line 16). Line 17 also occurs in an overlapping fashion with
TAN’s announcement of that his candidate answer has been a wrong one in line 18 which
ends with a silence of 0.8 seconds. In line 19, TAN cancels his previous announcement
with no in the turn-initial position and announces that his candidate answer is correct. He
repeats it again following a 1.2 second silence. His announcement shows that the
candidate answer has been approved not only because he has expressed it verbally but
also he has received the feedback from the game screen, and he is ready to make his
change of epistemic state available to his teammates. Right after the change in TAN’s
epistemic status, he starts providing instructions for his teammates in line 20, which is
overlapped by YEL’s information requests that positions her in K- position and confirm
TAN’s K+ position. It brings about the second emergent information gap that is talked
into being with the change of epistemic state and recognition of this change by the other
participants which is evidenced in the following lines as well.
Extract 1.3. Team1 Week5 – Gula
The third part of the extract starts with the beginning of the second emergent
information gap. TAN supports his K+ status by providing a new clue which is the first
name of the Afghan Girl and fills the rest with something (line 22) that signals the
answer and explicitly tells that it is the answer in line 23. In line 22, YEL orients to

100
Google Search (Figure 2) right after TAN’s instruction to visit Wikipedia in line 20,
therefore acknowledges TAN’s K+ position once again by following his instructions. The
second TCU of line 23 is a repetition of the same instruction that TAN produced in line
20. IKL initiates a repair sequence with an information request or a problem with
understanding in line 24. This is taken up by YEL in line 27 and is responded to with a
reformulation of the clue both on the game screen and verbalized by TAN repeatedly
across the previous lines. This line is also significant as it is the first line YEL has started
producing hints. Therefore she positions herself in K+ position (line 27) after she has
found out the paragraph on the Wikipedia page (Figure 3) in which the correct answer is
included (line 25). It is also the line (25) that SAR requests for help first and then for
confirmation. YEL’s change of epistemic status (line 27) shows that she has overcome the
epistemic difference thus filled the information gap. Furthermore, SAR’s web search
activity which follows TAN’s hints has been finalized in line 28 since he has typed sharbat
to the search box and noticed that automated results include the correct answer. His
noticing is marked with the change of state tokens he has used twice in line 28, which
also refers to that SAR’s epistemic status has changed as well. Even though YEL and SAR
have not announced that their status has changed into K+ as TAN did, they have marked
it on sequential basis. Therefore, only IKL has remained in the K- position of the
epistemic gradient and sustains the existence of information gap which has emerged
twice in the previous lines and is maintained in the following lines.
Extract 1.4. Team1 Week5 – Gula
The fourth part of the extract starts with a reformulation of IKL’s repair initiation in line
24. In line 29, IKL requests for clarification in response to YEL’s hint back in line 27. Line
29 and 30 remarks the initiation of the repair sequence in line 24 with a multi-unit turn
this time in the form of a self-initiated self-repair (line 30). TAN responds to IKL’s
clarification request in line 31 with a turn-initial confirmation token (yeah) and
reformulates and marks the hint with rising intonation and faster pace. YEL’s attempt to
repair (line 27) IKL’s trouble (line 24, 29, 30) is enhanced by TAN, who is the first person
to change his epistemic state into K+ position and the only one who has announced this
change. It turns the sequence into a collaborative repair sequence. The collaborative
action is maintained by YEL in line 32 in which she provides instructions to facilitate IKL’s
search for answer and explicates her K+ position to her teammates once again. TAN
confirms YEL’s instruction in line 33 and IKL follows the instruction and clicks on Afghan
Girl on his search page and then he is directed to another search screen (sharbat gula)
during the 1.9 seconds silence in line 34. In the next line (35), SAR announces that he
has found the answer and marks his change of epistemic status once again after line 28,

101
but makes it explicitly available to other participants with the announcement this time.
His announcement projects TAN’s inquiry for IKL’s current status in line 36 which is
responded by IKL with a mitigated announcement of finding the answer in line 37 in
which he also enters his candidate answer (guat) with a spelling mistake to the game
screen. This also signals the end of the collaborative repair sequence which has helped
IKL find the correct answer, even though he has failed to submit it correctly. This part of
the extract is closed in line 38 with SAR’s repetition of his own announcement in an
overlapping fashion with IKL’s announcement. In the following part, IKL’s failed
attempted is repaired and the information gap is filled.
Extract 1.5. Team1 Week5 – Gula
Line 39 is the beginning of the final part of the extract, and IKL asks for some time to
check the results of his search for answer that he has finalized entering his candidate
answer to game screen in line 37. In line 40, YEL finally announces that her epistemic
status has changed into K+ as well, although she has positioned herself so in the
interaction twice in previous lines. This announcement also explicates that IKL is the only
interactant who remains in K- position and maintains the existence of the emergent
information gap. In line 41 and 42 the two K+ participants TAN and SAR initiate a
collaborative hinting sequence with different instructions. TAN, who has changes his state
to K+ first, takes the turn again immediately after SAR’s instruction in line 42, and
creates an extended multi-unit turn and lists the clues that they have co-constructed so
far. IKL shows uptake and requests for confirmation in line 45 with his production of the
correct answer (sharbat gula). Verbal production of the correct answer is against task
rules which IKL might have oriented to with his self-initiated self-repair in line 45 that
has been marked with the cut-off (sha-) and the micro pause. However, possibly because
he has entered the answer but has not received a positive feedback from the game
screen yet and he remains the only participant in the K- position, he breaches the task
rule. Furthermore, the breach is not oriented to by other participants as is clear in their
overlapping confirmation in lines 46 and 47. In line 48 TAN expands his confirmation and
refers to IKL’s request with a direct hint and repeats it twice. The repetition overlaps with
SAR’s repetitive confirmation which is oriented to TAN’s confirmation and direct hint. In
line 50 IKL acknowledges that he has taken up the hint and entered the answer to the
game screen and once again breaches the task rule. It overlaps with line 51 that is SAR’s
dual confirmation of both IKL’s request in line 45 and TAN’s hint in line 49. These
confirmations direct IKL’s orientation back to the game screen and he notices that he has
typed the correct answer as guat to the screen instead of gula, then he deletes and
corrects his answer. This screen activity is verbalized first with a change of state token in

102
turn-initial position and then cut-offs and word repetitions in line 52 and is marked in line
53 with an announcement of the correct answer while he enters the answer and clicks on
the answer button. This announcement also reports that IKL is not in the K- position any
more and the information gap that emerged in the interaction has now been filled with
the collaborative interaction of the participants. Finally, lines 54 and 55 reflect the
competitive aspect and task-oriented nature of the interaction and the extract is
concluded.
In this study, I have presented a single case analysis of online L2 task-oriented
interactions of a group of four participants. This analysis has shown that the task design
has an impact on the natural occurrence of talk-in-interaction. The task that the learners
undertook has required information exchange for collaborative accomplishment. Although
the process has started without an information gap, it has unfolded in the interaction as
being one-way, two-way, and multi-way respectively. Given that the learners have not
been given any information to transfer or exchange prior to the task except the clues on
the game screen which are accessible to all participants, these labels from the literature
do not apply to the present study. Therefore, the information gap that has emerged from
the task-oriented interactions of the participants adds to the literature a new type,
emergent information gaps. Considering the task design has required the learners to (1)
provide hints instead of giving the answer directly and (2) co-construct knowledge based
on the clues on the screen, it has had an impact on the interaction in that it has brought
about a need to manage epistemic differences to accomplish the task. This management
has created a dynamic environment in which the emergent information gaps have been
filled and subsequently the task has been accomplished
References
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson
(Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Crookes, G. (1986). Task classification: A cross-disciplinary review (No. 4). Center for
Second Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute, University of
Hawaii at Manoa.
Doughty, C. & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second
language acquisition? TESOL QUARTERLY, 20(2). 129-149.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research 4(3). 193-220.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3). 221-246.
Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300.
Gonzalez-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An
introduction. M. Gonzalez-Lloret & L. Ortega (eds.). Technology-mediated TBLT:
Researching technology and tasks (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

103
Hellermann, J. & Cole, E. (2008). Practices for social interaction in the language-learning
classroom: disengagements from dyadic task interaction. Applied Linguistics, 30(2). 186-
215.
Hellermann, J. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). On the contingent nature of language-
learning tasks. Classroom Discourse 1(1). 25-45.
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1). 1-29.
Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of
knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1). 30-52.
Heritage, J. (2013a). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds.) The
handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370-394). West Sussex: Blackwell.
Jakonen, T. & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a
content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics 36(1). 73-94.
Jenks, C. J. (2007). Floor management in task-based interaction: The interactional role of
participatory structures. System 35. 609-622.
Jenks, C. J. (2014). Social interaction in second language chat rooms. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Kasper, G. & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition
(pp. 117-142). London: Routledge.
Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds.) The handbook of
conversation analysis (pp. 229-256). West Sussex: Blackwell.
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. London: Routledge.
Markee, N. & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: an introduction. The Modern Language
Journal, 88(4). 491-500.
Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second
language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63(4).
629-664.
Mondada, L. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated
practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. Modern
Language Journal 88(4). 501-518.
Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of
a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics 23(3). 323-
347.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

104
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for
second language instruction. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.) Tasks and language
learning: integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and
contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28(2). 301-338.
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy: A perspective. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4). 696-735.
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal 53(3). 149-156.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). Task as research construct. Language Learning 55(3). 533-570.
Seedhouse, P. & Almutairi, S. (2009). A holistic approach to task-based interaction.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3). 311-338.
Sert, O. (2013). ‘Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed
learning settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1). 13-28.
Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Sert, O., & Jacknick, C. M. (2015). Student smiles and the negotiation of epistemics in L2
classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 77. 97-112.
van Lier, L., (1984). Analysing interaction in second language classrooms. ELT Journal,
38(3), 160–169.

479