I. INTRODUCTION
Since the emergence of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the 1970s, language instruction has shifted from prioritizing grammar as the primary focus to emphasizing the development of communicative competence. This approach enables learners to use grammar and other language features effectively for communication, such as making requests, offering assistance, giving advice, and more (Richards, 2006). According to Howatt (1984), the strong version of CLT posits that language is acquired through communication, meaning that learners develop their communication skills by actively engaging in it (Nunan, 2004). Consequently, instructional content has prioritized communicative tasks as the foundation for teaching and course design (Ellis, 2003a, 2012). Task-based instruction (TBI) is a language teaching method that allows learners to engage in practical communication and interactions. By using authentic language in these activities, learners naturally acquire grammar knowledge (Richards & Schmidt, 2010). TBI is regarded as a crucial approach to language education. It offers learners meaning-focused interaction, which is a key factor in improving both fluency and accuracy in language use (Ellis, 2003b). In addition, TBI includes group work or collaborative activities that promote interaction among learners, and these interactions enhance both language exposure and language production, which are essential for effective language learning (Long, 2015).
English learners need to negotiate meaning when interacting with each other to ensure mutual understanding. As a crucial element in language acquisition, this process involves adjustments and reorganizations in interactions that occur when learners and their conversation partners anticipate, notice, or encounter challenges in understanding the message (Pica, 1994). In this study, negotiation of meaning refers to the process in which English learners engage in modifications and restructuring during communication to achieve a shared understanding of each other’s messages. The negotiation of meaning within technology-based communication modes has become an emerging area of investigation (Akayoǧlu & Altun, 2009; Patterson & Trabaldo, 2006; Sim et al., 2010). In particular, as a communication channel similar to verbal interaction (Fernandez-Garcia & Martinez Arbelaiz, 2003), negotiations of meaning through text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) (Blake, 2000; Ortega, 2009) offer a broader range of syntactic and semantic adjustments, providing low-proficiency learners with ample opportunities to engage in meaning negotiation for comprehensible input. The use of SCMC has increased opportunities for meaning negotiation, as this communication mode offers a suitable environment for developing communicative language skills through increased production of modified output. Furthermore, online chat-based negotiation of meaning could be especially advantageous for low-proficiency learners, serving as a bridge to face-toface interactions (Sim et al., 2010).
Despite the recognized importance of TBI and negotiation of meaning in language learning, research on how university students engage in communication and negotiate meaning through various tasks in the Korean context remains limited. Specifically, few studies have examined how Korean students use mobile instant messaging (MIM) applications to perform these tasks and negotiate meaning. In Korean EFL (English as a Foreign Language) context, utilizing a MIM application, which is commonly used in Korea, for negotiating meaning during communicative interactions could help address the lack of opportunities for students to practice the target language on a daily basis. In this study, the KakaoTalk MIM application was utilized as an interactive tool to give students more opportunities to communicate in English through a range of tasks. This study aimed to explore Korean university students’ negotiation of meaning through various tasks using a MIM application. It also investigated how different tasks influence students’ meaning negotiation during communicative activities on the MIM platform and compared Korean students’ negotiation of meaning in English interaction across different tasks. To address this, the research questions are as follows:
1. How do Korean university students engage in the negotiation of meaning through different tasks using the KakaoTalk MIM application?
2. How do different tasks influence students’ negotiation of meaning during communicative activities on this platform?
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Negotiation of Meaning
There has been substantial research in the domain of second language acquisition emphasizing negotiation of meaning through empirical studies (Gass & Varonis, 1994; Long, 1985; Mackey, 1999; Pica et al., 1987). Pica (1994) described negotiation as the modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors predict, notice, or face difficulties in message comprehension. Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, introduced in 1996, suggests that language acquisition is enhanced by comprehensible input or feedback during interactions. According to a study conducted by Long (1985), both native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) adjust their interaction when comprehension issues arise in their conversation. This adjustment in language use provides comprehensible input, which aids in maintaining the interaction. As a result, the more a second language is used in interactions, the more opportunities arise for negotiating meaning during interactions. Nunan (1999) describes the process of meaning negotiation as the collaborative effort made by speakers and listeners to establish a common comprehension of the current discussion. Moreover, this process of negotiating meaning facilitates a deeper understanding among speakers by enhancing the comprehensibility of language input via adjusted interaction (Pica, 1994; Smith, 2003). Originally, the idea of adjusted interaction was introduced by Long (1983). It can be realized through the conversational repair moves in the negotiation of meaning, employing communicative tactics like requests for clarification or comprehension checks. In other words, the negotiation of meaning takes place when communicators encounter difficulties in understanding the discourse in the course of interactions.
Some research (Alcón, 2009; Bitchener, 2004; Leahy, 2001; Luan & Sappathy, 2011) has concentrated on the educational outcomes of negotiating meaning. In contrast, other researchers (Akayoǧlu & Altun, 2009; Jepson, 2005; Kim, 2006; Oliver, 1998, 2002; Patterson & Trabaldo, 2006; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002) have investigated the circumstances under which meaning negotiation occurs, regardless of whether it leads to learning. Concerning the educational outcomes related to meaning negotiation, Bitchener (2004) explored the relationship between negotiated interaction and language learning via communicative tasks such as information-gap and decision-making activities and found participants were more engaged in negotiating vocabulary items rather than focus on grammar or pronunciation. Most participants adjusted their utterances when they recognized a gap between their language usage and the feedback from their language partners. This interactive process promoted language learning by reorganizing linguistic structures and forms to correct problematic utterances. Oliver (2002)’s study focused on how participants engaged by employing strategies for negotiating meaning in their interactions among paired participants, whether between a NS or a NNS of English. The findings indicated that NNS-NNS pairs employed the most strategies for negotiating meaning, followed by NNS-NS pairs, and then NS-NS pairs. As noted by Oliver (2002), NS-NS dyads required little negotiation of meaning due to minimal communication breakdowns, in contrast to NNS-NNS and NNSNS dyads, which needed substantial negotiation of meaning during their interactions. According to Long (1981), more negotiation of meaning was necessary to overcome communication difficulties when breakdowns occurred.
2. Task Types and Negotiation of Meaning
Long (1985) defines a task as an activity performed either for oneself or for others, which can be done voluntarily or for some form of compensation. This definition encompasses a wide range of activities, such as borrowing a book from the library, completing a form, typing a letter, assisting someone to cross the road, and so on. In the pedagogical context, Nunan (2004) regards a task as a classroom activity where students use the language they are learning. The learners understand, modify, create, or interact in this language, focusing on using their grammar skills to communicate effectively. The main goal of this task is to communicate meaning, not just to practice language forms.
Many researchers have conducted studies on different types of language tasks, including jigsaw, information-gap, and decision-making tasks, in relation to the negotiation of meaning. Jigsaw tasks provide participants with partial information that needs to be combined to form a complete narrative or outcome. On the other hand, information-gap tasks are activities where only one student has the necessary information that the other student requires to complete a task (Davies, 1982; Johnson, 1982). Johnson (1982) pointed out that jigsaw tasks enable students to interact more effectively than information-gap tasks by requiring them to share actual information. In addition, decision-making tasks involve participants exchanging relevant information. However, it is not necessary to arrive at a singular conclusion for the task’s completion (Doughty & Pica, 1986). According to Doughty and Pica (1986), students participated in tasks like jigsaw and information-gap, adhering to certain modes of participation such as group activities with four students and pair work to resolve challenging messages for comprehensive understanding. Nakahama et al. (2001) found that while problem-solving tasks, termed as information-gap tasks, led to more negotiation of meaning during interactions, opinion exchange tasks resulted in longer and more grammatically complex language use by non-native speakers. These tasks are believed to encourage learners to produce and interact more, thereby enhancing their language proficiency.
3. Technology-Based Negotiation of Meaning
Previous research has been carried out on the negotiation of meaning through the use of a technologically facilitated communication method known as computer-mediated communication (CMC), which includes email, discussion forums, and instant messaging (IM) (Akayoǧlu & Altun, 2009; Bitchener, 2004; Patterson & Trabaldo, 2006; Samani et al., 2015; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002). Patterson and Trabaldo (2006) examined that various types of negotiation of meaning though the use of email and IM chats. The students paired with their counterparts utilized different types of negotiation tactics such as clarification request, comprehension check, reply clarification, confirmation check, elaboration, self-correction, and so on. This study demonstrated that instant messaging chats employed twice as many negotiation functions as compared to emails. According to Samani et al. (2015), the amount of negotiation of meaning was influenced by the participants’ language proficiency. ESL students at the university engaged in group discussions via text-based CMC and adopted 10 different negotiation functions: clarification request, confirmation, confirmation check, correction or self-correction, elaboration, elaboration request, reply clarification or definition, reply confirmation, reply elaboration, and vocabulary check (Samani et al., 2015). The results indicated that learners with less language proficiency required more negotiation and linguistic adjustments to resolve misunderstandings during the interaction process, as supported by other studies (Oliver, 2002; Varonis & Gass, 1985; Yule & Macdonald, 1990). The role of CMC has been emphasized for language learning as it supports the generation of comprehensible input and output derived from the negotiation of meaning (Blake, 2000; Pellettieri, 2000; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002) and develops the negotiation of meaning (Blake, 2000). It also enhances the chances for learners to utilize the target language (Barson et al., 1993).
III. METHOD
1. Research Context
This study was conducted at a university in South Korea with 66 second-year students, all majoring in Food and Nutrition, divided into three classes: Class A (25 students), Class B (23 students), and Class C (18 students). Among the 66 participants, 68% (45 students) were female, and 32% (21 students) were male. As part of their curriculum, these students were required to take English classes every semester from their first year through their second year. These mandatory English courses aimed to develop the students’ communication skills in English, covering speaking, listening, writing, and reading. The English classes were primarily textbook-based, with lessons focused on relevant vocabulary and pair or group activities, including dialogue practice and interactive tasks. The course was designed to provide students with opportunities to enhance their English communication skills by engaging in interactive language use. To further promote the negotiation of meaning during communication process, a four-week study was conducted. Each week, students were given a new topic, encouraging them to communicate with their group members outside of class without time or location restrictions. They used the KakaoTalk MIM application as a communication platform, allowing them to practice and develop their negotiation of meaning skills in a flexible, real-world setting. At the beginning of the semester, these four-week English communication tasks were introduced as homework, and students were instructed to communicate freely outside of class using the KakaoTalk MIM application. Students were allowed to form their own groups and asked to designate one person as the group leader. Each group leader was responsible for compiling the text exchanges and submitting them weekly to the instructor via email.
2. Data Collection and Analysis
The students participated in the communicative activity via the KakaoTalk MIM application during the initial phase. They were advised to form their own groups of three to five members to complete tasks by exchanging messages. Four types of communicative tasks were assigned: decision-making exercises, narrative tasks, problem solving activities, and information gap exercises. The decision-making task involved researching global challenge programs and discussing them, which required making decisions about choosing countries, cities, and activity programs that students wanted. In the narrative task, students discussed a video clip they watched during the class and shared their personal experiences, focusing on telling stories or recounting experiences. For the problem solving task, the students were required to choose a topic related to healthy eating and mental health, analyze the topic, think critically, and solve the problem by designing an educational program. The information gap task asked one student to play the role of a tour guide and gather information about a city attraction to explain to the group, while other students, acting as tourists, asked questions to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Each task was provided weekly over the four-week duration of the communication activity. As shown in Table 1, these tasks were designed to examine how participants negotiated meaning during communication process on the MIM application, utilizing various task types. These messages were sent to the instructor’s email for observation. The instructor observed the participants’ negotiation of meaning in English throughout all four tasks, facilitated via the MIM application. The duration of English communication through the KakaoTalk MIM application and the total number of messages exchanged were observed and categorized based on the data submitted by students via email.
After completing the four weeks of communicative tasks and submitting all message data to the instructor, students proceeded to the next phase, which involved completing a survey. The survey was distributed during class time, and students were instructed to complete it individually and submit their responses. They were encouraged to write about their personal experiences or thoughts during their English interactions within the groups. The survey asked students about their initial thoughts on using the MIM application for English communication and any memorable or challenging experiences they encountered while communicating with group members. It also inquired about the tools or resources they used, such as a dictionary, translator, or ChatGPT, and how these helped them during their negotiation of meaning. Additionally, students were asked if any of the four topics were more memorable to them or made communication easier, and whether they felt the difficulty of communicating in English. Finally, the survey encouraged students to reflect on how their thoughts changed after completing the activity, and to provide feedback or suggestions for improvement, along with their overall reflections on the experience. The survey included openended questions, which are detailed in the Appendix.
Students’ responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic analysis. This process involved identifying sections of data and labeling them with symbols, descriptive terms, or category names, as described by Johnson and Christensen (2012). Following this process, the instructor examined and evaluated the students’ responses, applying codes to classify the information according to its meaning. Words or phrases were then divided and sorted into main thematic categories. The instructor then reviewed the coded results by identifying patterns and emphasizing recurring concepts. Finally, the codes were grouped into larger thematic categories, and the instructor provided interpretations for each theme.
IV. RESULTS
1. Negotiation of Meaning Through the MIM Platform
In this research, 66 students completed the paper-based survey. During the survey, the students were encouraged to share their experiences from negotiating meaning in English interactions within their groups. The survey’s openended questions were designed to gather the students’ perspectives, thoughts, and any challenges they faced while negotiating meaning in English across different tasks. These questions allowed participants to provide multiple responses. More than half of the students’ responses (57%) indicated that they felt overwhelmed, burdened, and worried when they began English communication on the KakaoTalk MIM application. The findings reported that students expressed a sense of overwhelm in English interactions, primarily due to their low personal proficiency in the English language. According to this research, students struggled with English communication, which was attributed to insufficient understanding of spoken English and their inexperience in negotiating meaning in English. On the other hand, 43% of the students’ responses indicated that they perceived English communication through the KakaoTalk MIM application as an interesting or novel experience. This was because they had the opportunity to communicate and negotiate meaning in English regardless of time and place. This was a rare opportunity, as they usually did not have the chance to interact in English on a daily basis.
During English communication, the media that students used the most were English translation applications like Papago, dictionaries and ChatGPT, followed by Google Translate. In addition, the findings indicated that students used search engines like YouTube and Naver as shown in Table 2. In particular, students’ responses pointed out that using translator channels helped in interpreting and understanding the words and sentences received from others during communication.
The use of these tools also enabled students to construct English sentences when they had difficulties due to their own grammatical limitations. It was convenient for them to learn English words, expressions, and construct sentences when exchanging messages via the MIM application. The use of digital tools such as Papago, Google Translate, dictionaries, and ChatGPT plays a role in the process of meaning negotiation in the aspects of modifications and restructuring during communication as follows:
It was difficult to write sentences in English during communication activities, but I can get some help by using Papago and Google Translate. These tools provided a lot of information about grammar and English expressions for communication with other members. (Student 4) When I couldn’t understand the sentences I received, using a dictionary or ChatGPT helped me comprehend them accurately. (Student 27)
As Student 4 noted, tools like Papago and Google Translate helped formulate English sentences by providing grammar support and offering alternative expressions. This indicates that these tools enabled the student to modify her intended message by providing clear and accurate ways to convey meaning. Thus, the student could rephrase or correct her expressions using these tools, facilitating smoother and more effective communication. In addition, these tools played a supportive role in building student’s confidence, as limited grammatical knowledge might otherwise cause hesitation, thus fostering engagement in communication tasks. Similarly, as mentioned by Student 27, using a dictionary or ChatGPT facilitated a clearer understanding of messages when struggling to comprehend them. This implies that the tools enabled the student to restructure the messages he received, breaking down complex sentences or unfamiliar vocabulary into more understandable parts. By providing immediate translations and clarifications, these tools allowed the student to reframe sentences, ensuring that the message was comprehensible despite initial linguistic barriers.
Another result of this study showed that, in general, students enjoyed discussing specific topics of various task types, with some advantages highlighted in the following excerpts:
Among the various topics given, I liked communicating with my group members about the global challenge of the school program. I had fun discussing and deciding on the countries and cities we wanted to visit together. I also enjoyed sharing my ideas and reasons with others for wanting to go to certain places. (Student 13)
One of the topics was interesting as it provided me with an opportunity to explain what I know. The topic was about becoming a tour guide, where I selected a city and tourist attractions. I was able to explain them to my group members. (Student 41)
When we had our group discussions about the YouTube clip we watched in class, I enjoyed communicating with my team members. It was a great way to practice English and share my own experiences. (Student 10)
During a group project on the assigned topics, students had the opportunity to discuss, collaborate, and negotiate meaning in English. They exchanged thoughts, opinions, and explained their ideas with peers, which helped reinforce their language skills. As commented by Student 13, the global challenge project, where they collaboratively chose travel destinations, fostered negotiation and cooperative decision-making in English. In particular, students engaged in meaning negotiation by discussing and exchanging their preferences for countries and cities to visit. This process involved modifying their initial ideas or rephrasing their opinions to ensure understanding among group members. Students might restructure their arguments or provide additional reasons to support their choices when others expressed differing views. By doing so, they had to adjust their language or simplify complex ideas to reach a consensus. This continuous process of proposing, modifying, and restructuring ideas is a key aspect of meaning negotiation. Additionally, Student 41 provided that the tour guide task allowed students to share their knowledge and articulate their ideas clearly. As noted by Student 10, group discussions played a key role in supporting language learning by offering opportunities for both language practice and personal connection. Furthermore, when sharing personal experiences or expressing opinions, students may rephrase or adjust their language to ensure clarity and understanding among group members. If a student’s idea is misunderstood or if they encounter a communication barrier, they may restructure their message by offering additional context or providing alternative explanations. This communicative process enhances meaning negotiation through modifications or restructuring. These collaborative activities created a comfortable environment where students could experiment with language and connect academic content with real-life experiences. This process promoted active language use and a sense of community through negotiated communication.
The students’ responses noted that they had some difficulties communicating in English through the MIM application. The most common issue mentioned by 18 students was the difficulty they experienced when they couldn’t immediately understand the words or expressions other students used, or when there were many sentences they couldn’t comprehend. Additionally, seven students mentioned that it took some time to think and construct sentences when replying, and that it was difficult to organize conversation times among group members. These issues reflect both individual language barriers and group dynamics that affected the communicative experience, as shown below.
I struggled when I couldn’t quickly understand the messages from my group members, including certain words and phrases. (Student 9)
When I encountered numerous sentences that were beyond my understanding, I had difficulty comprehending the messages. (Student 17)
Creating responses required considerable time to think about words and sentences. (Student 28)
It was a challenge to set the time for discussion and communication within my group. (Student 40)
As commented by Student 9, they struggled when they couldn’t immediately grasp the meaning of messages from group members, likely due to encountering unfamiliar vocabulary or complex sentence structures. Additionally, Student 17’s comment about “numerous sentences that were beyond my understanding” indicates that students may have struggled with both vocabulary and grammatical complexity. In online communication, where tone and context can be harder to interpret, this can lead to frustration and a sense of disconnection from the conversation. As Student 28 noted, constructing responses took significant time when learners were not thinking quickly in a foreign language. This can be particularly challenging in group communication, where responses need to be timely to maintain the flow of conversation. Moreover, as indicated by Student 40, the difficulty of coordinating conversation times within groups can affect any group communicative task. The nature of MIM communication, combined with differing schedules, can lead to delays and make it difficult to maintain consistent conversation among students. This challenge may impact the quality of group interactions, as the lack of immediate feedback can disrupt the smooth flow of conversation and reduce engagement. As a result, students may struggle to maintain clarity and coherence in their messages, which impacts the process of meaning negotiation. Meaning negotiation involves adjusting language or modifying one’s message to ensure understanding. However, with delayed responses, students may need to reframe or restructure their messages after receiving delayed feedback.
2. The Types of Tasks and the Negotiation of Meaning
In a four-week study, the duration of student engagement in task completion and the number of interaction turns within groups were measured. This was done to explore the influence of various task types on students’ engagement in communicative activities using the MIM KakaoTalk application. An example of their actual engagement in English communication using the MIM platform is presented in Figure 1 below.
The communication in Figure 1 illustrates how students negotiated meaning while choosing a travel destination in a decision-making task. Negotiation involved examining options and coordinating opinions. For example, S1 initiated the discussion by asking, “Which country do you want to go to?” prompting students to share their preferred destinations. When S3 said, “I am North Korea,” then corrected with, “Sorry,” it highlighted how misunderstandings occurred and were resolved during the negotiation. As preferences were shared, options narrowed, with S2 suggesting multiple countries and S4 preferring an English-speaking one. S3 further confirmed S2’s options with, “There are many places you want to go?” showing an effort to understand preferences. Positive comments about Austria from S2 could ultimately influence the group’s final decision. Through this exchange process, students engaged in meaning negotiation by coordinating their options.
The results showed the overall duration of engagement in communicative tasks on their respective topics over the four-week period. As indicated in Table 3, 5 out of the 8 groups spent the most time exchanging messages related to the decision-making task, with the following durations: 183 minutes for Group A, 131 minutes for Group C, 84 minutes for Group E, 48 minutes for Group F, and 43 minutes for Group H. Students spent the second most time negotiating meaning on the tasks of information gap and problem-solving. In contrast, 4 out of the 8 groups spent the least amount of time communicating during the narrative task, with the following durations: 27 minutes for Group B, 36 minutes for Group C, 20 minutes for Group F, and 13 minutes for Group H.
In Table 4, the total number of turns representing individual messages exchanged between group members is shown as follows: 5 out of the 8 groups exchanged messages with the following number of turns on the decision-making task: 177 for Group A, 114 for Group B, 127 for Group C, 82 for Group D, and 63 for Group E.
This aligns with the amount of time spent on messaging during the four-week period, where 5 out of 8 groups allocated the most time to communicative activities related to the decision-making task. These findings suggest that students were more actively involved in messaging, dedicating more time to increased message exchanges during the decision-making task. In this case, compared to other tasks, the decision-making task required students to research international programs and engage in an in-depth discussion. The task involved analyzing information, sharing opinions, and justifying choices, which could lead to more extensive communication. Students needed to select a destination country and collaboratively plan for it, aiming to reach a consensus. This process likely involved repeated rounds of suggestions, discussions, and agreements. As a result, this interactive approach led to prolonged engagement and a higher number of messages exchanged as students worked together to negotiate and refine their ideas.
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study investigated how Korean university students negotiated meaning in English using various tasks through the KakaoTalk MIM tool. The objective of the study was to identify how these tasks influence students’ negotiation of meaning on the MIM platform. Additionally, the study explored the advantages and challenges associated with negotiating meaning in English across different tasks. The findings indicated that Korean students experienced benefits when communicating in English with their group members on various tasks. They had opportunities to share their ideas and thoughts on different topics, allowing them to express and develop their perspectives. Additionally, they engaged in explaining their knowledge to their group members, fostering a collaborative learning environment. Students also negotiated meaning in English while completing various task-based communicative activities, which expanded their opportunities to use the language on a daily basis.
Students engaged in significant language practice in groups through various tasks. These tasks provided opportunities for students to use English to convey their intended meanings. As Ellis (2000) noted, giving learners chances to engage in meaning negotiation allows them to receive comprehensible input, thereby facilitating second language (L2) acquisition. The students’ involvement in negotiating meaning in English can be attributed to the use of specific task types, such as problem solving, decision-making, narrative tasks, and information gap activities, through the KakaoTalk MIM application. These tasks proved effective in promoting students’ negotiation of meaning and enhancing their communicative abilities. This can be explained that interactional modifications and adjustments that are beneficial for second language acquisition are more likely to occur while completing tasks that require information exchange and mutual information sharing (Ellis, 2000).
However, students also highlighted difficulties in understanding messages with unfamiliar vocabulary or complex sentences and in composing their responses. This finding is consistent with those of Kessler (2018) and Sydorenko (2010), who pointed out that, while mobile-assisted communicative messaging facilitates negotiation of meaning, but also shows gaps in students’ comprehension, especially with more sophisticated language use. Translation tools and generative AI applications, like ChatGPT, Papago, and Google Translate, can bridge these gaps by providing immediate language support. These tools offer learners ways to clarify meaning and refine their expressions during negotiating meaning, thus enhancing their ability to participate more confidently in communicative tasks. For instance, they allow students to quickly grasp the meaning of unfamiliar words and phrases or provide language suggestions for clearer understanding as noted by Student 27: “When I couldn’t understand the sentences I received, using a dictionary or ChatGPT helped me comprehend them accurately.” However, it is necessary to consider the balance between using such translation tools or generative AI applications and fostering independent language skills. As Moody and Bobic (2011) noted, there is concern that excessive reliance on digital tools in technology-enhanced communication might hinder the development of language learners’ writing abilities. Therefore, teachers should provide guidance on when and how to integrate translation tools and generative AI applications into their instructional strategies, as we live in a technology-driven communication society where these tools support the negotiation of meaning during communication.
In addition, the finding indicated that students spent the most time and exchanged the most messages during the decision-making task, which involved planning a global challenge project. This task required choosing countries, cities, and any activity programs they wanted, with flexible and open-ended options. The reason open-ended tasks including decision-making, might require more brainstorming and collaboration is that they involve negotiating and refining ideas to reach a consensus on the project plan among students. This aligns with the findings of Ellis (2003a), who noted that open-ended tasks stimulate negotiation of meaning and encourage learners to present and refine their ideas through communication. Compared to structured tasks such as information gap or jigsaw activities, open-ended tasks allow learners to exercise greater creativity and personal expression (Ellis, 2003b). These tasks encourage participants to generate ideas, engage in meaning negotiation, and adapt to broader and more flexible contexts, fostering deeper engagement with the language (Ellis, 2003a; Long, 1996; Pica et al., 1993; Swain, 2000). In this study, the decision-making task required students to research international programs and engage in an in-depth discussion. This task involved analyzing information, sharing opinions, and justifying choices, which led to more extensive communication. Students needed to select a destination country and collaboratively plan for it, aiming to reach a consensus. This process likely involved repeated rounds of suggestions, discussions, and agreements. As a result, this interactive process led to prolonged engagement and a higher number of messages exchanged as students worked together to negotiate and refine their ideas. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers create and implement decision-making tasks as part of their classes to help students engage in communicative activities with their group members. Results from task-based activities using the MIM platform showed that decision-making tasks can be effectively utilized to improve students’ negotiation of meaning, even in large class sizes. This is because decisionmaking activities on the MIM platform make effective use of group work, providing students with extensive and sufficient practice in using the English language. Therefore, it is suggested that teachers incorporate these activities using the MIM platform into their EFL teaching programs.
This study has several limitations. First, the study was conducted over a relatively short period of four weeks, which may not provide enough time to fully observe the long-term impact of task-based activities on students’ negotiation of meaning. The study focused on only four tasks, which could restrict the applicability of the findings to other task types or contexts.
For future studies, a more extended investigation could be beneficial to better understand how task-based activities influence students’ negotiation of meaning over a longer time frame. Conducting the research over several months or even an entire semester may allow for a more in-depth analysis of the sustained effects of such activities. Furthermore, future studies could explore whether Korean students improve their linguistic skills such as vocabulary, grammar, or sentence structure through a longitudinal study of negotiation of meaning in MIM interactions. By assessing language skill levels before and after the interaction period, such a study could facilitate comparisons to measure improvements in language learning through negotiation of meaning using MIM platforms.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
Print
