Finding the zone of proximal development: Student-tutor second language dialogue interactions

The goal of dialogue practice for a second language learner is to facilitate their production of dialogue similar to that between native speakers. This paper explores the characteristics of student and tutor dialogue in terms of their differences from classic conversational and task-oriented corpora. Interlocutors have the tendency to align to the language of the other in conversational dialogue, creating a symmetry between speakers which learners of a language may be unable at first to achieve. Our hypothesis is that as a learner’s competence increases, symmetry between learner and tutor language increases. We investigate this at both a surface and a deeper level, using automatic measures of linguistic complexity, and dialogue act analysis. The data supports our hypothesis.

[1]  J. Jenkins,et al.  Simplification of Flesch Reading Ease Formula. , 1951 .

[2]  J. Bruner,et al.  The role of tutoring in problem solving. , 1976, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[3]  L. Vygotsky.  Interaction between learning and development , 1978 .

[4]  John J. Godfrey,et al.  SWITCHBOARD: telephone speech corpus for research and development , 1992, [Proceedings] ICASSP-92: 1992 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[5]  Michael Bader,et al.  The HCRC Map Task Corpus: A Natural Spoken Dialogue Corpus , 1993 .

[6]  Dan Jurafsky,et al.  Dialog Act Modeling for Conversational Speech , 1998 .

[7]  A. Stolcke,et al.  Dialog act modelling for conversational speech , 1998 .

[8]  Andreas Stolcke,et al.  Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech , 2000, CL.

[9]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Using Latent Semantic Analysis to Evaluate the Contributions of Students in AutoTutor , 2000, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[10]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  AutoTutor: an intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[11]  Carmen Muñoz,et al.  Age and the rate of foreign language learning , 2006 .

[12]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Tutorial Dialogue as Adaptive Collaborative Learning Support , 2007, AIED.

[13]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  A Study of Feedback Strategies in Foreign Language Classrooms and Tutorials with Implications for Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning Systems , 2007, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[14]  John Zakos,et al.  CLIVE - An Artificially Intelligent Chat Robot for Conversational Language Practice , 2008, SETN.

[15]  W. Lewis Johnson,et al.  Tactical Language and Culture Training Systems: Using AI to Teach Foreign Languages and Cultures , 2009, AI Mag..

[16]  Peter Robinson,et al.  Second language task complexity : researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance , 2011 .

[17]  Magdalena Wolska,et al.  Meaning versus Form in Computer-assisted Task-based Language Learning: A Case Study on the German Dative , 2011, J. Lang. Technol. Comput. Linguistics.

[18]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[19]  Walt Detmar Meurers,et al.  Exploring Measures of "Readability" for Spoken Language: Analyzing linguistic features of subtitles to identify age-specific TV programs , 2014, PITR@EACL.

[20]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  BEETLE II: Deep Natural Language Understanding and Automatic Feedback Generation for Intelligent Tutoring in Basic Electricity and Electronics , 2014, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[21]  Chris Callison-Burch,et al.  Problems in Current Text Simplification Research: New Data Can Help , 2015, TACL.

[22]  Walt Detmar Meurers,et al.  Readability-based Sentence Ranking for Evaluating Text Simplification , 2016, ArXiv.