Second language development in face-to-face versus synchronous computer-mediated interactions: Dyadic type and language proficiency

Abstract

Language negotiations facilitate second language acquisition (SLA) in both face-to-face (FTF) and computer-mediated interactions. Research shows that dyadic type can impact the quantity and quality of negotiations. Although both learner (L)-learner and native speaker (NS)-L dyadic type interactions have shown to be beneficial to SLA, it is still unclear which dyadic type is more effective for second language (L2) development in FTF and computer-mediated interactions. To fill this gap, this quantitative study compares FTF versus text-synchronous-computer-mediated communication (SCMC) task-based interactions by examining the following question: Is there a significant difference in the (1) frequency of negotiations and (2) effect of negotiations on subsequent L2 development in FTF interactions compared with text-SCMC in the following three dyadic types: NS-low-proficiency learners (LPL), NS-high-proficiency learners (HPL), and HPL–LPL? The study is grounded in the Interaction Hypothesis, which argues that comprehensible input, opportunities for modified output, and noticing are essential for interactions to facilitate SLA through negotiation episodes. The participants included four NSs, four LPLs, and four HPLs. The participants were paired up to form two of each of the following dyadic types: NS–LPL, NS–HPL, and HPL–LPL. All dyads performed one task in each mode. The learners took a tailor-made posttest, designed to measure their L2 development. The data collection included transcribed FTF interactions, SCMC chats, and posttest scores. The interactions were coded for negotiation episodes and strategies. The posttest responses were coded as correct, partially correct, or incorrect. Chi-square test of independence was used to analyse the quantitative data because of their categorical nature and small sample size. Results found no statistically significant difference in the frequency of negotiation episodes among the three dyadic types or the LPLs’ and HPLs’ language learning outcome in FTF versus SCMC. Pedagogical implications are discussed.

Keywords

computer-mediated communication dyadic types face-to-face interaction language proficiency negotiation episodes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrams

Z.I.

(2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167.

Baralt

(2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.

Baralt

(2014). Task sequencing and task complexity in traditional versus online classes. In Baralt

Gilabert

Robinson

(Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 95–122). Bloomsbury.

Baralt

Gurzynski-Weiss

Kim

(2016). Engagement with the language. In Sato

Ballinger

(Eds.), Language Learning and Language Teaching (pp. 209–239). John Benjamins.

Boonsue

Jansem

Srinaowaratt

(2015). Interactional patterns in face-to-face and synchronous computer-mediated communication in problem-based learning contexts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6, 99–110.

Ellis

(2015). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Fernandez-Garcia

Arbelaiz

(2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15, 113–136.

Gass

S.M.

Mackey

(2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten

Williams

(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 180–206). Routledge.

Gurzynski-Weiss

Baralt

(2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.

10.

Gurzynski-Weiss

Baralt

(2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420.

11.

Hamano-Bunce

(2010). Talk or chat? Chatroom and spoken interaction in a language classroom. ELT Journal, 65, 426–436.

12.

Huong

L.P.H.

(2007). The more knowledgeable peer, target language use, and group participation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 329–350.

13.

Kim

H.Y.

(2014). Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27, 26–43.

14.

Kim

McDonough

(2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.

15.

Kung

Eslami

Z.R.

(2015). Learners of different language proficiency levels and incidental focus on form in synchronous text-based discussion. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 42–59.

16.

Lai

Zhao

(2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 102–120. Available at: http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/laizhao (accessed May 2022).

17.

Leeser

M.J.

(2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.

18.

Loewen

(2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.

19.

Loewen

Erlam

(2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14.

20.

Loewen

Reissner

(2009). A comparison of incidental focus on form in the second language classroom and chatroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 101–114.

21.

Long

M.H.

(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie

W.C.

Bathia

T.K.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on second language (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.

22.

Mackey

Gass

(2016). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.

23.

Moradi

Farvardin

(2019). Negotiation of meaning by mixed-proficiency dyads in face-to-face and synchronous computer-mediated communication. TESOL Journal, 11, e0046.

24.

Nassaji

(2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511–548.

25.

Nassaji

(2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 66, 907–933.

26.

Nassaji

(2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 353–368.

27.

Nguyen

L.V.

White

(2011). The nature of ‘talk’ in synchronous computer-mediated communication in a Vietnamese tertiary EFL context. Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 14–36.

28.

Niu

Jiang

Deng

(2018). Effect of proficiency pairing on L2 learners’ language learning and scaffolding in collaborative writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27, 187–195.

29.

Oxford (2017, September 30). OOE English Level Test. Oxford Online English. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordonlineenglish.com/english-level-test (accessed May 2022).

30.

Payne

J.S.

Whitney

P.J.

(2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.

31.

Pica

Kanagy

Falodun

(2009). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In Brandren

K.V.D.

Bygate

Norris

J.M.

(Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 171–192). John Benjamins.

32.

Ribeiro

Eslami

Z.R.

Jiang

(2019). Corrective feedback in second language face-to-face versus computer-mediated interactions. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 9, 14–30.

33.

Rouhshad

Wigglesworth

Storch

(2016). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20, 514–534.

34.

Satar

H.M.

Özdener

(2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 595–613.

35.

Sato

(2006). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In Mackey

(Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.123–142). Oxford University Press.

36.

Sauro

(2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13, 96–120. Available at: http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf (accessed May 2022).

37.

Schmidt

(1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.

38.

Shin

S.Y.

Lidster

Sabraw

Yeager

(2016). The effects of L2 proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in a collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20, 366–386.

39.

Sotillo

(2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS–NNS and NNS–NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22, 467–496.

40.

Tam

S.S.

Kan

N.H.

L.L.

(2010). Low proficiency learners in synchronous computer-assisted and face-to-face interactions. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9, 61–75.

41.

Warschauer

(1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7–26.

42.

Yang

Y.C.

Gamble

Tang

S.S.

(2012). Voice over instant messaging as a tool for enhancing the oral proficiency and motivation of English-as-a-foreign-language learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 448–464.

43.

Yanguas

(2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning and Technology, 14, 72–93.

44.

Yanguas

(2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29, 507–531.

45.

Yilmaz

Yuksel

(2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477.

46.

Yuksel

Inan

(2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26, 333–354.

47.

Zabihi

Ghahramanzadeh

(2022). Proficiency pairing and engagement with language in L2 peer interaction. System, 105, 102725.

48.

Zeng

(2017). Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 29, 257–275.

49.

Zhao

S.Y.

Bitchener

(2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447.