Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-m4xc2 Total loading time: 0.321 Render date: 2021-04-21T15:10:07.777Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
ReCALL ReCALL

Article contents

The effects of task type in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2010

Yucel Yilmaz  and
Gisela Granena
Yucel Yilmaz
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Language Research Center Craigie Hall D411, University of Calgary 2500 University Drive N.W. Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4Canada (240) 8808939/(403) 2108544 (email: yyilmaz@ucalgary.ca)
Gisela Granena
Affiliation:
University of Maryland at College Park, 4120 Jimenez hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740 (850) 9802554 (email: ggranena@umd.edu)
Corresponding
E-mail address:
yyilmaz@ucalgary.ca
ggranena@umd.edu
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the potential of learner-learner interaction through Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) to focus learners’ attention on form. Focus on form is operationalized through Language-Related Episodes (LREs), instances where learners turn their attention to formal aspects of language by questioning the accuracy of their own or each other’s language use. The study also compares two task types, jigsaw and dictogloss, with respect to the number and characteristics of LREs. Ten adult intermediate ESL learners from an intensive English language program in the US worked together in dyads to carry out one jigsaw and one dictogloss task in an SCMC environment. Tasks were controlled for content and were presented in two alternative orders. The dictogloss in this study generated more LREs than the jigsaw. LREs were also qualitatively different across task types. Jigsaw LREs were implicit and did not result in incorrectly solved outcomes, whereas dictogloss LREs were explicit and resulted in correctly solved, incorrectly solved, and unresolved outcomes.

Keywords

Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) focus on form interaction negotiation for meaning
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 20 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Abrams, Z. I. (2003) The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87(2): 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1992) Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annuals, 25: 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1998) Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2): 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berge, Z.Collins, M. (1995) Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Overview and perspectives (Vol. 1). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1): 120–136.Google Scholar
Blake, R.Zyzik, E. (2003) Who’s helping whom: Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussion in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24(4): 519–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shillcock, R.Yule, G. (1984) Teaching Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chappelle, C. A. (2004) Learning through online communication: Findings and implications from second language research. American Sociological Review, 51: 541–554.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1994) Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H.Brennan, S. A. (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. and Teasley, S. D. (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: APA Books, 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darhower, M 2000. Synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate foreign class: A sociocultural case study. Unpublished dissertation, University of Pittsburg.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J. (2003) Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL?: A study on the effect of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1): 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: Lantolf, J. P. and Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 33–56.Google Scholar
Doughty, C.Williams, J. (eds.) (1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2000) Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3): 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
García, M. F.Arbelaiz, A. M. (2003) Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15(1): 113–136.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2002) The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2): 156–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, J.Oliver, R. (2003) Chat-line interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17: 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effect on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4): 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitade, K. (2000) L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2): 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotter, M. (2003) Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2): 145–172.Google Scholar
Kowal, M.Swain, M. (1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3: 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M.Swain, M. (1997) From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom?. In: Johnson, R. K. and Swain, M. (eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C.Zhao, Y. (2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3): 102–120.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., Swain, M.Smith, M. (2002) Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86: 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (2002) Synchronous online exchanges: a study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30: 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1): 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005) Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27: 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S.Philp, J. (2006) Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4): 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1991) Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. and Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413–468.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007) Problems in SLA. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. H.Robinson, P. (1998) Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In: Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA Cambridge University Press: New York, 15–41.Google Scholar
Malmqvist, A. (2005) How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness, 14(2 & 3): 128–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, F. (2005) Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in a computer mediated L2 class. Language Learning and Technology, 9(1): 29–45.Google Scholar
Negretti, R. (1999) Web-Based Activities and SLA: A conversation Analysis Research Approach. Language Learning and Technology, 3(1): 75–87.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M.Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50: 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oscoz, A . (2003) Jigsaw and free discussion in synchronous computer-mediated communication (S-CMC). Unpublished dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Payne, J. S.Whitney, P. J. (2002) Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1): 7–32.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In: Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44: 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, England: Multilingual Matters, 9–34.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22: 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollet, G.Tremblay, R. (1975) Speaking and writing with comic strips. Montréal, QC: Centre Educatif et Culturel.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.Frota, S. (1986) Developing basic conversation ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner. In: Day, R. (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 237–326.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2001) Tasks and language performance assessment. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. London, UK: Longman, 167–185.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003a) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003b) The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31: 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sotillo, S. M. (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1): 82–119.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (1998) Comparing second language learners’ attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 7: 176–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2001) Comparing ESL learners’ attention to grammar on three different collaborative tasks. RELC Journal, 32(2): 104–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1): 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, N.Pratt, E. (1996) A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29(4): 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In: Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 64–81.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 97–114.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In: Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 471–484.Google Scholar
Swain, M.Lapkin, S. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3): 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.Lapkin, S. (2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and assessment. London, UK: Longman, 99–119.Google Scholar
Thoms, J., Liao, J.Szustak, A. (2005) The use of L1 in a L2 online chat activity. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62: 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toyoda, E.Harrison, R. (2002) Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1): 82–99.Google Scholar
Tudini, E. (2003) Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3): 141–159.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990) Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Warner, C. (2004) It’s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning and Technology, 8(2): 69–87.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2 & 3): 7–26.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81(4): 470–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999) Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49: 583–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2001) The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29: 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 19
Total number of PDF views: 224 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

17
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The effects of task type in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The effects of task type in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The effects of task type in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *