1887
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Recent research on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) showed the efficacy of using computer-mediated communication (CMC) to promote second language (L2) learning (Ziegler, 2016). However, few studies compared the interactional sequences during task-based interaction across different modalities (e.g., oral and written chat). It is thus not clear how different task modalities mediate task-based interaction and L2 learning opportunities. To fill this gap, this study compared CMC written chat and face-to-face (FTF) oral chat for interactional sequences during decision-making tasks. Participants were 20 learners of Chinese (high-elementary to intermediate level) in a U.S. university. Ten participants completed the tasks in CMC, while the other 10 completed the same tasks in FTF. The interaction data were analyzed for frequency and patterns of interactional strategies. Three types of interactional sequences emerged in both groups: orientating to tasks, suggesting actions and evaluating suggestions. CMC participants suggested actions more frequently than FTF participants. While both groups predominantly agreed with proposed suggestions, CMC dyads expressed disagreement three times more than FTF dyads. CMC dyads also used more utterances to manage task progress. Findings are discussed in terms of the interactional organizations and their potential influence on task-based language use in different modalities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.19010.tan
2020-08-17
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Blake, R.
    (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2016) Technology and the four skills. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 129–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Condon, S. L., & Čech, C. G.
    (1996) Discourse management strategies in face-to-face and computer-mediated decision making interactions. Electronic Journal of Communication, 6(3), 65–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2010) Discourse management in three modalities. [email protected] Internet, 7(6), 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A.
    (2006) Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19(1), 3–17. 10.1075/aila.19.03gas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.03gas [Google Scholar]
  7. González-Lloret, M.
    (2015) A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2016) The construction of emotion in multilingual computer-mediated interaction. InM. T. Prior & G. Kasper (Eds.), Emotion in multilingual interaction, (pp.289–311). John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.266.12gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.266.12gon [Google Scholar]
  9. Herring, S.
    (1999) Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.1999.tb00106.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Lai, C., & Zhao, Y.
    (2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Li, S.
    (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00561.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Long, M. H.
    (1985) A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. InK. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp.77–99). Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Nuevo, A.
    (2006) Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ortega, L.
    (2009) Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. InA. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp.226–253). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Pellettieri, J.
    (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. InM. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp.59–86). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524735.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524735.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M.
    (Eds.) (2018) TBLT as a researched pedagogy: Vol. 12. John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/tblt.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.12 [Google Scholar]
  18. Simpson, J.
    (2005) Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse studies, 7(3), 337–361. 10.1177/1461445605052190
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605052190 [Google Scholar]
  19. Smith, B.
    (2003) The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29–53. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(02)00072‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00072-6 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2004) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 365–398. 10.1017/S027226310426301X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426301X [Google Scholar]
  21. (2005) The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33–58. 10.2307/3588451
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588451 [Google Scholar]
  22. Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y.
    (Eds.) (2018) Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/tblt.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10 [Google Scholar]
  23. Tang, X.
    (2019) The effects of task modality on L2 Chinese learners’ pragmatic development: Computer-mediated written chat vs. face-to-face oral chat. System, 80, 48–59. 10.1016/j.system.2018.10.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Van den Branden, K.
    (Ed.) (2006) Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge university Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667282
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282 [Google Scholar]
  26. Wasson, C.
    (2016) Integrating conversation analysis and issue framing to illuminate collaborative decision-making activities. Discourse & Communication, 10(4), 378–411. 10.1177/1750481316638153
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316638153 [Google Scholar]
  27. Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D.
    (2011) Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477. 10.1177/1362168811412873
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412873 [Google Scholar]
  28. Zeng, G.
    (2017) Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 29, 257–275. 10.1017/S0958344017000118
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000118 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ziegler, N.
    (2016) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. 10.1017/S027226311500025X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ap.19010.tan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.19010.tan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error