Volume 170, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This exploratory study examines the extent to which mode differentially impacts the quantity and quality of interactional features in second language (L2) task-based interaction. Following a within-subject, repeated measures design, intermediate adult learners ( = 20) completed four (counter-balanced) tasks with a confederate interlocutor in the following conditions: audio-chat, video-chat, text-chat, and multimodal chat (in which participants could interact using more than one form of communication). Quantitative analyses examined the quality of learners’ interactions, including negotiation, recasts, and LREs. Data regarding learners’ perceptions of type of technology were also collected to provide a more holistic perspective. The results demonstrate differences in terms of interactional features and learners’ preference based on mode of technology.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Beauvois, M. H.
    (1992) Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 455–464. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1992.tb01128.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb01128.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Bialystok, E.
    (1990) Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use. B. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blake, R.
    (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 111–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blake, R. J.
    (2005) Bimodal CMC: The glue of language learning at a distance. CALICO Journal, 497–511.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bueno-Alastuey, M. C.
    (2013) Interactional feedback in Synchronous Voice-based Computer Mediated Communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41(3), 543–559. 10.1016/j.system.2013.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chapelle, C.
    (1997) CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms?Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 19–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chapelle, C. A.
    (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2009) The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00970.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Chun, D. M.
    (1994) Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17–31. 10.1016/0346‑251X(94)90037‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)90037-X [Google Scholar]
  10. (1998) Using computer-assisted classroom discussion to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. InJ. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley, & K. Arens (Eds.), Language learning online: Theory and practice in the ESL and L2 computer classroom (pp.57–80). Austin, TX: Labyrinth.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H.
    (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G.
    (1983) Strategies in interlanguage communication. Longman Pub Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Faraco, M., & Kida, T.
    (2008) Some remarks on gesture in second language classroom. Gesture in Second Language Acquisition. Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A.
    (Eds.) (2012) The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London ; New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L.
    (Eds.) (2014) Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tblt.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gullberg, M.
    (1998) Gesture as a communication strategy in second language discourse: A study of learners of French and Swedish (Vol.35). Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gurzynski-Weiss, L.
    (2016) Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 255–275. 10.1111/modl.12314
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12314 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M.
    (2014) Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in face-to-face and computer-mediated modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(1), 1–37. 10.1017/S0272263113000363
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000363 [Google Scholar]
  19. (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(6), 1393–1420. 10.1017/S0142716414000320
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000320 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heaton, J. B.
    (1966) Composition through pictures. Longman Group United Kingdom.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S.
    (2006) Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. InJ. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Language Learning & Language Teaching (Vol.13, pp.91–131). doi:  10.1075/lllt.13.08kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.08kec [Google Scholar]
  22. Kellerman, S.
    (1992) ‘I see what you mean’: The role of kinesic behaviour in listening and implications for foreign and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 13(3), 239–258. 10.1093/applin/13.3.239
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.3.239 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kelm, O. R.
    (1992) The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441–454. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1992.tb01127.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb01127.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Kern, R. G.
    (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457–476. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1995.tb05445.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05445.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K.
    (2008) The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. 10.1177/1362168807086288
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lai, C., & Li, G.
    (2011) Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521. 10.11139/cj.28.2.498‑521
    https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.498-521 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, L.
    (2007) Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 635–649. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2007.tb02885.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb02885.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Leeser, M. J.
    (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. 10.1191/1362168804lr134oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr134oa [Google Scholar]
  29. Long, M. H.
    (1983) Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(02), 177. 10.1017/S0272263100004848
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.413–468). doi:  10.1016/B978‑012589042‑7/50015‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2007) Problems in SLA. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mackey, A., & Goo, J.
    (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. InA. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of empirical studies (pp.407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J.
    (2003) Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00210
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00210 [Google Scholar]
  34. MacWhinney, B.
    (2003) Child language analyses (CLAN) (version 23 September 2003) [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
  35. Mayer, R. E.
    (2009) Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511811678
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678 [Google Scholar]
  36. McDonough, K., & Mackey, A.
    (2006) Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2006.00393.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00393.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Oliver, R.
    (2000) Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119–151. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00113
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00113 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pellettieri, J.
    (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. InM. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching (pp.59–86). doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139524735.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524735.006 [Google Scholar]
  39. Salaberry, M. R.
    (2000) L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5–27. 10.1076/0958‑8221(200002)13:1;1‑K;FT005
    https://doi.org/10.1076/0958-8221(200002)13:1;1-K;FT005 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sauro, S.
    (2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 369–391. 10.11139/cj.28.2.369‑391
    https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.369-391 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sauro, S., & Smith, B.
    (2010) Investigating L2 performance in text-chat. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 554–577. 10.1093/applin/amq007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq007 [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, B.
    (2003) Computer–mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57. 10.1111/1540‑4781.00177
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00177 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2004) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexcial acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(03). doi:  10.1017/S027226310426301X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426301X [Google Scholar]
  44. (2010) Employing eye-tracking technology in researching the effectiveness of recasts in CMC. InF. M. Hult (Ed.), Directions and Prospects for Educational Linguistics (Vol.11, pp.79–97). doi:  10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9136‑9_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9136-9_6 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M.
    (2005) The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55(4), 661–699. 10.1111/j.0023‑8333.2005.00320.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00320.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Swain, M.
    (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. InS. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.165–179). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. InG. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of HG Widdowson (pp.125–144). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. InC. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S.
    (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Swain, M.
    (2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.495–508). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sykes, J. M.
    (2005) Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399–431. 10.1558/cj.v22i3.399‑431
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.399-431 [Google Scholar]
  52. Warschauer, M.
    (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1997.tb05514.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Yanguas, I.
    (2010) Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time!Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2012) Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 507–531. 10.11139/cj.29.3.507‑531
    https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.3.507-531 [Google Scholar]
  56. Yanguas, I., & Bergin, T.
    (2018) Focus on form in task-based L2 oral computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 65–81. 10125/44657
    https://doi.org/10125/44657 [Google Scholar]
  57. Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D.
    (2011) Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 457–477. 10.1177/1362168811412873
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412873 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ziegler, N.
    (2016) Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163. 10.1017/S0267190516000039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000039 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2017) The contingency of recasts, learners’ noticing, and L2 development: Insights on saliency from multiple modalities. InS. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.). Salience and SLA. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Ziegler, N. & Smith, G.
    (2017) Teacher individual differences: A first look at working memory, feedback, and modified output opportunities. InL. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Examining learners, instructors, and researchers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]

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