Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2666-1748
  • E-ISSN: 2666-1756
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In this study, we compared the impact of audio-, video-, and text-chat interaction on target language use during online learner-learner interaction and on learner affect amongst adolescent learners of German as a foreign language. Repeated measures and ANOVA analyses revealed a high percentage of target language output in all conditions for all four tasks, especially in text- chat. Audio-chatters produced the most output and used the most meaning negotiation, compensation strategies, self-repair and other-repair strategies. Learners in all conditions gained in enjoyment, willingness to communicate and self-efficacy. Anxiety reduced for text-chatters. Task effects partly determined the quantity of L2 output, while condition effects determined meaning-oriented and form-focused processing.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adams, R., & Oliver, R.
    (2019) Teaching Through Peer Interaction (1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315115696
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315115696 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baralt, M., & Morcillo Gómez, J.
    (2017) Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 28–43. hdl.handle.net/10125/44630
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blake, R. J.
    (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window of L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 41, 111–125. doi:10125/25089
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bueno-Alastuey, M.
    (2011) Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer- mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 241, 419–432. 10.1080/09588221.2011.574639
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.574639 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chun, D. M.
    (1998) Using computer-assisted class 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). Labyrinth Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Compton, L.
    (2004) Using text chat to improve willingness to communicate. InJ.-B. Son (Ed.), Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Concepts, Contexts and Practices (pp.123–144). iUniverse.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Côté, S., & Gaffney, C.
    (2021) The effect of synchronous computer- mediated communication on beginner L2 learners’ foreign language anxiety and participation. The Language Learning Journal, 49(1), 105–116. 10.1080/09571736.2018.1484935
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1484935 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dewaele, J. M., Witney, J., Saito, K., & Dewaele, L.
    (2017) Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: The effect of teacher and learner variables. Language Teaching Research, 22(6), 676–697. 10.1177/1362168817692161
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817692161 [Google Scholar]
  9. Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H.
    (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80. doi:10125/25214
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dunn, L., & Dunn, D.
    (2007) The Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). NCS Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fasoglio, D., De Jong, K., Pennewaard, L., Trimbos, B., & Tuin, D.
    (2015) Moderne vreemde talen. Vakspecifieke trendanalyse 2015 [Modern foreign languages. Subject-specific trend analysis 2015]. SLO.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A.
    (2002) Negotiation of meaning in non-native speaker-non-native speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 191, 279–294. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24149362
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D.
    (2006) Willingness to communicate: Can on-line chat help?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1621, 190–213. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2006.00113.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00113.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Golonka, E., Tare, M., & Bonilla, C.
    (2017) Peer interaction in text chat: Qualitative analysis of chat transcripts. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 157–178. hdl.handle.net/10125/44616
    [Google Scholar]
  16. González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L.
    (2014) Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. InM. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp.1–22). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.6.01gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.01gon [Google Scholar]
  17. Hampel, R., & Hauck, M.
    (2004) Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 66–82. doi:10125/25230
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jepson, K.
    (2005) Conversations and negotiated interactions in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 91, 79–98. doi:10125/44033
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S.
    (2006) InJ. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp.91–131). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.13.08kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.08kec [Google Scholar]
  20. Lai, C., & Li, G.
    (2011) Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 281, 1–24. 10.11139/cj.28.2.498‑521
    https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.498-521 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, L.
    (2001) Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCall, 13(2), 232–244. 10.1017/S0958344001000829a
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344001000829a [Google Scholar]
  22. Lin, H.
    (2014) Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 120–147. doi:10125/44387
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lin, W. C., Huang, H. T., & Liou, H. C.
    (2013) The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: A meta- analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 123–142. doi:10125/44327
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Loewen, S., & Sato, M.
    (2018) Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329. 10.1017/S0261444818000125
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125 [Google Scholar]
  25. Loewen, S., & Wolff, D.
    (2016) Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. InM. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp.163–184). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.45.07loe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.07loe [Google Scholar]
  26. Long, M.
    (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp.413–468). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑012589042‑7/50015‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Long, M. H.
    (2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. MacIntyre, P., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K.
    (1998) Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb05543.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x [Google Scholar]
  29. MacIntyre, P., Babin, P., & Clément, R.
    (1999) Willingness to communicate: Antecedents & consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47(2), 215–229. 10.1080/01463379909370135
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379909370135 [Google Scholar]
  30. MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Conrod, S.
    (2001) Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 369–388. 10.1017/S0272263101003035
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101003035 [Google Scholar]
  31. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S., Clement, R., & Donovan, L.
    (2002) Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 521, 537–564. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00194
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00194 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mackey, A., & Goo, J.
    (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. InA. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp.408–452). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Nik, N., & Adams, R.
    (2009) TBLT and SCMC: How do students use communication strategies?Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 191, 135–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ortega, L.
    (2009) Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. InA. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA: Research in honor of Susan M. Gass. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Parlak, Ö., & Ziegler, N.
    (2017) The impact of recasts on the development of primary stress in a synchronous computer-mediated environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 39(2), 257–285. 10.1017/S0272263116000310
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000310 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. Peterson, M.
    (2010) Task-Based language teaching in network-based CALL: An analysis of research on learner interaction in synchronous CMC. InM. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.). Task- Based language learning and teaching with technology (pp.41–62). Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N.
    (2014) Peer interaction and second language learning. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F.
    (2014) How big Is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. 10.1111/lang.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  40. Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N.
    (2016) The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language, Learning and Technology, 20(2), 17–37. doi:10125/44459
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Satar, H., & Özdener, N.
    (2008) The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 595–613. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00789.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Sauro, S.
    (2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 369–391. www.jstor.org/stable/calicojournal.28.2.369. 10.11139/cj.28.2.369‑391
    https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.369-391 [Google Scholar]
  43. Shao-Ting, H., & Huang, H. T. D.
    (2021) Exploring EFL learners’ willingness to communicate in multimodal videoconferences. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 11(4), 79–99. 10.4018/IJCALLT.2021100106
    https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2021100106 [Google Scholar]
  44. Smith, B.
    (2003) The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31(1), 29–53. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(02)00072‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00072-6 [Google Scholar]
  45. (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]
  46. (2008) Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self- repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85–103. doi:10125/44132
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Smith, B., & Sauro, S.
    (2009) Interruptions in chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 229–247. 10.1080/09588220902920219
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220902920219 [Google Scholar]
  48. Tudini, V.
    (2003) Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 141–159. doi:10125/25218
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Batenburg, E. S. L., Oostdam, R. J., van Gelderen, A. J. S., Fukkink, R. G., & de Jong, N.
    (2019) Oral interaction in the EFL classroom: The effects of instructional focus and task type on learner affect. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1), 308–326. 10.1111/modl.12545
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12545 [Google Scholar]
  50. Van de Guchte, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G.
    (2018) Chatten in taakgericht MVT onderwijs: Effect op doeltaalgebruik en ervaringen van leerlingen. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 19(4), 3–14. https://lt-tijdschriften.nl/ojs/index.php/ltt/article/view/1889
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Van der Zwaard, R., & Bannink, A.
    (2014) Video call or chat? Negotiation of meaning and issues of face in telecollaboration. System, 441, 137–148. 10.1016/j.system.2014.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  52. VanPatten, B.
    (2004) Input processing in SLA. InB. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp.5–31). Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410610195
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610195 [Google Scholar]
  53. Yamaha, M., & Akahori, K.
    (2007) Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives?Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 37–65. 10.1080/09588220601118503
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220601118503 [Google Scholar]
  54. Yanguas, I.
    (2010) Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time!Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72–93. 10125/44227
    https://doi.org/10125/44227 [Google Scholar]
  55. 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]
  56. Ziegler, N.
    (2016a) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta- analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. 10.1017/S027226311500025X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X [Google Scholar]
  57. (2016b) Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 136–163. 10.1017/S0267190516000039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000039 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ziegler, N., & Phung, H.
    (2019) Technology-mediated task-based interaction: The role of multimodality. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 251–276. 10.1075/itl.19014.zie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19014.zie [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