Cover not available
Article published In:
Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 2:2 (2020) ► pp.174–198

Task-based interactional sequences in different modalities

A comparison between computer-mediated written chat and face-to-face oral chat

| Carnegie Mellon University
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.
Keywords: computer-mediated communication (CMC), face-to-face interaction (FTF), TBLT, Chinese, decision-making tasks
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Task-based interaction in CMC and FTF
    • 2.2Interactional strategies in decision-making tasks
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Tasks and task procedures
    • 3.3Coding scheme
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Participants in CMC and FTF followed similar decision-making sequences
    • 4.2Participants in CMC and FTF carried out interactional sequences differently
      • 4.2.1Orienting to tasks
      • 4.2.2Suggesting actions
      • 4.2.3Evaluating suggestions
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Limitations and future directions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19010.tan
References (29)
References
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.Google Scholar
(2016). Technology and the four skills. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 129–142.Google Scholar
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
(2010). Discourse management in three modalities. Language@ Internet, 7(6), 1–32.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19(1), 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2015). A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). The construction of emotion in multilingual computer-mediated interaction. In M. T. Prior & G. Kasper (Eds.), Emotion in multilingual interaction, (pp. 289–311). John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102–120.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 601, 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nuevo, A. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226–253). Routledge.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M. (Eds.). (2018). TBLT as a researched pedagogy: Vol. 12. John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse studies, 7(3), 337–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 311, 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 365–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (Eds.). (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 801, 48–59. DOI logoGoogle 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
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge university Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasson, C. (2016). Integrating conversation analysis and issue framing to illuminate collaborative decision-making activities. Discourse & Communication, 10(4), 378–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 151, 457–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeng, G. (2017). Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 291, 257–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Timpe-Laughlin, Veronika, Judit Dombi, Tetyana Sydorenko & Shoko Sasayama
2023. L2 learners’ pragmatic output in a face-to-face vs. a computer-guided role-play task: Implications for TBLT. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Belda-Medina, Jose
2021. Enhancing Multimodal Interaction and Communicative Competence through Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC). Education Sciences 11:11 ► pp. 723 ff. DOI logo
TAGUCHI, NAOKO
2021. Learning and Teaching Pragmatics in the Globalized World: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal 105:3 ► pp. 615 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.