Cover not available
Article published In:
Technology-mediated feedback and instruction
Edited by Hossein Nassaji and Eva Kartchava
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 170:2] 2019
► pp. 251–276

Technology-mediated task-based interaction

The role of modality

| University of Hawai'i at Mānoa
| University of Hawai'i at Mānoa
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 (n = 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.
Keywords: SCMC, multimodality, task-based language learning, language related episodes, corrective feedback
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The cognitive-interactionist approach to SLA
  • Synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC)
    • The role of SCMC modality on interactional features
    • The role of SCMC modality on L2 development
    • Learners’ perceptions of modality
  • The current study
    • Purpose of the study
    • Participants
    • Materials
      • Story-based jigsaw tasks
      • Exit survey questionnaire
    • Procedure
      • Consent form and practice task
      • SCMC modes
      • Exit survey questionnaire
      • Data transcription
    • Coding and analysis
  • Results and discussion
    • Corrective feedback
      • Recasts
    • Modified output and modified output opportunities
    • Language related episodes (LREs)
      • Ease of task completion
      • Mode of preference
      • Learning support
  • Conclustion, limitations, and implications for further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 8 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19014.zie
References (60)
References
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 455–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use. B. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 111–125.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2005). Bimodal CMC: The glue of language learning at a distance. CALICO Journal, 497–511.Google Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in Synchronous Voice-based Computer Mediated Communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41(3), 543–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 19–43.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34. Google Scholar
(2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 931, 741–753. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 221, 17–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Using computer-assisted classroom discussion to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. In J. 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
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. Longman Pub Group.Google Scholar
Faraco, M., & Kida, T. (2008). Some remarks on gesture in second language classroom. Gesture in Second Language Acquisition. Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London ; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, M. (1998). Gesture as a communication strategy in second language discourse: A study of learners of French and Swedish (Vol. 351). Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heaton, J. B. (1966). Composition through pictures. Longman Group United Kingdom.Google Scholar
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. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Language Learning & Language Teaching (Vol. 131, pp. 91–131). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 635–649. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(02), 177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Problems in SLA. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of empirical studies (pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2003). Child language analyses (CLAN) (version 23 September 2003) [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching (pp. 59–86). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 369–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text-chat. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 554–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer–mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexcial acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(03). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Employing eye-tracking technology in researching the effectiveness of recasts in CMC. In F. M. Hult (Ed.), Directions and Prospects for Educational Linguistics (Vol. 111, pp. 79–97). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55(4), 661–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 165–179). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. 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
(1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–338.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 495–508). Routledge.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.Google Scholar
(1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72–93.Google Scholar
(2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 507–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, I., & Bergin, T. (2018). Focus on form in task-based L2 oral computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 65–81. [URL]Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 457–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 136–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The contingency of recasts, learners’ noticing, and L2 development: Insights on saliency from multiple modalities. In S. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.). Salience and SLA. Routledge.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. & Smith, G. (2017). Teacher individual differences: A first look at working memory, feedback, and modified output opportunities. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Examining learners, instructors, and researchers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Alqefari, Abdulrahman Nasser
2024. The presence of translanguaging and its effect on EFL learners’ languaging opportunities in video-based peer editing. System 125 ► pp. 103452 ff. DOI logo
Kim, YouJin & Yoon Namkung
2024. Methodological characteristics in technology-mediated task-based language teaching research: Current practices and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Moranski, Kara, Nicole Ziegler & Abbie Finnegan
2024. Examining beginner Spanish learners' interactions during text chat: Self‐monitoring and the impact of metacognitive instruction. Foreign Language Annals DOI logo
Namkung, Yoon & YouJin Kim
2024. Learner engagement in collaborative writing: The effects of SCMC mode, interlocutor familiarity, L2 proficiency, and task repetition. System 121 ► pp. 103251 ff. DOI logo
Qiu, Xuyan, Haoyan Ge & Jinting Cai
2024. An exploratory study on second language learner engagement in different types of interactive tasks in video-chat and text-chat communication. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Uludağ, Onur
2024. Exploring the relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices of oral corrective feedback in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Heliyon 10:8 ► pp. e29507 ff. DOI logo
Dao, Phung, Phuong-Thao Duong & Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen
2023. Effects of SCMC mode and learner familiarity on peer feedback in L2 interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning 36:7 ► pp. 1206 ff. DOI logo
Jiang, Zilu, Babatunde Akinkuolie, Lizeng Huang & Kui Xie
2023. Designing Group Tasks in Online Task-Based Language Teaching Environments. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 12:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Guchte, Marrit van de, Eline van Batenburg & Daphne van Weijen
2022. Enhancing target language output through synchronous online learner-learner interaction. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:2 ► pp. 218 ff. DOI logo
Jackson, Daniel O.
2022. Task-Based Language Teaching, DOI logo
Canals, Laia
2021. Multimodality and translanguaging in negotiation of meaning. Foreign Language Annals 54:3 ► pp. 647 ff. DOI logo
Canals, Laia
2022. The role of the language of interaction and translanguaging on attention to interactional feedback in virtual exchanges. System 105 ► pp. 102721 ff. DOI logo
Canals, Laia
2023. Modified output and metalanguage during conversational interaction: A qualitative look at interactional feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 13:3 ► pp. 601 ff. DOI logo
Canals, Laia
2024. Lost in translation: intercultural understanding in oral interactions in an e-tandem virtual exchange. Language and Intercultural Communication ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
DAO, PHUNG, MAI XUAN NHAT CHI NGUYEN, PHUONG–THAO DUONG & VU TRAN–THANH
2021. Learners’ Engagement in L2 Computer‐Mediated Interaction: Chat Mode, Interlocutor Familiarity, and Text Quality. The Modern Language Journal 105:4 ► pp. 767 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 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.