Cover not available
Part of
Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda
Edited by Masatoshi Sato and Susan Ballinger
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 45] 2016
► pp. 163–184

6. Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts

ORCID logo | Michigan State University
| West Chester University

The current chapter adopts an interactionist perspective to investigate various characteristics of L2 learners’ interaction in three different communication modalities: face-to-face, oral synchronous computer-mediated communication, and written synchronous computer-mediated communication. Forty-eight intermediate proficiency L2 learners of English engaged in three different interactive tasks in one of the three communicative contexts. Characteristics of interaction that are considered to be beneficial for L2 development, namely negotiation for meaning, recasts, and language-related episodes, were identified in the discourse and compared across the three modalities. In addition, task effects on interaction were compared. Results indicated that interaction during the face-to-face and oral synchronous computer-mediated communication was similar, but differed from written synchronous computer-mediated communication in terms of a greater number of confirmation checks and language-related episodes. However, no differences in interactional features were found across the three different tasks. These results suggest that different communication modalities may afford different opportunities for learners.

Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.07loe
References
Adams, R
(2007) Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 30–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M.C
(2013) Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System. 41, 543–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C
(1997) CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1, 19–43.Google Scholar
Ellis, R
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S
(2001) Learner uptake in communicative ESL. Language Learning, 51, 281–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A
(2003) Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15, 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P
(1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M.P, & Azkarai, A
(2016) EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gass, S.M
(1997) Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L
(2005) Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory setting. Language Learning, 55, 575–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E
(1985) Variation in native speaker speech modification to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, 35–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamano-Bunce, D
(2011) Talk or chat? Chatroom and spoken interaction in a language classroom. ELT Journal, 65, 426–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jepson, K
(2005) Conversations and negotiated interactions in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning and Technology, 9, 3, 79–98.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y
(2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Lai, C., Zhao, Y. & Wang, J
(2011) Task-based language teaching in online ab initio foreign language classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 81–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J
(2006) Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M.H
(1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input1. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991) Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L
(1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K
(2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. DOI logoGoogle 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. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J
(1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L
(2001) Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K
(2013) Efficacy of gesture and recasts on the acquisition of L2 grammar. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Pasfield-Neofitou, S
(2012) Online communication in a second language: Social interaction, language use, and learning Japanese. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Walter, S. & Basturkmen, H
(2010) Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19, 261–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T
(1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N
(2016) A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S
(2012) Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-methodology examination. Language Awareness, 21, 157–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Lyster, R
(2012) Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S
(2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S., & Smith, B
(2010) Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 554–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S
(1986) Developing basic conversation ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y
(2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B
(2009) The relationship between scrolling, negotiation, and self-initiated self-repair in a SCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26, 231–45.Google Scholar
Smith, B., & Sauro, S
(2009) Interruptions in chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 229–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M
(1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, Í
(2010) Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 72–93.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y
(2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G
(2010) The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22, 20–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 23 other publications

Aksoy-Pekacar, Kadriye
2023. Task-related collaborative behaviours in task-based oral peer interactions. The Language Learning Journal ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Baralt, Melissa, Laura Gurzynski-Weiss & YouJin Kim
2016. 8. Engagement with the language. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Chew, Shin Yi & Lee Luan Ng
2021. Communication is Vital. In Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Chew, Shin Yi & Lee Luan Ng
2021. CMC vs. F2F: Discourse and Participation Styles of Different Language Learners. In Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Chew, Shin Yi & Lee Luan Ng
2021. Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). In Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, ► pp. 27 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
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
Hetrovicz, Lauren
2021. The effect of NNS–NNS and NNS–NS videoconferencing on the development of second language confidence. Foreign Language Annals 54:4 ► pp. 1257 ff. DOI logo
Hsu, Hsiu-Chen
2022. Peer interaction and attention to form in web-based synchronous and asynchronous L2 collaborative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kessler, Matt, Shawn Loewen & Daniel Trego
2023. Synchronous VCMC with TalkAbroad: Exploring noticing, transcription, and learner perceptions in Spanish foreign-language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 27:3 ► pp. 642 ff. DOI logo
Kozlova, Iryna
2019. Factors Affecting Learner Collaboration in 3D Virtual Worlds. In Assessing the Effectiveness of Virtual Technologies in Foreign and Second Language Instruction [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ], ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo
Kozlova, Iryna
2022. Factors Affecting Learner Collaboration in 3D Virtual Worlds. In Research Anthology on Virtual Environments and Building the Metaverse, ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Li, Mimi
2020. Chapter 7. Languaging in wiki-based collaborative writing:. In Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 55], ► pp. 150 ff. DOI logo
Loewen, Shawn
2022. Functional adequacy, task-based language teaching and instructed second language acquisition. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Loewen, Shawn & Masatoshi Sato
2018. Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching 51:3 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
Mackey, Alison, Lara Bryfonski, Özgür Parlak, Ashleigh Pipes, Ayşenur Sağdıç & Bo-Ram Suh
2021. Tools to Measure the Effectiveness of Feedback. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Mizza, Daria & Fernando Rubio
2020. Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses, DOI logo
Pastushenkov, Dmitrii, Cameron Camp, Iryna Zhuchenko & Olesia Pavlenko
2021. Shared and different L1 background, L1 use, and peer familiarity as factors in ESL pair interaction. TESOL Journal 12:2 DOI logo
Philp, Jenefer
2016. New pathways in researching interaction. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 377 ff. DOI logo
Rouhshad, Amir & Neomy Storch
2016. 10. A focus on mode. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Swain, Merrill & Yuko Watanabe
2019. Languaging: Collaborative Dialogue as a Source of Second Language Learning. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
TORRES, JULIO & BIANCA CUNG
2019. A Comparison of Advanced Heritage Language Learners’ Peer Interaction Across Modes and Pair Types. The Modern Language Journal 103:4 ► pp. 815 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Lyu
2023. ‘It’s kind of like a middle ground’: students’ strategic management of silence in multicultural group work. Language and Intercultural Communication 23:4 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.