Cover not available
Article published In:
TASK
Vol. 2:2 (2022) ► pp.218–247

Enhancing target language output through synchronous online learner-learner interaction

The impact of audio-, video-, and text-chat interaction on learner output and affect

| University of Amsterdam , Netherlands
ORCID logo | Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences , Netherlands
ORCID logo | University of Amsterdam , Netherlands

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.

Keywords: SCMC, audio-, video-, text-chat, target language production, focus on meaning and form, learner affect
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Theoretical and empirical background
  • Modality and interactional processes
    • Modality and focus on meaning
    • Modality and focus on form
    • Modality and learner affect
    • The present study
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Design
    • Intervention
    • Procedure
    • Measures
      • Learner output
      • Affect
      • Vocabulary
      • Experience using digital tools
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • The effect of audio-, video-, and text-chat interaction on learner performance (RQ1)
      • Output quantity
      • Focus on meaning and focus on form
    • The effects of condition on learners’ affective states RQ2)
  • Discussion and conclusion
    • Limitations and suggestions for future research
    • Implications for practice
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 24 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.21003.guc
References
Adams, R., & Oliver, R.
(2019) Teaching Through Peer Interaction (1st ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M., & Morcillo Gómez, J.
(2017) Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 21 (3), 28–43. [URL]
Blake, R. J.
(2000) Computer mediated communication: A window of L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 1, 111–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M.
(2011) Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer- mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24 1, 419–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M.
(1998) Using computer-assisted class 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). Labyrinth Publications.Google Scholar
Compton, L.
(2004) Using text chat to improve willingness to communicate. In J.-B. Son (Ed.), Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Concepts, Contexts and Practices (pp. 123–144). iUniverse.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H.
(2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 50–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L., & Dunn, D.
(2007) The Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). NCS Pearson.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
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
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A.
(2002) Negotiation of meaning in non-native speaker-non-native speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19 1, 279–294. [URL]
Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D.
(2006) Willingness to communicate: Can on-line chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 162 1, 190–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golonka, E., Tare, M., & Bonilla, C.
(2017) Peer interaction in text chat: Qualitative analysis of chat transcripts. Language Learning & Technology, 21 (2), 157–178. [URL]
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L.
(2014) Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 1–22). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M.
(2004) Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (1), 66–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jepson, K.
(2005) Conversations and negotiated interactions in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9 1, 79–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S.
(2006) In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Li, G.
(2011) Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28 1, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, L.
(2001) Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCall, 13 (2), 232–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Sato, M.
(2018) Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51 (3), 285–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Wolff, D.
(2016) Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163–184). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M.
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P., Babin, P., & Clément, R.
(1999) Willingness to communicate: Antecedents & consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47 (2), 215–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 52 1, 537–564. 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 SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nik, N., & Adams, R.
(2009) TBLT and SCMC: How do students use communication strategies? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19 1, 135–157.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 in SLA: Research in honor of Susan M. Gass. Routledge.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Peterson, M.
(2010) Task-Based language teaching in network-based CALL: An analysis of research on learner interaction in synchronous CMC. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.). Task- Based language learning and teaching with technology (pp. 41–62). Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N.
(2014) Peer interaction and second language learning. Routledge.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F.
(2014) How big Is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N.
(2016) The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language, Learning and Technology, 20 (2), 17–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S.
(2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28 (2), 369–391. [URL]. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B.
(2003) The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31 (1), 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
(2008) Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self- repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12 (1), 85–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B., & Sauro, S.
(2009) Interruptions in chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22 (3), 229–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tudini, V.
(2003) Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 141–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. [URL]
Van der Zwaard, R., & Bannink, A.
(2014) Video call or chat? Negotiation of meaning and issues of face in telecollaboration. System, 44 1, 137–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B.
(2004) Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, I.
(2010) Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14 (3), 72–93. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N.
(2016a) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta- analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38 (3), 553–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 1, 136–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N., & Phung, H.
(2019) Technology-mediated task-based interaction: The role of multimodality. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170 (2), 251–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar