Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Nicole Ziegler (a1)

The current study reports on a meta-analysis of the relative effectiveness of interaction in synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) and face-to-face (FTF) contexts. The primary studies included in the analysis were journal articles and dissertations completed between 1990 and 2012 (k = 14). Results demonstrate that interaction in SCMC and FTF had a significant impact on second language (L2) development, providing further support for previous research demonstrating the efficacy of interaction in both communication modes (e.g., Mackey & Goo, 2007; Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2004, 2005). There was also a small advantage for interaction in SCMC on measures of overall L2 learning outcomes, with additional analyses indicating a small advantage for SCMC interaction on productive and written measures and a small advantage for FTF interaction on receptive and oral learning outcomes. Interestingly, there were no significant differences between SCMC and FTF, suggesting the mode of communication has no statistically significant impact on the positive developmental benefits associated with interaction.

Corresponding author
*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Nicole Ziegler, Department of Second Language Studies, Moore 570, 1890 East-West Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822. E-mail:
Hide All
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
*Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87, 157167.
*Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455464.
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for improving speaking and writing. In Terry, R. M. (Ed.), Technology-enhanced language learning, (pp. 165184). Lincolnwood, IL: The National Textbook Company.
Beauvois, M. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langes Vivantes, 54, 198217.
Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral proficiency in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 93, 227240.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120136.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
*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, 419432.
Burrows, C. (2008). An evaluation of task-based learning (TBL) in the Japanese classroom. English Today, 24, 1116.
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learner’s interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209236.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In Egbert, J. & Petrie, G. (Eds.), Research perspectives on CALL (pp. 5364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 1731.
Chun, D. M. (1998). Signal analysis software for teaching discourse intonation. Language Learning & Technology, 2, 6177.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Conaim, D., & Wong, R. (2004). Internet relay chat as a tool in the autonomous development of ESL learners’ English language ability: An exploratory study. System, 32, 321335.
de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249276.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379410.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195221.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97113). New York, NY: Routledge.
*de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionalist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction on L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 4781.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339360). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281318.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449491.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175191.
Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: What have we learned in two decades of research? ReCALL, 20, 141161.
Fernández-Garcia, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19, 279294.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 123.
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 267301.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 317.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 3557.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283302.
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55, 2777.
Gullberg, M. (1998). Gesture as a communication strategy in second language discourse: A study of learners of French and Swedish (Vol. 35). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.
*Hirotani, M. (2005). The effects of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on the development of oral proficiency among novice learners of Japanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. New York, NY: Sage.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 136.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168196.
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91131). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
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, 239258.
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441454.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457476.
Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). Meta-analysis. In Kaplan, D. (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 281297). New York, NY: Sage.
*Kost, C. R. (2004). An investigation of the effects of synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on interlanguage development in beginning learners of German: Accuracy, proficiency, and communication strategies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson.
Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 124.
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102120.
Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83100.
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 5581.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309365.
*Lin, S. M. (2009). How computer-mediated communication affects ELL students’ writing processes and writing performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman.
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, 123142.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lipsey, M. W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M. A., Steinka-Fry, K., Cole, M. W., Roberts, M., Anthoney, K. S., & Busick, M. D. (2012). Translating the Statistical Representation of the Effects of Education Interventions into More Readily Interpretable Forms. National Center for Special Education Research.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536556.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition (pp. 413468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207228.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357371.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265302.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557588.
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 379394.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704740.
Mackey, A., & Silver, R. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239260.
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471497.
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, 3566.
Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123163.
Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38, 3559.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207224.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79103.
Meunier, L. E. (1998). Personality and motivational factors in computer-mediated foreign language communication (CMFLC). In Muyskens, J. (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education, (pp. 145197). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617673.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417528.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 350). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86, 97111.
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519533.
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85110.
*Payne, J. S. & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 732.
Pellettieri, J. (1999). Why-talk? Investigating the role of task-based interaction through synchronous network-based communication among classroom learners of Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Davis.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R., (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 5986). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
*Petersen, K. (2010). Implicit corrective feedback in computer-guided interaction: Does mode matter? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79103.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99126.
Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 245266.
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19, 261279.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 5984.
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325366.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is big? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878912.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 2767.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133164). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 527.
Satar, H. M., & Ozdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. Modern Language Journal, 92, 595613.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123142). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28, 123.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 332). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
*Sequeira, C. A. (2010). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and second language proficiency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oregon, Eugene.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 301322). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296329.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 3857.
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365398.
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 3358.
Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G. (2004). Synchronous computer mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553575.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A Meta-Analysis. Language learning, 60, 263308.
STATA (Release 13) [Computer software]. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55, 661699.
*Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24, 491501.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320338.
*Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 19, 399431.
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 8299.
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 141159.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 7190.
Warschauer, M. (1996a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 725.
Warschauer, M. (1996b). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. In Warschauer, M. (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai‘i symposium (pp. 2946). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121142.
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235263.
Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 7293.
*Yanguas, Í. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29, 507531.
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 11341169.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 525554.
Yun, J. (2011). The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 3958.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition
  • ISSN: 0272-2631
  • EISSN: 1470-1545
  • URL: /core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed