Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T06:51:39.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2017

Gang Zeng
Gang Zeng*
Affiliation:
School of Foreign Languages, Dalian Maritime University, China (email: zenggang@dlmu.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research has documented that collaborative dialogue promotes L2 learning in both face-to-face (F2F) and synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) modalities. However, relatively little research has explored modality effects on collaborative dialogue. Thus, motivated by sociocultual theory, this study examines how F2F compares with SCMC regarding the generation of collaborative dialogue specifically in terms of its frequency and nature. Thirty-two Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) students participated in this study and completed two types of collaborative tasks (i.e. dictogloss and jigsaw) in dyads in both modalities. The analyses of learners’ exchanges focused on language-related episodes (LREs), the instantiation of collaborative dialogue. The identified LREs were categorized based on their focus, outcome and type. A follow-up questionnaire was conducted to elicit students’ perspectives. The results revealed that LREs were more frequent in SCMC than in F2F. Furthermore, the analyses of the nature of LREs indicated some cross-modality differences: whereas SCMC LREs had the features of orthographical, correct and self-correction outcomes, F2F LREs were characterized by incorrect and request for assistance outcomes. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for the future research were also discussed.

Keywords

Collaborative dialoguesynchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC)face-to-face (F2F) communicationfocus on formsociocultural theory

Information

Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 257 - 275
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. P. (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78: 465–483.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1992) Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5): 455–464.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1998) Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2): 198–217.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4: 120–136.Google Scholar
Brooks, L. and Swain, M. (2009) Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In: Mackey, A. and Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass. New York, NY: Routledge, 58–89.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1994) Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22: 17–31.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J. (2003) Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effect of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1): 47–81.Google Scholar
Dobao, A. F. (2012a) Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3): 229–256.Google Scholar
Dobao, A. F. (2012b) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21: 40–58.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: Lantolf, J. and Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 33–56.Google Scholar
Edward, J. D. (2005) Language-related episodes in an assessment context: A “small-group quiz”. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(4): 565–586.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Garcia, M. and Arbelaiz, A. M. (2003) Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15(1): 113–136.Google Scholar
Foster, P. and Ohta, A. S. (2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26: 402–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlström, P., Cerratto-Pargman, T., Lindström, H. and Knutsson, O. (2007) Tool mediation in focus on form activities: Case studies in a grammar-exploring environment. ReCALL, 19(1): 39–56.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (1995) Reconstructing classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79: 457–476.Google Scholar
Kern, R., Ware, P. and Warschauer, M. (2004) Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 243–260.Google Scholar
Kitade, K. (2000) L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13: 143–166.Google Scholar
Lai, C. and Zhao, Y. (2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3): 102–120.Google Scholar
Lamy, M.-N. and Goodfellow, R. (1999) “Reflective conversation” in the virtual classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2): 43–61.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. and Thorne, S. L. (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., Swain, M. and Smith, M. (2002) Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86: 485–507.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2001) Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2): 232–244.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2002) Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30: 284–309.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2004) Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1): 83–100.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2008) Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 53–72.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8: 55–81.Google Scholar
Morris, F. (2005) Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in a computer mediated L2 class. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1): 29–45.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. and Swain, M. (2000) A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 1: 34–52.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2000) Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In: Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51–78.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2001) Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. (2005) Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22: 433–466.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In: Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 59–86.Google Scholar
Rollet, G. and Tremblay, R. (1975) Speaking and writing with comic strips. Montreal, QC: Centre Éducatif et Culturel.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009) Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1): 96–120.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2012) L2 performance in text-chat and spoken discourse. System, 40: 335–348.Google Scholar
Shekary, M. and Tahririan, M. H. (2006) Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4): 557–573.Google Scholar
Shin, D. S. (2006) ESL students’ computer-mediated communication practices: Context configuration. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3): 65–84.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87: 38–58.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2001) Comparing ESL learners’ attention to grammar on three different collaborative tasks. RELC Journal, 32: 104–124.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52: 119–158.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3): 153–173.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–114.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2001a) Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1): 44–63.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2001b) Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18: 275–302.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82: 320–337.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and assessment. London: Longman, 99–119.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2002) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37: 285–304.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Brooks, L. and Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002) Peer–peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22: 171–185.Google Scholar
Tocalli-Beller, A. and Swain, M. (2005) Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1): 5–28.Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2003) Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3): 141–159.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987) Thinking and speech. In: Rieber, R. W. and Carton, A. S. (eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press, 39–285. (Original work published 1934.).Google Scholar
Ware, P. and O’Dowd, R. (2008) Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1): 43–63.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13: 7–26.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81: 470–481.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (2005) Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In: Egbert, J. and Petrie, M. (eds.), CALL research perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 41–51.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (2000) On-line learning in second language classroom: An ethnographic study. In: Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–58.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. and 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: 121–142.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1999) Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49: 583–625.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1): 115–132.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. and Granena, G. (2010) The effects of task type in synchronous computer mediated communication. ReCALL, 22: 20–38.Google Scholar
Yuksel, D. and Inan, B. (2014) The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26: 333–354.Google Scholar
Zeng, G. and Takatsuka, S. (2009) Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 3: 434–446.Google Scholar