Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8wtlm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T19:35:55.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION

A Meta-Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2015

Nicole Ziegler
Nicole Ziegler*
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
*
*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: nziegler@hawaii.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 553 - 586
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

REFERENCES

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.Google Scholar
*Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455–464.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for improving speaking and writing. In Terry, R. M. (Ed.), Technology-enhanced language learning, (pp. 165–184). Lincolnwood, IL: The National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
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, 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral proficiency in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 93, 227–240.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Google 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, 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, C. (2008). An evaluation of task-based learning (TBL) in the Japanese classroom. English Today, 24, 11–16.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learner’s interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In Egbert, J. & Petrie, G. (Eds.), Research perspectives on CALL (pp. 53–64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1998). Signal analysis software for teaching discourse intonation. Language Learning & Technology, 2, 61–77.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
*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, 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
*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, 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.Google Scholar
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, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: What have we learned in two decades of research? ReCALL, 20, 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Garcia, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19, 279–294.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.Google Scholar
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, 267–301.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 35–57.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.Google Scholar
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, 27–77.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
*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.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. New York, NY: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 91–131). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google 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, 239–258.Google Scholar
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441–454.Google Scholar
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476.Google Scholar
Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). Meta-analysis. In Kaplan, D. (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 281–297). New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
*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.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 1–24.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83–100.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Lin, S. M. (2009). How computer-mediated communication affects ELL students’ writing processes and writing performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman.Google 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, 123–142.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.Google Scholar
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. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 557–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 379–394.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. 408–452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704–740.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Silver, R. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239–260.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.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, 35–66.Google Scholar
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, 123–163.Google Scholar
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, 35–59.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.Google Scholar
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. 145–197). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
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. 3–50). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.Google Scholar
*Payne, J. S. & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. 59–86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
*Petersen, K. (2010). Implicit corrective feedback in computer-guided interaction: Does mode matter? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79–103.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.Google Scholar
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, 245–266.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.Google Scholar
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, 59–84.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is big? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 133–164). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 5–27.Google Scholar
Satar, H. M., & Ozdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. Modern Language Journal, 92, 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 123–142). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28, 1–23.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
*Sequeira, C. A. (2010). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and second language proficiency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
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. 301–322). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–398.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 33–58.Google Scholar
Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G. (2004). Synchronous computer mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A Meta-Analysis. Language learning, 60, 263–308.Google Scholar
STATA (Release 13) [Computer software]. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55, 661–699.Google Scholar
*Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24, 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford 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, 320–338.Google Scholar
*Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 19, 399–431.Google Scholar
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 82–99.Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 141–159.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7–25.Google Scholar
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. 29–46). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
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, 121–142.Google Scholar
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, 235–263.Google Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 72–93.Google Scholar
*Yanguas, Í. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29, 507–531.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 525–554.Google Scholar
Yun, J. (2011). The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar