Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-7dld4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-30T15:25:10.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Corrective Feedback in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Environments

from Part VI - Contexts of Corrective Feedback and Their Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Luis Cerezo
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

Three decades of research have established that simultaneous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) can impact L2 development processes, including corrective feedback, and their products, in new and exciting ways. However, the high variability of the evidence calls for more theoretical and methodological rigor, and the proliferation of hybrid and online learning curricula makes it imperative to assess SCMC’s contributions on the basis of sound comparisons with mirror FTF conditions. Against this backdrop, this chapter critically synthesizes forty-one studies comparing the effects of written SCMC versus FTF interaction on L2 development, filtering contradictory findings through the sieve of methodological validity and the often-neglected notion of modality. Results suggest that written SCMC amplifies feedback effectiveness in tutor–learner interactions but not so clearly in peer interactions; that it promotes lower output rates but more equal participation; that it elicits shorter utterances, but maybe more accurate and complex grammar and vocabulary; that it promotes less negotiation for meaning but maybe denser and more explicit negotiation of form; that it is more likely to subvert the negotiate-over-lexis-first principle; and that it yields less successful uptake and maybe less modified output but more self-corrections. The chapter concludes with future research recommendations based on the three dimensions of modality.

Keywords

Corrective feedbacksimultaneous computer-mediated communicationface-to-face interactionmodalitymethodological validitycritical synthesis

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 494 - 519
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

^Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167.Google 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
^Baralt, M. ^(2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 689–725.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. & Leow, R. (2015). Uptake, task complexity, and L2 development in SLA: An online perspective. In Leow, R., Cerezo, L. & Baralt, M. (eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 199–218). Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
^Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement of fourth semester French students. In Muyskens, J. A. (ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 93–115). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
^Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 227–240.Google Scholar
*Böhlke, O. (2003a). Adjective production by learners of German in chatroom and face-to-face discussions. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 36(1), 67–73.Google Scholar
*Böhlke, O. *(2003b). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 67–87.Google Scholar
^Chang, Y.-Y. (2007). The potential of synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication for second language acquisition. Issues in Information Systems, 8(2), 355–361.Google Scholar
^de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to call? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 47–81.Google Scholar
*Fernández-García, M. & Martínez Arbelaiz, A. (2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15(1), 113–136.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (2012). Diversity in learner usage patterns. In Stockwell, G. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice (pp. 14–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
*Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67–86.Google Scholar
^Freiermuth, M. R. (2001). Native speakers or non-native speakers: Who has the floor? Online and face-to-face interaction in culturally mixed small groups. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 169–199.Google Scholar
*Freiermuth, M. R. & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189–212.Google Scholar
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Augmented reality and language learning: From annotated vocabulary to place-based mobile games. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 9–19.Google Scholar
Guichon, N. & Cohen, C. (2016). Multimodality and CALL. In Farr, F. & Murray, L. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 509–521). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
*Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
*Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Baralt, M. *(2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1393–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Hamano-Bunce, D. (2011). Talk or chat? Chatroom and spoken interaction in a language classroom. ELT Journal, 65(4), 426–436.Google Scholar
Handley, Z. (2018). Replication research in computer-assisted language learning: Replication of Neri et al. (2008) and Satar & Ӧzdener (2008). Language Teaching, 51(3), 417–429.Google Scholar
^Hirotani, M. (2009). Synchronous versus asynchronous CMC and transfer to Japanese oral performance. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 413–438.Google Scholar
*Kaneko, A. (2009). Comparing computer mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face (FTF) communication for the development of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E. & Nassaji, H. (2019). Noticeability of corrective feedback in three dimensional virtual environments and face-to-face classroom contexts. In Leow, R. (ed.), Depth of processing in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 407–420). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
*Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Kim, H. Y. *(2017). Effect of modality and task type on interlanguage variation. ReCALL, 29(2), 219–236.Google Scholar
^Kost, C. (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. & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102–120.Google Scholar
Lamy, M.-N. (2012). Diversity in modalities. In Stockwell, G. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice (pp. 109–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
^Loewen, S. & Reissner, S. (2009). A comparison of incidental focus on form in the second language classroom and chatroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 101–114.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329.Google Scholar
^Loewen, S. & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. M. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp. 379–452). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
^Nguyen, L. V. & White, C. (2011). The nature of “talk” in synchronous computer-mediated communication in a Vietnamese tertiary EFL context. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 14–36.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82–93.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226–253). New York: Routledge.Google 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
Parlak, Ö. & Ziegler, N. (2016). 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:10.1017/s0272263116000310.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(1), 7–32.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–147). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.Google Scholar
*Pyun, O. C. (2003). Effects of networked language learning: A comparison between synchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 133–148. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2016.1275702.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, J. (2019). Gameful second and foreign language teaching and learning: Theory, research, and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
*Rouhshad, A. & Storch, N. (2016). Focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
*Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2016). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 514–534.Google Scholar
*Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.). (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning:Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
*Sauro, S. (2012). L2 performance in text-chat and spoken discourse. System, 40(3), 335–348.Google Scholar
*Sim, T., Har, K. & Luan, N. (2010). Low proficiency learners in synchronous computer-assisted and face-to-face interactions. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 61–75.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33–58.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, 29(4), 491–501.Google Scholar
*Tan, L. L., Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 1–24.Google Scholar
Toth, P. D. & Davin, K. J. (2016). The sociocognitive imperative of L2 pedagogy. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 148–168.Google Scholar
*Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face-to-face discussions. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 110–138.Google Scholar
*Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2–3), 7–26.Google Scholar
*Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134–1169.Google Scholar
*Yilmaz, Y. & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 457–477.Google Scholar
*Yuksel, D. & Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3), 333–354.Google Scholar
*Zeng, G. (2017). Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 29(3), 257–275.Google Scholar
Zeng, G. & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37(3), 434–446.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. J. (2017). Interactional feedback in computer-mediated communication: A review and state of the art. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 80–94). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×