Second language development in face-to-face versus synchronous computer-mediated interactions: Dyadic type and language proficiency
Academic Article
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
Other
View All
Overview
abstract
Language negotiations facilitate second language acquisition (SLA) in both face-to-face (FTF) and computer-mediated interactions. Research shows that dyadic type can impact the quantity and quality of negotiations. Although both learner (L)-learner and native speaker (NS)-L dyadic type interactions have shown to be beneficial to SLA, it is still unclear which dyadic type is more effective for second language (L2) development in FTF and computer-mediated interactions. To fill this gap, this quantitative study compares FTF versus text-synchronous-computer-mediated communication (SCMC) task-based interactions by examining the following question: Is there a significant difference in the (1) frequency of negotiations and (2) effect of negotiations on subsequent L2 development in FTF interactions compared with text-SCMC in the following three dyadic types: NS-low-proficiency learners (LPL), NS-high-proficiency learners (HPL), and HPLLPL? The study is grounded in the Interaction Hypothesis, which argues that comprehensible input, opportunities for modified output, and noticing are essential for interactions to facilitate SLA through negotiation episodes. The participants included four NSs, four LPLs, and four HPLs. The participants were paired up to form two of each of the following dyadic types: NSLPL, NSHPL, and HPLLPL. All dyads performed one task in each mode. The learners took a tailor-made posttest, designed to measure their L2 development. The data collection included transcribed FTF interactions, SCMC chats, and posttest scores. The interactions were coded for negotiation episodes and strategies. The posttest responses were coded as correct, partially correct, or incorrect. Chi-square test of independence was used to analyse the quantitative data because of their categorical nature and small sample size. Results found no statistically significant difference in the frequency of negotiation episodes among the three dyadic types or the LPLs and HPLs language learning outcome in FTF versus SCMC. Pedagogical implications are discussed.
