Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:21:46.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of modality and task type on interlanguage variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2017

Hye Yeong Kim
Hye Yeong Kim*
Affiliation:
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea (e-mail: hyeyeongkim@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An essential component for assessing the accuracy and fluency of language learners is understanding how mode of communication and task type affect performance in second-language (L2) acquisition. This study investigates how text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) and face-to-face (F2F) oral interaction can influence the performance of language learners in producing grammatical forms accurately when learners of English as a second language complete different tasks in their L2. Findings show a systematic variability in learner interlanguage that depends on mode of communication and task type. L2 learners used articles more correctly and produced advanced-stage questions more frequently in text-based SCMC than in F2F. These findings suggest that task types and the mode of communication in which a task is completed need careful selection based on pedagogical purposes in order to maximize L2 learning and better evaluate L2 performance.

Keywords

InterlanguagemodalitySCMCtask effect
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 219 - 236
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.)

References

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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation.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. (1998) Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2): 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1): 120–136.Google Scholar
Böhlke, O. (2003) 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
Chun, D. M. (1994) Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1): 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18: 299–323.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Lloret, M. (2014) The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In: Gonzalez-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology and tasks: Exploring technology-mediated TBLT. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 23–50.Google Scholar
Grabowski, J. (2007) The writing superiority effect in the verbal recall of knowledge: Sources and determinants. In: Rijlaarsdam, G. (series ed.) Torrance, M., van Waes, L. and Galbraith, D. (vol. eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Studies in Writing) . Amsterdam: Elsevier, 165–179.Google Scholar
Grabowski, J. (2010) Speaking, writing, and memory span in children: Output modality affects cognitive performance. International Journal of Psych, 45: 28–39.Google Scholar
Granfeldt, J. (2008) Speaking and writing in L2 French: Exploring effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. In: Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Juiken, F., Pierrard, M. and Vedder, I. (eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching. Wettern: KVAB Press, 87–98.Google Scholar
Kern, R. G. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79: 457–476.Google 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
Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2011) Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In: Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (Task-based language teaching, 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 91–104.Google Scholar
Lai, C. and Zhao, Y. (2006) Noticing in text-based online chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3): 102–120.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. New York: Cambridge University Press, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. and Falodun, J. (1993) Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language research and instruction. In: Crookes, G. and Gass, S. M. (eds.), Tasks and second language learning. Cleveland, UK: Multilingual Matters, 9–34.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kang, H. and Sauro, S. (2006) Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2): 301–338.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998) Language processing and second language development– Processability theory. Studies in Bilingualism, 15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. and Johnston, M. (1987) Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In: Nunan, D. (ed.), Applying second language acquisition research. Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP, 45–147.Google Scholar
Pyun, O. C. (2003) Effects of networked language learning: A comparison between synchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions. Unpublished MA. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995) Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45(1): 99–145.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22: 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007) Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3): 193–213.Google Scholar
Salaberry, R. (2000) Spanish past tense aspect: L2 development in a tutored setting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2012) L2 performance in text-chat and spoken discourse. System, 40: 335–348.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10: 209–241.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4): 510–532.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1997) The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3): 16–33.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87: 38–57.Google Scholar
Tagg, C. and Seargeant, P. (2014) Audience design and language choice in the construction and maintenance of translocal communities on social network sites. In: Seargeant P. and Tagg, C. (eds.), The language of social media: Identity and community on the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 161–185.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1988) Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language learning, 32(1): 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. and Parrish, B. (1988) Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language Learning, 38: 21–43.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. and Skehan, P. (2005) Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In: Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 239–273.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing F2F and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13: 7–26.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95: 115–132.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. and Grañena, G. (2010) The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL Journal, 22(1): 20–38.Google Scholar
Yuksel, D. and Inan, B. (2014) The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL Journal, 26(3): 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar