The Interaction Approach argues that negotiation for meaning and form is conducive to second language development. To date, most of the research on negotiations has been either in face-to-face (FTF) or text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) modes. Very few studies have compared the nature of negotiations across the modes. Such comparisons are important as they can indicate which mode may be more conducive to language learning. The present study set out to compare the nature of negotiations between FTF and SCMC modes in same-proficiency intermediate dyads. Dyads performed two similar decision-making tasks, one in FTF and one in SCMC mode, and were encouraged to provide corrective feedback, where necessary, to their partner. The analysis revealed that negotiations for form and meaning were scarce in both modes, with more negotiations for meaning in FTF mode. The findings also suggested that mode of interaction influenced the type of negotiations, and their outcomes, in terms of modified output as well as successful uptake.
AmmarA.SpadaN. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
2.
BitchenerJ. (2004). The relationship between the negotiation of meaning and language learning: A longitudinal study. Language Awareness, 13, 81–95.
3.
BlakeR. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136.
4.
CanaleM. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In RichardsJ.SchmidtJ. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman.
5.
ChoH. (2011). Negotiation of meaning in synchronous computer-mediated communication in relation to task types. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, USA. Retrieved from: ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (UMI No. 3488411).
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd edition.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Del Pilar Garcia MayoM.PicaT. (2000). L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language teaching, 38, 1–22.
8.
EckerthJ. (2009). Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42, 109–130.
9.
EgiT. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: the roles of linguistic target, Length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537.
10.
EllisR. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32335–349.
11.
EllisR.SheenY. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
12.
EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
13.
Fernandez-GarciaM.Martinez ArbelaizA. (2003). Learners’ interactions: a comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15, 113–136.
14.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd edition.London: Sage.
15.
FosterP. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.
16.
FosterP.OhtaA. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–430.
17.
GassS.M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence.
18.
GassS.M.MackeyA. (2007). Input, Interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
GassS.M.MackeyA.PicaT. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern language Journal, 82, 299–307.
20.
GassS.M.MackeyA.Ross-FeldmanL. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.
21.
Gurzynski-WeissL.BaraltM. (2014). 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, 35, 1–28.
22.
Hamano-BunceD. (2011). Talk or chat? Chatroom and spoken interaction in a language classroom. ELT Journal, 65, 426–436.
23.
IwasakiJ.OliverR. (2003). Chat-line interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 60–73.
24.
IwashitaN. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. SSLA, 25, 1–36.
25.
JepsonK. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 79–98.
26.
KanekoA. (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, Australia.
27.
KungW.T. (2009). Incidental noticing and EFL students’ subsequent second language learning in synchronous text-based discussion: An investigation of both NES–NNES and NNES–NNES dyads. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, USA. Retrieved from: ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Full Text (UMI No. 3384269).
28.
LaiC.ZhaoY. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120.
29.
LaiC.FeiF.RootsR. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.
30.
LeeL. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13, 232–244.
31.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
32.
LoewenS. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.
33.
LoewenS.PhilpJ. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4127042 (April2015).
34.
LongM.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
35.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.C.BhatiaT.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). California: Academic Press.
36.
LongM.H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
LysterR. (2002). The importance of differentiating negotiation of form and meaning in classroom interaction. In BurmeisterP.PiskeT.RohdeA. (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 381–398). Tier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
38.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation for form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 37–66.
39.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
40.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
41.
MackeyA. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
42.
MackeyA. (Ed). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
MackeyA. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
MackeyA.GooJ. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–446). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
McDonoughK. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
46.
NakahamaY.TylerA.Van LierL. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. Tesol Quarterly, 35, 377–405.
47.
NassajiH. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17–29.
48.
NewtonJ. (2013). Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 17, 164–187.
49.
NikA.AdamsR.NewtonJ. (2012). Writing to learn via text-chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 23–39.
50.
OliverR. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 459–481.
51.
OrtegaL. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 82–93.
52.
OrtegaL. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In MackeyA.PolioC. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 226–253). New York: Routledge.
53.
PhilpJ.MackeyA. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)?. In BatstoneR. (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
PhilpJ.WalterS.BasturkmenH. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: what factors foster a focus on form?. Language Awareness, 19, 261–279.
55.
PicaT. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
56.
PicaT.HollidayL.LewisN.MorgenthalerL. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.
57.
PicaT.Lincoln-PorterF.PaninosD.LinnellJ. (1996). Language Learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners?TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.
58.
RouhshadA. (2014). The nature of negotiations in computer-mediated and face-to-face modes with/without writing modality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from: http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/18441 (April2015).
59.
SatoM.BallingerS. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-methodology examination. Language Awareness, 21, 157–179.
60.
SatoM.LysterR. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor versus feedback types. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
SauroS. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28, 369–391.
62.
SheenY. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
63.
ShekaryM.TahririanM. H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 557–573.
64.
SimT.HarK.LuanN. (2010). Low proficiency learners in synchronous computer-assisted and face-to-face interactions. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9, 61–75.
65.
SmithB. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: an expanded model. TheModern Language Journal, 87, 38–57.
66.
SmithB. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 33–58.
67.
SmithB. (2009a). The relationship between scrolling, negotiation, and self-initiated self-repair in an SCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26, 231–245.
68.
SmithB. (2009b). Revealing the nature of SCMC interaction. In MackeyA.PolioC. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 197–225). New York: Routledge.
69.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
70.
StorchN. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
71.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2007). Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In Garcia-MayoM.D.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
72.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In CookG.SeidlholferB. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
73.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
74.
TaroneE. (2009). A variationist perspective on the Interaction Approach. In MackeyA.PolioC. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 41–57). New York: Routledge.
75.
VaronisE.GassM. S. (1985). Nonnative/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.
76.
WigglesworthJ.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
77.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.
78.
WilliamsJ. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
79.
WilliamsJ. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.
80.
YanguasÍ. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 72–93
81.
YilmazY.GranenaG. (2010). The effects of task type in Synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22, 20–38.
82.
ZengG.TakatsukaS. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434–446.
