Recently, second language (L2) instruction has benefitted from the development of instructional technology such as synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC). The present study was conducted to investigate learner perception of the effectiveness of SCMC interactions for L2 learning and building intercultural competence. Students (n = 55) from three different universities in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan participated in a joint online class for one semester. The purpose of the class was to facilitate students’ development of linguistic and intercultural competence by interacting with peers from different cultures online. This study set out to examine the relation between learner perception and interactional features during group discussions. A range of data collection instruments were employed, including a questionnaire to track change in learner perception over time, interviews, and transcripts of interactions during each chat session. Results from linear mixed effect models suggest that among various interactional features, the following two variables were found to be significant predictors of positive attitudes towards SCMC: the amount of students’ attention to language and cultural issues during online discussion. Findings are discussed in light of developing effective SCMC-based language courses.
AbramsZ. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167.
2.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaayenR.H.DavidsonD.J.BatesD.M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
4.
BatesD.MäechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4_. R package version 1.1–9. Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (accessed September 2017).
5.
BeauvoisM. (1995). Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 27–45.
6.
BelzJ. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 68–117.
7.
BlakeR. (2005) Bimodal CMC: The glue of language learning at a distance. CALICO Journal, 22, 497–511.
Bueno-AlastueyM.C. (2011). Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 419–432.
ChenJ.J.YangS.C. (2014). Fostering foreign language learning through technology-enhanced intercultural projects. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 57–75.
12.
ChunD. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17–31.
13.
DamenL. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14.
DörnyeiZ. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
15.
DörnyeiZ. (2014). Motivation in second language learning. In: Celce-MurciaM.BrintonD.M.SnowM.A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 4th edition (pp. 518–531). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning.
16.
Eddy-UM. (2015). Motivation for participation or non-participation in group tasks: A dynamic systems model of task-situated willingness to communicate. System, 50, 43–55.
FreiermuthM. (2011). Debating in an online world: A comparative analysis of speaking, writing, and online chat. Text & Talk, 31, 127–151.
19.
FreiermuthM.HuangH. (2012). Bringing Japan and Taiwan closer electronically: A look at an intercultural online synchronic chat task and its effect on motivation. Language Teaching Research, 16, 61–88.
20.
FreiermuthM.JarrellD. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 189–212.
21.
HampelR. (2003). Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic conferencing for language learning. ReCALL, 15, 21–36.
22.
HampelR.SticklerU. (2012). The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL, 24, 116–137.
23.
HidiS.RenningerK.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
24.
HocklyN. (2015). Developments in online language learning. ELT Journal, 69, 308–313.
25.
ItakuraH. (2004). Changing cultural stereotypes through e-mail assisted foreign language learning. System, 32, 37–51.
26.
JepsonK. (2005). Conversations – and negotiated interaction – in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 79–98.
27.
JoganM.K.AnaH.H.GladysA. (2001). Cross-cultural e-mail: Providing cultural input for the advanced foreign language student. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 341–346.
28.
KernR.G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476.
29.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
30.
KitadeK. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 143–166.
31.
KormosJ.PréfontaineY. (2016). Affective factors influencing fluent performance: French learners’ appraisals of second language speech tasks. Language Teaching Research. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 26December2016 (doi: 10.1177/1362168816683562).
32.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP.B.ChristensenR.H.B. (2015). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0–29. Available online at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest (accessed September 2017).
33.
LeeL. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 635–649.
34.
LinH. (2014). Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 120–147.
35.
McDonoughK.SunithamW. (2009). Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 231–254.
36.
O’DowdR.RitterM. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23, 623–642.
37.
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.
38.
ParmaxiA.ZaphirisP. (2015). Developing a framework for social technologies in learning via design-based research. Educational Media International, 52, 281–293.
39.
PlonskyL.ZieglerN. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 17–37.
40.
PouporeG. (2015). The influence of content on adult L2 learners’ task motivation: An Interest theory perspective. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, 69–90.
41.
Rosell-AguilarF. (2005). Task design for audiographic conferencing: Promoting beginner oral interaction in distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 417–442.
42.
SatarH.ӦzdenerN. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 595–613.
43.
SauroS. (2004). Cyber discursive tug-of-war: Learner repositioning in a multimodal CMC environment. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19, 55–72.
44.
SauroS. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28, 369–391.
45.
ShaoX.WuW.B. (2007). Asymptotic spectral theory for nonlinear time series. The Annals of Statistics, 35, 1773–1801.
46.
ShihY.C. (2014). Communication strategies in a multimodal virtual communication context. System, 42, 34–47
47.
StockwellG. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19, 105–130.
48.
StockwellG. (2010). Effects of multimodality in computer-mediated communication tasks. In: ThomasM.ReindersH. (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London: Continuum.
49.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
50.
TeamR.C. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. Available online at: http://www.r-project.org (accessed September 2017).
51.
ThorneS. (2005). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education: Approaches, pedagogy, and research. CALPER Working Paper Series No. 6. Pittsburg, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
52.
VetterA.ChanierT. (2006). Supporting oral production for professional purposes in synchronous communication with heterogeneous learners. ReCALL, 18, 5–23.
53.
WarschauerM. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7–26.
54.
WescheM.B. (1994). Input and interaction in second language acquisition. In: GallawayC.RichardsB.J. (Eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 219–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
WighamC.R.ChanierT. (2015). Interactions between text chat and audio modalities for L2 communication and feedback in the synthetic world Second Life. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 260–283.
56.
YamadaM. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52, 820–833.
57.
YanguasÍ. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29, 507–531.
58.
ZieglerN. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163.
