This mixed-methods study investigates the use of synchronous video computer-mediated communication (SVCMC) in a U.S. university’s Spanish-as-a-foreign-language curriculum. Using the SVCMC platform TalkAbroad, the university’s Spanish program required second-year students to participate in five, 30-minute, SVCMC conversations with Spanish first language (L1) speakers. Students then reflected on their SVCMC conversations by replaying the recorded audio from those sessions and transcribing passages of their conversations. Using an interactionist perspective, this research explores the utility of: (1) the SVCMC conversations, and (2) the subsequent listening/transcription activity by examining students’ reported noticing of linguistic items (e.g. L1 speaker vocabulary, grammar, etc.). Additionally, we report students’ general perceptions of engaging in SVCMC with TalkAbroad. Students’ noticing and perceptions were investigated using a combination of two questionnaires (N = 35) that were administered following (1) the SVCMC, and (2) the listening/transcription activity, along with semi-structured interviews (n = 10). Findings suggest both the SVCMC and listening/transcription activities are effective in promoting the noticing of vocabulary and content, but not grammar. Finally, students generally reported positive perceptions of engaging in SVCMC for the purposes of L2 learning. Related implications for pedagogy and curriculum design are discussed.
AdamsR. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347–376.
2.
BaoM.EgiT.HanY. (2011). Classroom study on noticing and recast features: Capturing learning noticing with uptake and stimulated recall. System, 39, 215–228.
3.
CarlessD. (2012). TBLT in EFL settings: Looking back and moving forward. In ShehadehA.CoombeC. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 346–358). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
4.
CowanR.ChoiH.E.KimD.H. (2003). Four questions for error diagnosis and correction in CALL. CALICO Journal, 20, 451–463.
5.
CowieN. (2018). Student transcription for reflective language learning. ELT Journal, 72, 435–444.
6.
DevelotteC.GuichonN.VincentC. (2010). The use of the webcam for teaching a foreign language in a desktop videoconferencing environment. ReCALL, 22, 293–312.
7.
Eröz-TuğaB.SadlerR. (2009). Comparing six video chat tools: A critical evaluation by language teachers. Computers & Education, 53, 787–798.
8.
FotosS.S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.
9.
FredrikssonC. (2015). The influence of group formation on learner participation, language complexity, and corrective behaviour in synchronous written chat as part of academic German studies. ReCALL, 27, 217–238.
10.
GassS.M. (1997). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Gurzynski-WeissL.BaraltM. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.
12.
HuangS.-C. (2008). Raising learner-initiated attention to the formal aspects of their oral production through transcription and stimulated reflection. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46, 375–392.
13.
JauregiK.de GraffR.van den BerghH.KrizM. (2012). Native/non-native speaker interactions through video-web communication: a clue for enhancing motivation?Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 1–19.
14.
KatoF.SpringR.MoriC. (2016). Mutually beneficial foreign language learning: Creating meaningful interactions through video-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 355–366.
LaiC.FeiF.RootsR. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.
17.
Larson-HallJ. (2016). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. 2nd edition.New York: Routledge.
18.
LeeL. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 635–649.
19.
LeeserM.J. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 195–220.
20.
LevakN.SonJ.B. (2016). Facilitating second language learners’ listening comprehension with Second Life and Skype. ReCALL, 29, 200–218.
21.
LoewenS. (2011). Focus on form. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Volume II (pp. 576–592). New York: Routledge.
22.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2018). State-of-the-art article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
23.
LoewenS.WolffD. (2016). Peer interaction in FTF and CMC contexts. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24.
LongM. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In WinitzH. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Science: Volume 379 (pp. 259–278). New York: New York Academy of Science.
25.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in the second language acquisition. In RitchieW.BhatiaT. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26.
MackeyA. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
27.
MackeyA. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
28.
MackeyA.GooJ. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
MilesM.B.HubermanA.M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
NorrisJ.M. (2015). Statistical significance testing in second language research: Basic problems and suggestions for reform. Language Learning, 65, 97–126.
31.
PetersonM. (2012). EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCALL, 24, 20–39.
32.
PlonskyL.ZieglerN. (2016). The CALL–SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 17–37.
33.
PolioC.FriedmanD.A. (2017). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research. New York: Routledge.
34.
QiD.S.LapkinS. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.
35.
RiaziA.M.CandlinC.N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47, 135–173.
36.
RoushadA.StorchN. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. (pp. 267–290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68, 507–545.
38.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
39.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SmithB. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–398.
41.
SpringR.KatoF.MoriC. (2019). Factors associated with improvement in oral fluency when using video-synchronous mediated communication with native speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 52, 87–100.
42.
StillwellC.CurabbaB.AlexanderK., et al. (2010). Students transcribing tasks: Noticing fluency, accuracy, and complexity. ELT Journal, 64, 445–455.
43.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of Henry G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45.
SydorenkoT.HsiehC.-H.AhnS.ArnoldN. (2017). Foreign language learners’ beliefs about CALL: The case of a U.S. Midwestern University. CALICO Journal, 34, 196–218.
46.
TianJ.WangY. (2010). Taking language learning outside the classroom: Learners’ perspectives of eTandem learning via Skype. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 181–197.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
49.
YangY.C.GambleJ.TangS.S. (2012). Voice-over instant messaging as a tool for enhancing the oral proficiency and motivation of English-as-a-foreign-language learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 448–464.
50.
YanguasI. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time!Language Learning & Technology, 14, 72–93.
51.
YanguasI. (2012). Task-based oral computer communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29, 507–531.
52.
ZhangL.J.ZhangD. (2018). Metacognition in TESOL: Theory and practice. In LiontasJ.I. (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. New York: Wiley.
53.
ZieglerN. (2015). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.
