Synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) offers second/foreign language (L2/FL) learners’ interactional environments that are unique to face-to-face (F2F) communication. Such modes have the potential to facilitate better learning outcomes under certain conditions. The aim of this study was to compare the capacity of two online modes – text chat and voice chat – to promote uptake of targeted vocabulary in an English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom setting. Three distinct tasks (opinion exchange, dictogloss, problem-solving task) were used to measure the effectiveness of both modes to facilitate immediate and delayed uptake compared to F2F communication. The study investigated: (1) how task design and communication mode affected EFL uptake; (2) the effect time allocation had; and (3) the degree to which task perceptions differed depending on communication mode. The effectiveness of the three modes and tasks was measured using a series of pre-tests and post-tests. Post-questionnaires and interviews were also conducted to gain insight into the participants’ perceptions of the tasks. The investigation revealed both similarities and differences in the way SCMC and F2F communication affected learner uptake and demonstrated that certain task design features, such as input, time allocation, and goal orientation, can play a role in the effectiveness of text chat and voice chat to promote uptake in the EFL classroom.
AbramsZ.I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167.
2.
AhmadZ.MahmoodN. (2010). Effects of cooperative learning vs. traditional instruction on prospective teachers’ learning experience and achievement. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 43, 151–164.
3.
AllwrightD. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? – The interaction hypothesis. In SingletonD.M.LittleD.G. (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3–18). Proceedings of a joint seminar of the Irish and British for Applied Linguistics held at Trinity College, Dublin.
4.
BagheriM.ZenouzaghZ.M. (2021). Comparative study of the effect of face-to-face and computer mediated conversation modalities on student engagement: Speaking skill in focus. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6, 1–23.
5.
BaraltM. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interaction tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.
6.
BlakeR. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4, 120–136.
7.
ChapelleC. (2014). Afterword: Technology-mediated TBLT and the evolving role of the innovator. In González-LloretM.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 323–334). John Benjamins.
8.
CurranC. (1972). Counselling-learning in second languages. Apple River Press.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
11.
EllisR. (2017). Task based language teaching. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 108–125). Taylor and Francis.
12.
EllisR. (2018). The methodology of task-based teaching. Gaikokugo Kyouiku, 4, 79–101.
13.
EllisR.SkehanP.LiS.ShintaniN.LambertC. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
14.
FioriM.L. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 22, 567–602.
15.
FuenteM.J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effect of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 47–81.
16.
García-MayoM.P.Alcón-SolerE. (2013). Input, output: The interactionist framework. In HerschensohnJ.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 209–229). Cambridge University Press.
17.
González-LloretM. (2017). Technology for task-based language teaching. In ChapelleC.SauroS. (Eds.), The handbook of technology in second language teaching and learning (pp. 234–247). Wiley-Blackwell.
18.
GrabowskiJ. (2007) The writing superiority effect in the verbal recall of knowledge: Sources and determinants. In TorranceM.van WaesL.GalbraithD. (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 165–179). Elsevier.
19.
GuichonN.CohenC. (2014). The impact of the webcam on an online L2 interaction. Canadian Modern Language Journal, 70, 331–354.
20.
GuoS.MölleringM. (2016). The implementation of task-based teaching in an online Chinese class through web conferencing. System, 62, 26–38.
21.
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.
22.
Hamano-BunceD. (2011). Talk or chat? Chatroom and spoken interaction in a language classroom. ELT Journal, 65, 426–436.
23.
Huong ThiL.L.SonV.N.Thi NguyenH.A. (2021). University lecturers’ task-based language teaching beliefs and practices. Education Sciences, 11, 1–18.
24.
KeckC.Iberri-SheaG.Tracy-VenturaN.Wa-MbalekaS. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). John Benjamins.
25.
KernR. (1995). Reconstructing classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476.
26.
KimH. (2017). Effect of modality and task type on interlanguage variation. ReCALL, 29, 219–236.
27.
KimY.J.JungY.SkalickyS. (2019). Linguistic alignment, learner characteristics, and the production of stranded prepositions in relative clauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 1–33.
28.
KrashenS.TerrellT. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Pergamon.
29.
LaiC.FeiF.RootsR. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.
30.
LaiC.LiG. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 498–521.
31.
LaiC.ZhaoY. (2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 102–120.
32.
Larsen-FreemanD.AndersonM. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. 3rd edition.Oxford University Press.
33.
LeeJ. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. McGraw-Hill.
34.
LiC.C.LewisT. (2018). Negotiation for meaning routines in audio SCMC interactions: An expanded framework. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 50–72.
35.
LoewenS. (2020). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. 2nd edition. Routledge.
36.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
37.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.C.BahtiaT.J. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic.
38.
LongM.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. John Wiley.
39.
MackeyA. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford University Press.
40.
MackeyA.GooJ. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). Oxford University Press.
41.
MartynE. (2001). The effects of task type on negotiation of meaning in small group work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong, HKU Scholars Hub, Honk Kong, China. Available at: http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/35817 (accessed July 2023).
42.
MoradiA.FarvardinM. (2020). Negotiation of meaning by mixed-proficiency dyads in face-to-face and synchronous computer-mediated communication. TESOL, 11, e00446.
43.
MoskowitzG. (1977). Caring and sharing in the foreign classroom. Newbury House.
44.
NunanD. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
45.
PageM.H.MedeE. (2018). Comparing task-based instruction and traditional instruction on task engagement and vocabulary development in secondary language education. The Journal of Educational Research, 111, 371–381.
46.
PellettieriJ. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In WarschauerM.KernR. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge University Press.
47.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge University Press.
48.
RichardsJ.RodgersT. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
49.
SalbegoN.TumoloC. (2020). Online oral negotiated interaction: A study of Brazilian beginners using WhatApp. International Journal of Research in English Education, 5, 40–60.
50.
SatarH.M.ÖzdenerN. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 595–613.
51.
SauroS. (2009). Computer mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13, 96–120.
52.
SkehanP. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge.
53.
SmithB. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57.
54.
SmithB. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–398.
55.
SmithB. (2017). Technology-enhanced SLA research. In ChapelleC.SauroS. (Eds.), The handbook of technology in second language teaching and learning (pp. 444–458). Wiley-Blackwell.
SotilloS. (2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS–NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22, 467–496.
58.
TangX. (2019). The effects of task modality on L2 Chinese learners’ pragmatic development: Computer-mediated written chat vs. face-to-face oral chat. System, 80, 48–59.
59.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13, 12–28.
60.
ThanhL.N.HuanN.B. (2012). Task-based language learning and student motivation in vocabulary acquisition. Language Education in Asia, 3, 106–120.
61.
TudiniV. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 141–159.
62.
Van de GuchteM.BraaksmaM.RijlaarsdamG.BimmelP. (2016). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research, 20, 300–320.
63.
Van der ZwaardR.BanninkA. (2014). Video call or chat? Negotiation of meaning and issues of face in telecollaboration. System, 44, 137–148.
64.
WarschauerM. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 470–481.
65.
WhiteC.J. (2017). Distance language teaching with technology. In ChapelleC.SauroS. (Eds.), The handbook of technology in second language teaching and learning (pp. 444–458). Wiley-Blackwell.
66.
WillisJ. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman.
67.
YamadaM.AkahoriK. (2009). The effect of social presence on language learning: A comparison between face-to-face conversation and videoconferencing. Ed-Media 2009 Proceedings, 2, 711–720. Available at: http://mark-lab.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ED-MEDIA2009_yamada-1.pdf (accessed July 2023).
68.
YanguasI. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time!Language Learning and Technology, 14, 72–93.
69.
YanguasI. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29, 507–531.
70.
YanguasI.BerginT. (2018). Focus on form in task-based L2 oral computer-mediated communication. Language Learning and Technology, 22, 65–81.
71.
YilmazY. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132.
72.
YilmazY.GranenaG. (2010). The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22, 20–38.
73.
ZengG. (2017). Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 29, 257–275.
74.
ZieglerN. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.
