Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:53:17.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2014

Dogan Yuksel  and
Banu Inan
Dogan Yuksel
Affiliation:
Kocaeli University, Turkey (email: [email protected])
Banu Inan
Affiliation:
Kocaeli University, Turkey (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the effects of communication mode (i.e., face to face versus computer mediated communication) on the instances of negotiation of meaning (NofM) and its level of noticing by learners. Sixty-four participants (32 dyads) completed two jigsaw tasks in two different mediums (one in each) and four days after the tasks they were asked to identify the instances where they had communication breakdowns in a stimulated recall protocol. The findings of the study revealed that the average number of the NofM exchanges and durations of the tasks were higher in face to face mode (F2F) but the participants of the synchronous computer mediated communication (SCMC) group noticed a higher average of NofM instances (M=10.72) compared to the F2F group (M=9.13) and the difference was significant. Based on these results, we can argue that F2F promotes a better context for the production of NofM, but the SCMC environment leads to more instances of noticing.

Keywords

Negotiation of meaningsynchronous computer mediated communicationnoticingjigsaw tasksinteraction hypothesis
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 333 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2014 

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

Arslanyilmaz, A. (2007 Using similar tasks to increase negotiation of meaning and language production in anonline second language learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2004) Learner corpus analysis and the development of foreign language proficiency. System, 32: 577–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1): 120–136.Google Scholar
Blake, R (2005) Bimodal CMC: The Glue of Language Learning at a Distance. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, D. (2003) The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bower, J. and Kawaguchi, S. (2011) Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English etandem. Language, Learning, and Technology, 15: 41–71.Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, H. (2011) Negotiation of meaning in synchronous computer-mediated communication in relation to task types. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1994) Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Fuente, M. 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(1): 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. and Pica, T. (1986) ‘Information-gap' tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20: 305–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egi, T. (2004) Verbal reports, noticing, and SLA research. Language Awareness, 13: 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. and He, X. (1999) The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21: 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez- Garcia, M. and Arbelaiz, A. M. (2003) Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15(1): 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. and Ohta, A.S. (2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3): 402–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1991) Grammar instruction, selective attention, and learning processes. In: Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood Smith, M. and Swain, M. (eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 134–141.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2003) Input and interaction. In: Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (eds.), The Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 224–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A. (2000) Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A. and Ross-Feldman, L. (2005) Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4): 575–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, N.S. (2011) The effects of task type and group structure on meaning negotiation in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Selected Proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 51–69.Google Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005) Conversations and negotiated interactions in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3): 79–98.Google Scholar
Kaneko, A. (2009 Comparing computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face to face (FTF) communication for the development of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effect on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(15): 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C. and Zhao, Y. (2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3): 102–120.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2002) Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35: 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006) Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1980 Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983) Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5: 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T.K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413–468.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999) Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21: 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012) Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. and Gass, S. M. (2005) Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. (2005) Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 433–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1991) Classroom interaction, participation, and negotiation. System, 19: 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3): 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1998) Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. In: Regan, V. (ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition in social context. Dublin: University of Dublin Press.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. and Falodun, J. (1993) Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In: Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 9–34.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009) Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1): 96–120.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28(2): 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11: 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994) Deconstruction consciousness in search of useful definition for Applied Linguistics. AILA Review, 11: 11–26.Google Scholar
Shekan, P. (2003) Focus on form, tasks, and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2003, 16(5): 391–411.Google Scholar
Shekary, M. and Tahirin, M. H. (2006) Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4): 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2001) Taking students to tasks: Task-based computer-mediated communication and negotiated interaction in the ESL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tuscon.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2009a) Task-based learning in the communicative ESL/EFL classroom. CALL-EJ Online, 11(1): 1–24http://callej.org/journal/11-1/smith.html.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2009b) The relationship between scrolling, negotiation, and self-initated self-repair in an SCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26: 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sotillo, S. M. (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1): 82–119.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and assessment. London, UK: Longman, 99–119.Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2003) Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3): 141–159.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. and Gass, S. (1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation. Applied Linguistics, 6: 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y. (2006) Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL, 18: 122–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, C. N. (2004) It’s just a game right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2): 69–87.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13: 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1): 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar