Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:36:06.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of required and optional exchange tasks in online language learning environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2012

Klaus Brandl
Klaus Brandl*
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Department of Germanics, Box 353130, Seattle, WA 98195, (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of an optional and required (jigsaw) task on learners’ quantity and quality of use of language under synchronous and asynchronous conditions. The question raised is: Does performing either of these task types under synchronous conditions cause a compounding effect that either positively or negatively impacts language production? Eighty-six beginning learners of German participated in this study. The results show that the optional task yielded significantly more learner output, both in terms of target language and c-unit counts. The impact of the condition appears to be mixed, favoring the synchronous mode. Regarding quality, students produced fewer errors when performing the required than the optional task. The results of this study have implications for task design and implementation in online learning environments.

Keywords

online language learningcomputer mediated communication (CMC)task-based learningsynchronous/asynchronous interactions
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , 04 January 2012 , pp. 85 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2012

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

Abrams, Z. I. (2003) The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87: 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2000) Learning and Memory: An integrated approach, revised edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. N. (2002) Computer-mediated communication: Writing to speak without foreign language anxiety? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. (1992) Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25: 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1995) E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers in the Humanities, 28(2): 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1998) Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2): 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A.Wozney, L. (2004) How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3): 379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4: 120–136.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christophel, D. M. (1990) The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39: 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2008) Computer-mediated discourse in instructed environments. In: Magnan, S. (ed.), Mediating discourse online. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 15–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C.Long, M. (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3): 50–80. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/doughty/default.htmlGoogle Scholar
Duff, P. (1986) Another look at interlanguage talk: talking task to task. In: Day, R. (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 147–181.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunawardena, C. N.McIssac, M. S. (2004) Distance education. In: Jonassen, D. H. (ed.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 355–395.Google Scholar
Hampel, R. (2006) Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1): 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirotani, M. (2009) Synchronous versus asynchronous CMC and transfer to Japanese oral performance. CALICO, 26(2): 413–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005) Conversations – and negotiated interaction – in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3): 79–98.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1988) Mistake correction. ELT Journal, 42: 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller-Lally, A. (2006) Effect of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Kitade, K. (2006) The negotiation model in asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC): Negotiation in task-based email exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23: 319–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klapper, J. (2003) Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 27: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C.Li, G. (2011) Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO, 28(2): 498–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., Zhao, Y.Li, N. (2008) Designing a distance foreign language learning environment. In: Goertler, S. and Winke, P. (eds.), Opening Doors through Distance Language Education: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices. San Marco, TX: CALICO, 86–101.Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2010) A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2001) Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2): 232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (2002) Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30: 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, M.Stockwell, G. (2006) CALL Dimensions. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1989) Task, group and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8: 1–26.Google Scholar
Long, M. H.Robinson, P. (1998) Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In: Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15–41.Google Scholar
Meskill, C. (1999) Computers as Tools for Sociocollaborative Language Learning. In: Cameron, K. (ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL): Media, design and applications. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 141–162.Google Scholar
Mishan, F.Strunz, B. (2003) An application of XML to the creation of an interactive resource for authentic language learning tasks. ReCALL, 15(2): 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, J. (1991) Negotiation: negotiating what? Paper given at SEAMEO Conference on Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom, RELC, Singapore.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009) Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In: Mackey, A. and Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction. New York: Routledge, 226–253.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (1997) Language teaching and networking. System, 25(1): 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R.Falodun, J. (1993) Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In: Crookes, G. and Gass, S. M. (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters, 9–33.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87: 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sotillo, S. M. (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4: 82–119.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook, G. and Seidelhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Tan, H. S.Lai, C. (2005) What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8): 1836–1884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar