Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:14:51.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of group composition and task design on foreign language learners’ interactions in mobile-based intercultural exchanges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2019

Juhee Lee Open the ORCID record for Juhee Lee [Opens in a new window]  and
Jayoung Song Open the ORCID record for Jayoung Song [Opens in a new window]
Juhee Lee
Affiliation:
Gyeongsang National University, South Korea ([email protected])
Jayoung Song
Affiliation:
Rice University, USA ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the impact of group composition (one-on-one vs. multiple-to-multiple) and task design (student-selected vs. teacher-assigned) on undergraduate foreign language learners’ interactions in a mobile-based intercultural exchange. The participants, 27 Korean students learning English as a foreign language and 27 American students learning Korean as a foreign language, interacted in pairs and groups via mobile phones to complete weekly tasks for eight weeks. This study used mixed methods to analyze the data from mobile chat scripts, questionnaires, and interviews. The results indicated that the one-on-one and multiple-to-multiple groups did not differ significantly regarding contact frequency or number of written chats. However, one-on-one and multiple-to-multiple interactions did differ with regard to the quality of the interactions, reflecting the unique nature of each group composition. A one-on-one relationship promoted a higher level of intimacy and friendship, thus rendering it appropriate for providing linguistic and emotional support in learning foreign languages. In contrast, multiple-to-multiple communications were found to be more beneficial for learning about different perspectives on the target cultures. In terms of task design, teacher-assigned tasks guided students to engage in productive interactions effectively, whereas student-selected tasks elicited their personal investment in the tasks. Supporting social interdependence theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2009), we argue that the establishment of intimate relationships among group members may be the key to quality interactions in mobile-based intercultural exchanges.

Keywords

foreign language learninggroup compositionmobile learningonline intercultural exchangetask designtelecollaboration
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 63 - 84
Copyright
© European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2019 

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

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2012) The effect of computer-assisted cooperative learning methods and group size on the EFL learners’ achievement in communication skills. Computers & Education, 58(1): 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, M. S. & Bunker, E. L. (2009) A model for self–regulated distance language learning. Distance Education, 30(1): 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910902845956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appel, C. & Gilabert, R. (2002) Motivation and task performance in a task-based web-based tandem project. ReCALL, 14(1): 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344002000319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appel, C. & Guerrero, R. G. (2006) Finding common ground in LSP: A computer-mediated communication project. In Macià, E. A., Cervera, A. S., & Ramos, C. R. (Eds.), Information technology in languages for specific purposes: Issues and prospects. New York: Springer, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-28624-2_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkhuizen, G. & Feryok, A. (2006) Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of a short-term international experience programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1): 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660500479904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2002) Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1): 60–81.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2005) Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in Internet-mediated language learning partnerships. Language & Intercultural Communication, 5(1): 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470508668881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003) Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruen, J. & Sudhershan, A. (2015) “So they’re actually real?” Integrating e-tandem learning into the study of language for international business. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 26(2): 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2014.993009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2011) Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges. CALICO Journal, 28(2): 392–419. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.392-419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çiftçi, E. Y. & Savaş, P. (2018) The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural learning: A synthesis of studies published between 2010 and 2015. ReCALL, 30(3): 278–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cziko, G. (2005) Electronic tandem language learning (eTandem): A third approach to second language learning for the 21st century. CALICO Journal, 22(1): 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i1.25-39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darhower, M. A. (2008) The role of linguistic affordances in telecollaborative chat. CALICO Journal, 26(1): 48–69.Google Scholar
El-Hariri, Y. (2016) Learner perspectives on task design for oral-visual eTandem language learning. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1): 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1138578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerday, T. & Schraw, G. (2000) Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4): 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerday, T. & Schraw, G. (2003) Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4): 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309598810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerday, T., Schraw, G. & Stevens, J. (2004) The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2): 93–114. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.72.2.93-114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göbel, K. & Helmke, A. (2010) Intercultural learning in English as foreign language instruction: The importance of teachers’ intercultural experience and the usefulness of precise instructional directives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8): 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel, T. J. (2003) Using an e-mail exchange to promote cultural learning. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3): 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02121.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2014) Culture and pragmatics in language teaching and learning (4th ed.). In Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., and Snow, M. A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: National Geographic Learning, 394–408.Google Scholar
Itakura, H. (2004) Changing cultural stereotypes through e-mail assisted foreign language learning. System, 32(1): 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, G. M. & Ball, J. (1996) An investigation of the structure of group activities in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal, 50(2): 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.2.99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989) Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2005) New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4): 285–358. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009) An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5): 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, N. L. (2001) Motivation gains in performance groups: Aspects and prospects. In Forgas, J., Williams, K. D., & Wheeler, L. (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press, 350–370.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2007) Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4): 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb02885.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990) Task, group, and task-group interactions. In Anivan, S. (Ed.), Language teaching methodology for the nineties. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 31–50.Google Scholar
McCleary, B. (1995) Grammar making a comeback in composition teaching. Composition Chronicle: Newsletter for Writing Teachers, 8(6): 1–4.Google Scholar
Menard-Warwick, J., Heredia-Herrera, A. & Palmer, D. S. (2013) Local and global identities in an EFL internet chat exchange. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4): 965–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12048.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza, G. A. G. (2014) A comparative study of computer and mobile phone-mediated collaboration: The case of university students in Japan. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 11(1): 222–237.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984) Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills: SAGE.Google Scholar
Morgan, P. L. (2006) Increasing task engagement using preference or choice-making: Some behavioral and methodological factors affecting their efficacy as classroom interventions. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3): 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270030601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000) The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2): 117–135.Google Scholar
Nemouchi, A. (2007) The usefulness of grammar for writing. Revue Sciences Humaines, 28: 57–66.Google Scholar
Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994) Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2000) Intercultural learning via videoconferencing: A pilot exchange project. ReCALL, 12(1): 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344000000616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2003) Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2): 118–144.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2018) From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.jve.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R. & Ritter, M. (2006) Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3): 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v23i3.623-642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R. & Ware, P. (2009) Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2): 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220902778369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, B. (2005) Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 433–466. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.433-466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, R. L. (2008) Hero with a thousand faces: Learner autonomy, learning strategies and learning tactics in independent language learning. In Hurd, S. & Lewis, T. (Eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 41–63. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690999-005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, Z. (2002) Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30(1): 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00050-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renwick, J. M. & McPherson, G. E. (2002) Interest and choice: Student-selected repertoire and its effect on practising behaviour. British Journal of Music Education, 19(2): 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051702000256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, P. L. & Symons, S. (2001) Motivational variables and children’s text search. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1): 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savignon, S. J. & Wang, C. (2003) Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41(3): 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenker, T. (2012) Intercultural competence and cultural learning through telecollaboration. CALICO Journal, 29(3): 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (2000) Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55(1): 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shaw, R.-S. (2013) The relationships among group size, participation, and performance of programming language learning supported with online forums. Computers & Education, 62: 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J. P. (2009) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1): 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L. & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004) Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42(4): 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–114.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2003) Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2): 38–67.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2006) Pedagogical and praxiological lessons from internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education research. In Belz, J. A. & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 2–30.Google Scholar
Tian, J. & Wang, Y. (2010) Taking language learning outside the classroom: Learners’ perspectives of eTandem learning via Skype. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3): 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.513443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tudini, V. (2003) Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3): 141–159.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Berger, C. & Szilas, N. (2012) Pedagogical design of an eTandem Chinese-French writing course. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(3): 393–409.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Zou, B., Wang, D. & Xing, M. (2013) Students’ perception of a wiki platform and the impact of wiki engagement on intercultural communication. System, 41(2): 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y. (2007) Task design in videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. CALICO Journal, 24(3): 591–630. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i3.591-630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, P. (2005) “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2): 64–89.Google Scholar
Ware, P. D. & Kramsch, C. (2005) Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2): 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00274.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar