Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:54:34.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of group formation on learner participation, language complexity, and corrective behaviour in synchronous written chat as part of academic German studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Christine Fredriksson
Christine Fredriksson*
Affiliation:
Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden (email: cfr@du.se)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Synchronous written chat and instant messaging are tools which have been used and explored in online language learning settings for at least two decades. Research literature has shown that such tools give second language (L2) learners opportunities for language learning, e.g., the interaction in real time with peers and native speakers, the written mode of language, and the time available for planning and monitoring utterances. However, since the majority of the empirical work on chat and instant messaging has been conducted under experimental conditions, relatively little research has investigated how interaction in chat influences language learning opportunities under the conditions of an online academic language course where students have unequal status because of their different language background and level of L2 proficiency. This article presents an explorative study of the interaction in chat in a web-based academic language course between students with different L1s and different levels of L2. The aim is to shed light on how student interaction in an institutional context benefits the language learning environment in a manner that promotes L2 learners’ attention to linguistic items in their input and output, and that allow opportunities for functional practising. Based on a mainly quantitative analysis, this article illustrates how L2 learners’ participation, the complexity of their utterances, and their opportunities for self-correction and corrective feedback are influenced by group formation.

Keywords

synchronous chatNS-NNS interactionparticipationlanguage complexitymonitoringcorrective feedback
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 217 - 238
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

Alwi, N. A. N. M., Adams, R. and Newton, J. (2012) Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21: 23–39.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2002) Toward a socio-cognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86: 525–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Bofman, T. (1988) A Second Look at T-Unit Analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other languages (22nd, Chicago, IL, March 8–13, 1988). In: Reports – Evaluative/Feasibility (142) – Speeches/Conference Papers (150).Google Scholar
Bax, S. (2003 CALL – Past, Present and Future, System, 31(1): 13–28.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1978) A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28: 69–84.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer-mediated Communication: A Window on L2 Spanish Interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1): 120–136.Google Scholar
Cheon, H. (2003) The viability of computer mediated communication in the Korean secondary EFL classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 5(2): 1–56.Google Scholar
Chun, D. (1994) Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1): 17–31.Google Scholar
Dürscheid, C. and Brommer, S. (2009) Getippte Dialoge in neuen Medien. Sprachkritische Aspekte und linguistische Analysen. Linguistik Online, 37(1). http://www.linguistik-online.org/37_09/duerscheidBrommer.html.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 2nd Ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fortune, A. (2005) Learners’ Use of Metalanguage in Collaborative Form-focused L2 Output Tasks. Language Awareness, 14(1): 21–38.Google Scholar
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3): 299–324.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, C. (2006) Erwerbsphasen, Entwicklungssequenzen und Erwerbsreihenfolge. Zum Erwerb der deutschen Verbalmorphologie durch schwedische Schülerinnen und Schüler. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Germanistica Upsaliensia, 50.Google Scholar
Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V. and McConnell, D. (2004) Research on Networked Learning: An Overview. In: Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V. and McConnell, D. (eds.), Advances in Research on Networked Learning. Boston, MA: Kluwer, 1–9.Google Scholar
Henrici, G. (1995) Spracherwerb durch Interaktion? Eine Einführung in die fremdsprachenerwerbsspezifische Diskursanalyse. Hohengehren: Schneider Verlag.Google Scholar
Högskoleverket. (2011) Kartläggning av distansverksamheten vid universitet och högskolor. Rapport 2011:2 R. http://www.hsv.se/download/18.328ff76512e968468bc8000477/1102R-distans-vid-universitet-hC3B6gskolor.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, P. (2005) A Review of Characteristics in CALL Research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5): 351–368.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1970) Syntactic Maturity in School Children and Adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35 (1).Google Scholar
Kelm, O. (1992) The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25: 441–445.Google Scholar
Kenning, M. M. (2010) Differences that make the difference: a study of functionalities in synchronous CMC. ReCALL, 22(1): 3–19.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers. Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79: 457–476.Google Scholar
Kim, H. Y. (2014) Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1): 26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lamy, M. and Hampel, R. (2007) Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching. Palgrave: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2004) Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language & Technology, 8(1): 83–100.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2006) A study of native and nonnative speakers’ feedback and responses in Spanish-American networked collaborative interaction. In: Belz, J. and Thorne, S. (eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Thomson & Heinle, 147–176.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2008) Focus on form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language & Technology, 12(3): 53–72.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 81(1): 55–81.Google Scholar
Levy, M. (2000) Scope, Goals and Methods in CALL Research: Questions of Coherence and Autonomy. ReCALL, 12(2): 170–195.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983) Linguistic and Conversational Adjustments to Non-Native Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2): 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, L., Rossman, T. and McLeod, B. (1983) Second language learning: an information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33: 135–158.Google Scholar
Oskoz, A. (2009) Learners’ feedback in online chats: What does it reveal about students learning? CALICO Journal, 27(1): 48–68.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace – The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In: Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.), Networked Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 59–86.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. and McClelland, J. (1986) On learning the past tenses of English verbs. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Rumelhart, D., McClelland, J. and PDP Research Group. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. and Smith, B. (2010) Investigating L2 Performance in Text Chat. Applied Linguistics, 31(4): 554–577.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1989) Individual differences in Second-language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996) Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In: Willis, J. and Willis, D. (eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. London: Heinemann, 17–30.Google Scholar
Sotillo, S. M. (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language & Technology, 4(1): 82–119.Google Scholar
Sullivan, C. and Pratt, E. (1996) A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24: 491–501.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley: Mass.: Newbury House, 165–179.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–114.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3): 320–337.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1983) On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4: 143–163.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1988) Variation in Interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ware, P. D. and O'Dowd, R. (2008) Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1): 43–63.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13: 7–26.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.) (2000), Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar