The more things change, the more they stay the same, or do they? Revisiting classroom interaction approaches and their effects on quantity and characteristics of language production

Authors

  • Linda Carol Jones University of Arkansas
  • Cheryl A. Murphy University of Arkansas
  • Amalie Holland University of Arkansas

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i2.24541

Keywords:

discourse, chat, mobile, face-to-face

Abstract

This study investigated the quantity and characteristics of student language production, discourse functions, and morphosyntactic features in three different discourse settings – face-to-face (F2F), lab-setting chatroom interactions (Lab), and any place/ any device chatroom interactions (APAD). Discourse was examined through the replication and extension of Richard Kern’s (1995) study. Similarities in findings between the two studies included a continuation of incomplete, and short sentence lengths among F2F students, an absence of F2F greetings, and a higher rate of assertions, verb tenses, and simple sentences in the Lab setting. Differences included a higher rate of F2F turns in the current study, an absence of greetings in the lab setting, and a greater number of commands among F2F participants. Findings underscored what Kern previously asserted: that F2F and chatroom settings tend to encourage and support slightly different goals associated with language discourse. Kern stated that more sophisticated conversation occurred in the chatroom setting. Current findings concurred but furthered that more conversational interaction took place within the F2F discourse setting due to a greater number of commands, turns, and incomplete sentences. Similarly, F2F students experienced greater input due to the increase of words heard, questions asked, and commands made.

Author Biographies

Linda Carol Jones, University of Arkansas

Dr. Linda Jones is an Associate Professor of Instructional Technology in the J.W. Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Arkansas. She teaches courses on Language Teaching and Technology (Web. 2.0 Technologies/Video Production). Her research interests include listening comprehension in a multimedia environment, spirituality in Higher Education, as well as New France and French Arkansas History.

Cheryl A. Murphy, University of Arkansas

Dr. Cheryl Murphy is an Associate Professor of Educational Technology in the College of Education and Health Professions at the University of Arkansas. She is the Director of Distance Education for the College and serves as Program Coordinator for the Educational Technology program. Her research interests include the design, development, and evaluation of technology-supported instruction; best practices in online learning; faculty development; and distance learning accreditation and policy formation.

Amalie Holland, University of Arkansas

Amalie Holland is the Director of the Center for World Languages, Literatures, and Cultures in the J.W. Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Arkansas. Ms. Holland manages and assists in the technological needs for language learners and faculty, and helps to implement new technologies for use inside and outside the classroom.

References

Al-Sa’di, R., & Hamdan, J. (2005). Synchronous online chat English: Computer-mediated communication. World Englishes, 24, 409–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0883-2919.2005.00423.x

Bibby, S. (2011). Do students wish to ‘go mobile’? An investigation into student use of PC’s and cell phones. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1 (2), 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2011040104

Blake, R. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

de Bruyn, L. L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: Can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education, 25 (1), 67–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791042000212468

Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers. Computers and the Humanities, 24 (1/2), 49–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00115028

Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22 (1), 17–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)90037-X

Chun, D. M. (2012). Replication studies in CALL research. CALICO Journal, 29 (4), 591–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.4.591-600

Conole, G. (2008). Listening to the learner voice: The ever-changing landscape of technology use of language students. ReCALL Journal, 20 (2), 124–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000220

Conole, G., Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50 (2), 511–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.009

Darhower, M. (2002). Instructional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 249–278.

Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (1), 70–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.700315

Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28 (2), 115–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003764722829

Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (2). Retrieved from http://0-www3.interscience.wiley.com.library.uark.edu/cgi-bin/fulltext/120837946/HTMLSTART

Hill, T. & Lewicki, P. (2007). Statistics: Methods and applications. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft.

Hunt, K. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35 (1), No. 134. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Joinson, A. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Reciprocal self-disclosure in internet-based surveys. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4 (5), 587–591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109493101753235179

Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb01127.x

Kennedy, C. & Levy, M. (2008). L'italiano al telefonio: Using SMS to support beginners' language learning. ReCALL Journal, 20, 141–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000530

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), 457–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05445.x

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93 (s1), 769–782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x

Light, P., Nesbitt, E., Light, V., & White, S. (2000). Variety is the spice of life: Student use of CMC in the context of campus-based study. Computers and Education, 34 (3–4), 257–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00049-4

Lin, W., Huang, H., & Liou, H. (2013). The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: A meta analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 17 (2), 123–142.

Markman, K. (2010). A closer look at online collaboration: Conversational structure in chat and its implications for group work. In Shedletsky, L. & Aitken, J. E. (Eds). Cases on online discussion and interaction: Experiences and outcomes, 212–233. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-863-0.ch011

McKenna, K. Y. A. & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (1), 57–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6

Mitschke, C. (2012). Imaginez: Le français sans frontières. Boston, MA: Vista Higher Learning.

Nickel, T. (2002). Student-to-student interaction in online discussions: The role of moderator status (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utah State University, Logan, UT.

Ortiz-Rodriguez, M., Telg, R., Irani, T., Roberts, T., & Rhoades, E. (2005). College students’ perceptions of quality in distance education: The importance of communication. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6 (2), 97–105.

Park, J. (2007). Interpersonal and affective communication in synchronous online discourse. Library Quarterly, 77 (2), 133–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/517841

Paulus, T. (2009). Online but off-topic: Negotiating common ground in small learning groups. Instructional Science, 37 (3), 227–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9042-5

Pena-Shaff, J., Altman, W., & Stephenson, H. (2005). Asynchronous online discussions as a tool for learning: Students' attitudes, expectations, and perceptions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16 (4), 409–430.

Pérez, L. (2003). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 21 (1), 89–104.

Porte, G. (2013). Who needs replication? CALICO Journal, 30 (1), 10–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.1.10-15

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816

Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 54–62.

Salaberry, M. R. (1997). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14 (1), 15–33.

Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85 (1), 39–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00096

Sanders, R. (2006). A comparison of chat room productivity: In-class versus out out-of-class. CALICO Journal, 24 (1), 59–76.

Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28 (2), 369–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.369-391

Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 38–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00177

Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (3), 365–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426301X

Smith, C. (2006). Synchronous discussion in online courses: A pedagogical strategy for taming the chat beast. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 2 (5). Retrieved 24 April 2008, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=246

Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1991) Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6 (1), 165–180.

Sullivan, N. & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24 (4), 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00044-9

Viswanathan, R. (2012). Augmenting the use of mobile devices in language classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 2 (2), 45–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2012040104

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (3), 7–26.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (4), 470–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x

Werry, Christopher, C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of internet relay chat. In S. Herring (Ed.). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, 47–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.39.06wer

Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between l2 learners: it’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14 (3), 72–93.

Downloads

Published

2015-04-23

How to Cite

Jones, L. C., Murphy, C. A., & Holland, A. (2015). The more things change, the more they stay the same, or do they? Revisiting classroom interaction approaches and their effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. CALICO Journal, 32(2), 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i2.24541

Issue

Section

Articles