研究ノート

A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous
Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC)
in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)

Anthony Young, Sian Edwards

要旨

本研究は，交渉的な学習タスクによる「コンピューターを用いた同時コ
ミュニケーション（Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication:
SCMC）」の効果を検証したものである。この目的のために，20人の学生がチャットによる筆記とスカイプによる発話に基づく数々の交渉的な学習タスクに自主的に参加した。そして質問紙や討論による学習者自身の印象に加え，これらのSCMCメディアの直接／間接的な効果が，Swainが定義するところの「言語関連事象（Language related episodes: LREs）」の「共同対話」の分析により認められた。この結果より，スカイプは，
意味交渉や修正されたアウトプットの産出と同様，聴解と発音技能の向上に効果があることがわかった。一方チャットは，コミュニケーショ
ン能力に注視しながらも，文法的／語彙的な正確さに資することが確認された。
キーワード：コンピューターを用いた言語学習 Computer-Assisted Language Learning(CALL）， チ ャ ッ ト Text-Chat， ス カ イ プ Skype， 交 渉 的 学 習 タ ス ク
Negotiated Learning Tasks，言語関連事象 Language Related Episodes― 109 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

Abstract
This research project investigated the benefits of Synchronous
Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) through negotiatedlearning tasks. For this purpose, twenty volunteer students
completed a number of negotiated task-based learning activities
using text-chat and Skype voice. The direct and indirect benefits ofthese SCMC media were then explored by examining the frequencyof language related episodes (LREs) “instances of collaborative
dialogue” as described by Swain, (2001b, as cited in Zeng & Takatsuka,
2009, p. 436), as well as, by looking at the students’ own impressions
through questionnaires and discussions. From this data weconcluded that Skype voice was advantageous in promoting listening
and pronunciation skills as well as for negotiation of meaning andproduction of modified output. Text-chat, on the other hand, wasmore conducive to the study of grammatical and lexical accuracy
while also focusing on communication skills.

Introduction
1.1 Connectivism
In the age of globalization the world is in a perpetual state of change. The
transformation of our living environment is unremitting as advancements intechnology constantly impact on how we live our lives. The integration of technology
into society has reached such a point now, that we no longer see things as: videoconferencing, touch screen interface, and instant messaging as the exception, butrather the norm. For young people today, the first generations born into this digitalera, living in a place and time without such technological trappings would almost be
incomprehensible. For today’s average college graduates, twice as many hours are
spent playing video games as compared to reading books (not to mention, four times
as much time spent on watching TV) (Prensky, 2001, p. 1). Email, the Internet, andcell phones are fundamental parts of their lives. ‘Speed’ and ‘Connectivity’ are twocatch phrases that come to mind when describing the contemporary world. The― 110 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)
rapid fire pace at which information is zipped through fiber-optic cables has in turnled to a shrinking half-life of knowledge (Siemens, 2005). According to the American
Society of Training and Documentation (ASTD), “Half of what is known today was
not known ten years ago. . . the amount of knowledge in the world has doubled in
the past 10 years and continues to double every 18 months” (Gonzalez, 2004).
Knowledge is growing exponentially and young people no longer feel it necessary tohave to sit in a classroom to learn something. Vast channels of information are
readily accessible to them at the touch of a button and informal learning now
accounts for a much larger percentage of their overall learning experience. Learning
now occurs in a variety of ways - through communities of practice, personal
networks, and through completion of work related tasks (Siemens, 2005).
Let us face the facts; the student of today is a very difference specimen from that of
his or her counterpart some twenty something years ago. The vast amount of
information available today has necessitated a change in the way it is acquired andprocessed. ‘Digital Natives’ are used to receiving information very quickly and preferto parallel process and multi-task (Prensky, 2001). In educational terms this meansthat the conventional teaching process of slow, step-by-step, one thing at a time
instruction, may now be outdated for today’s younger learners. For us as teachers to
be able to capture our digital audience’s imaginations and hold their focus, new ways
must be learned to teach traditional materials.

1.2 Making a Shift towards SCMC
There is now a growing interest in the ways computer networks can be utilized for second
language acquisition purposes. Advancements in technology now provide students with
opportunities to interact in online environments similar to face-to-face communication.
In recent years, research into Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) technologies has explored in greater depth how different configurations oftelecollaboration, from real-time text-chatting to videoconferencing, can and have
impacted on students’ language development (Belz & Vyatkina, 2005; Dussias, 2006; Lee,
2004; Yamada, 2009). A smaller number of studies within this paradigm (Belz, 2006; Lee,
2006; Sotillo, 2005) have particularly focused on the value of having students actively
reflect on language form for linguistic development in telecollaborative exchanges (Ware― 111 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27& O’Dowd, 2008, p.43). From what the data has shown, these new media forums appear

to compliment new approaches to language teaching, where students are seen as active
agents, collaborating in their own learning process (Warschauer, 2000).

Theoretical Framework
2.1 Input to Output
In Krashen’s renowned hypothesis on Comprehensible Input (1982, 1998) he states thatin order for input to be available for acquisition, it must be comprehensible to thelearner. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses along the‘natural order’ when he/she receives second language ‘input’ that is one step beyond
his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage‘i’, then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to comprehensible input thatbelongs to level ‘i + 1’. Since not all learners can be at the same level of linguisticcompetence at the same time, Krashen suggests that Natural Communicative Input isthe key to syllabus design, ensuring that each learner will receive some ‘i + 1’ inputthat is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.
In Swain’s later hypothesis about Comprehensible Output (1985a, b; 1995), she
proposes that comprehensible input, while fundamental, is not completely sufficientfor certain aspects of L2 acquisition. She claims that in order for L2 acquisition totake place, the learner’s own use of comprehensible output is also essential. According
to Swain (1995) output serves three main functions; to prompt learners to test
hypotheses, allow them to notice gaps in language use, and act as a springboard formetalinguisitic awareness (as cited in Farrokhi & Gholami, 2007, p. 59). This means thatthrough speaking, one’s thoughts can be externalized and as they are externalized asutterances, they can then be scrutinized, questioned, reflected upon, disagreed with,changed, or disregarded (Swain, 2002). The idea of bringing learners’ attention to gaps
in their language use was similarly coined by Schmidt as Noticing in 1990. Throughhis Noticing hypothesis, Schmidt argues that noticing would facilitate learning and“those who notice most learn most, and it may be that those who notice most arethose who pay attention most, as a general disposition or on particular occasions”(Schmidt, as cited in Ismail & Samad, 2010, p. 89).
― 112 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)

2.2 Metatalk or LREs
These instances of ‘noticing’ language are defined as Metatalk or LREs (Language
Related Episodes) by Swain (1998) and are presently claimed to be a prerequisite for L2
acquisition. Metatalk is language that is used to reflect consciously on language use. It isconsidered to be a sort of collaborative dialogue if you will - a dialogue in which
speakers are engaged in problem-solving and knowledge building together (Swain, 2000).
Swain often uses the terms LREs and Metatalk interchangeably and explains that it isthrough such LREs that “learners may (a) question the meaning of a linguistic item;(b) question the correctness of spelling / pronunciation of a word; (c) question thecorrectness of a grammatical form; or (d) implicitly or explicitly correct their own orother’s usage of a word, form or structure” (Swain, 1998, as cited in Ismail & Samad,
2010, p. 89). Although it cannot be guaranteed that acquisition will certainly takeplace in the presence of LREs, it can be argued that this kind of uptake is an
important first step in that direction. “Learners’ active participation can be an
important factor in processing input. . . Learners, especially those beyond the
beginner level can and do draw attention to form in ways that can benefit otherlearners” (Williams, 2001, p. 338).
Other research in task-based teaching has also shown the importance of peer-peer
dialogue on features of second language learning. The opportunity to talk and discusslanguage and writing issues with each other allows learners “to consolidate andreorganize knowledge of the L2 in structure and rhetorical aspects and to make thisknowledge explicit for each other’s benefit” (De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000, as cited in
Lapkin and Swain, 2002, p. 287).

2.3 Focus on Form / Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
LREs have received considerable attention in focus-on-form (Task-Based Language
Teaching) research, given that this kind of attention to form “may serve the functionof helping students to understand the relationship between meaning, forms, andfunction in a highly context-sensitive situation” and “may represent language learningin progress” (Swain, 1998, p. 69).

― 113 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

Comprehensible Output hypothesis and Noticing hypothesis have laid the foundation
for focus-on-form instruction or TBLT, defined here as: “an occasional shift ofattention to linguistic code features - by the teacher and/or one or more of thelearners - triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production” (Longand Robinson, 1998, p. 23). A focus-on-form lesson would focus on communication,
while language forms such as grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation are dealt with as
and when the need arises in the course of meaning-making. Focus on form provides
opportunities for pushed output which stretches learners’ competence through theneed to express themselves in language that is accurate and appropriate (Swain, 2002).
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers now recognize the potential of taskbased instruction to create more opportunities to negotiate meaning than traditional
instruction (Long, 1991, Robinson, 2001) and that it is particularly useful in facilitating
the development of accuracy in language production (DeKeyser, 2001).

Research Project3.1 Research Questions
In response to the changing learning styles of the Digital Natives and the newopportunities afforded by advancing technologies for more ways to communicate, it
was decided to do a comparative investigation into the perceived and provablebenefits to SLA using Skype voice and Skype text-chat as media. Despite studies
being done of the benefits of text-chat, few studies have been of a comparative nature
for the different media and their benefits. The present exploratory study sought toanswer the following research questions:• Which medium (voice or text-chat) is the most effective for making students
reflect on language form?
• Which medium, do students feel is most beneficial to their English language
development?
• What are the benefits of each medium?

― 114 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)

3.2 Participants
The participants in this study were twenty Japanese university language students,
aged between nineteen and twenty-two years of age. The participants were of mixed
ability, ranging from mid-beginner to lower-intermediate level. Participants werehighly motivated individuals who participated in a voluntary capacity.

3.3 SCMC Tools
The software used for this comparison study was Skype. Skype is a software
application, which allows users to chat over the web via text, voice or live video. It
was used as a medium in this research project for its versatility, as it allowed
participants to use the same technology for both aspects of the comparison, as well as
for its ease of use and the participants’, as well as the teachers’, familiarity with it.
Participants were required to create Skype accounts (for those who did not alreadyhave them) and link their accounts with that of their partner’s. For the text-chataspect of the study no extra equipment was utilized but for the voice part of the
project headsets were used. For the purposes of this project, video was not used when
doing the Skype voice activities as it was deemed to be too similar to face-to-faceinteraction.

3.4 Procedure
The twenty participants were randomly put into pairs and over eight sessions of one
hour, they completed a series of task-based activities through text-chat, and voice.
The students worked with the same partner for the duration of the study. To
familiarize the students with the technology and the tasks the first session allowed fordemonstration, instruction, and practice time. For subsequent sessions, teacher
instruction was kept to a minimum as tasks followed a set pattern and required
similar outcomes. The repetition of similar tasks allowed for greater peer-peer
interaction and collaboration, with greater focus on English production.

3.5 Reasoning-Gap Tasks
Altogether six tasks were designed based on the following features: Negotiating
meaning, communication about form and content and producing a final product.
Reasoning-Gap tasks were used as they are effective in promoting negotiation as well
― 115 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

as providing intrinsic support to learning outcomes. Reasoning-gap tasks aredescribed by Prabhu (1987) as tasks which require learners to “derive some new
information using practical reasoning” (as cited in Ismail and Samad, p. 90) to formulate
their own meanings.
For this project the end product for each task was a collaboratively written story.
Participants were each given a set of pictures. Participants A and B from each pair
had the same pictures aside from one. The first part of the task was to identify thedisparate pictures. The second part of the task was to describe these pictures andorder the pictures to create a story. The third part of the task involved writing thestory. A requisite of the task was that participants tried to write down exactly thesame sentences (including the same spelling) on their corresponding worksheets.
Participants completed three tasks through text-chat and three through voice. The
use of dictionaries was permitted for all tasks.

Data Collection and Results (Research Question 1)
4.1 Data Collection
To determine which medium (voice or text-chat) was the most effective for making
students reflect on language form, the frequency of LREs (Language Related
Episodes) was used as a criterion for judgment. According to Swain and Lapkin,(1998) LREs describe: “any part of a dialog where the students talk about thelanguage they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves orothers” (as cited in Jackson, 2001 p. 298). Under this precept, the dialogues participants
engaged in while completing the tasks, were recorded and later analyzed for LREs.
For the text-chat component of the project, participants copied their communicationtranscripts to word documents for analysis. The voice component of the project wasrecorded on the software ‘Audacity’ and later transcribed.

4.2 Initial Results (Research Question 1)
The total number of LREs for text-chat and voice were counted and the frequency
percentage of LREs for each medium was then calculated. According to the research― 116 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)
the total number of LREs was 31% for text-chat and 69% for voice. From this data,
it was initially inferred that voice afforded participants considerably more
opportunities to reflect upon their language use, as compared to text-chat.

Figure 1. (Total Number of LREs - 31% Text-Chat / 69% Voice)

These initial results on first examination were surprising however, as they ran
contrary to earlier expectations, based on previous researchers’ findings. Prior research
advocated that text-chat’s slower rate of communication and visual evidence ofutterances on the screen, should have elicited more LREs than voice. “Learners cancompose their utterances at their own pace and they can view each other’s languageas they produce it. The visual display of their utterances provides opportunities forconscious attention to and reflection on their language use as well as prompts forfurther interaction” (Kern et al., 2004, as cited in Zeng and Takatsuka, 2009, p. 436). It
was decided therefore, to conduct a more in-depth analysis to ascertain the precise
nature of the LREs occurring in each medium.

4.3 LRE Coding - Form and Lexis
To facilitate a more comprehensive investigation, the LREs were identified and coded
according to two generalized categories as proposed by Swain (2001b):
Lexis Based LREs: where learners search for lexical items and/or choose from among
competing lexical items.
Example:Student 1: vacum > vacuum cleaning?
Student 2: maybe. . . vacuum cleaner
Student 1: lol yes!
― 117 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

Form Based LREs: where learners focus on aspects of English morphology, syntax ordiscourse.
Example:Student 1: run? ran?
Student 1: which is the past tense?
Student 1: sorry i forgot. . .
Student 2: past tense is ran. . . ?

4.4 Comprehensive LRE Coding
The transcripts were then coded again based on Zeng and Takatsuka’s (2009) morecogent LRE classifications, to more explicitly understand the characteristics of the
LREs inherent to each medium.
Below are the classifications plus examples from participants’ transcripts:
Classification

Inviting/Stating an opinion
Self/partner correction
Seeking confirmation/
Checking information
Suggesting an improvement/
alternative
Requesting assistance/clarification/Giving an
explanation
Code Switching

ExampleStudent 1: In my opinion, he want to go down toground but he cannot do, so he hit the balloon.
Student 1: oh, so the man shot the balloons by hisself?
Student 2: yeah, he shot the ballons by himself.
Student 1: A woman brought a vacuum-cleaner in apanic.
Student 1: how do you think?
Student 1: cleaning machine is. . . ”a vacuum-cleaner”
in English.
Student 1: Sorry, I don’t know “get stuck” means. In
this case that means the food stay in one place??

Student 1: hahaha^^because that day was Osyogatu!
Student 2: an old man ate moti because that day was a
new year.
Expressing disagreement/doubt Student 1: But soon, he found it was scaring, so he
was shoting ballons to get down.
Student 1: correct sentence, isn’t it?
Student 2: I don’t think so, ~,~, he shot balloons to get
down.

― 118 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)

4.5 Form and Lexis LRE Results

Figure 2. (Text-Chat: 22% Lexis / 78% Form) Figure 3. (Voice: 30% Lexis / 70% Form)

The percentage breakdown of the number of form and lexis based LREs was thencalculated for each medium. The breakdown showed that of the overall total numberof LREs produced, a larger percentage of those for voice were lexis based (30% ascompared to 22%) as compared with text-chat, which on the contrary, produced
more form based LREs (78% compared to 70%).
It was determined that the reason for this disparity, may in fact be directly linked tothe slowed down communication style afforded by text-chat. This slower rate ofcommunication was beneficial in allowing participants time to check words in theirdictionaries, thus producing fewer lexis-based queries. This was confirmed by theparticipants’ own comments relating to use of the text-chat media: “I felt I could
communicate more as I had time to look things up in my dictionary. I think it also helped
me to learn new words.” The visual record of utterances pertaining to text-chatcommunication, also allowed for ease in the consideration of language form.

4.6 Comprehensive LRE Breakdown Results

Figure 4. (Detailed Voice LRE Breakdown)― 119 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

Classification
1

Inviting/Stating an opinion

2

Self/partner correction

3

Seeking confirmation/Checking information

4

Suggesting an improvement/alternative

5

Requesting assistance/clarification/Giving an explanation

6

Code Switching

7

Expressing disagreement/doubt

Figure 5 (Detailed Text-Chat LRE Breakdown)

The transcripts of the participants were coded again to further elucidate the frequency
and nature of the LREs occurring in each media type. The more in-depth breakdownof LREs revealed a greater range of differences between the media. For the category‘Inviting/Stating an opinion’, text-chat had more than double the percentage of voice
LREs, with the results being 12% and 5% respectively. This was indicative of therelative anonymity of text-chat which, according to Kern, (Kern, 1995; Warschauer,
1997) encourages equal participation and reduces anxiety. Sentiments which were
echoed by the project participants: “I didn’t feel so much pressure so it was fun tocommunicate this way.”― 120 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)
For the category ‘Seeking confirmation/Checking information’, text-chat, in comparison
with voice, once again had a higher percentage with 27% to 13% of the total LREs.
Participants were more aware of, and gave more thought to, the language they were
producing, which precipitated the desire to confirm and check what was written. A
participant comment on text-chat: “As I put my words into sentences I found I paid
more attention to grammar.”
For the category ‘Requesting Assistance/clarification/Giving an explanation’, thehigher percentage of LREs fell to voice, which accounted for 15% of its overall total
as compared with 7% for text-chat. From these results it was inferred that, of thetwo, voice appeared to be the more complex media for students to utilize. Having toprocess more information in a shorter amount of time, without the visual benefit of
having a record of their typed utterances (as afforded in text-chat), both listening
skills and memory were needed to complete the tasks. By this rationale, it was
concluded that using voice, in correlation with the complexity of the project tasks,
could account for there being a greater need to request clarification and give
explanation. Skehan (1998) asserts that “human beings have a limited capacity toprocess information, and as a result, task content and language accuracy are incompetition with each other for a learners’ attention. Thus more complex tasks will
demand more attention on content, resulting in less attention given to language use”
(as cited in Ismail and Samad, 2010, p. 89). The requests on a whole tended to be moreassociated with pronunciation, lexical comprehension and meaning, which explains
the higher percentage of lexical-based LREs in voice and supports the notion thatparticipants had less time to check dictionaries and so were more inclined to ask forassistance under these conditions. A participant comment in regard to voice: “I
couldn’t understand what my partner was saying at times, so I lost the plot.”
For the ‘Code-switching’ category, voice had a higher percentage of LREs with 7% ascompared with only 1% for text-chat. An explanation for this may lie in the ease andimmediacy of changing from one language to another when speaking. The deliberate
nature of text-chat meant participants took the time to search for meanings andadhering to English appeared more manageable. A participant comment regarding
voice seems to support this notion: “I found it easy to switch to Japanese to explain― 121 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27difficult things.”

4.7 Results Analysis
When the data is explored more thoroughly, although the number of LREs is greaterfor voice it appears that certain types of LREs were pre-dominant in each media.
Participants engaged in a higher frequency of ‘Lexis’, ‘Code-switching’, ‘Requesting
assistance/clarification and Giving an explanation’ LREs, particularly in reference tomeaning with pronunciation playing an important role, in voice exchanges.
Participants were paying attention to language but with an emphasis on content andmeaning as opposed to form. A participant comment about voice: “I ended up not
really thinking about grammar so much, so I gave a lot of one word answers.”
Whereas in text-chat, participants’ attention appeared to focus more on the language
production and form, as the higher results for ‘Seeking confirmation/Checking
information’ and ‘Inviting/Stating an opinion’, suggest. These results were echoed in
the results of Jepson (2005) who said, “This study suggests that although text chat is
the more widely available and most studied form of chat, voice chat offers anenvironment in which learners are more apt to negotiate for meaning. Voice chats inthis study generated a number of repair moves, specifically negotiation of
meaning-type of repair moves, which was significantly higher than the number intext chat” (p. 92).
It was also noted that LREs in text-chat took up a much larger portion ofparticipants’ time. It is a possibility that a greater amount of time spent on individual
LREs could result in higher uptake of the language point under discussion but thisgoes beyond the scope of the current study, although this may be an avenue forfurther research.

Data Collection and Results (Research Question 2)
5.1 Data Collection
The second research question was concerned with which medium students felt wasmost beneficial to their English language development. After completion of the eight― 122 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)
sessions participants were required to fill out questionnaires as to their perceptions of
the benefits and their feelings about the use of SCMC in English language study inan endeavor to answer this question.
The questionnaire elicited participants’ perspectives on the perceived benefit to SLA
of each media (on a 5 point rating scale), the perceived ease of task completion ineach media and participant preferences for the use of the media. The questions andresults are shown below. Participants were also asked to comment from their own
experiences on the pros and cons of each media.
QuestionsRating1

Rate how easily you understood what yourpartner was saying on Text-Chat/Skype Voice.

1 Very difficult – 5 Very easy

2

Rate how connected (close) you felt to yourpartner while using Text-Chat/Skype Voice.

1 Not close at all – 5 Very close

3

Rate how comfortable you were using
Text-Chat/Skype Voice to speak in English.

1 Uncomfortable – 5 Comfortable

4

Rate how similar you felt Text-Chat/Skype Voice
was compared to face-to-face conversation.

1 Not similar – 5 Very similar

5

Rate how easy you felt it was to say what you
wanted to say on Text-Chat/Skype Voice.

1 Very difficult – 5 Very easy

6

Rate how easy it was to respond quickly on
Text-Chat/Skype Voice.

1 Very difficult – 5 Very easy

7

Rate how easy you felt it was to start
communicating on Text-Chat/Skype Voice.

1 Very difficult – 5 Very easy

8

Rate how much you noticed grammaticalmistakes in your own or your partner’s sentences?

1 Not at all – 5 A lot

9Rate your partner’s response time in
Text-Chat/Skype Voice as opposed to faceto-face conversations.

1 Very slow – 5 Very Fast

10

Rate how much you thought about English
grammar while using Text-Chat/Skype Voice.

1 Not at all – 5 All the time

11

Rate how much you worried about making
grammatical mistakes on Text-Chat/Skype
Voice while you were communicating.

1 Not at all – 5 All the time

― 123 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

QuestionsRating12

Rate how much time you had to think about
what you wanted to say when using
Text-Chat/Skype Voice?

1 No time – 5 Lots of time

13

Rate how much you felt using Text-Chat/
Skype Voice was beneficial to do language
learning activities.

1 Not beneficial – 5 Very beneficial

14

Rate how much you would be interested inusing these forms of communication in aclassroom situation.

1 Not interested – 5 Very interested

15

Rate the media in order of preference
Text-Chat/Skype Voice

1 Favorite – 2 Second favorite

Figure 6. (Questionnaire)

5.2 Questionnaire Results (Research Question 2)

Figure 7. (Question – No.13)

In response to the question: Rate how much you felt using text-chat/voice wasbeneficial to do language learning activities, participants felt that both text-chat andvoice were beneficial to language development. As shown in Figure 7. voice was rated― 124 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)
as being slightly more beneficial than text-chat. This could be explained by thecloseness of voice to face-to-face communication with its emphasis on listening,speaking, pronunciation and fluency skills, which the participants value highly. A
participant comment regarding voice: “It was good because I had to be careful of mypronunciation.”

Figure 8. (Question – No.8)

For the question: Rate how much you noticed grammatical mistakes in your own
and your partner’s sentences, participants reported noticing much more when using
text-chat as compared to voice (as shown in Figure 8). Taken from a pragmatic view,the fact that utterances are recorded on the screen and the aggregate of time forreflection, questioning and checking, made mistakes easier to see in text-chat. This isrelevant to being beneficial, because although participants may not have been
consciously aware of the fact; the act of noticing gaps in language knowledge, as
Schmit (1990) proposed, may be the catalyst for SLA. A participant comment abouttext-chat: “I had many opportunities to reflect on the conversation with my partner as
our previous utterances remained on the screen.”― 125 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

Figure 9. (Question – No.3)

When asked to: Rate how comfortable you were using text-chat/voice tocommunicate in English, participants on the whole, felt more comfortable using
text-chat with many appreciating the slower pace of communication (as shown in
Figure 9). A participant comment on text-chat: “I liked having more time to think
about what I wanted to say before I responded.”

Figure 10. (Question – No.2)― 126 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)
For the question: Rate how connected (close) you felt to your partner while using
text-chat/skype voice, participants felt that voice was more conducive to connectedness(as shown in Figure 10). Lomicka and Lord “suggested that social presence enhances
the interaction between learners, which, in turn affects learning performance” (ascited in Yamada, 2009, p. 822). A participant comment about voice: It was fun. I
couldn’t use gestures so I had to try extra hard to communicate through words”

Data Collection and Results (Research Question 3)
6.1 Data Collection
Research question 3 dealt with the benefits to SLA of each medium. The benefits of
the respective mediums were determined through a combination of observation ofparticipants and final outcomes, as well as the detailed LRE breakdown andparticipant questionnaires.

6.2 Results
The main benefits of each medium can be seen in the table below:
Text-chatVoice

The promotion of consciousness ofgrammatical and lexical accuracy.

High dependence on listening skills
particularly as gestures and facial
expressions cannot be used to convey
meaning.

Participants are able to study both formand communication skills within thesame task.

Accurate production and pronunciationof English is required.

The ability to check utterances before
sending them, led to enhanced language
confidence and created a low stressenvironment.

A greater feeling of social presence.

The sense of anonymity afforded
participants distance from their partners
which enhanced their abilities to correct
partner mistakes, give opinions more
willingly and so foster an environment ofequal participation.

Clarification requests pushed students to
produce modified output.

― 127 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 27

Text-chat

Voice

Participants reverted to their native
language less, taking the time to check
meanings and words more.

The rapid speed of communication was
motivating.

The collaborative nature of the activity
led to learner output (in terms ofquantity of written work) being sizeable.

Similar to face-to-face communication(use of fillers).

Participants stayed on-task due topositive pressure of a partner waiting for
responses or input.

Participants stayed on-task due topositive pressure of a partner waiting for
responses or input.

Pedagogical Implications
There are several pedagogical implications to the study. With SCMC becoming morecommonly used in daily life there are positive connotations for EFL learners. SCMC
can be used to interact with people from all walks of life over the web and also
provide language opportunities that are much closer to face-to-face communicationthat can be realized outside of the classroom.
The results from the comparative study show that use of SCMC within the classshould be tailored to specific teaching objectives to maximize student learning
opportunities. Specifically, voice was found to be advantageous in promoting listening
and pronunciation skills as well as for negotiation of meaning and production ofmodified output. Text-chat, on the other hand, was more conducive to the study ofgrammatical and lexical accuracy while also focusing on communication skills.
Through the study of participant LREs the gaps in language knowledge become
apparent; particularly of those LREs which remain unresolved. Specific knowledge ofthese gaps could be used by teachers for inclusion in future lesson plans. Thisknowledge would allow teachers to tailor classes very precisely to student language
levels in keeping with Krashen’s Comprehensible Input theory (1982, 1998).

― 128 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)

Conclusion
Within the theoretical framework, the study set out to compare the benefits of voiceand text-chat to SLA. The results indicate that both text-chat and voice are beneficial
to SLA, particularly in correspondence with negotiated learning tasks. Participants
were receptive to language study using both SCMC and were able to identify positive
benefits to using both media.
It should be acknowledged that the research was conducted under some limitations.
The purview of the research was small as only twenty students participated. Also,
although participants were privy to a number of LREs in both media, the scope of
this research did not allow for testing the retention level of the knowledge gleaned
from experiencing the LREs. Further study could be conducted to investigate thelikelihood of retention of the knowledge gained and what the optimum conditions
for LRE knowledge retention are.

Bibliography
Belz, J., & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmaticcompetence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal
particles. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62 (1), 17–48.
Belz, J. (2006). At the intersection of telecollaboration, learner corpus analysis, and L2 pragmatics:
Considerations for language program direction. In J. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internetmediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 207–246). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition andsecond language instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Dussias, P. E. (2006). Morphological development in Spanish-American telecollaboration. In J.
Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education(pp. 121–146). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Farrokhi, F. & Gholami. (2007). Reactive and preemptive language related episodes and uptake
in an EFL class . The Asian EFL Journal, 9 (2), 58–92.
Gonzalez, C. (2004). The role of blended learning in the world of technology. Retrieved February
10th, 2010 from http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2004/september04/eis.htm.
Ismail, L., & Samad, A. (2010). The effects of tasks on language related episodes (LREs) during
Focus-on-Form instruction. Language Education in Asia, 1 (1), 87–98. Retrieved March― 129 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 2714th, from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Jackson, D. O. (2001). Language-related episodes. In ELT journal, 55 (3), 298–299.
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations - And Negotiated Interaction - In Text And Voice Chat
Rooms. Language Learning and Technology 19 (3), 79–98.
Kern, R., 1995. Reconstructing classroom interaction with networked computers: effects on
quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal 79, 457–476.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26, 175–182.
Lee, H. (2003). CMC task-based project. TESOL Journal, Fall (2), 79–90. Retrieved January
16th, 2010 from tesol.sookmyung.ac.kr/download/ma10/5 [1].CMC.pdf
Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakersof Spanish in the U.S. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (1), 83–100. Retrieved January
8, 2011, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html.
Lee, L. (2006). A study of native and nonnative speakers’ feedback and responses in SpanishAmerican networked collaborative interaction. In J. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internetmediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 147–176). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de
Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural
perspective. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–6. Retrieved
January 5th, 2012 from www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20...
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework
for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Siemens, G., Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age, International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2 (10), 2005. Retrieved February 22nd,2010 from http://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. Retrieved March 14th, 2010 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Sotillo, S. M. (2005). Corrective feedback via Instant Messenger learning activities in NS-NNS
and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22 (3), 467–496.
Swain, M. (1985a). Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study. In Y. P. Lee, et al.
(Eds.), New directions in language testing (pp. 35–46). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.
Seildlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

― 130 ―A Comparative Study of the Benefits of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication(SCMC) in Relation to Language Related Episodes (LREs)
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition throughcollaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning(pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2001b), Examining Dialogue: another approach to content specification and tovalidating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing 18, 275–302.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: two French immersion learners’ response toreformulation. International Journal of Education and Research 37, 285–304. Retrieved
March 10th, 2010, from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Ware, P. D. (2005). “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a GermanAmerican telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9 (2), 64–89.
Warschauer, M., 1997. Computer-mediated collaborative learning: theory and practice. Modern
Language Journal 81, 470–481.
Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language teaching. In J. W.
Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 303–318).
Mahwah, New Jersey: L Erlbaum
Williams, J. (2001), The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29 (3), 325–340.
Retrieved March 10th, 2010, from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning
using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers andEducation, 52 (4), 820–833. Retrieved August 6, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computermediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37 (6), (434–446). Retrieved
March 10th, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com― 131 ―