Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:58:50.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) in L2 oral proficiency development: A meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2014

Huifen Lin
Huifen Lin*
Affiliation:
Foreign Languages and Literature Department, National Tsing Hua University, No. 101, Section 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, Taiwan 30013, R.O.C. (Email: huifen@mx.nthu.edu.tw)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ever growing interest in the development of foreign or second (L2) oral proficiency in a computer-mediated communication (CMC) classroom has resulted in a large body of studies looking at both the direct and indirect effects of CMC interventions on the acquisition of oral competences. The present study employed a quantitative meta-analytic approach to investigate such effects by synthesizing (quasi)experimental studies that provide empirical quantitative data for effect size calculation. A literature search located 25 relevant studies for the final analysis. Each study was independently coded for learner, design and publication characteristics. The averaged effect size was estimated from the included studies. The results of the meta-analysis reveal that communication mediated by computer/technologies produced a moderate positive effect on L2 learners’ oral proficiency compared to face-to-face (F2F) communication or no interaction. Furthermore, CMC has roughly similar effect on pronunciation, lexical and syntactic level of oral production; however, it might have a negative impact on fluency and accuracy. This meta-analysis also found that the effect of CMC on oral proficiency depends on several methodological factors such as task type, outcome measurement, treatment length, and assessment task. Major findings of the current meta-analysis include: (1) studies relying on elicited data are superior to those utilizing naturalistic data; (2) reading aloud seems to be the task that could elicit the best oral performance from students; (3) surprisingly, CMC appeared to be harmful for accuracy and fluency; (4) studies that employed decision-making generated the largest effect size, followed by studies that used more than one task type; (5) among the four tasks, jigsaw actually generated a negative effect on oral performance; and (6) as the most popular task employed by primary researchers, opinion-exchange studies produced the smallest effect size. These findings need to be interpreted as exploratory rather than confirmatory since each of them became less trustworthy after taking into consideration numerous other factors such as CMC task and the particular CMC tool used, etc. Future research suggestions are provided and the limitations of this meta-analysis are addressed.

Keywords

computer-mediated communicationmeta-analysisoral proficiencysecond language acquisitionresearch synthesiseffect size
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 261 - 287
Check for updates
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

*Abrams, Z. I. (2003) The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2): 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*AbuSeileek, A. F. (2007) Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5): 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Ahn, H. (2006) The impact of individual learner characteristics and synchronous computer-mediated communication on language production in learners of English. University of Arizona, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
*Alastuey, M. C. B. (2010) Synchronous-voice computer-mediated communication: Effects on pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Alastuey, M. C. B. (2011) Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5): 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1998) Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2): 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Blake, C. (2009) Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2): 227–240.Google Scholar
*Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1): 120–136.Google Scholar
*Blake, R., Wilson, N., Pearson, N., Cetto, M. and Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008) Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 114–127.Google Scholar
*Chang, Y.-Y. (2007) The potential of synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication for second language acquisition. Issues in Information Systems, 8(2): 355–361.Google Scholar
*Chang, Y.-Y. (2008) A study of synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication and language learning outcomes. Unpublished PhD thesis. Taipei: Tamkang University.Google Scholar
*Chen, F. (2008) The effects of voiced-based synchronous and asynchronous CMC on EFL learners’ oral proficiency. National Taiwan Normal University, unpublished MA.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. (2009) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (1986) Cultures in contact: Using classroom microcomputers for cultural exchange and reinforcement. TESL Canada Journal, 3(2): 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinsmore, T. H. (2006) Principles, parameters, and SLA: A retrospective meta-analytic investigation into adult L2 learners’ access to Universal Grammar. In: Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 53–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1999) Learning a second language through interaction. New York: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4): 474–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitze, M. (2006) Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1): 67–86.Google Scholar
Fuente, M. J. (2003) Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1): 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A. and Shelley, M. (2013) A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25: 165–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978) Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (ed.), Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
*Huang, H.-T. D. and Hung, S.-T. A. (2010) Effects of electronic portfolios on EFL oral performance. Asian EFL Journal, 12(2): 192–212.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. and Schmidt, F. (2004) Methods of meta-analysis. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2010) Features of oral proficiency in task performance by EFL and JFL learners. In: Prior, M. T., Watanabe, Y. and Lee, S.-K. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 32–47. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/slrf/2008 Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T. and O’Hagan, S. (2008) Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1): 24–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstantopoulos, S. and Hedges, L. V. (2004) Meta-analysis. In: Kaplan, D. W. (ed.), Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. New York: Sage Publications, 281–297.Google Scholar
*Kost, C. R. (2004) An investigation of the effects of synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on interlanguage development in beginning learners of German: Accuracy, proficiency and communication strategies. University of Arizona, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
*Li, L. J. (2008) The impact of different levels of instructional strategy on synchronous CMC in improving college students’ oral English proficiency and learning motivation. National Cheng Kung University, unpublished MA.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2): 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, S. M. (2009) How computer -mediated communication affects ELL students’ writing processes and writing performance. Oklahoma University, unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Lin, W.-C., Huang, H.-T. and Liou, H.-C. (2013) The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 123–142. http://www.llt.msu.edu/issues/june2013/v17n2.pdf#page=128 Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. and Wilson, D. B. (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google ScholarPubMed
Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006) Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Lord, G. (2008) Podcasting communities and second language pronunciation. Foreign Language Annals, 41(2): 374–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskill, C. (1999) Computers as tools for sociocollaborative language learning. In: Cameron, K. (ed.), CALL: Media, design and applications. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50: 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2006) Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21: 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 4(24): 492–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. S. and Ross, B. M. (2005) Synchronous CMC working memory and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3): 35–54.Google Scholar
*Payne, J. S. and Whitney, P. J. (2002) Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory and Interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1): 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2009) Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4): 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. and Falodun, J. (1993) Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In: Crookes, G. and Gass, G. (eds.), Tasks and second language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 9–34.Google Scholar
*Pyun, O. C. (2003) Effects of networked language learning: A comparison between synchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions. Ohio State University, unpublished MA.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 638–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Sanders, R. E. (2005) Redesigning introductory Spanish: Increased enrollment, online management, cost reduction and effects on student learning. Foreign Language Annals, 38(4): 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Satar, H. M. and Özdener, N. (2008) The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92: 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S. and Smith, B. (2010) Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31(4): 554–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Sequeira, C. A. (2009) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and second language proficiency. University of Oregon, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (2005) The discourse of computer-mediated communication: A study of online community. University of Reading, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003a) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87: 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003b) The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31: 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2004) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26: 365–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2008) Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1): 85–103.Google Scholar
Smith, B., Alvarez-Torres, M. and Zhao, Y. (2003) Features of CMC technologies and their impact on language learners’ online interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 19: 703–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Sun, Y.-C. (2012) Examining the effectiveness of extensive speaking practice via voice blogs in a foreign language learning context. CALICO Journal, 29(3): 494–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. M. (2009) CALL-based versus paper-based glosses: Is there a difference in reading comprehension? CALICO Journal, 27(1): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (2006) Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In: Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. New York: John Benjamins, 280–298.Google Scholar
*Volle, L. M. (2005) Analyzing oral skills in voice e-mail and online interviews. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3): 146–163.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
*Wang, C. Y. (2010) A study comparing the effects of synchronous CMC and FTF interaction on L2 oral proficiency development for students with various working memory capacities. National Tsing Hua University, unpublished dissertation.Google Scholar
*Xiao, M. (2007) An empirical study of using internet-based desktop videoconferencing in an EFL setting. Ohio University, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
*Yang, M. L. (2006) Exploring Taiwanese EFL students’ responses to synchronous CMC: Effects on language use, learning and transfer, and perceptions. University of Texas at Austin, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Yun, J. (2011) The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1): 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Y., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., Smith, B. and Tan, H. S. (2004) The non-neutrality of technology: A taxonomy of CMC technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30: 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Zheng, S. N. (2010) The transferability from synchronous computer-mediated communication to oral discussion. National Tsing Hua University, unpublished MA.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lin supplementary material

Supplementary material

Download Lin supplementary material(File)
File 76 KB