Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:46:04.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Text-based negotiated interaction of NNS-NNS and NNS-NS dyads on Facebook

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2017

Sarah Hsueh-Jui Liu
Sarah Hsueh-Jui Liu*
Affiliation:
Kainan University, Taiwan (email: sarah.hjliu@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study sought to determine the difference in text-based negotiated interaction between non-native speakers of English (NNS-NNS) and between non-native and natives (NNS-NS) in terms of the frequency of negotiated instances, successfully resolved instances, and interactional strategy use when the dyads collaborated on Facebook. It involved 10 native English speakers and 30 learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). NNS-NNS dyads consisted of five H-H pairs and five L-L pairs (H and L representing high- and low-proficiency learners). Similarly, NNS-NS dyads comprised five H-N pairs and five L-N pairs (N being native speakers). All dyads were required to use text chats to complete the given reading tasks synchronously in chatrooms on Facebook. The results suggested that negotiated instances, successfully resolved instances, and interactional strategy use occurred more frequently in H-H pairs than in L-N, L-L, or H-N pairs. In terms of strategy use, H-H, H-N, and L-N dyads were likely to engage in negotiated interaction by employing strategies such as clarifying unclear expressions or checking their comprehension, while L-L used interactional mechanisms infrequently and tended to use strategies such as continuers and asking for assistance. The research concludes with the pedagogical implications of the results.

Keywords

interactional strategy usesecond language acquisitionsynchronous text-based computer-mediated communicationsecond/foreign language learning
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 294 - 312
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2017 

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

Blattner, G. and Fiori, M. (2009) Facebook in the language classroom: Promises and possibilities. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(1): 17–28.Google Scholar
Bower, J. and Kawaguchi, S. (2011) Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTANDEM. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1): 41–71.Google Scholar
Dobao, A. F. (2012) Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33: 229–256.Google Scholar
Foster, P. and Ohta, A. S. (2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26: 402–430.Google Scholar
Fujii, A. and Mackey, A. (2009) Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. IRAL, 47: 267–301.Google Scholar
Hew, K. F. (2011) Review: Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27: 662–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005) Conversations – and negotiated interaction – in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3): 79–78.Google Scholar
Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N. and Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010) Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13: 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. J. and McDonough, K. (2008) The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2): 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C. and Zhao, Y. (2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3): 102–120.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In: van Patten, B. and William, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 201–224.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2001) Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13: 232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (2008) Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 53–72.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1): 55–81.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In: Clark, M. and Handscombe, J. (eds.), On TESOL ’82: Pacific perspectives on language learning. Washington, DC: TESOL, 207–225.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413–468.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998) Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. SSLA, 20: 51–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classroom. SSLA, 20: 37–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R. and Leeman, J. (2003) Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1): 35–66.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. SSLA, 27: 79–103.Google Scholar
Mol, H. (2008) English for tourism and hospitality. Reading, UK: Garnet Publishing.Google Scholar
Nakatani, Y. (2010) Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1): 116–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, B. (2005) Form-focused interaction in online Tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 433–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2009) Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22: 303–321.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2010) Learner participation patterns and strategy use in Second Life: An exploratory case study. ReCALL, 22: 273–292.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. and Linnell, J. (1996) Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1): 59–84.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, J. (2008) Negotiation meaningfulness: An enhanced perspective on interaction in computer-mediated foreign language learning environments. In: Magnan, S. S. (ed.), Mediating discourse online. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 219–224.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, J. and Zander, V. (2011) Social networking in an intensive English program classroom: A language socialization perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(2): 326–344.Google Scholar
Rost, M. and Ross, S. (1991) Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and teachability. Language Learning, 41(2): 235–273.Google Scholar
Shekary, M. and Tahririan, M. H. (2006) Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90: 557–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2005) The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39: 33–58.Google Scholar
Sotillo, S. (2005) Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 467–496.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2001) How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1): 29–53.Google Scholar
Storch, N. and Aldosari, A. (2012) Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1): 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.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
Varonis, E. M. and Gass, S. (1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6: 71–90.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13: 7–26.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. and Swain, M. (2007) Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2): 121–142.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2001) The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29: 325–340.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. (2011) Smart choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1): 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. and Granena, G. (2010) The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22(1): 20–38.Google Scholar
Yuksel, D. and Inan, B. (2014) The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3): 333–354.Google Scholar