Form-focused Communicative Practice via CMC

What Language Learners Say

Authors

  • Carla Meskill
  • Natasha Anthony

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v25i1.69-90

Keywords:

CMC, Russian, CALL, Form Focus, Instructional Strategies

Abstract

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is being used widely to support and extend foreign language instruction. Language learners are practicing the target language by communicating with their instructors, peers, and native speakers at a distance. This study examines high-beginning and low-intermediate learners of Russian and their uses of, and reactions to, a required CMC component of their Russian language classes whereby instructor-initiated tasks and orchestration constituted the central structure. CMC transcript, interview, and questionnaire data indicate that students were generally enthusiastic about the CMC tasks and activities and report having learned the target language through their engagement in communicative practice with instructor-guided focus on form. The study illustrates specific types of CMC instructional uses and strategies that guide motivated, form-focused communicative practice, an activity to which these learners responded positively in terms of both reported progress and demonstrated progress in learning the Russian language.

References

Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German, The Modern Language Journal, 87 (2), 157-167.

Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 39 (1), 9-31.

Beauvois, M. (1994). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion, Computers and the Humanities, 28 (1), 177-190.

Beauvois, M. (1996). Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward computer mediated communication (CMC) in the language classroom, CALICO Journal, 13 (2), 27-45.

Beauvois, M. (1998). Conversation in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom, Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 (2), 198-217.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120-136. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake

Blake, R., & Zyzik, E. (2003). Who’s helping whom: Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussion in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24 (4), 519-544.

Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom, The Modern Language Journal, 85 (3), 364-379.

Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence, System, 22 (1), 17-31.

Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (1997). The compatibility of computer-mediated communication solutions with beginning level foreign language curricula, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10 (5), 411-425.

Conrad, D. (1999). The student view on effective practices in the college elementary and intermediate foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 32 (4), 494-512.

Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.

Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 249-277.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on forms. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. The Asian EFL Journal, 7 (3). Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_05_re.php

Ferding, R., & Roehler, L. (2004). Student uptake in electronic discussion: Examining online discourse in literacy preservice classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 119-136.

Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10 (1), 67-86. Retreived April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/fitze/default.html

Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 299-307.

González-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 1 (2), 55-70. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/pdf/article3.pdf

Hudson, J., & Bruckman, A. (2002). IRC Français: The creation of an Internet-based SLA community, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15 (2), 109-134.

Kebede, S. (1999). The relationship between uptake and questioning. System, 27 (2), 261-275.

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.

Kern, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchange to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai’i Symposium (pp. 19-28). Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of networked language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.

Lantolf, J. (1997). The function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In A. Perez-Leroux & W. R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (pp. 3-24). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13 (2), 232-244.

Lee, L. (2002a). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35 (1), 16-23.

Lee, L. (2002b). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on nonnative discourse interaction. System, 30 (3), 275-288.

Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (1), 83-100. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html

Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A task-cycling pedagogy using stimulated reflection and audio-conferencing in foreign language learning, Language Learning & Technology, 8 (2), 50-69. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/levy/default.html

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 (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

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 (pp. 15-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meskill, C. (2002). Teaching and learning in real time: Media, technology and language acquisition. Houston, TX: Athelstan.

Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2004). Teaching and learning with telecommunications: Instructional discourse in a hybrid Russian class, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33 (2), 103-119.

Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2005). Foreign language learning with CMC: Forms of instructional discourse in a Hybrid Russian class, System, 33 (1), 89-105.

Murray, D. (1991). The composing process for computer conversation, Written Communication, 8 (1), 35-55.

Payne, J., & Whitney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20 (1), 7-32.

Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practices (pp. 59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115-136). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Roed, J. (2003). Language learner behavior in a virtual environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16 (2-3), 155-172.

Salaberry, M. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (1), 5-27.

Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art, TESOL Quarterly, 25 (2), 261-277.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 38-57.

Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (3), 365-398.

Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 82-119. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo

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. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/steppgreany

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing enviornments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24 (4), 491-501.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 141-159. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/tudini

van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-259). New York: Oxford University Press.

Warner, C. (2004). It’s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (2), 69-87. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/warner

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (1), 7-25.

Downloads

Published

2013-01-14

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2013). Form-focused Communicative Practice via CMC: What Language Learners Say. CALICO Journal, 25(1), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v25i1.69-90

Most read articles by the same author(s)