This article was downloaded by: [Sookmyung Womens University]On: 03 September 2013, At: 04:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computer Assisted Language LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Can synchronous computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC) help beginning-level foreign language learners speak?Chao-Jung Ko aa General Education Center, National University of Tainan, Tainan,TaiwanPublished online: 19 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Chao-Jung Ko (2012) Can synchronous computer-mediated communication(CMC) help beginning-level foreign language learners speak?, Computer Assisted Language Learning,25:3, 217-236, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2011.649483

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.649483

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Can synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) help

beginning-level foreign language learners speak?

Chao-Jung Ko*

General Education Center, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan

This study investigated the possibility that initial-level learners may acquire oralskills through synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC). TwelveTaiwanese French as a foreign language (FFL) students, divided into threegroups, were required to conduct a variety of tasks in one of the three learningenvironments (video/audio, audio, and face-to-face (f2f)) over 18 weeks. Theparticipants’ performance in three oral tests was compared to see if they haddeveloped oral skills in the three environments. The other data such as theironline chat records, interview transcriptions, learning journals, and theinstructor’s observation journal provided further information about how theydeveloped oral skills in their learning environment. The results suggested thatfactors (related to task design, learners’ strategy use) generated by the threeenvironments, rather than the environments themselves, have the biggest impacton learners’ oral proficiency development. In addition, all three environmentsheld the potential to help different types of students to develop oral skills.

Keywords: synchronous CMC; text chat; oral chat; oral proficiency development;beginners

1. Introduction

Oral communication in a foreign language (FL) often does not come easily, especiallyto beginning- and intermediate-level students because they need to speak by focusingattention on many things including developing an idea, mapping that idea ontoappropriate structures, keeping conversational turns ongoing, and worrying abouttheir interlocutors’ response (Kern, 1995). Some studies reported that communicationactivities implemented in both synchronous computer-mediated communication(SCMC) and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (ACMC) settingshave beneficial effects on learners’ oral proficiency development (Abrams, 2003;Blake, 2009; Chun, 1994; Hirotani, 2009; Jepson, 2005; Mendelson, 2010; Payne &Ross, 2005; Payne & Whitney, 2002; Satar & Ozdener, 2008; Sykes, 2005).

However, some of these studies proposed that synchronous communication wasmore suitable to higher-level language learners (Kotter, 2001; Stockwell, 2004). So far,few researchers have examined very early-stage FL learners’ oral proficiencydevelopment in SCMC; thus, this study was undertaken to investigate whether FL

*Email: dophmer@gmail.com

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Vol. 25, No. 3, July 2012, 217–236

ISSN 0958-8221 print/ISSN 1744-3210 online

� 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.649483

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

learners in Taiwan at the elementary level develop oral skills in SCMC environmentsand to explore the factors that enhance and hinder their oral proficiency development.

2. Background literature

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) provides opportunities for L2 learnersto interact with native speakers and other language learners outside the classroom,and facilitates collaborative and comprehensible interaction by offering learner-centered interaction occasions (Abrams, 2003; Kenning, 2010; Kitade, 2000). Directinteraction between learners also stimulates interest, encourages peer learning, anddecreases dependence on the instructor (Kern, 1995).

Although CMC can be compatible with most cognitive aspects of languagelearning and seems to enable learners of different levels to co-construct socialactivities (Jepson, 2005), Collentine and Collentine (1997) argued that it isparticularly compatible with early-stage FL learners’ language acquisition, sincemost CMC entails input-oriented tasks, which provide a foundation for commu-nicative competences. The findings of some studies (Blake, Wilson, Cetto, & Pardo-Ballester, 2008; Mendelson, 2010; Satar & Ozdener, 2008) also suggest that CMCcan have positive impacts on FL beginners’ language acquisition of productive skills.

In Mendelson’s (2010) study, the instructor successfully used asynchronousonline forums to scaffold Spanish beginners’ participation in later oral discussions.Blake et al. (2008) also found that the beginning and false beginning learners in theirhybrid and distance-learning formats reached comparable levels of oral proficiencyby incorporating synchronous bimodal text and sound chat in the curriculum.Additionally, novice-level EFL learners of synchronous text and voice groups inSatar and Ozdener’s (2008) study increased speaking proficiency after four-week chatpractices on eight tasks.

Nowadays, the application of synchronous chat in language learning is becomingmore and more popular and important. Deutschmann, Panichi, and Molka-Danielsen (2009) pointed out four types of synchronous communication environ-ments: audio and text chat, audio/video and text chat, audio-graphic conferencingenvironments, and virtual worlds (e.g. Second Life). Guided by Stockwell’s (2007)suggestion that teachers’ selection of technology use should be based on theirfamiliarity with the technological options available and their suitability to particularlearning goals, this study explores the suitability of audio and text chat, and audio/video and text chat for early-stage learners’ oral proficiency development, as theprograms and tools for those communication modes were available in the studycontext and frequently used by the instructor.

2.1. Synchronous text-based CMC and language acquisition

Synchronous text-based CMC involves two functions of language: interactivecommunication and meaningful interpretation. People can not only communicateinteractively through text-based CMC, but also interpret and reflect at the sametime, due to the permanent nature of written texts. As a result, learners producemore language with a richer lexicon than in a face-to-face (f2f) environment(Beauvois, 1997).

Warschauer (1999) proposed a number of ways that learners appear to benefitfrom text-based CMC. Firstly, they can achieve greater written fluency through

218 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

computer-based writing. Also, text communication makes it possible for them tofocus on linguistic structures. Above all, it provides additional opportunities forexpression and reflection (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Warschauer,1999).

Skehan (1998) proposed that L2 instruction should help learners focus attentionon form while they focus on meaning. For Salaberry (2000), text-based CMCprovides a natural method that links ‘‘a focus on meaning with a focus on form’’ (p.6). Text-based chat, being visible and saved (Lee, 1999), encourages learners tonotice their own errors (Chun & Yong, 2006; Shekary & Tahririan, 2006) and allowsthem to read, re-think, and re-formulate utterances before sending them to otherinterlocutors, although its synchronous feature limits this reworking of constructedmessages (Kitade, 2000). Acting as a built-in external memory aid, text form alsoallows modified input occurring in interaction to be more easily perceived and maybe more memorable (Warschauer, 1999).

Nevertheless, the application of text-based CMC in language acquisition is notalways promising. Muniandy (2002) pointed out that short forms andcontractions are commonly used in text chat, where time constraints leadlearners not to edit their speech and create ‘‘a sense of urgency’’ (p. 56). Lee(1999) pointed out that in text-based CMC, meta-linguistic factors such as gestureand facial impression, which ‘‘are said to serve as facilitative factors for SLA’’ (p.11), are lacking. Furthermore, Smith (2003) claimed that unique features in CMCenvironments (e.g. more overlaps in turn taking and more processing timeafforded than f2f exchanges) make negotiation in this mode slightly different fromnegotiation in f2f settings.

Although some previous studies (Blake, 2009; Payne & Ross, 2005; Payne &Whitney, 2002) have showed that synchronous text chat can be beneficial to learners’oral skills development, Blake (2009) cautioned that the learners’ languagedevelopment cannot be successful without effective instructional design. The waysteachers integrate CMC into instruction have a greater impact on students’ learningoutcomes than the specific characteristics of the technologies used (Levy, 2009;Mendelson, 2010).

2.2. Synchronous voice-based CMC and language acquisition

Synchronous voice chat allows learners to ‘‘practice face-to-face turn-adjacencyconventions or adhere to discourse coherence structures’’ (Jepson, 2005, p. 81) inonline environments. The availability of facial visuals in synchronous oralcommunication could bring a change in learners’ output as well as their ‘‘socio-cultural, visual, and audio perception of the input’’ (Volle, 2005, p. 156).

Jepson (2005) found that a lot of repair work was related to pronunciation sincenon-verbal cues were not available in the voice chat module of his study, whichmight have led to ineffective communication on the part of the mixed-levelinternational e-learners. Barr, Leakey, and Ranchoux (2005) also found that theirfirst year undergraduate French as a foreign language (FFL) learners preferred usingcomputer technology for drilling oral skills such as pronunciation but meeting f2f formeaningful communication, as visual cues seemed absent in oral communication oftheir treatment group whose learning occurred in a CALL environment. For Wang(2004), negotiation of meaning in interaction without visual cues can be difficult forlow-proficiency distant learners.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

However, despite the paucity of non-verbal cues, the intermediate-level SpanishFL learners in the synchronous written chat group in Sykes’s (2005) study werefound to communicate more explicitly. Chun and Yong’s (2006) study also showedthat the lack of paralinguistic cues in text chat made their intermediate-level Englishas a second language (ESL) participants feel less time pressure thus allowing themmore time to monitor their language output.

The adverse influences of technology problems on students’ learning outcomeshave also been recognized by other CMC researchers (Barr et al., 2005; Hampel &Hauck, 2004; Sykes, 2005; Volle, 2005; Wang, 2004). In Hampel and Hauck’s (2004)audio conferencing programs, the technical problems that the students encounteredwere to do with audio quality and Internet disconnection. Wang (2004) indicatedthat bandwidth and latency are two critical problems that face Internet-basedvideoconferencing and therefore suggested that the choice of a less congestedInternet time and one-to-one (rather than many-to-many) videoconferencing are keyconditions for successful videoconferencing sessions.

Despite the mentioned weaknesses in SCMC communication, some of the studiesdiscussed above provide evidence for the positive impact of CMC on FL beginners’oral skill development. Since most students came to my French course with aninterest in learning French oral skills but 2-h weekly learning was too short for themto acquire such skills, I proposed the use of SCMC to help them develop oralproficiency outside the classroom.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The 12 FFL beginners whose L1 is Chinese Mandarin were from differentdepartments at a Taiwanese university. Meeting for 2 h per week, they receivedonly one semester of basic French instruction from the researcher as their instructorbefore the study. Ten of them (A–J) were females and two (K, L) were males. Mostwere in the habit of surfing the Internet daily. All, but Participant B, considered theircomputer skills as good.

3.2. Technology tools

In this study, webcams and/or headsets (with microphones attached) were used in theSCMC communication. The selected software was MSN messenger and Audacity.Each participant received a webcam and headset from me before the study. They wereshown how to use the software and the tools before the first task in the classroom.

3.3. Data collection

This research adopted a case study approach, which can allow researchersto observe cause–effect relationship in the study context and to ‘‘penetratesituations in ways that are not always susceptible to numerical analysis’’ (Cohen,Lawrence, & Keith, 2003, p. 181). The data were collected from students’performance on three oral tests (baseline test, mid-term test, and post-test), textchat records, voice-chat/f2f sound recordings, interview transcripts, students’learning journals, and the instructor’s observation journal. The selection ofinterviews and journals as instruments was because interviews can allow access todata that researchers cannot observe (Merriam, 1990); and journals can provide

220 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

insights into personal teaching and learning experiences over the course of thestudy (Burgess, 1984).

The participants’ performance in three oral tests was assessed based on the ratingscale created for this study ( Appendix 2). In addition to the researcher/instructor,two other French teachers were invited to be assessors in this study. They weretrained to use the rating scale before the first assessment. The inter-rater reliabilityamong three assessors was 0.78 (the mid-term test) and 0.71 (the post-test). In theresearch literature, estimates ranging from 0.60 to 0.90 are described as ‘‘acceptable’’(Lynch, 2003, p. 88).

The participants’ scores in the three oral tests were compared to see if they haddeveloped oral skills in the SCMC environments. In addition, their written/soundrecords, interview transcriptions, learning journals, and the instructor’s observationjournal provided further information about the processes they developed oralabilities in the three learning environments (Table 1).

All the participants’ performance was judged based on the same rating scale,which consists of seven criteria, in each of which there are three levels. Theparticipants’ performance in each test was aggregated with their scores on sevencriteria. I created this rating scale because I was aware that oral proficiency testinginstruments were not sensitive to the small gains in speaking ability made bybeginner learners, as proposed by Blake et al. (2008).

3.4. Procedures

The 12 voluntary participants were divided into three groups. Having the similaropinion as Kenning’s (2010) that the factor of familiarity might influence learners’performance in online learning, I decided to examine the ‘‘familiarity’’ factor in thisstudy and assigned Participants C and D, G and H as task partners, as they had notknown each other before the study.

At the beginning, all the pairs were required to conduct the first task in SCMCtext chat (pre-task activity). Then, Groups 1 and 2 carried out the same task inSCMC voice chat (Group 1 with headsets/webcams; Group 2 with headsets only)and Group 3 did it f2f (main-task activity). After the main-task activity, I randomlyinvited them to perform the same oral tasks in front of their classmates in asubsequent f2f session (post-task activity).

The study constituted cycles of three-week practice on three tasks (Table 2). Foreach text chat, I provided the participants with individual feedback on grammarerrors by email as well as explicit feedback with explanations of those errors in a laterf2f session. For each oral chat, I pointed out each learner’s pronunciation andgrammar errors individually by email and provided them with correct sounds for thecommon errors made by most of them in a later f2f session.

Example 1. Feedback on grammar errors in text chat.

Original: J’ai les cours du matin.

Correction: J’ai les cours le matin.

Example 2. Feedback on grammar and pronunciation errors in oral chat. (Grammarerrors were pointed in italics and pronunciation errors were underlined.)

Original: Premiere ou second classe?

Correction: En premiere ou second classe?

Computer Assisted Language Learning 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The task contents were inter-connected. The learners started by introducingthemselves and one of their best friends to their partner. Then, they had to describetheir daily lives to each other based on their timetable. The third task was aninvitation to go on a trip. They had to plan a trip and work out the details for thistrip. The three oral tests were developed based on the above three tasks.

3.5. Data analysis

Over the period of the study, the participants wrote their personal learning journalsand emailed their entries to me after each task. They also saved their written and oralchat and sent them to me by email after each session. Towards the end of the study,six semi-structured interviews (Appendix 1) were conducted in the university. Eachof them involved two of the participants.

For data analysis, I transcribed and translated the interview data and learningjournals from Chinese into English, noted patterns of participants’ experiences,classified these patterns, and compiled all the data in groups related to specificpatterns. These related patterns were then combined and catalogued into sub-themes. I calculated the frequency of themes and displayed them in a tabular form.The interview transcripts and learning journals were then analyzed based on thethemes and their frequencies.

4. Results

Potential participants’ oral proficiency development was measured by theirperformance in the three oral tests. The method employed to measure theirperformance is to transform the participants’ scores into z-scores to see if they hadmade progress over the period under study, since z-scores can be used to comparescores on different tests that have different means and standard deviations.

For example, Participant A has a z-score of 71.06 on the baseline test. Thismeans that she scores 1.06 standard deviations below the mean. So she did worsethan the average person. However, she scored 0.01 standard deviations above themean on the mid-term test, but 0.1 standard deviations below the mean on the final

Table 2. A cycle of three-week practices for each task.

Pre-task activity(text chat)

Feedbackon grammarerrors (email)

Main-taskactivity

(F2F/voice chat)

Feedbackon pronunciation/grammar errors

(email)Post-task

activity (F2F)

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Table 1. Three learning modes.

1 2 3

Group pair (A, B) (C, D)(unfamiliar pair)

(E, F) (G, H)(unfamiliar pair)

(I, J) (K, L)

Text chat MSNVoice chat MSN – webcams/headsets MSN – headsets only F2F

222 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

test. Since a z-score of 70.1 is better than 71.06, but worse than þ0.01, we canknow that Participant A did better on the mid-term test than she did on the othertwo tests, but she performed better on the final test than the baseline test. Therefore,we can say she made slight progress over the study.

The data showed that the three learning modes only brought benefits for some (A,B, G, J, and L) participants’ oral proficiency development (Table 3). In the followingsections, the ways that the learning modes affected the participants’ oral skillsdevelopment were described and the factors that influenced their learning wereintroduced. The data from the interview transcripts and learning journals regardingtheir learning situations on text chat (pre-task) were presented first, followed by thoseon their oral chat (main task). The displayed tables showed the frequency of themesgenerated from the data analysis, which gives a general idea of how often theymentioned conducting each activity or their feelings towards the activity concerned.

4.1. Text chat

All the participants (except Participant I) considered SCMC text chat useful for oralproduction (Table 4). According to them, it helped them to structure conversationcontexts, formulate thoughts, and reflect on French linguistic features. This real-timecommunication allowed them to think of language they needed to use or themeanings they wanted to express in the main tasks.

Certain factors that occurred during the practice processes impacted their textchats. This is revealed in the discussion that follows.

Table 3. Performance in three oral tests.

Participant Baseline z-score Mid-term z-score Final z-score

G1 A 15 71.06 14.5 0.01 14.7 70.10B 18 1.34 15.2 0.35 18 2.68C 17 0.54 12.8 70.81 15 0.15D 17 0.54 15.7 0.59 14.7 70.10

G2 E 16 70.26 13.3 70.56 13.7 70.94F 16 70.26 13.7 70.37 14 70.69G 16 70.26 13.5 70.47 15.7 0.74H 17 0.54 16.2 0.83 14 70.69

G3 I 17 0.54 17.2 1.32 14.7 70.10J 17 0.54 18.2 1.80 15.7 0.74K 17 0.54 13 70.71 14.3 70.44L 13 72.67 10.3 72.01 13.3 71.28

Mean 16.33 14.47 14.82Variance 1.56 4.3 1.41Standard deviation 1.25 2.07 1.19

Note: The highest score the participants can get on each test is 21.

Table 4. Frequency of reported usefulness of the text chat.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency Useful 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 1 1 2 1Not useful 4

Computer Assisted Language Learning 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

4.1.1. Pre-chat activities

Before the pre-tasks, they had pre-discussions together in order to scaffoldconversations (Table 5).

Those (Participants G, H, K, and L) who skipped the pre-discussion step found itdifficult to put themselves into the task situations, as Participant L stated in thefollowing:

L: For me, the conversation situations . . . in the classroom, you described them to us . . .but after the classroom, I still had difficulties in imaging them . . .

4.1.2. Chinese or English use

They either used Chinese (their mother tongue) or English (L2) to facilitate discussionsbefore and during the chat (Table 6). Participant B explained that she used Englishbecause ‘‘using Chinese required translation. Using English was easier’’.

Thus, it would appear that a possible reason why some used English was becausethey felt that using L1 could slow down their communication process since it wouldinvolve an additional translation process.

The Chinese or English use here fulfilled several purposes. It allowed them toconstruct the task situations, provide linguistic support, clarify semantic problems,facilitate discussions, and revise the texts.

4.1.3. Difficulties

They encountered some difficulties in text communication (Table 7). All but one(Participant B) had difficulty producing output. Participants G, H, and L felt it wasdifficult to apply their learning to the task situations.

Typing was another problem encountered in their text communication. Nineparticipants (except A, D, and E) stated they typed French slowly. Having to typespecific French symbols increased typing difficulties and complicated theircommunication processes. Moreover, eight participants (except A, B, J, and K)felt that their knowledge of French was not sufficient for them to express theirthoughts or describe their favorite conversation contexts adequately.

4.2. Spoken chat

4.2.1. Practice repetition

All the participants did several practices before oral-chat recordings (Table 8). Theirpractices were mainly focused on pronunciation, since all except Participants A andB spoke with the use of prepared written texts (Table 9).

Only two participants (I and J) modified their written records to adapt them tothe oral situations before the tasks. Participant I explained she found a sense of

Table 5. Frequency of reported pre-discussions that participants conducted.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency Pre-discussion 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 1

224 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

freedom in the text chat because she did not need to abide by the turn-taking rules ofconventional oral interaction.

4.2.2. Aids used

The participants used various means to assist task completion (Table 9). ParticipantsC, D, G, and J resorted to the telephone when they were not able to convey thoughtsto each other through text chat. Participants C, D, G, and H included the webcam incommunication although this was not allowed. Additionally, some obtained helpfrom dictionaries, websites, other classmates, and their teacher, particularly inpronunciation.

Most participants (except A and B) spoke according to their prepared writtentexts. For some (Participants C, G, I, J, K, and L), this use could reduce cognitive

Table 6. Frequency of reported use of Chinese/English in text chat and their functions.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency Chinese 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 2English 1 1 1 1

FunctionsConstruct

tasksituations

v v v v v v v v

Providelinguisticsupport

v v v v v v v v v v

Clarify semanticproblems

v v v v

Facilitatediscussions

v v v v v v

Revise texts v v

Note: The symbol ‘‘v’’ refers to the reasons that the participants mentioned using Chinese or English.

Table 7. Frequency of reported difficulties that participants encountered in text chat.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency Put into task situations 1 1 1Output 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 5 3 1 2Typing 1 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1Perception of insufficient

learning2 1 1 4 1 1 1 2

Table 8. Frequency of reported practices that participants conducted.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency Severalrecordings

3 2 5 2 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 3

Conversationmodification

2 1

Computer Assisted Language Learning 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

load, which allowed them to pay more attention to pronunciation (Table 10). Theycould, therefore, speak more fluently and confidently.

Speaking with the texts might make some of them produce output mechanicallywithout thinking of what they were speaking and therefore they might perceive thespoken tasks as not challenge. However, this was not avoidable in many cases asmany found it difficult to produce texts spontaneously as indicated in the commentbelow:

C: With the written records, I practised pronunciation. Without the written records, Imight need to think for a long time before speaking sentences.

4.2.3. Difficulties

Some problems related to breakdown in technology occurred during their taskpractices (Table 11). Firstly, the bad quality of the Internet connection in theuniversity dormitory delayed images or sound transmission, which impactednegatively on their practice processes. Additionally, communication was sometimesdisrupted by sudden computer crashes and tools that failed to work properly. Therewas some problem with the Audacity program too. Although participants fromGroups 1 and 2 (except E and F) said that they knew how to use Audacity in theinterviews, they were unable to record their partner’s sound with the program intheir first oral practice. However, they did not inform me regarding this and insteadmade f2f recordings using an MP3 player. Participants E and F explained that they

Table 9. Frequency of reported aids that participants used.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency Telephone 2 2 1 1Written texts 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 3 1Webcam 4Dictionary 1 1 2 1 1Websites 1 1 2 1Peers 2 1 2 1 1 1Teacher 1 1 2

Table 10. Frequency of reported focus on pronunciation.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency Focus on pronunciation 2 1 1 5 1 1

Note: Frequency here denotes the number of times the participants mentioned they paid more attention topronunciation when speaking with prepared written texts.

Table 11. Frequency of reported difficulties that participants encountered in oral chat.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency Technology 4 3 5 3 2 1 2 2Pronunciation 1 3 4 7 6 2 1 4 6 1 4

226 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

did not mention the problem to me because they were afraid to do so as shown in thetranscripts below:

F: (laughs) we are afraid of the teacher . . .

E: . . . from our past learning experiences, if we raised our problems to the teacher, someof them would tell you how to solve problems, but some of them would scold you . . .

F: Right . . .and because we told you first we haven’t had problems to use the Audacityprogram. . .

E: We were afraid that you scolded us when we really encountered the using problems. . .

Moreover, all the participants (except A) had difficulties in pronunciation (Table11). I later learnt that Participant A did not have this problem because she found awebsite that provided her pronunciation assistance.

From their spoken files, I discovered that their pronunciation errors were led tooccasions where they picked up erroneous pronunciation from their partner.However, they seemed less capable of picking up correct pronunciation as observedby the instructor:

T: They repeat each other’s pronunciation errors. But when one pronounces correctly,the other one doesn’t repeat correct sound after his/her partner.

These are some examples of their erroneous repetitions:

Example 3. Repetition of pronunciation errors

E: Quelles langues vous parlez/parle/?

(What languages do you speak?)

F: Je parle/pel/chinois, anglais, et taiwanaise. Et vous?

(I speak Chinese, English, and Taiwanese. How about you?)

E: Je parle/pel/chinois, anglais, et taiwanais.

(I speak Chinese, English, and Taiwanese.)

Example 3 showed Participant E shifting her correct pronunciation to followParticipant F’s incorrect pronunciation and Participant F’s incorrect pronunciationwas probably caused by the transfer from L2 (English) to L3 (French).

In addition to the factors that occurred during their practice processes, certainfactors related to curriculum design also affected the participants’ performance.

4.2.4. Feedback

All of them considered my feedback of their written records useful (as shown inTable 12). In particular, Participants E and F were inspired by my comments ontheir performance. Nevertheless, only three (Participants A, B, and I) benefited fromthe pronunciation feedback. The students who felt that the pronunciation feedbackwas helpful explained that they used additional means (e.g. websites, the teacher) toimprove their pronunciation. I was not surprised with the dismal response to thepronunciation feedback I gave in view of the fact that it was the first time I tried tosupport pronunciation learning through CMC.

In the f2f sessions, I provided them with explicit feedback with explanation of thecommon errors in their written records and also provided sound models for their

Computer Assisted Language Learning 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

common pronunciation errors. Most (except Participants B, E, F, and G) said thatthe sound models (in the form of conversation sound files) which I uploaded to theclass bulletin board supported their pronunciation learning. This was supported bythe interview and journal data.

4.2.5. Practices in cycle

All except two participants (D and H) found the cyclical design beneficial (asindicated in Table 13). The interview and journal data revealed that many feltnervous and stressed when performing text chat with their partner or recording theiroral conversation because of their lack of familiarity with French typing. Theymentioned that the cyclical design enabled them to get used to the newcommunication means and hence they could focus on their performance. Somefurther stated that they gained more courage to speak and this led to a sense ofaccomplishment after performing better.

C: After these spoken practices, I am more courageous to speak. It seems that I speak tothe person face-to-face through the microphone and the webcam (in spite of the transferdelay problem). It might be very interesting to talk with French native speakers online.

4.2.6. Task partner

Four participants (A, E, F, and L) stated they preferred someone they know as theirpartner (Table 14). Participants E and F’s preference for someone familiar was

Table 12. Frequency of reported usefulness of the feedback.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency CMCWritten

records1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Pronunciation 2 1 1Sound files 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 4

F2FWritten

records1 1 2 1 1 1

Soundmodels

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 13. Frequency of reported usefulness of cyclical design.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Frequency Cyclical design 2 1 2 4 5 1 1 2 2 2

Table 14. Preference for task partner.

Participant A B C D E F G H I J K L

Someone familiar v v v vSomeone non-familiar v v v vNo difference v v v v

Note: The symbol ‘‘v’’ here denotes that the participants mentioned their preference for their task partner.

228 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

because they considered it easier to arrange meeting times. Participant A favoredsomeone familiar because she was shy to talk with someone unfamiliar. ForParticipant L, his main worry was that an unfamiliar partner might be impatientwith his slow reactions in communication.

Surprisingly, Participants C, D, G, and H were happy with the non-familiarpartner they were assigned to although Participants C and D initially felt shy orembarrassed. In addition, Participants C and G said they preferred being pairedwith someone non-familiar as that would offer them the opportunities to makenew friends and to get more linguistic and phonological help. As for ParticipantD, she felt that a non-familiar partner can increase task authenticity, which canmake her more interested in doing the tasks. Participant H was more willing tocollaborate with a non-familiar partner because she got along well with her currenttask partner.

The rest of them (B, I, J, and K) were more concerned about partners’ learningattitudes. For them, being familiar with a partner or not made no difference as longas their partners were committed, open-minded, collaborative, and not difficult toget along with.

4.2.7. Another L2

English, their first FL, had some effects on the participants’ learning of French. Theinterview data revealed that the participants affected most by these were those two(D and H) who were majoring in English. They benefited from some similaritiesshared by the two language systems, especially in the lexical aspect, but had problemwith pronunciation and tended to pronounce in an English way when faced withunfamiliar words.

D: But French learning affects English learning as well.

H: Right. . . .They share some similarities.

5. Discussion

The findings showed that only some participants’ (A, B, G, J, and L) oral proficiencydevelopment improved after the intervention program. This suggests that thelearners’ oral proficiency development did not strongly correlate with the threelearning modes. Factors involved in the learning processes of this study seem quitevaried and complex. In the following sections, the factors that enhanced andhindered the participants’ spoken outcomes were discussed.

At the text chat stage, the factors affecting positively the participants’ learningincluded the use of the text chat as a preliminary activity and their L1 use. As notedin Abrams’ (2003) study, almost all reported the effective use of the text chatfocusing mainly on thought formulation and reflection on language use. They got‘‘the chance to express and respond to a large number of ideas’’ (Kern, 1995, p. 462)in text chat. The great number of similarities found between the participants’ textand oral chat provides evidence to support the hypothesis that competence gainedfrom using CMC can be transferred to oral discourse competency (Abrams, 2003;Chun, 1994; Payne & Ross, 2005). In addition, some learners used Chinese orEnglish to assist their task completion. The functions of L1 use in this study weresimilar to those in some previous studies (Brooks & Donato, 1994; Storch &Wigglesworth, 2003; Swain & Lapkin, 2000).

Computer Assisted Language Learning 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

At the spoken chat stage, the participants used a number of strategies to facilitatetheir task completion. Those strategies consisted of task practice repetition and theuse of some aids involving the telephone, the webcam, websites, the written texts,and so on. Among the participants (A, B, G, J, and L) whose oral proficiencyimproved after the program, it was noticeable that Participants A, B, G, and Jactively sought and used a variety of learning strategies to help them overcomeproblems in task completion. Their cases evidenced Benson’s (2001) statement thatthe provision of opportunities for learners to interact independently with educationaltechnologies can promote their autonomy development.

The participants’ reliance on the written texts in spoken tasks seemed to beunavoidable, but had great effects on the following oral production. Although usingthe written texts allowed them to focus attention on pronunciation and facilitatedlater spoken communication, they could not speak spontaneously in the oral testsand therefore most found the final oral test was difficult. However, if they hadspoken without looking at the written texts, their communication might have beenhampered by pronunciation errors (Abrams, 2003) that would have frustrated them.Thus, I suggest that teachers of beginner-level classes should clearly set task goals,based on which they decide whether or not to allow learners to use written texts as anaid in spoken tasks.

Moreover, my perception that the learners’ direct application of chat discussionsin oral performance was unnatural tends to suggest that learners cannot directlytransfer their chat discussions to spoken conversation, either in SCMC or f2fcontexts. They need to be made aware that discourse in different learningenvironments may be different, so that they are prepared to adapt their discourseto different situations.

Finally, most participants reported that cyclical design increased their familiaritywith the learning environment and encouraged them to speak without fear. They,therefore, focused more attention on oral production. This finding recalls Skehan’s(1996) statement that the organization of cycles of activity can help learners be‘‘more able to bring to bear the effects of recent restructuring, but at the same timeachieve a level of fluency’’ (p. 49). As a result, learners can give a balance of attentionto form and to communication (VanPatten, 1990).

A number of difficulties encountered over the study negatively influenced thelearners’ production. Those mentioned most frequently included output, typing,pronunciation, and technology. Among these, technology (Hampel, 2006; Wang,2004) and typing problems (Chun & Yong, 2006; Payne & Ross, 2005) had beenreported by previous CMC researchers. As far as the learners’ output difficultieswere concerned, they might have been caused by unfamiliarity with a task-basedcurriculum, since this was the first time they had learnt a FL through this method. Intheir previous learning experiences, the only opportunities for them to produceoutput were in tests. Their experiences evidenced Swain’s (1985) claim that‘‘comprehensible input’’ is not sufficient for learners’ language acquisition. Learnersneed to be provided with output opportunities to find out what they can and cannotdo (Swain, 1995).

Pronunciation also caused great obstacles to their learning, since for moststudents my classroom instruction was the major source of pronunciation input.However, the solution I devised – the sound models provided on the classroombulletin board – was welcomed by many participants, who recommended theirinclusion in the future.

230 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

In addition, some problems occurring during the participants’ learning processesinfluenced the validity of this study. Firstly, the action that Groups 1 and 2 took inorder to solve the recording problem had not been foreseen in my study design andconsequently reduced the discreteness of the three modes that I set out to study.Secondly, some participants overused the webcam. Participants C and D used thewebcam in text chat; and G and H used it in oral chat. And this time, the effect wasto increase the level of group differences.

It is worth remembering that these actions by participants occurred in theConfucian educational context, where the teacher is considered a symbol ofauthority and where students generally learn a subject (in this case, a language)passively, and without posing any questions in a classroom. It may well be easier forteachers/researchers to control learning situations if my study is replicated in aneducational setting where learners are used to expressing opinions and commu-nicating problems openly with the teacher, as is the case in many western countries.

Moreover, the participants’ major and past language learning experiences mayinfluence their learning of this target language to a certain extent. For example,Participants D and H in this study were found to encounter more pronunciationproblems than the others, which might be caused by their better knowledge ofEnglish that interfered with their French learning, since both English and French arealphabetic languages.

The above discussions suggest that most of the factors that impacts on oralproficiency development were in terms of task design and the learners’ strategy use.This echoes some researchers’ claim (Levy, 2009; Mendelson, 2010) that teachers’instructional design in online curriculum, rather than technologies themselves, hasmore influence on learners’ outcomes.

However, the fact that Participant L benefited from the program tends to suggestthat his learning mode (text-based CMC þ f2f) may be beneficial to low-abilitystudents’ oral skill development, since he was able to receive a great deal of support(particularly peer support), which would not be available in a traditional languageclassroom. Although peer collaboration was also available in the two other learningmodes, it is difficult to tell whether Participant L could have received the same learningoutcomes if he had conducted the tasks in them. Further investigation is needed intowhich factors are beneficial to low-ability students’ language learning inCMCcontexts.

The collaboration between Participants K and L provides counter evidence toKowal and Swain’s (1994) suggestion that large differences between learners’proficiency level may reduce the extent of collaboration degree and tends to supportStorch’s (2002) assumption that collaboration may be influenced by other factors,such as their attitude to pair work and to the tasks, and their motives and goals.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, some factors generated by the three learning environments, rather thanthe environments themselves, have the largest impact on the learners’ oral proficiencydevelopment in this study and all three environments created in this study seem topossess potentialities to help different types of students to develop oral skills.

The participants’ ability to discover strategies and employ a variety of forms ofsupport (e.g. written texts and online resources) to assist learning and overcomedifficulties during the study influenced their outcomes to a great degree. As suggestedin some previous studies (e.g. Abrams, 2003; Blake, 2009; Mendelson, 2010; Payne &

Computer Assisted Language Learning 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Whitney, 2002; Satar & Ozdener, 2008), the inclusion of particular tasks in CMClearning, such as the written pre-tasks and task recycling, also created favorableconditions for their learning. In addition, most of the participants had a good opinionof some types of support (e.g. sound files and feedback) that I offered through CMCand f2f to help their oral skills development, as noted in Blake’s (2009) study.

As with all studies, this study has its limitations. The following are limitations ofthe design that I felt should be pointed out. Firstly, given the intentionally small scaleof my study, its results are not easily generalizable. Next, although the effort tobalance the research design has been made, it still did not appear to be a completeone. For example, the findings showed that the factor ‘‘familiarity’’ seemed to be anintervening variable in this study. However, an ‘‘unfamiliar’’ pair was missing inGroup 3. Also, the measurement of the participants’ oral proficiency developmentaccording to z-scores may not persuade all readers. Despite that, I hope that thelearner data reported in this study will provide some useful insights for researchersinterested in undertaking similar research in future. Finally, only limited statisticaldata analysis was utilized in this study in view of the fact that this study waspredominantly qualitative in nature. A more balance approach should be consideredin future to provide deeper insights into participants’ learning situations.

Until now, research into beginner FL learners’ spoken language development inCMC environments has been limited. It is hoped that the findings of this study canmake a modest empirical contribution to the area of modern technology applicationin early-stage FL classrooms.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr Tony Lynch, Dr Cathy Benson and Mr EricGlendinning for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft of thispaper, extracted from her unpublished PhD thesis. Special thanks also to theanonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Notes on contributor

Chao-Jung Ko is currently teaching English and French as an assistant professor at someuniversities in Taiwan. She holds a PhD in applied linguistics from the University ofEdinburgh in UK. Her research interests include CALL, foreign language acquisition, oralproficiency development, and language learning motivation.

References

Abrams, Z.I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oralperformance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167. doi: 10.1111/1540-4781.00184

Barr, D., Leakey, J., & Ranchoux, A. (2005). Told like it is! An evaluation of an integratedoral development pilot project. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 55–78.

Beauvois, M.H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology forimproving speaking and writing. In M.D. Bush (Ed.), Technology-enhanced languagelearning (pp. 165–184). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second

language.TheModern Language Journal, 93, 227–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00858.xBlake, R., Wilson, N.L., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in

distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 114–127.

232 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Brooks, F.B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign languagelearner discourse during communicative tasks.Hispania, 77, 262–274. doi: 10.2307/344508.

Burgess, R. (1984). Keeping a research diary. In J. Bell, T. Bush, A. Fox, J. Goodey, &S. Goulding (Eds.), Conducting small-scale investigations in educational management (pp.75–83). London: Harper & Row in association with the Open University.

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

Chun, L., & Yong, Z. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology,10, 102–120.

Cohen, L., Lawrence, M., & Keith, M. (2003). Research methods in education. London:Routledge Falmer. doi: 10.4324/9780203224342

Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (1997). The compatibility of computer-mediated communica-tion solutions with beginning level foreign language curricula. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 10, 411–425. doi: 10.1080/0958822970100502

Deutschmann, M., Panichi, L., & Molka-Danielsen, J. (2009). Designing oral participation insecond life – A comparative study of two language proficiency courses. ReCALL, 21, 206–226. doi: 10.1017/S0958344009000196

Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-basedenvironment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and HigherEducation, 2, 87–105. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for languageteaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105–121. doi:10.1017/S0958344006000711

Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distancelanguage courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 66–82.

Hirotani, M. (2009). Synchronous versus asynchronous CMC and transfer to Japanese oralperformance. CALICO Journal, 26, 413–438.

Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations – and negotiated interaction – in text and voice chat rooms.Language Learning & Technology, 9, 79–98.

Kenning, M. (2010). Collaborative scaffolding in online task-based voice interaction betweenadvanced learners. ReCALL, 22, 135–151. doi: 10.1017/S0958344010000042

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects onquantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79,457–476. doi: 10.2307/329999

Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interactionin internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 143–166.

Kotter, M. (2001). Developing distance language learners’ interactive competence – Cansynchronous audio do the trick? International Journal of Educational Telecommunications,7, 327–353.

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promotestudents’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.

Lee, C.H. (1999). An exploration of pedagogical implications of using networked – basedcomputer mediated communication in the communicative language classroom. IPCTJournal, 7(1–2), 1–16.

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern LanguageJournal, 93, 769–782.

Lynch, B.K. (2003). Language assessment and programme evaluation. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press Ltd.

Mendelson, A. (2010). Using online forums to scaffold oral participation in foreign languageinstruction. L2 Journal, 2(1), 23–44.

Merriam, S.B. (1990). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Muniandy, A.V.A. (2002). Electronic-discourse (E-discourse): Spoken, written or a newhybrid? Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 17, 45–68.

Payne, J.S., & Ross, B.M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oralproficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 35–54.

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

Computer Assisted Language Learning 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Salaberry, M.R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediatedcommunication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5–27. doi: 10.1076/0958-8221(200002)13:1;1-K;FT005

Satar, H.M., & Ozdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiencyand anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 595–613. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x

Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M.H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-basedonline chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 557–573. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00504.x

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. AppliedLinguistics, 17, 38–62. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.1.38

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

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

Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas inthe CALL literature. ReCALL, 19, 105–120. doi: 10.1017/S0958344007000225

Stockwell, G.R. (2004). CMC for language learning: Examining the possibilities. Paperpresented at the JALTCALL 2004 Conference, Tokiwa University, Mito, Japan.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00179

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting.TESOL Quarterly, 32, 760–770. doi: 10.2307/3588224

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

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G.Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the firstlanguage. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251–374. doi: 10.1191/136216800125087

Sykes, J.M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral andwritten chat. CALICO Journal, 22, 399–431.

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input – an experiment inconsciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.

Volle, L.M. (2005). Analyzing oral skills in voice e-mail and online interviews. LanguageLearning & Technology, 9, 146–163.

Wang, Y. (2004). Supporting synchronous distance language learning with desktopvideoconferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 90–121.

Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education.Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

234 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Appendix 1. Interview guided questions (translated from Chinese by the researcher)

(1) Do you think that the instructions before the study were clear?(2) Have you encountered any problems with software use during the study?(3) About the tasks:

. Do you think the written tasks were helpful to the oral tasks?

. Please describe your task practice process.(4) About the feedback:

. Do you think that the written, pronunciation, and classroom feedback were helpfulto your learning? How?

. Which feedback did you consider the most helpful?(5) Do you think that being familiar with your task partner before the study was

important for you to conduct the tasks? Why?

Appendix 2. The rating scales.

CriteriaScale

CommentA. B.

Flow of speech 1__ 2__ 3__ 1__ 2__ 3__Pronunciation 1__ 2__ 3__ 1__ 2__ 3__Vocabulary 1__ 2__ 3__ 1__ 2__ 3__Grammar 1__ 2__ 3__ 1__ 2__ 3__Range of vocabulary 1__ 2 __ 3__ 1__ 2 __ 3__Range of grammar 1__ 2 __ 3__ 1__ 2 __ 3__Communicative effort 1__ 2__ 3__ 1__ 2__ 3__

Scale definitionFlow of speech (1) Speech is halting and fragmentary; utterances are

incoherent.(2) Speech is sometimes hesitant or utterances are

sometimes incoherent.(3) Speech is fluent/unbroken; utterances are coherent.

Pronunciation (1) Unable to produce some sounds; strong interferencefrom L1/L2 in rhythm, intonation, andpronunciation; understanding is difficult but can beachieved after frequent repetition.

(2) Some sounds are not well pronounced, but littlemisunderstanding is caused or repetition is required.

(3) Able to pronounce well almost all sounds; nomisunderstanding is caused or repetition is required.

Appropriacy of vocabulary (1) Unable to use some vocabulary, which causes theinterruption of communication; may resort to LI ormay cause their partner to resort to L1 to achieve/maintain communication.

(2) Some inadequate or inaccurate vocabulary usedwhich causes misunderstanding.

(3) No inadequate or inaccurate vocabulary used duringthe communication.

Appropriacy of grammar (1) Almost all grammatical patterns inaccurate.(2) Some grammatical inaccuracies.(3) Almost no grammatical inaccuracies.

(continued)

Computer Assisted Language Learning 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Appendix 2. (Continued).

CriteriaScale

CommentA. B.

Range of vocabulary (1) Limited vocabulary; usage less than what has beenfrequently practised in the classroom.

(2) Moderate vocabulary; usage about what has beenfrequently practised in the classroom.

(3) Extensive vocabulary; usage more than what hasbeen frequently practised in the classroom

Range of grammar (1) Limited range of verb tenses/sentence patterns used.(2) Reasonable range of verb tenses/sentence patterns

used.(3) Wild range of verb tenses/sentence patterns used.

Communicative effort (1) Unable to initiate the conversation; communicationtotally reliant on the interlocutor. No strategies formaintaining communication.

(2) Sometimes able to initiate the conversation; able totake turns to continue the communication. Cansometimes cope with not understanding and/or notbeing understood.

(3) Able to initiate the conversation; able to help theinterlocutor continue the communication. Effectivestrategies for maintaining communication.

236 C.-J. Ko

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sook

myu

ng W

omen

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

22 0

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013