Teletandem vs. Face-to-Face in the L2 Classroom: The Effect of Type of Media on Complexity and Accuracy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23925/2318-7115.2022v43i1a5Abstract
In the past decades, foreign language classrooms at the university level have witnessed an ever-growing presence of technology. Teletandem, a collaborative and virtual medium for foreign language learning (TELLES, 2009; BENEDETTI; CONSOLO; VIEIRA-ABRAHÃO, 2010), offers language learners opportunities to receive modified input, negotiate for meaning, receive corrective, and produce modified output, all essential to second language (L2) development (LONG, 1996; GASS, 1997; GASS; MACKEY, 2007). However, an assessment of Teletandem empirical studies has revealed not only a dearth of empirical evidence in regards to the effects of this medium on L2 development, but, furthermore, a lack of research comparing Teletandem and face to face (FTF) contexts as effective media for L2 development. The present study investigates whether type of medium (Teletandem vs. FTF) has an effect on L2 learners’ oral development of lexical accuracy and global complexity. Participants were 40 advanced learners of Spanish who were randomly assigned to either a Teletandem group or a FTF group over the course of two months. The results revealed that both Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) and FTF interaction had positive impacts on oral complexity, with no significant difference between the two groups. However, the results indicate that there was an advantage for Teletandem in terms of the L2 development of lexical accuracy.
Metrics
References
AHMADIAN, M. J.; TAVAKOLI, M. 2011. The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15.1: 35–59.
AKIYAMA, Y.; SAITO, K. 2016. Development of comprehensibility and its linguistic correlates: A longitudinal study of video-mediated telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 100.3: 585-605.
APPEL, C.; MULLEN, T. 2000. Pedagogical considerations for a web-based tandem language learning environment. Computers & Education, 34.3: 291-308.
ARANHA, S.; BRAGAGNOLLO, R. M. 2012. Genre(s) and Teletandem: Towards a successful relationship. Presented at Genre 2012: Rethinking Genre Twenty Years Later, Ottowa, Canada.
BARALT, M.; GURZYNSKI-WEISS, L. 2011. Comparing learners' state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15.2: 201-229.
BARALT, M. 2013. The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35: 689-725.
BELZ, J. A. 2001. Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL, 13.02: 213-231.
BELZ, J.A. 2003. Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7.2: 68-117.
BELZ, J. A. 2007. The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27: 45.
BELZ, J. A.; KINGINGER, C. 2003. Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language learning, 53.4: 591-647.
BELZ, J. A.; MÜLLER–HARTMANN, A. 2003. Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German–American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. The Modern Language Journal, 87.1: 71-89.
BRICK, B. 2011. Social networking sites and language learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2.3: 18-31.
BRINCKWIRTH, A. 2012. Implementation and outcomes of an online English-Portuguese tandem language exchange program delivered jointly across a US-Brazilian university partnership: A case study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University.
BÖHLKE, O. 2003. A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO journal, 21.1: 67-87.
BLAKE, R. 2000. Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4.1: 120-136.
BOWER, J.; Kawaguchi, S. 2011. Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15.1: 41-71.
BYGATE, M. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In: VAN DEN BRANDEN, K.; BYGATE, M.; NORRIS, J. M. (Eds.). Task-based language teaching: A reader: 249–274. John Benjamins.
CALDERON, A. M. 2014. Level of intake, depth of processing, and type of linguistic item in L2 development. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University.
CANDIDO, J. 2010. Teletandem: Sessões de orientação e suas perspectivas para o curso de Letras. Dissertação de Mestrado, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos Linguísticos, Universidade Estadual Paulista.
CEREZO, L.; BARALT, M.; SUH, B.; LEOW, R. P. 2013. Does the medium really matter in L2 development? The validity of CALL research designs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27.4: 294-310.
CHAPELLE, C. A. 2009. The relationship between second language acquisition theory and Computer-Assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93.1: 741-753.
CUNNINGHAM, D. J.; VYATKINA, N. 2012. Telecollaboration for professional purposes: towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom. Canadian modern language review, 68.4: 422-450.
DE JONG, N.; VERCELLOTTI, M. L. 2016. Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts. Language Teaching Research, 20: 387-404.
DE LA FUENTE, M. J. 2003. Is SLA interactionalist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction on L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16: 47–81.
DRIGGERS, A. 2008. Opportunities for language learning and cultural awareness arising during participation in a tandem language exchange program. Michigan State University.
DUSSIAS, P. E. 2006. Morphological development in Spanish-American telecollaboration. In: BELZ, J. A.; THORNE, S. L. (Eds.). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education: 121-146. Heinle Cengage Learning.
EGERT, C. 2000. Language learning across campuses. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13.3: 271-280.
ELLIS, R.; YUAN, F. 2005. The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In: ELLIS, R. (Ed.). Planning and task-based performance in a second language: 167–192. John Benjamins.
FERNÁNDEZ-GARCÍA, M.; MARTÍNEZ-ARBELAIZ, A. 2002. Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. Calico Journal, 19.2: 279-294.
FERRARI, S. 2012. A longitudinal study of complexity, accuracy and fluency variation in second language development. In: HOUSEN, A.; KUIKEN, F.; VEDDER, I. (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: 277–298. John Benjamins.
FOSTER, P.; SKEHAN, P. 1999. The effect of source of planning and focus on planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3.3: 185–215.
GARCIA, D. N. D. M. 2012. Autonomia e reflexão nas práticas telecolaborativas em teletandem. Revista Letras, 29-47.
GASS, S. M.; SVETICS, I.; LEMELIN, S. 2003. Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53: 497–545.
GOERTLER, S. 2011. Blended and open/online learning: Adapting to a changing world of foreign language teaching. In: ARNOLD, N.; DUCATE, L. (Eds.). Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching: 471-502. CALICO.
GONZALEZ-BUENO, M.; PÉREZ, L. C. 2000. Electronic mail in foreign language writing: A study of grammatical and lexical accuracy, and quantity of language. Foreign Language Annals, 33: 189–198.
GRGUROVIĆ, M.; CHAPELLE, C. A.; SHELLEY, M. C. 2013. A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25.2: 165-198.
GURZYNSKI-WEISS, L.; AL-KHALIL, M.; BARALT, M.; LEOW, R. 2015. The roles of type of feedback and type of linguistic item on L2 awareness in computer-mediated communication. In: LEOW, R. P; CEREZO, L; BARALT, M. (Eds.), Technology and second/foreign language learning: A psycholinguistic approach: 151-170. De Gruyter Mouton.
GURZYNSKI-WEISS, L.; BARALT, M. 2014. Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in face-to-face and computer-mediated modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36: 1–37.
GURZYNSKI-WEISS, L.; BARALT, M. 2015. Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36: 1393-1420.
HAUCK, M.; YOUNGS, B. L. 2008. Telecollaboration in multimodal environments: The impact on task design and learner interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21.2: 87-124.
HOUSEN, A.; KUIKEN, F. 2009. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30.4: 461-473.
HSIEH, H. C. 2008. The effects of type of exposure and type of post-exposure task on L2 development. Journal of Foreign Language Instruction, 2.1: 117-138.
HSU, H. C. 2015. The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 38.3: 359–385.
IWASAKI, J.; OLIVER, R. 2003. Chatline interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17: 60-73.
JACKSON, D. O.; SUETHANAPORNKUL, S. 2013. The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63.2: 330–367.
KECK, C.; IBERRI-SHEA, G.; TRACY-VENTURA, N.; WA-MBALEKA, S. 2006. Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition. In: NORRIS J. M.; ORTEGA, L. (Eds.). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching: 91-131. John Benjamins.
KIM, H. Y. 2014. Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27.1: 26-43.
KIM, Y. J.; TRACY-VENTURA, N. 2013. The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41.3: 829–840.
KIZILTAN, N. 2012. Teaching Turkish through teletandem. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46: 33-63.
KÖTTER, M. 2002. Tandem learning on the Internet: Learner interactions in virtual online environments (MOOs). Peter Lang.
KÖTTER, M. 2003. Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7.2: 145-172.
LAI, C.; ZHAO, Y. 2006. Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10.3: 102-120.
LANTOLF, J. P. 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
LEE, L. 2004. Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8.1: 83-100.
LEE, L. 2008. Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12.3: 53-72.
LEE, L. 2009. Promoting intercultural exchanges with blogs and podcasting: A study of Spanish–American telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22.5: 425-443.
LEE, J. 2009. The effect of computer-mediated communication (CMC) interaction on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparison study of CMC interaction and face-to-face interaction. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Iowa State University.
LEEMAN, J. 2003. Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25.1: 37-63.
LEONE, P. 2012. È questo che volevi dire? Parlante nativo e non nativo nei dialoghi Teletandem. Rivista Itals, 79-103.
LEOW, R. P.; SUH, B-R. 2015. Technology and SLA research: Validity issues. In: LEOW, R. P.; CEREZO, L.; BARALT, M. (Eds.). A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning: 69-83. De Gruyter Mouton.
LEOW, R. P.; EGI, T.; NUEVO, A-M.; TSAI, Y. 2003. The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13: 93–108.
LITTLE, D.; BRAMMERTS, H. (Eds.). 1996. A guide to language learning in tandem via the Internet. Centre for Language Communication Studie. Occasional Paper, 46. Trinity College.
MACKEY, A.; AL KHALIL, M.; ATANASSOVA, G.; HAMA, M.; LOGAN-TERRY, A.; NAKATSUKASA, K. 2007. Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1: 129–52.
MACKEY, A.; GOO, J. 2007. Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: MACKEY, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies: 408–452. Oxford University Press.
MARTÍNEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, A. 2008. Revisiting the involvement load hypothesis: Awareness, type of task and type of item. In: Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum: 210-228.
O’DOWD, R. 2003. Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language learning & technology, 7.2: 118-144.
O'DOWD, R.; EBERBACH, K. 2004. Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in telecollaborative projects. ReCALL, 16.1: 5-19.
O'ROURKE, B. 2005. Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22.3: 433-466.
ORTEGA, L. 2005. What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In: ELLIS, R. (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language: 77–109. John Benjamins.
ORTEGA, L.; LONG, M. H. 1997. The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1.1: 65-86.
PELLETTIERI, J. 2000. Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In: WARSCHAUER, M.; KERN, R. Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice: 59-86. Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
POLAT, B.; KIM, Y. J. 2014. Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 35.2: 184–207.
SACHS, R.; SUH, B-R. 2007. Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In: MACKEY, A. (Ed.). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies: 197–227. Oxford University Press.
SAITO, K.; AKIYAMA, Y. 2017. Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67.1: 43-74.
SAURO, S. 2009. Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13.1: 96-120.
SAURO, S. 2012. L2 performance in text-chat and spoken discourse. System, 40: 335–348.
SAURO, S. 2013. The cyber language exchange. In: MCDONOUGH, K.; MACKEY, A. (Eds.). Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts: 129-145. John Benjamins.
SCHWIENHORST, K. 2000. Evaluating tandem language learning in the MOO—Discourse repair strategies in the Dublin–St. Augustin Project. Paper presented at the third UNTELE Conference, Compiegne, 23-25 March.
SHEKARY, M.; TAHRIRIAN, M. H. 2006. Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90: 557-573.
SHINTANI, N.; AUBREY, S. 2016. The Effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100.1: 296-319.
SHOOK, D. J. 1994. FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5.2: 57-93.
SKEHAN, P. 2009. Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30.4: 510-532.
SKEHAN, P.; FOSTER, P. 2012. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency and lexis in task/based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In: HOUSEN, A.; KUIKEN, F.; VEDDER, I. (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: 199–220. John Benjamins.
SMITH, B. 2004. Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26: 365–398.
SMITH, B. 2005. The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39: 33–58.
SMITH, B. 2012. Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning and Technology, 16: 53–81.
STICKLER, U.; EMKE, M. 2011. Tandem learning in virtual spaces: Supporting non-formal and informal learning in adults. In: BENSON, P.; REINDERS, H. (Eds.). Beyond the Language Classroom: 146-160. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
SOTILLO, S. M. 2009. Learner noticing, negative feedback, and uptake in synchronous computer-mediated environments. In: ABRAHAM, L. B.; WILLIAMS, L. (Eds.). Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching: 87–110. John Benjamins.
STRØMSØ, H. I.; GRØTTUM, P.; LYCKE, K. H. 2007. Content and processes in problem-based learning: a comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23: 271–282.
SUH, B. 2015. 5. CALL versus non-CALL in L2 form learning: A research synthesis and meta-analysis of comparative studies. In: LEOW, R. P.; Cerezo, L.; Baralt, M. (Eds.). A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning. De Gruyter Mouton.
SUH, B.; LEOW, R. P. 2020. Second language accuracy development through interaction in video-based telecollaboration and face-to-face contexts and type of assessment task: A curricular approach. Studies in Foreign Language Education, 34.3: 1-28.
SYKES, J. M. 2005. Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO, 22.3: 399-431.
TAYLOR, A. M. 2009. CALL-based versus paper-based glosses: Is there a difference in reading comprehension. CALICO, 27.1: 147-160.
TELLES, J. A. 2009. Teletandem: metamorfoses impostas pela tecnologia sobre o ensino de línguas estrangeiras. In: TELES, J. A. (Org.). Teletandem: um contexto virtual, autônomo e colaborativo para aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no século XXI: 63-74. Pontes Editores.
TELLES, J. A.; VASSALLO, M. L. 2006. Foreign language learning in-tandem: Teletandem as an alternative proposal in CALLT. The Especialist, 27.2: 189-212.
THORNE, S. L. 2003. Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7: 38-67.
THORNE, S. L.; SMITH, B. 2011. Second language development theories and technology-mediated language learning. CALICO, 28.2: 268-277.
TUDINI, V. 2003. Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7.3: 141-159.
VERCELLOTTI, M. L. 2015. The Development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics, 38.1: 1–23.
VINAGRE, M.; MUNOZ, B. 2011. Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 15.1: 72-103.
VYATKINA, N.; BELZ, J. A. 2006. A learner corpus-driven intervention for the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Pragmatics and language learning, 11: 293-329.
VYGOTSKY, L. 1978. Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23.3: 34-41.
WARE, P. 2005. “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9.2: 64-89.
WARE, P. D.; KRAMSCH, C. 2005. Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89.2: 190-205.
WARE, P. D.; PÉREZ-CAÑADO, M-L. 2007. Grammar and feedback: Turning to language form in telecollaboration. In: O’Dowd, R. (Ed.). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Multilingual Matters.
WILLIAMS, J. 1999. Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49.4: 583-625.
YILMAZ, Y. 2012. The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62: 1134–1169.
YILMAZ, Y.; YUKSEL, D. 2011. Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15: 457–77.
YOUNGS, B.; DUCATE, L.; ARNOLD, N. 2011. Linking second language acquisition, CALL and language pedagogy. CALICO.
YUKSEL, D.; INAN, B. 2014. The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL: the Journal of EUROCALL, 26.3: 333-354.
ZHAO, Y. 2013. Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO, 21: 7-27.
ZIEGLER, N. 2016. Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38: 553-586.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors grant the journal all copyrights relating to the published works. The concepts issued in signed articles are the absolute and exclusive responsibility of their authors.
Esta obra está licenciada com uma Licença 