Does Medium – Teletandem vs Face-to-Face Make a Difference in Advanced L2 Spanish Learner’s Oral Fluency?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23925/2318-7115.2022v43i1a6Abstract
SLA researchers have advocated for the incorporation of Teletandem (a sub-strand of tele-collaboration) as an autonomous, collaborative, and virtual foreign language environment (see BENEDETTI, CONSOLO; VIEIRA-ABRAHÃO, 2010; TELLES, 2009) aimed to promote L2 communication and intercultural competence in L2 settings, and as an alternative to traditional Face-to-Face (FTF) exposure commonly used in L2 classrooms. While the majority of previous studies on Teletandem for L2 learning have mainly examined its benefits, focusing on the different approaches used by learners in this medium and proposing strategies on how to implement its context in higher education language programs (see CANDIDO, 2010; CAVALARI, 2010), a critical overview of Teletandem research reveals a paucity of empirically supported evidence for the benefits of Teletandem on L2 development. Specifically, no empirical comparisons have been conducted between this medium and traditional face-to-face (FTF) instruction in the L2 classroom. This paper addresses this issue and reports on an empirical investigation of the benefits of this medium when compared to FTF exposure in relation to L2 fluency.
Metrics
References
AKIYAMA, Y. 2017. Vicious vs. virtuous cycles of turn negotiation in American-Japanese telecollaboration: is silence a virtue?. Language and Intercultural Communication, 17.2: 190-209.
BAKER-SMEMOE, W.; DEWEY, D. P.; BOWN, J.; MARTINSEN, R. A. 2014. Does measuring L2 utterance fluency equal measuring overall L2 proficiency? Evidence from five languages. Foreign Language Annals, 47.4: 707-728.
BELZ, J. A. 2003. Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language learning & technology, 7.2: 68-117.
BENEDETTI, A. M.; CONSOLO, D. A.; ABRAHÃO, M. H. V. 2010. Pesquisas em ensino e aprendizagem no Teletandem Brasil: línguas estrangeiras para todos. Pontes Editores.
BINNENPOORTE, D.; CUCCHIARINI, C.; BOVIS, L.; STRIK, H. 2005. Multiword expressions in spoken language: An exploratory study on pronunciation variation. Computer Speech and Language, 19.4: 433-449.
BOWER, J.; KAWAGUCHI, S. 2011. Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15.1: 41-71.
BRAMMERTS, H. 1996. Language learning in tandem using the internet. In: WARSCHAUER, M. (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai’i Symposium: 121-130. University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
BRICK, B. 2011. How effective are web 2.0 language learning sites in facilitating language learning?. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 2.3: 1-8.
BYGATE, M. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In: BYGATE, M.; SKEHAN, P.; SWAIN, M. (Eds.). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing: 23-48. Longman.
CÂNDIDO, J. 2010. Teletandem: sessões de orientação e suas perspectivas para o curso de Letras. Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade Estadual Paulista.
CAVALARI, S. M. S. 2010. A definição das metas e o processo de autoavaliação no contexto teletandem. In: BENEDETTI, A. M.; CONSOLO, D. A.; VIEIRA-ABRAHÃO, M. H. (Eds.). Pesquisas em Ensino e Aprendizagem no Teletandem Brasil: 329-349. Pontes Editores.
CEREZO, L.; MORENO, N.; LEOW, R. P. 2015. 12. Psycholinguistically motivated CALL activities. In: LEOW, R. P.; CEREZO, L.; BARALT, M. (Eds.) A Psycholinguistic Approach to Technology and Language Learning: 243-258. De Gruyter Mouton.
COLEMAN, E. G. 2010. Ethnographic approaches to digital media. Annual review of anthropology, 39: 487-505.
CRAIG, D. A.; KIM, J. 2012. Performance and anxiety in videoconferencing. In: Computer-enhanced and mobile-assisted language learning: Emerging issues and trends: 137-157. IGI Global.
CUCCHIARINI, C.; STRIK, H.; BOVES, L. 2000. Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 111: 2862-2873.
DE JONG, N. H.; SCHOONEN, R.; HULSTIJN, J. 2009. Fluency in L2 is related to fluency in L1. Paper presented at the Seventh International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB7)
DERWING, T.; ROSSITER, M. J.; MUNRO, M. J.; THOMSON, R. I. 2004. Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54: 655-679.
DERWING, T.; MUNRO, M. J.; THOMSON, R. I. 2009. The Relationship between L1 Fluency and L2 Fluency Development. Studies Second Language Acquisition, 31: 533-557.
DEVELOTTE, C.; GUICHON, N.; VINCENT, C. 2010. The use of the webcam for teaching a foreign language in a desktop videoconferencing environment. ReCALL, 22.3: 293-312.
DONATE, Á. 2021. The role of language anxiety and enjoyment in advanced proficiency. In: MENKE, M. R.; MALOVRH, P. A. (Eds.). Advancedness in Second Language Spanish: Definitions, challenges, and possibilities, 31: 441. John Benjamins.
DUSSIAS, P. E. 2006. Morphological development in Spanish-American telecollaboration. In: BELZ, J. A.; THORNE, S. L. (Eds.). Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education and the Intercultural Speaker:121-146. Heinle & Heinle.
ELLIS, J. B.; ABREU-ELLIS, C.; BATEMAN, B. E.; TABOR, A. 2011. Teletandem delivery: The educational relevance of the real world application of language and culture in online pedagogic and target tasks. In: KOEHLER, M.; MISHRA, P. Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference:245-251. AACE.
ELLIS, R. (Ed.) 2005. Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins.
ELLIS, R. 2009. The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 19.4: 474–509.
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 performance in a second language: 167-192. John Benjamins.
FOSTER, P. 2020. Oral fluency in a second language: A research agenda for the next ten years. Language Teaching, 53.4: 446-461.
FOSTER, P.; SKEHAN, P. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18.3: 299–323.
FREED, B. F.; SEGALOWITZ, N.; DEWEY, D. 2004. Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26: 275-301.
GARCIA-AMAYA, L. 2009. New findings on fluency measures across three different learning contexts. In: COLLENTINE, J. (Ed.). Selected proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville: 68-80. MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
GARCÍA-AMAYA, L. J. 2012. Second language fluency and cognition: The study of Spanish second language development in an overseas immersion program and an at-home foreign language classroom. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
GATBONTON, E.; SEGALOWITZ, N. 2005. Rethinking communicative language thinking: A focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61: 325-353.
GINTHER, A.; DIMOVA, S.; YANG, R. 2010. Conceptual and empirical relationships between temporal measures of fluency and oral English proficiency with implications for automated scoring. Language Testing, 3: 379– 399.
GUILLOT, M. N. 1999. Fluency and its teaching. Multilingual Matters.
KABATA, K.; EDASAWA, Y. 2011. Tandem language learning through a cross-cultural keypal project. Language Learning & Technology, 15.1: 104–121.
KÖTTER, M. 2003. Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology. 7.2: 145-172.
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.
HILTON, H. 2009. Annotation and analyses of temporal aspects of spoken fluency. CALICO, 26.3: 644-661.
HU, X. 2018. Effects of task type, task-type repetition, and performance criteria on L2 oral production. In: BYGATE, M. (Ed.). Learning language through task repetition: 143-169. John Benjamins.
KAPONEN, M.; RIGGENBACH, H. 2000. Overview: Varying perspectives on fluency. In: RIGGENBACH, H. (Ed.). Perspectives on fluency: 5-24. University of Michigan Press.
KORMOS, J. 2006. Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KOVAC, M. M.; VIDOVIC, A. 2010. Self-repairs in the Croatian language. GOVOR: Casopis Za Fonetiku, 27.2: 91-115.
LANTOLF, J. P. (Ed.). 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning: 78-84. State College: Oxford University Press.
LEE, J. 2016, 2006. Teletandem studies in the L2 classroom: A critical overview. [Paper presentation]. 9-12 April. AAAL.
LENNON, P. 2000. The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In: RIGGENBACH, H. (Ed.). Perspectives on fluency: 25-42. University of Michigan.
LEONE, P. 2012. Leadership in multimodal computer-mediated second language communication for reciprocal learning. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 8.3: 55-66.
LEVELT, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
LEWIS, T.; WALKER, L. 2003. Autonomous language learning in tandem. Academy Electronic Press.
RIGGENBACH, H. (Ed.). 2000. Perspectives on fluency: 25-42. University of Michigan Press.
LLANES, A.; MUÑOZ, C. 2009. A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System, 37: 353–365.
MEADAN, H.; HALLE, J. W.; WATKINS, R. V.; CHADSEY, J. G. 2006. Examining communication repairs of 2 young children with autism spectrum disorder: The influence of the environment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15.1: 57-71.
MEHNERT, U. 1998. The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 83–108.
MORA, J. C.; VALLS-FERRER, M. 2012. Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46.4: 610-641.
O’BRIEN, I.; SEGALOWITZ, N.; FREE, B.; COLLENTINE, J. 2007. Phonological memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29: 557-582.
O'ROURKE, B. 2005. Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO, 22.3: 433-466.
O'ROURKE, B. 2007. Models of telecollaboration (1): eTandem. In: O’DOWD, R. (Ed.).Online intercultural exchange: an introduction for foreign language teachers: 41-61. Multilingual Matters.
ORTEGA, L. 1999. Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21.1: 108–48.
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 second language: 77-109. John Benjamins.
RIGGENBACH, H. (Ed.). 2000. Perspectives on fluency. University of Michigan Press.
ROBINSON, P. 1995. Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language learning, 45.1: 99-140.
ROBINSON, P. 2001. Task Complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22: 27-57.
ROSSITER, M. J. 2009. Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65: 395–412.
SANGARUN, J. 2005. The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In: ELLIS, R. (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language: 111-141. John Benjamins.
SASAYAMA, S. 2016. Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100.1: 231-254.
SAURO, S. 2013. The cyber language exchange: Cross-national computer-mediated interaction. In: MACKEY, A.; MCDONOUGH, K. (Eds.). New perspectives in classroom interaction in second language research: 129-146. John Benjamins.
SEGALOWITZ, N. 2010. Cognitive basis of second language fluency. Routledge.
SEGALOWITZ, N. 2016. Second language fluency and its underlying cognitive and social determinants. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54.2: 79-95.
SEGALOWITZ, N.; FREED, B. F. 2004. Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26.2: 173-199.
SEGALOWITZ, N.; FREED, B.; COLLENTINE, J.; LAFFORD, B.; LAZAR, N.; DÍAZ-CAMPOS, M. 2004. A comparison of Spanish second language acquisition in two different learning contexts: Study abroad and the domestic classroom. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10: 1-18.
SKEHAN, P. 1996. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17: 38–62.
SKEHAN, P. 2003. Task-based instruction. Language teaching, 36.1: 1-14.
SKEHAN, P.; FOSTER, P. 2005. 7. Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In: ELLIS, R. (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language: 193-216. John Benjamins.
SKEHAN, P.; FOSTER, P. 1997. Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language teaching research, 1.3: 185-211.
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 Publishing.
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.
TARONE, E. E. 1985. Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35.3: 373-403.
TARONE, E.; PARRISH, B. 1988. Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language learning, 38.1: 21-44.
TAVAKOLI, P.; FOSTER, P. 2008. Task design and second language performance: the effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58.2: 439-473.
TAVAKOLI, P.; SKEHAN, P. 2005. Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In: ELLIS, R. (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language: 239-273. John Benjamins.
TELLES, J. A. 2009. Teletandem: Um contexto virtual, autônomo e colaborativo para aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no século XXI. Pontes Editores.
TELLES, J. A. 2015. Teletandem and performativity. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15.1: 1-30.
TELLES, J. A.; FERREIRA, M. 2011. Teletandem: possibilidades, dificuldades e abrangência de um projeto de comunicação on-line de PLE. Revista Horizontes em Linguística Aplicada, 9.2: 1-20.
TELLES, J. A.; VASSALLO, M. L. 2006. Foreign Language Learning In-tandem: Teletandem as an Alternative Proposal in CALLT. Aprendizagem de Línguas In-tandem: Teletandem como uma proposta alternativa em CALLT. The Especialist, 2: 189-212.
TEMPLE, L. 1992. Disfluencies in learner speech. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15: 29-44.
TOWELL, R. 2002. Relative degrees of fluency: A comparative case study of advanced learners of French. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40.2: 117.
TROFIMOVICH, P.; BAKER, W. 2006. Learning Second Language Suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28: 1–30.
VALLS-FERRER, M. 2011. The development of oral fluency and rhythm during a study abroad period. Tese de Doutorado, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
VINAGRE, M.; MUÑOZ, B. 2011. Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 15.1: 72-103.
VYGOTSKY, L. S. 1978. Socio-cultural theory. Mind in Society, 6: 52-58.
WARE, P.; O'DOWD, R. 2008. Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12.1: 43-63.
YUAN, F.; ELLIS, R. 2003. The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24: 1-27.
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 