Inigo Yanguas (2010). Oral Mediated Interaction between L2 Learners: It’s About Time Language Learning & Technology journal, V14, No. 3 pp. 72–93

1. CALL-MPB SEMESTER 2 2011
NAME:EHSANATAEI MATRIC NO. MP101459
Inigo Yanguas (2010). Oral Mediated Interaction between L2 Learners: It’s About Time
Language Learning & Technology journal, V14, No. 3 pp. 72–93
SUMMARY
This research paper examines interactions between L2 Learners in task based OCMC (Oral
computer-mediated communication) and focuses on real time interactions.
The Introduction discussed about history of research and studies on aspects of CMC and
learners ` interactions from local networked computers and the Daedalus interchange software in
1990s to web base chat programs like Yahoo, MSN messenger and Skype with high internet
connections and free real-time communication tools in recent years.
There are so many researches on aspects of CMC but in this research Connecting
CALLto SLA by having research on CMC interactions and finding a link between SLA theories
and CMC is very important.
Allthese researches look at OCMC from different perspective but all of them could not
give a general conclusion because of their different research design.Beside OCMC research talk
over WCMC as a hybrid mode (written and spoken language)
It was mentioned in this research thatvery few studies to date (Lee, 2007; Jepson, 2005;
Sykes, 2005) have included synchronous OCMC in their research designs. However, these
studies‟ results are difficult to bring into this article because their goals and research designs
were entirely different from the present study‟s design.
It is important how researcher design and plan the research according to Blake (2008)
who claimed that any technological tool is inherently neutral, and that successful CMC will
depend on careful planning on the part of the instructor or researcher.
This study was carried out under an interactionist perspective Long‟s (1996) Interaction
Hypothesis suggests that learners engaging in conversation will create an ideal situation for L2
learning when some misunderstanding arises and the speaker and interlocutor negotiate for
meaning.Negotiation of meaning directly causes SLA, it creates a fertile environment for SLA to
occur” (Blake, 2000, p. 121).Because of these facts in this research all the new words are not
common and were checked in a pilot study before.

2. In Research questions it was indicated that this research try to find negotiation of
meaning in video and audio CMC during task-based interaction and the differences between oral
CMC and traditional FTF (face to face )communication. Also to compare the negotiation
routines to those found in the text-based CMC negotiation literature.
The Method is based on Qualitative analyzeBased on a pretreatment background
questionnaire.Experimental groups used Skype (free on line communication software) for the
first time in this research. Learners were in an audio group, a video group, and a FTF control
group to complete a jigsaw task and meaning negotiation containing 16 unknown lexical items in
a laboratory in 2o minutes.
Learners randomly assigned these groups. Alllearners talking wererecorded. In order to
have a connection between tasks and real world,the jigsaw was based on “Amazing Race” a kind
of reality TV game program.
In Analyze section it was remarked that negotiation took a place in the first 12 minutes
(based on pilot studies) so only the first 12 minutes were analyzed. Also some tables based on
Excerpt from recordings analyzed in three groups in different elements and factors.
In conclusion part,theresults indicateAudCMC (audio CMC) pairs negotiated for
meaning of non-target lexical items more than either of the other groups.
No differences were found between video and FTF groups. Furthermore, oral CMC turn-
taking patterns were shown to be very similar to FTF patterns but opposite to those found in
written synchronous CMC. Oral CMC interaction patterns are shown to be more versatile
The relative amount of negotiation in all groups was quite similar for VidCMC and FTF.
The percentage of negotiated turns is somewhat higher for AudCMC (57%) with a slightly lower
number of actual negotiation routines. It was indicated thatmaterial resources play an important
role in making meaning in CMC. There are some certain commonalities between task-based
interaction across different modes; we have shown how Varonis and Gass‟ (1985) (non-task-
based) model holds in our present task-based OCMC context. Therewas some elaborations in the
AudCMC group (95%); whereas in the VidCMC and FTFgroups, learners made use of both
gestures and elaborations at roughly 50% respectively. Alsothis study has shown how AudCMC
forces learners to make use of linguistic resources, which could be superseded by visual cues in
VidCMC and FTF groups.OCMC has more student-centered atmosphere and Potentially can be a
very useful tool in L2 classrooms.

3. Critical review
I think the article is valuablebecause it covers the most important forms of negotiations
for meaning during task –based interactions.
The title has not chosen very well. The phrase „it is about time‟ is vague and ambiguous.
The better title can be „Oral Mediated Interaction between L2 Learners: New perspective‟
It did not mentioned in the article about the language that learners used for their
interactions.Becausethe entireparticipants are Spanish the result come from learning in L1
language it might be have different results in second language learning.
Research questions are good but about the second research question which was about a
comparison between research findings and past studies I consider it incomplete and it is not clear
maybe because as it was mentioned in this article that previous studies did not have a clear and
general conclusion about the research subject.
The essayist referred to interactionist perspective and proved Long (1996) theory and ideas in the
research that refer to the negotiation for meaning at the time of misunderstandings.
Based on Excerpts the exact thing happened during the experiment between learners.
Moreover, thetask also was designedvery well and helps students to find themselves in a real
situation (Not in a learning class nor in an experiment but in a game or adventure).
In addition, about applying Varonis and Gass‟ (1985) model in task based interactions for
the first time needs more researches to prove this model to be use in both task and non-task based
forms.
It will be useful to share the difficulties and more questions to be followed in future.
The findings of the study show that audio CMC had more negotiations and it seems it is
expectable because learners cannot see each other during interaction.Tables and excerpts are
relevant and well organized and analyze section is the most important and comprehensible part
of the article in my idea.
Additionally, it would be better to put WCMC beside OCMC aspects (VidCMC, Aud
CMC and FTF) to have a better comparison with the same situations and procedure. Also in
comparison between vid CMC and FTF it is not broad. A large number of empirical studies have
found that interaction in computer mediatedgroups is more task-oriented and less personal than
interaction in face-to-face groups (Connolly, Jessup, & Valacich, 1990; Hiltz, Johnson, &Turo,
1986;

4. Rice, 1984). All these researches confirm the differences which were not mentioned in this
research.
There is no further discussions because in this research look at OCMC from a different
perspective. According to Skehan (1998) Task type is generally accepted among SLA
researchers to affect the nature of interaction among learners thus indirectly affecting language
acquisition, so choosing task to find out the negotiation for meaning is accurate and right. Also
among different tasks jigsaw is the best for negotiation in meaning in Blake (2000) and Smith
(2003) researches.
Furthermore, It is about time has two meaning it means real time communication (
synchronous one ) and also it is about time of interaction that the result changed because learners
did not negotiate all the times ( it was a part of it )
conclusion is not to the point and based on research questions and it deals with comparison with
different other similar studies which there is not enough information about them more research is
needed to confirm it.UsingSkype for the first time is very good and positive but at the same time
it can be controversial when researcher wants to compare the data to other researches with other
computer web based programs.
successful language learning can only take place when four conditions are present: (a)
high-quality input, (b) ample opportunities for practice, (c) high-quality feedback, and (d)
individualized content (Zhao, 2005).I think in this study all Zhao conditions are mentioned but
about ample opportunities because of some other researches that mention some affective filters
like stress and self-confidence in working with computer we need more research on this to be
sure about it. Based on wlather (1992) it was found that computer-mediated teams hadlower
levels of cognitive and affective trust at the end ofthe initial session than did teams working face-
to-face, consistent with Cues-Filtered-Out. However, withinthree meetings, the trust levels of the
computer-mediatedteams increased to levels comparable to those of face-toface also Research
comparing synchronous CMC and face-to-face interaction has also suggested that quiet speakers
are more expressive in CMC (Kitade, 2000.So if this research put more time on recording more
classes with the same students maybe the result would change. Choosing jigsaw is very smart
decision also supported by Blake‟s (2000) study, he says jigsaw tasks were superior to other
tasks in the amount of interaction that was produced (e.g. information gap, decision-making and
learner discussions) and the jigsaw task seemed to facilitate students‟ noticing of gaps in the
lexicon of their interlanguage.Finally. I consider, research on different task types is needed to
shed light on which tasks facilitate negotiation of meaning the most.

5. REFERENCES
Ayako Kawase (2006). Second Language Acquisition and SynchronousComputer
Mediated Communication extractedfrom http://www.tc.columbia.edu
/tesolalwebjournal
Beth L. Hewett (2000).Characteristics of Interactive Oral andComputer-Mediated
Peer Group Talk and Its Influence on Revision,Computers and Composition:
an international journal 17, 265–288 (2000) Elsevier Science Inc.
Bryan Smith, (2002).The use of communication strategies inComputer-mediated
Communication extracted from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/.../
sdarticle.pdf[ 30th October 2002].
Jeanne M.Wilson, Susan G.Straus, Bill McEvily,(2002).All in due time:
The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face
teamsextracted from http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science /.../sdarticle.pdf
[19th September 2005].
M.Rafael Salaberry (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of
Pedagogical task in computer mediated communication, CALICO Journal,
Volume 14 Number 1