CALL-MPB SEMESTER 2 2011NAME:EHSANATAEI MATRIC NO. MP101459Inigo Yanguas (2010). Oral Mediated Interaction between L2 Learners: It’s About TimeLanguage Learning & Technology journal, V14, No. 3 pp. 72–93SUMMARYThis research paper examines interactions between L2 Learners in task based OCMC (Oralcomputer-mediated communication) and focuses on real time interactions. The Introduction discussed about history of research and studies on aspects of CMC andlearners ` interactions from local networked computers and the Daedalus interchange software in1990s to web base chat programs like Yahoo, MSN messenger and Skype with high internetconnections and free real-time communication tools in recent years. There are so many researches on aspects of CMC but in this research ConnectingCALLto SLA by having research on CMC interactions and finding a link between SLA theoriesand CMC is very important. Allthese researches look at OCMC from different perspective but all of them could notgive a general conclusion because of their different research design.Beside OCMC research talkover 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, thesestudies‟ results are difficult to bring into this article because their goals and research designswere 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 willdepend on careful planning on the part of the instructor or researcher. This study was carried out under an interactionist perspective Long‟s (1996) InteractionHypothesis suggests that learners engaging in conversation will create an ideal situation for L2learning when some misunderstanding arises and the speaker and interlocutor negotiate formeaning.Negotiation of meaning directly causes SLA, it creates a fertile environment for SLA tooccur” (Blake, 2000, p. 121).Because of these facts in this research all the new words are notcommon and were checked in a pilot study before.
In Research questions it was indicated that this research try to find negotiation ofmeaning in video and audio CMC during task-based interaction and the differences between oralCMC and traditional FTF (face to face )communication. Also to compare the negotiationroutines to those found in the text-based CMC negotiation literature. The Method is based on Qualitative analyzeBased on a pretreatment backgroundquestionnaire.Experimental groups used Skype (free on line communication software) for thefirst time in this research. Learners were in an audio group, a video group, and a FTF controlgroup to complete a jigsaw task and meaning negotiation containing 16 unknown lexical items ina laboratory in 2o minutes. Learners randomly assigned these groups. Alllearners talking wererecorded. In order tohave a connection between tasks and real world,the jigsaw was based on “Amazing Race” a kindof 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 onExcerpt from recordings analyzed in three groups in different elements and factors. In conclusion part,theresults indicateAudCMC (audio CMC) pairs negotiated formeaning 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 inwritten 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 lowernumber of actual negotiation routines. It was indicated thatmaterial resources play an importantrole in making meaning in CMC. There are some certain commonalities between task-basedinteraction 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 theAudCMC group (95%); whereas in the VidCMC and FTFgroups, learners made use of bothgestures and elaborations at roughly 50% respectively. Alsothis study has shown how AudCMCforces learners to make use of linguistic resources, which could be superseded by visual cues inVidCMC and FTF groups.OCMC has more student-centered atmosphere and Potentially can be avery useful tool in L2 classrooms.
Critical review I think the article is valuablebecause it covers the most important forms of negotiationsfor 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 theirinteractions.Becausethe entireparticipants are Spanish the result come from learning in L1language it might be have different results in second language learning. Research questions are good but about the second research question which was about acomparison between research findings and past studies I consider it incomplete and it is not clearmaybe because as it was mentioned in this article that previous studies did not have a clear andgeneral conclusion about the research subject.The essayist referred to interactionist perspective and proved Long (1996) theory and ideas in theresearch 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 realsituation (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 forthe first time needs more researches to prove this model to be use in both task and non-task basedforms. 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 isexpectable because learners cannot see each other during interaction.Tables and excerpts arerelevant and well organized and analyze section is the most important and comprehensible partof the article in my idea. Additionally, it would be better to put WCMC beside OCMC aspects (VidCMC, AudCMC and FTF) to have a better comparison with the same situations and procedure. Also incomparison between vid CMC and FTF it is not broad. A large number of empirical studies havefound that interaction in computer mediatedgroups is more task-oriented and less personal thaninteraction in face-to-face groups (Connolly, Jessup, & Valacich, 1990; Hiltz, Johnson, &Turo,1986;
Rice, 1984). All these researches confirm the differences which were not mentioned in thisresearch. There is no further discussions because in this research look at OCMC from a differentperspective. According to Skehan (1998) Task type is generally accepted among SLAresearchers to affect the nature of interaction among learners thus indirectly affecting languageacquisition, so choosing task to find out the negotiation for meaning is accurate and right. Alsoamong 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 learnersdid 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 withdifferent other similar studies which there is not enough information about them more research isneeded to confirm it.UsingSkype for the first time is very good and positive but at the same timeit can be controversial when researcher wants to compare the data to other researches with othercomputer 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 butabout ample opportunities because of some other researches that mention some affective filterslike stress and self-confidence in working with computer we need more research on this to besure about it. Based on wlather (1992) it was found that computer-mediated teams hadlowerlevels 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 thecomputer-mediatedteams increased to levels comparable to those of face-toface also Researchcomparing synchronous CMC and face-to-face interaction has also suggested that quiet speakersare more expressive in CMC (Kitade, 2000.So if this research put more time on recording moreclasses with the same students maybe the result would change. Choosing jigsaw is very smartdecision also supported by Blake‟s (2000) study, he says jigsaw tasks were superior to othertasks in the amount of interaction that was produced (e.g. information gap, decision-making andlearner discussions) and the jigsaw task seemed to facilitate students‟ noticing of gaps in thelexicon of their interlanguage.Finally. I consider, research on different task types is needed toshed light on which tasks facilitate negotiation of meaning the most.
REFERENCESAyako Kawase (2006). Second Language Acquisition and SynchronousComputer Mediated Communication extractedfrom http://www.tc.columbia.edu /tesolalwebjournalBeth 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