<em>TBLT and SCMC: How Do Students Use Communication Strategies?</em>

TBLT and SCMC: How Do Students Use Communication Strategies?

Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi, Rebecca Adams

Asian Journal of English Language Teaching ›› 2009, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (1) : 135-158.

PDF(174 KB)

PDF(174 KB)

Asian Journal of English Language Teaching ›› 2009, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (1) : 135-158. DOI: 10.65961/AJELT-2009-1-007

Articles

TBLT and SCMC: How Do Students Use Communication Strategies?

Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi¹, Rebecca Adams²

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Recent research has highlighted the valuable role that synchronous computermediated communication (SCMC) can play in second language learning. While the advantages of using SCMC for second language communication opportunities are well documented, little is known about how students engage in tasks via SCMC. The current study examines the communication strategies (CS) used to promote and manage communication in an SCMC-based group discussion task in the context of a Malaysian tertiary EFL class for engineering students. The findings reveal that, although the pattern of use is different from that found in previous studies of CS in face-to-face communication, CS are frequently used in the SCMC-based task indicating that SCMC can provide a rich and communicatively challenging environment for task engagement. These results emphasize the importance of the careful development and use of communicative tasks in SCMC to promote language practice.

Cite this article

Download Citations

Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi, Rebecca Adams. (2009). TBLT and SCMC: How Do Students Use Communication Strategies?.Asian Journal of English Language Teaching , 19(1): 135-158. https://doi.org/10.65961/AJELT-2009-1-007

References

Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German.The Modern Language Journal, 87, 157-167.
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 29-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Blake, R. (2005). Bimodal CMC: The glue of language learning at a distance.CALICO Journal, 22(3), 497-511.
Blake, R., & Zyzik, E. (2003). Who's helping whom? : Learner/Heritage speakers' networked discussions in Spanish.Applied Linguistics, 24, 519-544.
Chung Y., Graves B., Wesche M., & Barfurth M. (2005). Computer-mediated communication in Korean-English chat rooms: Tandem learning in an international languages program.The Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 49-86.
Coniam, D., & Wong, R. (2004). Internet relay chat as a tool in the autonomous development of ESL learners' English language ability: An exploratory study.System, 32, 321-335.
Curtis, R. (2004). Analyzing students' conversations in chat room discussion groups.College Teaching, 52, 143-148.
Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies.Language Learning, 47, 173-210.
Eckerth J.2008. Task-based learner-learner interaction: Investigating learning opportunities, learning processes, and learning outcomes. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 89-118). Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.
Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189-212.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon.Language Learning, 50(2), 245-309.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production.The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and code-switching in online tandems.Language Learning & Technology, 7, 145-172.
Lafford, B. (2004). The effect of the context of learning on the use of communication strategies by learners of Spanish as a second language.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 201-225.
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on nonnative discourse interaction.System, 30, 275-288.
Lee, L. (2004). Learners' perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US.Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83-100.
Lee, L. (2008). Focus on form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-tonovice online interaction.Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53-72.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O'Cain, J. (2005). Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom.The Modern Language Journal, 89, 234-247.
Lingley, D. (2006). A task-based approach to teaching a content-based Canadian studies course in an EFL context.Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 122-139.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Introduction.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169-178.
Mackey A.,& Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis In A Mackey (Ed), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp 407-452) Oxford: Oxford University Press A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2005). Foreign language learning with CMC: Forms of online instructional discourse in a hybrid Russian class.System, 33, 89-105.
Mohd J. A. A., Fatimah A., Abdul A. A. G., & Ramlan M. (2006). Pola grammar technique for grammatical relation extraction in Malay language.Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, 19, 59-72.
Okuyama, Y. (2005). Distance language learning via synchronous computermediated communication (SCMC): Eight factors affecting NS-NNS chat interaction.The JALT CALL Journal, 1, 3-20.
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms.The Modern Language Journal, 87, 519-533.
Payne, S., & Ross, B. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development.Language Learning & Technology, 9, 35-54.
Payne, S., & Whitney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development.CALICO Journal, 20, 7-32.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Rieger, C. (2003). Repetitions as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations.Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 47-69.
Roed, J. (2003). Language learner behaviour in a virtual environment.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2), 155-172.
Saito, R., & Ishizuka, N. (2005). Practice of online chat communication between two countries and across different curricula.Journal of Multimedia Aided Education Research, 2, 151-158.
Samuda, V. & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndsmills, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sawir, E. (2004). Keeping up with native speakers: The many and positive roles of repetition in the conversations of EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 6(4), Article 1. Retrieved April 13, 2005, from http://www.asian-efljournal.com/december_04_ES.php
Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse.Discourse Studies, 7(3), 337-361.
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication.System, 31, 29-53.
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in captures CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair.Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85-103.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication.Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82-119.
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 honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thoms J., Liao J., & Szustak A. (2005). The use of L1 in an L2 on-line chat activity.The Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 161-182.
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese.Language Learning & Technology, 6, 82-99.
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat.Language Learning & Technology, 7, 141-159.
Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical approaches.TESOL Quarterly, 32, 757-761.
Weininger, M., & Shield, L. (2003). Promoting oral production in a written channel: An investigation of learner language in MOO.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 329-349.
Wiberg, E. (2003). Interactional context in L2 dialogues.Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 389-407.
Wongsawang, P. (2001). Culture-specific notions in L2 communication strategies.Second Language Studies, 19, 111-135.

PDF(174 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections

Recommended

/

〈

〉