6. Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts
Abstract
The current chapter adopts an interactionist perspective to investigate various characteristics of L2 learners’ interaction in three different communication modalities: face-to-face, oral synchronous computer-mediated communication, and written synchronous computer-mediated communication. Forty-eight intermediate proficiency L2 learners of English engaged in three different interactive tasks in one of the three communicative contexts. Characteristics of interaction that are considered to be beneficial for L2 development, namely negotiation for meaning, recasts, and language-related episodes, were identified in the discourse and compared across the three modalities. In addition, task effects on interaction were compared. Results indicated that interaction during the face-to-face and oral synchronous computer-mediated communication was similar, but differed from written synchronous computer-mediated communication in terms of a greater number of confirmation checks and language-related episodes. However, no differences in interactional features were found across the three different tasks. These results suggest that different communication modalities may afford different opportunities for learners.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some studies have found impoverished linguistic production in written SCMC, compared with FTF or oral SCMC.
“However, some studies have found impoverished linguistic production in written SCMC, compared with FTF or oral SCMC.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Loewen & Wolff 2016
Loewen & Wolff (2016) found that oral SCMC and FTF interaction had similar numbers of interactional features; however, the numbers were significantly reduced in the written SCMC condition.
“For example, Loewen & Wolff (2016) examined negotiation for meaning, LREs, and recasts in task interaction in the three abovementioned modalities.They found that the oral SCMC and FTF interaction had similar numbers of interactional features; however, the numbers were significantly reduced in the written SCMC condition.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Loewen & Wolff 2016
Other descriptive studies have investigated the influence of technology on interaction.
“Other descriptive studies have investigated the influence of technology on interaction (e.g.Loewen & Wolff 2016).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Loewen & Wolff 2016
Cites
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034 · Cited by 2,259 · see citing works
Long, M. (1991) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon · Cited by 1,775 · see citing works
10. A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2016) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.45.11rou · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
“For example, Loewen & Wolff (2016) examined negotiation for meaning, LREs, and recasts in task interaction in the three abovementioned modalities.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationLanguaging: Collaborative Dialogue as a Source of Second Language Learning
Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2019) · The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0664.pub2 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Cho, H. (2017) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.013 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers
Baralt, M., & Morcillo Gómez, J. (2017) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44630 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
“…some features of online language teaching platforms may even enhance the language learning process, such as more noticing of corrective feedback (e.g., Baralt, 2013; Gleason, 2013; Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015; Sykes, 2005; Thomas & Reinders, 2012; Thorne, 2008; see also Loewen & Wolff, 2016).”
Background10. A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2016) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.45.11rou · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Aubrey, S. (2022) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.1.4 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
“Consistent with previous research, reasons for reduced engagement in the text-chat communication mode were related to the time-consuming nature of text-chat interaction (Zeigler, 2016) and non-contingent turn-taking due to overlapping messages (Lai et al., 2008; Loewen & Wolff, 2016).”
BackgroundResultPRONUNCIATION IN FACE-TO-FACE AND AUDIO-ONLY SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED LEARNER INTERACTIONS
Loewen, S., & Isbell, D. R. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000449 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“The current study, based on a subset of data from Loewen and Wolff (2016), involves the observation and description of learner-learner interaction during communicative tasks.”
MethodSelf-citationEffects of SCMC mode and learner familiarity on peer feedback in L2 interaction
Dao, P., Duong, P., & Nguyen, M. (2021) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1976212 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“Previous research has evidenced that modified output following peer feedback has positive impact on L2 learning (Egi, 2010; Loewen & Wolff, 2016; McDonough, 2005).”
BackgroundA Comparison of Advanced Heritage Language Learners’ Peer Interaction Across Modes and Pair Types
Torres, J., & Cung, B. (2019) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12594 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Ruiz-Alonso-Bartol, A., Querrien, D., Dykstra, S., Fernández-Mira, P., & Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C. (2021) · System (Linköping) · doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102684 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Hsu, H.-C. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2022.2095405 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“Text-based SCMC thus differs from text-based ACMC in that there is little time interval between messages, and that interlocutors are present online simultaneously (Loewen & Wolff, 2016).”
Kessler, M. J., Loewen, S., & Trego, D. (2020) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168820954456 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“…(SLA) (Gass, 1997; Loewen & Sato, 2018; Long, 1996; Mackey, 1999; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Smith, 2004) – has been researched extensively in the domain of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) (e.g. Fredriksson, 2015; Loewen & Wolff, 2016; Peterson, 2012; Roushad & Storch, 2016; Ziegler, 2015).”
Self-citationLevels of Engagement in Task-based Synchronous Computer Mediated Interaction
Torres, J., & Yanguas, Í. (2021) · Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.37213/cjal.2021.31319 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
The effect of NNS–NNS and NNS–NS videoconferencing on the development of second language confidence
Hetrovicz, L. (2021) · Foreign language annals · doi:10.1111/flan.12592 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Chapter 7. Languaging in wiki-based collaborative writing:
Li, M.-M. (2020) · Language learning and language teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.55.07li · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Task-related collaborative behaviours in task-based oral peer interactions
Aksoy-Pekacar, K. (2023) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2023.2193577 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“LREs are thus assumed in many studies to be facilitative of second language (L2) development (Loewen and Wol ff 2016).”
BackgroundModified output and learner uptake in casual online learner-learner conversation
Salomonsson, J. (2020) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102306 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108355285 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Zhang, L. (2022) · Language and Intercultural Communication · doi:10.1080/14708477.2022.2125522 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
The interplay between metalanguage, feedback, and meaning negotiation in oral interaction
Canals, L. (2022) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/73486 · Cited by 4
“…carried out, including text chat (Lai & Zhao, 2006), video and audio (Yanguas, 2010; Yanguas & Bergin, 2018), oral and written SCMC (Loewen & Wolff, 2016), audio, video, text and multimodal chat (Ziegler & Phung, 2019), and video SCMC as well as multimodal videoconference features…”
BackgroundInfluentialAlqefari, A. (2024) · System (Linköping) · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103452 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Synchronous Computer-Mediated Interactions in English
Handayani, S., Setyarini, S., & Yusuf, F. (2021) · Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020) · doi:10.2991/assehr.k.210427.083 · Cited by 2
“…(2013) compared two modes of exchanges, SCMC versus face-to-face (FTF), it revealed that students with SCMC, collaborating an academic task produced fewer words than students in FTF mode, Loewen and Wolff (2016) also found that SCMC does not support any better speaking practice than F2F class.”
ResultFactors Affecting Learner Collaboration in 3D Virtual Worlds
Kozlova, I. (2019) · Assessing the Effectiveness of Virtual Technologies in Foreign and Second Language Instruction · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7286-2.ch002 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
The Foundation of Blended Language Learning
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.004 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Kirchhoff, N., & Dávila-Romero, R. (2022) · Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.17509/ijal.v12i2.37238
“Research by Loewen and Wolff (2016) indicated that learners used considerably more feedback and negotiation strategies in oral output tasks than in the written output tasks.”
BackgroundInfluentialShin, Y.-C., & Lee, L.-N. (2021) · Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_1
“Apart from that, discussions can also enhance learners’ second-language learning proficiency (Loewen & Wolff, 2016; Saaed & Mohammed, 2020; Mehrabi & Homapour, 2018) especially when the situation encourages low filter or less anxiety among learners (Krashen, 1981).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Road Map to Blended Language Learning Adoption
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.003
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.006
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.007
Course Design and Redesign in Practice
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.005
Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses: References
(2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.010
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.009
Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses: Preface
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.001
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.008
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.011
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020) · Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses · doi:10.1017/9781108355285.002
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)
Shin, Y.-C., & Lee, L.-N. (2021) · Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning · doi:10.1081/e-elis3-120044411
CMC vs. F2F: Discourse and Participation Styles of Different Language Learners
Shin, Y.-C., & Lee, L.-N. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_4
- Authors
- Loewen, S., & Wolff, D.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- West Chester University (US)
- Venue
- Language Learning & Language Teaching
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2016-02-26
- Pages
- 163-184
- ISSN
- 1569-9471 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2480231809
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 16.19
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language learning and language teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- peer interaction, second language acquisition, computer-mediated communication, synchronous communication, face-to-face interaction, negotiation of meaning, recasts, confirmation checks, task effects, interactionist perspective, English as a second language
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
