CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

10. A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts

Rouhshad, Amir, Storch, Neomy·2016·Language Learning & Language Teaching
DOI 10.1075/lllt.45.11rou
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research on pair and small group work has shown that collaborative writing tasks generally encourage learners to focus on language. However, some studies (e.g., Storch 2002) have also shown that patterns of interaction during collaborative writing tasks affect the quantity and quality of learners’ attention to language and ultimately language learning. The study reported in this chapter compared patterns of interaction of the same pairs of intermediate ESL learners completing a collaborative writing task in a face-to-face and a computer-mediated mode (Google Docs). The study found that mode had an impact on patterns of interaction and attention to language. Learners were more likely to collaborate in the face-to-face mode and to cooperate in the computer-mediated mode. It was only when learners collaborated, that they engaged extensively in deliberations about language.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1075/lllt.45.11rou

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Rouhshad & Storch's (2016) data suggested that learners engaged in the task and with each other more during FTF interactions than during text chat.

    “Rouhshad & Storch's (2016) data also suggested that learners engaged in the task and with each other during FTF interactions than during text chat.”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Rouhshad & Storch 2016

  • 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 Rouhshad & Storch 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Language Learning & Language Teaching
Publisher
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Published
2016-02-26
Pages
267-289
ISSN
1569-9471 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1075/lllt.45.11rou
OpenAlex
W2537065714
Cited by
81
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
30.58
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
collaborative writing, computer-mediated communication, face-to-face interaction, learner interaction patterns, ESL learners, Google Docs, small group work, language learning

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