A Comparison of Advanced Heritage Language Learners’ Peer Interaction Across Modes and Pair Types

Abstract

A strand of task‐based interaction research has emerged to better understand the effects of heritage language (HL) and second language (L2) learners’ peer collaboration on interactional moves (e.g., language‐related episodes [LREs], self‐repairs) and linguistic focus. To extend this line of research, this study compared 14 HL–L2 and 16 HL–HL advanced learners’ peer interactions across face‐to‐face (FTF) and written synchronous computer‐mediated communication (SCMC) modes. Each dyad completed 2 decision‐making/collaborative writing tasks in Spanish across both interaction modes. Results revealed that interaction mode had a large effect on the extent to which HL–L2 and HL–HL pairs produced self‐repairs and initiated LREs. That is, both pair types initiated more LREs in FTF mode, and self‐repaired non‐target‐like utterances more extensively in SCMC mode. As for pair types, HL–L2 pairs significantly resolved more lexis‐focused episodes in FTF mode, and HL–HL pairs only produced self‐repair episodes in SCMC mode. HL–L2 and HL–HL dyads addressed linguistic items (e.g., morphosyntax) rather equally across interaction modes. Our findings are discussed in light of the differences in prior language‐learning experiences of HL and L2 learners.

Levels of Engagement in Task-based Synchronous Computer Mediated Interaction

“…Unlike the TxtSCMC condition in which peers wrote out their sentences and phrases in the Skype chat window, the mismatch between the written task and the AudSCMC and VidSCMC modes required those dyads to engage more in addressing mechanics because they needed to put into written form their ideas produced during spoken communication. This finding contrasts with Torres and Cung (2019) who found no significant differences with regards to spelling and accent placement between the TxtSCMC and face-to-face conditions using the same decision-making/writing task in Spanish. Torres and Cung (2019) and the current study differed in the proficiency level of the participants.…”

“…We first found that the AudSCMC and VidSCMC groups significantly produced more LREs than the TxtSCMC group. This result replicates previous findings in which fewer LREs were generated in TxtSCMC in comparison with face-to-face conditions with groups of intermediate-level English and advanced-level Spanish learners (Hamano-Bunce, 2011;Rouhshad & Storch, 2016;Torres & Cung, 2019). Further, in line with Yanguas and Bergin (2018), no significant differences emerged between the VidSCMC and AudSCMC groups.…”

“…In the current study, our dyads interacted to complete a decision-making/writing real-world task, which was first used in Torres and Cung (2019). For this task, participants had to play the role of business consultants who needed to recommend the hiring of an individual for a well-known Spanish telephone company (i.e., Movistar).…”

“…Further, with regards to learning opportunities (e.g., language related episodes) during peer interaction, differences can emerge between face-to-face and text SCMC conditions. For instance, evidence exists that language related episodes (LREs), which are instances in which learners chat about language issues while completing a meaning-oriented task, are significantly more prevalent in face-to-face peer interactions; whereas learners self-repair more often their non-targetlike utterances in text SCMC mode (e.g., Lai & Zhao, 2006;Hamano-Buce, 2011;Rouhshad & Storch, 2016;Torres & Cung, 2019). TBLT researchers, however, have called for research to examine additional SCMC modalities such as audio and video to draw firm conclusions on the effects of task-based SCMC interactions (e.g., Yanguas, 2010;Ziegler, 2016).…”

“…However, interaction modality can affect the quantity and quality of these interactional moves. For instance, an observation from these studies is that learners trigger more LRE episodes during face-to-face interaction, but self-repair (i.e., learners self-initiate a modification of a previous utterance) more non-targetlike utterances in text SCMC conditions (e.g., Lai & Zhao, 2006;Hamano-Bunce, 2011;Loewen & Wolff, 2016;Rouhshad & Storch, 2016;Torres & Cung, 2019). Therefore, given the inherent characteristics of SCMC, SCMC mode can mediate the types of learning opportunities and interactional moves that L2 learners engage with during peer interactions.…”