Negotiation of meaning by mixed‐proficiency dyads in face‐to‐face and synchronous computer‐mediated communication

Abstract

Few studies have compared the nature of negotiation of meaning across face‐to‐face (FTF) and synchronous computer‐mediated communication (SCMC) modes with mixed‐proficiency dyads. Such comparisons can help identify important strengths and weaknesses of each mode. Therefore, this study explored whether FTF and SCMC modes differ in terms of frequency and quality of negotiations of meaning in English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ interaction in mixed‐proficiency dyads. To this end, 32 EFL learners at elementary and upper‐intermediate levels were assigned to 16 mixed‐proficiency dyads to perform two information gap tasks (i.e., spot the differences task and jigsaw task). The participants’ interactions in both modes were coded based on Varonis and Gass's (1985) model of negotiation routines and Long's (1980) negotiation moves. The participants’ interactions in each mode were coded. The results show no significant differences between the frequency of negotiations in both modes. However, the results were controversial regarding the quality of negotiations. The quality of negotiation routines was examined by the number of indicators leading to modified output, which revealed that mode of interaction influenced the quality of negotiations and more modified output was produced in the SCMC mode than the FTF mode.

TriHy: teaching an MA TESOL class face-to-face, synchronously online, and asynchronously online

“…From the interactive, convergent, mixed-methods design, where quantitative and qualitative data were gathered concurrently (Creswell and Creswell 2018 ), we found that the students’ success in the course did not differ by modality of attendance. These findings are discrepant from the findings of Rovai and Jordan ( 2004 ) and Inglis et al ( 2011 ) but align with the findings of Fishman et al ( 2013 ), Liu and Rodriguez ( 2019 ), Moradi and Farvardin ( 2019 ), and Siczek and Stanchevici ( 2019 ). Our course proved to be an equalizer, as the post-test scores no longer differed by modality.…”

“…In a study of nonnative-English-speaking students, no significant differences in learning outcomes were yielded in terms of the frequency of negotiations of meaning (Moradi and Farvardin 2019 ). Although the study was conducted on English learners rather than their teachers, it is still relevant to the present context because language learning (as well as teaching) builds skills through frequent pair and small-group interaction, over a period of time as well as require formative feedback from the instructor.…”

“…We also recommend that flexible models such as TriHy or HyFlex be extended to language education. Recent publications on ESL and EFL students are encouraging about the effectiveness of hybrid foreign- and second-language instruction (Moradi and Farvardin 2019 ; Ross and DiSalvo 2020 ; Siczek and Stanchevici 2019 ).…”

The effect of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on learners’ pronunciation achievement

“…In this study, the FTF group showed some improvements revealing the fact that FTF instruction in settings with no technological tools can make some changes. In a similar line, Moradi and Farvardin (2019) reported no significant differences between the frequency of negotiations in face to face and synchronous modes. However, the results were controversial regarding the quality of negotiations.…”

“…Similarly, Stein et al (2007) argued that, with the appropriate teaching and social presence, students can arrive at a shared understanding in a synchronous environment. However, Moradi and Farvardin (2019) reported no significant differences between the frequency of negotiations in face to face and synchronous modes. But the results were controversial regarding the quality of negotiations because the SCMC mode requires L2 learners to type their messages, teachers can make benefit of these data by providing CF to learners after the chat to enhance their L2 learning.…”