The transferability from Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication to Oral Discussion

Abstract

The applications of using Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) tools, known as real time text-message exchange software such as MSN Messenger, chat rooms, etc., in second language learning classrooms have been examined by numbers of researchers in the past few decades (e.g. Beauvois, 1992, 1998; Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Lai & Zhao, 2006; Sykes, 2005; Vandergriff, 2006). Motivated by an interest in the transferability from actually “typing” to “speaking” brought up by Abrams (2003), and the strong recommendations of using online discussion as a “stepping stone” in communication, the present study examined oral production in terms of accuracy, lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and fluency under two modes of discussions in an EFL freshman English course. Subjects were 20 English-major students enrolled in a required university Freshman English class in an Asian EFL context. Data were collected under two modes: Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) and Face-to-Face (FTF). Under each mode, students participated in two activities: (1) preparation discussions for an informal debate, and (2) discussions of issues after video watching. Each discussion lasted for ten minutes and was followed by an immediate FTF oral discussion. In FTF discussions, the audio was recorded and transcribed for further analysis. Meanwhile, the discussions in the SCMC context were collected as chat logs. All the collected data were divided into four parts: (1) discourse in traditional face-to-face discussion and (2) its follow-up discussion; (3) discourse in the SCMC context and (4) its follow-up oral discussion. The results revealed significant differences among all variables in comparing the language outputs in SCMC and FTF discussions. In fact, language outputs in SCMC exceeded the outputs in FTF in almost every aspect. The findings revealed lower error rate, fewer dysfluent markers, and higher percentages of using more sophisticated words in SCMC. Only the complexity of syntactic structures was greater in FTF. We also found positive effects of language production on all variables in FTF discussion activities; however, only fluency showed significant improvement. In terms of transferability from SCMC to oral proficiency, none of the variables showed significant effects on its immediate follow-up oral discussion. Ironically, the differences between SCMC and its follow-up FTF discussion were all significant except for syntactic complexity. This finding indicated that learners were not able to carry the “refined” utterances in SCMC over to oral discussion, or they just inevitably made the same mistakes when the communication channel switched back to normal FTF. Finally, we compared the effects of practicing in FTF modality and the effects of practicing in SCMC modality. The findings indicated that learners can produce more fluent and more complex utterances orally by practicing in FTF all the way through, while accuracy and lexical complexity can be increased by practicing in the SCMC environment. In conclusion, transferability can only be found partially in terms of accuracy and lexical complexity. Though the effects of practicing through SCMC with the aim of improving oral proficiency did not differ significantly from traditional face-to-face practices, it still shed some light on the potential benefits of text-based communication. With less time pressure through chatting in SCMC, learners were encouraged to retrieve from their long term memories and use less frequent words so that the vocabulary which was retrieved could easily be used again in later speaking activities.