Form-focused communicative practice via CMC: What language learners say

CALICO Journal

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 69-90

  Meskill, Carla ^a   Anthony, Natasha ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b Hudson Valley Community College   (United States)

Author keywords

CALL; CMC; Form Focus; Instructional Strategies; Russian

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044887048     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20569017     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1558/cj.v25i1.69-90     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German, The Modern Language Journal, 87 (2), 157-167.
2. Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 39 (1), 9-31.
3. Beauvois, M. (1994). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion, Computers and the Humanities, 28 (1), 177-190.
4. Beauvois, M. (1996). Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward computer mediated communication (CMC) in the language classroom, CALICO Journal, 13 (2), 27-45.
5. Beauvois, M. (1998). Conversation in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom, Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 (2), 198-217.
6. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120-136. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake
7. Blake, R., & Zyzik, E. (2003). Who’s helping whom: Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussion in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24 (4), 519-544.
8. Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom, The Modern Language Journal, 85 (3), 364-379.
9. Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence, System, 22 (1), 17-31.
10. Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (1997). The compatibility of computer-mediated communication solutions with beginning level foreign language curricula, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10 (5), 411-425.
11. Conrad, D. (1999). The student view on effective practices in the college elementary and intermediate foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 32 (4), 494-512.
12. Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 249-277.
14. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on forms. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
16. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. The Asian EFL Journal, 7 (3). Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_05_re.php
17. Ferding, R., & Roehler, L. (2004). Student uptake in electronic discussion: Examining online discourse in literacy preservice classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 119-136.
18. Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10 (1), 67-86. Retreived April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/fitze/default.html
19. Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 299-307.
20. González-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 1 (2), 55-70. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/pdf/article3.pdf
21. Hudson, J., & Bruckman, A. (2002). IRC Français: The creation of an Internet-based SLA community, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15 (2), 109-134.
22. Kebede, S. (1999). The relationship between uptake and questioning. System, 27 (2), 261-275.
23. Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), 457-476.
24. Kern, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchange to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai’i Symposium (pp. 19-28). Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
25. Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of networked language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.
27. Lantolf, J. (1997). The function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In A. Perez-Leroux & W. R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (pp. 3-24). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
28. Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13 (2), 232-244.
29. Lee, L. (2002a). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35 (1), 16-23.
30. Lee, L. (2002b). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on nonnative discourse interaction. System, 30 (3), 275-288.
31. Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (1), 83-100. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html
32. Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A task-cycling pedagogy using stimulated reflection and audio-conferencing in foreign language learning, Language Learning & Technology, 8 (2), 50-69. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/levy/default.html
33. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
35. Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Meskill, C. (2002). Teaching and learning in real time: Media, technology and language acquisition. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
37. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2004). Teaching and learning with telecommunications: Instructional discourse in a hybrid Russian class, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33 (2), 103-119.
38. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2005). Foreign language learning with CMC: Forms of instructional discourse in a Hybrid Russian class, System, 33 (1), 89-105.
39. Murray, D. (1991). The composing process for computer conversation, Written Communication, 8 (1), 35-55.
40. Payne, J., & Whitney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20 (1), 7-32.
41. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practices (pp. 59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115-136). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
43. Roed, J. (2003). Language learner behavior in a virtual environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16 (2-3), 155-172.
44. Salaberry, M. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (1), 5-27.
45. Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art, TESOL Quarterly, 25 (2), 261-277.
46. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 38-57.
48. Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (3), 365-398.
49. Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 82-119. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo
50. Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6 (1), 165-180. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/steppgreany
51. Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing enviornments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24 (4), 491-501.
52. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
53. Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 141-159. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/tudini
54. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-259). New York: Oxford University Press.
55. Warner, C. (2004). It’s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (2), 69-87. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/warner
56. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (1), 7-25.