The nature of negotiations in computer-mediated and face-to-face modes with/without writing modality

© 2014 Dr. Amir RouhshadThe Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) argues that negotiations for meaning are conducive to second language development and this argument has been supported in a number of studies (e.g. Mackey, 1999, 2006). However, there are mixed findings as to the extent to which negotiations for meaning occur among L2 learners (Foster, 1998; Gass, Mackey & Ross-Feldman, 2005). The advent of text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) has been seen as a panacea, as it is regularly reported in contemporary L2 studies that SCMC enhances negotiations (see Ortega, 2009) and some studies (e.g., Blake, 2000) have claimed that negotiations are more frequent in SCMC mode, without including comparable face-to-face (FTF) dyads. Only a comparison between FTF and SCMC modes can illuminate the relative advantage of the two modes in providing language learning opportunities. This thesis reports the findings of two linked studies. Study 1 compared the nature of negotiations, and corrective feedback (CF) between FTF and text-based SCMC mode in 12 intermediate same-proficiency dyads in an ESL context. Dyads performed one decision-making task in FTF mode and one in SCMC mode. The results showed that negotiations were scarce in both modes, particularly in the SCMC mode. However, significantly more negotiations for meaning and CF were found in FTF. Nevertheless, SCMC mode provided more accurate CF. Furthermore, participants engaged more with negotiations in FTF mode, as negotiations were more likely to be followed by successful uptake and modified output in FTF mode. Study 2 examined whether the addition of writing modality in FTF and SCMC modes would enhance negotiations and CF. This was motivated by the assumption that writing enhances attention to form (Williams, 2012). Additionally, the impact of mode and task type was also examined in Study 2. Twelve intermediate same-proficiency dyads performed one problem-solving task in FTF and one in SCMC mode. Results showed that in both modes the addition of writing modality significantly increased negotiations for form and CF. Furthermore, FTF produced significantly more negotiations for meaning with/without writing modality. However, during collaborative writing significantly more negotiations for form and CF were found in SCMC mode. The dominant negotiation type (meaning vs. form) may be influenced by mode (FTF vs. SCMC) and presence/absence of writing modality. Moreover, in both modes the decision-making task produced significantly more negotiations for meaning than the problem-solving task. The main findings in Study 1 and 2 were supported with qualitative analysis of the post-task interviews. Most participants were reluctant to provide peer CF for a range of socio-affective and cognitive factors, which explained the scarcity of peer CF in the absence of writing modality. Additionally, most participants were positively disposed towards collaborative writing, which may explain the increase in negotiations for form and CF. Corroborating the results of recent studies (e.g., Philp and Mackey, 2010), the current findings bear implications for the Interaction Approach, as they suggest that socio-affective factors cannot be divorced from cognitive factors