Abstract
This mixed-methods study investigates the use of synchronous video computer-mediated communication (SVCMC) in a U.S. university’s Spanish-as-a-foreign-language curriculum. Using the SVCMC platform TalkAbroad, the university’s Spanish program required second-year students to participate in five, 30-minute, SVCMC conversations with Spanish first language (L1) speakers. Students then reflected on their SVCMC conversations by replaying the recorded audio from those sessions and transcribing passages of their conversations. Using an interactionist perspective, this research explores the utility of: (1) the SVCMC conversations, and (2) the subsequent listening/transcription activity by examining students’ reported noticing of linguistic items (e.g. L1 speaker vocabulary, grammar, etc.). Additionally, we report students’ general perceptions of engaging in SVCMC with TalkAbroad. Students’ noticing and perceptions were investigated using a combination of two questionnaires (N = 35) that were administered following (1) the SVCMC, and (2) the listening/transcription activity, along with semi-structured interviews (n = 10). Findings suggest both the SVCMC and listening/transcription activities are effective in promoting the noticing of vocabulary and content, but not grammar. Finally, students generally reported positive perceptions of engaging in SVCMC for the purposes of L2 learning. Related implications for pedagogy and curriculum design are discussed.
I Introduction
Interaction – an influential factor in second language acquisition (SLA) (Gass, 1997; Loewen & Sato, 2018; Long, 1996; Mackey, 1999; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Smith, 2004) – has been researched extensively in the domain of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) (e.g. Fredriksson, 2015; Loewen & Wolff, 2016; Peterson, 2012; Roushad & Storch, 2016; Ziegler, 2015). A handful of studies, in particular, have suggested that interactions occurring through video computer-mediated communication (VCMC) may enhance various aspects of second language (L2) learning if effectively integrated into L2 curricula (Jauregi, de Graff, van den Bergh, & Kriz, 2012; Plonsky & Ziegler, 2016; Yanguas, 2010, 2012). While interactions and blended learning in curricula have been explored to a great degree, students’ noticing (Schmidt, 1990) of linguistic items has received almost no attention in CALL research to date, especially in those studies that examine facets of synchronous VCMC (SVCMC).
This study seeks to explore various phenomena that lie at the intersection of interaction, blended-learning in curricula, and students’ noticing when using SVCMC tools. In particular, we explore these phenomena in the context of a U.S. university’s Spanish-as-a-foreign language (FL) curriculum. In lieu of requiring students to purchase a Spanish textbook, the university’s Spanish program chose to require its second-year students to purchase and participate in five, 30-minute video conversations with Spanish first language (L1) speakers using the online, commercial product TalkAbroad, which is an SVCMC platform. Following the SVCMC conversations with L1 Spanish speakers, students also reflected on their conversations by replaying the recorded audio from those sessions and transcribing portions of their conversations for homework. In this study, we explore both the SVCMC conversations and students’ subsequent listening/transcription activities as potential sites for L2 learning. Specifically, we examine students’ reported noticing of linguistic items (e.g. vocabulary and grammar) and other content following both (1) the SVCMC activity, and (2) the listening/transcription activity. We also investigate students’ general perceptions regarding the utility of engaging in these activities for L2 learning, along with students’ general enjoyment of the activities.
II Background
1 Interaction and noticing in SLA
In interactionist approaches to SLA, a learner’s L2 development may be facilitated by multiple factors, including: receiving comprehensible input; producing output; and negotiating for meaning in the target language (TL) (Gass, 1997; Long, 1996; Swain, 1995). Since the formulation of Long’s (1981, 1996) Interaction Hypothesis, numerous studies have explored and highlighted various benefits surrounding interaction and its impacts on L2 learning (e.g. Carless, 2012; Mackey, 1999; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Smith, 2004). In addition to receiving comprehensible input, Swain (1995, 2005), in particular, has contended that output is especially vital for the process of language learning because it enables learners to perform crucial functions such as: testing hypotheses; reflecting on their own TL use; improving their fluency; and also, observing TL features that may differ from the learner’s own interlanguage. As such, over the years, many of these aforementioned factors suggested by Long, Swain, and others have been investigated for their relevance to L2 acquisition.
A learner’s observing or noticing of different TL features, for one, has been cited by Schmidt (1990, 2001), Swain (1995, 2005), and other scholars as a potential site for L2 learning. According to Schmidt’s (1990, 2001) Noticing Hypothesis, TL input must be consciously registered (i.e. noticed) by a learner in order for it to become intake and lead to acquisition. Mackey (2006) further explains that this experience of noticing may occur when a learner consciously recognizes a particular mismatch or gap in his/her production and the TL. The recognition itself can include noticing some sort of novel TL form(s), but also, noticing mismatches between learner and TL pronunciation, vocabulary, and more. Explorations of this noticing phenomenon have garnered a great deal of attention by researchers across sub-disciplines of SLA, and noticing is now widely characterized as a critical element in the L2 acquisition process (Adams, 2003; Bao, Egi, & Han, 2011; Fotos, 1993; Leeser, 2008; Mackey, 2006; Qi & Lapkin, 2001).
2 Noticing in CALL and SVCMC
Despite its important role in L2 acquisition, noticing has received relatively limited investigation in the area of computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Through the years of CALL-related research, there have been only a handful of noticing studies undertaken by scholars, and these have predominately been studies involving error correction (e.g. Cowan, Choi, & Kim, 2003) or research related to corrective feedback specifically in the form of recasts (e.g. Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2014; Lai, Fei, & Roots, 2008). Similarly, within CALL itself, there are no studies (to our knowledge) that have explored language learners’ noticing in synchronous video computer-mediated communication (SVCMC).
While researchers have yet to investigate the nexus of noticing and SVCMC, scholars have explored numerous foci related to SVCMC, including its positive influence on: learners’ vocabulary development (e.g. Yanguas, 2012); listening comprehension and development (e.g. Levak & Son, 2016); oral intelligibility and pronunciation development (e.g. Lee, 2007); intercultural understanding (e.g. Tian & Wang, 2010); and also, teachers’ classroom implementation of SVCMC along with their personal tool-preferences (e.g. Develotte, Guichon, & Vincent, 2010; Eröz-Tuğa & Sadler, 2009; Yang, Gamble, & Tang, 2012). Regardless of scope, a majority of these studies have tended to solicit learners’ perspectives in the process of gauging study-outcomes and results.
In terms of incorporating learners’ perspectives when assessing outcomes, CALL researchers have emphasized that understanding learners’ or users’ perspectives is vital in the research process, especially for those studies that attempt to gauge some aspect of pedagogical effectiveness. For instance, with the rise of CALL in language teaching pedagogy, Trinder (2015) has stressed that it is important for researchers ‘to get some evidence of what actually constitutes an ideal learning environment for today’s students in view of the proliferation of blended learning formats’ (p. 87). Likewise, others such as Sydorenko, Hsieh, Ahn, and Arnold (2017) have argued that in order to design appropriate CALL activities and encourage buy-in from students, it is imperative that the ‘benefits of CALL should also be made transparent to learners, either through reflection or by having instructors share their rationales’ (p. 213). These different forms of reflections, especially learner-reflections – in addition to serving the purpose of transparency – naturally lend themselves to study by researchers. This dual-utility of learner reflections constitutes another strong justification as to why researchers have opted to incorporate learners’ perceptions into their data collection.
3 Integrating L2 transcription activities and the current study
While Sydorenko et al. (2017) have called for increased learner reflections surrounding CALL-related tools, the proliferation of digital technologies has led Cowie (2018) to advocate for the use of student transcription for facilitating reflective language learning. Although research is scarce, there are a few previous studies that have highlighted how transcription may be integrated into the L2 classroom. A study by Huang (2008), for instance, showed that transcription has the potential to raise students’ awareness of individual errors in oral production, including those of grammar and pronunciation. Likewise, Stillwell et al. (2010) have highlighted how transcription following oral activities can be utilized to provide students with insights and increased understanding into their general L2 development, and thus perhaps, increase motivation.
Though it appears transcription has the potential to be effective, Cowie (2018) highlights that transcription has been understudied and underutilized in L2 research due to the fact that transcription activities were previously quite difficult for language teachers to implement in (and out of) the L2 classroom. Such difficulties have been attributed to logistical concerns including issues with equipping all students with the same audio file for analysis, and, simultaneously allowing students to move at their own pace. However, now – in many countries and contexts – students have unprecedented access to tools and technologies such as the Internet and smartphones, which may enable teachers to begin organizing and implementing transcription activities that were once deemed too impractical.
Thus, as CALL tools continue to make their way into language curriculums across the globe, what is clear from previous research is that, in some instances, the strategic use of either SVCMC or student transcription may be valuable in promoting L2 development. Yet, what is unclear is whether (or to what extent) the combination of SVCMC and transcription can be effective in facilitating L2 acquisition.
III The current study and research questions
To address such issues, we explore various phenomena in relation to a U.S. university’s Spanish FL program, which required its second-year students to participate in multiple SVCMC conversations using TalkAbroad with L1 Spanish speakers, followed by a listening/transcription activity. The current study was guided by the following research questions:
Research question 1a: To what extent do L2 Spanish learners report noticing new vocabulary, grammar, or other content after an SVCMC session?
Research question 1b: To what extent do L2 Spanish learners report noticing new vocabulary, grammar, or other content after a listening/transcription activity?
Research question 2a: What are L2 learners’ perceptions of engaging in SVCMC with TalkAbroad?
Research question 2b: What are L2 learners’ perceptions of engaging in the listening/transcription activity following SVCMC?
IV Method
1 Participants and setting
This study was conducted within a Spanish FL program at a large, public, U.S. university. Thirty-five (N = 35) university students (32 female, 3 male) participated in the study. Participants had a mean age of 19.2 years (SD = 1.41) and all spoke English as an L1. Two participants reported being bilingual speakers of English and Punjabi. Participants had studied Spanish for an average of 5.27 years (SD = 2.14), and they provided multiple motivations or reasons for their Spanish study, including: studying Spanish for their university major (2 students) or minor (9 students); because studying an L2 was a degree-program requirement (9 students); or studying Spanish just for fun (18 students).
Students were recruited from multiple sections of the university’s 2018 spring semester, 200-level Spanish course, which was a 50-minute class that met three times weekly (these 200-level Spanish students are approximately between A2–B1 on a CEFR scale). Three different instructors taught the sections, but all of the sections had a similar focus with the goal of developing students’ L2 Spanish oral proficiency skills. Likewise, all sections held the same SVCMC requirement for students to participate in five, synchronous, 30-minute conversations with L1 Spanish speakers using the platform TalkAbroad. The decision to use TalkAbroad was made by the developers of the university’s Spanish curriculum, not the researchers of the present study. Finally, all sections held the same requirement for completing the post-conversation listening/transcription activities.
2 Materials and procedure
a Sequencing of the SVCMC sessions and the listening/transcription activities
At the beginning of the semester, students in the 200-level Spanish courses were introduced to the TalkAbroad program and platform, including how to sign up for and navigate online SVCMC sessions. Additionally, in lieu of purchasing a course textbook, students spent $50 to participate in five SVCMC sessions ($10 per session) with Spanish L1 speakers from various Spanish-speaking countries. The TalkAbroad company 1 employs L1 speakers of different languages and provides them with training to converse with L2 learners. Each session lasts 30-minutes. When registering for a session, students must go online and sign up within a 24-hour window. Users are given multiple options and preferences when scheduling a session with an L1 conversation partner, including preferences for speaking with a male or female, from a specific location (e.g. Spanish L1 speakers from Argentina, Costa Rica, Mexico, or Spain), etc.
During the semester, the L2 Spanish students were told the specific weeks that their five SVCMC sessions were to occur, but students booked their own sessions during that week to fit their individual schedules. Prior to having students schedule their conversations, during the specific week in which an SVCMC conversation was to occur, the Spanish classroom teachers prepared students for their sessions. Students prepared in class by brainstorming conversation topics (e.g. music, food, sports, travel) in small groups. Then, students discussed these topics using L2 Spanish in their groups, including brainstorming possible questions to ask during the upcoming SVCMC session, and also, strategies to combat potential difficulties that might occur during the conversations with their SVCMC interlocutors. In one of the surveys used in this study (Survey A, discussed later), students reported additional preparation outside of class as well, in which they prepared for each conversation for an average of 30.86 minutes (SD = 13.08) by using strategies such as: taking notes and preparing questions; orally rehearsing sentences; looking up vocabulary; and reviewing grammar.
When the time came for their scheduled SVCMC session, each student met his/her L1 Spanish partner online and discussed the topic(s) for that particular week. For instance, in one SVCMC session, Participant 10 engaged in a wide-ranging discussion with his interlocutor, who was located in Nicaragua. During their conversation, the two partners discussed the weather in their respective locales during different seasons; additionally, they engaged in a lengthy discussion about different popular sports and athletes in the U.S. (e.g. basketball and LeBron James) as well as the popularity of boxing in Nicaragua. Each TalkAbroad session enabled one-on-one SVCMC conversation, along with a text chat feature where the L2 and L1 speakers could communicate in writing if so desired. All audio conversations are automatically recorded by the TalkAbroad company, enabling both L2 learners and their course instructors to revisit their conversations at any time through the company’s website.
As part of the course assignment, students were given five days after completing their SVCMC session to revisit their recorded conversation through the TalkAbroad website. Students were told to listen to their 30-minute conversation in its entirety. However, due to the time-commitment involved in transcribing an entire 30-minute conversation, the Spanish course instructors directed learners to select and transcribe only a 300-word segment of the conversation that was of interest to them. Per the instructors’ directions, this transcription had to include both the student’s and the interlocutor’s speech, but the 300-word count was to consist only of the L1 Spanish speaker’s turns. Students were told not to transcribe the initial greetings that occurred during the first five minutes of the conversation. Students used various word-processing programs to complete the transcriptions before uploading them to a digital drop box. Although not observed for research-purposes during this study, the Spanish teachers also occasionally required students to give brief oral presentations in-class about their SVCMC conversations.
b Data collection: Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews
While students participated in a total of five SVCMC sessions (and subsequent listening/transcription activities) spread throughout the spring semester, we collected data from only one focal SVCMC session: either the fourth or fifth session, depending on when each student consented to participate in the study. Once a student consented, we collected data related to their SVCMC session and the listening/transcription activity through the use of questionnaires/surveys and semi-structured interviews.
Immediately after completing the focal SVCMC conversation, each student was given a 24-hour window in which to complete Survey A. This survey was an online questionnaire, which was designed to obtain students’ thoughts and impressions immediately following their SVCMC session. Survey A contained a background questionnaire, plus 33 additional questions regarding students’ comfort level during the conversation, and linguistic items they reported noticing (e.g. vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation). The questionnaire consisted of open-ended items (e.g. ‘Did you learn any new vocabulary? If so, list those words here’) along with 5-point Likert-scale items, e.g. ‘I understood my partner’; Rate on a scale of 1 (Never) to 5 (A great deal of the time). In total, 37 students completed Survey A.
Once students completed the listening/transcription activity, each student was then given a 24-hour window in which to complete Survey B. This survey was another online questionnaire. Survey B contained 21 questions and was designed to evaluate whether students reported noticing any new linguistic items or content they had missed during the initial SVCMC conversation. The survey also contained questions regarding students’ perceptions of engaging in SVCMC and the listening/transcription activities. Importantly, in Survey B, some of the items/questions were identical to Survey A (e.g. ‘Did you learn any new vocabulary? If so, list those words here’). Participants were compensated with $10 in total if they completed both Survey A and Survey B. Thirty-five (n = 35) of the 37 students from Survey A completed Survey B. Therefore, two participants’ responses were dropped from the final data analysis since they did not complete both questionnaires.
Lastly, following the completion of Survey B, within 24-hours, the first author contacted participants via email inviting them to participate in an optional semi-structured interview. The interview was designed to follow up on students’ responses to Survey A and Survey B, allowing students the opportunity to elaborate on or explain their responses, and for the researcher to pursue other potential points of interest. Students who responded to the interview email request (n = 10) were interviewed for approximately 15–20 minutes. Each interview was audio-recorded and later transcribed. Participants were compensated with an additional $10 if they participated in the semi-structured interview.
c Data analysis
The current study employed a sequential, quantitative-qualitative mixed methods design (e.g. Polio & Friedman, 2017; Riazi & Candlin, 2014); the quantitative questionnaire data were collected first followed by the qualitative semi-structured interviews, which were constructed after analysing Survey A and Survey B data to further probe students’ survey responses.
To explore the new vocabulary, grammar, and/or other content that students’ learned from the SVCMC session and in the subsequent listening/transcription activity (research question 1a and research question 1b), we analysed the data from Survey A, Survey B, and the semi-structured interviews. The Survey A and B question items involving 5-point Likert-scales were analysed quantitatively, and since many of the same items were repeated between the two surveys, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were examined for any statistical differences between students’ responses on Survey A (post-SVCMC conversation) and Survey B (post-listening/transcription activity). Interpreting 95% CIs helped avoid some of the pitfalls of null hypothesis significance testing, such as dichotomistic decisions of statistical significance or non-significance based on a single alpha level such as .05, or the omission of information about ‘the size, location, and magnitude of effects as well as the precision with which they are observed’ (Norris, 2015, p. 120). Consequently, we did not conduct t-tests or other parametric inferential statistics; instead, we relied on non-overlapping 95% CIs around mean scores to indicate statistical differences (see Larson-Hall, 2016; Norris, 2015). Open-ended Survey A and B items along with semi-structured interviews were analysed inductively following a two-cycle coding approach (e.g. Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014), in which codes were first assigned based on emergent themes and then subsequently grouped and further analysed based on those themes.
In order to examine learners’ perceptions of the SVCMC sessions and their perceptions surrounding the effectiveness of the listening/transcription activity (research question 2a and research question 2b), data from Survey B and the semi-structured interviews were analysed. Survey B items that contained Likert-scales were analysed with descriptive statistics. Semi-structured interview data, like those in research question 1a and research question 1b, were again analysed inductively following a two-cycle coding approach.
V Results
Research questions 1a and 1b: Noticing during SVCMC and the listening/transcription activity
The first research question examined students’ reported noticing of numerous phenomena during their SVCMC session (research question 1a) and in the subsequent listening/transcription activity (research question 1b), with a focus on students’ perceptions and on linguistic items such as vocabulary, grammar, and additional content.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for Survey A (which was completed post-SVCMC session) and Survey B (completed post-listening/transcription activity) for items that involved 5-point Likert-scales. A comparison of the 95% CIs for the items on Surveys A and B revealed only one statistically significant difference with non-overlapping CIs for the response to the item: ‘I (felt) (sounded) comfortable conversing with my partner.’ While students reported feeling higher levels of comfort on Survey A post-SVCMC (M = 4.06, SD = 1.02, CIs 3.71, 4.41), following the replaying of their audio conversation for the purposes of completing the transcription, students reported decreased levels of comfort and confidence with their conversations (M = 3.20, SD = 1.00, CIs 2.86, 3.54). Apart from this sole item, no significant differences were detected on students’ reported noticing of vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, or other Likert-scale items between Surveys A and B.
Descriptive statistics for students’ reported noticing in Surveys A and B.
Notes. a Word/phrasing as it appeared on Survey A. b Word/phrasing as it appeared on Survey B. * Statistical significance due to non-overlapping confidence intervals (CIs).
Though Likert-scale items captured few differences between the SVCMC and post-listening/transcription activity, open-ended survey items did reveal differences. Immediately after the SVCMC conversation, approximately 46% (16 of 35) of the students reported noticing new vocabulary. Of these 16 students, 15 were also able to provide specific examples of the new vocabulary they had noticed (e.g. bachillerato, barato, cerdo, chivo, frito). While nearly half of the students noticed new vocabulary, none of the 35 participants reported noticing any new grammar during their SVCMC conversations. Conversely, nearly 97% (34 of 35) of the students reported noticing or learning new information about their interlocutor’s culture. All 34 of these students were able to provide examples, such as various cultural differences or similarities surrounding topics related to education, family, food, music, pets, social media, sports, and more.
After completing the post-listening/transcription activity, approximately 54% (19 of 35 students) of students reported noticing new vocabulary. These students, again, were able to provide specific examples of the vocabulary they had noticed (e.g. castillo, borrador, estación, hacia, sano). These vocabulary items from Survey B were cross-referenced with Survey A to ensure that none of the items were repeated. One specific example that highlights such differences in the noticing of vocabulary between Surveys A and B can be seen with Participant 7. In Survey A, Participant 7 reported noticing only one lexical item, maní (‘peanut’). However, in Survey B post-listening/transcription activity, Participant 7 reported noticing three new lexical items: ajiaco (‘potato and chilli stew’), arepa (‘pancake’), and bandeja paisa (‘a meal with beans and rice’) that were not listed in Survey A following the SVCMC.
Although no students reported noticing new grammar post-SVCMC in Survey A, approximately 9% (3 of the 35 students) did report noticing new grammar on Survey B post-listening/transcription. One example given by a student included noticing his interlocutor’s frequent use of vosotros (‘you, plural pronoun’). Finally, whereas 97% (34 of 35) of the students reported noticing or learning new information about their interlocutor’s culture in Survey A, 60% of the participants (21 of 35) also reported noticing or learning new cultural information during the listening/transcription activity in Survey B that they did not report during the SVCMC conversation. As before, students were able to provide specific examples of the new information that they had learned, which included similarities and/or differences in topics such as celebrations, clothing, education, dancing, technology, television, and weather.
Research questions 2a and 2b: Learner perceptions of TalkAbroad and the listening/transcription activity
In terms of learners’ perceptions of using SVCMC through TalkAbroad (research question 2a), in Survey B, just over 91% of the participants (32 of 35) reported enjoying the experience to some degree. Only three students did not enjoy the experience, stating they felt speaking to a stranger was ‘awkward’ and ‘forced’ (Participant 33), a sentiment that was repeated by another student who remarked that the SVCMC arrangement felt ‘like a forced conversation, not something that would naturally occur’ (Participant 21). Of the 91% majority who enjoyed participating in the sessions, two general themes emerged from the qualitative data as to why students liked using TalkAbroad, which were related to: (1) the perceived benefits of increased speaking confidence/fluency, and (2) increased speaking opportunities not afforded by the classroom setting.
During the semi-structured interviews, numerous students mentioned they enjoyed TalkAbroad because they felt engaging in the SVCMC conversations had increased their confidence levels: When I first got in the class I read the syllabus, and I was like: ‘Are you kidding me? I have to talk to someone in another country like Skype-ing them, and they’ll have to look at me?’ . . . [But now] I definitely feel like overall it’s helped . . . so yeah, I’m glad that I got to do that. (Participant 7) The first TalkAbroad I did I was so freaking nervous . . . But now, I feel a lot more confident with it, you know? I’d be more likely to use it now, like out in public, use my Spanish speaking out in public more than just ordering food at a restaurant. (Participant 10)
As illustrated in the excerpts from Participants 7 and 10, with an increased sense of self-confidence, students noted they felt able to speak more. Likewise, their confidence grew as a result of both speaking more and because of their increasing interactions with L1 speakers, which together, they felt promoted general speech fluency: Speaking the language helps, and speaking it with the native speaker for so long, like 30 minutes, is a considerable amount of time. I think that’s helpful . . . we’ve become more fluent in it. (Participant 27) I’m pretty introverted, so it helped me kind of have to get out of my comfort zone . . . even talking in Spanish in front of people in classes has got a lot easier just because I’ve been talking with natives and I’m like ‘Okay, I can do this.’ (Participant 25)
In addition to these perceived benefits of increased speaking confidence/fluency, participants also reported enjoying the SVCMC because it afforded them opportunities that were not available in a typical classroom setting, specifically, opportunities to interact and converse with L1 speakers rather than their classmates: I think they’re [SVCMC sessions] really helpful . . . In class, you’re talking to like other peers, and like, they don’t necessarily know what they’re saying either. But like, if you’re talking to somebody who’s a native, then you kind of get more of an understanding of it. (Participant 17) I feel like it’s [talking with L1 speakers] better than if I was to like, say, a peer, because a peer wouldn’t have as much knowledge of Spanish as someone who is actually like speaking it their whole lives, you know? . . . [It also] gives you like a broader view of people’s lives. (Participant 9) In our area, there’s not that many native Spanish speakers . . . I feel like in class, we can just like – not joke around – but like ‘Okay . . . what does this mean?’ You can say it in English . . . But I feel like with TalkAbroad . . . it was more beneficial because they were actually speaking consistently. (Participant 26)
Therefore, the majority of students reported enjoying the SVCMC sessions due to the increased opportunities for interactions with L1 speakers, and also, the aforementioned benefits they felt accompanied those interactions, such as increased speaking confidence and L2 Spanish fluency.
Regarding students’ perceptions of the listening/transcription activity that followed the SVCMC conversations (research question 2b), Table 2 outlines the descriptive statistics for the 35 participants who completed the related items on Survey B. These items were listed with a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree). As shown, students did not particularly appear to enjoy listening to or transcribing their conversations as part of the course requirement. However, despite their general lack of enthusiasm towards the activity, the survey respondents indicated they agreed that listening to the audio and transcribing their conversations aided their L2 learning to some degree. In fact, the non-overlapping 95% CIs indicate a statistically significant difference between their reported lack of enjoyment (Qs 1 and 3) and their positive assessment of the linguistic benefits (Qs 2 and 4). Of the respondents, several also expanded on their survey during the semi-structured interviews as to why they did not enjoy the activity yet still felt it was beneficial.
I hate listening to it . . . [but] I definitely think it’s helpful. [And also] when I type it . . . I’m starting to remember where accents go. And it’s also kind of nice because I change my language to Spanish, so autocorrect tells me when it’s wrong, and I wouldn’t have known that. (Participant 16) I don’t like listening to myself over the speaker. I didn’t enjoy it . . . because I feel like I sound better than I actually am at it. It kind of made me cringe . . . [However], sometimes transcribing it I guess does help because I can write out the [word and] like Google will fix the word’s spelling if you do something wrong. (Participant 27)
Students’ opinions of the listening/transcription activity.
Thus, some students did not enjoy the activity simply because they did not like hearing the audio of their own voices. In spite of this, they felt the transcription aspect helped improve their L2 Spanish writing by focusing their attention on spelling and accent placement.
Other students, meanwhile, saw drawbacks to the activity, specifically related to the amount of time it took to complete the transcriptions. However, these students also noted related benefits as well: It’s a lot of time, because, you know, I can’t type as fast as the audio goes, so there’s a lot of rewinding and backing up and trying to make sure I got all the words in there correctly . . . it’s very time consuming. [However] I get the benefit of it with the whole listening to, you know, messing up yourself and catching yourself in those things. (Participant 10) I think it’s [listening] really helpful because . . . I can reflect on what I did wrong and also what I did right . . . I’ll be like ‘Oh! I used the right conjugation, or that was a good word!’. I also learned things from, for example, the syntax. I learned how it’s different in different places . . . I think transcribing helps too . . . I’ll be like ‘oh, okay. That’s why he said it that way’. So I wouldn’t have noticed that if I just listen to it. (Participant 9)
As discussed by Participants 9 and 10, each individual appreciated that the listening/transcription activity enabled them to catch and reflect on their mistakes or errors. Participant 9, in particular, not only appreciated this aspect, but she also felt that both components of the listening and transcription had distinct benefits, which together enabled her to notice different aspects of the target language.
VI Discussion
As indicated by previous studies and meta-analyses, SVCMC environments can be highly conducive for facilitating L2 interaction and acquisition (e.g. Plonsky & Ziegler, 2016; Ziegler, 2015), as can the implementation of transcription activities for various areas of L2 learning (e.g. Cowie, 2018; Huang, 2008; Stillwell et al., 2010). In the context of the current study, we investigated two sets of research questions related to a university’s Spanish-as-a-FL program and their requirement for second-year students to participate in SVCMC conversations and subsequent listening/transcription activities.
The first set of research questions examined students’ reported noticing of different linguistic items and content when engaging in the SVCMC (research question 1a) and then again in the follow up listening/transcription activity (research question 1b). In terms of vocabulary, both activities appeared to provide opportunities for noticing: students reported noticing new lexical items post-SVCMC (46%) and post-listening/transcription (54%) that differed between the two surveys. A sizable percentage of the students, too, reported learning new information about their Spanish L1 interlocutors’ culture post-SVCMC (97%) and again post-listening/transcription (60%). As L2–L1 SVCMC conversations and e-tandem pairings themselves have been shown to facilitate intercultural understanding (Tian & Wang, 2010), it is not surprising that large percentages of students learned new cultural information during their synchronous video conversations. However, it was somewhat surprising that such a high percentage noticed new cultural information upon engaging in the listening/transcription activity. Additionally, connected to this phenomenon was the fact that grammar and/or grammatical structures were one area in the post-SVCMC (0%) and post-listening/transcription (9%) that remained either non-existent or low in terms of reported noticing. However, it is possible this may be attributable to an observation by VanPatten (1990), in which he noted that many L2 learners have difficulties simultaneously attending to form and meaning during oral conversation and production.
In order to increase learners’ noticing of grammatical structures during their conversations and subsequent transcription activities, it might be necessary to introduce focus on form techniques that combine attention to both meaning and language structure (Loewen, 2011; Long, 1996). In particular, the L1 interlocutors could be trained to provide more corrective feedback during the interaction to help learners notice their errors during communication (e.g. Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017). Additionally, learners could be provided with metacognitive instruction that informs them of the benefits of corrective feedback and other focus on form activities (e.g. Sato & Loewen, 2018; Zhang & Zhang, 2018). As a result, learners would be on the lookout, both during the interaction and the transcription, for occasions when their own production does not match that of their L1 interlocutor. Such measures might help increase the potential effectiveness of the interaction and transcription activities for L2 development. Likewise, such measures may also be important as research by Spring, Kato, & Mori (2019) has further suggested that there may be deeper connections not only between learners’ noticing and subsequent learning, but also, between learners’ noticing and subsequent enjoyment in engaging in SVCMC in general (i.e. those who notice more tend to enjoy the activity more).
The second set of research questions examined students’ general perceptions of engaging in SVCMC with TalkAbroad (research question 2a) and also in the listening/transcription activity (research question 2b). In terms of research question 2a, in the current data set, only a small percentage of the participants (9%) stated they did not enjoy the SVCMC sessions; this was primarily attributable to the fact that students felt the sessions/conversations with L1 Spanish speakers were manufactured rather than occurring organically. Apart from these few students though, the majority (91%) generally enjoyed engaging in SVCMC sessions using TalkAbroad. One of the most frequently mentioned reasons related to enjoyment was that learners felt the sessions forced them out of their comfort zones, enabling them to speak more of the L2 than permitted by the classroom setting and local context, in which class sizes are somewhat large and L1 Spanish speakers are not always readily available for conversation. Indeed, one of the affordances of implementing SVCMC in some contexts is that it has the capacity to expand the walls of the classroom so that L2 learners not only have exposure to the target culture (Levak & Son, 2016), but also, as Yang, Gamble, and Tang (2012) have noted, so that L2 learners can engage in meaningful, real-time interactions using the target language.
Importantly, as well, the L2 Spanish learners in this study felt that five-repeated SVCMC sessions increased their confidence and L2 oral fluency. Kato, Spring, and Mori (2016) have documented similar student perceptions of increased confidence and fluency, which they stated was a byproduct of their investigation into interactions between L1–L2 learner dyads using the SVCMC-tool Skype. Because the use of SVCMC with TalkAbroad has such high approval and perceptions of effectiveness from the students themselves, this may constitute one justification for its use in the classroom so as to continue to encourage buy-in from students in CALL-related activities (Sydorenko et al., 2017).
For the final question, research question 2b, students generally stated that they did not enjoy the listening/transcription activity. Some of the participants in the semi-structured interviews mentioned they did not enjoy the activity because they simply did not like listening to themselves speak in the L2; this was also supported by the quantitative data in which students’ comfort levels in their conversation performance decreased significantly between Surveys A and B, which gauged perceptions post-SVCMC and then immediately post-listening/transcription activity. Interestingly, despite this stated lack of enjoyment, there was also a statistically significant difference between students’ reported lack of enjoyment and how beneficial students actually perceived the transcription activity to be for their L2 Spanish learning, as many stated they felt the activity had benefits pedagogically speaking. One of the primary reasons given for this difference in the semi-structured interviews was that the students felt the listening/transcription activity raised their awareness of writing issues, specifically things such as spelling, accent placement, and more. Huang (2008), too, has shown that transcription has the potential to raise students’ awareness of individual errors in oral production, especially for grammar. Since the focus of the second-year Spanish courses in the current context and curriculum prioritized oral production and development, many of the students stated that although they disliked it, they appreciated this type of listening/transcription activity because it enabled them to work on an aspect of the L2 in which limited attention was typically given in class.
While the current study seems to support the notion that the SVCMC sessions and listening/transcription activities foster various factors related to L2 learning and development, the study does have some limitations. One such limitation is that we relied on retrospective self-reports rather than concurrent reports by the students. We tried to mitigate part of this issue by requiring students to complete Survey A and B within a 24-hour time window following the activities; however, because students self reported following the activities rather than doing so concurrently, it is possible that students noticed certain linguistic items in real-time that they subsequently forgot or failed to report in the surveys that followed. Thus, future researchers may wish to adopt new methods such as concurrent think-aloud protocols, or, perhaps a combination of retrospective methods such as video screen-capture of students’ SVCMCs along with stimulated recalls immediately following the sessions (for an example of video screen-capture plus stimulated recalls in CALL research, see Kessler, 2020).
Relatedly, two final limitations involve the use of self-reports and a lack of a control group. In terms of the self-reports, just because a student reported noticing certain vocabulary or grammar, this does not mean by extension that he/she acquired that L2 target feature and/or has the ability to use it productively. Future research involving noticing in SVCMC may wish to take this into account. This could be achieved by following similar survey procedures as in the current study, but with the addition of individualized post- or delayed post-testing to see whether or not students can recall and/or use those noticed target features of the L2. Likewise, because the current study was non-interventionist in nature (i.e. we used existing classrooms of students whose actions were dictated by the Spanish teachers/curriculum), we were unable to include a control group. Therefore, future studies that explore the combination of SVCMC and transcription activities may wish to include experimental and control groups in order to examine potential learning gains when L2 learners do/do not engage in a follow-up transcription activity.
VII Conclusions and implications
The current study sought to investigate pedagogy in the context of a Spanish-as-a-FL program’s curriculum, specifically surrounding the implementation of a requirement for second-year students to participate in SVCMC conversations and in subsequent listening/transcription activities. The results of this study suggest that the SVCMC via TalkAbroad is conducive for facilitating the noticing of vocabulary and cultural information/content, and, that students generally enjoy engaging in these SVCMCs. Because of this, depending on the context, instructors may want to consider integrating these types of SVCMC activities into the curriculum in order to provide students with additional opportunities to develop their confidence in speaking the L2. Relatedly, the findings of the current study also suggest that L2 instructors may wish to consider implementing limited listening/transcription activities in class. Even though learners may not particularly enjoy these activities in the same way that they enjoy engaging in SVCMCs, our results suggest that students will likely see the benefits of these activities, which have the capacity to raise students’ self-awareness and help learners focus on aspects of writing for L2 courses that are heavy on oral production.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to those teachers, Francisco, Irma, and Daniel, who helped facilitate this project. Additionally, we wish to thank all of the student participants for their engagement, along with Michigan State University for their financial support of the project.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Collaborative Projects Seed Funding grant provided by the College of Arts and Letters at Michigan State University.
