Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CMC vs. F2F: Discourse and Participation Styles of Different Language Learners

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning

  • 615 Accesses

Abstract

It is pertinent to understand learners’ individual differences in accomplishing a certain task or goal and identify the facilities or environments that would enable them to learn and use the target language in different contexts more effectively. As both face-to-face (F2F) and online discussions are deemed relevant in the contemporary learning and teaching scenario, individuals need to be aware of the particular affordances that could be supported in CMC or F2F environments with attention paid to one’s individual differences. This chapter looks into the differences in the participation styles of learners who have different personalities and levels of language proficiency in different discussion settings. In addition, the lexical complexity and interactive competence displayed by different language learners in F2F and online discussions are discussed. Lastly, this chapter explains the influence of group composition on group discussions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aravind, B. R., & Rajasekaran, V. (2020). A qualitative research through an emerging technique to improve vocabulary for ESL learners. International Journal of Emerging Technologies, 11(2), 441–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariza, E. N., & Hancock, S. (2003). Second language acquisition theories as a framework for creating distance learning courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2) Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/142/710

  • Arslanyilmaz, A. (2012). An online task-based language learning environment: Is it better for advanced- or intermediate-level second language learners? The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekar, M., & Christiansen, M. S. (2018). Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). In J. I. Liontas, T. International Association, & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, A. D. (2003). Assessing participant learning in online environment. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui, G. (2019). Influence of learners’ prior knowledge, L2 proficiency and pre-task planning on L2 lexical complexity. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (published online ahead of print 2019). https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0244

  • Chen, S., & Caropreso, E. J. (2004). Influence of personality on online discussion. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(2) Retrieved from www.ncolr.org/

  • Chew, S. Y. (2013). Lexical complexity, interactive competence and participation style of ESL learners in face-to-face and online discussions. PhD thesis, University of Malaya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2016). The relevance of personality and language proficiency on the participation style of ESL learners in face-to-face and online discussions. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0288-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2021). Personality and language proficiency on ESL learners’ word contributions in face-to-face and synchronous online forums. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(1), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp199-221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of Interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, K., Hunter, L., & Pressman, P. (2019). P-hacking lexical richness through definitions of “type” and “token”. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 264, 1433–1434. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collentine, K. (2009). Learner use of holistic language units in multimodal, task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 68–87. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num2/collentine.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Daele, S. V. (2005). The effect of extraversion on L2 oral proficiency. Retrieved from www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no24/vandaele.htm.

  • Dendy, C. B. (2019). Online or face-to-face? A study of communication education modalities among non-traditional students (Order No. 27668963). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2354087454). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.um.edu.my:2048/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/2354087454?accountid=28930

  • Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the eysenck personality questionnaire (adult and junior). London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foncha, J., & Mafumo, T. (2017). The use of mixed ability grouping in language FET classrooms: Language learning as co-construction of knowledge. Journal of Educational Studies, 16, 126–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on corrective feedback and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction. System, 29(2), 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, Y. J. (2018). The role of socially-mediated alignment in the development of second language grammar and vocabulary: Comparing face-to-face and synchronous mobile-mediated communication. PhD thesis, Georgia State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurin, R. R., Roush, D., & Danter, J. (2010). Environmental communication: Skills and principles for natural resource managers, scientists and engineers (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 423–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (2000). Psychotherapy for children and adolescents: Directions for research and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kow, Y. C. (2012). Putting second language acquisition theories into practice: A case study. In Zuraidah Mohd Don (Ed)., English in multicultural Malaysia: Pedagogy and applied research (pp. 15–30). Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapadat, J. C. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewen, S., & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia, Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, P., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Affect: The role of language anxiety and other emotions in language learning. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning (pp. 103–118). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137032829_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marjanovic, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurino, P. (2006). Participation and online interaction: F2F vs. online. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(4), 257–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirzaei, S., & Hayati, A. F. (2018). Effects of the computer mediated communication interaction on vocabulary improvement. Telkomnika, 16(5), 2217–2225. https://doi.org/10.12928/TELKOMNIKA.v16i5.10195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, I. B. (2003). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers–Briggs type indicator (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers–Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naik, A. (2010). Introvert vs Extrovert. Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/introvert-vs-extrovert.html

  • Opt, S. K., & Loffredo, D. A. (2000). Rethinking communication apprehension: A Myers–Briggs perspective. The Journal of Psychology, 134(5), 556–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford, R. L. (1993). Style analysis survey (SAS): Assessing your own learning and working styles. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 208–215). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pino-Pasternak, D., Whitebread, D., & Neale, D. (2018). The role of regulatory, social, and dialogic dynamics on young children’s productive collaboration in group problem solving. In V. Grau & D. Whitebread (Eds.), Relationships between Classroom Dialogue and Support for Metacognitive, Self-Regulatory Development in Educational Contexts. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 162, 41–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaed, S., & Mohammed, A. (2020). The effect of using discussion boards on EFL writing classes: An action research case study. Academic Journal of Nawroz University, 9(3), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.25007/ajnu.v9n3a773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. (2006). Oxford WordSmith tools manual version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.lexically.net/downloads/version4/wordsmith.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaari, A. H. (2020). Accentuating illocutionary forces: Emoticons as speech act realization strategies in a multicultural online communication environment. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 26, 135–155. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2020-2601-10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shehni, M. C., & Khezrab, T. (2020). Review of literature on learners’ personality in language learning: Focusing on extrovert and introvert learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(11), 1478–1483. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1011.20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton Century Croft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2020). Personality styles: Why they matter in the workplace. Economic Alternatives, 1, 148–163. https://doi.org/10.37075/EA.2020.1.08

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ting, S.-H., Soekarno, M., & Lee, P.-Y. (2017). Communication strategy use and proficiency level of ESL learners. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 14(1), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.1.11.162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tohver, G. C. (2020). Extraversion, personality correlates of. In B. J. Carducci, C. S. Nave, A. Fabio, D. H. Saklofske, & C. Stough (Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118970843.ch204

  • Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 101–124. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/67664/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. L. (2020). Extraversion–Introversion. In B. J. Carducci, C. S. Nave, J. S. Mio, & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547143.ch28

  • Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiser, O., Blau, I., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2018). How do medium naturalness, teaching–learning interactions and students’ personality traits affect participation in synchronous E-learning? The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitlock, Q. (2001). Course design for online learning–what’s gone wrong? In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogy for new technologies (pp. 182–194). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth, K. F. (2009). The discussion forum as a locus for developing L2 pragmatic awareness. In L. B. Abraham & L. Williams (Eds.), Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching (pp. 11–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, S. J. (2001). Researching Internet Interaction: Sociolinguistics and corpus analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.) Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 93–146). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaid, S. B., Zakaria, M. H., Rashid, R. A., & Ismail, N. S. (2016). An examination of negotiation process among ESL learners in higher institution. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(6), 228–234.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Shin Yi Chew & Lee Luan Ng

Authors
  1. Shin Yi Chew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lee Luan Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chew, S.Y., Ng, L.L. (2021). CMC vs. F2F: Discourse and Participation Styles of Different Language Learners. In: Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-67424-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-67425-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation