This article was downloaded by: [Kyungpook National University]

On: 16 March 2015, At: 15:58

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Integrating computer-mediated
communication strategy instruction
a

Levi McNeil
a

Graduate School of TESOL, Sookmyung Women's University,

Seoul, Republic of Korea
Published online: 15 Jul 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Levi McNeil (2014): Integrating computer-mediated communication strategy
instruction, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2014.935439
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.935439

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.935439

Integrating computer-mediated communication strategy instruction

Levi McNeil*

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Graduate School of TESOL, Sookmyung Womens University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Communication strategies (CSs) play important roles in resolving problematic second
language interaction and facilitating language learning. While studies in face-to-face
contexts demonstrate the benefits of communication strategy instruction (CSI), there
have been few attempts to integrate computer-mediated communication and CSI. The
study reported in this article examined the relationship between computer-mediated
CSI and CS use and types. It also investigated student perceptions of this form of
instruction. Two groups of students enrolled in the same undergraduate course at a
university in South Korea participated in the study. Over the course of one semester,
the Strategy Group (n D 11) participated in CSI, whereas the Comparison Group (n D
14) did not. Throughout the semester, students in both groups completed nine chatting
tasks, and transcripts from these sessions were analyzed to identify the frequency and
types of CSs employed. In addition to questionnaire data showing that the Strategy
Group perceived CSI favorably, the results show that the Strategy Group used
significantly more CSs than the Comparison Group, and that the two groups differed
in regards to specific strategies they employed. This study offers recommendations for
future research investigating CS use and the instructional components of CSI.
Keywords: communication strategies; strategy instruction; sociocultural theory; synchronous computer-mediated communication

Introduction
Findings from different lines of inquiry suggest that teaching communication strategies
(CSs) has the potential to facilitate second language (L2) learning and enhance learners
abilities to manage interaction. Although various definitions exist, there is general agreement in the literature that CSs function to avert or repair problematic communication,
and involve a degree of consciousness (Dornyei & Scott, 1997). Research exploring negotiation for meaning (Long, 1996), language-related episodes (Swain & Lapkin, 1998),
and assisted performance (Ohta, 2001) demonstrates that CSs employed during problematic communication, such as clarification request, circumlocution (i.e., describing the features of an unknown lexical item), and appeal for assistance, create conditions for
language learning.
A separate group of studies has investigated the direct teaching of CSs. These studies
show that communication strategy instruction (CSI) increases the frequency of strategy
use (Dornyei, 1995), contributes to speaking proficiency (Cohen, Weaver, & Li, 1996;
Nakatani, 2005, 2010), and enhances the quality of interaction (Bejarano, Levine,
Olshtain, & Steiner, 1997). While it would appear that arguments regarding the teachability of CSs raised in the 1990s (e.g., Dornyei, 1995; Yule & Tarone, 1997) have been at
least partially addressed, important questions remain. For example, little is known about
the situated nature of CS learning since studies investigating CSI have been carried out
*Email: levi.mcneil@gmail.com
2014 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

L. McNeil

from cognitive perspectives that focus on the accretion of metacognitive knowledge without accounting for how context supports strategy learning. A central goal of sociocultural
theory (Vygotsky, 1978) is to explain how higher mental functions, which include language-related strategies (Donato & McCormick, 1994), originate in social interaction.
Examining CSI from a sociocultural (SCT) perspective would shed light on what meditational tools support CS learning and how.
Since face-to-face (f2f) and CALL environments differ, sociocultural theory may be
particularly illuminative for CSI in CALL contexts. Researchers investigating learner learner interaction in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication
(SCMC) have begun to investigate CSs (Kost, 2008; Kotter, 2003; Lee, 2001, 2002;
Smith, 2003b), but these studies focus primarily on identifying and classifying the CSs
used. Thus, the literature is lacking models, descriptions, and data from studies attempting
to integrate CSI with CALL.
At first glance, SCMC seems well-suited for CSI since it shares many features with
oral conversation, while also allowing time for students to strategically construct their
messages. Moreover, transcripts from SCMC interaction offer opportunities for students
to reflect on their strategy use and for teachers to engage in dialogue with students about
this use. Some research, however, has indicated that the environmental constraints of
SCMC, such as reduced visual and auditory cues and increased processing time, limit the
use of CSs (Kim, 2012; Reinhardt, 2008; Smith, 2003a). It remains to be seen whether
and in what ways CALL fosters CS learning.
The current exploratory study aimed to address this gap by introducing CSI that
included SCMC components and examining its support of CS use. To do this, CS use was
compared across nine chatting tasks between two groups of students in the same undergraduate TESOL course; one participating in CSI, the Strategy Group, and one not receiving strategy instruction, the Comparison Group. Before describing the methodology,
results, and implications of this study, relevant literature is reviewed that frames CSs and
CSI within SCT, and highlights the potentially facilitating and debilitating roles of
SCMC in strategy use and instruction.
Literature review
Mediated strategy learning
To date, researchers have drawn from cognitive theories to guide the creation of CSI and
investigate its usefulness. Macaro (2001) states that, the study of strategies is linked to
the theory of cognition. Cognition is the way the brain holds information for short periods
of time, stores information, selects and retrieves information and processes information
(p. 22, emphasis added). While Macaro was not directly referring to CSs, the computational metaphor he describes has been applied throughout the CSI literature. In particular,
many researchers (e.g., Dornyei, 1995; Nakatani, 2005, 2010; Rossiter, 2003) draw upon
the construct of strategic competence. As one component in Canale and Swains (1980)
model of communicative competence, strategic competence was originally conceived as
the metacognitive ability to call upon strategies to compensate for communication breakdowns. While strategic competence has been redefined over the years (Bachman &
Palmer, 1996), metacognition remains at its core. According to Flavell (2000), metacognition involves thinking about thinking and includes peoples knowledge about the
nature of people as cognisers, about the nature of different cognitive tasks, and about possible strategies for coping with different tasks. It also includes executive skills for monitoring and regulating ones own cognitive activities (p. 16). Thus, metacognition

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

encompasses the components of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge that

allow learners to be aware of communication problems, the strategies available, and the
planning, execution, and evaluation of those strategies. From a cognitive perspective,
then, the task of developing strategic competence rests upon the minds ability to store,
retrieve, and process components of metacognitive knowledge.
The current investigation is also concerned with students abilities to regulate problematic L2 communication by drawing from and orchestrating strategies. However, this
study does not focus solely on the inner workings of the brain to theorize how strategies
are learned and used, but instead, the interconnectedness of mental functioning and the
material and social world. From an SCT perspective, higher mental functions (e.g., voluntary attention and memory, and language-related strategies) have their origins in social
activity, and SCT accounts for how these functions emerge. Lantolf (2006) explains why
examining the properties of the mind alone does not account for the development of
higher mental functions:
biologically determined mental systemsincluding memory, attention, and reflexes . . .are
reorganized into a new, uniquely human psychological system once humans encounter cultural
artifacts, activities, and concepts. . .These artifacts empower humans with the capacity to mediate and thus intentionally control their biologically endowed mental functions (Lantolf (2006)).
This means that humans are able to inhibit automatic reactions to stimuli. (p. 69)

This view maintains that strategic thought is fashioned and mediated by external cultural artifacts. Sources of mediation include objects (physical material that supports activity), people (knowledgeable peers, teachers, and parents), and symbols (signs that carry
meaning, such as language or math). It is interaction with the culturally ordered external
world that compelled Vygotsky (1978) to argue that higher mental functions first appear
interpsychologically before intrapsychologically. Learning CSs, therefore, is a process of
moving from other- to self-regulated performance.
Other-regulation occurs in collaborative action, where mediational tools give rise to a
shared negotiated space whereby more knowledgeable others support novices in ways
that enable them to participate in activities that are not otherwise possible. Through continued mediated participation over time, novices begin to utilize the same forms of
behavior that others formerly practiced (Vygotsky, 1966, pp. 39 40) so that novices
themselves increase their abilities to control performance, or self-regulate. Eventually,
external mediation is invisible and novices operate independently, although changes in
task difficulty may necessitate explicit forms of mediation once again. It is important to
realize that as novices move toward self-regulation, the quantity and quality of facilitative
mediation change. For novices unfamiliar with tasks, mediation begins overt and explicit
and sensitivity to less explicit forms indicates a shift in ability. Therefore, as Aljaafreh
and Lantolf (1994) explain, development is marked not only by producing accurate forms
or structures, or in the context of the current study, CSs, but also movement along the
explicit implicit mediation continuum that demonstrates less reliance on outside help.
It follows that CS instruction drawing from SCT would include mediational means
that are sensitive to the different levels of support students need. While the existing
research has made valuable contributions to the literature such as demonstrating that CSI
supports L2 speaking performance (Cohen et al., 1996; Nakatani, 2005, 2010), as well as
increases the frequency with which CSs are employed (Dornyei, 1995), responsive mediation is rarely theorized or described in these studies. Dornyei (1995), for example, argues
that CSI is most efficient if it is explicit (direct, informed) (p. 65). Direct instruction can
be helpful and is included as a component in some SCT-informed strategy interventions

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

L. McNeil

(e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984), but explicit instruction is just one level of mediation and
adjustments in the degrees of explicitness are needed for eventual self-regulation.
Other components included in CSI interventions (e.g., modeling and dialogue) are
forms of mediation that likely play significant roles in learning CSs. For instance, the participants in Bejarano et al.s (1997) study reviewed video performances and were
constantly made aware of the strategies they needed to use (p. 208). Additionally, discussion about student strategy use was a component of instruction reported in Dornyeis
(1995) study. It is well documented that dialogue is a potent source of mediation since it
is a space where useful assistance is negotiated among students and knowledgeable others
(McNeil, 2012; Swain, 2000).
In addition to oral dialogue, written objects and communication serve as mediation in
the development of strategies. In Nakatani (2005), students kept CS diaries that provided
prompts about CSs before, during, and after interaction. While these were not analyzed, it
is clear that they function to distribute cognition by, for example, dividing the task into
smaller parts, and reminding students to set goals and, of the strategic resources available,
to reach their goals. In investigating language learning strategies from an SCT perspective, Donato and McCormick (1994) provide evidence of the mediational role of journals.
Students participating in the study reflected upon their daily experiences and interactions
to document in journals how they used language learning strategies. Along with selfreflection, the journal served as a mediational tool where the instructor supported and
commented upon the strategies that learners used. By reporting that strategies were
learned without direct instruction, Donato and McCormicks study provides evidence that
other mediational tools, such as journals, play important roles in strategy learning. Donato
and McCormicks research, however, focused on language learning strategies, not specifically CSs, and while the strategy journals facilitated strategy learning, it was restricted to
only the strategies that students already used. Direct instruction would add the possibilities of expanding student strategic repertoires by exposing them to new ways of thinking
and dealing with situations. It is also important to note that their study, like the others
reviewed above, was carried out in an f2f context.
The differences between f2f and SCMC contexts cannot be overstated since the environment and forms of mediation within it play key roles in activity and learning. Therefore, while the f2f CSI literature presents several forms of mediation and documents the
overall success of CSI, SCMC contexts present both new CSI possibilities and challenges.
SCMC, communication strategy use, and instruction
A number of features make SCMC a potentially rich environment for CSI. For example,
SCMC shares many interactional features with f2f conversation (Kern, 1995), and learners use CSs in this environment to manage problematic communication (Kost, 2008;
Smith, 2003b). Other factors that can be seen as contributing to a case for using SCMC to
support CSI include: (1) the reduced audio-visual cues of SCMC might facilitate less reliance on non-verbal strategies (e.g., gestures); (2) the slower rate of interaction in SCMC
than in f2f (Beauvois, 1998) may provide learners time to strategically plan their actions;
and (3) the opportunities for self and collaborative reflection from the chat transcripts.
While SCMC appears to hold potential for CS instruction and learning, the medium
also presents a number of challenges. For instance, since SCMC affords increased processing time and the messages are written, it may support different types of strategies than
those included in f2f CSI. Face-to-face studies have incorporated compensatory strategies
such as approximation and circumlocution (e.g., Rossiter, 2003), and negotiation

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

strategies such as appeal for help and clarification request (e.g., Bejarano et al., 1997) into
instruction, but some SCMC literature suggests that these strategy types are affected by
the environment. For instance, in offering an explanation for the infrequent use of negotiation strategies in his study, Reinhardt (2008) suggests that the visual trace in SCMC
allow[s] the interlocutor unfamiliar with a vocabulary item time to notice, reread, contextualize, or perhaps even look a word up, without indicating that he or she did not
understand (p. 229). Furthermore, Smith (2003a) found that the participants in his study
employed strategies that precisely identified the problematic portions of their partners
chats (e.g., what does . . . mean?) rather than those that did not (e.g., I dont understand).
He attributes the use of explicit indicators to the absence of non-verbal cues and the additional number of conversational turns it takes to rectify problems identified less explicitly.
These studies raise the question of which CSs in SCMC are amenable to instruction.
Kims (2012) findings support the notion that SCMC shapes strategy use but also
underscores the need for CSI. Kim investigated how communication strategies differ in
f2f and SCMC. In pairs, 20 university EFL learners completed three different tasks in
both contexts. After collecting transcript and retrospective interview data, Kim found that
more strategies were used in f2f than SCMC, with the strategies of circumlocution, appeal
for assistance, and approximation being employed substantially more often in f2f communication. The interview data revealed that 70% of learners chose to avoid challenging or
unknown lexical6 syntactical items, topics, or concepts in SCMC than in f2f interaction.
From these findings, Kim argues that teachers need to encourage learners not to avoid
linguistic problems during SCMC and teach them strategies for negotiation that can be
used in SCMC (p. 15).
While f2f studies suggest that CSI can address this issue, it is not clear how SCMC
can be utilized in instruction or how it influences CS use. Direct instruction could be
offered through SCMC, but its synchronous nature limits teachers to times when either
all students are online or to multiple sessions for individuals or groups of students. Video
tutorials offer a practical solution to this limitation by being available anytime and outside
of class, and reports indicate that video tutorials regarding other types of strategies are
well received by students (Ranalli, 2009). Additionally, while SCMC affords opportunities to review transcripts, it does not directly offer features for students to engage in strategy reflection. Since wikis are asynchronous, editable spaces, they offer a collaborative
environment for teachers to guide CS reflection and tap the important benefits of reflection highlighted in the literature. Thus, while CALL seems to offer tools for CSI, it
remains unknown how computer-mediated CSI supports strategy learning. The current
study addressed this gap by asking three research questions:
(1) Do students participating in computer-mediated CSI use CSs in SCMC more frequently than students that do not participate in computer-mediated CSI?
(2) Do students participating in computer-mediated CSI use specific types of CSs
in SCMC more frequently than students that do not participate in computermediated CSI?
(3) What are students perceptions of computer-mediated CSI?
Methods
Participants
Two classes (N D 25) participated in the study, which were taught by the researcher. The
participants were freshmen university students enrolled in a TESOL undergraduate course

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

L. McNeil

(Multimedia in Language Education) in Seoul, South Korea. Although not all TESOL
major students become certified public school teachers after completing their degree,
most intend to teach language upon graduation. The aim of the course was to explore
ways to integrate multimedia into language teaching. For 15 weeks, each class met in a
computer lab twice per week for a total of three hours.
Most of the participants were female (24) and Korean nationals (19), although some
participants were from China (4), Japan (1), and France (1). During the first meeting, students completed a questionnaire regarding their chat experiences and skills. The results
showed that all 25 participants were comfortable chatting and used chat on a daily basis
in their L1, ranging from 30 minutes to 2 hours. Since participants used different chatting
programs, they were asked to sign up for Gmail chat and complete a 20-minute introductory task to become familiar with the program.
The classes were comparable in regards to English proficiency and CS use at the
beginning of the semester. These statistical comparisons, and all others in this study,
were made with the Mann Whitney U test, the non-parametric equivalent to a t-test. This
test was chosen because as a non-parametric test, it protects against normality issues associated with small sample sizes (Larson-Hall, 2010) and it is appropriate for the comparison of frequency data (Rossiter, 2003). As with t-tests, statistical significance for the
Mann Whitney U test is indicated by p values less than .05. A comparison of the scores
for the listening section of the Secondary Level English Proficiency Test (Educational
Testing Service [ETS], 2004) showed no differences between the classes at the p D .05
level (UD 57.5, z D 1.08, pD .291), and transcript data from the Week 2 chatting task
demonstrated that the classes did not differ statistically in regard to the total number of
CSs used before instruction began (U D 18, z D 4.35, p D .731).
At the end of Week 2, one class was selected as the Strategy Group (n D 11) and the
other class served as the Comparison Group (n D 14). This decision was based upon the
literature that suggests that CSs are used more in conversations between learners from
different cultures than those of the same culture (Kasper, 1997). Thus, to limit the possibility that differences in strategy use were attributed to this factor, the Strategy
Group was selected as such since it included less non-Korean participants (one) compared to the Comparison Group (five). To create an even number of pairs within the
Strategy Group, a sophomore TESOL student with similar L2 proficiency was
recruited as a chatting partner, but she did not participate in CSI and her data were
not analyzed.
Communication strategy instruction
Eight strategies were targeted for CSI and one strategy was introduced per week over the
course of the semester for the Strategy Group. The strategies (see Appendix 1 for descriptions and examples) consisted of two compensatory (i.e., circumlocution and approximation) and six negotiation strategies (i.e., appeal for help, comprehension check, repetition
request, clarification request, confirmation request, and non-understanding).
In accord with the tenets of SCT described earlier, the CSI aimed to provide mediation
that ranged in explicitness in order to support learners at different levels of strategic performance. These different levels of mediation were interwoven into three main CSI components video tutorials, chatting tasks, and strategy reflection. While the Comparison
Group participated in the in-class chatting tasks, they did not participate in the out-ofclass video tutorials or strategy reflection. Instead, this group was assigned readings from
TESOL methodology books.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

The video tutorials were created by the instructor6 researcher and posted online for the
Strategy Group. Students watched the videos outside of class. The 10 12 minute videos
consisted of a narrated recording of the instructors computer screen, which was done
with screen-capture software. Each video followed a similar structure: (1) the instructors
explanations about a specific strategy (a description of it, and when and why it should be
used); (2) example videos from the internet that illustrated CSs being used in communication, and commentary offered by the instructor; and (3) a situation in which the instructor
modeled use of the target CS and made his thought processes explicit via think-aloud.
While watching the tutorial, students completed two sections of a three-section strategy
journal, which was created on the course wiki for each student in the Strategy Group. The
first section required them to describe what the strategy was, and when and why it was
used. In the second section, students created sample dialogues incorporating the target
strategy.
The second component of CSI consisted of chatting tasks, which offered students
opportunities to use CSs in goal-directed activity. In class, once per week, students in
both groups formed pairs and were positioned on opposite sides of the computer lab to
complete a variety of chatting tasks. Of the 10 tasks completed (see Appendix 2 for
descriptions), six were taken from the literature and four were created by the researcher.
These tasks were selected because: (1) the literature shows that different task types facilitate the use of different CSs (e.g., Nakahama, Tyler, & van Lier, 2001; Smith, 2003b);
and (2) many of the participants will become language teachers, and situated learning
experiences help teachers develop CALL skills that can be transferred to their classrooms
(McNeil, 2013).
Due to absenteeism, school events, and tardiness, participants rotated chatting partners. Each session lasted approximately 15 minutes, and groups were instructed not to
use dictionaries or other outside resources. During this time, the instructor was available
to assist with technology problems. Once students completed the chatting tasks, they
immediately emailed their transcripts to the instructor.
The third component, strategy reflection, consisted of two parts. The first part was
completed in the third section of the strategy journal. This section asked students to selfreflect by reviewing their chat transcripts to identify and give examples of CSs that were
used or could have been used. In order to assist identification and highlight the link
between strategies and their functions, prompts were included in the journal, such as:
Were there times when you wanted to communicate an idea and didnt know how to say it
and used different words instead? Were there times when you wanted to communicate an
idea and didnt know how to say it and asked your partner for help? Identification and
reflection was further aided by a chart at the bottom of the journal that described each
strategy and gave examples.
The second part of strategy reflection included instructor support. The instructor
reviewed journals weekly and gave encouragement for successful strategy use and identification, and prompted students when they struggled to identify CSs by themselves.
This form of other-regulated assistance remained consistent throughout the semester and
consisted of copying and pasting a section of the transcript that appeared to include a
CS and then offering the questions: Is there a strategy being used here? If so, what is
it? How do you know? This was presented with the goal of estimating the minimum
level of guidance required by the novice to successfully perform a given task (Aljaafreh
& Lantolf, 1994, p. 468). The questions indicated to students that a CS was, from the
instructors perspective, used, but the strategy itself was not identified. If this assistance
was unsuccessful in supporting the identification of the strategy, it was left to the student

L. McNeil

to visit more explicit, asynchronous forms of mediation included in the CSI, such as the
video tutorials, or chart at the bottom of the journal to help them correctly identify the
strategy.
The three components of CSI, therefore, incorporated various and graduated forms of
mediation. More explicit forms, for example, included the explanations, models, and
think-alouds in the video, whereas examples of less explicit forms of mediation included
the chart, prompts, and instructors questions in strategy reflection.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Data collection and analyses

Transcript data from 9 of the 10 chat sessions were collected and analyzed to answer the
first two research questions. Transcripts from Week 2 served as baseline comparison data
regarding CS use, and thus were not included in the final comparisons of CS use. Since
the study aimed to compare the overall frequency of CS use and the frequency of particular CSs between the two groups, ratios of CS use to total turns of talk were calculated.
This procedure controls for uneven amounts of discourse (Smith, 2003a), which in the
current study equalized the uneven numbers of participants between the groups and incidental discrepancies in task time. Transcript analysis, therefore, involved four steps.
First, each transcript was read to determine the total turns of talk produced by each
dyad per session. Then, transcripts were reread to identify the eight CSs that were
included in the CSI. A coding sheet was used to identify CSs, which was an adapted version of Dornyei and Scotts (1997) widely used classification scheme.
This scheme was adapted in three main ways. First, changes were made to reflect sensitivity to CSI. The phrases and stems offered in the CSI were factors in coding some
CSs. For instance, Dornyei and Scott code statements such as What do you mean? or
question repeats as clarification requests. However, in the current study, students were
instructed that clarification requests identify specific parts of an utterance that need clarification, in which case What do you mean? would be general non-understanding, and be
coded under the strategy of non-understanding. Additionally, whereas question repeats by
themselves were coded as clarification requests, question repeats that included an additional question for more information were coded as appeals for help since students were
instructed to specifically ask for the meanings of words they did not understand.
Second, since coding compensatory strategies by form alone makes it difficult to distinguish them between instances of strategy use and incorrect or awkward language use,
these strategies were coded only if they were flagged in the discourse. Wagner and Firth
(1997) argue that CSs are available to the analyst only to the extent that they have been
produced and reacted upon by the parties to talk (p. 326). Commonly used flags in the
current study consisted of either disruption markers, such as ?, . . . , um, or TT (a symbol
often used among Korean students to express sadness), or appeals for help occurring
immediately before or after a compensatory strategy.
Finally, the coding scheme reflected the SCMC context in which CS use occurred.
Due to the asymmetrical nature of turn taking in SCMC, where lines of discourse may
pass before learners clarify or confirm meaning, it was appropriate to adopt Williams,
Inscoe, and Taskers (1997) approach of identifying negotiation strategies not only from
the previous utterance but from any preceding discourse. The researcher and a second
coder uninvolved with the study coded all transcripts independently. Interrater reliability
was .83 and discrepancies were resolved through discussion to reach agreement.
In the third step of transcript analysis, the number and type of CSs used per group
across the semester was totaled and then divided by the turns of talk for each group to

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

compute CS use ratios. Finally, these ratios were compared between the groups using
Mann Whitney U tests.
In order to answer research question 3, a strategy instruction questionnaire (SIQ) was
created and used to tap students perspectives of CSI. The SIQ was given at the end of the
semester and included seven items that asked students to respond anonymously to the
CSI overall (items 1, 6, and 7) and to its main components
video tutorials (item 2),
chatting tasks (items 3 and 4), and strategy reflection (item 5). The SIQ was provided to
the students in Korean and English and they were invited to respond in either language,
although all students elected to respond in English.
Data from the SIQ were analyzed in two ways which reflected the nature of the SIQ
items. Since most SIQ items were presented in a yes6 no and why format, yes6 no
responses were first counted and summed. Then, why responses within each yes or no category were pooled and analyzed following Bogdan and Biklens (2006) coding method.
These responses were first read for open-coding that produced emergent categories and
served as a primary framework for initial coding. Initial categories were revised during
later rounds of analyses until they consistently accounted for the data.

Results
Strategy use
Research question one asked if students participating in CSI more frequently used CSs in
SCMC than students who did not participate in CSI. Figure 1 presents the weekly CS use
of both groups throughout the semester. Overall data for both groups show that CS use
fluctuated on a weekly basis. This indicates that different tasks influence strategy use,
thus confirming similar reports of task effects in the literature (Smith, 2003b). Examining
the differences in strategy use between the groups for each week, we see that in Week 2,
the week before CSI began, and in Week 3, the Comparison Group used slightly more
CSs than the Strategy Group. In Week 5, the Strategy Group employed a greater number
of CSs than the Comparison Group, a trend that continued for seven of the next eight
weeks, including Week 14, which was two weeks after CSI finished.

Figure 1. A comparison of CS use between groups throughout the semester.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

10

L. McNeil

Figure 2. A comparison of strategy types between groups.

Excluding pre-CSI data from Week 2, CS use between the two groups was compared.
The results show a difference between the groups statistically significant at p < .05 (UD
1310, z D 1.97, pD .049), with the Strategy Group (M D .15, SD D .13) employing
more CSs than the Comparison Group (M D .10, SD D .10). Since the groups differed in
the numbers of non-Korean participants, an additional comparison between the groups
was made that included data from Korean Korean dyads only. The results of this analysis also show a significant difference between the groups (UD 542, z D 2.12, pD .034),
indicating that the Strategy Group used more CSs than the Comparison Group.

Strategy types
Research question two asked if there were differences in the specific types of CSs used
between groups of students that participated in CSI and those that did not. This question
was answered by first comparing visually the frequency ratios of each strategy between
the two groups. Figure 2 shows how often different CSs were used for each group.
Figure 2 shows that, aside from non-understanding, the Strategy Group used more of
each CS type than the Comparison Group. The most salient differences between the
groups were for the strategies of approximation, appeal for help, and confirmation
request. These three strategies were compared with Mann Whitney U tests, with alpha
levels adjusted for Bonferonni correction. The results show that the groups did not differ
statistically for the use of approximation (UD 1454, z D 1.51, pD .130) and confirmation request (UD 1435, z D 1.31, pD .191). However, a significant difference was found
between the groups for the appeal for help strategy (UD 1339.5, z D 3.44, pD .001).

Student perceptions of CSI

Research question three asked about student perceptions of computer-mediated CSI. This
question was answered with data from the SIQ. Table 1 presents each SIQ item, the number of yes6 no responses, and the commonly reported reasons for yes6 no answers. It

Computer Assisted Language Learning

11

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Table 1. Student perceptions of CSI and its components.

SIQ item

Yes

No

1. Do you think the communication

strategy instruction helped improve
your English communication skills?
Why or why not?
Commonly cited reasons

10

2. Do you feel that the strategy videos

helped you understand what
communication strategies are? Why
or why not?
Commonly cited reasons

3. Do you feel that the chatting tasks

helped you understand how to use
communication strategies?
Commonly cited reasons

4. Did you think about using

communication strategies during the
chatting tasks? If so, how often?
Commonly cited reasons
5. Did the feedback in your strategy
journal help you identify strategies
you used? Why or why not?
Commonly cited reasons

6. What did you find most useful about

the communication strategy
instruction?
Commonly cited reasons

7. What did you find least useful about

the strategy instruction?
Commonly cited reasons

 Know how to overcome

problems
 More skillful
conversation
9

Not new concept

 Examples shown

Same information
provided on wiki

 Definitions
10

 Used CS in real
situations
 Made aware of problems
10

Used different strategy in

chat than one in video

 All the time6 often

 Not at first but did later
9

Realized after chatting

 Wouldnt have known

without it
 Used strategy next time

Confused

 Knowing specific
strategies
 More successful
communication

 Differences between
strategies
 Could not always see
strategy used in video
example
 Strategy journal difficult
to complete

12

L. McNeil

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

shows that students perceived the CSI positively both in regards to its role in improving
their overall English communication abilities (item 1) and to each of its components
(items 2, 3, and 5). Responses to each of these items show an overwhelming number of
yes responses, with yes being indicated by no less than nine students per item. A similar
response pattern is observed for item 4, which showed that most students thought about
CSs during chatting tasks.
Discussion
This study investigated the relationship between CSI and the overall use and specific
types of CSs employed in SCMC. In regard to general CS use, this study found that participating in computer-mediated CSI was associated with more frequent CS use in SCMC.
This finding confirms f2f CSI research reporting on the relationship between instruction
and CS use (Bejarano et al., 1997; Cohen et al., 1996; Dornyei, 1995; Lam, 2010;
Nakatani, 2005; Rossiter, 2003).
While the current study confirms previous literature, it also contributes theoretically to
the exploration of CSI by situating strategy learning in context. Previous f2f studies have
framed CSI from cognitivist positions that valorize the abilities of the autonomous mind
to learn strategies. Indeed, some may misinterpret bits of data from the SIQ as evidence
suggesting that students acquired by themselves the metacognitive knowledge needed to
use CSs. Statements in the responses below, such as I could understand; I . . . realize; and
I could know, appear to exemplify this point.
With strategy videos, I could understand the definition of each strategy and videos which
showed examples of strategies was really helpful.
I try to use strategy in chatting, and realize that it makes me continue the chatting.
Through chatting tasks, I could know about my shortage during conversation.

However, from a SCT perspective that conceptualizes CS learning as a mediated process, these responses positioned within the larger body of data demonstrate the facilitative
roles of other-regulation in a struggle to gain self-regulation of CSs.
SIQ data suggest that the strategy-reflection component of CSI provided an important
source of other-regulation. On a weekly basis, students were asked to review the transcripts from their SCMC interactions and reflect and provide evidence of CS use. In some
cases, the self-reflective process of reading transcripts and responding to the prompts on
the strategy journal appeared to assist in raising strategy awareness. For example, one student stated that she did not recognize CSs when she used them but later when I checked,
I realized I was using them without realizing. This suggests that although CS forms were
evident in the transcript data, they were not always applied as psychological tools to
direct thinking during SCMC interaction. While some might argue that this lack of awareness was due to CSs being automatized, item 4 on the SIQ suggests that this was not the
case. In addition to 10 of the 11 students in the Strategy Group stating that they often
thought about CSs during chatting tasks, other comments show that using CSs was effortful and in competition with other actions Sometimes, I couldnt chat freely because of
using strategy; Due to too short time limits, I sometimes focused on the task what I have
to do, not on the strategies. Thus, self-reflection with the journal was a level of mediation
that aided student recognition and awareness of CSs.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

13

For other students, though, it was clear that they could not identify their own CS use
with assistance from the transcripts and prompts. These cases explain why students found
the instructor feedback on the journals valuable (SIQ item 5). Participants remarked that
it helped me realize parts I had not known were strategy and because if it werent to
be pointed out, then I wouldve never known. The instructor student interaction from
the strategy journal pasted in Figure 3 captures how, as Lantolf (2006) explains, mediation reorganizes attentional foci. The example includes two exchanges from the same
task in which students were spotting differences in the pictures they had. In the first
exchange, SK all names and chat IDs changed to protect the identities of the participants attempted to ask her partner if a drawer was open in her picture, but instead of
using drawer, she typed shelf. In the second, exchange, SK used the word carpet to
refer to a rug. On the strategy journal, the instructor pasted parts of the transcript and
asked SK if strategies were being used.
This interaction is interesting in a number of ways. First, in Exchange 1, SK states
Im not sure when asked if there was a strategy used. Then, when replying to the second
and third questions, but, . . ., maybe, and actually indicate that SK is thinking through the
example and trying to see where a strategy was used, or perhaps, why the instructor would
suggest there was a strategy in the transcript. She states that approximation was used. In

Figure 3. Other-regulation through the strategy journal.

14

L. McNeil

addition to showing her thinking in response to the instructors question, Exchange 1 is

important from a theoretical standpoint. In Exchange 2, SK, for the first time in her journal, correctly identifies approximation without questions from the instructor. The significance of such interactions contributing to CS use is further evidenced by student
comments:
Next time I become to use strategy on purpose.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

At first I didnt mind about strategy but as time goes by I become to consider it.

These comments, along with the evidence from the journal, lend support to
Vygotskys (1978) claim that higher mental functions appear first interpsychologically
then intrapsychologically.
Although in many instances the instructor-posed questions on the strategy journal
offered assistance that supported strategy performance, there were times when this assistance was not explicit enough to help, a point that is reflected in the students confusion
regarding some of the feedback. Students noted, for example, that finding out whether I
used is right strategy or not is confusing, I felt confusing with the question with the
intention of questions, and sometimes cant understand why I did wrong, so, I think
some explanations are necessary. The data discussed here, then, highlight different levels of mediation in CS learning. Additionally, while data illuminating the roles of otherregulation help explain the finding that CS use was supported by CSI, it also shows the
dangers in relying on transcript data alone since it struggles to offer clues regarding
students intentional CS use.
Additionally, the current study found that CSI was associated with greater use of specific CS types, which also extends the CS literature. Compared to the Comparison Group,
the Strategy Group more frequently employed approximation, appeal for help, and confirmation request CSs. CS types were investigated because previous literature suggested
that features of SCMC facilitate and constrain certain strategies, which made it unclear as
to which strategies CSI would benefit. Smith (2003a), for example, found that students
more often use CSs that specifically mark problematic portions of utterances and suggested that this was due to the SCMC medium. Additionally, Kim (2012) reported that
rather than attempting to talk around linguistic problems using compensatory strategies
such as approximation and circumlocution, many students avoided them in SCMC altogether. Data from this study shed light on the issue of which strategies might be considered for CSI aimed at CS use in SCMC.
Figure 2 shows that both groups used the same two strategies, clarification and confirmation request, most frequently. These strategies explicitly point out difficult sections of
discourse, and thus these data support Smiths (2003a) assertion that explicit strategies
appear often in SCMC. However, considering that the Strategy Group used more of these
two strategies, and other strategies that explicitly identify parts of problematic discourse,
CSI appears to promote a greater awareness for the need to be explicit in SCMC. Data
showing that the Strategy Group used fewer less-explicit non-understanding strategies
than the Comparison Group, and further, infrequently employed repetition request, support this point. As Smith (2003a) argues, one reason users avoid less-explicit strategies is
because solving communication marked this way involves a greater number of turns. In
regard to repetition request, it may also be that since messages in chat remain visible on
the screen, asking someone to repeat what was said is redundant in SCMC. An exchange
between students in this study illustrates this redundancy. When one participant requested

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

15

repetition, her partner replied, scroll up. Therefore, data from this study suggest that
instruction including less-explicit strategies such as non-understanding and repetition
request may not be useful for SCMC-based communication, although this needs to be
confirmed through more research.
Compensatory strategies appeared less affected by the medium. Data showed the
Strategy Group used approximation and circumlocution 50% more frequently than the
Comparison Group (3.7% vs. 2.1%). This finding is significant in two regards. First, in
light of Kims (2012) findings mentioned previously, it suggests that CSI empowers students to take linguistic risks instead of avoiding them. Second, these strategies can, like
negotiation strategies, attract linguistic assistance, a critical condition for language learning (Ohta, 2001). The example below illustrates how employing circumlocution (line 2)
to address linguistic difficulties holds potential for L2 development.
je3: the very left side
big. . ... something that put many many books. . ..
me: shelf?
je3: yes!!!!!!!!!

Instances such as these, as well as the data showing increased CS use, help explain the
finding that students perceived the CSI helpful for their communicative abilities. Students
responded on the SIQ that CSI assisted them in developing tools to overcome and manage
problematic L2 interaction, which is reflected in these responses:
I could use those strategies in my own conversations. I could speak what I want to say in
more effective and natural way.
I could use more skills during my communication more than before and could know how to
communicate.

This finding confirms reports in the f2f literature (Cohen et al., 1996; Dornyei, 1995;
Rossiter, 2003) that students view CSI positively.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
The exploratory nature and limitations of this study need to be considered when interpreting the findings. The CSI in this study was designed to offer various levels of regulation
that students could access at their discretion. While the SIQ data provided some insights
into how components of CSI functioned as other-regulation, it was not able to show a progression from more to less explicit forms of regulation. Fischer (2007) argues that
researchers need to understand students use of the computer in order to substantiate theoretical claims, and this stands for SCT researchers investigating computer-mediated CSI.
Capturing students use and thoughts of CSI components with introspective and retrospective think-aloud protocols and screen-capture data will not only enable researchers to
establish a firmer theoretical link between instruction as mediation and the use of CSs,
but also inform CSI designers of components that need modification. For example, it is
not clear whether and how students accessed other CSI components when they felt confused by instructor feedback in the strategy journal. If more explicit forms of regulation
were consulted, then fewer changes to the feedback in the journal component would be
needed. However, if students did not revisit other CSI material, then one way of

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

16

L. McNeil

addressing confusing online journal feedback would be to draw from Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) and create a feedback scale that orders prompts from least to most explicit.
Then, instructors would calibrate feedback based upon student actions following the first
round of feedback. Thus, future research exploring how CSI components are used is
needed.
Additionally, this study was limited by transcript data. As mentioned earlier, transcript data by itself makes it difficult to determine intentionality. Flags in the discourse
helped identify compensatory strategies in this study, but future studies should add thinkaloud protocols to help identify negotiation strategies. The demographics of the participants and sample size were also limitations. While the literature suggests that CSI positively influences both female only (Nakatani, 2005) and mixed gender groups (e.g.,
Cohen et al., 1996), and thus lessens concerns related to the gender of the participants in
this study, the fact they were pre-service teachers enrolled as TESOL majors may have
played a role in their receptiveness to CSI and the types of strategies they employed.
Moreover, the small number of participants limited the statistical power to compare CS
use on a weekly basis. Combined use of CSs across tasks provides one indication of the
relationship between CSI and strategy use, but larger numbers of participants would allow
for comparisons between groups for each task. Furthermore, as a reviewer pointed out,
having the Comparison Group read about CS in some capacity, rather than reading methodology books, could have narrowed the differences in CS use between the groups.
Finally, this study investigated a limited number of strategies. Different taxonomies (e.g.,
Dornyei & Scott, 1997) showcase the variety of problem-managing devices available,
and later research needs to include more strategies as well as to qualitatively examine discourse to identify how other forms unique to SCMC (e.g., emoticons) function as CSs.
Future research will likely offer further insight about issues related to the complex
interplay between strategy instruction, the SCMC environment, and strategy use discussed above. This study investigated the relationship between computer-mediated CSI
and the frequency and types of CSs, in addition to students perceptions of this instruction. The findings indicate that the students participating in CSI used significantly more
and different types of CSs as compared to students who did not participate in CSI. Additionally, students perceptions of computer-mediated CSI were positive. Thus, drawing
from SCT to provide different levels of activity and support, this study offers educators a
model to integrate CSI with CALL in order to prepare students with CSs for SCMC.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments.

Funding
This study was supported by Sookmyung Womens University [Research Grant 2012].

Notes on contributor
Levi McNeil (PhD, Washington State University) is an associate professor in the Graduate School
of TESOL at Sookmyung Womens University. His research interests include CALL teacher education, and language and strategy learning at the person environment interface in computer-mediated
activity. His work has appeared in Language Learning and Technology, ReCALL, System, and The
Modern Language Journal, among others.

Computer Assisted Language Learning

17

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J.P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning
in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465 483.
Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Beauvois, M. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198 217.
Bejarano, Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies:
Creating a framework for improved small-group communicative interaction in the language
classroom. System, 25(2), 203 214.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group.
Bowles, M.A. (2011). Exploring the role of modality: L2-Heritage learner interactions in the Spanish language classroom. Heritage Language Journal, 8(1), 30 65.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1 47.
Chen, F.J. (2007). The L2 acquisition of information sequencing in Chinese: The case of English
CSL learners in Taiwan. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4(2), 170 191.
Cohen, A.D., Weaver, S.J., & Li, T.Y. (1996). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language (Research Report). Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on
Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Donato, R., & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies:
The role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 453 464.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55 85.
Dornyei, Z., & Scott, M.L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and
taxonomies. Language Learning, 47(1), 173 210.
Educational Testing Service. (2004). SLEP Test form 5. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409 442.
Flavell, J.H. (2000). Development of childrens knowledge about the mental world. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(1), 15 23.
Kasper, G. (1997). Beyond reference. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 345 360). London: Longman.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity
and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457 476.
Kim, H.Y. (2012). Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and
face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning (Advance online publication),
doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.692386
Kost, C.R. (2008). Use of communication strategies in a synchronous CMC environment. In S.S.
Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse Online (pp. 153 189). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Kotter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and code switching in online tandems. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 145 172.
Lam, Y.K. (2010). Implementing communication strategy instruction in the ESL oral classroom:
What do low-proficiency learners tell us? TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 11 30.
Lantolf, J. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67 109.
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of
Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232 244.
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30, 275 288.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C.
Ritchie, & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413 468). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in second and foreign language classrooms. London:
Continuum.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

18

L. McNeil

McNeil, L. (2012). Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 396 404.
McNeil, L. (2013). Exploring the relationship between situated activity and CALL learning in
teacher education. ReCALL, 25(2), 215 232.
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversation and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377 405.
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use.
Modern Language Journal, 89, 76 91.
Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners oral communication: A
classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94,
116 136.
Ohta, A.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117 175.
Ranalli, J. (2009). Prospects for developing L2 students effective use of vocabulary-learning strategies via web-based training. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 161 186.
Reinhardt, J. (2008). Negotiating meaningfulness: An enhanced perspective on interaction in
computer-mediated foreign language learning environments. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating
discourse online (pp. 219 244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rossiter, M. (2003). Its like a chicken but bigger: Effects of communication strategy in the ESL
classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(2), 105 121.
Smith, B. (2003a). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern
Language Journal, 87(1), 38 57.
Smith, B. (2003b). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29 53.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative
dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.
97 114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320 337.
Toth, P.D. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing
procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2),
237 283.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1966). Development of the higher mental functions. In A. Leontiev, A. Luria, & A.
Smirnov (Eds.), Psychological Research in the USSR (pp. 11 46). Moscow: Progress
Publishing.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, J., & Firth, A. (1997). Communication strategies at work. In G. Kasper, & E. Kellerman
(Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp.
323 344). New York, NY: Addition Wesley Longman.
Williams, J., Inscoe, R., & Tasker, T. (1997). Communication strategies in an interactional context:
The mutual achievement of comprehension. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies (pp. 304 322). Essex: Longman.
Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1997). Investigating communication strategies in L2 reference: Pros and
Cons. In G. Kasper, & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and
sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 17 30). London: Longman.

Computer Assisted Language Learning

19

Appendix 1. Descriptions and examples of the CSs included in the instruction

Strategy

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Circumlocution

Approximation

Appeal for help

Comprehension
check

Repetition request

Clarification
request

Confirmation
request

Description

Examples

Student: . . .I dont know exact word. . .there is a

equipment that can be used to cut woods or
other things. (target item D chainsaw).
Student: her face is toward bottom and her legs
are fly (?) we did when we are young child
(target item D handstand).
Student: TT sorry
sometimes we eat its egg
not chicken
very big and has a long legs (target item D
ostrich).
Student: two pineapple is on the. . .. . .train
Employing for the target
item a semantically
road. . ... (target item D train tracks).
similar alternative.
Student: On the left side of the desk, I have dogs
necktie (?.) (target item D leash).
Student: and at the left side of the saw, there are
two animals, and two men is riding it.
but i dont know the name of the animals.. (target
item D ostrich).
Prompting help from a co- Student: how to say.. that. . .. bananas. . . the
cover. . .
participant by directly
asking for assistance in Student: how can I say? the chunk?
Student: Is that word microscope?
comprehension or
Student A: there is a vending machine
production.
Student B: vending machine? what is that?
Student: there is sthbut i dont know how i can call
it in eng
Student: um what did you say this thing?
Student: do you know what i mean?
Asking questions to
Student: Did you understand what Im saying?
ensure that the
Student: did you get that?
co-participant
Student: are u following me?
understands.
Explicitly asking a
Student: can you rephrase that where is the chair?
co-participant to repeat Student: Repeat that please?
what was said.
Student A: they are on those birds
Explicitly requesting
elaboration of a specific Student B: on those birds?
item6 structure from of Student A: they look like professional
competitors
a previous utterance.
Student B: competitors?
Student A: and also, next table, there is a melon
Student B: green meln or apple?
Student A: And on the corner, below left corner,
there is a pic of an Korean wood god
Student B: Koreanwood god?
Asking a co-participant to Student A: in my pic she stands with hands on
ground
verify that
Student B: you mean upside-down?
understanding is
shared.
Student A: The forest is back of the picture.
Describing the
characteristics of the
target item.

(continued)

20

L. McNeil

Appendix 1. (Continued)
Strategy

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:58 16 March 2015

Nonunderstanding

Description

Expressing general
confusion or nonunderstanding with
something that was
said.

Examples
Student B: Background is forest?
Student A: but there is no place for bookshelves
Student B: You mean the furniture that keeps
book?
Student: What do you mean?
Student: what?
Student: uhm. . .i cannot get that. . .
Student: Sorry, I didnt understand well
Student:?????????

Appendix 2. Strategies targeted per week and descriptions of tasks

Strategy lesson6 week
of semester

Strategy introduced

No Lesson Week 2

None

Strategy Lesson 1
Week 3

Circumlocution

Strategy Lesson 2
Week 5

Appeal for help

Strategy Lesson 3
Week 6
Strategy Lesson 4
Week 7
Strategy Lesson 5
Week 9
Strategy Lesson 6
Week 10
Strategy Lesson 7
Week 11

Confirmation request

Strategy Lesson 8
Week 12
No Lesson
Week 14

Non-understanding

Approximation
Comprehension check
Repetition request
Clarification request

None

Task description
Students exchange information about reasons to
use games in language teaching, and then rank
those reasons (Author).
Students look at a movie schedule and then
decide which movie to see, and when and
where to watch it (Author).
Students hold different scenes of a picture story
and work together to recreate it (Smith,
2003b).
Students compare differences between two
similar, but different pictures (Toth, 2008).
One student has a picture and describes it, the
other student draws (Author).
Students compare differences between two
similar, but different pictures (Author).
Students hold different scenes of a picture story
and work together to recreate it (Chen, 2007).
Students compare differences between two
similar, but different pictures (Nakahama et al.,
2001).
One student has a picture and describes it, the
other student draws (Author).
Students compare differences between two
similar, but different pictures (Bowles, 2011).