DOI: 10.1002/tesj.

446

E M P I R I CA L F E AT U R E A RT I C L E

Negotiation of meaning by mixed-­proficiency dyads

in face-­to-­face and synchronous computer-­mediated
communication

Arezoo Moradi | Mohammad Taghi Farvardin

Department of ELT, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic

Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
Few studies have compared the nature of negotiation of
meaning across face-­ to-­
face (FTF) and synchronous
computer-­mediated communication (SCMC) modes with
mixed-­proficiency dyads. Such comparisons can help iden-
tify important strengths and weaknesses of each mode.
Therefore, this study explored whether FTF and SCMC
modes differ in terms of frequency and quality of negotia-
tions of meaning in English as a foreign language (EFL)
learners’ interaction in mixed-­proficiency dyads. To this
end, 32 EFL learners at elementary and upper-­intermediate
levels were assigned to 16 mixed-­proficiency dyads to per-
form two information gap tasks (i.e., spot the differences
task and jigsaw task). The participants’ interactions in both
modes were coded based on Varonis and Gass’s (1985)
model of negotiation routines and Long’s (1980) negotia-
tion moves. The participants’ interactions in each mode
were coded. The results show no significant differences be-
tween the frequency of negotiations in both modes.
However, the results were controversial regarding the qual-
ity of negotiations. The quality of negotiation routines was
examined by the number of indicators leading to modified
output, which revealed that mode of interaction influenced
the quality of negotiations and more modified output was
produced in the SCMC mode than the FTF mode.

TESOL Journal. 2019;e446. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tesj © 2019 TESOL International | 1 of 17

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.446 Association
2 of 17
|    MORADI and FARVARDIN

1 | IN T RO D U C T ION

Long (1980, 1996) proposed the interaction hypothesis, arguing that negotiation of meaning facili-
tates second and foreign language learning by providing opportunity for learners to receive corrective
feedback (CF). Peer interaction during pair and small-­group communicative activities is believed to
provide second language (L2) learners with learning opportunities in the form of CF and discussion
about language form (Adams, 2006) as learners work together to maximize their own and each other’s
learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2008). When interactants notice lack of comprehensibility, they send
signals as CF to the learner indicating that his or her utterance was not correct (Mackey, 2007). Then,
the learner should respond to the signal by revising his or her utterance to reach an acceptable compre-
hension level (Gass & Mackey, 2007). This signal drives the learner to reproduce his or her utterance
more accurately and appropriately, which is known as output modification (Mackey, 2007). It has been
proposed that output modification can draw second and foreign language learners’ attention to their
interlanguage system gaps (Lyster & Saito, 2010).
Negotiation is one of a range of conversational processes that promote second language acquisi-
tion as learners work to understand and show meaning in the L2 (Foster & Ohta, 2005). Negotiations
commence with triggers that may be followed by indicators (Lyster & Saito, 2010). Indicators can
be implicit, giving no overt signal of an error occurrence, or explicit, providing an overt signal to
indicate an error (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006). Indicators are usually responded to with output
modification (Nassaji, 2011). In specific cases, the response of recipients may be a repetition of the
indicator or an acknowledgment. Output modification is defined as “the reformulation of an erroneous
utterance by the recipient of CF to enhance the comprehension of her or his interlocutor” (Rouhshad,
Wigglesworth, & Storch, 2016, p. 6). Indicators that promote output (e.g., clarification requests) aim
to clarify the listener’s understanding by eliciting output modification.
The studies inspired by the interaction hypothesis have examined the factors that may affect the
quantity and quality of negotiations (e.g., Cho, 2011; Gass, Mackey, & Ross-­Feldman, 2005). Most
of these studies were carried out in the face-­to-­face (FTF) mode. However, the focus of recent studies
examining L2 learners’ dyadic interaction has shifted from the FTF mode to synchronous computer-­
mediated communication (SCMC; e.g., Kim, 2014; Sim, Kan, & Ng, 2010). SCMC refers to “the
online interactive exchange of information between two or more participants simultaneously logged
on to a computer” (Chanrungkanok, 2004, p. 14). In SCMC, the time separation between giving and
obtaining the message provides learners with enough time to reflect on and evaluate the content of the
communication to be able to produce a proper answer (Cho, 2011). Moreover, unlike FTF mode, in
which the floor usually belongs to one speaker at a time, in SCMC all participants can compose and
post their messages simultaneously (Kim, 2014).
Comparative studies of negotiations in FTF versus SCMC would demonstrate potential strengths
and weaknesses of either mode and enable us to determine whether negotiations are context depen-
dent. Moreover, previous studies have compared FTF and SCMC modes in L2 same-­proficiency pairs,
but there is a dearth of research on mixed-­proficiency dyads (Rouhshad et al., 2016). Therefore, this
study explored the nature of negotiations of meaning in FTF and SCMC modes in mixed-­proficiency
dyads.

2 | L IT E R AT U R E R E V IE W

In L2 learning, interaction between interlocutors, especially nonnative speakers, can be benefi-

cial in at least two ways (Varonis & Gass, 1985). First, it can provide them with a comfortable
MORADI and FARVARDIN   
| 3 of 17

platform to practice and develop language skills. Second, it gives them the possibility to receive
input through negotiation leading to better second or foreign language learning. This negotiation
can be divided into two types of negotiation: form and meaning. According to Long (1996), un-
derstandable input attained through interactional adjustments, such as negotiating meaning and
modifying output, is fundamental to L2 learning. Ellis (1994) explains negotiation of meaning as
follows:

Communication involving L2 learners often leads to problems in understanding and

breakdown. Frequently, one or more of the participants, the learner or the interlocutor,
attempts to remedy this by engaging in interactional work to secure mutual understand-
ing. This work is often called negotiation of meaning. It is characterized by interactional
modifications such as comprehension checks and requests for clarification.  (p. 716)

In negotiation of form, “learners and their interlocutors attempt to improve linguistic accuracy in learn-
ers’ speech even when there is no communication breakdown between the individuals” (Suzuki, 2018,
p. 2). On the other hand, in negotiation of meaning, L2 learners aim to resolve problems with mutual
understanding during the course of communication. Negotiation of meaning has been claimed to provide
more opportunities for learners to push for interactional adjustments because the turns go back and forth
until the incomprehensibility of the meaning is resolved (Foster & Ohta, 2005). In this way, negotiation of
meaning supports comprehensible input and output (Sim et al., 2010).
A number of studies have attempted to explore the quantity and quality of negotiations by con-
sidering the influence of some factors such as task type, proficiency level, gender, age, time, and
word restriction (e.g., Eslami & Kung, 2016; Oscoz, 2003). In these studies, interactions were in the
form of FTF or computer-­mediated communication (CMC) modes, which were analyzed based on the
framework proposed by Varonis and Gass (1985). In this framework, a negotiation routine consists
minimally of a trigger (T) that causes nonunderstanding in the utterance, an indicator (I) or signal of
nonunderstanding, a response (R) to the indicator, and finally a reaction to the response (RR) that in-
dicates how nonunderstanding is resolved in the context of group interaction. The following example
is a negotiation of meaning extracted from Pica (1987).

NNS (nonnative speaker) And they have the chwach there. (T)

NS (native speaker) The what? (I)

NNS The chwach—I know someone that … (R)

NS What does it mean? (I)

NNS Like um American people they always go there every Sunday. (R)

NS Yes? (I)

NNS You know, every morning that their pr- that—the American people get
dressed up to go to um chwach. (R)

NS Oh, to church—I see. (RR)

4 of 17
|    MORADI and FARVARDIN

In this example, the nonnative speaker makes a phonological error (i.e., chwach instead of church), and
the native speaker asks for clarification. As a result of several interactive turns, the native speaker is able
to understand what chwach means.
In Varonis and Gass’s (1985) model, negotiations begin with triggers and are followed with indi-
cators. The trigger is responded to by CF, which is a corrective response to a language learner’s non-­
target-­like production (Li, 2010). CF is generally divided into explicit and implicit types. Explicit CF is
often coded as explicit indicators and gives an overt indication that a learner’s output is wrong. Implicit
CF, on the other hand, encourages learners to modify their output without overtly indicating that a
mistake has been made. Implicit CF can take the form of recasts and negotiation strategies (Bower &
Kawaguchi, 2011). Recipients respond to indicators with output modification. Not only does the pro-
duction of output modification resolve the comprehension breakdown, but it also draws the L2 learners’
focus to the gaps in their interlanguage (Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998) by drawing their attention to a
problem in their initial utterance. In fact, negotiation strategies based on Long’s (1980) classification
come in three forms: clarification requests, comprehension checks, and confirmation checks (Pica,
Doughty, & Young, 1986). Clarification requests are those actions by which one speaker looks for
help to comprehend the interlocutor’s message, comprehension checks are those actions by which one
speaker makes sure the interlocutor has comprehended the previous message, and confirmation checks
are actions by which one speaker looks for affirmation of the interlocutor’s previous messages (Pica
et al., 1986).
Negotiation of meaning can also occur in computer assisted environments in which learners can
engage in both synchronous (SCMC) and asynchronous computer-­mediated communication (ACMC)
modes (Iwasaki & Oliver, 2003). SCMC is a real-­time communication, and ACMC is a kind of de-
layed interaction in which there is a time period between sending and receiving a message (Smith,
2003). Regarding the research on the nature of interaction in the SCMC mode, this text-­based method
of synchronous communication is believed to allow learners communicate with some discourse func-
tions and negotiation sequences similar to the FTF medium and also to facilitate the learners’ monitor-
ing of language through increased participation and interaction (Rouhshad et al., 2016).
Among the features proposed for the SCMC mode, the extra processing time and turn taking have
been controversial. For instance, the extra processing time in SCMC has been regarded as an advantage
compared to the FTF mode (Chun, 1994; Pellettieri, 1999), because it helps “slow down the commu-
nicative process in bridging the gap between oral and written communication for a number of students
and allow them to benefit more fully from the language process” (Beauvois, 1994, p. 213). However,
Kim (2014) found that L2 learners do not benefit from extra processing time in noticing the CF. More
importantly, the time delay can cause overlapping turns, which make learners spend much time and
attention to figure out the flow of communication and hence feel pressure during the interaction (Kim,
2014). Similarly, Bower and Kawaguchi (2011) claimed that, unlike FTF interaction in which a listener
hears a message as it is produced, with text-­based SCMC there is a delay between typing and sending a
message. Faster typists may be able to send several messages while their interlocutor is still typing. Thus,
slow typists may need to choose between two or three different conversation threads for their response.
A number of studies have compared negotiations for meaning across SCMC and FTF modes.
Concerning the occurrence of negotiation of meaning in SCMC, Sim et al. (2010), for instance, pro-
vided compelling evidence for modified output in this mode. They examined output modification in
the negotiations between FTF and SCMC modes in mixed-­proficiency dyads. The results showed
that for low-­proficiency participants a roughly similar percentage of negotiations were followed by
modified output in both modes (25% in SCMC and 32% in FTF), whereas for high-­proficiency partic-
ipants the difference was greater (65% in SCMC vs. 46% in FTF mode). Cho (2011), in the same line,
investigated the negotiation of meaning in SCMC mode with 32 college English students at beginning
MORADI and FARVARDIN   
| 5 of 17

and advanced proficiency levels. They engaged in three types of task: jigsaw, information gap, and
decision making. Cho employed Varonis and Gass’s (1985) model, which was developed for nonnative
speakers and nonnative conversation. A ratio of the total number of negotiation routines to the total
outputs was calculated. The results showed that the proficiency level was not a significant factor in ne-
gotiation of meaning. Moreover, the jigsaw task had the most negotiation routines for beginning-­level
participants, and the information gap task was the most effective task for advanced-­level participants.
In another study, Kim (2014) focused on EFL learners’ communication in both SCMC and FTF
modes, examining the way they solved their communication gaps during their interaction. In this
study, the F2F conversations were audiotaped, and the online chats were recorded with a screen cap-
ture program to examine each participant’s contribution. Stimulated recall interviews were conducted
and audiotaped immediately following the online chat to capture learners’ perceptions before their
memory faded. The audiotapes of the FTF interactions between learners and the stimulated recall
interviews were transcribed, and the SCMC chat transcripts were converted into individual Microsoft
Word documents and coded to reflect real-­time interactions seen with screen captures. It was found
that more strategies (e.g., coinage, direct/indirect assistance, avoidance) were used in the FTF mode
than the SCMC mode.
Recently, Rouhshad et al. (2016) examined the nature of negotiation of form and meaning in both
SCMC and FTF dyadic interactions. To this end, 24 intermediate-­level English learners participated
in two decision-­making tasks in both modes. In this study, FTF interactions were audiorecorded, and
SCMC interactions were saved in Word files and videorecorded using SCREEN2EXE online soft-
ware. The results indicated that the quality of negotiation was different in SCMC and FTF modes, and
that mode of interaction is an important variable, which is likely to influence the quantity and quality
of negotiations. Furthermore, FTF mode provided more negotiation for meaning than SCMC. It was
argued that in SCMC participants had more time for processing or rereading the previous messages,
which led to producing fewer negotiations. It was also concluded that FTF can be a better platform for
enhancing negotiation between students. Despite the fact that SCMC required substantially more time
investment from the participants, it could elicit fewer negotiations. The fewer negotiations in SCMC
could be due to the extra processing time available to participants in SCMC, which could allow them
to reread the previous messages in cases of incomprehensibility, thus removing the need to negotiate.
To date, research has been carried out on the interaction between L2 learners in same-­proficiency
dyads. It seems few studies have compared the nature of negotiation of meaning in FTF and SCMC
modes with different-­proficiency dyads. Thus, the present study investigated this issue. Moreover,
this study intended to identify whether the quantity and the quality of negotiations that learners use in
FTF and SCMC modes are the same or different. To fulfill the objectives of the study, the following
research questions were addressed:

Q1. Are there any significant differences between the frequency of negotiation of mean-
ing in FTF and SCMC in mixed-­proficiency dyads?

Q2. What are the differences between FTF and SCMC modes?
6 of 17
|    MORADI and FARVARDIN

3 | M ET H OD S

3.1 | Participants
Initially, 45 EFL learners from five classes in an English institute in Mahshahr, Iran, agreed to partici-
pate in this study. Their ages ranged from 19 to 26 years (M = 22.13, SD = 1.35). All of them were
native speakers of Persian and had spent 3 to 10 years studying English as a foreign language. None
of them had been to a foreign country.
The participants were at different levels of language proficiency and were given the Oxford place-
ment test (OPT; Allan, 2004) to divide them into elementary and upper intermediate proficiency
groups. Thirty-­two of these EFL learners (15 males and 17 females) were randomly selected to create
16 mixed-­proficiency dyads. The upper intermediate students’ OPT scores ranged from 135 to 149,
and the elementary proficiency students’ scores ranged from 105 to 119. All participants were familiar
with common chat programs such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Line.

3.2 | Materials
The independent variables selected for the study were interactions in the two different environments in
which the participants had to do two different communicative tasks. The dependent variables selected
for comparison between the SCMC and F2F environments were the qualitative features of routines of
negotiation of meaning (i.e., the indicators and responses found within the framework of negotiation
routines). Moreover, this study attempted to determine if these dependent variables were affected by
the participants’ language proficiency. Two information gap tasks (i.e., jigsaw and spot the differ-
ences) widely used in L2 interaction-­based studies were selected from Cho (2011). Moreover, to give
the participants more opportunity to interact, there was no time limitation for the completion of tasks.
The jigsaw task was a two-­way task in which the participants were given a set of different pictures
about a bank robbery story (see Appendix A). The participants were required to work together in order
to organize the pictures in chronological order and complete the story without having access to their
partners’ pictures. In the spot the differences task, each participant had a picture with some differences
from that of the other participant. They were required to interact with each other to complete the task
by finding the differences (see Appendix B). The participants were not allowed to look at each other’s
pictures. Furthermore, the number of differences in the task was specified to the participants.

3.3 | Procedures
Data were collected over the course of 3 weeks. The first week was assigned to the OPT test. Because
participants were not present at the same time, the test was administered in two sessions. After
examining the results of the OPT and the participants’ computer skills, they were divided into 16

TABLE 1 Research design

Conditions Pairs Phase 1 Phase 2

1 1 5 9 13 Task 1 (SCMC) Task 2 (FTF)
2 2 6 10 14 Task 2 (FTF) Task 1 (SCMC)
3 3 7 11 15 Task 2 (SCMC) Task1 (FTF)
4 4 8 12 16 Task 1 (FTF) Task 2 (SCMC)
Note. FTF = face-­to-­face; SCMC = synchronous computer-­mediated communication.
MORADI and FARVARDIN   
| 7 of 17

mixed-­proficiency groups. Moreover, in order to minimize the effect of communication modes and
task orders, there were four counterbalanced conditions (see Table 1).
Next, in week two, those participants assigned to the FTF mode were called on. Because the pro-
cess of supervising participants was demanding, just two groups of dyads were asked to do the tasks in
each session. In other words, each mode was held in four sessions a week for 2 hours. Likewise, those
assigned to start with the SCMC mode were called on in week 3. There was no time interval between
doing tasks 1 and 2.
In the FTF mode, the participants were told to sit in front of each other, keeping their distance in
order not to have access to their partners’ information. Two voice recorders were prepared to record
their voice. Then, after setting the scene, because the participants were not familiar with the process
or the task, they were instructed how to perform the tasks for about 15 minutes. After that, they were
told to read the instruction and understand the direction of their task, and if they had any questions
they could ask the researchers or their own partners.
Meanwhile, in the SCMC mode, first, the participants’ cell phones were connected to the app. The
researchers installed the app on each computer that was connected to the wi-­fi device so that students
just needed to go to their WhatsApp messenger in their cell phone and easily connect to the app on
the computer. It is worth noting that the participants had already installed and used the app on their
cell phones. Then, before doing the tasks, the researchers asked the participants to add their partners’
phone number and read the task instructions and ask any questions if they found it confusing. To have
access to the data, the screen-­recording software Bandicam was installed on each computer to record
all the actions of the participants while they performed the task. Aall the interactions were saved in
WhatsApp messenger and collected by the researchers. In sum, FTF interactions were audiorecorded,
and SCMC interactions were counted by screen recording software.

3.4 | Data analysis

The collected data in FTF and SCMC interactions were transcribed. Then, the number of turns and
words produced by both elementary and upper intermediate learners were counted separately in both
FTF and SCMC modes. It is important to note that in our study all indicators that presented com-
munication breakdowns were used to identify the negotiations of meaning, such as comprehension
checks, confirmation checks, and clarification requests. The time spent on each task for each dyad
was also computed. Afterward, the data were coded based on Varonis and Gass (1985), including the
occurrence of negotiation routines (T→ I→ R→ RR) in the L2 learners’ production and the resulted
modified output. The first part of the model, which consists of trigger (T), refers to “an utterance
which results in some indication of non-­understanding” (Varonis & Gass, 1985, p. 74). The second
part of the model is called resolution and it consists of indicator (I), a signal of nonunderstanding;
response (R); and reaction to response (RR), which is “an optional unit of the routine, in some way
tying up the routine before the speaker’s pop back up to the main flow of conversation” (Varonis &
Gass, 1985, p. 77).
Three components were classified as indicators (i.e., comprehension checks, confirmation
checks, and clarification requests) according to Long’s (1980) modified interaction model. Then,
the quality of negotiation was examined by output modification, which was followed by the par-
ticipants’ response to indicators. The participants’ voices were recorded during the interactive
classroom tasks, and the incidence of negotiation moves (learners’ clarification, comprehension,
and confirmation checks) was calculated by counting only those instances where communication
problems were clearly signaled. To identify output modification, each indicator was inspected to
determine whether it was followed by output modification. Two raters tallied the indicators. The
8 of 17
|    MORADI and FARVARDIN

inter-­rater reliability was measured through Cohen’s Kappa as 0.96, indicating a high level of agree-
ment between the two raters. Finally, because the collected data were not normally distributed, the
Mann-­Whitney U test, as a nonparametric test, was performed to determine whether the results
found in the analysis were statistically significant.

4 | R E S U LTS

In order to analyze the frequency of negotiations in both FTF and SCMC modes, first we carried out
the analyses manually to collect the number of negotiation routines, and following that we examined
the quality of negotiations. Then we conducted the Mann-­Whitney U test to test the differences be-
tween the numbers of negotiation routines in both modes. For more specific details, we summarize the
raw frequency and percentage of negotiations in each mode in Tables 2 and 4. Table 2 illustrates the
frequency of words, turn, and time in the SCMC and FTF modes.
Table 2 shows that the participants spent much more time completing tasks in the SCMC mode
than the FTF mode. However, in the FTF mode, participants produced nearly twice as many words as
in the SCMC mode. Moreover, the FTF mode engaged learners in more turns than in the SCMC mode.
Table 3 demonstrates the frequency of turns and words produced in each mode by both elementary
and upper intermediate–level learners.
As Table 3 illustrates, there is a slight difference in the number of words produced by each profi-
ciency level in the FTF mode. However, in the SCMC mode, the upper intermediate–level learners
used a greater number of words than the elementary-­level learners. In terms of turn frequency, both
levels took the floor at quite the same rate. Table 4 illustrates the frequency of negotiations across four
counterbalanced conditions.

TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics of time on task, turns, and words produced in each mode

FTF SCMC
Words
Mean 313.53 163.25
SD 21.460 65.818
Min 194 146
Max 1,383 500
Time (min.)
Mean 8:17 31:00
SD 4:16 10:02
Min 3 13
Max 19 49
Turns
Mean 35.34 19.22
SD 15.835 7.133
Min 20 11
Max 134 71
Note. FTF = face-­to-­face; SCMC = synchronous computer-­mediated communication.
MORADI and FARVARDIN   
| 9 of 17

TABLE 3 Turns and words produced in each mode by elementary and upper-­intermediate level learners

FTF SCMC

U E U E
Words
Mean 363.06 23.210 193.00 133.50
SD 264.000 212.159 72.773 42.057
Min 120 66 76 70
Max 877 778 352 219
Turns
Mean 35.38 35.31 19.50 18.94
SD 16.091 16.103 7.483 7.00
Min 10 10 6 5
Max 66 68 36 35
Note. FTF = face-­to-­face; SCMC = synchronous computer-­mediated communication; U = upper-­intermediate level; E = elementary level.

TABLE 4 Frequency of negotiation of meaning across the modes

FTF SCMC
Task 1 14 15
Task 2 22 7
Total 36 22
Note. FTF = face-­to-­face; SCMC = synchronous computer-­mediated communication.

As Table 4 depicts, the FTF mode produced slightly more negotiations than the SCMC mode
except for the third condition, in which the number of negotiations in SCMC was more than in the
FTF mode. The explanation behind this difference is the fact that, in condition 3, dyad 11 produced
substantially more negotiations in the SCMC mode but none in the FTF mode.
Although the number of negotiations in the FTF mode were more than in the SCMC (36 vs. 22),
the results of the Mann-­Whitney U test revealed that there was no significant difference between the
two modes in terms of negotiation of meaning (FTF median = 2, SCMC median = 1.50, Z = −1.70, p
= .088, r = −.30, effect size = small). Table 5 shows the quality of negotiations across both the FTF
and SCMC modes.
Table 5 shows that indicators were successful in generating modified output in both modes.
Moreover, the Mann-­Whitney U test showed that there were not any significant differences concern-
ing modified output in each mode (FTF median = 1, SCMC median = 1, Z = −1.219, p = .223, r
= −.21, effect size = small). It is worth mentioning that the inconsistency concerning the number

TABLE 5 Frequency of output modification across the modes

FTF SCMC
Indicators 22 12
Output modification 18 (82%) 11 (91%)
Note. FTF = face-­to-­face; SCMC = synchronous computer-­mediated communication.
10 of 17
|    MORADI and FARVARDIN

of negotiations and indicators was due to the fact that only those indicators that were in the form of
clarification request, confirmation check, or comprehension check were analyzed for the quality of
negotiations.

5 | D IS C U S SION

The results show that the participants spent much more time completing tasks in SCMC than FTF.
In the FTF mode, however, the participants produced nearly twice as many words as in the SCMC
mode. Moreover, the number of negotiations in the FTF mode was more than in the SCMC mode
(36 vs. 22). This implies that FTF can be better than SCMC in producing negotiations of meaning
with mixed-­proficiency dyads. One reason for the low frequency of negotiations in the SCMC mode
may be the participants’ access to the whole interaction and the possibility of rereading the previous
messages in cases of incomprehensibility. This is supported by Smith (2009), who claimed that in the
SCMC mode the frequency of negotiation of meaning may decrease as the scrolling increases. Payne
and Whitney (2002) regarded this as an advantage, because the reduced processing demand in SCMC
provides L2 learners with lower working memory and an opportunity to reread the previous messages
to refresh their memory.
Another issue is the absence of negotiation routines in terms of grammatical mistakes in both
the FTF and SCMC modes, which has been reported in previous studies (e.g., Lee, 2002; Toyoda
& Harrison, 2002). In our study, the participants were so engaged in the process of task completion
that they did not notice grammatical mistakes as an obstacle for their interaction process. In line with
Lee’s (2002) findings, the participants were more cautious of their grammatical mistakes in the SCMC
mode than the FTF mode and they tried to revise their messages repeatedly before sending them.
The results also reveal that in the FTF mode, the participants took the floor about one minute or
more to explain their pictures in a way that did not let the other interlocutor ask any questions. Even
after their turn ended, they immediately persuaded their partners to take the floor and talk about their
pictures. But interestingly enough, in the SCMC mode the participants tried to explain their pictures
one by one, and they even waited for their partners to type their answers, though this was not the case
in all dyads.
The quality of negotiation routines was examined by the number of indicators that led to modified
output. It was revealed that mode of interaction influenced the quality of negotiations. All the indi-
cators were followed by modified output in the SCMC mode, which is contrary to Rouhshad et al.’s
(2016) study in which the number of modified outputs in the FTF mode was higher than in the SCMC
mode. The results are also in line with Sim et al. (2010), who found that more modified output was
produced in the SCMC mode compared to the FTF mode.
In order to explore the differences between the FTF and SCMC modes more in depth, other factors
such as time, word, and turn frequencies were examined in each mode. Regarding time frequency,
as Chun (1994) and Pellettieri (1999) claimed, the SCMC took more time than the FTF mode due to
the following reasons. First, the time interval between sending and receiving messages in this mode
provided an opportunity for learners to overthink or rewrite their messages because there was no time
limitation or pressure on behalf of their partner. Second, because there is no turn-­taking rule in the
SCMC mode, the participants may have been too confused with the flow of messages to respond to
them correctly and follow the route of interaction. Moreover, the SCMC mode requires typing the
messages, thus there might be some serious problems raised by slow typists (Bower & Kawaguchi,
2011).
MORADI and FARVARDIN   
| 11 of 17

On the other hand, contrary to Kern’s (1995) findings, in this study more words were produced in
the FTF mode because of a large number of speech fillers uttered in the form of words and phrases.
Moreover, regarding the distinction of word frequency between both elementary and upper interme-
diate–level participants in each mode, no distinct differences were found because at both proficiency
levels the participants produced approximately the same number of words in each mode. The reason
could be using two-­way information gaps that required both parties to collaborate; there is no way to
finish the task without getting help from each other. Thus, based on this evidence, it can be concluded
that assigning systematic information gap tasks can minimize the superiority of high-­proficiency
­participants in interactions.
Similarly, in terms of turn frequency, there were not any differences between the proficiency levels
in both modes, although both proficiency levels took more turns in the FTF mode than in the SCMC
mode. In addition, it was found that in the FTF mode, some participants took the floor more than
­others, but there were many cases in which participants interrupted each other in order to take the
floor. On the other hand, in the SCMC mode, the participants had access to the previous messages
and there was no need to worry about forgetting the responses, and hence there was less interruption.

6 | CO NC LUSION

This study has contributed to the literature by revealing that there were no significant differences
between the FTF and SCMC modes in terms of frequency of negotiation of meaning. However, there
were differences in the quality of negotiations. This study has some implications for EFL practition-
ers. First, low-­proficiency learners may experience some language problems when doing a task in a
mixed-­proficiency dyad. Consequently, successfully completing a task may entail a degree of mutu-
ality from high-­proficiency learners by giving encouragement and language support. However, the
high-­proficiency learners may not spontaneously take on that role. As a result, it may be conducive
to encourage interactions in which high-­proficiency learners take an advisory and collaborative role
when interacting with their low-­proficiency peers (Dao & McDonough, 2017). Second, because learn-
ers are required to type in SCMC, it would be a great platform for teachers to enrich learners’ writing
skills by encouraging them to focus on their dictation and grammatical rules as well as negotiation
for meaning. Third, computer-­mediated communication has been proposed to support active learning,
in which learners take the initiative to explore and manipulate information in the learning process
(Egbert, 2001). SCMC can also make it easier to develop meaningful tasks during which language
learners of any proficiency level are active and have opportunities to interact (Lee, 2005). Fourth,
those L2 learners who prefer not to participate in FTF interactions for any reason, such as feeling un-
easy or intimidated to speak up during a classroom discussion, may find SCMC an encouraging and
helpful environment for L2 interaction. Finally, because the SCMC mode requires L2 learners to type
their messages, teachers can make benefit of these data by providing CF to learners after the chat to
enhance their L2 learning.
There are also a number of limitations in this study that need to be considered. First, in this study
the participants had no time limit to complete the tasks. Future studies need to take this issue into
consideration, given that applying time limitations may lead to different results. Second, learners can
be exposed to some samples of successful negotiation of meaning in advance, which can be helpful in
the main study, but this was missing in the present study. Third, in this study negotiations of meaning
were not studied in each task separately. Future research can investigate the effect of task type on the
nature of negotiation of meaning. Finally, the nature of negotiation of meaning can be examined by
selecting learners at other proficiency levels.
12 of 17
|    MORADI and FARVARDIN

7 | T H E AU T HOR S

Arezoo Moradi holds an MA in teaching English as a foreign language from Islamic Azad University,
Ahvaz Branch, in Iran. She has taught English for more than 8 years at all levels, from young children
to adults. She is particularly interested in computer-­assisted language learning, mobile-­assisted lan-
guage teaching, and task-­based language teaching.
Mohammad Taghi Farvardin is an assistant professor at Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz Branch, in
Iran, where he teaches postgraduate and undergraduate courses such as teaching methodology, teach-
ing language skills, qualitative and quantitative research, and psycholinguistics. He is particularly
interested in L2 vocabulary learning and teaching, L2 reading comprehension, and computer-­assisted
language learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We sincerely thank TESOL Journal editor Dr. Peter Sayer and the anonymous reviewers for their
insightful and constructive comments on this article.

ORCID
Mohammad Taghi Farvardin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4998-8681

R E F E R E NC E S
Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 7–33. https://doi.
org/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017861
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Beauvois, M. H. (1994). E-­talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-­assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the
Humanities, 28, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01830738
Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem.
Language Learning and Technology, 15(1), 41–71.
Chanrungkanok, P. (2004). A naturalistic study of the integration of computer-mediated communication into oral discussion
in an EFL college classroom in Thailand (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Cho, H. (2011). Negotiation of meaning in synchronous computer-mediated communication in relation to task types
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22,
17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(94)90037-x
Dao, P., & McDonough, K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed profi-
ciency dyads. System, 65, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.012
Egbert, J. (2001). Active learning through computer-­enhanced activities. Teaching English With Technology, 1(3), 2–7.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
Eslami, Z. R., & Kung, W. T. (2016). Focus-­on-­form and EFL learners’ language development in synchronous computer-­
mediated communication: Task-­based interactions. Language Learning Journal, 44, 401–417. https://doi.org/10.10
80/09571736.2016.1227219
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied
Linguistics, 26, 402–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami014
MORADI and FARVARDIN   
| 13 of 17

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J.
Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction
to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 82, 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01206.x
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-­based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings.
Language Learning, 55, 575–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00318.x
Iwasaki, J., & Oliver, R. (2003). Chat-­line interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
17, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1075/aralss.17.05iwa
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning: The teacher’s role.
In R. M. Gillies, A. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the
classroom (pp. 9–36). New York, NY: Springer.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and character-
istics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.
tb05445.x
Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-­mediated communication and face-­to-­face interac-
tion. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27, 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.692386
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-­native discourse. System, 30,
275–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00015-5
Lee, L. (2005). Using web-­based instruction to promote active learning: Learners’ perspectives. CALICO Journal,
23(1), 139–156.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-­analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation). University of California
Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the 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.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-­analysis. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32, 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Mackey, A. (Ed.) (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction.
System, 39, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.016
Oscoz, A. R. (2003). Jigsaw and free discussion in synchronous computer-mediated communication (S-CMC)
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working
memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7–32.
Pellettieri, J. L. (1999). Why-talk? Investigating the role of task-based interaction through synchronous network-based
communication among classroom learners of Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California
Davis, Davis, CA.
Pica, T. (1987). Second-­language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 3–21.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/8.1.3
Pica, T., Doughty, C. J., & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
72, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.72.01pic
Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2016). The nature of negotiations in face-­ to-­
face versus
computer-­ mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20, 1–21. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362168815584455
Sim, T. S., Kan, N. H., & Ng, L. L. (2010). Low proficiency learners in synchronous computer-­assisted and face-­to-­face
interactions. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 61–75.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-­mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87,
38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00177
Smith, B. (2009). The relationship between scrolling, negotiation, and self-­initiated self-­repair in an SCMC environ-
ment. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 231–245.
14 of 17
|    MORADI and FARVARDIN

Suzuki, W. (2018). Negotiation of meaning versus negotiation of form. In J. I. Liontas & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.),
The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0085
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of
Japanese. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 82–99.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-­native/non-­native conversations: A model for negotiation. Applied Linguistics, 6,
71–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/appalin/6.1.71

How to cite this article: Moradi A, Farvardin MT. Negotiation of meaning by mixed-­
proficiency dyads in face-­to-­face and synchronous computer-­mediated communication.
TESOL J. 2019;e446. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.446

APPENDIX A
JIGSAW TASK
(Student A)

FIGURE 1 Jigsaw task, Student A (Adapted from Cho, 2011)

MORADI and FARVARDIN   
| 15 of 17

You are a journalist who is writing about a bank robbery case and your partner is a colleague of yours
working on the same case.
You will see a number of pictures about a certain story. The pictures are not in order. You have half
of them and your partner has the other half. Your task is to chat and try to order the pictures correctly
so that you make a logical story eventually.
You are chatting with your colleague from another city about the bank robbery that has been re-
cently solved. You and your colleague have been working on this case for some time but you gathered
only some parts of the story whereas your colleague got other parts. Chat with your colleague and try
to piece together the whole story.
After understanding what really happened in the bank robbery case, you have to co-­write the story
in order to be published in the newspaper you work for. Together with your partner try to write the
story using chronological order of the pictures that you discussed before.
(Student B)
You are a journalist who is writing about a bank robbery case and your partner is a colleague of yours
working on the same case.
You will see a number of pictures about a certain story. The pictures are not in order. You have half
of them and your partner has the other half. Your task is to chat and try to order the pictures correctly
so that you make a logical story eventually.
You are chatting with your colleague from another city about the bank robbery that has been re-
cently solved. You and your colleague have been working on this case for some time but you gathered

FIGURE 2 Jigsaw task, Student B (Adapted from Cho, 2011)

16 of 17
|    MORADI and FARVARDIN

only some parts of the story whereas your colleague got other parts. Chat with your colleague and try
to piece together the whole story.
After understanding what really happened in the bank robbery case, you have to co-­write the story
in order to be published in the newspaper you work for. Together with your partner try to write the
story using chronological order of the pictures that you discussed before.

APPENDIX B
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE TASK
Describe your picture to your partner and try to find as many differences as you can. When you are
finished compare your pictures and write down the differences that you found.

FIGURE 3 Spot the difference task, Student A (Adapted from Cho, 2011)
MORADI and FARVARDIN   
| 17 of 17

FIGURE 4 Spot the difference task, Student B (Adapted from Cho, 2011)