Abstract
Recognising that active involvement with the target language is important in learning a second language, this research compared the participation style of the language learners in different discussion settings; online and face-to-face. The personality (extroversion and introversion) and language proficiency (high-intermediate and low-intermediate) of the 48 participants were looked into. Qualitative data were obtained through observation, survey and online feedback session to substantiate the main data gathered from the quasi-experiment. The findings revealed that the use of synchronous online setting helps elicit more contribution of words and balance the participation of ESL learners especially among the introverts and the less proficient learners. The findings also implied that language instructors can capitalise on this setting to elicit more participation from selected group of students and encourage more balanced participation in the language classroom. In addition, the findings of this study showed that the medium played a role in influencing the messages produced by certain group of learners more than the others.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167.
Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170–190). London: Arnold.
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 86.
Hamat, A. (2008). Web technologies for language learning and implications for the design of CMS for language instruction. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 39, 61–65.
Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English: An introduction to the practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Longman.
Jaques, D., & Salmon, G. (2006). Learning in groups: A handbook for face-to-face and online environments. London: Routledge.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. IT Forum Paper #1. Retrieved May 30, 2013, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper1/paper1.html.
Jurin, R. R., Roush, D., & Danter, J. (2010). Environmental communication: Skills and principles for natural resource managers, scientists and engineers (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Kow, Y. C. (2012). Putting second language acquisition theories into practice: A case study. In Z. M. Don (Ed.), English in multicultural Malaysia: Pedagogy and applied research (pp. 15–30). Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lapadat, J. C. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4), 4. Retrieved June 10, 2014, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue4/lapadat.html.
Lee, L. (2009). Exploring native and non-native interactive discourse in text-based chat beyond classroom settings. In L. B. Abraham & L. Williams (Eds.), Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching (pp. 11–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. B. (2011). Teaching and learning with technology (4th ed.). MA: Pearson.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 91–99.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Style analysis survey (SAS): Assessing your own learning and working styles. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 208–215). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. Language Teaching, 44(2), 167–180.
Perkins, J., & Newman, K. (1999). Meaning in e-discourse. International Journal of Educational Communications, 5(2), 157–168.
Psaltou-Joycey, A., & Kantaridou, Z. (2011). Major, minor and negative learning style preferences of university students. System, 39(1), 103–112.
Roberts, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication patterns in online learning environments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88.
Sharpe, R., & Benfield, G. (2005). The student experience of e-learning in higher education: A review of the literature. Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 1–9.
Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(3), 337–361.
Smith, D. B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57.
Sotillo, S. M. (2009). Learner noticing, negative feedback, and uptake in synchronous computer-mediated environments. In L. B. Abraham & L. Williams (Eds.), Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching (pp. 87–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22, 399–432.
Tam, S. S., Kan, N. H., & Ng, L. L. (2010). Low proficiency learners in synchronous computer-assisted and face-to-face interactions. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 61–75.
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 82–99. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://lly.msu.edu/vol6num1/toyoda/.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.
Wessa, P. (2012). Free Statistics Software, Office for Research Development and Education, version 1.1.23-r7. http://www.wessa.net/.
Whitworth, K. F. (2009). The discussion forum as a locus for develo** L2 pragmatic awareness. In L. B. Abraham & L. Williams (Eds.), Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching (pp. 11–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chew, S.Y., Ng, L.L. The Relevance of Personality and Language Proficiency on the Participation Style of ESL Learners in Face-to-Face and Online Discussions. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 25, 605–613 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0288-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0288-z