Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-gtgcz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T22:57:43.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of SCMC on foreign language anxiety and learning experience: A comparison of voice, video, and VR-based oral interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2020

James York Open the ORCID record for James York [Opens in a new window] ,
Koichi Shibata Open the ORCID record for Koichi Shibata [Opens in a new window] ,
Hayato Tokutake Open the ORCID record for Hayato Tokutake [Opens in a new window]  and
Hiroshi Nakayama Open the ORCID record for Hiroshi Nakayama [Opens in a new window]
James York
Affiliation:
Tokyo Denki University, Japan (york@mail.dendai.ac.jp)
Koichi Shibata
Affiliation:
Tokyo Denki University, Japan (19rmd18@ms.dendai.ac.jp)
Hayato Tokutake
Affiliation:
Tokyo Denki University, Japan (19rmd26@ms.dendai.ac.jp)
Hiroshi Nakayama
Affiliation:
Tokyo Denki University, Japan (nhiroshi@mail.dendai.ac.jp)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies on computer-mediated communication often compare the affective affordances of different technologies with face-to-face communication. This study aimed to understand how three different computer-mediated communication modalities may affect EFL learners’ foreign language anxiety (FLA). Using a counterbalanced 3 by 3 factorial design, 30 undergraduate Japanese university students participated in this study, completing a spot-the-difference task in three different oral synchronous computer-mediated communication modes: voice, video, and virtual reality (VR). Upon completing each task, participants responded to an FLA questionnaire and answered questions regarding their learning experiences. Finally, a post-experiment questionnaire asked participants to explicitly compare their experiences of learning within each modality. Results suggest that although all three modes were successful in reducing learner FLA, no statistically significant differences were found between mean scores. However, the results of the learner perceptions questionnaire suggested that VR was the easiest environment to communicate in, was the most fun, and the most effective environment for language learning. Participant responses to an open-ended question suggested that learner dispositions to technology as well as their affective characteristics may be responsible for differing opinions regarding the affordances of VR for language learning. The study concludes with a call for more research in the area of learner affect and technology use, including studies that more effectively utilize the technological affordances of VR, and also qualitatively assess which elements of VR may affect learner FLA and motivation.

Keywords

virtual realityforeign language anxietyoral interactionSCMC
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 49 - 70
Check for updates
Copyright
© European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Blyth, C. (2018) Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1): 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, E. & Reinders, H. (2018) Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3): 33–53.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (2000) Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bueno Alastuey, M. C. (2010) Synchronous-voice computer-mediated communication: Effects on pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.1.1-20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canto, S., de Graaff, R. & Jauregi, K. (2014) Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.07can Google Scholar
Charle Poza, M. I. (2005) The effects of asynchronous computer voice conferencing on learners’ anxiety when speaking a foreign language. West Virginia University, doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
Chen, W. C. (2008) Noticing in text-based computer-mediated communication: A study of task-based telecommunication between native and nonnative English speakers. Texas A&M University, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Dede, C. (1995) The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 35(5): 46–52.Google Scholar
Deutschmann, M., Panichi, L. & Molka-Danielsen, J. (2009) Designing oral participation in Second Life: A comparative study of two language proficiency courses. ReCALL, 21(2): 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000196 Google Scholar
Dickey, M. D. (2005) Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: Two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3): 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00477.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitze, M. (2006) Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1): 67–86.Google Scholar
Gadelha, R. (2018) Revolutionizing education: The promise of virtual reality. Childhood Education, 94(1): 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2018.1420362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. C. & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993) On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43(2): 157–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00714.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampel, R. & Baber, E. (2003) Using internet-based audio-graphic and video conferencing for language teaching and learning. In Felix, U. (ed.), Language learning online: Towards best practice. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 171–191.Google Scholar
Hampel, R., Uschi, F., Hauck, M. & Coleman, J. A. (2005) Complexities of learning and teaching languages in a real-time audiographic environment. German as a Foreign Language Journal, 2005(3): 1–30.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2): 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauregi, K., Canto, S., de Graaff, R., Koenraad, T. & Moonen, M. (2011) Verbal interaction in Second Life: Towards a pedagogic framework for task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.538699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, N. (2009) Starting a Second Life. English Teaching Professional, 61: 57–59.Google Scholar
Kessler, G. (2018) Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1): 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. Y., & Pass, C. (2014) Massively multiplayer online gaming and English language learning. In Gerber, H. R. & Abrams, S. S. (eds.), Bridging literacies with videogames. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.07can Google Scholar
Levak, N. & Son, J.-B. (2017) Facilitating second language learners’ listening comprehension with Second Life and Skype. ReCALL, 29(2): 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344016000215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H. (2015) Computer-mediated communication (CMC) in L2 oral proficiency development: A meta-analysis. ReCALL, 27(3): 261–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401400041X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, M. (2016) Interrelations between foreign language listening anxiety and strategy use and their predicting effects on test performance of high- and low-proficient Chinese university EFL learners. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25: 647–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0294-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1991) Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41(1): 85–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00677.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marjanovic, O. (1999) Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2): 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.1999.152085.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchor-Couto, S. (2017) Foreign language anxiety levels in Second Life oral interaction. ReCALL, 29(1): 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344016000185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchor-Couto, S. (2018) Virtual world anonymity and foreign language oral interaction. ReCALL, 30(2): 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344017000398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milton, J., Jonsen, S., Hirst, S. & Lindenburn, S. (2012) Foreign language vocabulary development through activities in an online 3D environment. The Language Learning Journal, 40(1): 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.658229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, R. L. (1999) Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. In Arnold, J. (ed.), Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58–67.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2012) EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCALL, 24(1): 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000279 Google Scholar
Potowski, K. (2007) Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599453 Google Scholar
Rama, P. S., Black, R. W., Van Es, E., & Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for second language learning in World of Warcraft. ReCALL, 24(3): 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinders, H. & Wattana, S. (2014) Can I say something? The effects of digital game play on willingness to communicate. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2): 101–123.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011) Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005) Task design for audiographic conferencing: Promoting beginner oral interaction in distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5): 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500442772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satar, H. M. & Özdener, N. (2008) The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4): 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S. (2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28(2): 369–391. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.369-391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, S. L. & Black, R. W. (2007) Language and literacy development in computer-mediated contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27: 133–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508070074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tudini, V. (2007) Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4): 577–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00624.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lier, L. (2004) The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7912-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2–3): 7–26.Google Scholar
Wigham, C. R. & Chanier, T. (2015) Interactions between text chat and audio modalities for L2 communication and feedback in the synthetic world Second Life. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3): 260–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.851702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2010) Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3): 72–93.Google Scholar
Yanguas, I. (2012) Task-based Oral Computer-mediated Communication and L2 Vocabulary Acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29(3): 507–531. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.3.507-531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, I. & Bergin, T. (2018) Focus on form in task-based L2 oral computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3): 65–81.Google Scholar
York, J. (2019) Language learning in complex virtual worlds: Effects of modality and task complexity on oral performance between virtual world and face-to-face tasks. University of Leicester, doctoral dissertation. https://leicester.figshare.com/account/articles/10242452 Google Scholar
Young, D. J. (ed.) (1999) Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. & Lai, C. (2009) MMORPGS and foreign language education. In Ferdig, R. E. (ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey: IGI Global, 402–421. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, D. (2012) Caring in the dynamics of design and languaging: exploring second language learning in 3D virtual spaces. Language Sciences, 34(5): 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016) Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36: 136–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190516000039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

York et al. Supplementary Materials

York et al. Supplementary Materials

Download York et al. Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 987.6 KB