Two Heads Better Than One:

On-Line L2 Chatting and Vocabulary Growth[1]

Robert Blake, UC Davis

María Victoria González Pagani, UC Santa Cruz

Language teachers often conceive of second language acquisition (SLA) in terms of grammatical development. But in recent years, SLA researchers have increasingly turned their attention to assessing vocabulary growth as a benchmark for SLA development (Read, 2000, Meara 1996). The present study investigates Spanish L2 vocabulary acquisition as found in the output of synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) or chat exchanges. Research within an interactionist framework has already shown that face-to-face conversational interactions can stimulate language learning and recent studies (Pellettieri 1999; Blake 2000) suggest that networked interaction encourages the same collaborative knowledge construction, especially with respect to vocabulary. The present study examines learner/learner (NNS/NNS) chat exchanges in order to test the hypothesis that negotiations of meaning triggered by doing reading tasks with unfamiliar vocabulary items can lead to increased L2 vocabulary knowledge.

What is meant by negotiation here can be defined as “…communication in which participants’ attention is focused on resolving a communication problem as opposed to communication in which there is a free-flowing exchange of information” (Gass, 1997, p.107). These negotiations of meaning often follow a standard protocol described by Varonis and Gass (1985) as consisting of a trigger (the utterance that causes a non-understanding), an indicator (the beginning of the negotiation of meaning that pushes down from the original line of discourse), a response (an acknowledgement of the non-understanding by the speaker), and a reaction (an optional recognition of the resolution of the non-understanding and a signal to resume the normal line of discourse), as illustrated in (1):

(1) Typical format for negotiations

T: Él ha corrido por su vida perseguido por una pandilla … ¿Entiendes? [TRIGGER]

He’s been running all his life persecuted by a gang. Do you understand?

R: ¿Qué es pandilla? [INDICATOR]

What a ‘gang’?

T: “group” yo creo, yo vei [sic] en el diccionario [RESPONSE]

“Group” I think, I saw [it] in the dictionary

R: Ah, yo recuerdo … similar de un grupo [REACTION]

Oh, I remember, similar to a group

T: sí

Yes.

Students from two different Spanish classes at UC Davis and another two Spanish classes at UCSC participated in this study. The students from Santa Cruz were third-quarter Spanish learners and those from Davis were four-quarter learners. The experimental group was required to chat with each other (Davis to Santa Cruz) and accomplish a series of reading tasks on-line. More specifically, 15 Santa Cruz students chatted in pairs with another 15 Davis students at a mutually convenient time outside of class. The pairs in this experimental group read three multimedia selections and then collaboratively completed a series of comprehension and writing tasks posted on the Web. The control groups consisted of 25 students from UC Davis and 18 at UCSC. The dyads in the control group were given the same reading materials in print form and were asked to perform the same writing assignments during classroom time. The three readings, in order of presentation, dealt with Salsa music, César Chávez, and Eva Perón, which corresponded to parts of their normal Spanish language curriculum (see Web pages).

The readings were accompanied by guided questions that incorporated the words most likely to force the dyads to negotiate meaning in order to finish the task. The students knew their answers to these questions would be graded and, therefore, made every effort to provide the correct answers according to the content of the readings.

The experimental groups from Davis and Santa Cruz communicated with each other using the Remote Collaboration Tool (RCT [formerly RTA] software [http://davinci.cs.ucdavis.edu/]), a chat program that provides both a chat window for informal exchanges and a textpad window where collaborative compositions can be drafted. RCT provides transcripts for all written production from both the "chat" and "textpad" windows; this tracking feature allows researchers to discover which words trigger misunderstandings and whether or not meaning was successfully negotiated. The control groups also worked in pairs in the classroom but had no access to CMC or the Web pages.

As can be seen from Table 1, the overwhelming majority of students in the experimental group followed directions and carried out their electronic exchanges in the target language:

Language employed in chat transcripts:	58 total
Spanish	42
Spanish with minimal observations in English	7
Both Spanish/English	2
English with minimal observations in Spanish	3
English	4

Table 1. Language preference in the chat transcripts

In the course of finishing three readings (one every two weeks), participants self-reported their respective vocabulary knowledge by means of a pre-test and a two-week delayed post-test patterned after Meara’s LLEX vocabulary test (Meara 1996). Instead of simply requesting yes/no responses, as is the case for Meara’s instrument, we used a scale from 1 to 5 in keeping with the practice found in other lexical studies (Knight 1994; Karp 2001). These tests included key words from the three readings judged to be unfamiliar to them and, therefore, possible stimuli for lexical negotiations. More importantly, remember that the guided questions specifically required students to deal with these key words as part of the tasks they had to finish and turn in for a grade. The delayed test was administered two weeks after the last reading assignment with an eye to providing some idea of vocabulary retention as a function of networked pair-work negotiations, the central hypothesis of this study. The pre-test/delayed test results for the three readings can be seen below in Tables 2-4. Noticeable improvements of 1 point or more from the pre-test to the delayed test have been highlighted in blue.

Salsa	Experimental (+chat)				Control (-chat)
Targeted words:	Santa Cruz Pre-Test	Santa Cruz Final	Davis Pre-Test	Davis Final	Santa Cruz Pre-Test	Santa Cruz Final	Davis Pre-Test	Davis Final
aburrido	3.2	4.4	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0
ciudadano	3.2	4.5	3.2	4.9	3.2	4.7	3.5	4.8
comprometida	2.3	4.0	2.4	4.4	2.8	3.5	1.8	3.0
desarrollo	4.7	5.0	3.4	5.0	2.1	4.5	2.5	4.8
desafío	2.0	2.5	1.4	3.2	1.7	2.7	1.8	2.8
encasillada	1.2	3.4	1.4	2.7	1.3	3.0	1.6	2.8
esperanza	4.4	5.0	3.9	4.9	4.0	4.7	4.2	4.7
juventud	2.8	4.5	4.6	5.0	3.8	4.8	4.3	5.0
pandilla	2.1	2.0	2.0	3.3	1.6	2.6	2.2	3.8
reflejan	3.8	5.0	3.6	4.7	3.3	4.7	3.5	3.8
vergonzosa	1.3	2.9	1.9	4.1	1.6	3.5	1.2	4.2
yendo	1.6	1.8	1.6	2.5	1.3	2.3	1.8	2.7

Table 2. Average scale values (1-5) for the pre-/delayed vocabulary tests for the Salsa reading.

César Chávez	Experimental (+chat)				Control (-chat)
Targeted words:	Santa Cruz Pre-Test	Santa Cruz Final	Davis Pre-Test	Davis Final	Santa Cruz Pre-Test	Santa Cruz Final	Davis Pre-Test	Davis Final
atropellen	1.0	1.7	1.4	2.6	1.2	2.4	1.0	2.3
derecho	4.8	4.9	5.0	5.0	4.9	4.7	4.7	5.0
desempeñar	2.4	3.1	2.6	2.9	2.3	2.8	3.6	4.0
esperanzas	4.5	4.8	3.7	4.5	4.0	4.4	4.0	4.2
indocumentados	3.0	5.0	2.9	4.7	3.5	4.1	2.2	5.0
luchas	3.6	5.0	3.4	4.9	2.5	4.0	2.8	4.3
orgullo	1.5	3.2	4.0	4.7	2.1	3.4	3.7	5.0
orgulloso	1.5	3.2	4.6	4.9	2.1	3.4	4.2	5.0
sindicato	2.6	4.1	2.6	4.1	1.9	3.9	2.5	4.3
sucede	3.2	4.4	2.7	4.5	2.6	3.7	3.6	3.3

Table 3. Average scale values (1-5) for the pre-/delayed vocabulary tests for César Chávez reading.

Evita	Experimental (+chat)				Control (-chat)
Targeted words:	Santa Cruz Pre-Test	Santa Cruz Final	Davis Pre-Test	Davis Final	Santa Cruz Pre-Test	Santa Cruz Final	Davis Pre-Test	Davis Final
ajeno	1.2	1.4	1.6	2.0	1.5	1.8	1.2	2.3
aportar	2.3	3.0	1.7	3.9	1.5	2.4	1.2	3.0
derechos	4.5	5.0	4.5	5.0	4.8	4.9	4.8	5.0
digno	1.6	3.8	2.1	3.1	2.1	3.1	1.2	4.0
esfuerzo	2.4	4.1	2.3	4.8	2.0	2.7	1.8	4.5
hogar	1.6	2.3	2.1	3.7	1.5	3.3	2.2	4.5
ingreso	1.5	2.7	1.7	3.9	1.6	3.5	2.0	3.8
jerarquía	2.9	3.8	1.1	2.1	1.0	2.2	1.2	3.3
pesado	3.5	3.6	3.7	4.2	3.5	3.6	3.8	4.2
suceder	3.5	4.4	3.4	4.6	2.9	4.3	3.2	4.7
restituir	2.8	3.7	2.2	3.6	2.1	3.1	1.8	3.7

Table 4. Average values (1-5) for the pre-/delayed vocabulary tests for the Eva Perón reading.

As can be seen from Tables 2-4, both the experimental and control groups made improvements in their respective vocabulary development. The shading gives us a general sense of which groups improved the most, given their respective beginning points. Understandably, the various classes started at different points in development, as shown by these average values. There is no clear pattern that favors the experimental group over the control group. But these are aggregate figures and reveal little about each individual’s own learning experience. Likewise, the aggregate values do not answer the question of whether or not networked negotiations had any effect on vocabulary growth—not all subjects in the experimental group entered into lexical negotiations. To get at this question, we reviewed the transcripts and recorded all instances of lexical negotiations.

The experimental group engaged in 29 lexical negotiations stimulated almost entirely from only two readings, Salsa and Eva Perón. The data made it clear that answering the guided questions for the César Chávez provokes relatively few lexical misunderstandings, despite the average values found in Table 2 that indicate less than complete knowledge of this selection’s vocabulary. It is impossible to predict beforehand which guided questions or tasks will stimulate lexical negotiations. Much depends on individual circumstances and the interaction of the pair partners. Interestingly enough, of these 29 negotiations, only two examples produced misleading lexical information, as illustrated below in (2).

(2) Incorrect feedback

W: que significa desempeñar?

What does desempeñar mean?

W: no tengo mi diccionario

I don’t have my dictionary.

Z: Chávez cree que la minoría de hispanohablantes van a desempeñar un papel bastante importante en la vida de los Estados Unidos…

Chávez believes that minority Spanish speakers will play an important role in U.S. life.

Z: es (develop)

It’s ‘[to] develop’

Z: creo

I think.

What is more important, then, for this study is how well students learned those specific words that attracted the dyad’s attention long enough so as to spawn some time negotiating word meaning before completing the writing task. To investigate whether or not networked negotiations had a beneficial effect on vocabulary development, we looked at the individual performance for negotiated words as compared to the group norms or average vocabulary test performance on the final or delayed test, as shown in Table 5 below. The highlighted individual scores indicate test values above the group norms from both the Davis and Santa Cruz experimental and control groups alike. What matters here is not the chatting per se, but the conscious focusing of attention on lexical meaning that only happen in an individual context at the time when a word is negotiated.

Table 5. Comparison of average vocabulary test results with individual students who negotiated word meanings through chat.

Negotiated words for all readings:	Students who negotiated meaning Pre-test	Students who negotiated meaning Final	Santa Cruz +chat Final	Davis +chat Final	Santa Cruz -chat Final	Davis -chat Final
ajeno			1.4	2.0	1.8	2.3
W1-SC	1	1
Z1-D	5	5
ciudadano			4.5	4.9	4.7	4.8
B1-SC	3	5
B2-D	3	5
desarrollo			5.0	5.0	4.5	4.8
T1-D	3	5
R1-SC	5	5
E1-SC	5	5
E2-D	5	5
Desempeñar			3.1	2.9	2.8	4.0
W1-SC	4	5
Z1-D	5	5
desafío			2.5	3.2	2.7	2.8
W1-SC	1	5
Z1-D	3	4
E1-SC	1	1
E2-D	1	4
F1-D	1	1
G1-SC	3	4
encasillada			3.4	2.7	3.0	2.8
W1-SC	1	5
Z1-D	2	3
T1-D	2	5
R1-SC	1	--
A1-D	1	4
B1-SC	1	--
esfuerzo			4.1	4.8	2.7	4.5
M1-D	1	5
M1-SC	1	3
ingreso			2.7	3.9	3.5	3.8
H1-SC	1	4
M1-D	1	5
H2-D	1	3
G1-SC	2	2
pesado			3.6	4.2	3.6	4.2
E1-D	3	5
U1-SC	3	5
vergonzosa			2.9	4.1	3.5	4.2
E1-D	1	5
U1-SC	1	5
yendo			1.8	2.5	2.3	2.7
W1-SC	1	3
Z1-D	5	5

Table 5. Comparison of average vocabulary test results with individual students who negotiated word meanings through chat.

Conclusions:

The data from Tables 2-4 demonstrate that all participants showed substantial improvement in their vocabulary knowledge after reading and performing the tasks required by the guided questions. This result is not unimportant because it confirms that the technique of offering students guided questions remains a fundamentally sound pedagogical practice in whatever learning environment, in class or on-line.

With respect to the experimental chat groups, two readings, Salsa and Eva, triggered the bulk of the lexical negotiations of meaning. From Table 5, it can be seen that most subjects involved in these specific on-line word negotiations registered a notable improvement in vocabulary knowledge on the delayed post-test vis-à-vis the mean values exhibited by all other groups, both control groups and experimental. This comparison illustrates a unique methodology for documenting the act of lexical acquisition made possible only by the computer’s tracking capacity. In other words, intermediate language students make progress toward expanding their L2 knowledge one word at a time, a process that is highly dependent on the individual’s own learning experiences and exposure to input that can be noticed and converted into intake. The data help support the notion that on-line negotiations create favorable conditions for vocabulary growth. Clearly, CMC should play an important role to in the foreign-language curriculum as a supplement to the classroom. In addition, a detailed analysis of the transcript texts themselves also confirmed Porter’s (1986) claim that L2 learners rarely mislead each other in their negotiations of meaning. This should help allay instructor’s fears that learner/learner discussions are nothing more than the blind leading the blind.

Undoubtedly, face-to-face negotiations also exert a positive effect on vocabulary development, but tracking these events is difficult to capture because it is impossible to predict when students will need to negotiate meaning. The tracking method described in this study pioneers a new way for isolating the learning moment and, consequently, makes a contribution toward the characterization the L2 acquisition process. Whether this is a lasting effect (i.e., lexical incorporation and retention) cannot be fully judged by this experiment, given that the delayed post-test came only two weeks after the first post-test, and should be addressed in future studies.

References:

Blake, R. (2000). Computer Mediated Communication: A Window on L2 Spanish Interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology 4(1), 120-136.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Karp, A. (2001). The effect of textual glosses, images, multiple-choice cues, and vocabulary size on second language incidental vocabulary learning in Spanish. Unpublished dissertation. University of California, Davis.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use whil reading: the effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal 78, 285-299.

Meara, P. (1996). The dimensions of lexical competence. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer and J. Williams (eds.), Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 35-53.

Pellettieri, J. (1999). “Negotiation in Cyberspace: The Role of Chatting in the Development of Grammatical Competence.” In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (eds.) Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 59-86.

Porter, P. (1986). “How learners talk to each other: input and interaction in task-centered discussions.” In R. Day (Ed.) Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 200-222.

Read, J. (2000). Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Varonis, E & Gass, S. (1985). “Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning.” Applied Linguistics, 6, 71-90.

---

[1] The authors thank Teresa Oteiza who compiled the statistical data.