ARTICLES PAIR INTERACTIONS AND MODE OF COMMUNICATION COMPARING FACE-TO-FACE AND COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION Lan Liana Tan, University of Melbourne Liana Tan is completing her PhD in Applied Linguistics. Her areas of research in- terest are computer mediated communication and how technology can be harnessed to improve the teaching of Chinese. Gillian Wigglesworth, University of Melbourne Gillian Wigglesworth is Professor in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics in the School of Languages and Linguistics at the University of Melbourne. She is teaching in the Master of Applied Linguistics program. Her research covers a range of topics including second language acquisition, language assessment, bilingualism and first language acquisition. Her current research direction is the acquisition of language at home and school by Indigenous children in remote communities in Australia. Neomy Storch, University of Melbourne Neomy Storch is a senior lecturer in Applied Linguistics in the School of Languages and Linguistics, the University of Melbourne. She teaches a range of ESL and Ap- plied Linguistics subjects. Her research has focused on issues related to second language pedagogy. These include the nature of pair interaction in classroom con- texts and the development of academic writing skills, particularly grammatical ac- curacy, and the role of feedback in that development. In today’s second language classrooms, students are often asked to work in pairs or small groups. Such collaboration can take place face-to-face, but now more often via computer mediated communication. This paper reports on a study which investigated the effect of the medium of communication on the nature of pair interaction. The study involved six pairs of beginner parti- cipants in a Chinese class completing seven different tasks. Each task was completed twice, once face to face (FTF), and once via computer mediated communication (CMC). All pair talk was audio recorded, and on-line communication was logged. Using Storch’s (2002) model of patterns of pair interaction, five patterns were identified: collaborative, cooperative, dominant/dominant, dominant/passive and expert/novice. The medium of communication was found to affect the pattern of interaction. In CMC some pairs became more collaborative, or cooperative. The implic- ations of these findings for language teaching, particularly for the use of CMC in language classes, are discussed. ARAL 33:3 (2010), 27.1-27.24. DOI 10.2104/aral1027 27.1 ISSN 0155–0640 / E-ISSN 1833–7139 © AUSTRALIAN REVIEW OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS INTRODUCTION The use of group or pair work in the second language (L2) classroom is widely recognised as beneficial, and begins to address concerns which have been raised with respect to the cognitive focus which has tended to dominate SLA research (see for example, Firth and Wagner, 1997, 2007). Research has shown that learners working in small group or pairs use the L2 more so than in teacher-fronted class activities (Long and Porter, 1985). This greater use of the L2 is particularly important in foreign language contexts where, unlike second language contexts, the classroom is often the only site where students are exposed to and engage with L2 input. As Strauss and U (2007) argue, students need to be encour- aged to work in pairs or small groups because this is likely to provide them with the ne- cessary practice to improve their fluency. In terms of accuracy, Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) found that students when working in pairs performed better on a joint written task than did students working on the same task individually, suggesting that the joint activity allowed the student to pool their resources. In this case, there was the added advantage that students discussed language points with each other in some detail. Research from different theoretical perspectives has also promoted the use of small group and pair work in L2 classrooms. Research (e.g. Gass and Varonis, 1986; Mackey, 1999; Pica, Holliday, Lewis, Berducci and Newman, 1991), based on the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1983, 1996), has shown that when learners work in small groups or pairs with a competent speaker of the L2, or a fellow student, they engage in a number of negotiation moves (e.g. requests for clarifications, confirmation checks, recasts), which are said to make input more comprehensible, and direct their attention to gaps in their linguistic knowledge. While this focused attention or noticing, has been hypothesised as important for second language acquisition (Schmidt, 1993, 2001), it has only a limited amount to contribute to our understanding of the role of social context and social inter- action in language learning, now widely recognised as playing a major role in second language learning. Thus, researchers informed by sociocultural theoretical perspectives also promote small group and pair work. Based on the work of Vygotsky (1978), sociocultural theory views cognitive development as an inherently social activity involving interaction between people. Researchers informed by this perspective argue that engaging in collaborative talk (Swain, 2000) is language learning, where both the process (what is said) and the ability to reflect on what is said (product) engender language development (Swain and Lapkin, 1998). A number of studies (e.g. Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2001; Storch, 2002) have shown that when learners work in pairs or small groups, they use language to deliberate PAIR INTERACTIONS AND MODE OF COMMUNICATION ARTICLES 27.2 about the L2 and in the process of doing so pool their linguistic resources and co-construct linguistic knowledge or knowledge about language. Donato (1994) refers to this pooling of resources as ‘collective scaffolding’. Ohta’s (2001) longitudinal study of peer interaction in a Japanese classroom found that even less proficient peers are able to provide assistance to more proficient peers. However, as Storch (2002) has shown, language students assigned to work in pairs do not always work in patterns that are conducive to language learning. Storch found that when students work in collaborative (working together to solve the problem) or expert/novice (where one assists the other) patterns, they are more likely to offer each other assistance and be receptive to the assistance given. This assistance can take the form of positive feedback or providing corrections, as well as explanations of grammat- ical conventions and word meanings. However, in patterns where one participant dom- inates the interaction, while the other remains fairly inactive (a dominant/passive pattern), or in cases where both members of the pair attempt to dominate the interaction and are not receptive to the advice offered by their partner (a dominant/dominant pattern), there are fewer opportunities for language learning. The small number of studies that have investigated the nature of pair interaction in tact L2 classrooms show similar results (e.g. Aldosari and Storch, 2006; Ives, 2004; Watanabe, 2004). Most studies of interaction to date have considered face-to-face (FTF) interaction. However, given the growing use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the L2 classroom, there is a need to investigate the nature of peer interaction in the computer mediated environment, and what impact this mode of communication has on the nature of the interaction. Before directing our discussion to research on the nature of the interactions in CMC, it is important to consider the key role played by ‘tools’ in sociocultural theory. According to this theory, human social and mental activity is mediated by culturally constructed tools (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf and Thorne, 2006). Tools can be concrete physical artifacts (e.g. calculators, computers, text books) or psychological (e.g. language, whether the L1 or the L2). The important point to consider here is that tools, created by humans, shape the physical and cognitive activity humans engage in. The clearest examples are perhaps of how physical tools such as calculators have changed the ways humans perform arith- metic calculations, and how word processors have affected the way we compose a text. Thus research on human cognitive development (including language learning) needs to take into consideration the effects of tools on human activity. Research has suggested that CMC may affect the dynamics of participation in task- based activities. Some researchers have suggested that CMC may encourage participation 27.3 PAIR INTERACTIONS AND MODE OF COMMUNICATION ARTICLES because of the lack of time pressures (Kelm, 1992; Blake, 2000). Roed (2003), for ex- ample, who compared second language interactions in CMC and FTF, found that CMC encouraged participation and collaboration. CMC advantaged particularly shy students by reducing performance pressures and anxiety. At the same time, vocal students who tended to dominate FTF communication, found it harder to do so in online discussions. Xie (2002), on the other hand, in a study involving 27 advanced learners of Chinese in a 50-minute session of internet relay chat (IRC), reported the problem of unequal parti- cipation: some students seemed to take control and dominated the sessions, whereas three students remained silent during the whole IRC session. He suggests that such pat- terns of participation may be related to the learners typing skills, particularly the ability to type Chinese characters. These changed dynamics have important implications for L2 use and opportunities for L2 learning. Research on the effects of CMC on the use