The effects of synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) on language learning have been researched widely and proved significant because of SCMC’s similarity with oral communication. SCMC involves interlocutors in real-time communication, requiring them to comprehend the input immediately and give instant responses, yet is less demanding compared to the traditional face-to-face (FTF) mode. However, the current interest centers around whether the improvement language learners have displayed in SCMC modes can be transferred to real-life oral language performance. The different features of language produced in FTF communication and SCMC have been investigated, but only a few studies have discussed the transferability of skills developed in the two modes (e.g. Abrams, 2003).
In regard to transferability, Payne and Whitney (2002) conducted an experiment hypothesizing that SCMC develops the same cognitive processing mechanism needed in FTF communication and thus it can indirectly improve oral performance. The research also brought forth a subordinate factor— working memory capacity (WMC). It was stated that when speaking, the functions of storage and processing are competing for limited capacity. Results from their study indicated that the chatroom environment may be beneficial for students with lower ability to maintain verbal information especially in the phonological loop. However, their working memory tests were mainly recognition-based and could not explore more deeply the relationship between working memory capacity and oral proficiency development.
Replicated from the Payne and Whitney (2002) study, this present study aims to investigate the effect of SCMC on English learners’ development of oral proficiency, in which WM is also proposed as a variable that influences learners’ improvement and the suitability of interaction modes. The purposes of this present study are targeted to examine (1) if L2 oral proficiency can be improved through SCMC interaction, and (2) if individual difference in working memory is a related factor of the efficiency of oral proficiency improvement cultivated through SCMC-interaction.
The present study is a quasi-experimental study containing two amended WM tests, a speaking pretest, treatment in the form of five discussion interactions, and a speaking posttest. The data was collected from an intact class of freshman college students who are English majors, taking the course of Introduction to Linguistics. The whole class was divided into two groups. One of them served as a control group, receiving the traditional FTF interaction. The other was the experimental group that used SCMC media (i.e. G-talk) as the medium to interact with their group members. Two working memory tests were applied at the beginning of the semester to measure the participants’ working memory capacity. An impromptu speech pre-test was given after the working memory tests, prior to any treatment. After the treatment of five instances of interactive activities (i.e., the experimental group using SCMC and the control group using face-to-face), another impromptu-speech post-test was administered to see if there was any improvement in their speaking proficiency. In the end, a questionnaire was distributed to the participants for their responses of receiving respective interaction.
To complement the possible inadequate and insensitive holistic rating scale used in the previous studies, both the holistic (TOEFL iBT independent speaking rubrics) and analytic scales (amount of output, lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, accuracy, and fluency) were adopted to measure the participants’ oral production. To investigate the relationship between working memory capacities and L2 speech production, a correlation analysis was applied to determine the degree of association. By means of this measure of their relationship, whether working memory capacity is a significant related factor of L2 speech production would be verified. Last, the participants’ perspectives and perceptions on their improvement and their attitudes towards their treatment were collected to support the statistical findings.
The results indicated that both groups improved to some degree while learners benefited in different language features in different learning environments. The results supported our prediction that through the implementation of SCMC interactive activities, participants in the experimental group would perform better than or at least equivalently well compared to the control group receiving the FTF interaction. That is because in the environment of online chatting, the burden on working memory would be reduced, and thus linguistic development of students with lower working memory span could be facilitated. Also, the use of holistic rating scale was tested to be necessary to target subtle changes in language development. As for working memory capacity to be a related factor of learners’ rate of oral improvement, there was no significant relationship. Inconsistent with the prediction, more consideration in regard to various speaking-processing tasks should be made. Last, the participants’ attitudes were generally positive but more time was needed for them to sense their significant improvement, thereby increasing their likeability about the new technology.

摘要 i
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements v
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Statement of problem 1
1.2 Purpose of the study 4
1.3 Significance of the study 5
1.4 Organization of the study 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review 7
2.1 The essence of computer-mediated communication 7
2.1.1 Computer technology and language learning 7
2.1.2 Synchronous CMC and asynchronous CMC 7
2.1.3 Advantages of synchronous CMC in language learning 8
2.1.4 Synchronous CMC versus FTF modalities in language learning 10
2.2 CMC and its transferability to oral performance 15
2.3 Levelt’s language production model for speaking 20
2.3.1 The importance of speaking 20
2.3.2 Levelt’s language production model 21
2.4 Working memory capacity 23
2.4.1 Working memory introduction 23
2.4.2 The working memory model 25
2.4.3 Levelt’s model and working memory capacity 26
2.4.4 Individual differences in WM for language learning 27
2.5 Individual differences in WM and synchronous CMC context 32
Chapter 3 Research Methods 36
3.1 Research design 36
3.2 Data collection 38
3.2.1 Participants and setting 39
3.2.2 Instruments and procedure 40
3.2.3 Scoring criteria and data analysis 47
Chapter 4 Results 59
4.1 Oral proficiency changes 59
4.1.1 Holistic oral proficiency changes 60
4.1.2 Analytic oral proficiency changes 64
4.2 Working memory as a related factor 71
4.2.1 WM as a related factor of holistic improvement 72
4.2.2 WM as a related factor of analytic improvement 72
4.3 Perspectives and perceptions toward synchronous CMC 73
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion 80
5.1 Discussion 80
5.1.1 Effects of treatments on oral proficiency performance 80
5.1.2 Working memory as the related factor of oral proficiency improvement in the synchronous CMC context 92
5.1.3 Participants’ perspectives and perceptions on their treatments 95
5.2 Summary of the study 98
5.3 Pedagogical implications 100
5.4 Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research 101
References 104
Appendices 111
Appendix A 111
Appendix B 114
Appendix C 118
Appendix D 119

Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87, 157-167.
Adam, A. M., & Gathercole, S. E. (1995). Phonological working memory and speech production in preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 403-414.
Ashcraft, M. H.,(1994). Human memory and cognition. New York: Harper Collins.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control process. In K. W. Spencer (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D. & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol 8 (pp. 47-90). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Neuroscience, 4, 829-839.
Barr, D., Leakey, J., & Ranchoux, A. (2005). TOLD like it is! An evaluation of an integrated oral development pilot project. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 55-78.
Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-processing theories of mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130 (3), 553-573.
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455-464.
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement of fourth semester French students. In J. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Issues in language program direction (pp. 93-116). Boston: Heinle.
Birjandi, P., & Ahangari, S. (2008). Effects of task repetition on the fluency, complexity and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral discourse. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(3), 28-52.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4, 120-136.
Bohlke, O. (2003). Adjective production by learners of German in chatroom and face-to-face discussions. Teaching German, 36(1), 67-73.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, Skehan & Swain (Eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman.
Chang, L. Y. (2007). The Use of Structured Instant Online Discussion to Enhance College Students’ Oral Proficiency. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Cheng Kung University.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Cobb, T. (2002). The Web Vocabulary Profiler.
Collentine, K. (2009). Learner use of holistic language units in multimodal, task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 68-87.
Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance, and the other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 183-199.
Cummins, J. (1986). Cultures in contact: Using classroom microcomputers for cultural exchange and reinforcement. TESL Canada Journal /Revue TESL du Canada, 3(2), 13-31.
D’Ely, R. (2004). A focus on learners’ metacognitive processes: strategic planning, repetition and planning for repetition as catalysis of interlanguage development. Trabalho de pesquisa nao publicado. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
Daneman, M. (1991). Working memory as a predicator of verbal fluency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 445-464.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450-466.
Daneman, M., & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450-466.
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-24.
De Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1993). Word production and the bilingual lexicon. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 191-124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to task. In R. Day, (Ed.), Taking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147-181). NY: Newbury House.
Engle, R., Kane, M., & Tuholski, S. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shan (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finardi, K. (2008). Effects of task repetition on L2 oral performance. Trab.Lin.Aplic., Campinas, 47(1), 31-43.
Fiori, M. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 567-602.
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67-86.
Fortkamp, M. B. M. (2000). Working memory capacity and L2 speech production: an exploratory study. Tese de doutorado. Florianópolis: Pós-graduaçao em Ingles e Literatura Correespondente, UFSC.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
Fraser, C. C. (1999). Report: Geothe gossips with Grass: Using computer chatting software in an introductory literature course. Unterrichtspraxis, 32, 66-74.
Freed, B. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123-148). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gathercole, S. E. (1995). Is nonword repetition a test of phonological memory or long-term knowledge? It all depends on the nonwords. Memory & Cognition, 23 (1), 83-94.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.
Guillot, M. –N (1999). Fluency and its teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Harrington, M. (1992). Working memory capacity as a constraint on L2 development. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 123-135). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hieke, A. E. (1985). A componential approach to oral fluency evaluation. The Modern Language Journal, 69, 135-142.
http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/r21270/textools/web_vp.html
Hunt, K. W (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(134). Chicago: University of Chicago Express.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122-149.
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441-454.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kost, C. R. (2004). An investigation of the effects of synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on interlanguage development in beginning learners of German: Accuracy, proficiency, and communication strategies. ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3131612)
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. New York: Longman.
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102-120.
Leeson, R. (1975). Fluency and language teaching. London: Longman.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387-417.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. B., & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Maclay, H. & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15, 19-44.
Malone, M. E., Rifkin, B., & Johnson, D. E (2003). Attaining high levels of proficiency: challenges for language education in the United States. Conference on Global Challenges and U.S. Higher Education, January, 23-25.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology, 8(3), 299-325.
McLaughlin, B., & Heredia, R. (1996). Information-processing approaches to research on second language acquisition and use. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds. ), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 231-228). San Diego: Academic Press.
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second-language learning: an information processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135-158.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83-108.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the behavior of structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. Healy & L. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 139-164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mota, M. B. (2003). Working memory capacity and fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical density in L2 speech production. Revista Fragmentos, 24, 69-104.
Murray, D. E. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 397-421.
Olynyk, M., Sankoff, D., & d’Anglejan, A. (1983). Second language fluency and the subjective evaluation of officer cadets in a military college. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 213-249.
Ortega. L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1 (1), 82-93.
Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 25-54.
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. (2000). 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 (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Polio, C. G., (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 1, pp.101-113.
Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15, 36-57.
Riggenbach, H. (1989). Nonnative fluency in dialogue versus monologue speech: a microanalytic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423-441.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5-27.
Schmitt, M. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29-53.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Sticht, T. G. (1972). Learning by listening. In R. O. Freedle & J. B. Carroll (Eds.), Learning comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington, D. C.: Winston.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Tannenbaum, P. H., Williams, F., & Hillier, C. S. (1965). Word predictability in the environments of hesitations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 134-140.
Thorn, L. S., & Payne, S. J. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 371-397.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-25.
Wiese, R. (1984). Language production in foreign and native languages: same or different? In H. W. Dechert, D. Mohle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 11-25). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in Writing: Measurement in fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu: HI: University of Hawai'i, Press.
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written aspects of computer conferencing. In S. C. Hering (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistics, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Young, R. (1995). Conversational Styles in Language Proficiency Interviews. Language Learning, 45, 1, 3-42.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.
Zheng, S. N. (2010). The Transferability from Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication to Oral Discussion. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Tsing Hua University.