在現今社會中，英語被世界公民廣泛的應用，為了順利了解文化差異及有效地交流意見，學習使用英文變得重要。在溝通時，學生會應用不同的溝通策略去保持對話順暢。
   此研究主要探討台灣大學生在同步遠距交流中使用的溝通策略及參與度，在為期八周的跨文化遠距交流計畫中，33位台灣學生需要用英文與日本及韓國大學生進行視訊討論每周的主題，這些同學會在計畫前後完成問卷，為了讓研究更加完整，學生在同步視訊的表現皆有錄製以便分析，除此之外，6位學生也自願接受擔任受訪者分享這個計畫帶給他們的反饋。
   結果顯示，參與者較少在此跨文化同步遠距交流表達想法。不常自發性地使用英語表達想法、討論內容的事前準備不夠充分、擔心犯錯及不太熟識這些國際學生會讓台灣學生被認為是較為被動地參與每周視訊交流。然而，台灣學生其實是願意積極參與這次的跨文化同步遠距交流計畫，他們會先聆聽其他人的想法，並在這期間準備要表達的內容；而在表達想法時，溝通策略也會被使用來克服英語溝通時遇到的聽力和口說問題。
   針對未來的溝通策略及同步視訊與教學應用中皆有敘述於本研究中。未來的研究可以針對台灣學生在同步視訊合作學習中的參與度及對於英文對話學習議題加以探討。

Nowadays, English is widely used as a medium among people from different countries. It is necessary to learn and use English to successfully understand cultural diversity and effectively exchange ideas with others around the world. To communicate successfully in a foreign language, learners may use a different set of communication strategies (CSs) to maintain conversations. 
   This study investigates the use of CSs and conversational engagement in synchronous computer-mediated communications (SCMC) of Taiwanese university students with Japanese and Korean students. In an eight-week Interactional Interaction for Global Leadership (IIGL) project, 33 Taiwanese university students engaged in synchronous online chat sections with students from Japanese and Korean universities in English. All the Taiwanese students completed a pre- and post-perception questionnaire. To make the present study more complete, their chat sessions in cross-cultural SCMC were videotaped. Also, 6 students volunteered to share their thoughts via in-depth interviews after the IIGL project.
   Results showed that Taiwanese students are more reluctant in providing verbal contribution in the cross-cultural SCMC. Lacking experiences of spontaneously using the target language, preparing insufficiently before the discussions, fearing of losing face or being unfamiliar with their interactional partners might be the reasons why Taiwanese learners were regarded as passive learners. However, Taiwanese students would still attempt to engage in the cross-cultural SCMC. They would listen to others’ opinions first and prepare their responses in the non-verbal time. When sharing ideas in the classrooms, different communication strategies were utilized to cope with their speaking or listening problems during the cross-cultural SCMC. Pedagogical implications for the use of communication strategies and integration of SCMC and language learning courses are suggested. Future studies like examining Taiwanese students’ actual participation and self-perceived reflection toward English conversations in SCMC collaborative works are also suggested.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT	I
CHINESE ABSTRACT	II
ABSTRACT	III
TABLE OF CONTENTS	V
LIST OF TABLES	VII
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION	1
1.1 Background of the Study	1
1.2 Purpose of the Study	5
1.3 Research Questions	5
1.4 Significance of the Study	6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW	7
2.1 Constructivism	7
2.2 Communication Strategies	8
2.3 The CS Use in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication	10
2.4 Conversational Engagement in Collaborative Interaction	11
2.4.1 Equality	13
2.4.2 Mutuality	15
2.5 Silent Learning in Collaborative Interaction	18
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY	21
3.1	Research Design	21
3.2	Context	21
3.3	Participants	21
3.4	Setting	22
3.4.1. Platform	23
3.4.2. Apowersoft	24
3.5	Data Collection	24
3.5.1. Pre- and post- Perception Questionnaire (see Appendix A)	24
3.5.2. Videotaped Web-Meeting Interaction	30
3.5.3. Semi-Structured Interview	30
3.6	Procedures	31
3.7	Date analysis	33
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	35
4.1 Reasons of Unsuccessful Communication in SCMC	35
4.2 Results of Strategies for Coping with Speaking Problems	37
4.3 Results of Strategies for Coping with Listening Problems	53
4.4 Conversational Engagement in SCMC	67
4.4.1 Equality in SCMC	69
4.4.2 Mutuality in SCMC	74
4.5 Silent Learning in SCMC	79
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION	86
5.1 Summary of the Findings	86
5.2 Limitations of the Study	88
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research	89
5.4 Pedagogical Implication	90
REFERENCES	92
APPENDIX	107
 
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Reliability Analysis Results of Cronbach’s Alpha <Coping with Speaking
Problems>	29
Table 3.2 Reliability Analysis Results of Cronbach’s Alpha <Coping with Listening
Problems>	29
Table 3.3 The Research Schedule	32
Table 4.1 The Reasons of Unsuccessful SCMC	36
Table 4.2 Strategies for Coping with Speaking Problems before the Experiment	38
Table 4.3 The Items in Accuracy-Oriented Strategies	39
Table 4.4 The Items in Message Abandonment Strategies	39
Table 4.5 Strategies for Coping with Speaking Problems during IIGL Project	40
Table 4.6 The Items in Message Abandonment Strategies	43
Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistical Results in Pretest and Posttest	44
Table 4.8 Comparison of Eight Factors for Coping Speaking Problems	46
Table 4.9 Descrptive Satistical Results in Social Affective Strategies	47
Table 4.10 Comparison of the Items in Social Affective Strategies	47
Table 4.11 Students’ Reflection of Maintaining the Disrupted Communication	52
Table 4.12 Strategies for Coping with Listening Problems Before the Experiment	54
Table 4.13 The Items in Less Active Strategies	55
Table 4.14 Strategies for Coping with Listening Problems During IIGL Project	56
Table 4.15 The Items in Less Active Strategies	59
Table 4.16 Descriptive Statistical Results in Pretest and Posttest	60
Table 4.17 Comparison of Seven Factors for Coping Listening Problems	60
Table 4.18 Descriptive Statistical Results of the Items in Nonverbal Strategies While
...Listening	61
Table 4.19 Comparison of The Items in Nonverbal Strategies While Listening	62
Table 4.20 Descriptive Statistical Results of the Items in Scanning Strategies	63
Table 4.21 Students’ Reflection of Maintaining the Disrupted Communication	65
Table 4.22 Are there any students who speak more in the SCMC communication?	68
Table 4.23 Who speak more in the SCMC communication?	68
Table 4.24 Students’ Level of Equality in SCMC	69
Table 4.25 Frequency of Turn-taking in SCMC	75
Table 4.26 Would you still want to engage in the conversations if someone frequently speak
in the SCMC?	80
Table 4.27 Do you think the contents you discussed with international partners are related to
the topics?	85

Allwright, R. (1980). Turns, topics and tasks: Patterns of participation in language teaching and learning. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp.165-187). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Bao, D. (2014). Understanding silence and reticence: Ways of participating in second language acquisition. London, NY: Bloomsburry.

Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner generated attention to form. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209-240). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Blake, R. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2002). Globalization and language teaching. London, NY: Routledge.

Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.


Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London, NY: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. doi: 10.1093/applin/I.1.1

Chartrand, R. (2012). Social networking for language learners: Creating meaningful output with web 2.0 tools. Knowledge Management & E-learning, 4(1), 97-101. doi: 10.34105/j.kmel.2012.04.009

Chen, W. (2016). The effects of conversation engagement on L2 learning opportunities. ELT Journal, 1-12. doi:10.1093/elt/ccw075

Clark, H. (1985). Language use and language users. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp.179-231). Boston, NY: McGraw-Hill

Clark, H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7

Cortazzi, M., & Jin. L. (1996). English teaching and learning in China. Language Teaching, 29(2), 61-80. doi: 10.1017/S0261444800008351

Dabao, A. F. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497-520. doi: 10.1177/1362168813519730

Dabao, A. F. (2016). Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 33-61). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

De Guerrero, M. C. M. (2005). Inner speech-L2: Thinking words in a second language. Puerto Rico, USA: Springer.

Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 55-85. doi: 10.2307/3587805

Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp.137-158). Amesterdam: John Benjamins. 

Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. (1997). Communication strategy in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47(1), 173-210. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.51997005

Dörnyei, Z., & Kormas, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275-300. doi: 10.1177/136216880000400305

Eaton, S. E. (2010). How to use Skype in the ESL/EFL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 16(11), 1-14. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Eaton-UsingSkype.html
 
Ellwood, C., & Nakane, I. (2009). Privileging of speech in EAP and mainstream university classrooms: a critical evaluation of participation. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 203-230. doi: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00165.x

Fan, C. C. (2018). The effect of cross-cultural distance learning on EFL learners’ self-perceived speaking competence (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
https://hdl.handle.net/11296/89v239

Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp.210-238). London, NY: Longman.

Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning, 34, 45-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00995.x

Horibe, H. (1998). A critique of teaching international understanding and intercultural understanding. Modern English Language Education, December, 22-25.
Ho, Y. K. (2003). Audiotaped dialogue journals: An alternative form of speaking practice. ELT Journal, 57(3), 269-277. doi: 10.1093/elt/57.3.269

Huang, D. (2015). A study on the application of task-based language teaching method in a comprehensive English class in China. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(1), 118-127. doi: 10.17507/jltr.0701.13

Hung, Y. W., & Higgins, S. (2016). Learners’ use of communication strategies in text-based and video-based synchronous computer-mediated communication environments: opportunities for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 901-924. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2015.1074589

Jackson, J. (2002). Reticence in second language case discussions: anxiety and aspirations. System, 30(1), 65-84. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00051-3

Jamshidnejad, A. (2011). Functional approach to communication strategies: An analysis of language learners’ performance in interactional discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3757-3769. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.017

Jauregi, K., Graaff, R. D., Bergh, H. V. D., & Kriz, M. (2012). Native/non-native speaker interactions through video-web communication: a clue for enhancing motivation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2001.582587

Jerklin, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: Interpretations and attitudes. Would Englishes, 28(2), 200-207. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01582.x

Jerklin, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. London, NY: Routledge.

Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(8), 739-761. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(98)00061-5

Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing Practices in Chinese Cultures of Learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19 (1) 5-20. 
doi: 10.1080/07908310608668751

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp.11-30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kang, Y. S., Lovett, D., & Haring, K. (2002). Culture and special education in Taiwan. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(5), 12-15. doi: 10.1177/004005990203400502

Karas, M. (2017). Turn-taking and silent learning during open class discussions. ELT Journal, 71(1), 13-23. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccw051

Kasper, G., & Kellerman, E. (1997). Introduction: approaches to communication strategies. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 1-16). London, NY: Longman.

Kato, F., Spring, R., & Mori, C. (2016). Mutually beneficial foreign language learning: Creating meaningful interactions through video-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Foreign Language Annals, 49(2), 355-366. doi: 10.1111/flan.12195

Kaufman, D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 303-319. doi: 10.1017/S0267190504000121

Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring Classroom Interaction with Networked Computers: Effects on Quantity and Characteristics of Language Production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05445.x 

Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language, 27(1), 26-43. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2012.692386

Kormos, J., & Dornyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational 
variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 9(2), 1–21. Retrieved from http://zif.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/jg-09-2/beitrag/kormos2.htm

Kost, C. R. (2008). Use of communication strategies in a synchronous CMC environment. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 153-189). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Kuo, I. C. (2006). Addressing the issue of teaching English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 60(3), 213-221. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccl001

Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232-244. doi: 10.1017/S0958344001000829a

Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learner’s communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 16-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb01829.x

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 769-782. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x

Lin, C. H., Warschauer, M., & Blake, R. (2016). Language learning though social networks: Perceptions and reality. Language learning & Technology, 20, 124-147. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/feburary2016/linewaeschauerblake.pdf.

Lin, H., & Voong, M. (2013). Exploring the efficacy of CMC on second language 
writing: A meta-analysis. WorldCALL Glasgow, 10-13 July, 189-193. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net

Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communicative strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22 (2), 241-265. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.2.241

Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00687.x

Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System, 39 (2), 202-214. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.04.002

McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to measuring communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 5(2), 108-113. doi: 10.1080/08824098809359810

McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207-224. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003

Muhamad, N. A. B. (2014). Investigating the roles of motivation and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in computer mediated-communication (CMC) speaking skills instruction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2), 112-130. doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.112

Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an Oral Communication Strategy Inventory. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (2), 151-168. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00390.x

Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (1), 116-136. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00987.x

Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying Sociocultural Theory to an Analysis of Learner Discourse: Learner-Learner Collaborative Interaction in the Zone of Proximal Development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 94-121. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0zs5j7ps

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research method (2nd ed.). Newbury 
Park, CA: Sage.

Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72. doi: 10.1017/S0267190515000094

Philp, J., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Talking, tuning in and noticing: Exploring the benefits of output in task-based peer interaction. Language Awareness, 22 (4), 353-370. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2012.758128

Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. London, NY: Orion Press

Poulisse, N. (1987). Problems and solutions in the classification of compensatory strategies. Second Language Research, 3, 141-153. doi: 10.1177/026765838700300204

Remedios, L., Clarke, D., & Hawthorne, L. (2008). The silent participant in small group collaborative learning contexts. Active learning in higher education, 9(3), 201-216. doi: 10.1177/1469787408095846

Rosen, T., Nussbaum, M., Alario-Hoyos, C., Readi, F., & Hernἀndez, J. (2014). Silent collaboration with large group in the classroom. IEEE Transaction On learning Technologies, 7(2), 197-203. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2014.2318311

Samarin, W. (1987). Lingua Franca. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (pp.371-374). Berlin: De Gruyer.

Scarcella, R. X. & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston, Mass: Heinle & Heinle.

Soo, R. S., & Goh, H. S. (2013). Reticent students in the ESL classrooms. Advances in language and literary studies, 4(2), 65-73. doi: 10.7575/aiac.alls.v.4n.2p.65

Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melborne, Australia. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11343/38809

Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair-work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31-48. doi: 10.1177/1362168812457530

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Technique and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sun, Y. C. (2009). Voice Blog: An Exploratory Study of Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 88-103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num2/sun.pdf

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London, NY: Continuum.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5

Taillefer, L., & Munoz-Luna, R. (2014). Developing oral skills through skype: A language project analysis. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 260-264. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.045

Tan, L. L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storth, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 2701-2724. doi: 10.2104/aral1027

Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 30(2), 417-431. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00326.x

Tarone, E., Cohen, A., & Dumas, G. (1976). A closer look at some interlanguage terminology. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 9, 76-90. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/31550795/A_Closer_Look_at_Some_Interlanguage_Terminology_A_Framework_for_Communication_Strategies._Working_Papers_on_Bilingualism_No._9

Terhune, N. M. (2016). Language learning going global: Linking teachers and learners via commercial skype-based CMC. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(6), 1071-1089. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2015.1061020

Tian, J., & Wang, Y. (2010). Taking language learning outside the classroom: Learners’ perspectives of E tandem learning via Skype. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 181-197. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2010.513443

Towndrow, P., & Vallence, M. (2004). Using IT in the language classroom. Singapore: Longman.

Tsou, W. (2005). Improving speaking skills through instruction in oral classroom participation. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 46-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02452.x

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, US: Harvard University Press.

Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142. doi: 10.1177/136216880607074599

Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1997). Studying language use as collaboration. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 238-277). London, NY: Longman.

Wu, W. C. V., Marek, M., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Assessing cultural awareness and linguistic competency of EFL learners in a CMC-based active learning context. System, 41(3), 515-528. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.05.004

Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2006). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 15-25. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005

Xie, X. (2010). Why are students quiet? Looking at the Chinese context and beyond. ELT Journal, 64(1), 10-20. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccp060

Xie, X. (2011). Turn allocation patterns and learning opportunities. ELT Journal, 65(3), 240-250. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccq064

Yang, Y., Gamble, J. & Tang, S. (2012). Voice over instant messaging as a tool for enhancing the oral proficiency and motivation of English-as-a-foreign-language learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 448–464. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01204.x

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54-66. doi: 10.1111/1540-4781.00136

Young, A., & Tedick, D. J. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish-English immersion classroom: Does heterogeneous grouping promote peer linguistic scaffolding? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135-160). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Zhan, S., & Sun, Y. (2015). Literature review of the studies of spoken English in the past five years in China. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University, 15(1), 123-126. Retrieved from http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-CQJS201501032.htm