! !" # #$
#
"
i are published as LBPP LIA holds its international conferences. This journal is preceeded by the 7th LIA Classroom Action Research Journal. The 8th LIA
Research Journal 2015’s edition is aimed at providing teacher-researchers a not be reproduced, in whole or in part,
without the written permission of the innovative, thought-provoking papers we have received. To us, this has shown that teacher-reserachers and lecturers from Indonesia and some other countries around the world have been excited by the opportunity to have their papers presented an published.
Our second issue contains forty papers written by English teachers and lecturers. These essays have been carefully selected based on their importance and relevance to the theme of LIA International Conference 2015: Teaching English in the 21st Century.We selected these papers from a pool of 162 submissions of abstracts from interested professional teachers and lecturers from across the globe---from Indonesia, the United Kingdom,China, The USA, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines.
We thank all who submitted papers and the planning committee, who nominated the best papers. All in all, we thank all parties have made publishing thejournalpossible. We hope that the journal can be a more established part of the academic community of LBPP LIA as well as other parties who support LBPP LIA in making this journal possible to be issued.
94
EFL Learners’ Grammatical Difficulties during CMC interactions
Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul
Satya Wacana Christian University
Abstract
The internet is now a common medium for communication. In linguistic studies, this form of communication is
termed as Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and has been considered as another revolution of human
communication after speaking and writing (Harnard, 1991). This online interaction is also widely practised by
English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners. As in Face-to-Face (FTF) communication, where communication
in a foreign language is a more complicated task compared to the one in the first language, EFL learners also
experience difficulties when communicating online. Since EFL learners are more likely to focus on forms
during text-based chats (Warschauer, 1997), this study investigated the grammatical difficulties faced by EFL
learners during CMC activities. 7 EFL learners from Indonesia participated in this research. Intended as a
process-based approach, this study looked at the cognitive processes rather than the language produced
(product-based). Collected through SRP (Stimulated Recall Protocol) sessions and focusing on pauses and
revisions, the data reflected the cognitive processes of the language production of the EFL learners during their
communication. The pauses and revisions revealed the trail of the problems experienced by the EFL learners in
communication. It was depicted that communication problems started to occur before a sentence is produced.
The data showed that there were a number of grammatical areas where the EFL learners still had to struggle
with during their CMC interactions. Despite the different modes of communication, the slow motion (Beauvois,
1998) of this online conversation could also serve as the portrait of the FTF interactions.
Key Words: Grammar, CMC, Process-Based Approach, Cognitive Processes, Pauses and Revisions
INTRODUCTION
The development of communication technologies, both in devices (e.g. computers, smartphones, and tablets)
and software (computer programmes, web apps, and smartphone apps), have helped increase the rate of human
interaction over the internet, and particularly in text-based forms (Warschauer (1997). This text-based
interaction is now a common mode of communication and has been termed as CMC (Computer Mediated
95
written modes but in spoken-like conversational forms. This nature of synchronous CMC leads Beauvois
(1998) to describe this as conversation in slow motion.
As a common medium of interaction, CMC is used by users of different languages. For EFL learners, CMC
could serve as the medium for practising their English (Sumakul, 2013). However, like in oral FTF
(Face-to-Face) conversations, there are difficulties that they have to face while communicating in CMC. As EFL learners
are more likely to focus on forms during text-based interaction (Warschauer, 1997), one of the difficulties they
deal with would be grammatical difficulties.
This paper would discuss the grammatical difficulties that EFL learners could face during online interaction.
The discussion is based on a research, a process-based approach, conducted through SRP (Stimulated Recall
Protocol) sessions. As process-based, the research looked at the cognitive processes occurred in the EFL
learners’ minds rather than the sentences produced (product-based). The difficulties were retrieved during SRP
sessions focusing on pauses and revisions.
CMC: the 4th revolution in human communication
Harnard (1991) predicted that skywriting, the term he used for text-based online communication, would be the
fourth revolution in human communication and cognition. Looking at the history of human race, people started
to talk to each other since the vocal tracts began to develop in human evolution around 50,000 to 100,000 years
ago. This was the first revolution of human communication when we became able to describe and explain the
world we live in. Later, around 5,000 years ago, the second revolution emerged through the development of
writing. The writing system made communication preservable. However, unlike the spoken language, writing is
slow and has limited scope, thus less interactive. This limitation of writing was improved when the third
revolution came up. It was when Guttenberg invented the printing machine that made the writing language
could be distributed more quickly and widely. However it was still less interactive compared to speaking.
Solymar (1999) explains that the development of communication systems has sped up during the last century. It
took hundreds of thousands of years for the writing system to develop, some thousands of years after that
before the invention of the printing machine and, since then, further inventions related to communication
occurred within even-shorter time: the telegraph, the telephone, the facsimile machine, the computer, the
96
The internet has introduced a new mode of communication in the form of CMC. The journey of human
communication in now revolutionised. Crystal (2001), using the term ‘netspeak’, considers it as a new medium
of linguistic communication.
The nature of CMC
Traditionally, there were two main modes of communication, written and spoken modes (Meyer, 2009), and
each mode has its own features which are mediated in CMC. First, it can be viewed from the temporal elements
of language production. In speaking, the message is conveyed at the time of speaking, whereas in writing the
message is conveyed not during language production, but later, when other people read the written language.
Therefore, spoken language is characterised by repetitions, incomplete sentences, and use of informal
expressions. Meanwhile, writing enables writers to review and edit the language before other people read it.
Therefore, the language is more concise, structured, and formal. These characteristics in both modes are
incorporated in CMC, with the spontaneity and informal styles of spoken language are contained within the
production mode of written language. Particularly in synchronous CMC, although the communication happens
in real time, people are still able to think and edit the message before sending it to the interlocutor.
Second, it can also be seen from their functions: writing with its reflectional function and speaking with its
interactional function (Warschauer, 1997). Speaking is interactional since it is characterised by taking turns,
responding, and even interrupting with other people joining the conversation. On the other hand, writing is
reflectional because it can be accessed and analysed by many people at different times. With its reflectional
features, written language cannot take place at the same time and therefore be as interactive as spoken
language. However, CMC resolves this issue with its interactive elements. The written form of CMC can be
easily edited or re-edited during online interactions. Furthermore, as it is written using computer devices, it
could easily be stored for reflectional purposes. Employing the features of both oral and written
communication, Chun (1994) says that online writing or CMC is a good bridge between speaking and writing,
97
METHODOLOGY
Context of study
Being a process-based approach (Færch & Kasper, 1984; Miller & Sullivan, 2006), this study focuses on the
cognitive processes in the EFL learners’ minds while they constructed their sentences, instead of the sentences
produced (product-based). The thought processes were observed from the pauses and revisions that the learners
made during writing. Particularly in writing studies, pauses and revisions are significant clues to cognitive
processes (Miller, 2006; Lindgren & Sullivan, 2006) as pauses and revisions could be seen as indications of
how learners process the language.
The data were taken during chat sessions made by the EFL learners participated in this research. The
participants were encouraged to conduct their chats in the same way as they would usually chat with their
friends, to be as natural as possible. Observing communication in an unnatural, artificial setting could reduce
the possibility of revealing the true nature of the communication (Mann & Stewart, 2000). Therefore, to
preserve the naturalness of the communication, the participants were free to choose their own chat service and
the time and place for the chat sessions. They also chose their own topics and who to talk to. All of these were
done so the activities the participants did during data collection could resemble the general situation of their
usual, natural online chat activities.
Participants
The participants of this research were 7 EFL learners. They were 3 female and 4 male students from Indonesia.
On the average, all participants had started using online chat services for one year. English was also one of the
languages they usually used in online communication beside Bahasa Indonesia and their local languages. For
this research, the participants did their chat sessions in different chat or social-networking websites (Yahoo
Messenger, Facebook, Skype, and Omegle – but most of the participants used Facebook). For efficiency
98
Instruments of data collection
Screen recording software
The software used was Camstudio (version 2.0). It recorded all screen activities and saved it in a video file. As
it could record all screen activities, the videos were instrumental to identify the pauses and revisions made. An
example of the video image is presented in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Example of the video image from the screen activities recorded.
Keystroke logging software
The software was REFOG Free Keylogger. It recorded every keystroke used by the participants during the
process of writing. Along with the screen-recording software, it provided a full documentation of the entire
writing process. The chat-logs retrieved from this software, combined with the records on pauses and revisions
from the screen recording software, were used to represent the data in the analysis stage. Figure 2 is an example
of the keystrokes logged by the software.
.... he[Space] i[BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE]y[Space]
i'd[Space] like[Space] to[Space] know[Space] more[Space]
about[Space] your[Space] nr[BACKSPACE]ew[Space]
game[Enter]
99
what[BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE][BAC
KSPACE][BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE][Space]
it's[Space] different[Space] from[Space]
game[SHIFT]??[Enter]
well[Space] i[Space] d[BACKSPACE]don[Space]
t[BACKSPACE]re[BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE][BACKS
PACE]t[Space] realy[Space] know[Space] bout[Space]
it#[BACKSPACE][Enter] ….
Figure 2. Example of the chat-log
Stimulated recall protocol (SRP)
SRP was utilised to get the description of the cognitive processes. After the chat session, each participant,
accompanied by the researcher, watched the video from the screen recording software and was interviewed
about what happened in his/her mind during each pause and each revision. This was the key session to
investigate the cognitive processes of the participants during CMC.
Jiménéz (2007) provides a comprehensive review on SRP. As an alternative to Think Aloud Protocol (TAP),
SRP has been widely used in second language research and has been generally described under introspection
terminology (Gass & Mackey, 2000). Both SRP and TAP are kinds of verbal protocols (Kasper, 1998) in
describing cognitive processes. However, TAP could cause an unacceptable of interference, and Liu and Lu
(2008) state that compared to TAP, SRP is less intrusive and could elicit more reliable data from the
participants.
Research procedure
To sum up, the followings are the primary steps taken in this study:
i. Chat Sessions. Participants were asked to chat online and, while doing so, all their activities were recorded
100
ii. SRP. Right after the chat session, participants were asked about what happened in their mind during their
online interactions, focusing on the pauses and revisions they made. These sessions typically lasted twice
longer the chat sessions, 20-60 minutes.
iii. Findings and discussion. To find the answers to the research question, the data were analysed to see the
grammatical difficulties they encountered with during their online conversation.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Technical matters
To reveal the grammatical difficulties experienced by the EFL learners, the conversation flow in the videos
from the screen-recording software was observed and compared with the interview from the SRP sessions.
However, since videos are not possible to include in this written report, the analysis presented is based on the
chat-logs recorded by the keystroke-logging software. Moreover, the chat-logs have been completed with marks
where the related pauses and revisions occurred. For example, see Figure 3, an excerpt from a participant’s
chat-log.
i'm[Space] going[Space] to[Space] salsa[Space] with[Space] my[Space] friends[Enter]
salsa[Space] party[Enter] (R 01)
hoping[Space] to[Space] meet[Space] a[BACKSPACE](R 02) british[Space] girls[Enter]
can[Space] u[Space] reccommend[Space] me[Space] some[Space] british[Space] girls (P 01)[Right
Ctrl][RIGHT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][RIGHT][BACKSPACE][BACKSPAC E][BACKSPACE][RIGHT][Space] to[Space] me(R 03)[Enter]
hahaha[Enter]
[Left mouse-click]what[Space] about[Space] the[Space] spanish[Space]
girl\/[BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE]\/[BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE][SHIFT]?[Enter]
Figure 3. Chat-log example with marks
Compared to Figure 1 earlier, this excerpt has been completed with marks of pauses and revisions. Pauses are
indicated by the letter ‘P’ and revisions by ‘R’. These letters are also accompanied by two-digit numbers
101
brackets. Therefore, in the chat-logs, there are (Pxx) and (Rxx) marks. For example, within one participant’s
chat-log, (P01) is the mark for the first pause and (P05) is the mark for the fifth pause. The same description
goes with the revision marks.
Pauses represent the relatively longer time intervals compared to each participant’s normal typing-rate. They
could not be seen in the chat-logs but were visible from the videos from the video-recording software. With
similar explanation, revisions represent the revising or editing activities. Beside from the videos, they could
also be seen from the chat-logs when a participant struck the backspace key, which is marked by the symbol
[BACKSPACE] in the chat-logs. They could also be seen when the participant struck the left arrow key –
marked by the symbol [LEFT] in the chat-logs, sometimes several times in a row, which showed that the
participant moved the typing-pointer to an earlier part of the sentence to insert new letters or words. When the
participant finally sent the message to the interlocutor, it could be seen from the moment she/he struck the enter
key – marked by the symbol [Enter].
It must be noted that, during the data collection, a number of pauses and revisions other than the ones marked in
the chat-logs were also found. However, since they were not related to the focus of this research, which is on
grammatical difficulties, they were excluded from the analysis.
Grammatical difficulties
The grammatical difficulties presented in this section are the grammatical areas that the participants found
problematic during their online chat sessions. It must be noted that the difficulties here are seen from a
process-based perspective. These are the grammatical area where the participant consciously had to struggle with while
writing their sentences, not the errors seen in the sentences after they produced them. A participant might have
still produced a grammatical sentence. However, it was not the sentence that was analysed but the process of
how she/he finally came up with that sentence.
Within the above condition, the online conversations were then analysed and there were 57 occurrences of
grammatical difficulties faced by the 7 participants. These 57 findings on grammatical difficulties were then
102
No .
Grammatical Difficulties
Frequency
Percentag e (%) Participant Tot
al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Verb Forms 1 3 9 4 1 1 1 20 35.09
2. Clauses 0 0 3 2 1 1 9 16 28.07
3. Auxiliaries 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 7 12.28
4. Nouns 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 7.02
5. Prepositions 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 7.02
6. Determiners 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 5.26
7. Collocation Errors 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3.51
8. Direct/Indirect
Objects 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.75
Total difficulties faced 6 10 13 7 5 6 10 57 100.00
Table 1. Summary of findings on grammatical difficulties
From the 8 grammatical difficulties mentioned above, based on their frequency of occurrence and their
distribution levels (i.e. the number of participants who faced the same difficulties), there are 3 prominent area
of grammatical difficulties. They are the grammatical areas with the highest frequencies both in occurrence and
distribution levels, and the discussion focuses more on these subjects. They are verb Forms, clauses, and
103
Verb Forms
Verb form-related difficulties occurred when the participants were struggled to find the correct verb forms in
certain grammatical conditions. These difficulties were related to the use of ing-forms, past-tense forms,
passive forms, or verb forms after prepositions. There were also cases where the participants were confused
with which tense-form to use.
There were 20 occurrences related to this verb-form difficulty, experienced by 6 of the 7 participants. For
example, there is evidence of a grammatical difficulty related to verb forms in Figure 4 below, an excerpt from
Participant 2’s chat-log.
so[Space] they[Space] will[Space]
interest[Space](P05)[LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT]be[Space] [DOWN][RIGHT][BACKSPACE] (R02)ed [Space] in[Space] your[Space] web[Space] and[Space](P06)will[Space] ask[Space] u[Space] too[BACKSPACE][Space]join[Space] them[Space]
as[Space] web[Space] programmer[SHIFT]?[Enter]
Figure 4. An excerpt of Participant 2’s chat-log with verb-form difficulty
From the figure, we could see that the participant was writing ‘so they will interest …’, paused (P05), and
revised (R02) the sentence. The revision was shown when the participant went back several characters, by
striking the left arrow key several times, and inserted the word ‘be’ after the word ‘will’. Right after that, the
participant moved the pointer to the right of the word ‘interest’ and added the two-letter inflection ‘ed’. The
revised version was then read ‘so they will be interested …’. During the SRP session, while watching the video,
Participant 2 explained that while writing the sentence he paused because he felt unsure about the verb form,
realised that it should be in a passive form, and then revised it.
Another example is presented in Figure 5 which is taken from Participant 5’s conversation.
[Right mouse-click]ok[Space] ..[Space] im[Space] (P01)
stay[Space] in[Space] library[Space]
..#[BACKSPACE][Enter]
Figure 5. An excerpt of Participant 5’s Chat-log with
104
From the excerpt above, we can see that the participant paused (P01) before writing the main verb ‘stay’. When
asked she said that she was thinking about the verb form to use. With the decision to finally use the
non-inflected form of the verb, which was incorrect, it strengthens the idea this participant has a problem with her
knowledge in verb forms. Even in the SRP session, the participant was not aware that this was an incorrect use
of the non-inflected verb form.
Clauses
This category represents the difficulty which occurred in clause levels, the whole structure of a sentence. In
some occasions, which were revealed during the SRP sessions, the participants admitted that the difficulty
happened because they did not know how to say the whole sentence. It means that this could be a combination
of a form-meaning difficulty. However, since forms were involved, this type of difficulty is still considered as a
type of grammatical difficulties.
This type of difficulties was experienced by 5 participants out of the 7 participants and occurred 16 times
during the data collection. It has the second highest frequency after Verb forms, among the 8 types of
grammatical difficulties observed. The example for this type of difficulty is taken from Participant 7’s chat-log
and presented in Figure 6 below.
is[Space] there[Space] any[Space]
se[BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE]girl[Space] that[Space]
wi[BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE] (R02)(P02) has[Space] stolen[Space] your[Space] heart[SHIFT]?#lol[Enter]
Figure 6. An excerpt of Participant 7’s chat-log with syntax difficulty
The excerpt shows that the participant deleted (R02) her word and paused (P02) before writing the words that
followed. When asked about this, she mentioned that at first she wanted to say ‘is there any girl that with you?’
but soon doubted that it was grammatical - while she was in the middle of writing the preposition ‘with’,
cancelled the word ‘with’ by deleting (R02) the already written two-letter ‘wi’, thought (P02) about it for a
while, and finally came up with the interrogative sentence ‘is there any girl that has stolen your heart?’. This is
a clause-level difficulty since it occurred in the clause level and also a combination of form and meaning
105
with you’ was a literal translation from the Indonesian language, while the latter, ‘that has stolen your heart’
was the revised version that the participant thought should conform well to the rules in English grammar.
Another example is in Figure 7. This is taken from Participant 3’s chat-log.
[Left mouse-click]as[Space] usual,[Space] (P08) im[Space] fresh[Space] as[Space] daffodil[Space]
[BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE]k[Space]
[BACKSPACE][BACKSPACE]l[Space] in[Space] the[Space]
morning[Space] LOL[Enter]
Figure 7. An excerpt of Participant 3’s chat-log with syntax difficulty
From the sentence in the figure above, it seems that there is nothing unusual about it. The chat-log shows that
the participant paused (P08) before writing the clause, ‘im fresh as daffodil in the morning’. However, during
the SRP interview, it was revealed that the participant actually intended to say, ‘I feel fresh’ or ‘I am feeling
fresh’, but was not sure whether to use a simple or progressive verb. He then remembered a lyric from a song,
and quoted it in his message. Furthermore, although the difficulty seems to occur at the verb-form levels, it was
actually at the whole clause because the coping strategy used was applied not only to the verbs but also to the
whole sentence. This is also an example of the combination of form and meaning-related difficulty. In his
further comment, the participant also mentioned that he was looking for a sentence that could represent the idea
that he was feeling so fresh at the moment of speaking.
Auxiliaries
Auxiliaries are used to mark tense and aspect of the primary verb, or often called the lexical verb, in a sentence.
Meyer (2009: 125) classifies auxiliaries into 2 major types, primary auxiliaries which are be, have, and do, and
modal auxiliaries which consists of the words such as will, can, or might. Unlike the lexical verbs, auxiliaries
belong to the closed class and are finite in number.
In this research, from the 57 findings of the grammatical difficulties, 7 were on auxiliaries. The difficulties were
mostly about the confusion on which auxiliary verb to use in interrogative and negative sentences. There were
also some cases where the participants were unsure whether to use an auxiliary or not. In certain cases, this
106
more to the use of auxiliaries before the verbs, they have been classified into auxiliary-type of difficulties. As
an example, we could take a look at Figure 8, an excerpt of Participant 4’s conversation.
(P05) do[Space] you[Space] still[Space] go[Space] to[Space] church [SHIFT]?[Enter]
Figure 8. An excerpt of Participant 4’s chat-log with
auxiliarydifficulty
In Figure 8 above, we could see that the participant paused (P05) before writing the sentence ‘do you still go
church?’ When asked during the SRP session, Participant 4 explained that she was thinking about the auxiliary
to use for the interrogative question, whether ‘do’ or ‘are’. She said she finally decided to use ‘do’ after
recalling the rules she learned in her English lessons.
The second example is from Participant 6’s conversation and presented in Figure 9 below.
what[Space] (P03) up[BACKSPACE][Space] up[Space] to[SHIFT]/[Left mouse-click][Enter]
Figure 9. An excerpt of Participant 6’s chat-log with auxiliary
difficulty
We could see that the participant paused (P03) after writing the interrogative word. During the SRP session, he
said that he was thinking about the auxiliary to use and was recalling the grammar rules from his previous
lessons while pausing. Participant 6 admitted that he actually missed to put any auxiliary although he had found
out that the sentence should be ‘what do you up to?’.
Verdict: it is all about verbs
From the 3 common grammatical areas discussed above, it could be observed that despite the different terms
used they are actually related to verb usage. Participants were actually dealing with the conception of verbs in
the English language. In verb-forms difficulties, participants were struggles with the inflected forms of verbs;
whether to use the non-inflected forms, the –ed inflected forms (past tense or past participle forms), or the –ing
inflected forms (present participle or gerund forms). It is similar cases for clauses difficulties. Although the
107
certain meaning properly and how to use a verb for the clause to be considered grammatical. Since a verb is the
central element of a clause, incorrect use of the verb would lead to an incorrect form or the clause and/or an
inappropriate function of the clause. Auxiliaries are even more related to verb usage. Different auxiliaries need
to be complemented with different forms of verbs. For example, “be” can be followed by –ing forms or –ed
forms (past participle), but “do” cannot. In another case, “do” can be complemented with non-inflected forms,
but “be” cannot.
In many occasions, the participants were observed to have difficulties in dealing with verbs. They needed to
pause or revise their sentences before sending the message to their chat partners. When pausing or revising their
messages they were actually thinking and analysing what verb to use or how to use a verb in a sentence. In
other words, “verbs” has been observed to be the most problematic grammatical area for EFL learners when
constructing their sentences. The reason for this could be the difference between L1 (Bahasa Indonesia) and L2
(English) grammar system. For example, verbs do not have inflected forms in Bahasa Indonesia to show tenses.
There are other ways to refer to tenses in Bahasa Indonesia. Another example of the differences is the
requirement to have a verb in the predicate of an English sentence while in Bahasa Indonesia a predicate does
not have to contain a verb. As the verb is the centre element of a clause in English sentences, the probability for
Indonesian EFL learners to face this kind of difficulty could be even higher.
CONCLUSION
This study was aimed at finding the grammatical difficulties experienced by EFL learners during
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). For this purpose, 7 EFL learners were asked to chat online and their chat
sessions were observed and recorded. The chat-logs were then analysed based on the pauses and revisions they
made during their interactions. These pauses and revision were the source of the data to investigate the
grammatical difficulties the participants were dealing with in constructing their sentences.
The data analysis showed that there were 8 areas of grammar that the participants found problematic during
their online chats. They were verb forms, clauses, auxiliaries, nouns, prepositions, determiners, collocations,
and direct/indirect objects. However, the first 3 were the types of difficulties that dominated the findings in
terms of frequency of occurrence and distribution among the participants. Moreover, these 3 types of
difficulties are all related to the conception of verbs in English compared to Bahasa Indonesia. This difference
108
Handley (2010) explains that CMC could serve as the bridge of speaking and writing. Therefore, the
grammatical difficulties observed in synchronous CMC could also depict the difficulties EFL learners could
face in FTF conversation. This study suggests that verbs are an area of grammar where problems could occur.
This could also be the case in oral interactions for EFL learners from Indonesia.
This small-scale study, however, was still on the surface of the discussion on communication difficulties in
CMC environment. It only looked at the grammatical difficulties from 7 non-native participants. The analysis
was also conducted within process-based approaches. Therefore, to come to broader views and deeper
discussions, further studies should also look at other types of difficulties such as lexical and semantic issues.
More participants, both native and non-native, should also be involved. Furthermore, combining product-based
and process-based approaches should result in richer data.
REFERENCES
Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in foreign
language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 (2), 198-217.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System,
22 (1), 17-31.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning, 34,
45-68.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Handley, Z. (2010, October 21). Computer Mediated Communication: Bridging the gaps between writing and
speaking. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from Oxford University Press – English Language Teaching –
109
Harnard, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge.
Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2 (1), 39-53.
Jiménéz, A. F. (2007). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Language Attrition Research. In B. Kopke, M. S.
Schmid, & M. Keijzer (Eds.), LanguageAttrition: Theoretical Research (pp. 227-248). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Kasper, G. (1998). Analysing verbal protocols. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (2), 358-362.
Liu, W., & Lu, Y. (2008). Research on EFL writing strategies using SRP. Asian EFL Journal, 10 (2), 51-83.
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: a handbook for researching
online. London: SAGE.
Meyer, C. F. (2009). Introducing English Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, K. S., & Sullivan, K. P. (2006). Keystroke logging: An introduction. In K. P. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren
(Eds.), Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (pp. 1-10). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Solymar, L. (1999). Getting the message: a history of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sumakul, D. T. Y. G. (2013). Students' perception of the use of Facebook in the language classroom. Conaplin
6 - International conference on applied linguistics. Bandung: Language Centre - UPI.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern
