在過去數十年間，即時電腦輔助溝通工具在外語教學上的應用成果研究豐碩 (Beauvois, 1992, 1998; Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Lai & Zhao, 2006; Sykes, 2005; Vandergriff, 2006)。「即時電腦輔助溝通」(SCMC)即為線上即時通訊系統，大家所熟知的MSN即時通、聊天室…等都在其應用範疇內。本文研究動機來自 Abrams (2003) 所提出的「轉移性」(transferability)。在其研究中指出，學習者口說能力的培養，可從線上即時溝通開始。本研究旨在檢視學習者在線上溝通與口語面對面討論這兩種情境下的語言表現。其口語能力則以文法正確性、辭彙運用難易度、句型運用複雜度、以及表達流利度為檢測標準。
本研究對象為20位台灣某國立大學修習大一英文必修課程的外語系新生。實驗包含兩種類型的討論活動；一為非正式辯論前的準備活動；另一則為影片欣賞後的討論活動。討論活動由線上即時通訊及一般口語討論兩種模式進行，並在其討論後，輔以面對面口語討論，以便比較其轉移性。口語語料以錄音方式蒐集並加以轉譯成文字，同時和線上討論系統自動存取的對話紀錄進行比對分析。語料分為四大部分；(1) 線上通訊及(2)線上通訊後的口語討論；(3)一般口語討論及(4) 一般口語討論後的整合討論。
研究結果顯示，學生在兩種情境下的語言表現，無論在其正確度、流利度、辭彙及句型的複雜度，皆有顯著的差異。由統計數據的結果看來，學習者在線上即時通訊時，語句的正確度及詞彙運用的複雜度較高，流利度也較高，惟有句型的複雜度呈現相反的情形。換句話說，線上討論時的表現和一般口語討論相較之下，使用的是較為簡單的句型。若單純比較口語討論的前後差異，則以流利度勝出，達到明顯的進步。然而，以「轉移性」的角度看來，利用即時通訊發展口語能力的訓練，並沒有明顯的效果。結果顯示，學生尚未能夠將在即時通訊裡良好的語言表現轉移至口語上的應用，亦或在轉換溝通模式時，難以避免的出現相同的口語錯誤。
本研究彙整比較學生在透過兩種不同溝通模式下的語言成效。研究發現透過單一管道的口語練習，口說能力在其流利度及句型應用的複雜度上，能發揮較高的成效；而透過即時通訊的練習，則能讓學生在語句的正確度和辭彙的運用上，有較成熟的表現。
線上即時通訊能提供學習者較充裕的時間面對使用外語溝通時所面臨的挑戰，對話的可回溯性及永久性為影響學習者在詞語應用上的關鍵，同時它也對語言表達的正確度產生一定的影響。儘管即時通訊對實際口語表達的轉移有所限制，但教師仍可考量學生不同的學習目標及教學應用的可行性，酌以利用電腦輔助語言溝通來達成特定的教學目標。

The applications of using Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) tools, known as real time text-message exchange software such as MSN Messenger, chat rooms, etc., in second language learning classrooms have been examined by numbers of researchers in the past few decades (e.g. Beauvois, 1992, 1998; Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Lai & Zhao, 2006; Sykes, 2005; Vandergriff, 2006). Motivated by an interest in the transferability from actually “typing” to “speaking” brought up by Abrams (2003), and the strong recommendations of using online discussion as a “stepping stone” in communication, the present study examined oral production in terms of accuracy, lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and fluency under two modes of discussions in an EFL freshman English course.
Subjects were 20 English-major students enrolled in a required university Freshman English class in an Asian EFL context. Data were collected under two modes: Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) and Face-to-Face (FTF). Under each mode, students participated in two activities: (1) preparation discussions for an informal debate, and (2) discussions of issues after video watching. Each discussion lasted for ten minutes and was followed by an immediate FTF oral discussion. In FTF discussions, the audio was recorded and transcribed for further analysis. Meanwhile, the discussions in the SCMC context were collected as chat logs. All the collected data were divided into four parts: (1) discourse in traditional face-to-face discussion and (2) its follow-up discussion; (3) discourse in the SCMC context and (4) its follow-up oral discussion.
The results revealed significant differences among all variables in comparing the language outputs in SCMC and FTF discussions. In fact, language outputs in SCMC exceeded the outputs in FTF in almost every aspect. The findings revealed lower error rate, fewer dysfluent markers, and higher percentages of using more sophisticated words in SCMC. Only the complexity of syntactic structures was greater in FTF. We also found positive effects of language production on all variables in FTF discussion activities; however, only fluency showed significant improvement. In terms of transferability from SCMC to oral proficiency, none of the variables showed significant effects on its immediate follow-up oral discussion. Ironically, the differences between SCMC and its follow-up FTF discussion were all significant except for syntactic complexity. This finding indicated that learners were not able to carry the “refined” utterances in SCMC over to oral discussion, or they just inevitably made the same mistakes when the communication channel switched back to normal FTF.
Finally, we compared the effects of practicing in FTF modality and the effects of practicing in SCMC modality. The findings indicated that learners can produce more fluent and more complex utterances orally by practicing in FTF all the way through, while accuracy and lexical complexity can be increased by practicing in the SCMC environment.
In conclusion, transferability can only be found partially in terms of accuracy and lexical complexity. Though the effects of practicing through SCMC with the aim of improving oral proficiency did not differ significantly from traditional face-to-face practices, it still shed some light on the potential benefits of text-based communication. With less time pressure through chatting in SCMC, learners were encouraged to retrieve from their long term memories and use less frequent words so that the vocabulary which was retrieved could easily be used again in later speaking activities.

Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167.
Abrams, Z. I. (2006). From theory to practice: Intracultural CMC in the L2 classroom. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling to CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp.181–209). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and Memory. Singapore: Wiley. Capítulo 9.
Barr, D., Leakey, J. & Ranchous, A. (2005). Told like it is! An evaluation of an integrated oral development pilot project. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 55-78.
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 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. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 93-116). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversation in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom (FN1). Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198-217.
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 & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.
Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blending classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114-127.
Bohlke, O. (2003). Adjective production by learners of German in chatroom and face-to-face discussions. Teaching German, 36(1), 67-73.
Bygate, M. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 20-42.
Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27, 33-48.
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.
Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1989). The role of working memory in language comprehension. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 31-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
Cobb, T. (2002). The Web Vocabulary Profiler. http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/r21270/textools/web_vp.html
Collentine, K. (2009). Leaner use of holistic language units in multimodal, task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 68-87.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-387.
Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance, and other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 183-199.
D’Ely, R. (2004). A focus on learners’ metacognitive processes: strategic planning, repetition and planning for repetition as catalysts of interlanguage development. Trabalho de pesquisa não publicado. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: a sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249-277.
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to task. In R. Day, (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147–181). NY: Newbury House.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59-84.
Finardi, K. (2008). Effects of task repetition on L2 oral performance. Trab.Ling.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-graduação em Inglês e Literatura Correspondente, 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.
Gonzalez-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based call to promote interaction: en busca de Esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 86-104.
Heins, B., Duensing, A., Stickler, U., & Batstone, C. (2007). Spoken interaction in online and face-to-face language tutorials. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 279-295.
Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In Susan C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication (pp. 81-106). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
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 Press.
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., Mcnamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: how distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24-49.
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401-436.
Johnson, G. M. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational context: a review of recent research. TechTrends, 50(4), 46-53.
Jones, P. W., & Williams, D. H. (2006). Grammar games and activities Book 2. Caves Educational Training Co., Ltd.
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. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(5), 457-476.
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102-120.
Lamy, M. N. (2004). Oral conversations online: redefining oral competence in synchronous environments. ReCALL, 16(2), 520-538.
Lee, L. (2000). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on nonnative discourse. System, 30, 275-288.
Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 16-24.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Li, M. (2008). University English learners’ speaking competence in their monologic production. Polyglassia 15
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. In H.
Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of sciences: Vol. 379. Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M. H. (1991a). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. P. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oskoz, A. (2005). Students’ dynamic assessment via online chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 513-536.
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.
Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 25-54.
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.
Perez, L. C. (2003). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 89-104.
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5-27.
Sari, L. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press.
Schenkein, J. (1980). A taxonomy for repeating action sequences in natural conversation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 1, pp. 21-47). London: Academic Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles into practice in synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 427-443.
Simon. H. A., Klahr, D., Kotovsky, K. (1989). Complex information processing: the impact of Herbert A. Simon. Routledge.
Simpson, J. (2005). Meaning making online: discourse and CMC in a language learning community. In A. Mendez Vilas, B. Gonzalez Pereira, J. Mesa Gonzalez & J. A. Mesa Gonzales (Eds.), Recent research developments in learning technologies (pp.175-179). Badajoz, Spain: Formatex.
Skehan , P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1995). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Thames Valley University Working Papers in English Language Teaching,3, 139-188.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. Em P. Robinson, (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (2001). (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks – second language learning and testing. Longman.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-6.
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29-53.
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33-58.
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 85-103.
Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G. J. (2004). Synchronous computer mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New Interpretations. System, 32, 553-575.
Smith, B., & Sauro, S. (2009). Interruptions in chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 229-247.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399-431.
Uhler, B., D., & Clark, C., B. (2001). The use of computer-mediated communication to enhance subsequent face-to-face discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 269-283.
Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face-to-face discussions. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 110-138.
Vetter, A., & Chanier, T. (2006). Supporting oral production for professional purposes in synchronous communication with heterogeneous learners. ReCALL, 18(1), 5-23.
Vie, S. (2008). Digital divide 2.0: “Generation M” and online social networking sites in the composition classroom. Computers and Composition, 25, 9-23.
Volle, L. M. (2005). Analyzing oral skills in voice e-mail and online interviews. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 146-163.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
Weininger, M. & Shield, L. (2003). Promoting oral production in a written channel: an investigation of learner language in MOO. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 329-349.
Yamada, M. & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language learning: how does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 20(1), 37-65.
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written aspects of computer conferencing. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.