[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-595734-105":59,"doc-detail-595734-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same-revisiting-classroom-interaction-approaches-and-their-effects-on-quantity-and-characteristics-of-language-production","The more things change, the more they stay the same? Revisiting classroom interaction approaches and their effects on quantity and characteristics of language production","","This study investigated the quantity and characteristics of student language production, discourse functions, and morphosyntactic features across three discourse settings: face-to-face (F2F), lab-setting chatroom interactions (Lab), and anyplace/any device chatroom interactions (APAD). Discourse analysis replicated and extended Richard Kern’s (1995) work. Results showed shared patterns such as incomplete and short sentences in F2F and higher assertion rates, verb tenses, and simple sentences in Lab. Differences included more F2F turns and commands, and more conversational interaction in both settings.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same-revisiting-classroom-interaction-approaches-and-their-effects-on-quantity-and-characteristics-of-language-production/595734/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same-revisiting-classroom-interaction-approaches-and-their-effects-on-quantity-and-characteristics-of-language-production/595734.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Fans","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":81},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What language production features did the study examine across F2F, Lab, and APAD settings?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study examined the quantity and characteristics of student language production, discourse functions, and morphosyntactic features across face-to-face and two chatroom interaction settings.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How did the findings for F2F students differ from Lab students?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"F2F students showed more turns and a greater number of commands, while Lab students exhibited higher rates of assertions, verb tenses, and simple sentences; the study also notes an absence of F2F greetings and an absence of greetings in the lab setting.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What conclusion did the study draw about chatroom versus face-to-face discourse?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The findings suggest F2F and chatroom settings support different but related discourse goals, with chatrooms enabling more sophisticated conversation and F2F involving more conversational interaction supported by commands, turns, and incomplete sentences.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},595734,1792692317,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":81,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},5909892330395,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","calico (online) issn 2056–9017  \nArticle  \nThe more things change, the more they stay the same, or do they? Revisiting classroom interaction approaches and their effects on quantity and characteristics of language production  \nLinda C. Jones, Cheryl A. Murphy, and Amalie Holland  \nAbstract  \nThis study investigated the quantity and characteristics of student language production, discourse functions, and morphosyntactic features in three different discourse settings –face-to-face (F2F), lab-setting chatroom interactions (Lab), and anyplace/ any device chatroom interactions (APAD). Discourse was examined through the replication and extension of Richard Kern’s (1995) study. Similarities in findings between the two studies included a continuation of incomplete, and short sentence lengths among F2F students, an absence of F2F greetings, and a higher rate of assertions, verb tenses, and simple sentences in the Lab setting. Differences included a higher rate of F2F turns in the current study, an absence of greetings in the lab setting, anda greater number of commands among F2F participants. Findings underscored what Kern previously asserted: that F2F and chatroom settings tend to encourage and support slightly different goals associated with language discourse. Kern stated that more sophisticated conversation occurred in the chatroom setting. Current findings concurred but furthered that more conversational interaction took place within the F2F discourse setting due to a greater number of commands, turns, and incomplete sentences. Similarly, F2F students experienced greater input due to the increase of words heard, questions asked, and commands made.  \nKeywords: discourse; chat; mobile; face-to-face  \nAffiliation  \nUniversity of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA. email: [lcjones@uark.edu](lcjones@uark.edu) (corresponding author)  \ncalico vol 32.2 2015 245–272 ©2015, equinox publishing  \ndoi : 10.1558/cj.v32i2.24541  \n246 The more things change, the more they stay the same?  \nIntroduction  \nRichard Kern’s (1995) seminal article on chatroom use in the language classroom has long inspired language educators to incorporate the use of chatroom activities into their courses. When published 20 years ago, Daedalus InterChange was making its way into English as Second Language (ESL) and Second Language (L2) courses. This new tool offered promising discourse interaction for students engaged in language learning. Since educators lacked understanding of InterChange's potential, Kern examined the effects of this new communicative system on students’ language production. He found that on average, students produced more language, more sentences, and more sophisticated discourse functions when writing their communication than when speaking their communication in the classroom.  \nAt the time of Kern’s study, only a limited, localized chatroom environment was available in a computer lab setting, and to an even lesser extent were individuals engaged in mobile technologies. Since 1995, things have changed; students are not the technological neophytes ofthe past. Rather, these technologically savvy ‘digital natives’ are exceptionally used to using any number of chosen devices to communicate in their first language (Prensky, 2001) as are many of their teachers who use technology regularly to teach and to communicate. Considering the technological advances that have emerged since 1995, and a new generation of students and teachers in place, can we see differences in students' ability to communicate in an L2 compared to students' experiences with such strategies two decades ago? Do Kern's (1995) results remain consistent with today's digital technologies and digital natives? A revisit of Kern’s (1995) work will help us to understand how today’s students and teachers communicate in face-to-face, lab, and any place/any device environments.  \nBackground  \nChatrooms have long been utilized in the L2 classroom to empower students to communicate in a synchronistic ","cbCaipJpo7UQuUQH","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipJpo7UQuUQH","pdf",450929,28,"English","# Introduction\n## Background\n## Discourse Settings and Methodological Framing\n## Findings and Discussion","[{\"question\":\"What language production features did the study examine across F2F, Lab, and APAD settings?\",\"answer\":\"The study examined the quantity and characteristics of student language production, discourse functions, and morphosyntactic features across face-to-face and two chatroom interaction settings.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the findings for F2F students differ from Lab students?\",\"answer\":\"F2F students showed more turns and a greater number of commands, while Lab students exhibited higher rates of assertions, verb tenses, and simple sentences; the study also notes an absence of F2F greetings and an absence of greetings in the lab setting.\"},{\"question\":\"What conclusion did the study draw about chatroom versus face-to-face discourse?\",\"answer\":\"The findings suggest F2F and chatroom settings support different but related discourse goals, with chatrooms enabling more sophisticated conversation and F2F involving more conversational interaction supported by commands, turns, and incomplete sentences.\"}]","The more things change, the more they stay the same? Revisiting classroom interaction approaches and their effects on quantity and characteristics of language production | PDF",1792081764,71]