Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:57:24.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPLORING LEARNER PERCEPTION AND USE OF TASK-BASED INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK IN FTF AND CMC MODES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2013

Laura Gurzynski-Weiss  and
Melissa Baralt
Laura Gurzynski-Weiss*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Melissa Baralt
Affiliation:
Florida International University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura Gurzynski-Weiss, 1020 E. Kirkwood Ave., Ballantine 876, Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theoretical claims about the benefits of corrective feedback have been largely premised on learners’ noticing of feedback (e.g., Gass & Mackey, 2006; Long, 1996; Schmidt, 1990, 1995; Swain, 1995), and findings have demonstrated that both the feedback target (Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000) and the mode of provision (Lai & Zhao, 2006) can affect learners’ accurate perception of feedback. The current study extended this research by investigating learners’ perception and use of feedback provided in task-based interaction in both computer-mediated (CMC) and face-to-face (FTF) modes. Utilizing stimulated recall, the study examined if 24 intermediate-level learners of Spanish as a foreign language accurately noticed feedback as feedback, if they noticed the feedback target, and if the environment in which they interacted (CMC vs. FTF) made a difference in their accuracy. The study also investigated if modality affected opportunities for modified output immediately following feedback and if learners used those opportunities differently according to mode. Results demonstrated that, overall, learners did notice feedback as feedback in both modes. Contrary to expectations, there were no statistical differences between modes in feedback perception accuracy. Significant differences were found, however, in learners’ opportunities for and use of feedback depending on the interaction environment and the type of error being addressed.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 1 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (in press). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perceptions about interactional feedback: Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 79–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2010). Factors influencing oral corrective feedback provision in the Spanish foreign language classroom: Investigating instructor native/nonnative speaker status, second language acquisition education, and teaching experience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (in press). Instructor characteristics and classroom-based second language acquisition of Spanish. In Geeslin, K. L. (Ed.), The handbook of second language spanish. Hoboken, NJWiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Révész, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62, 851–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1– 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeon, K. S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 379–403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Interactional feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 1, 276–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226–253). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., & Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 3, 160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and second language development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 203–236). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96–120.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002).Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulated writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 285–304.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2007). Alphabetic print literacy and processing of oral corrective feedback in L2 interaction. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 101–121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar