Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-vgfm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T23:51:22.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2014

LAURA GURZYNSKI-WEISS  and
MELISSA BARALT
LAURA GURZYNSKI-WEISS*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
MELISSA BARALT
Affiliation:
Florida International University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Laura Gurzynski-Weiss, Indiana University, Ballantine Hall 844, 1020 East Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: lgurzyns@indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines if type of learner-modified output differentially demonstrates noticing and whether or not this relationship holds in both face-to-face (FTF) and synchronous computer-mediated chat (SCMC) environments. Twenty-four learners of Spanish as a foreign language interacted one-on-one with an interlocutor in the FTF and the SCMC modes, during which they received corrective feedback. After each interaction, learners participated in a mode-specific stimulated recall session to measure their noticing of feedback. Data were coded for (a) feedback episode, (b) type of modified output (none, partial, or full), and (c) accurate noticing. Binary logistic regressions indicated that after feedback, partial modified output was the greatest predictor of accurate noticing of feedback. This finding applied in both FTF and SCMC.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 1393 - 1420
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.CrossRefGoogle 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
Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2000). Introduction. Language Teaching Research, 4, 185–192.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 589–624.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Graf, P., & Schacter, D. (1989). Unitization and grouping mediate dissociations in memory for new associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 930–940.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in face-to-face and computer-mediated modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255–270.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2000). Promoting noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.Google Scholar
Lai, C., Fei, X., & Roots, X. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO, 26, 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.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 second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 129–152.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.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
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.Google Scholar
Nuevo, A. M. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Re-thinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In Hall, J. K. & Verplaeste, L. S. (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and second language development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity (pp. 203–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects of L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193–213.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Ellis, N. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing morphology. Language experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 261–290.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. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google 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
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2010). Employing eye-tracking technology in researching the effectiveness of recasts in CMC. Educational Linguistics, 11, 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 53–81.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62, 506–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477.Google Scholar