Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 1-37

  Gurzynski Weiss, Laura ^a   Baralt, Melissa ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897823018     PISSN: 02722631     EISSN: 14701545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0272263113000363     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
2. Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University , Washington, DC.
3. Baralt, M. (in press). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during on line versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
4. 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.
5. Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 19-35.
6. Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners' interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209-236.
7. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94, 1-21.
9. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18.
10. Gass, S. M. (1997). I nput, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Gass, S. M., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perceptions about interactional feedback: Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 79-99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3-17.
14. Goo, J. (2012). Feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445-474.
15. 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.
16. Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (in press). Instructor characteristics and classroom-based second language acquisition of Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of second language spanish. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
17. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Revesz, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62, 851-879.
18. Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-270.
19. 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.
20. Jeon, K. S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 379-403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91-131). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
22. Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102-120.
23. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.
24. Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361-386.
25. Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicit-ness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
26. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27. Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. 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.
29. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
30. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
31. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Interactional feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 1, 276-297.
32. Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
33. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
35. Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181-208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
36. McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693-720.
37. Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511-548.
38. Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226-253). New York: Taylor & Francis.
39. 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.
40. Revesz, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437-470.
41. Revesz, A., & Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 3, 160-179.
42. Revesz, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and second language development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 203-236). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
43. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131-164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
44. Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96-120.
45. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
46. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
47. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002).Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulated writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 285-304.
50. Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2007). Alphabetic print literacy and processing of oral corrective feedback in L2 interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 101-121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 171-195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.