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

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.Whether learners' production of modified output after feedback is indicative of noticing is a contentious debate in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Both sides are empirically supported, with studies finding mixed results regarding the psycholinguistic relevance for modified output (e.g.see discussion by Long, 2007). The recent increase in online language courses further exacerbates this debate: Modified output has a significantly lower presence in the synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) mode (e.g., Baralt, 2010;Smith, 2010), and it is not known why or how this difference affects language © Cambridge University Press 2014 0142-7164/14 $15.00 Applied Psycholinguistics 2 Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt: Modified output type and learner noticing learning opportunities online. Given the increase in second language (L2) learning and use in online contexts, there is a need to connect theoretical and empirical work done in the face-to-face (FTF) mode to SCMC contexts.The purpose of this paper is to reignite considerations for the production of modified output during task-based conversational interaction. We argue that a lack of operationalization coherence has been a main reason for mixed findings in the research and, following suggestions by Loewen (2005), propose a fine-grained approach to researching the construct for interaction in both traditional and online environments. After discussing the theoretical justification of the construct of modified output, we make the case for critically examining the difference between the constructs of uptake (as a general category) and, subsequently, full modified output, partial modified output, and no modified output. We then present the results from an experiment where we examined which modified output type best predicted noticing of corrective feedback during task-based conversational interaction and whether or not this was the same in the FTF versus SCMC modes. To conclude, we discuss how and why looking at different types of modified output is relevant for SLA theory.

Metacognitive Instruction Enhances the Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback: Variable Effects of Feedback Types and Linguistic Targets

“…With respect to the effectiveness of corrective feedback prompting output, the results support various studies showing a facilitative role for modified output in subsequent L2 development (e.g., Loewen, 2005;Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015;McDonough & Mackey, 2006). Indeed, the effect sizes obtained here (third-person singular -s: d = 0.70, 95% CI [0.23, 1.57]; possessive determiners: d = 0.51, 95% CI [−0.17, 1.11]) approached the mean betweengroup values (i.e., d = 0.83, 95% CI [0.56, 1.10]) found in Lyster and Saito's (2010) meta-analysis of seven primary classroom studies.…”

Factors Influencing Spanish Instructors’ In‐Class Feedback Decisions

“…As Yoshida (2010) states, "It may be necessary for teachers to keep in mind that the real nature of the learners' problems might not be quite what they understand them to be" (p. 311). Future studies could examine this in detail, particularly given the fact that investigations of instructors' CF intention(s) and students' perception(s) attest that instructors and learners are not always on the same page when it comes to CF (Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2014, 2016Mackey et al, 2000).…”

“…Theoretical Rationale for Oral CF Corrective feedback promotes language development in several ways, a claim that is upheld in cognitive-interactionist (e.g., Gass & Mackey, 2007;Long, 1996;Schmidt, 2001;Swain, 2005) and social (e.g., Duff, 2010;Friedman, 2009;Nassaji & Swain, 2000) approaches alike. While engaged in meaningful communication, CF can direct learners to notice mismatches between their production and the target language (Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2014;Mackey et al, 2000) and encourage learners to restructure their interlanguage (Braidi, 1995;Lyster & Mori, 2006), test out hypotheses of the correct form via modified output (Egi, 2010;Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2016) and develop linguistically to be more in line with their immediate interlocutor (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994;Lantolf & Poehner, 2007. In FL settings, CF is seen as particularly critical, given that learners have limited opportunities to become aware of their emerging language system and how it may deviate from the target language; in most cases, FL learners' only opportunity to receive CF is in the classroom (Philp & Tognini, 2009).…”

“…META-ANALYSES ON THE EFFECTIVENESS of corrective feedback (CF) have demonstrated that it plays a facilitative role in language development (Li, 2010;Lyster & Saito, 2010;Mackey & Goo, 2007;Russell & Spada, 2006), particularly in foreign language (FL) settings where learners' opportunities with the target language are limited (Li, 2010;Mackey & Goo, 2007). To date, the majority of CF research has focused on specific feedback-related variables-such as explicitness (Adams, Nuevo, & Egi, 2011; The Modern Language Journal, 100, 1, (2016) DOI: 10.1111/modl.12314 0026-7902/16/255-275 $1.50/0 C 2016 The Modern Language Journal Loewen, & Erlam, 2006) or the linguistic target of CF (Gurzynski-Weiss et al, 2015;Saito & Lyster, 2012)-or on learners' perception and/or use of CF (Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2014, 2016Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000). Additionally, many studies have identified variables that affect the level of effectiveness of CF, including learners' individual differences such as age (Mackey & Oliver, 2002;Mackey & Sachs, 2012), working memory (Egi, Fujii, & Tatsumi, 2002;Goo, 2012), anxiety (Rassaei, 2013(Rassaei, , 2015, and language analytic ability (Li, 2013;Yilmaz, 2013).…”

Salience in Second Language Acquisition

“…From a language pedagogic perspective, it has been claimed that the distinct characteristics of written SCMC increase the salience of the linguistic input during L2 chat thereby guiding a learner's attention to linguistic form and supporting uptake and intake of L2 forms (Smith, 2005). First, most people type more slowly than they speak, which results in a slower pace of turn-taking during SCMC than in spoken interaction (Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015), resulting in what Beauvois (1992) refers to it as a "conversation in slow motion" (p. 455). Second, the output of a chat conversation remains visible on the screen, which also increases the potential salience of lexical items and grammatical structures.…”