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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some features of online language teaching platforms may even enhance the language learning process, such as more noticing of corrective feedback.
“In fact, some features of online language teaching platforms may even enhance the language learning process, such as more noticing of corrective feedback (e.g., Baralt, 2013;Gleason, 2013;Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015;Sykes, 2005;Thomas & Reinders, 2012;Thorne, 2008; see also Loewen & Wolff, 2016).”
From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015
Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt (2014) found no difference in learners' accurate perception of feedback in either FTF (68%) or SCMC (71%).
“For instance, Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt (2014) found no difference in learners' accurate perception of feedback in either FTF (68%) or SCMC (71%).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt 2014
Learners were most accurate in their perception of lexical and semantic feedback regardless of modality.
“Learners were most accurate in their perception of lexical and semantic feedback regardless of modality.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt 2014
There were considerable differences in the number of times learners had the opportunity to modify their output in the two modalities - 91% in FTF but only 53% in SCMC.
“In addition, there were considerable differences in the number of times learners had the opportunity to modify their output in the two modalities -91% in FTF but only 53% in SCMC.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt 2014
Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt (2015) found that partial modified output most accurately predicted correct noticing in both FTF and SCMC contexts.
“They found that partial modified output most accurately predicted correct noticing in both FTF and SCMC contexts.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt (2015)
Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt argue that full modified output is not conversationally appropriate in SCMC contexts and is more likely to be copied and pasted, which abnegates effects for deeper cognitive processing.
“Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt argue that full modified output is not conversationally appropriate in SCMC contexts and often, if something is repeated in full, then it is more likely to be copied and pasted, which abnegates any effects for deeper cognitive processing.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt (2015)
Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt (2015) found that full modified output predicted accurate noticing only in FTF contexts.
“Full modified output also predicted accurate noticing, but only in FTF.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt (2015)
Cites
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · cited 1× · see citing works
“By demonstrating the connection between modified output and noticing, these studies are a first step at providing insight into the relationship between learner responses to feedback and noticing, both constructs believed to be important for SLA (e.g., Long, 1996; Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990, 1995).”
BackgroundTask-based Language Learning and Teaching
Ellis, R. (2003) · Asian Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.65961/ajelt-2003-1-009 · Cited by 3,601 · see citing works
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034 · Cited by 2,259 · cited 3× · see citing works
“…included uptake (e.g., Ellis, 2006; Lyster, 2001; Nuevo, 2006), repair versus needs-repair (e.g., Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001; Lyster, 2001; Lyster & Ranta, 1997), modified output (e.g., McDonough, 2004, 2005; Pica, 1988; Swain, 1995), and even successful uptake and unsuccessful uptake with…”
BackgroundSecond Language Use, Socialization, and Learning in Internet Interest Communities and Online Gaming
THORNE, S. L., BLACK, R. W., & SYKES, J. M. (2009) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00974.x · Cited by 516 · see citing works
INCIDENTAL FOCUS ON FORM AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
Loewen, S. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263105050163 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Responses to Recasts: Repetitions, Primed Production, and Linguistic Development
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00393.x · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC
Smith, B. (2012) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44300 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers
Baralt, M., & Morcillo Gómez, J. (2017) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44630 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
“…some features of online language teaching platforms may even enhance the language learning process, such as more noticing of corrective feedback (e.g., Baralt, 2013; Gleason, 2013; Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015; Sykes, 2005; Thomas & Reinders, 2012; Thorne, 2008; see also Loewen & Wolff, 2016).”
BackgroundSelf-citationParlak, Ö., & Ziegler, N. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000310 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Rassaei, E. (2019) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.03.004 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
- Authors
- GURZYNSKI-WEISS, L., & BARALT, M.
- Affiliations
- Florida International University (US)
- ORCID
- BARALT, MELISSA
- Venue
- Applied Psycholinguistics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014-07-15
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1393-1420
- ISSN
- 0142-7164 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1817
- OpenAlex
- W2122772752
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 18.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Psycholinguistics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- noticing, corrective feedback, task-based interaction, synchronous computer-mediated communication, face-to-face interaction, Spanish as a foreign language, stimulated recall, second language acquisition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
