Cited by 630EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

HOW DO LEARNERS PERCEIVE INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK?

Open access
Mackey, Alison, Gass, Susan, McDonough, Kim·2000·Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Abstract

Theoretical claims about the benefits of conversational interaction have been made by Gass (1997), Long (1996), Pica (1994), and others. The Interaction Hypothesis suggests that negotiated interaction can facilitate SLA and that one reason for this could be that, during interaction, learners may receive feedback on their utterances. An interesting issue, which has challenged interactional research, concerns how learners perceive feedback and whether their perceptions affect their subsequent L2 development. The present research addresses the first of these issues–learners' perceptions about interactional feedback. The study, involving 10 learners of English as a second language and 7 learners of Italian as a foreign language, explores learners' perceptions about feedback provided to them through task-based dyadic interaction. Learners received feedback focused on a range of morphosyntactic, lexical, and phonological forms. After completing the tasks, learners watched videotapes of their previous interactions and were asked to introspect about their thoughts at the time the original interactions were in progress. The results showed that learners were relatively accurate in their perceptions about lexical, semantic, and phonological feedback. However, morphosyntactic feedback was generally not perceived as such. Furthermore, the nature as well as the content of the feedback may have affected learners' perceptions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263100004010

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Mackey, Gass & McDonough's (2000) stimulated recall data showed that feedback that was intended to correct lexical, semantic, and phonological errors was perceived more accurately than feedback targeting morphosyntactic errors (see also Egi 2007).

    “Mackey, Gass & McDonough's (2000) stimulated recall data showed that feedback that was intended to correct lexical, semantic, and phonological errors was perceived more accurately than feedback targeting morphosyntactic errors (see also Egi 2007).”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Mackey, Gass & McDonough 2000

  • Studies of stimulated recall have found that different aspects of language, such as lexis and phonology, may be more likely to be noticed during interaction than morphosyntax.

    “Studies of stimulated recall have found that different aspects of language, such as lexis and phonology, may be more likely to be noticed during interaction than morphosyntax (Mackey et al. 2000).”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Mackey et al. 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K.
Affiliations
  • Georgetown University (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Mackey, Alison
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Published
2000-12
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
471-497
ISSN
  • 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1545
OpenAlex
W2166404386
Cited by
630
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 34
FWCI
79.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Michigan State University
  • College of Engineering, Michigan State University
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
interactional feedback, learner perceptions, task-based interaction, dyadic interaction, interaction hypothesis, second language acquisition, English as a second language, Italian as a foreign language

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