HOW DO LEARNERS PERCEIVE INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK?
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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
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 2× · see citing works
“In a series of papers, Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1995) argued that attention is necessary for learning.”
BackgroundCORRECTIVE 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 1× · see citing works
“…about feedback and their immediate uptake of the feedback during the interaction, based on the teacher-student model of uptake described by Lyster and Ranta (1997), who noted that uptake “refers to a student’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback . . . [it]…”
MethodINPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL
Mackey, A. (1999) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263199004027 · Cited by 772 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Task‐based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings
Ellis, R. (2009) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x · Cited by 1,031 · see citing works
The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis
Li, S. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x · Cited by 941 · see citing works
Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second Language Learning
Mackey, A. (2006) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ami051 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Self-citationInteraction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning
Sheen, Y. (2008) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x · Cited by 330 · 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
Self-citationEye 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
Egi, T. (2007) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263107070416 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2017) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12184 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Saito, K. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12015 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
A Comparison of L2–L2 and L2–Heritage Learner Interactions in Spanish Language Classrooms
Bowles, M. A., Adams, R. J., & Toth, P. D. (2014) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12086 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Parlak, Ö., & Ziegler, N. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000310 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
The Occurrence and Effectiveness of Spontaneous Focus on Form in Adult ESL Classrooms
Nassaji, H. (2010) · The Canadian Modern Language Review · doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.6.907 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Rassaei, E. (2019) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.03.004 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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