THE IMPACT OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY ON FEEDBACK EFFICACY DURING ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTIVE TASKS
Abstract
Informed by the cognition hypothesis (Robinson, 2011), recent studies indicate that more cognitively complex tasks can result in better incorporation of feedback during interaction and, as a consequence, more learning. It is not known, however, how task complexity and feedback work together in computerized environments. The present study addressed this gap by investigating how cognitive complexity in face-to-face (FTF) versus computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments mediates the efficacy of recasts in promoting second language development. Eighty-four adult learners of Spanish as a foreign language at a mid-Atlantic university were randomly assigned to a control group or one of four experimental groups. The experimental groups engaged in one-on-one interaction and received recasts on the Spanish past subjunctive but differed according to (a) whether or not they had to reflect on another person’s intentional reasons during the task and (b) whether they interacted in FTF or CMC environments. Learning was measured with two production tasks and a multiple-choice receptive test in a Pretest-Posttest 1-Posttest 2 design. Results revealed that in the FTF mode, performing the cognitively complex task while receiving recasts led to the most learning. In the CMC mode, the cognitively complex task + recasts was not effective. Instead, the cognitively simple task led to the most development in CMC. The study also found that judgments of time on task were the only independent me…
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 Baralt, 2013
Tasks that work well in person do not always work well online.
“(a) tasks that work well in person do not always work well online (Baralt, 2013(Baralt, , 2014));”
From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Baralt, 2013
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 3× · see citing works
“In conjecturing how input is noticed, Schmidt ( 1990 ) has argued that “how the task forces the material to be processed” determines whether or not learning will result (p. 143 ).”
BackgroundInfluentialCORRECTIVE 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
“…during interaction is currently an area of prolifi c research in SLA, with different types of focus-on-form techniques—and, in particular, the recast—being heavily investigated (Doughty & Long, 2003 ; Doughty & Williams, 1998 ; Long, 2000 ; Long & Robinson, 1998 ; see also Lyster & Ranta, 1997 ).”
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
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
“…been done on video-based interaction and TBLT, what we do know is the following: (a) tasks that work well in person do not always work well online (Baralt, 2013, 2014); (b) a significant amount of learners’ attention is devoted to social and technical features when interacting online, and this…”
BackgroundSelf-citation
- Authors
- Baralt, M.
- Affiliations
- Florida International University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Baralt, Melissa
- ORCID
- Baralt, Melissa
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2013-08-23
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 689-725
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W2128659484
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 95.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition (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
- cognitive complexity, recasts, computer-mediated communication, face-to-face interaction, second language acquisition, Spanish as a foreign language, task complexity, student reflection, time on task, Cognition Hypothesis
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