Interactional Input and The Incorporation of Feedback: An Exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS Adult and Child Dyads
Abstract
Given the documented benefits of participation in communicative interaction (e.g., Gass & varonis, 1994; Mackey, 1999), the present study investigated the effects of interlocutor type on the provision and incorporation of feedback in task–based interaction. The interactions of 48 dyads, evenly divided among adults and children, and native speaker–nonnative speaker and nonnative speaker–native speaker, were analyzed to assess the effect of interlocutor on (1) amount of feedback, (2) opportunities for modified output, and (3) immediate incorporation of feedback. In all dyed types, at least 30% of errors resulted in feedback, much of which led to modified output. Analyses also revealed significant differences for amount, nature, and response to feedback according to dyad type.
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, Oliver & Leeman (2003) found while L2 speakers provided more output-promoting feedback, the quality of resulting modified output in the two types of dyads was comparable.
“The analysis of 24 adult dyads showed that while L2 speakers provided more output-promoting feedback, the quality of the resulting modified output -modification of the original error -in the two types of dyads was comparable.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Mackey, Oliver & Leeman 2003
Cites
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 · see citing works
Maturational constraints on language development.
Long, M. H. (1990) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100009165 · Cited by 1,090 · see citing works
INPUT, 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-citationThe critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning
Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1128751 · Cited by 607 · see citing works
Age, rate, and eventual attainment in second language acquisition
Krashen, S. D., Long, M. A., & Scarcella, R. C. (1979) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586451 · Cited by 581 · see citing works
Neurobiological mechanisms of language acquisition
Pulvermüller, F., & Schumann, J. H. (1994) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb00635.x · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Errors, Interaction, and Correction: A Study of Native-Nonnative Conversations
Chun, A. E., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, N. A., & Luppescu, S. (1982) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586471 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Learner and Teacher Roles in the Treatment of Oral Error in Group Work
Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/003368828001100204 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
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-citationClassroom Learning, Teaching, and Research: A Task‐Based Perspective
PICA, T. (2005) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00309.x · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Saito, K. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12015 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral.2009.012 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Self-citationA 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
- Authors
- Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J.
- Affiliations
- Georgetown University (US)
- Edith Cowan University (AU)
- George Mason University (US)
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-66
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W1553240661
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 90.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- ERA Trial 2009
- 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
- task-based interaction, adult-child interaction, error correction, second language acquisition, communicative interaction
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
