Cited by 71EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLinguistics and Language AnalysisLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom

Fujii, Akiko, Mackey, Alison·2009·IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Abstract

This research explores learner-learner interactions (n = 18) in an authentic EFL classroom. First, we examined the nature of interactional feedback provided during two decision-making tasks. We then investigated whether the learners had made use of the feedback by looking at whether (and if so, how) they had modified their output immediately after receiving feedback. Quantitative results indicated a relatively low rate of interactional feedback while qualitative analysis of the interactions revealed interesting trends in the nature of the feedback that was provided. In discussing the findings we draw on learners' written reports elicited at the end of class as well as their verbal introspections elicited through individual stimulated recall sessions with each learner. The study sheds light on how patterns of interaction may be shaped by cultural, contextual, and interlocutor-related factors, thus helping to inform considerations for task-based instructional design.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/iral.2009.012

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • Learners tend to react to feedback by modifying their initial errors more often during interaction with L2 peers rather than when they interact with L1 speakers.

    “Research has also found that learners tend to react to feedback by modifying their initial errors (modified output) more often during interaction with L2 peers rather than when they interact with L1 speakers.”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Fujii & Mackey 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A.
Affiliations
  • International Christian University (JP)
  • Georgetown University (US)
Venue
IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
Published
2009-01
Volume
47
Issue
3-4
ISSN
  • 0019-042X (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-4141
OpenAlex
W2074666881
Cited by
71
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
22.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Keywords
interactional feedback, student-student interaction, task-based language teaching, EFL classroom, decision-making tasks, stimulated recall

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