Chapter published in:
Expanding Individual Difference Research in the Interaction Approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 16] 2017
► pp. 256–279

Teachers’ provision of feedback in L2 text-chat

Cognitive, contextual, and affective factors

| University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
| University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
Numerous studies have examined the role of various individual differences in second language (L2) learning and use, finding that factors such as aptitude (e.g., Robinson, 2005; Skehan, 2002), motivation (e.g., Dörnyei, Henry, & MacIntyre, 2014; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003), anxiety (e.g., Horwitz, 2001, 2010), creativity (e.g., Bell, 2012; McDonough, Crawford, & Mackey, 2015), and working memory capacity (WMC; see Baddeley, 2003; Juffs & Harrington, 2011 for reviews), have a substantial impact on L2 learning outcomes. Although the majority of this empirical research has focused on the learner as interlocutor, a growing number of scholars have turned their attention to the potential influence of individual differences in the cognition of non-learner interlocutors (i.e., teachers; see Gurzynski-Weiss, 2014a, this volume). This exploratory research examines the relationship between teacher interlocutors’ WMC and their provision of corrective feedback in written synchronous text chat. While results indicated no statistically significant correlation between teachers’ WMC and their provision of feedback during interactions, findings from stimulated recall protocols suggested that several teacher, learner, and contextual factors (such as personal beliefs, knowledge of learners’ first language, and the communicative value of an error) play a mediating role in teachers’ feedback decisions.
Keywords: corrective feedback, individual differences, interaction, stimulated recall protocols, synchronous computer-mediated communication, teacher cognition, working memory capacity
Published online: 12 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.16.11zie
References

References

Baddeley, A.
(2000) The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D.
(2007) Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J.
(1974) Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47–90). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L.
(2011) Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. H.
(1992) Computer‐assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 455–464. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M.
(1998) Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, N.
(2012) Formulaic language, creativity, and language play in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 189–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borg, S.
(2003) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W.
(2005) Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(5), 769–786. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A.
(1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A., & MacIntyre, P. D.
(Eds.) (2014) Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A.
(2015) Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 180–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goo, J.
(2012) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. K.
(2010) Factors influencing oral corrective feedback provision in the Spanish foreign language classroom: Investigating instructor native/nonnative speaker status, second language acquisition education, and teaching experience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L.
(2014a) Interlocutor and instructor individual differences in cognition and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 426–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Graduate instructor in-class cognition and feedback provision over time. In R. T. Miller, K. I. Martin, C. M. Eddington, A. Henery, N. M. Miguel, A. Tseng, A. Tuninetti, & D. Walter (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 227–239). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
(2016) Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. Modern Language Journal, 100, 1–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M.
(2014) Exploring learner perception and use of task–based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(1), 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Révész, A.
(2012) Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62, 851–879. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horwitz, E. K.
(2001) Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43(2), 154–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M.
(2011) Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44(2), 137–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W.
(2001) A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W.
(2004) The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 189–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R.
(2008) The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 48–69.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y.
(2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Li, S.
(2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loboda, T. D.
(2009) Reading Span Task. Retrieved from http://​www​.pitt​.edu​/~tol7​/res​/research​/psych​-tests​/rspan/
Long, M. H.
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academy Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J.
(2009) Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K.
(2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P.
(2013) The relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Asian EFL Journal, 15(2), 65–92.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J.
(2007) Interaction in SLA: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K.
(2004) The relationship between experience, education and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Sachs, R.
(2012) Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62(3), 704–740. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C.
(2003) Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: a meta–analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 123–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K.
(2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ response on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & Mackey, A.
(2015) Creativity and EFL students’ Language use during a group problem‐solving task. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 188–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P.
(1998) Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H.
(2015) The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Oliver, R.
(2000) Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J.
(2002) Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7–32.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J.
(2000) Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern, (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2003) Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N.
(2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N.
(2007) Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.) Conversational interaction in second language: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y.
(2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R.
(2011) Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 593–610). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Simard, D., & Jean, G.
(2011) An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61, 759–785. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(2002) Theorising and updating aptitude. Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning, 2, 69–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W.
(1989) Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M.
(1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Z.
(2015) Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: The phonological/executive model. In Z. Wen & M. Mota (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 41–62). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y.
(2013) Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Philp, Jenefer & Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
2020.  In Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 53], ► pp. 20 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.