Article published in:
Technology-mediated feedback and instruction
Edited by Hossein Nassaji and Eva Kartchava
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 170:2] 2019
► pp. 204–227

The interaction between inhibitory control and corrective feedback timing

| Indiana University
| Georgetown University
This article reports a study investigating the role of inhibitory control in the acquisition of Spanish noun-adjective gender agreement under different feedback timing conditions. Forty-three Spanish learners completed a communicative task through synchronous computer-mediated communication. The immediate group received reformulations immediately after their errors, whereas the delayed group received reformulations at the end of the task. The control group did not receive any feedback. Learners’ knowledge of the target form was assessed using oral production and grammaticality judgment tests at three different times: once before the treatment, once immediately after the treatment, and once ten days after the treatment. Inhibitory control was measured with the Flanker test. Results did not show a statistically significant interaction between inhibitory control and feedback timing group on either outcome measure even though the correlations between learners’ gains and inhibitory control were different across groups.
Keywords: inhibitory control, aptitude-treatment interaction, corrective feedback, feedback timing, computer-mediated communication
Published online: 04 September 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19010.yil
References

References

Arroyo, D., & Yilmaz, Y.
(2018) An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning. Advance online publication. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D.
(1986) Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baralt, M.
(2013) The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartolotti, J., Marian, V., Schroeder, S. R., & Shook, A.
(2011) Bilingualism and inhibitory control influence statistical learning of novel word forms. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S.
(2011) Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language, Learning & Technology, 15. 41–71.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Martin, M. M., & Viswanathan, M.
(2005) Bilingualism across the lifespan: The rise and fall of inhibitory control. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 103–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. J.
(2000) Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V.
(2011) Bilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension. Cognition, 118, 245–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
(2008) Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, I., Mora, J. C., & Daidone, D.
(2016) The role of inhibitory control in second language phonological processing. Language Learning, 66, 741–773. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2012) Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C.
(2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H.
(2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R.
(2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, B. A.; Eriksen, C. W.
(1974) Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non- search task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A.
(2006) Input, interaction and output: An overview. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dörnyei (Eds.), AILA Review, (pp. 3–17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Lee, J.
(2011) Working memory capacity, inhibitory control, and proficiency in a second language. In M. Schmid & W. Lowie (Eds.), Modeling bilingualism: From structure to chaos (pp. 59–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Behney, J. N., & Uzum, B.
(2013) Inhibitory control, working memory and L2 interaction. Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7, 91–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M.
(2015) Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y.
(2018) Corrective feedback and the role of implicit sequence learning ability in L2 online performance. Language Learning, 69, 127–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, D.
(1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81. 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, 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C.
(2019) The effect of feedback timing on L2 Spanish vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Advance online publication. Language Teaching Research. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, J., & Oliver, R.
(2003) Chat-line interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 60–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N.
(2012) Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J. & Engle, R. W.
(2003) Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, S.
(2010) The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R.
(2016) The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., & Weiss, D. J.
(2015) Can working memory and inhibitory control predict second language learning in the classroom? SAGE Open, October-December, 1–11.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R.
(2006) Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75–116). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. & Robinson, P.
(1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J.
(2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Mackey, In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H.
(2016) Researching corrective feedback in interaction and instruction. Language Teaching Research, 20, 433–435. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T.
(1986) Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. Davidson, G. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro, (Eds.), Consciousness and self regulation: Advances in research and theory: Vol. 4 (pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P.
(2014) Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. & R. Lyster
(2007) A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness–practice–feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., & Han, Z.
(2006) Task content familiarity, task type and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15, 160–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R., & Suh, B.-R.
(2007) Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 199–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W.
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S.
(2016) The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 16, 296–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B.
(2003) The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sotillo, S. M.
(2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82–119.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M.
(1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 470–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y.
(2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 45–86.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D.
(2011) Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G.
(2016) The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 147–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N.
(2015) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 558–586.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Fu, Mengxia & Shaofeng Li
2021. THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND THE EFFECTS OF THE TIMING OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43:3 ► pp. 498 ff. Crossref logo
Mackey, Alison
2020.  In Interaction, Feedback and Task Research in Second Language Learning, Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 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.