Cover not available
Part of
Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 53] 2020
► pp. 51–76

Chapter 3
The effect of proficiency, gender, and learning style on the occurrence of negotiated interaction in communicative task performance

| Adam Mickiewicz University | State University of Applied Sciences in Konin

Apart from positive evidence, or information about what is possible in the target language (TL), second language learners also need negative evidence, or information about what is not possible in the TL, and opportunities to engage in output production (Gass, 2003). As postulated by the cognitive-interactionist approach, these conditions can be met through opportunities for negotiated interaction. Building on previous research (e.g., Gass & Varonis, 1986; Iwashita, 2001; Porter, 1996; Rassaei, 2015), this study investigated the impact of English learners’ proficiency, gender, and learning style on the occurrence, nature, and outcomes of negotiation in two tasks, which differed with respect to the presence of information gap. Results provide some evidence for the mediating role of gender and learning style but not proficiency, with task type being an important mediating variable.

Keywords: gender, learning style, L2 task-based interaction, negotiation, proficiency
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review: ID factors and negotiated interaction
  • The present study
    • Aims and research questions
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Analyses
  • Results
  • Discussion
    • Frequency, nature, and outcome of negotiated interaction
    • The relationship between proficiency, gender, and learning style, and negotiated interaction
    • Interaction between proficiency, gender, learning style, and task type
    • Limitations
  • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.53.03paw
References
Adams, R., Nuevo, A. M., & Egi, T.
(2011) Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95, 42–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A.
(2008) Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y.
(2016) Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–240). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.
(2016) The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D.
(2010) Focus on the language learner: Styles, strategies and motivation. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 161–178). London, UK: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. C.
(2001) Learning style survey. Retrieved from [URL]
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J. M., & Furnham, A.
(1999) Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning, 43, 509–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Pica, T.
(1996) “Information-gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckerth, J.
(2009) Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42, 109–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1997) Theoretical perspectives on interaction and language learning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 3–32). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2010) Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P.
(1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Ohta, A.
(2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M.
(2003) Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle 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 (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E.
(1985) Variation in native speaker speech modifications to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986) Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N.
(2001) The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, J., & Nassaji, H.
(2017) Incidental focus on form and the role of learner introversion. Language Teaching Research, 22(6), 698–718.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2017) Cognitive-interactionist approaches to L2 instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 126–145). London, UK: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K.
(2008) The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P.
(2015) The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D.
(1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J.
(2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S.
(2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 634–654. DOI logoGoogle 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, 634–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Cognitive differences and ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 396–417). London, UK: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction: A synthetic review. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference Research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 41–70). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S.
(2011) Focus on form. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 576–592). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015) Instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. M.
(2006) Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1981) Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 250–278). New York, NY: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
(1983) Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P.
(1998) Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loschky, L.
(1994) Comprehensible input and second language acquisition. What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K.
(2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 265–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M.
(2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A.
(2007) Introduction: The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 1–26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012) Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R. J., Stafford, C. A., & Winke, P.
(2010) Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M.
(2014) Interactionist approach. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J.
(2003) Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A.
(Eds.) (2013) Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K.
(2017) Gender and recasts: Analysis of males’ and females’ L2 development following verbal and gesture-enhanced recasts. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach (pp. 99–119). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H.
(2015) The interactional feedback dimension instructed second language learning. Linking theory, research, and practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Oliver, R.
(2000) Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The patterns of negotiation of meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawlak, M.
(2006) On the incidence and effect of negotiation of form and meaning in group work activities: Contrasting theoretical claims with classroom reality. IATEFL Research News, 18, 31–35.Google Scholar
(2012) Individual differences in language learning and teaching: Achievements, prospects and challenges. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. xix–xlvi). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015, March 21–24). Willingness to communicate as a factor influencing the effectiveness of input-providing and output-prompting oral corrective feedback, presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Toronto, Canada.
(2014) Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Individual difference variables as mediating influences on success or failure in form-focused instruction. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. Szymańska-Czaplak, & M. Szyszka (Eds.), At the crossroads: Challenges of foreign language learning (pp. 75–92). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Nature. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects on the process and outcome of interaction. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference Research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 19–40). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J.
(2003) Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Epilogue: Exploring the intricacies of interaction and language development. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction. Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 254–273). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N.
(2013) Peer interaction and second language learning. London, UK: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L.
this volume). On the role of the interlocutor in second language development: A cognitive-interactionist approach. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss Ed. Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences pp. 19 50 Amsterdam, Netherlands John Benjamins
Pica, T.
(2002) Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom second language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaller, L.
(1989) Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C.
(1987) The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porter, P.
(1986) How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200–222). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E.
(2015) Recasts, field dependence-independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 499–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., & Meyer, A.
(2012) Individual differences in second language learning: Introduction. Language Learning, 62 (Supplement 2: Individual differences in second language learning), 1–4.Google Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L.
(2007) Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 53–77). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R.
(2013) Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Lyster, R.
(2012) Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y.
(2007) The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shin, S. Y., Lidster, R., Sabra, S., & Yeager, R.
(2015) The effects of L2 proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in a collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20, 366–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solon, M.
(2017) Interaction and phonetic form in task completion: An examination of interlocutor effects in learner-learner and learner-heritage speaker interaction. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach. Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 121–147). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A.
(2010) Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14, 355–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 355–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, M., & Zarrinabadi, N.
(2016) Differential effects of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 30–45.Google Scholar
Toth, P. D.
(2008) Teacher- and learner-based discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58, 237–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yule, G., & McDonald, D.
(1990) Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar