Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback?

For the poster presentation of the course Language and Cognition, I read this paper Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction written by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss and Melissa Baralt on Applied Psycholinguistics.

Abstract

This study examines if the types learners modify output differentially demonstrates that they notice the feedback and whether or not this relationship holds both in face-to-face(FTF) and synchronous computer-mediated chat(SCMC) environments. Twenty-four learners of Spanish as a foreign language interacted one-on-one with a interlocutor in the FTF and the SCMC modes, during which they received corrective feedback. After each interaction, learners participated in a mode-specific stimulated recall session to measure their noticing of feedback. Data were coded to obtain: feedback episode, type of modified output(none, partial, or full), and accurate noticing. Binary logistic regression indicates that after feedback, partial modified output was the greatest predictor of accurate feedback. This finding applied in both FTF and SCMC.

Introduction and motivation

Psycholinguistic relevance of modified output

The theoretical justification for modified output is premised on noticing. Schmidt’s (1990, 1995) noticing hypothesis defines noticing as attention plus awareness and argued that noticing is necessary for learning. It has also been empirically demonstrated that learner-produced output has a greater noticing effect than input.

Modified output as uptake of corrective feedback

Types of modified output and noticing both premise to be important for learning outcomes. There is a need to examine the role that different types of modified output play in noticing.

Four factors complicate SLA research on modified output: 1) it is optional to produce output; 2) the output is too covert to be recorded; 3) sometimes learners might not have the opportunity to produce modified output; 4) lack of coherence of the definition of the term uptake and modified output. The author summarized the common terminoloy, including uptake, needs-repair, modified output, successful uptake, needs application and so forth. For the purpose of this paper, the author concur with Lyster and Ranta’s (2013) most recent definition: uptake, in the most general sense, is a “discourse phenomenon” that “refers to a range of responses made by students following [corrective feedback]” (p. 171).

Modified output in the computerized environment

Recently researchers show much interest on computerized interaction environment in language learning, especially synchronous online chat, because it resembles synchronous FTF interaction. Both of them are conversations in real time, but there are some theoretical postulations as to the affordances of SCMC-based interaction. For example, the written mode of SCMC holds greater potential for corrective feedback for learners(Long, 2007) and reduces the burden on learners’ cognitive resouces and makes it easier for them to notice(Yilmaz and Yuksel, 2011).

However, there are also some marked differences inherent to SCMC interaction that may mitigate these theorized benefits in practice. It is inconclusive whether the theorized benefits for modified output production after feedback extend to the SCMC environment. As more institution adpot online language learning and hybrid courses, it is imperative to understand how differences in learners’ processing of feedback mediate what they notice during interaction.

Research questions

Is modified output type(no modified output, partial modified output, full modified output) indicative of learners’ accurate noticing of feedback in FTF and SCMC environments?

Examing partial versus full modified output, when learners have the opportunity to modify and when the modification is correct, may provide a unique lens with which the psycholinguistic justification for modified output.

Most past studies have not distinguished between type of modified output.

Research goals:

To further elucidate the relationship between type of modified output and accurate noticing in response to interactionally driven feedback.
To examine whether this relationship held in both the FTF and SCMC environments.

Method

Information-gap Tasks

In this session, one-on-one conversation between interlocutor and each participant was employed and two black-and-white scenes were shown to both of them. The scene presented to the learner participants(twenty-four intermediate-level learners of Spanish) contained 12 furnitures highlighted in blue, while that presented to the interlocutor was empty. The task of participant was to instruct the interlocutor where to place the furniture items in order to match the pictures and the end of the task, using only Spanish. Each participant completed one FTF and one SCMC task.

Stimulated recall sessions

Stimulated recall protocols were used to measure learners’ noticing in this study. After the information-gap tasks, participants were shown a stimulus of the video of their task. The task was paused at specific moments(an average of 10 interaction episodes) so that participants may be asked to recall what they rememebered thinking at that time of the original interaction.

Post-study questionnaire

The questionnaires were delivered to obtain demographic information and solicit learners’ opinions regarding interacting in the two modes, in order to provide additional, qualitative data to explain patterns emergent from the result and to ensure learners were familiar with SCMC.

Coding

Opportunities for modified output were operationalized as binary: either learners were given time and space to produce modified output immediately following the interlocutor’s feedback, or they were not.

Learner modified output was operationalized as a teritiary variable: no production of modified output, partial modified output and full modified output, as shown with corresponding translation below.

Learners’ noticing of feedback was operationalized as binary, either learners reported correctly both noticing the role and target of the feedback, or they did not. Two examples were shown below.

Results

Relating learners’ noticing to modified output type

In FTF, when learners produced partial modified output, they were 4.74 times more likely to accurately notice feedback(odds ratio=4.74, p<.01). When they produced full modified output, they were 3.77 times more likely to accurately notice feedback(odds ratio=3.77, p<.01).

In SCMC, when learners produced partial modified output, they were 7.57 times more likely to accurately notice the feedback(odd ratio=7.57, p=.053). When producing full modified output they were more likely to correctly notice feedback(odds ratio=2.63, p=.139).

In both FTF and SCMC, partial modified output was the best demonstrator of learners’ accurate noticing of feedback, significant in both modes. Full modified output was also significant predictive of learners’ accurate noticing in FTF.

Discussion

Psycholinguistically relevance of modified output

Learner-produced modified output is psycholinguisitcally relevant, but it may depend on modified output type. The data from this study show that partial modified output was the strongest indicator of accurately noticed feedback targets.

Examing error type as potential mediator

To investigate the potential mediating effect of targeted linguistic items on the relationship between type of modified output and learner noticing found in this study, researchers ran additionaly binary logistic regressions.

When we accounted for error type, noticing decreases when learners produced full modified output on lexical and semantics. However, the relationship between noticing and type of modified output held for both partial and full modified output when looking at morphosyntax.

It is interesting that error type did not mediate the relationship between type of output and noticing. The relationhsip stayed the same.

The data support recent findings that

In FTF the complexity level of a form affects learners’ attentional resources associated with produced output
Feedback in SCMC were more salient for the learner, regardless of the linguistic items

Conclusion

The current study sought to examine the explanatory values of modified output types for accurate noticing of feedback in the FTF and SCMC environments. While partial modified output corresponded to learner noticing at the level of significance of both FTF and SCMC, the strength of the predictive relationship differed according to the mode.

Only in FTF, full modified output also essentially corresponded to learner noticing. Researchers hypothesized that full modified output in SCMC may be more of a social than noticing function.

Critiques and future work

The current study was executed in an experimental, lab-based design. Future research should be undertaken in both experimental and natural context.
This study took place in a Spanish foreign language setting, and the results may not be applicable to other L2 languages. Future studies could also examine potential interactions between target languages and task type.
Future studies can utilize technological advancements, such as eye-tracking technology, to examine learner noticing of modified output in immdiate and later feedback provision.
As online video chat has become popular in language learning courses. Research on how to best utilize this environment would contribute to obtain opportunities in this computer-mediated context.