L2 Learner Perceptions of Interactional Feedback
Year: 2014

The production of comprehensible output is an integral component of learning a second language (Swain, 1985) To facilitate the development of communicative competence, teachers often provide oral corrective feedback to their students during interaction. In theory, this enables second language (L2) learners to recognize the manner in which their output either aligns or deviates from target norms (Long, 1996; Gass, 2008) Previous research on interactional feedback has largely focused on the comparative efficacy of various types of interactional feedback, namely prompts and recasts. The aim of this study, which is an expanded replication of a study conducted by Mackey, Gass and McDonough (2000) was to investigate learner perceptions of interactional feedback and its intended targets. Eight ESL students participated in a dyadic task with a teacher, during which they were provided feedback in response to a variety of errors. Subsequently, the students and teacher both completed stimulated recall interviews as a means of introspecting about their thoughts during each of the feedback episodes. The results revealed that although the interactional feedback was generally salient to learners, the errors which triggered that feedback were not. More specifically, the learners were generally accurate in their perceptions of lexical feedback, but were typically unable to identify the target of morphosyntactic and phonological feedback. Instead, the majority of the feedback was misinterpreted as being about semantics. Essentially, this suggests that there is a disconnect between teachers and students regarding oral corrective feedback, as learners may be more focused on meaning, rather than form.  Educators and researchers in the field of second language (L2) acquisition have long sought to determine the most effective pedagogical methods and practices. Consequently, substantial research has been conducted regarding the various factors which may conduce L2 learning. The role of interaction in L2 acquisition is one such topic that has been examined in depth in recent years. Empirical studies have demonstrated that language learning is facilitated through authentic communication (Long, 1996; Gass Selinker, 2008) Naturally, many language instructors around the world have adopted a communicative approach to language teaching as a result of this research. Subsequently, as teachers encourage use of the target language in their classrooms, they must consider how to provide feedback to their students concerning the accuracy of their utterances. Researchers have claimed that the provision of oral feedback is integral to L2 acquisition because it highlights the manner in which a 1 Lorincz: L2 Learner Perceptions of Interactional Feedback Published by theRepository at St. Cloud State, 2014 L i n g u i s t i c P o r t f o l i o s V o l u m e 3 99 learner's speech either aligns or deviates from targetlike forms, and enables them to modify their output accordingly (Long, 1996; Gass Selinker, 2008) Over the past several decades, there has been a steady influx of research emerging regarding the impact of interaction on L2 acquisition. The bulk of these studies have focused on the comparative efficacy of various types of oral feedback in relation to the acquisition of L2 forms (Amar Spada, 2006; Lyster Izquierdo, 2009; Yang Lyster, 2010) Fewer studies have analyzed learner perceptions of interactional feedback, suggesting there is a significant gap in the research (Mackey, Gass, McDonough, 2000) 2.0 Literature Review Gass and Selinker (2008) define feedback as information which either highlights the success, or lack of success, of learner utterances. Research regarding the use of oral feedback is grounded in the interaction based approach to L2 acquisition. The Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) claims that L2 development is facilitated through communication. Long (1996) described the relationship between interaction and L2 acquisition as follows: "Negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interaction adjustments by the native speaker or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways" (p. 451 452) Likewise, Gass and Selinker (2008) assert that L2 learning occurs as a result of input, output and "feedback that comes as a result of interaction" (p. 317) Thus, the interaction based approach not only claims that interaction facilitates L2 acquisition, but also that oral corrective feedback contributes to L2 development by prompting learners to adjust their speech in an effort to make it more comprehensible and nativelike (Long, 1996) One component of interactionist theory that sheds further light on the role of oral corrective feedback is the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985) The Output Hypothesis claims that production of comprehensible output is vital to L2 acquisition (Swain, 1985) The need to produce coherent output in the course of communication forces learners to move from a focus on "semantic processing to syntactic processing," in an effort to produce utterances that are intelligible (Swain, 1985, p. 249) A major component of L2 acquisition, according to this hypothesis, is that learners must develop and test language hypotheses regarding the structures and meanings of the target language (Gass Selinker, 2008) Interactional feedback, therefore, is an important part of this process, because it allows leaners to verify those hypotheses through communication with native or more competent speakers (Gass Selinker, 2008; Gass, 2003) The interaction approach to L2 acquisition is often applied to classroom practices through the use of form focused instruction. Yang and Lyster (2010) define form focused instruction as "any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners' attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly" (p. 236) The use of this method typically involves introducing target forms and features through interaction rather than as isolated concepts (Yang Lyster, 2010) Essentially, learners acquire new forms through 2 Linguistic Portfolios,  [2014] Art.  L i n g u i s t i c P o r t f o l i o s V o l u m e 3 100 meaningful communicative tasks. Researchers claim that this enables easier retrieval of these forms in future communicative contexts (Yang Lyster, 2010) Oral corrective feedback is an important component of form focused instruction as it promotes noticing of various target forms (Yang Lyster, 2010) 2.1 Interactional Feedback Types Most interaction based research categorizes oral corrective feedback in terms of a dichotomy between prompts and recasts (Lyster Ranta, 1997) Both of these feedback types are used with the intent of highlighting learner errors as they occur in the course of interaction. There is, however, a fundamental difference in the nature of prompts and recasts. Egi (2010) describes this difference as a "distinction between feedback that reformulates learners' utterances by offering L2 models and feedback that elicits or prompts learner generated responses while withholding such models" (p. 3) Recasts are an immediate reformulation of an erroneous L2 utterance which maintains the original meaning (Ammar Spada, 2006) Essentially, recasts not only highlight that an error has been made, they also provide learners with a corrected version of their utterance. Yang and Lyster (2010) provide the following interaction as an example of the use of recasts (p. 243) Student: And they have a happy life after and many years they have a lot of kid around the.  They had.  They had a lot of kids around the palace. Some researchers have claimed that recasts "help L2 learners notice the discrepancy between their nonnativelike utterance and the targetlike form" ( 2006, p. 544) Due to their implicit and unobtrusive nature, many researchers consider recasts to be an ideal feedback technique (Amar Spada, 2006) There are, however, a number of concerns regarding the use of recasts. When recasts are provided through interaction, learners may fail to notice them, or if they are noticed, their purpose may be misinterpreted. One of the major caveats of recasts is highlighted by Lyster (1998) In his analysis of recasts in the content based classroom, Lyster (1998) observed that recasts and noncorrective repetitions were often used interchangeably and fulfilled similar roles. Thus, Lyster (1998) concluded that recasts can be quite ambiguous, and therefore difficult for learners to recognize the purposes for which they are intended by teachers. Amar and Spada (2006) also found that "the corrective nature of recasts may be obscured by their formal and functional overlap with repetitions" (p. 545) Essentially, learners may misinterpret recasts as being about confirmation of meaning rather than correction. Thus, the use and usefulness of recasts clearly remains in question. Prompts or negotiation, conversely, do not provide learners with a corrected version of their erroneous utterances. Instead, prompts emphasize that an error has been made, and 3 Lorincz: L2 Learner Perceptions of Interactional Feedback Published by theRepository at St. Cloud State, 2014 L i n g u i s t i c P o r t f o l i o s V o l u m e 3 101 incite learners to reformulate their utterances. There are a variety of forms of prompts including clarification requests, repetition of learner errors, metalinguistic clues and elicitation (Yang Lyster, 2010) Yang and Lyster (2010) provide the following dialogues as examples (p. 243 244) Clarification Request Student: Why does he fly to Korea last year? Teacher: Pardon?  Why did he fly to Korea last year?  Mrs. Jones travel a lot last year.  Mrs.