Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T07:04:41.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

USING STIMULATED RECALL TO INVESTIGATE NATIVE SPEAKER PERCEPTIONS IN NATIVE-NONNATIVE SPEAKER INTERACTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2006

Charlene Polio ,
Susan Gass  and
Laura Chapin
Charlene Polio
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Susan Gass
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Laura Chapin
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Implicit negative feedback has been shown to facilitate SLA, and the extent to which such feedback is given is related to a variety of task and interlocutor variables. The background of a native speaker (NS), in terms of amount of experience in interactions with nonnative speakers (NNSs), has been shown to affect the quantity of implicit negative feedback (namely recasts) in a classroom setting. This study examines the effect of experience and uses stimulated recall to attempt to understand the interactional patterns of two groups of NSs (with greater and lesser experience) interacting with second language (L2) learners outside of the classroom context. Two groups of NSs of English each completed an information exchange task with a L2 learner: The first group consisted of 11 preservice teachers with minimal experience with NNSs, whereas the second group included 8 experienced teachers with significant teaching experience. Immediately after the task, each NS participated in a stimulated recall, viewing a videotape of the interaction and commenting on the interaction. The quantitative results did not show a strong difference in the number of recasts used by the two groups, but it did show a difference in the quantity of NNS output between the two groups. This finding was corroborated by the stimulated recalls, which showed that those with experience—who clearly saw themselves as language teachers even outside of the classroom—had strategies for and concerns about getting the learners to produce output. Additionally, the experienced teachers showed greater recognition of student comprehension, student learning, and student problems. Those with little experience were more focused on themselves, on student feelings, and on procedural and task-related issues.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 237 - 267
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128–143.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In S. J. French (Ed.), Accent on teaching: Experiments in general education (pp. 23–46). New York: Harper.
Bohannon, J. N., & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684–689.Google Scholar
Brinton, D., & Holten, C. (1989). What novice teachers focus on: The practicum in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 343–350.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. M. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–262). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S. M., & Alvarez Torres, M. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1–31.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., Sorace, A., & Selinker, L. (1998). Second language learning: Data analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., Svetics, I., & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53, 495–543.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-native speech. Language Learning, 34, 66–85.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hangui, Y. (2004) The effect of anonymity on native-nonnative speaker interaction in computer-mediated communication. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Hawkins, B. (1985). Is an “appropriate response” always so appropriate? In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 162–178). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Holten, C., & Brinton, D. (1995). ‘You shoulda been there’: Charting novice teacher growth using dialogue journals. TESOL Journal, 4, 23–26.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507–534.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
Leow, R., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35–57.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.Google Scholar
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 language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (Ed.), (in press). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., (in press). Interaction and second language development: Perspectives from SLA research. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from linguistics and psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second langauge research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.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.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.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.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.Google Scholar
Numrich, C. (1996). On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 131–153.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1991). Methods in second language classroom research: A critical review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 249–274.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–533.Google 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.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–21.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners' interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of language learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.Google Scholar
Pica, T., & Long, M. (1986). The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 85–98). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Plough, I. (1994). A role for indirect negative evidence in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stratman, J. F., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols: Issues for research. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 89–112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–82). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (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: Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.Google Scholar