Article critique

Shuting Shen

Colorado State University

 Summary

In the article "How do learners perceive interactional feedback," the authors Mackey,

Gass, and McDonough found that morphosyntactic feedback is seldom perceived by learners.

This type of feedback is usually transmitted in the form of recasts. Further, the authors had 10

ESL learners and 7 IFL learners participate in this study. Mackey, Gass and McDonough

explored two research questions: “Do the learners perceive the feedback as feedback?” and

“Do the learners recognize the target of that feedback?” The result of the study is that, when

students perceive phonological and lexical feedback, the learners may capture the

information more accurately, regardless of if the information is provided through negotiation

or recast forms of feedback. Therefore, learners correct their morphosyntactic errors less

frequently than lexical or semantics errors. Participants may perceive feedback on lexical and

phonological issues and choose to ignore the morphological grammar feedback. Finally, they

concluded that in this study negotiation of meaning rarely involved grammar. However,

problem utterances involving morphological syntax are generally recast. Their sample is

small, and their results should serve as a need for further research.

Critique

Historically, linguistic studies view the role of conversational interaction in the

acquisition of a second language from a viewpoint of negotiated interaction. Negotiated

interaction could be between a native and a nonnative speaker or between two nonnative

speakers. In other words, when learning and perceiving a second language, the L2 learners

are often tested in communication abilities However, for this study, the authors not only

tested the leaners' communication abilities and their feedback in negotiations, but the learners
were also asked to report their evaluations of their own ability in giving feedback. This is

quite challenging for an L2 learner since it is hard to differentiate information perception and

communication. The authors present the idea that information perception is a learning

process, like learning vocabulary or sentence structure, as well as grammar and

morphosyntactic features of the language. The researchers have noticed that the perceptions

and feedback on grammar and morphosyntax might be difficult for L2 learners and even

though learners might be able to use what they learned about L2 grammar, they may not be

able to report using it, since it is unconscious or viewed as unimportant in the communication

process. However, imagine when someone is learning a second language or going to a foreign

country that few people speak English, what would normally be learned first? It is unlikely

that the first thing learned would be the grammar or morphosyntactic features; instead, some

daily words, regarding food, drink or transportation, would be most useful. On the contrary,

to be a professional student, we might want to be accurate in grammar initially. Thus, it

would be better to differentiate the L2 learners, meaning the research subjects, by their

purpose for learning a second language, in order to get accurate feedback on interactional

perception.

Also, in terms of the discussion of this study, the attention of the learners is crucial,

which means the learners participating in this study should have known that they were being

studied, or that they would be asked about their perceptions in the learning process, to report

their feedback more accurately. The reason lies in the fact that some aspects of leaners'

attention may become focused on parts of their native language rather than on the target

language. Empirically, noticing of the gap between learner language forms and target
language forms is a step toward changes in learning outcomes. For instance, in the experience

mentioned in the paper, the 50-minute class was videotaped, and the class participants were

asked to watch the video and report their feedback. It turns that the participants' reports

identified between 23.8% and 37.9% of the feedback episodes noted by the researchers—

which is a significant difference. Supposing that the participants remember their feelings

during the class and how they give feedback regarding the learning process, the researchers

would require different standards regarding language learning feedback. Supposing that the

participants do not remember their feelings during the class and cannot report accurately

(even for a single 50-minute class), then it would be a waste of time to have the participants

report their interactional feedback regarding L2 learning. In either case, it is possible that the

researchers' standards and the perceptions of the participants are different, and in order to

equalize them, the participants should be told to pay attention to their learning process, when

and how they give feedback during the learning process, and what feedback they should

report after-class.

Moreover, in the study mentioned, the native language of the L2 learner was considered

little. For instance, in terms of learning Italian as the second language, the study took "weeks

spent in the United States or Italy" as a factor for consideration, as well as "years of prior

study of English or Italian," but not the language family. Japanese, Cantonese and Korean

belong to the Sino-Tibetan language family, while English, French and Italian belong to the

Indo-European language family, meaning it would be more natural for a French L1 speaker to

learn Italian and accurately report his/her feedback during the learning process due to the

similarities in the languages. However, it would be more difficult for the L1 Japanese or
Korean learner, in the same amount of time and with the same language learning ability, to

accurately report his/her feedback in that the grammar, morphosyntax and word structures are

quite different between the two language families. The researchers may have noticed that

their study ignored the individual ability difference in language learning, while it also ignored

the distance in relationship between the L1 and the L2 of the learner.

Conclusion

There are many types of feedback, including explicit feedback and implicit feedback. In

the process of teachers’ teaching, feedback plays a great role in English learners. As a future

teacher, I will decide which type of feedback to use to help students improve their second

language learning according to their actual situation. For example, when helping ESL leaners

correct grammar or lexical errors, I will choose recast feedback. Also, I should balance the

feelings of students and provide appropriate feedback because classrooms have different level

of learners. Some students need to be raised to a higher level, while others need to be treated

very gently.