Despite the wealth of studies on corrective feedback (CF) and its relationship with individual learner factors, little is known about how foreign language (FL) anxiety moderates the effectiveness of recasts during mobile-mediated audio interactions. The present study thus examined the association between learners’ FL anxiety, the effectiveness of recasts, and learners’ responses to recasts during synchronous mobile-mediated interactions via audio call. Two intact classes of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners were assigned into a control group and an experimental condition. After taking pre-tests, the participants of the experimental condition participated in four sessions of mobile-mediated oral interaction with an interlocutor via WhatsApp and received recasts for their definite and indefinite article errors. The participants of the control group also participated in the mobile-mediated interactions but received no recasts for their errors. Learners’ improvement was measured on two occasions following the fourth treatment session. The participants’ anxiety was also measured as a continuous variable using a 5-point Likert scale. Mixed between-within group ANCOVA results and regression analysis provided evidence for the efficacy of recasts delivered during mobile-mediated interactions, as well as the significant role of learners’ anxiety as a predictor of the effectiveness of recasts. The results also indicated that learners with low anxiety were significantly more successful in modifying their incorrect forms following recasts compared to learners with higher anxiety during the mobile-mediated interactions.
AbbuhlR. (2021). Interactionist approach to corrective feedback in second language acquisition. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 44–64). Cambridge University Press.
2.
AidaY. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 155–168.
3.
AndujarA. (2020) Mobile-mediated dynamic assessment: A new perspective for second language development. ReCALL, 32, 178–194.
4.
BaileyP.OnwuegbuzieA.J.DaleyC.E. (2000). Correlates of anxiety at three stages of the foreign language learning process. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 474–490.
5.
Broman-FulksJ.J.UrbaniakA.BondyC.L.ToomeyK.J. (2014). Anxiety sensitivity and risk-taking behavior. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 27, 619–632.
6.
BurstonJ.GiannakouK. (2022). MALL language learning outcomes: A comprehensive meta-analysis 1994–2019. ReCALL, 34, 147–168.
7.
CharpentierC.J.AylwardJ.RoiserJ.P.RobinsonO.J. (2017). Enhanced risk aversion, but not loss aversion, in unmedicated pathological anxiety. Biological Psychiatry, 81, 1014–1022.
8.
ChenT.ChangG. (2004). The relationship between foreign language anxiety and learning difficulties. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 279–289.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
10.
ColpaertJ.StockwellG. (Eds.). (2022). Smart CALL: Personalization, contextualization, and socialization. Castledown.
11.
DewaeleJ.-M. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety and psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism among adult bi- and multilinguals. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 670–684.
12.
EgiT. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.
13.
EllisR. (2021). Explicit and implicit oral corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 341–364). Cambridge University Press.
14.
EllisR.BarkhuizenG. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.
15.
ErlamR.LoewenS. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 877–905.
16.
FitzeM. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 67–86.
17.
FreiermuthM.R.JarrellD. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 189–212.
18.
GooJ. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
19.
GooJ.TakeuchiT. (2021). Corrective feedback and affect. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 713–732). Cambridge University Press.
20.
GuoX.YangY. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 841–858.
21.
Gurzynski-WeissL.BaraltM. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.
22.
HanZ.H.KimJ.H. (2008). Corrective recasts: What teachers might want to know. Language Learning Journal, 36, 35–44.
23.
HeiftT.NguyenP.HegelheimerV. (2021). Technology-mediated corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 226–250). Cambridge University Press.
24.
HewittE.StephensonJ. (2012). Foreign language anxiety and oral exam performance: A replication of Phillips’sMLJ study. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 170–189.
25.
HorwitzE.K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual review of applied linguistics, 21, 112–126.
26.
HorwitzE.K. (2017). On the misreading of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) and the need to balance anxiety research and the experiences of anxious language learners. In GkonouC.DaubneyM.DewaeleJ.-M. (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 31–47). Multilingual Matters.
27.
HorwitzE.K.HorwitzB.CopeJ. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
28.
JangS.S. (2011). Corrective feedback and language anxiety in L2 processing and achievement. English Teaching, 66, 73–99.
29.
JinY.de BotK.KeijzerM. (2015). Factors associated with foreign language anxiety: A study of Chinese university learners of Japanese and English. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 67–85.
30.
JungH.J. (2014). Ubiquitous learning: Determinants impacting learners’ satisfaction and performance with smartphones. Language Learning and Technology, 18, 97–119.
31.
KartchavaE.AmmarA. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18, 428–452.
32.
KartchavaE.NassajiH. (2021). Corrective feedback in mobile technology-mediated contexts. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 520–538). Cambridge University Press.
33.
KesslerM.LoewenS.GönülalT. (2023). Mobile-assisted language learning with Babbel and Duolingo: Comparing L2 learning gains and user experience. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2215294
34.
KimD.RueckertD.KimD.-J.SeoD. (2013). Students’ perceptions and experiences of mobile learning. Language Learning and Technology, 17, 52–73.
35.
KimuraH. (2017). Foreign language listening anxiety: A self-presentational view. International Journal of Listening, 31, 142–162.
36.
KourtaliN.E. (2022). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated recasts on L2 development. Language Learning and Technology, 26, 1–20.
37.
Kukulska-HulmeA.ShieldL. (2008). Overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20, 271–289.
38.
Kukulska-HulmeA.VibergO. (2018). Mobile collaborative language learning: State of the art. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49, 207–218.
39.
LaiC.ZhaoY. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 102–120.
40.
LiH.IwashitaN. (2021). The role of recasts and negotiated prompts in an FL learning context in China with non-English major university students. Language Teaching Research, 25, 209–233.
41.
LinC. (2014). Learning English reading in a mobile-assisted extensive reading program. Computers and Education, 78, 48–59.
42.
LongM.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
43.
LongM.H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Erlbaum.
44.
LysterR. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
45.
LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–402.
46.
LysterR.MoriH. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
47.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
48.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
49.
MackeyA.GassS.McDonoughK. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
50.
MacIntyreP.D.GardnerR.C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283–305.
51.
MartinS.Alvarez ValdiviaI.M. (2017). Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 1–15.
52.
MatsumotoY. (2021). Student self-initiated use of smartphones in multilingual writing classrooms: Making learner agency and multiple involvements visible. The Modern Language Journal, 105, 142–174.
53.
MorganaV. (2021). Mobile assisted language learning across different educational settings: An introduction. In MorganaV.Kukulska-HulmeA. (Eds.), Mobile assisted language learning across educational contexts (pp. 1–9). Routledge.
54.
NassajiH. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 353–368.
55.
OnwuegbuzieA.J.BaileyP.DaleyC.E. (1999). Factors associated with foreign language anxiety. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 217–239.
56.
OrtegaL. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education.
57.
PalalasA. (2011). Mobile-assisted learning: Designing for your students. In ThouësnyS.BradleyL. (eds.), Second language teaching and learning with technology: Views of emergent researchers (pp. 71–94). Researchpublishing.net.
58.
PanovaI.LysterR. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.
59.
PicaT. (1984). Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 69–78.
60.
RassaeiE. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.
61.
RassaeiE. (2019). Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System, 82, 97–110.
62.
RassaeiE. (2022). The effects of recasts on L2 grammar: A meta-analysis. The Language Learning Journal, 52, 16–36.
63.
RassaeiE. (2023). The interplay between corrective feedback timing and foreign language anxiety in L2 development. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/13621688231195141
64.
RussellV. (2020). Language anxiety and the online learner. Foreign Language Annals, 53, 338–352.
65.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68, 507–545.
66.
SauroS. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13, 96–120.
67.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
68.
SheenY. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
69.
SheenY. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford University Press.
70.
SheenY. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
71.
SheenY. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer.
72.
ShintaniN. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29, 517–538.
73.
SmithS.WangS. (2013). Reading and grammar learning through mobile phones. Language Learning and Technology, 17, 117–134.
74.
SparksR.L.PattonJ.LuebbersJ. (2018). L2 anxiety and the foreign language reading anxiety scale: Listening to the evidence. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 738–762.
75.
SpielmannG.RadnofskyM.L. (2001). Learning language under tension: New directions from a qualitative study. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 259–278.
76.
StockwellG. (2022). Mobile assisted language learning: Concepts, contexts and challenges. Cambridge University Press.
77.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
78.
TeimouriY.GoetzeJ.PlonskyL. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 363–387.
79.
TrofimovichP.AmmarA.GatbontonE. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171–195). Oxford University Press.
80.
TsengW.T.ChenS.WangS.P.ChengH.F.YangP.S.GaoX.A. (2022). The effects of MALL on L2 pronunciation learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60, 1220–1252.
81.
UCLES. (2001). Quick placement test: Paper and pen test: User manual. Oxford University Press.
82.
UshidaE. (2005). The role of students’ attitudes and motivation in second language learning in online language courses. CALICO Journal, 23, 49–78.
83.
Van BeuningenC. (2021). Focused versus unfocused corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 300–321). Cambridge University Press.
84.
VanPattenB. (2014). Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 125–146). Routledge.
85.
XuQ.DongX.JiangL. (2017). EFL learners’ perceptions of mobile-assisted feedback on oral production. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 408–417.
86.
XueQ.PengH. (2017). Investigating mobile-assisted oral feedback in teaching Chinese as a second language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 173–182.
87.
YangY.LysterR. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
88.
YilmazY. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
89.
YorkJ.ShibataK.TokutakeH.NakayamaH. (2021). Effect of SCMC on foreign language anxiety and learning experience: A comparison of voice, video, and VR-based oral interaction. ReCALL, 33, 49–70.
90.
YoshidaR. (2021). Perceptions and noticing of corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 620–641). Cambridge University Press.
91.
ZhaoY.EllisR. (2022). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person-s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26, 361–381.
