The Interactional Feedback Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning: Linking Theory, Research, and Practice 9781472510143, 9781474219068, 9781472505125

Table of contents :
Cover
Half-title
Title
Copyright
Contents
Series Editor Foreword
Preface
1. Review of Key Concepts
Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings
2. The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives
3. Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes
4. How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?
Part 2: Researching Interactional Feedback
5. Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research
6. Feedback Effects on Learning: Experimental and Other Pretest-Posttest Studies
7. Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback
Part 3: Factors Affecting Interactional Feedback
8. Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback
9. Perception and Interpretation of Feedback
Part 4: Linking Theory, Research, and Practice
10. Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations
References
Index

Citation preview

The Interactional Feedback ­Dimension in Instructed Second ­Language Learning

Advances in Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Series Series Editor Alessandro Benati The mission of this series is to publish new theoretical insights in Instructed Second Language Acquisition research that advance our understanding of how languages are learned and should be taught. Research in Instructed SLA has addressed questions related to the degree to which any form of external manipulation (e.g., grammar instruction, input manipulation, etc . . .) can affect language development. The main purpose of research in instructed second language acquisition is to establish how classroom language learning takes place, and how an understanding of second language acquisition contributes to language teaching. Despite the clear relationship between theory and research in SLA, and language practice, there are still very few cross-references between these areas. This series will publish research in instructed SLA that bridges this gap and provide academics with a set of theoretical principles for language teaching and acquisition. The calibre of research will inspire scholars and practitioners to learn more about acquisition and to reflect on their language teaching practices more generally. Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning Edited by Melissa Baralt, Roger Gilabert and Peter Robinson The Developmental Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning The L2 Acquisition of Object Pronouns in Spanish Paul A. Malovrh The Grammar Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning Edited by Alessandro Benati, Cécile Laval and Marίa J. Arche The Metalinguistic Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning Edited by Karen Roehr

The Interactional Feedback Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning Linking Theory, Research, and Practice Hossein Nassaji

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 Paperback edition first published 2016 © Hossein Nassaji, 2015 Hossein Nassaji has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-1-4725-1014-3 PB: 978-1-350-00989-9 ePDF: 978-1-4725-0512-5 ePub: 978-1-4725-0693-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Nassaji, Hossein. The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning : linking theory, research, and practice / Hossein Nassaji. pages cm – (Advances in Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4725-1014-3 (hb) – ISBN 978-1-4725-0512-5 (epdf) – ISBN 978-1-4725-0693-1 (epub) 1. Second language acquisition. 2. Spanish language–Grammar–Study and teaching. 3. Spanish language–Study and teaching–Foreign speakers. 4. Second language acquisition. 5. Education, Bilingual–Study and teaching. I. Title. PC4115.N28 2015 468.0071–dc23 2014041335 Series: Advances in Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India Printed and bound in Great Britain

Contents Series Editor Foreword Preface

1

Review of Key Concepts

vii viii 1

Part 1  Theoretical Underpinnings

2

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

23

3

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

44

4

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

65

Part 2  Researching Interactional Feedback

5 6 7

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

89

Feedback Effects on Learning: Experimental and Other Pretest-Posttest Studies

109

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

132

Part 3  Factors Affecting Interactional Feedback

8 9

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

153

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

177

vi

Contents

Part 4  Linking Theory, Research, and Practice

10 Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations References Index

201 219 241

Series Editor Foreword The Interactional Feedback Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning is an important addition to this Bloomsbury Series. The role of interactional feedback is a key issue in second language acquisition. Interaction refers to conversations between learners and other interlocutors. Feedback refers to responses from a language instructor in relation to the language produced by language learners. It is through negotiation of meaning that language learners not only resolve breakdowns in communication and clarify somebody else’s message, but also receive feedback on the erroneous sentences. The feedback is provided though different conversational techniques and negotiation strategies during interaction and classroom tasks. In the present book, the author presents and discusses the key concepts and the main theoretical issues around the role of interactional feedback in instructed second language acquisition. The empirical research on the role and effects of interactional feedback in language learning reviewed in this book provides readers with an extremely valuable “state of the art.” By linking theory and practice, the author is offering specific instructional guidelines in the use of interactional feedback techniques in language teaching. I would like to express my gratitude to Hossein for his excellent contribution to the Bloomsbury Series Advances in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Alessandro G. Benati Series Editor Advances in Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research

Preface This book examines current advances in theory and research on the role of interactional feedback in second language acquisition (SLA) and its implications for classroom instruction. It is now widely recognized that language learners need to have ample opportunities for both communicative interaction and focus on form in the target language in order to develop communicative competence. The question that arises here, however, is how to enhance opportunities for both interaction and attention to form in L2 classrooms, and in particular, how to maximize opportunities for focus on form without losing opportunities for a focus on meaning and communication (Nassaji and Fotos 2010). A number of proposals have been made in recent years as to how such an integration can be accomplished, ranging from those that involve various kinds of input- and output-based instruction, to those that encourage focus on form through interaction and negotiation (see Nassaji and Fotos 2010). Within the interactionist perspective, one method that has been proposed as an effective means to draw learners’ attention to form in communicative contexts is the use of interactional feedback. Interactional feedback refers to feedback generated implicitly or explicitly through various forms of negotiation and modification strategies that occur in the course of meaning-focused interaction (Nassaji 2009). This approach is based on the assumption that attention to form and corrective feedback is essential for second language development, particularly for adult second language learners. It is also based on a theoretical perspective to SLA that assumes that negotiated interaction (i.e. modifications that occur in the course of conversation) assists language acquisition. Through negotiation, learners not only communicate their meaning, but can receive corrective feedback on their ill-formed utterances through various kinds of interactional modifications, such as clarification requests, repetitions, recasts, confirmation checks, etc, that take place during interaction (e.g. Gass 2003; Gass and Varonis 1994; Long 1991, 1996; Pica 1994, 1998). It is assumed that when such feedback strategies are used in the course of interaction, they highlight linguistic problems, drawing learner attention to form during communicative interaction. Since interactional feedback occurs during meaning-focused exchanges, attention to form occurs at the point where

Preface

ix

meaning is being processed. Therefore, this kind of feedback is assumed to provide learners with opportunities to connect form and meaning required for L2 development (e.g. Doughty and Varela 1998; Long and Robinson 1998). The purpose of the book is to examine current developments in the role of interactional feedback in second language (L2) teaching and learning. Drawing on recent theory and research in both classroom and laboratory contexts, the book explores a wide range of issues regarding interactional feedback including how such feedback is provided, used, processed, and contributes to L2 acquisition. While examining recent theory and research in this area, the book also discusses its practical implications for classroom instruction.

Audience This book addresses a central issue in classroom pedagogy: how to respond to learner errors during communicative interaction. It is thus expected to be appealing to classroom teachers and teacher educators. The issue of how to react to learner errors has long been of interest to L2 researchers as well. Researchers are interested in the role of interactional feedback because they view it as a means of investigating the role of negative and positive evidence in SLA (Ellis and Sheen 2006). This book presents a detailed analysis of the current theory and research in this area, and thus will be of interest to L2 researchers. The book will also appeal to graduate and undergraduate students in SLA and Applied Linguistics. There are currently many research articles and reviews on interactional feedback in the literature. However, due to the technical nature of these writings, most of them are not attainable to those who do not have substantial background in SLA theories and research. This book provides detailed coverage of the issue, but is written in a very accessible way, helping inform student readers of current developments in this area. To this end, the book can also be used as a primary or supplementary textbook for graduate and undergraduate SLA courses and seminars that aim to advance knowledge of interactional feedback and focus on form in L2 learning and teaching.

Organization The book consists of ten chapters, including an introduction (Chapter 1) and four major parts. To enhance the book’s usefulness for readers, each chapter

x

Preface

begins with a list of objectives and ends with a list of questions for discussion. The introduction begins with reviewing a number of key terms, constructs, and concepts related to interactional feedback, including the notion of corrective feedback, negative evidence, positive evidence, noticing, and focus on form. Part 1 focuses on theoretical issues, aiming to provide a conceptual framework to inform subsequent chapters. This section contains three chapters. Chapter 2 discusses the role and importance of corrective feedback. It examines current theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on corrective feedback in L1 and L2 acquisition. It also reviews key research evidence that supports the need for corrective feedback in instructional contexts. Chapter 3 defines interactional feedback and discusses its various forms and functions. It also provides a taxonomy of various feedback moves used in L2 interaction. The taxonomy provides a framework that assists teachers with a wide range of options to use in response to their learners’ erroneous utterances in the course of interaction. Chapter 4 explores theoretical underpinnings of interactional feedback, including what processes learners engage in when receiving such feedback and how the feedback contributes to language acquisition. Part 2 deals with the empirical basis of interactional feedback, discussing various studies in different interactional settings including classroom and laboratory settings. This part consists of three chapters. Chapter 5 focuses on descriptive research. This chapter examines research on both provision and effectiveness of feedback including its immediate effects in terms of learner uptake and modified output. It also discusses limitations of learner immediate uptake as a measure of feedback effectiveness and discusses how these limitations can be overcome. Chapter 6 examines experimental research, including research in classroom, laboratory, and computer-mediated contexts. The focus of this chapter is the effectiveness of feedback for actual learning. This chapter also examines the shortcomings and limitations of experimental research and discusses strategies researchers have adopted to deal with some of these shortcomings. Chapter 7 examines comparative research that has addressed the question of what type of feedback is more effective in relation to other feedback types. It begins with a discussion of the controversy around the efficacy of different feedback types, such as recasts, elicitations, and metalinguistic feedback, and then reviews key studies that have compared their relative effectiveness and their implications. Part 3 considers various factors that can influence the use and effectiveness of feedback. This part consists of two chapters. The first chapter (Chapter 8) focuses on various form-, feedback-, task- and context-related factors. It also examines

Preface

xi

the role of learner individual differences such as language proficiency, age, motivation, gender, language aptitude, memory, and educational background and experiences. Chapter 9 deals with perception of feedback. It explores issues around noticeability of feedback with respect to different types and feedback targets. It also examines the relationship between teacher intention and learner interpretation of feedback, learners’ and teachers’ feedback preferences, their similarities and differences and their relationship with learning. Part 4 is the conclusion. It consists of one chapter (Chapter 10), which explores in greater detail the various pedagogical implications of the issues examined throughout the book. The chapter also provides recommendations for using feedback effectively in the classroom.

1

Review of Key Concepts

Objectives ●●

●●

●●

●●

Review key and relevant terms and concepts. Define corrective feedback and explore its characteristics. Discuss the notion of errors, significance of errors and sources of errors. Discuss other related concepts such as negative and positive evidence, noticing, and focus on form.

Introduction Ample theory and research in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) suggests that communicative interaction is fundamental for successful second language learning. However, SLA research also suggests that teaching approaches that are purely communicative in nature and focus only on message are not adequate for the development of language competence. Thus, in addition to having opportunities for meaning-focused communication and using language for communicative purposes, learners also need opportunities for noticing and attention to form. However, although theoretical discussion exists in the literature about the importance and necessity of an integration of a focus on form and a focus on meaning, a major question has always been as to how this goal can be achieved in the classroom. Pedagogically, there are different ways of drawing learners’ attention to form. Traditional approaches have prescribed structured-based lessons in which language forms are predetermined in advanced and are presented explicitly and mainly in an isolated manner. The literature on form-focused instruction, however, has shown that such an instructional approach is not necessarily very effective, particularly for the development of communicative competence.

2

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Considerable empirical research evidence, on the other hand, suggests that form-focused instruction is most effective when it occurs in a communicative context. This is what has come to be known as focus on form (FonF) instruction as opposed to focus on forms (FonFs) instruction, which presents linguistic forms in isolation (e.g. Long 1991; Long and Robinson 1998). Support for the benefits of such an approach comes from research in a variety of contexts and with different learners. There are two main ways of integrating a focus on form into a communicative context: one is proactively and the other is reactively (e.g. Doughty and Williams 1998b). Proactive FonF draws learners’ attention to form before learners become engaged in communicative activities. Reactive FonF occurs in response to a learner linguistic problem that has already been made in the course of performing a communicative task (see Nassaji and Fotos 2010 for a detailed discussion of FonF approaches). Interactional feedback, which is the focus of this book, is a kind of reactive FonF, as it occurs in reaction to learners’ nontargetlike utterances. Since interactional feedback occurs in response to learner errors, it is a kind of corrective feedback. Furthermore, since it takes place in the course of interaction, it is a kind of communicative corrective feedback. We will provide a detailed description and discussion of interactional feedback and its theoretical underpinnings in the next chapters. In this introductory chapter, we begin with an overview of some of the key terms and concepts related to interactional feedback and needed for its discussion, including the notions of corrective feedback, error, negative and positive evidence, noticing, and FonF. An understanding of these concepts is essential for a discussion of the role of interactional and corrective feedback.

Key terms and concepts Corrective feedback Corrective feedback is a term used to describe the procedure whereby learners’ errors are corrected. Chaudron (1988) defined it as “any teacher behavior that . . . attempts to inform the learner of the fact of error” (Chaudron, 150). This behavior may overtly elicit a response from the learner and hence result in learners’ ability to correct themselves or may correct the error in such a way that learners may not realize a response is needed. Similarly, Lightbown and Spada

Review of Key Concepts

3

(2006) defined corrective feedback as “[a]n indication to a learner that his or her use of the target language is incorrect” (Lightbown and Spada, 197). Corrective feedback can be both explicit and implicit. Explicit feedback clearly indicates to the learner that his utterance is nontargetlike, such as direct correction (e.g. Don’t say leaved, say left.). Implicit feedback is indirect and provides only an implicit indication as to the presence of a linguistic problem, such as he what?, in response to he leaved. In the latter case, the feedback does not tell the learner explicitly what the problem is but provides a hint that the previous utterance was erroneous. Most traditional approaches in L2 instruction have focused on explicit and more direct forms of error correction whereas more recent investigations have also considered the possibility of more implicit forms of feedback. The latter type is essential as it can also provide learners with important information about their errors or what has been known in the literature as negative evidence (see below). Corrective feedback can be both oral in response to oral errors and written in response to written errors (Of course, oral feedback can also be used in response to written errors, see Nassaji 2007c). Oral feedback is often more immediate. Written feedback is often delayed and is usually more direct. Therefore, there might be differences in the way these two types of feedback may assist language acquisition. Oral feedback often focuses on accuracy of forms. Written feedback considers improvement of learners’ overall writing skills (Hyland and Hyland 2006). Written feedback also pays attention to other aspects of L2 writing, such as content and organization. Feedback, both oral and written, can be provided by either the teacher or another learner, in individualized, dyadic, or whole-class interaction (see Nassaji 2013), and also in response to a range of errors, including linguistic errors (such as syntactic, phonological, morphological, lexical) as well as discourse and pragmatic errors. Although corrective feedback can be both oral and written, interactional feedback, which is the focus of this book, is often in response to oral errors, as such feedback occurs in the context of interactional conversation.

The notion of error Any kind of corrective feedback is in essence a response to a learner error. In other words, it is the error that triggers the feedback. Therefore, when discussing the role of corrective feedback, we also need to consider what we mean by an error. Although the notion of error may seem straightforward, it is more complex than it might seem.

4

Interactional Feedback Dimension

In the SLA literature, researchers have defined errors in a variety of ways, depending on the purpose and also the potential application of the concept. D. H. Brown (1987), for example, defined errors as “idiosyncrasies in the interlanguage of the learner which are direct manifestations of a system within which a learner is operating at the time” (Brown, 170). Dulay et al. (1982) defined errors as “the flawed side of learner speech or writing.” They considered them as “those parts of conversation or composition norm of mature language performance that deviate from some selected norm of mature language performance” (Dulay et al., 138). Chun et al. (1982) defined an error as “the use of a linguistic item in a way, which, according to fluent users of the language, indicates faulty or incomplete learning” (Chun et al., 538). Despite differences, however, a common feature of most definitions is that errors are language forms that do not accord with either the rules or the norms of the target language. This characteristic can be seen in all of the above three definitions. Although errors can be defined in terms of violations of language rules or norms, this characterization of an error is not without problems. First, as Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) pointed out, the notion of norm is problematic because it assumes that there is only one standard and one correct form of language. However, as we know, every language has different varieties, and it is not always clear what variety of language we are referring to when talking about errors. This may not be a serious problem in the case of grammatical errors, but it can be when it comes to semantic and phonological errors where speakers’ judgments can be different depending on the variety of the language chosen. Second, the notion of norm assumes that native speakers are a homogenous group of people, and that incorrect utterances are those that deviate from the norm of that group. This assumption is problematic too. The fact is that native speakers consist of a diverse group of people who have their own individual ways of using the language and producing language forms. Therefore, the norm cannot be considered as a reliable yardstick to define errors. In addition, deviation from rules implies that all errors are rule-based. This is not necessarily true either. Incorrectness of an utterance can be due to other reasons, including the appropriateness of the utterance in a particular context or the degree to which it hinders communication. In the latter case, it is possible that the utterance is quite well formed but not contextually or semantically appropriate. In these cases, we usually talk about unacceptability of an utterance, which is different from grammaticality. An utterance may be grammatically correct but semantically unacceptable, such as Chomsky’s well-known example Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. It may also be ungrammatical but acceptable such

Review of Key Concepts

5

as hope you are well. Lennon (1991) defined error as a “linguistic form or a combination of forms, which, in the same context and under similar conditions of production, would, in all likelihood, not be produced by the speakers’ native speaker counterparts” (Lennon, 182). This characterization of an error seems to be more comprehensive, and is also different from the previous one in that it considers both the criteria of grammaticality based on language rules as well as communicative acceptability of the utterance in a particular context. However, this definition may still be inadequate. One limitation of all the above definitions is that the error has often been judged from the perspective of a native speaker with no reference to its pedagogical context or dimension. Although most often the learner’s production can be judged in comparison to what a native speaker produces, in language instruction, it is often the teacher who judges what an error is. Teachers often judge an error not only based on grammaticality or acceptability but also based on other criteria, such as the aim of error correction. In classroom contexts, one of the main aims of correction is to help learners improve their performance. In such contexts, the expectation is that the learner responds somewhat positively to the feedback by showing progress in their performance. This consideration is reflected in the definition that Chaudron (1986) provided for an error. He considered two criteria for distinguishing an error. One is evaluation of an error according to linguistic norms and the other is “any additional linguistic or other behavior that the teachers reacted to negatively or with an indication that improvement of the response was expected” (Chaudron, 67). This way of defining an error captures what teachers do, including not only how but also why they deal with learner errors in classroom contexts.

Sources and types of errors Most often we may not be very attentive to sources of errors when providing feedback. However, knowledge of what has caused the error is also important and can contribute to our understanding of what an error is and what strategy should be used to correct them. Sources (or causes) of an error can be many. Broadly speaking, in the SLA literature, two main sources have often been distinguished: interference from L1 and how learners acquire a language in general. Errors having a root in the first source have often been called interlingual errors, and those having a root in the second source have been called intralingual or developmental errors (e.g. James 1998; Richards 1974). Interlanguage errors, or what have also been called transfer errors, are those that occur when the learner

6

Interactional Feedback Dimension

relies on his or her first language and applies its rules when producing a second language. Intralingual or developmental errors are caused by how learners hypothesize about an L2 and thus reflect general characteristics of language acquisition. These errors, thus, have their source within the target language and might also be due to the learning strategies the learner uses to learn the language. Intralingual errors include, for example, errors resulting from overgeneralization of a language rule, its incomplete application, or not knowing the conditions under which the rule applies (James 1998). These are the errors that are also committed by children learning their L1. When it comes to error correction, it is possible that interlingual and intralingual errors might respond differently to error correction. For example, an error that has happened due to interference from the L1 may respond well to error correction and explanation. However, intralingual errors may be less responsive to error correction because learners are not able to deal with them, whether correction is provided or not, if learners are not developmentally ready. Learners might also make errors that are neither interlingual nor developmental. Such errors might, for example, result from using a particular kind of communicative strategy that the learner uses, such as paraphrasing or circumlocution. Thus, these have also been called communication strategy errors (James 1998). Errors might also be caused from the way in which language is taught. This category of errors has been called “methodological errors” or “induced errors” (James 1998), and may be caused, for example, by the teacher’s insufficient or imprecise explanations, or the nature of the materials used, such as inappropriate use of language form in a textbook or certain exercises learners are required to do. Errors might also be caused by the learner’s partial knowledge of a particular form, or by not using a particular learning tool correctly (for example, when using a dictionary and not checking the meaning properly). Errors can also be distinguished based on their linguistic source, such as grammatical or morphosyntactic errors, lexical errors, and phonological errors. Grammatical errors, for example, are those that occur because of the deviation of the learner’s utterance from certain grammar rules of the language. Specific instances include errors related to verb tense, sentence structure, auxiliary, preposition, article, singular/plural form, subject-verb agreement, etc. Errors can also be different depending on the kind of language knowledge or skills they relate to, such as listening (comprehension errors) or speaking (production errors or written errors), or whether a form is used appropriately in a given context (pragmatic errors).

Review of Key Concepts

7

In error correction, knowledge of all these sources of errors is important as it can help to decide when, why and how to correct an error.

The significance of errors In most of the traditional approaches to error correction, such as the AudioLingual method, errors are considered bad habits; therefore, they have to be eradicated (see Chapter 2). In most current conceptualizations, however, the emphasis has shifted from errors as bad habits to a sign of learning. Error correction, thus, is seen as a strategy that enables learners to learn from their errors and enhance their learning. For example, from a cognitive perspective, which underlies most of the recent approaches to corrective feedback, errors are considered to play a significant role in the acquisition of language. In this view, the errors made by the learner provide not only important evidence about the nature of the processes involved in language acquisition but also about what the learner has and has not learned during the course of language instruction (Corder 1967). Errors also serve as a learning device. They not only help learners to test their hypothesis about the language they are learning, but also act as triggers to receive feedback which would consequently help learners improve their language. Such a view of the role of errors not only emphasizes the importance of errors and feedback but also provides a justification for different forms of feedback (see Chapter 3).

Errors versus mistakes In the discussion of errors and feedback, a distinction has often been made between errors and mistakes. Errors are defined as deviations caused by deficiency in knowledge about language rules or the wrong application of a rule. Mistakes, on the other hand, are considered deviations that result from the inability to use the knowledge the learner already possesses. They are also the result of performance or psychological factors, including tiredness, lack of attention, or memory lapses. Since errors stem from lack of knowledge, they are often systematic and persistent. Also, learners are not often able to self-correct them, as they require the acquisition of knowledge. Mistakes, however, are unsystematic and occasional because they are not due to lack of knowledge. Therefore, learners are often able to self-correct them if they pay enough attention or if the deviation is somehow pointed out to them.

8

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Another related distinction is between covert and overt errors (Corder 1971). Overt errors are incorrect forms that are also seen as incorrect. Covert errors are those that may seem correct on the surface but are incorrect in context. An example of a covert error is when a student says I have a few friends when he or she actually means I have few friends. This may seem correct but based on its context it is incorrect, and it is possible that the learner does not know the distinction between few and a few in English. It should be noted, however, that although theoretically a distinction can be made between errors and mistakes, these distinctions are not easy in practice. First, as Ellis (2009) pointed out, it is often hard for the teacher to know whether the error is due to a lack of knowledge or if it is simply a performance error. Second, the notion of knowledge is relative, and therefore, it is not that the learner has or does not have the knowledge. It is possible that the learner has the knowledge but it is partial knowledge. Also, knowledge of language can be declarative or procedural. Declarative knowledge is knowledge of what or knowledge about the language. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how or the ability to use the knowledge. It is possible that a learner has declarative knowledge and is able to describe or explain a rule, but does not yet know how to apply that knowledge or has not yet developed sufficient control over the use of the knowledge (Sharwood-Smith 1986). The learner may also be able to use the knowledge in some contexts but not in other contexts.

Other relevant concepts Negative and positive evidence As we will see later on, one of the fundamental questions that language acquisition theories have attempted to address is what kind of input is useful for language learning and how language learners construct their knowledge of the language in light of the different sources of input. To this end, in SLA research as well as the literature on corrective feedback, a distinction has often been made between two types of evidence available to learners: negative evidence and positive evidence. Negative evidence is a term used to refer to information that tells the learner what is not possible in a given language. This kind of evidence can be obtained in various ways. It can be obtained through explanation or presentation of grammatical rules that informs the learner of incorrect uses of the language forms and also through various forms of corrective feedback in response to learner errors (Long 1996; Long and Robinson 1998). In the former case,

Review of Key Concepts

9

negative evidence is provided proactively before the learner has made an error and in the latter case it is provided reactively. When feedback occurs reactively, it can either be in the form of overt correction, where the primary focus is on form, or in the form of implicit feedback, where the primary focus is on meaning. In the latter case, it can occur through various forms of meaning negotiation strategies such as confirmation checks, clarification requests, asking for repetition, and recasting and reformulations (see Chapter 3). Figure  1.1 shows the main types of negative feedback just described. In the SLA literature, there are other terms used to describe negative evidence, including negative feedback, negative data, and negative input (Schachter 1991). Most often these terms have been used interchangeably, with the difference that negative feedback is often used in the field of cognitive psychology but negative evidence is often used in language acquisition literature (Schachter 1991). However, although the two terms have been used interchangeably, some researchers have made a distinction between the two. Saxton (1997, 2000), for example, used the term negative evidence to refer to utterances that both indicate to the learner that his or her utterance contains an error and also provide the correct form. Negative feedback, however, was defined as utterances that allow the learner to recognize that his or her utterance may contain an error but does not provide the correct form. Thus, while negative feedback alerts the learner of the error, negative evidence alerts and also supplies the correct form. Saxton (1997) also made a distinction between contingent and noncontingent negative evidence. Contingent negative evidence is feedback that occurs in response to a nongrammatical usage. Noncontingent negative feedback occurs irrespective of any actual error. This can be provided through means such as explanation and discussion of what is not possible in a given language. Negative evidence in the form of corrective feedback is a kind of contingent negative evidence

Negative evidence

Proactive

Presentation Explanation

Reactive

Overt correction

Figure 1.1  Types of negative evidence.

Meaning negotiation

10

Interactional Feedback Dimension

because it occurs following an error (e.g. Learner: He is man. Teacher: He is a man). According to Saxton et al. (2005), contingent negative evidence is “a more powerful form of corrective input” than negative feedback (Saxton et al., 400). In contrast to negative evidence, positive evidence refers to information that tells the learner what is possible in a given language. Positive evidence can also be obtained in various ways. It can be obtained, for example, through exposure to correct models or examples of the language in naturalistic discourse and can also be obtained through input that has been modified or simplified for the purpose of learning before or in the course of interaction (Long 1991; Long and Robinson 1998). Positive evidence can also be provided in the context of instruction, through teaching about how language works. Both naturalistic and modified input and instructional positive evidence are important sources of information on which learners can hypothesize and learn about how language works. Similar to negative evidence described earlier, positive evidence can be provided in the form of contingent and noncontingent models. Contingent models refer to correct utterances produced immediately after another grammatical utterance whereas noncontingent models refer to all utterances that are produced by an interlocutor that model the correct structure and do not necessarily occur after other correct forms (Saxton et al. 2005). Saxton et al. provided the following examples for these two types of models: Contingent model Child: A table. Adult: Yeah we’ll have a little table here. Noncontingent model Adult: Have you tried it? (Saxton et al., 656). Figure 1.2 shows the different types of positive evidence just described.

Naturalistic input Positive evidence

Modified input

Figure 1.2  Types of positive evidence.

Contingent Noncontingent Negotiation Instruction

Review of Key Concepts

11

Finally, a distinction has also been made between positive feedback and positive evidence (e.g. Ellis 2008b). While positive evidence is information about what is correct in a given language, positive feedback provides an affirmation of the content or correctness of a learner utterance (Student: I want to buy a car. Teacher: That is a good idea). In doing so, positive feedback provides affective support to learners.

Noticing Another important concept related to feedback and error correction is the notion of noticing. This concept has been used both in the literature on language acquisition theory and also frequently in the literature on corrective feedback. In the former, it has been used as a necessary process in language acquisition. In the latter, it has been used as a reason for why errors need to be corrected. The role of attention has also been emphasized in the field of language pedagogy. For example, Sharwood Smith (1980) (cited in Rutherford and Sharwood Smith 1985) stressed the  role of attention in his Pedagogical Grammar Hypothesis (PGH). In response to claims such as those by Krashen (1982, 1985) that acquisition cannot take place through conscious attention and instruction, he pointed out (in Rutherford and Sharwood Smith, 275): Instructional strategies which draw the attention of the learner to specifically structural regularities of the language, as distinct from the message content, will under certain conditions significantly increase the rate of acquisition over and above the rate expected from learners acquiring that language under natural circumstances where attention to form may be minimal and sporadic.

Although the notion of attention to form had been used earlier in both language teaching and learning, in SLA theory, the idea of noticing as a process required for language learning was first formalized by Schmidt (Schmidt 1990, 1993, 1995; Schmidt and Frota 1986) in what has been known as “Noticing Hypothesis”. According to this hypothesis, language acquisition cannot take place without noticing, and L2 learners must attend to the language form in the input in order to acquire it. Schmidt (2001) pointed out: [T]he concept of attention is necessary in order to understand virtually every aspect of second language acquisition (SLA), including the development of interlanguages (ILs) over time, variation within IL at particular points in

12

Interactional Feedback Dimension time, the development of L2 fluency, the role of individual differences such as motivation, aptitude and learning strategies in L2 learning, and the ways in which interaction, negotiation for meaning, and all forms of instruction contribute to language learning. (Schmidt, 3)

The Noticing Hypothesis has been supported by a large number of studies in SLA. However its initial support comes from a diary study conducted by Schmidt and Frota (1986) of Schmidt’s acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese during a fivemonth period in Brazil. Schmidt documented his language learning during this period and found that he better learned the language items that he had consciously noticed and which he had recorded in his diary. These features were those that he found to be processed at a deeper level and eventually found their way into his production. Based on these findings, Schmidt claimed that there is a necessary relationship between noticing and learning. Since then, many researchers have recognized the centrality of noticing as a key and essential step in language acquisition. However, although noticing is currently considered fundamental in language learning, it is a complex concept, and even though agreement exists on its importance, disagreement exists on its exact definition. For example, in his initial conceptualization, Schmidt (1995) considered noticing as mainly a conscious process, and claimed that this kind of awareness is necessary for language acquisition. However, some other researchers, such as Tomlin and Villa (1994) have argued that conscious attention is not necessarily needed for learning. Tomlin and Villa (1994) pointed out that the role of attention in learning is more subtle and therefore needs a finer-grained conceptualization. To this end, these researchers distinguished among three separate but related attentional processes: alertness, orientation, and detection. Alertness was taken to refer to learners’ readiness to receive the incoming stimuli. Orientation has to do with directing attentional resources to a particular type of input without paying attention to other input. Detection concerns selection and registration of sensory stimuli in memory. To these researchers, what is essential for learning is detection. It is the detected information that becomes available for other cognitive processes of learning such as hypothesis formation and testing. In other words, it is the detected information that becomes intake. Tomlin and Villa believed that detection could take place without any conscious awareness. Robinson (1995) provided a different perspective by proposing that noticing is “detection plus rehearsal in short-term memory” (Robinson, 296). According to Robinson, noticing is more than detection and also involves activation of

Review of Key Concepts

13

the information in short-term memory before it can be transferred to longterm memory. However, although in his original conception of noticing, Schmidt defined it as a conscious process, in his recent discussion, he has separated noticing and conscious awareness. He has argued that noticing should be limited to “awareness at a very low level of abstraction” (Schmidt 2001, 5). In his current conceptualization, Schmidt has also distinguished between noticing and understanding. Noticing is a process that involves simple mental registration of an event. Understanding, however, involves a deeper level of consciousness, and pertains to processes such as recognition of general rules and principles, which usually takes place after further analysis and reflection on what has already been noticed. According to Schmidt, mental activities such as thinking, problem solving and metacognition belong to this level of awareness. Some researchers have considered that such higher level of attention may be needed for internalization of linguistic forms (Robinson 2003). Despite the above differences, many SLA researchers agree that some level of attention is required for successful acquisition of linguistic forms (Carroll and Swain 1993; Doughty 2001; Doughty and Varela 1998; Ellis 2001; Fotos 1994; Fotos and Ellis 1991; Nassaji 1999; Nassaji and Fotos 2004; Robinson 1995; Schmidt 1993, 2001; VanPatten 2002b). Even for Tomlin and Villa, attention to input is a necessary process in SLA. Although they ascribe less importance to awareness, they acknowledge that language acquisition cannot take place without “the cognitive registration of sensory stimuli” (Tomlin and Villa, 192).

Focus on form Related to the role of feedback and noticing is also the concept of focus on form, which is a current perspective on form-focused instruction widely advocated in the literature. Theoretically, the notion of focus on form is based on the idea that language cannot be learned without some degree of attention to form, but it also argues that in order for attention to form to be effective, it should take place in a communicative context. The concept was originally proposed by Long (1991) in response to the inadequacy of the traditional grammar-based approaches and dissatisfaction with purely communicative approaches (Long 1991; Long and Robinson 1998). Long made a distinction between three types of instruction: focus on forms (FonFs),

14

Interactional Feedback Dimension

focus on meaning, and focus on form (FonF). The focus on forms instruction involves teaching grammatical forms in a highly decontextualized manner. It represents a synthetic syllabus, and is based on the assumption that language consists of a series of grammatical forms that can be acquired sequentially and additively. In this approach, the focus is mainly on linguistic forms without much concern for meaning and communication. Focus on meaning refers to instruction that emphasizes pure meaning-based activities with no attention to linguistic forms. This approach represents an analytic syllabus and is based on the assumption that learners are able to learn language inductively and arrive at its underlying language grammar by being exposed to its rules. The FonF approach differs from both the focus on forms and the focus on meaning instruction. It is an approach that attempts to address the shortcomings of both approaches by drawing learners’ attention to linguistic forms in the context of meaningful communication. Long (1991) characterized the difference between a FonF and a FonF instruction as follows: Whereas the content of lessons with a focus on forms is the forms themselves, a syllabus with a focus on form teaches something else-biology, mathematics, workshop practice, automobile repair, the geography of a country where the foreign language is spoken, the cultures of its speakers, and so on-and overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication. (Long, 45–6)

One fundamental feature of FonF is that “meaning and use must already be evident to the learner at the time that attention is drawn to the linguistic apparatus needed to get the meaning across” (Doughty and Williams 1998a, 4). In other words, FonF requires that learners be engaged in processing meaning before they attend to linguistic forms. An important assumption here is that it is possible to incorporate a focus on form into a meaning-focused context without interrupting learners’ focus on meaning. Another essential feature is that FonF is brief. That is, it involves an occasional shift form focus on communication to focus on linguistic forms. This shift of attention is triggered by a problem of some kind including an error that the learner has made or other anticipated problems in either comprehension or production (Williams 2005). Focus on form is also incidental and spontaneous. Therefore, it occurs when students are involved in the act of communication involving speaking and listening. Ellis et  al. (2001) summarized the characteristics of FonF as follows: 1. It occurs in discourse that is primarily meaning-centred. 2. It is observable (i.e., occurs interactionally).

Review of Key Concepts

15

3. It is incidental (i.e., it is not preplanned). 4. It is transitory. (Ellis et al., 283) However, although Long (1991) originally conceived of FonF mainly as a kind of incidental reaction to grammatical problems, other researchers have provided a broader perspective, arguing that FonF can take different forms and should not be restricted to incidental reactions to learner problems. Doughty and Williams (1998b), for example, suggested that FonF can be achieved both reactively in response to learner errors and proactively through addressing specific linguistic forms in a predetermined manner. Lightbown (1998) suggested that FonF can take place both integratively or sequentially. That is, it can take place in the form of separate mini lessons followed or preceded by communicative activities or it can take place within the context of communication. Nassaji (1999) proposed that FonF can be implemented by process and by design. FonF by process is spontaneous and occurs incidentally in the course of communication. FonF by design is achieved through designing form-focused tasks whose primary aim is to encourage deliberate attention to preselected linguistic forms. Ellis (2001) employed the term form-focused instruction and used it as an umbrella term to refer to “any planned or incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic form” (Ellis, 1–2). Form-focused instruction was used in contrast to meaning-focused instruction in which a learner’s attention is exclusively on meaning and messagebased communication. Ellis then divided form-focused instruction into three main categories: focus on forms, planned focus on form, and incidental focus on form. He argued that these categories differ from one another in the primary focus of attention and also the degree of focus on form (see Table 1.1, from Ellis 2001, 17). According to Ellis (2001), in both planned and incidental focus on form attention to form occurs while a learner’s primary focus is on meaning, but planned focus on form involves prior planning and preselection of the target form, whereas incidental FonF is unplanned and involves no preselection of Table 1.1  Types of form-focused instruction Type of FFI

Primary Focus

Distribution

Focus on forms

Form

Intensive

Planned focus on form

Meaning

Intensive

Incidental focus on form

Meaning

Extensive

Interactional Feedback Dimension

16

the target form. For that reason, planned FonF is intensive as it targets certain linguistic forms and incidental FonF is extensive as it occurs in response to a variety of linguistic forms. Furthermore, incidental FonF can take place in two different ways, either reactively or preemptively. Reactive FonF involves a response to an actual problem that the learner has in his or her production in the course of communication, such as a learner error. An example of reactive FonF is interactional feedback because this kind of feedback occurs in response to learner errors in the course of meaning-focused interaction. Preemptive FonF addresses possible target language problems before they occur in meaningfocused communication. This happens when the teacher or the student takes time out from a communicative activity to briefly focus on a particular form anticipated to be problematic by asking a question or commenting about a linguistic form during meaning-focused activities. Preemptive FonF can be initiated by the teacher or the student. Students can initiate a focus on form by asking for assistance or by posing a query about a problematic form (See Figure 1.3). Nassaji and Fotos (2010) provided the broadest conception of FonF. Motivated by pedagogical considerations, they pointed out: We conceive of FonF as a series of methodological options that, while adhering to the principles of communicative language teaching, attempt to maintain a focus on linguistic forms in various ways. Such a focus can be attained explicitly and implicitly, deductively or inductively, with or without prior planning, and integratively or sequentially We also believe that FonF must be a component of a broader L2 instructed learning that should provide ample opportunities for meaningful and form-focused instruction and also a range of opportunities for L2 input, output, interaction, and practice. (Nassaji and Fotos, 13)

FonFs

Types of FFI

Studentinitiated

Planned FonF Preemptive Incidental FonF

Teacherinitiated Reactive

Figure 1.3  Types of FFI.

Review of Key Concepts

17

Negotiation of form and negotiation of meaning Related to the discussion of interactional feedback is also the notion of negotiation, as interactional feedback takes place when learners are involved in communicating meaning and the information is exchanged and negotiated in some way. Depending on its function, researchers have made a distinction between two types of negotiation: negotiation of meaning and negotiation of form. Negotiation of meaning refers to exchanges in which the main focus is on meaning. It occurs when a speaker and a language learner are communicating their meaning and then encounter difficulties of communication. At this point the interlocutors may engage in interactional exchanges to address the communication problem. These exchanges are called negotiation of meaning. As Pica (1992) explained, it takes place “when a listener signals to a speaker that the speaker’s message is not clear, and the listener and speaker both work linguistically to resolve the problem” (Pica, 200). An example can be seen below: Example 1  Negotiation of meaning NNS: There’s this thing in the wall, uhm . . . a . . . NS: A thing? You mean a safe? NNS: Yeah a safe, and the thief opens the safe. (Van den Branden 1997, 596)

In the above example, it is quite possible that the learner’s attention is drawn to the linguistic form that has triggered the negotiation. However, the main purpose of the exchange is to deal with “difficulty in message comprehensibility” (Pica 1994, 400) rather than linguistic inadequacy. In other words, the aim is conversational, not didactic (Van Lier 1988), and the feedback is often implicit and occurs in the form of meaning-focused conversational moves. On the other hand, negotiation of form refers to interactional exchanges that have a more deliberate pedagogical purpose. They are mainly trigged by an attention to form and occur when the teacher or another interlocutor tries to “push” the learner intentionally to produce a correct or appropriate utterance (Van den Branden 1997, 592). The main purpose, thus, is didactic rather than conversational. As noted above, in the case of negotiation of meaning, the interlocutor has not understood the message. In the case of negotiation of form, the message is often clear and the feedback is used with the intention of alerting the learner to his or her linguistic problem (Ellis et al. 2001). Although

Interactional Feedback Dimension

18

negotiation of form intends to draw learners’ attention to form, since it occurs in the context of communicative interaction, it is consistent with the notion of communicative FonF. The following shows an example of negotiation of form: Example 2  Negotiation of form P: He breaked the stick. T: No. Broke. (Van den Branden 1997, 592)

Conclusion In this introductory chapter, we have reviewed some of the key concepts and constructs related to interactional feedback, including the notion of corrective feedback, the notion of error, negative and positive evidence, the notion of noticing and focus on form. We will provide a detailed examination of interactional feedback, its theoretical underpinnings, and the various ways in which it assists language acquisition in subsequent chapters. As noted earlier, interactional feedback is a kind of corrective feedback, therefore, before proceeding further we need to know whether there is a need for any kind of corrective feedback in SLA. An understanding of this is necessary for a discussion of the role of interactional feedback presented in subsequent chapters. In Chapter 2, we will discuss the role and importance of corrective feedback in both L1 and L2 acquisition, and from both theoretical and pedagogical perspectives.

Questions for discussion 1. How do you distinguish between negative and positive evidence and also between negative and positive feedback? How can these distinctions help you understand the role of corrective feedback in SLA? 2. As discussed earlier, there are many definitions of an error. What problems, if any, would we encounter if we define errors as incorrect application of rules? How do you define error and what criteria do you use to do so? Related to errors, we also distinguished between acceptability and grammaticality. Can you provide a few examples of utterances that are grammatical but unacceptable and also those that are ungrammatical but acceptable?

Review of Key Concepts

19

3. Do you agree that noticing is necessary for language acquisition? How do you distinguish noticing from conscious attention? How can an understanding of the role of noticing help us understand the importance of feedback? 4. In this chapter, we defined the difference between planned and incidental FonF and said that planned FonF is intensive as it targets certain linguistic forms and incidental FonF is extensive as it occurs in response to a variety of linguistic forms. Do you agree with this distinction? In what other ways can planned FonF differ from incidental FonF? Can you think of situations where feedback is provided in response to a variety of forms but in a planned manner?

Part One

Theoretical Underpinnings

2

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

Objectives ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Discuss relevant theory and research on corrective feedback. Examine the controversies surrounding corrective feedback in first and second language acquisition. Explain the rationales for providing corrective feedback. Discuss pedagogical perspectives on corrective feedback. Review key research evidence that supports the use of corrective feedback in instructional contexts.

Introduction As noted in the previous chapter, corrective feedback is an important aspect of second language teaching. However, this kind of feedback has long been a controversial topic in the field of language acquisition. In this chapter, we present some of the key theoretical arguments regarding the role of corrective feedback in both first and second language learning, examining their various claims and the empirical basis for such claims. To provide some perspective on the issue of error correction in classroom teaching, we also review some of the widely known methodological approaches and their positions about how to treat errors in a classroom context. We conclude with a brief review of current SLA research that supports the need for and the value of error correction in L2  teaching and learning, particularly when it is integrated into an already existing communicative context.

24

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Theoretical perspectives Theoretically, the arguments for the role of corrective feedback relate closely to the notion of whether or not there is any need for negative evidence (or information about what is not possible) in language acquisition. Although negative evidence may be considered an important source of information for language learners, there has been considerable controversy about its role and impact on language acquisition. There are currently two main theoretical perspectives on the relationship between feedback and language acquisition: nativists and interactionists. While the former has argued that there is no need for negative evidence and that it has little impact on the development of L2 knowledge, the latter has contended that negative evidence or corrective feedback is needed and that it can aid language development. Most of this debate has originally taken place in the child first language (L1) acquisition literature, which has then been extended to the field of L2 acquisition, heavily influencing our understanding of how feedback affects SLA processes. In what follows I will present these controversies, beginning with the discussion of the issue in L1 acquisition and then proceeding to L2 acquisition.

Corrective feedback in L1 acquisition A nativist perspective One issue that has been of central importance in language acquisition theories has been determining what type of linguistic information is needed for language acquisition and how learners make use of it to develop language competence. In L1 acquisition, one theoretical position, known as the nativist theory, claims that there is limited input in the form of negative evidence available in L1 learning and even if there is, it has little impact on language development. This theory takes the position that positive evidence is sufficient for the acquisition of language. It argues that children have access to some innate capacity or knowledge about language that enables them to make use of instances of natural language use for language learning. This innate capacity is referred to Universal Grammar (UG) and is assumed to contain a series of language specific and general modules and principles that are triggered by exposure to instances of natural language use and make language learning possible. The assumption is that when children are exposed to correct models of language, they hypothesize about how language

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

25

works. These hypotheses are then constrained by the principles of the UG and further fine-tuned by subsequent positive input. Thus, there is no need for negative evidence or corrective feedback, as it is only positive linguistic data that can drive this innately programmed language acquisition process. The argument against the role of negative evidence and the assumption behind the UG is theoretical. However, there have been several studies whose findings have often been taken as empirical support for this view. Among these, one line of research that is frequently referred to in the literature is the L1 morpheme studies, which have examined order of acquisition of some grammatical features and have found evidence that L1 children follow the same order when learning these features. One widely cited study of this kind is Brown’s (1973) longitudinal study, which investigated the acquisition of fourteen English morphemes among three children and found that these children showed a very similar order of acquisition for a number of these morphemes. Some of these morphemes and the order in which they were acquired were: (1) present progressive (-ing), (2) in, (3) on, (4) plural –s, (5) past irregular, (6) possessive –’s (7) uncontractible copula (is, am, are), and (8) articles a, the. This study also showed that the order was the same irrespective of the frequency of occurrence of the morphemes in the parents’ language and also despite the fact that the children came from different family backgrounds. A similar study is Villiers and de Villiers’ (1973) cross-sectional study, which replicated Brown’s findings. Examining the order of acquisition of the same fourteen morphemes among a larger group of twenty-one L1 children, the study showed a very similar order of acquisition for these morphemes. Although there could be many reasons why children learn some grammatical features in a similar order including their salience or the extent to which they follow a particular rule or are exceptions, the findings of morpheme studies have often been taken to support the claim that there is a universal innate module possessed by every learner, and that it is this universal capacity that enables the development of language elements to have similar routes across learners. Similar morpheme studies have also been conducted with L2 learners, which we will discuss later in the chapter. Another line of research used to support the nativist argument against feedback is research that has shown parents rarely correct children’s erroneous utterances. A study often cited here is Brown and Hanlon (1970), which reported that explicit feedback was infrequent in L1 interaction. It also reported that the frequency with which mothers used linguistic items strongly predicted the order in which those items appeared in their children’s language. Other studies are those that have found little correlation between the nature of parents’ responses and

26

Interactional Feedback Dimension

the degree of grammaticality of children’s utterances. (e.g. Demetras et al. 1986; Pinker, 1979). Such studies present evidence that children rarely pay attention to corrections they receive. A well-known example often cited is the following exchange between a child and the mother by McNeill (1966). In this exchange, the mother repeatedly attempts to correct the child’s error, but the child fails to realize the mother’s intention and continues to make the same mistake. Child: Nobody don’t like me. Mother: No, say “nobody likes me.” Child: Nobody don’t like me. (eight repetitions of this dialogue) Mother: No, now listen carefully; say “nobody likes me.” Child: Oh, nobody don’t likes me. (McNeill, 69)

Of course, the validity and strength of these studies has been challenged on several grounds. Farrar (1992), for example, argued that McNeill’s (1966) study provides only anecdotal data and hence does not involve rigorous systematic research. Brown and Hanlon’s study also involved only three children and also focused only on semantic rather that grammatical appropriacy. It could also be possible that there are other reasons why some morphemes show a similar order of acquisition, such as their salience in the input and their semantic complexity (Goldschneider and Dekeyser 2001), and thus it is not just because learners follow a fixed developmental route in learning them. It has also been argued that evidence from these studies is based on a narrow definition of negative evidence as an explicit or overt form of correction (e.g. Snow 1986; Sokolov and Snow 1994). Although negative evidence can be provided explicitly, it can also be provided implicitly, in the form of indirect signals that may indicate to the child that his or her utterance is wrong (Farrar 1992; Marcus 1993; Saxton 2000). Thus, although it might be true that explicit negative evidence or feedback may be rare in child-parent interactions, implicit feedback in the form of recasting or rephrasing the child utterance is not only used but also occurs quite frequently in child-parent interactions (Sokolov and Snow 1994). Furthermore, as we will see later on, research has shown that parents’ speech to children is “in general simple, repetitive” and semantically adjusted to become comprehensible (Sokolov and Snow 1994, 39). Such adjustments will provide learners with important information about the grammaticality or ungrammaticality of their utterance or important sources of positive and negative evidence.

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

27

An interactionist perspective An alternative perspective on negative evidence comes from the interactionist perspective. Although the nativist theories emphasize the role of innate dispositions and consequently assume little role for negative evidence, the interactionist theories suggest a fundamental role for such evidence and argue that learners receive such information through interaction. In the interactionist view, explicit feedback may not occur frequently in naturalistic language acquisition. However, it is assumed that when parents or other adults interact with children, they adjust their language in ways that not only make the language more understandable but also provide children with information about how language works. Since parents’ speech to children is semantically adjusted, such adjustments may provide learners with important evidence about the grammaticality or ungrammaticality of their utterance or positive and negative evidence. There are also currently a large number of studies that have examined patterns of interaction between children and parents and have provided empirical evidence that various forms of implicit feedback do occur in childparent interaction (e.g. Bohannon and Stanowicz 1988; Farrar 1990, 1992; Marcus 1993; Saxton 1997, 2005; Snow 1986; Sokolov and Snow 1994). One kind of feedback, for example, shown to frequently occur in such interaction, and taken to be an important source of negative evidence, is the recast, which is the adult reformulation of the child’s nontargetlike original utterance with corrections such as the following (e.g. Child: Bounce ball; Mother: Yes, the boy is bouncing the ball, Farrar 1990, 608). Many L1 researchers have argued that this kind of feedback provides L1  learners with important grammatical information about their utterance. Farrar (1990), for example, identified four discourse properties of recast exchanges that he considered important in facilitating acquisition: “(1) reformulating (i.e. correcting) the child’s sentence by adding to or correcting a particular noun and/or verb phrase, (2) expanding the child’s sentence while using some of the child’s own words, (3) maintaining the semantic topic of the child’s utterance and (4) following the child’s utterance” (Farrar, 609). Saxton (1995) argued that since reformulation occurs immediately after the child’s erroneous utterance, this juxtaposition helps the child to realize that their utterance contains an error. In other words, recasts may provide the child with negative evidence. It is also suggested that children may receive negative evidence through other modifications strategies, such as repetition, or various forms of comprehension checks and clarification requests.

28

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Although negative evidence may be available to children through interaction, this availability does not necessarily indicate that children use such feedback. In other words, the question raised is whether negative evidence affects children’s utterances (e.g. Pinker 1989). Although empirical studies in this area have not yet been able to provide any definite answer to this question, a number of studies have suggested that negative evidence not only occurs in the course of childparent interaction but also facilitates learning. For example, research has shown that although the degree to which children attend to negative evidence during interaction might vary, children benefit from such evidence by making more positive changes to their original nontargetlike utterances when they receive feedback. These studies have been reviewed in many places (see for example Gallaway and Richards, 1994). But I will just cite a few of them here. Farrar (1992) for example, found that children were more likely to reproduce the grammatical features contained in parents’ reformulation of their ill-formed utterances than those in other parts of the interaction. In an experimental study, Saxton (1997) found that children tended to reproduce the correct form of a target structure (irregular past tense) more often and with fewer errors when they had received negative evidence as compared to positive evidence. In another study, Saxton et al. (2005) compared the effects of negative evidence for thirteen categories of grammatical error in a longitudinal study of naturalistic adult-child interaction. Samples of conversational interaction for twelve children (mean age 2.0 at the beginning of the study) were obtained at two points in time with twelve weeks in between. Two forms of positive input were examined: contingent models (when the adult produced a grammatical form following a grammatical form produced by the child) and noncontingent models (when the adult produced the target structure in non-error-contingent contexts), and were compared with negative evidence produced in the form of correct grammatical utterances following the child’s ungrammatical forms. The results showed that negative evidence provided through feedback following incorrect utterances showed significant correlations with subsequent improvements in the child’s grammatical utterances for three of the target structures, and no correlations were found for any of the two types of positive evidence.

Corrective feedback in L2 acquisition Similar debates and discussions that exist in the field of L1 acquisition regarding the role of corrective feedback and negative evidence also exist in the field of L2

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

29

acquisition. While some L2 researchers have extended the L1 nativist perspective to L2 learning and hence have downplayed the role of negative evidence in L2 acquisition, others have emphasized opportunities that learners have to interact with each other or other native speakers and thus have stressed the role of feedback that learners receive during interaction. In what follows, we review these two positions in the L2 literature.

A nativist perspective in L2 acquisition Although the theory of UG was proposed to explain first language acquisition, a number of SLA researchers have extended its application to L2 acquisition (e.g. Cook 1991; Flynn 1988, 1996; Schwartz 1993). These researchers have argued that similar innate principles (UG) suggested to be available to L1 learners may continue to be available to L2 learners either fully or partially. In their view, since L2 learners have access to UG, they also learn the L2 mainly through exposure to positive evidence and that negative or corrective feedback hardly plays any role (e.g. Cook 1991; Felix 1981; Krashen 1985; Schwartz 1993). Cook (1991), for example, pointed out that “As the universal grammar in the student’s mind is so powerful, there is comparatively little for the teacher to do” (Cook, 119). In Cook’s view, the UG mechanism, or what he called language acquisition device (LAD), facilitates language acquisition by making the linguistic information in the input useful and usable for the acquisition of the L2 system. He characterized the mechanism as follows: “Language input comes into the mind, LAD processes it and produces an internal grammar of the language” (Cook 1993, 54). Similarly, Felix (1981) argued that L2 acquisition is heavily constrained by UG principles. Like L1 learners, he pointed out, L2 learners are faced with the problem of developing a complex system of language rules and that this system cannot be developed without the presence of some innate mechanism. Schwartz (1993) claimed that L2 learners learn merely through exposure to input. She even took a stronger position and pointed out that “only positive data can effect the construction of an interlanguage grammar [italics are the author’s]” (Schwartz, 147), and that negative evidence does not play any role in the restructuring of L2 grammar. As far as SLA theory is concerned, an important extension of the nativist position is Krashen’s monitor model and comprehensible input hypothesis (Krashen 1981, 1985). Central to Krashen’s theory is the idea that L2 learners acquire an L2 in the same way that children learn their L1 and that there is no need for instruction and corrective feedback. In Krashen’s view (Krashen 1985, 2),

30

Interactional Feedback Dimension

we all acquire language in only one way and that is through understanding or receiving what he called comprehensible input. He pointed out: If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. The language teacher need not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order—it will be provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviewed if the student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input. (Krashen, 2)

In his model, Krashen also made a distinction between acquisition and learning, pointing out that acquisition is “a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language” (Krashen 1985, 1). On the other hand, learning is conscious and takes place “a great deal by error correction and the presentation of explicit rules” (Krashen 1981,  2). Taking a noninterface position, he believed that these two processes are unrelated and that knowledge learned through instruction does not turn into acquisition. Thus, Krashen argued that “Error correction and explicit teaching of rules are not relevant to language acquisition” (Krashen 1981, 1). Krashen also rejected the need for output, arguing that one can basically acquire an L2 “without ever producing it” (Krashen 1981, 107). According to him, output (i.e. speaking and writing) is just signs of learning and not the cause of learning. Of course, although Krashen has taken a strong stance toward feedback and the role output, as we will see later on, many studies of content-based instruction, such as French immersion programs, have indicated that students do not achieve accuracy in many aspects of language even after years of content instruction and comprehensible input and that they need instruction and opportunities for output.

Issues with a nativist approach to L2 acquisition Although a nativist approach has been applied to L2 acquisition, this application has been found to be problematic. A number of researchers, for example, have argued that first and second language acquisition are not the same and that they are different both in terms of who is learning the language and in terms of the environments in which first and second language acquisition takes place. Thus, given the differences between L1 and L2 learning, even if the UG may be a viable theory to explain child L1 acquisition, it might not be a viable theory for L2 acquisition.

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

31

For example, almost all L2 learners have already acquired an L1; also, L2 takes place in a context that is different from the L1 context in terms of the amount of input available to learners. Furthermore, many L2 learners are adults who are more cognitively mature and have also developed metalinguistic knowledge. L1 child language learners, however, begin the task of learning the language without much cognitive maturity. Such prior knowledge of the L1 and also the differences in learners’ cognitive abilities can influence how L2 learners learn an L2 (Lightbown and Spada 2006). Also, since a nativist approach to SLA assumes that an adult second language learner has the same capability to learn a second or foreign language as a child who learns his or first language, it predicts that all L2 learners can become native-like because they both are assumed to have the same mental predisposition to learn the language. However, as Schachter (1991, 97) pointed out, although “virtually all first language learners acquire their language and become indistinguishable from the native speakers of the community in which the learning takes place,” very few adult L2 learners are able to become native-like despite many years of exposure and instruction. Given such differences between L1 and L2 learners, she argued, we cannot assume that L2 learning is driven by the same mechanisms that drives L1 learning. Instead, L2 learners need to rely on alternative cognitive and problem-solving mechanisms for learning, in which corrective feedback is also essential and “especially useful to adult L2 learners because it helps them learn the exact environment in which to apply rules and discover the precise semantic range of lexical items” (Schachter 1991, 389). Bley-Vroman (1988) contended that adult L2 learning is fundamentally different from child L1 learning. He characterized the L1-L2 differences as follows: Lack of guaranteed success, variation in success (even when factors such as age, instruction and exposure are kept constant), fossilization (L2 learners may reach a stage where they cannot move beyond and still may make errors despite conscious efforts for improvement). In light of these differences, he argued, we cannot assume that L1 and L2 learning processes are the same. The application of the nativist perspective to L2 learning has been questioned on other grounds too. Mitchell and Myles (1998) observed that UG is not a theory of language acquisition. Rather “it is a theory of language that aims to describe and explain human languages” (Mitchell and Myles, 69). Thus, UG may provide a useful tool for linguistic analysis but does not explain many other psychological and social variables that are involved in L2 learning (Carroll 2001). Doughty (2005) pointed out that, “Even if UG explanation of SLA were

32

Interactional Feedback Dimension

to prevail, the elements of language that are governed solely by UG are limited.” Therefore, she noted, it may not be advantageous to L2 learners if they are left to their own devices to figure out linguistic principles (see also Doughty and Williams 1998). Even those who have applied the notion of UG to SLA have contended that although L2 learners may have access to the universal grammar, there are situations where corrective feedback is not only helpful but also necessary. White (1991, 2003), for example, has argued that corrective feedback is needed when L1 grammar is more restrictive than the L2 grammar with respect to a UG parameter or when a particular structure has a subset relationship with an L1 form. In such cases, L2 learners may use their L1-based UG knowledge as an initial theory to hypothesize about the L2. This then leads to an overgeneralization that needs correction. An example of this situation is the learning of adverb placement by francophone speakers of English. According to White (1991), these learners should learn that sentences that contain structures with SVAO (subject-verb-adverb-object) word order, such as “Mary watches often television,” are ungrammatical in English, but sentences that contain SAV (Subject-adverbverb) word order, such as “Mary often watches television,” are grammatical. She noted, however, that these learners have often been observed to incorrectly produce sentences with SVAO word order and she believed it is because of the difference between English and French grammar. In both English and French, adverbs can occur anywhere in a sentence, including after an auxiliary verb. In English, however, the adverb cannot interrupt a verb and its direct object, whereas it can in French. White then argued that in such cases learners might not be able to discover this difference between the L1 and the L2 from the input alone because the input does not contain this information. In such cases, they need negative evidence. In a series of experimental classroom studies, White and her colleagues investigated the question of negative evidence empirically in the context of the learning of English word order and adverb placement by French native speakers. Their studies addressed the question as to whether positive evidence alone is sufficient to help learners acquire the target forms or whether negative evidence is also needed. White (1991), for example, conducted an experimental study with two groups of L2 learners (children) learning English in an intensive ESL program. One group received two weeks of explicit instruction and negative evidence on word order in English sentences with adverbs; the other group did not. The results of a series of pretest and posttest tasks revealed that on all

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

33

tasks only the group that received instruction and corrective feedback (negative evidence) showed evidence of learning that the SVAO word order is not allowed in English. The group who did not receive instruction and negative evidence did not show evidence of learning this rule. The study by White demonstrated that negative evidence and instruction is helpful. One issue raised with White’s study, however, is that one group received systematic instruction and corrective feedback on adverb placement and the other group did not receive a sufficient amount of input in the form of positive evidence. Although the assumption was that they would receive positive evidence through naturalistic input, the analysis of the data showed that such cases were very limited in those classrooms. Thus, the issue becomes whether positive evidence, if provided sufficiently, is able to bring about similar changes in the learning of correct English constructions. In a follow-up study, Trahey and White (1993) addressed this question. Similar to White’s (1991) study, the participants were French learners of English in an intensive ESL program in Quebec, Canada. This time, in addition to the groups in the previous study, another group of learners were exposed to a two-week input flood (positive evidence) on a variety of English sentences that contained adverb placements with SAVO word order, such as Cats often catch mice., in naturalistic contexts. Learners did not receive any explicit instruction and corrective feedback on these constructions. They were first pretested prior to the treatment and then posttested both immediately afterward and then three weeks later. Similar to White’s study, the tests included a number of tasks: a grammaticality judgment task, a preference task, and sentence manipulation tasks. They also added an oral production task. On all tasks, learners’ acceptance and accuracy use of SAV constructions increased significantly from the pretest to the posttest. However, learners were not able to discover from the input that SVAO is ungrammatical in English, and they still accepted and used those constructions following the treatment. Trahey and White’s (1993) results then confirmed that learners learned the SAV construction, which is possible in English but not possible in French, but did not learn that SVAO (which is possible in French) is not possible in English. The results of this study provided clear evidence that negative evidence is not only helpful but also needed. As Trahey (1996) noted, positive evidence may help learners acquire what is in the input but may not be able to help them unlearn construction that are acceptable to learners on the basis of their L1 knowledge.

34

Interactional Feedback Dimension

An interactionist perspective in L2 As we saw earlier, the interactionist theories in L1 argue that when L1 children interact with their parents or other adults, they receive negative feedback in the form of the interactional adjustments made during the conversation. It is suggested that these adjustments may help them realize that certain grammatical forms in their production are not targetlike. L1 studies have also shown that children benefit from such feedback by incorporating it in their subsequent output. A similar interactionist perspective has also been proposed in L2 acquisition, with a number of SLA researchers arguing that when nonnative L2 speakers interact with a native speaker or a more proficient learner, they make similar conversational modifications to their speech shown to exist between an adult and a child L1 speaker, and that such adjustments help L2 learners realize that certain forms in their production are not targetlike (Gass and Varonis 1989; Long 1981, 1983a, 1983b, 1985; Pica 1988). Motivated by such a perspective, a number of L2 researchers have also empirically examined the potential sources of negative evidence during L2 interaction and whether they have any effect on L2 development. Similar to the findings reported in L1 acquisition, studies in this area have reported that negative evidence in the form of explicit correction is not very frequent in naturalistic interactions between native speakers (NS) and nonnative speakers (NNS) (Chaudron 1986; Chun et al. 1982). However, implicit feedback in the form of modification strategies characteristic of L1 interaction also exists in L2 interaction. For example, based on the analysis of a series of early studies on native-nonnative interaction, Long (1983a, 1983b) concluded that when L2 learners interact with a native speaker or a more proficient learner, they make conversational adjustments to their speech similar to those shown in child-parent interactions and that such adjustments help L2 acquisition. Long (1983a, 1983b) also found that interactions that involve NNSs contain more instances of conversational adjustments than interactions between two native speakers. A particular focus of much of the early L2 interaction research was on documenting the nature of linguistic and conversational modifications when NNSs interact with NSs or more proficient learners. Another major focus of such research was on the extent to which interactional negotiations enhance comprehension. The results of many of these studies, which have been discussed in many reviews of interaction research (Gass and Varonis 1989; Long 1981,

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

35

1983a, 1983b, 1985; Pica 1988), showed that interactional modifications do exist and that they indeed enhance input comprehension. A further conclusion has been that since input comprehension assists language acquisition, then interaction should also facilitate acquisition. While earlier research focused mainly on documenting patterns of interaction and their link with comprehension, subsequent research began to examine whether negotiation and feedback also assists language learning. This research expanded the scope of earlier research further and began to examine not only the effectiveness of feedback but also the differential effects of different feedback types on different language forms. More recent research has examined in more detail the various characteristics of different feedback types, including the specific mechanisms that underlie or mediate their effectiveness. Although research in this area has not yet conclusively established any causal link between interactional feedback and language development, it has provided ample evidence that L2 interaction provides learners with opportunities for various forms of interactional feedback (e.g. Doughty 1994; Doughty and Varela 1998; Gass 1997, 2003; Gass et al. 1998; Gass and Varonis 1994; Long 1983b, 1991, 1996; Oliver 1995; Pica 1987, 1996; Pica et al. 1987) and that such feedback assists their acquisition. We will discuss these different lines of research in subsequent chapters.

Pedagogical perspectives Corrective feedback has been a debatable issue not only in L2 theory and research but also in language teaching methodologies. Language classroom methodologies have been heavily influenced by language learning theories. Since there are different theories of learning, there are also different proposals about how to deal with learner errors in classroom teaching. In this section, we will examine some of the most well-known methodological approaches and their positions regarding corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. One of the most traditional approaches to language teaching is the Grammar Translation method. Although this approach was introduced toward the end of the eighteenth century, different versions of this method are still widely used in many places, particularly in foreign language contexts. Drawing on ideas used in the teaching of classical languages such as Latin and Greek, this method focused exclusively on studying grammatical rules and structures. There was no particular learning theory behind grammar translation. However, it emphasized

36

Interactional Feedback Dimension

that deductive learning, namely, learning through presentation of grammatical rules, is essential. Since the focus was on correct grammatical rules, it heavily emphasized error correction and grammar explanation. Furthermore, since there was no emphasis on speaking, grammar explanations and error correction were mainly conducted in the learner’s native language. Another well-known approach in L2 teaching has been the Audio-Lingual method. Theoretically, the Audio-Lingual method was influenced by the American school of structural linguistics, on the one hand, and a behaviorist perspective in psychology, on the other. Structural linguistics viewed language as a series of structurally related constituents and hence language learning as awareness of such structures. Thus, lessons in the Audio-Lingual method consist mainly of grammatical structures sequenced in a linear manner learned through ample repetitions and pattern drills. In the behaviorist view, learning an L2 equates learning a set of habits, and thus imitation drives language learning. It is through imitation and memorization that language habits are reinforced and formed. Due to such psychological and linguistic underpinnings, the Audio-Lingual method emphasizes the importance of error correction. Errors are bad habits and are considered to hinder the learning process. Advocating this perspective, Brooks (1960) considered errors as “sin” and suggested that they have “to be avoided and its influence overcome” (Brooks, 58). In the Audio-Lingual method, two approaches are recommended to minimize or prevent errors from occurring: ample practice of production of correct sentences and corrective feedback (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Practice helps the correct form to become a habit. Feedback minimizes the chances of errors being committed. In addition, influenced by the behavioristic and structuralist approaches to language learning, the Audio-Lingual method places an important emphasis on the influence of L1 on L2 learning and considers L1 interference an important cause of errors. Thus, it suggests that such areas of L1 inference should be identified and remedied. To this end, a valuable pedagogical tool is suggested to be contrastive analysis, which involves comparing L1 and L2 structures (phonology, grammar, vocabulary, etc.) and discovering the differences and similarities between the native and the target language. Although the AudioLingual method has lost much of its appeal in recent years, many teachers still use this approach or aspects of it in their classrooms. The Natural Approach is another widely known method of language teaching. In contrast to the Audio-Lingual approach, which emphasized the use of corrective feedback, the Natural Approach considered error correction

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

37

unnecessary. Theoretically, the Natural Approach is based on Krashen’s Monitor Model and the Natural Order Hypothesis (Krashen 1981, 1982, 1985), which holds that “we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order” and that corrective feedback cannot change that order (Krashen, 1985, 1). Empirically, it is based on morpheme studies that have shown that learners go through a predictable sequence of acquisition when learning certain English morphemes. We reviewed some of these studies conducted in L1 acquisition. Inspired by such studies, a number of L2 studies have also investigated order of acquisition in different groups of ESL learners and have reported similar findings (Bailey et al. 1974; Dulay and Burt 1973, 1974). Based on the results of these studies, it has been claimed that L2 learners follow the same route of acquisition as L1 learners. Since there is a naturalistic order of acquisition, corrective feedback in not needed (Bailey et al. 1974, 243). In the Natural Approach, corrective feedback is not only unnecessary but also detrimental as it interrupts the learning process. Krashen (1982) argued that learners not only do not learn from corrective feedback, but error correction has negative psychological and affective consequences. He pointed out that correcting errors “has the immediate effect of putting the student on the defensive. It encourages a strategy in which the student will try to avoid mistakes, avoid difficult constructions, focus less on meaning and more on form” (Krashen, 75). Thus, he called it “a serious mistake” in language classrooms. Another common approach in second language teaching is the Cognitive Approach. The Cognitive Approach is a reaction to the behaviorist features of the Audio-Lingual approach and is a pedagogical method influenced by cognitive psychology that emphasizes the role of conscious and cognitive awareness in the process of knowledge acquisition. In the Cognitive Approach, language learning is viewed as rule learning and a process of creating a mental representation of the language through cognitive processes such as association, discovering regular patterns from exemplars, and abstracting generalizations. From this perspective, errors are not only inevitable but they are also an important part of learning. Serving as a significant learning device, thus, errors help learners not only to test their hypotheses about language use but also serve as triggers for feedback. In the Cognitive Approach, even if learners cannot always revise their errors based on the correction they receive, corrective feedback is beneficial as it makes the learning efficient by limiting the number of possible hypotheses. It is also essential because it facilitates noticing and attention to form. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is another approach to language teaching that has become very popular in recent years. This approach defines

38

Interactional Feedback Dimension

language as a means of communication and thus sees the aim of language teaching as helping learners acquire communicative ability (i.e. the ability to use and interpret meaning in real-life communication). Consequently, it emphasizes teaching that is primarily meaning focused and based on communicative language use. It assumes that learners are able to analyze language inductively and arrive at its underlying language grammar without much form-focused instruction. The assumption is that if learners have sufficient opportunities to use the language for communicative purposes, they will be able to master the language successfully. Thus, there is no need for explicit instruction or correction. The above, however, represents a strong version of the Communicative Approach. In its weaker version, the Communicative Approach does not consider error correction unhelpful. It considers that errors should be tolerated but also suggests that they could be treated if they impede communication. This version is represented in many of the recent versions of the Communicative Approach, including current views of task-based instruction (e.g. Ellis 2003; Skehan 1998). A more recent approach to L2 instruction is what has been called FonF (see  Chapter 1). As noted earlier, FonF is a kind of instruction that argues that learners need to attend on form but in the context of meaning-focused communication. In a FonF approach, an effective pedagogical tool for drawing learners’ attention to form is corrective feedback, but corrective feedback is effective when learners’ primary attention is on meaning (Ellis et al. 2001; Long  1991; Long and Robinson 1998). In this view, thus, the aim of error correction should be to help learners express their meaning rather than simply display what is incorrect in the target language. In a FonF approach, corrective feedback can happen during any communicative task, including output production such as speaking or writing when the learner has a problem with a particular form or input processing such as reading or listening when the learner encounters a difficult linguistic form. The assumption is that when learners receive feedback in the context of communication, they may notice not only the target form in their production but also its communicative value. Another assumption is that learning is context-dependent and that knowledge acquired in one context can be appropriately transferred to another context if that context involves similar cognitive processes (Lightbown 2008). Based on this idea, if learners receive feedback and instruction in a context where the focus is on meaning, they are more likely to transfer the knowledge gained in that context to real communicative and language-use contexts.

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

39

Research evidence Although there are different theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on corrective feedback, the issue of whether instruction or corrective feedback is needed or aids language acquisition is an empirical question. In the above sections, we occasionally reviewed studies that have provided evidence for the need for corrective feedback in L2 acquisition. In this section we review further evidence, particularly from classroom research, that has shown that corrective feedback is both necessary and useful for L2 learning. One important source of evidence supporting the need for corrective feedback comes from studies that have examined the development of language proficiency in content-based classrooms and their findings that meaning-focused teaching with no grammar teaching or error correction is inadequate to gain accuracy in many aspects of the L2 (e.g. Harley and Swain 1984; Lapkin et al. 1991; Swain 1985). This research has shown that although learners in such contexts may attain high levels of fluency in their L2, some type of focus on grammatical forms and corrective feedback is necessary for the learners to develop high levels of accuracy in the target language. Another source of evidence comes from a large number of studies on the role of instruction and feedback over the past thirty years that have examined the beneficial effects of instruction and corrective feedback and also reviews of such studies (e.g. Ellis 1990, 1994, 1999, 2001; Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991; Long 1983a, 1985). For example, studies of the effects of instruction on the development of specific target language forms as well as corrective feedback on learner errors (Cadierno 1995; Carroll et al. 1992; Carroll and Swain 1993; Lightbown 1992; Lightbown and Spada 1990; Long 1985; Nassaji and Swain 2000; Pienemann 1984; Trahey and White 1993; White 1991) have indicated that instruction has a significant effect on learning various linguistic features, particularly if learners are developmentally ready to learn them. In an early review of the studies in this area, Long (1983a) concluded that grammar instruction and correction compared to no instruction has important and positive effects on the development of L2 proficiency. In later reviews, Ellis (1990, 1994, 1997a, 2001), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), and Spada (1997) have all confirmed that instruction and corrective feedback has facilitative effects on both the rate and the ultimate level of L2 acquisition. Similarly, in a more recent metaanalysis of forty-nine studies on the effectiveness of L2 instruction, Norris and Ortega (2001) concluded that explicit instruction that focuses on form results in faster and more substantial gains in the target structures in comparison to

40

Interactional Feedback Dimension

implicit instruction (usually consisting of communicative exposure to the target form) alone, and that these gains are sustained over time. Among the earlier studies, a number of them compared instruction with and without correction and concluded that instruction with error correction is more effective than instruction without error correction. One of the first studies of this kind was Tomasello and Herron (1988), which examined the learning of grammatical exceptions using two kinds of instruction. In one of them, students (who were thirty-nine learners of French as a second language) first listened to a number of regular examples and were then asked to infer the rules. The teacher then explained the exceptions to those rules. In the other condition, learners received regular examples and were asked to induce the rule. Then the teacher presented the students with exceptions and asked them to apply the rule. This technique, which they called garden path technique, led to the production of erroneous utterances due to overgeneralization. The teacher then corrected those erroneous constructions. The students’ learning of the rules was then assessed throughout the course. The results revealed that learners who were exposed to the garden path technique and received correction on their errors learned the rules more effectively than those who were simply exposed to the correct examples and exceptions of the target form. Tomasello and Herron (1989) replicated the study with a group of thirty-two students in two sections of an introductory college French course. Their results confirmed the superior effect of instruction with error feedback than instruction in which the target structure was presented as part of the lesson. The above findings are consistent with those related to the learning of adverb placement by White (1991) and Trahey and White (1993), which were reviewed earlier, and the finding that corrective feedback was more effective than correct models of the language form. There have been a number of other classroom studies on error correction that have found positive results. For example, in a quasi-experimental study, Spada and Lightbown (1993) explored the effect of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on the development and performance of oral interrogatives (question formation) on ESL learners. Two experimental classes of preteens (aged 10–12) received 9 hours of formfocused instruction in a two-week period, and were compared against a control group. A pretest, posttest, delayed posttest and a long-delayed posttest with oral communicative picture tasks designed to elicit the interrogatives were used. The results showed that groups that received form-focused instruction and corrective feedback outperformed the control group, leading to the claim that form-focused instruction can positively influence second language development

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

41

in both the short and long term. Another early study, which compared a group of learners who received corrective feedback with a group of learners who did not, is Carroll et al.’s (1992). Participants were thirty-nine intermediate and forty advanced college age, native English speakers. After being divided into an experimental and control group per level and a training session, the learners underwent a two-part treatment session where the experimental groups received explicit correction on their errors related to two French noun formation suffixes (-age and –ment). Following the treatment session, two recall sessions were conducted, which acted as a posttest and delayed posttest. The results provided important evidence for the effects of corrective feedback by showing that the experimental groups significantly outperformed the control groups. Carroll et al.’s study was conducted outside the classroom but its results have important implications for classroom teaching as the participants were all adult second language learners of French. It should be noted, however, that although there is strong evidence for the effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on language learning, there is also equally convincing evidence that traditional models of formfocused teaching, including Grammar Translation, Audio-Lingual, or strictly cognitive approaches, are also inadequate in developing learners’ communicative competence in a second or foreign language. For example, SLA research has shown that activities such as drilling, filling the blank, transformation exercises, and other similar activities that present grammar rules in a discreet fashion may promote knowledge about language but do not necessarily promote acquisition. On the other hand, instruction and corrective feedback becomes most effective when incorporated into a meaningful communicative context (Doughty and Williams 1998a; Ellis 2006a; Norris and Ortega 2000, 2001; Spada 1997). For example, Lightbown and Spada (1990) examined the role of corrective feedback and form-focused instruction on learning of ESL by native speakers of French who were learning English in intensive ESL programs where the method of language teaching was primarily communicative and meaning focused. An extensive database of classroom observation of four classes in the program (each for about 20 hours) was analyzed with a focus on learners’ use of a number of grammatical features, such as have and be, plural –s and progressive -ing; adjective placement in noun phrases; and the use of possessive determiners. The results indicated that in classes where there was more form-focused instruction and corrective feedback in communicative contexts learners were more accurate at using grammatical forms such as progressive -ing and nounadjective placements. However, those who were in the classes that received less

42

Interactional Feedback Dimension

form-focused instruction and corrective feedback were less accurate in their use of those features. Other studies that have examined the role of form-focused instruction and feedback in communicative classrooms have also shown similar results. Reviewing this line of research, Lightbown and Spada (1993) concluded: [C]lassroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of a communicative program are more effective in promoting L2 learning than programs which are limited to an exclusive emphasis on accuracy on the one hand or an exclusive emphasis on fluency on the other. (Lightbown and Spada, 105)

Conclusion In this chapter we discussed some of the important theoretical and empirical issues related to the role of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching. We began by discussing two main theoretical approaches, nativists and interactionists, in both first and second language acquisition, and how these perspectives view the role and importance of corrective feedback. We also discussed some of the main pedagogical approaches and their positions on corrective feedback. We concluded with a brief review of some SLA research that has examined the role of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback in L2 teaching and learning and the conclusion that corrective feedback is most beneficial when it is provided in the context of communication rather that in isolation. In the next and subsequent chapters we will consider and discuss interactional feedback as an important strategy for incorporating corrective feedback into a meaning-focused communicative context and examine the research around it.

Questions for discussion 1. How does a nativist perspective differ from an interactionist perspective in its views toward error correction and negative feedback? What arguments are made by the nativists in favor of positive evidence and against corrective feedback? Do you agree with these arguments? What arguments are made by the interactionists in favor of corrective feedback? Do you agree with their position?

The Role of Corrective Feedback: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives

43

2. Do you agree that L1 learners acquire all language forms in a certain order? If so, do you also agree with the nativists’ argument that language learning processes are the same in L1 and L2 learning and that all L2 learners learn the language in a very similar way irrespective of their L1? Why or why not? 3. Can you discuss some of the differences between L1 and L2 learning and explain their implications for instruction and corrective feedback in L2 teaching? 4. Do you agree with the distinction that Krashen made between acquisition and learning? Do you think this distinction justifies the exclusion of corrective feedback from the classroom? 5. Compare the Audio-Lingual with the Cognitive Approach in their assumptions about how language learning takes place. Also, in what ways are they similar and different in their approach to error correction? 6. Are you convinced that some form of error correction is needed in L2 classrooms? Why or why not?

3

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

Objectives ●●

●●

●●

Define interactional feedback. Identify and discuss different types and subtypes of interactional feedback and how they are used. Understand the characteristics, function, and uses of each feedback type and subtype.

Introduction In Chapter 2, we discussed the role of corrective feedback in both first and second language acquisition. We concluded that although corrective feedback has been a controversial issue, there is strong theoretical and empirical evidence in support of its use and importance. We also noted that research suggests that corrective feedback is more effective when incorporated into a communicative context rather than in isolation. In this regard, second language teaching pedagogy has also witnessed a shift away from teaching methods that focus on language forms in an isolated manner toward an approach that views classroom interaction as an important component of effective classroom teaching. As a consequence, seeking better ways of dealing with learner errors, and in particular, in ways that do not interrupt communication, has gained special attention. The goal of this chapter is to present interactional feedback as a form of corrective feedback that occurs in the course of communicative interaction. We first define interactional feedback and discuss its properties. We will then identify the different types and subtypes and illustrate their various features and functions with examples. In subsequent chapters, we will provide a more

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

45

detailed analysis of the role of these strategies and the way they assist language learning and examine a range of empirical research that has investigated the effectiveness of these strategies in various contexts.

Defining interactional feedback Interactional feedback refers to feedback that is generated in response to both linguistically erroneous and communicatively inappropriate utterances that learners produce during conversational interaction. Such feedback can take place through the use of various forms of negotiation and conversational strategies such as repetition, clarification requests, confirmation checks, and repetition that occur in the course of conversation. This approach is based on the assumption that such strategies highlight linguistic problems, drawing learner attention to form during communicative interaction. Since interactional feedback takes place when students are engaged in communicative interaction, it helps learners attend to form at the time when they are processing form for meaning (e.g. Ellis and Sheen 2006; Gass 1997; Long 1996; Mackey 1999). As such, it provides an alternative approach to error correction typical of traditional grammar-based approaches, in which correction is often given in a decontextualized manner. Interactional feedback often occurs in the form of conversational exchanges, consisting of at least three main moves, an initiation move that contains an error and triggers the feedback, a feedback move in response to the trigger move, and an optional learner response move. The following example from Nassaji (2007a, 529) provides an example of an interactional feedback exchange: Example 1 Student: On the street there was a policeman, and she was skipping running.

← Initiation

Teacher: I am sorry, she was . . .?

← Feedback

Student: Skipping running, the thief.

← Response

In the above example, the erroneous utterance produced by the student in Turn 1 is the initiation move. This has triggered the feedback by the teacher in Turn 2. The student has then responded to feedback in Turn 3 by repeating her original utterance. The response to feedback is not an obligatory move because the student has a choice as to whether or not to respond to the feedback.

Interactional Feedback Dimension

46

Types and subtypes of interactional feedback Interactional feedback is mainly oral and occurs in both naturalistic and classroom contexts. It draws learners’ attention to form both implicitly, through strategies used to deal with communication difficulty, and more explicitly or deliberately, through strategies that draw the learner’s attention to a particular linguistic form irrespective of any communication breakdown. Research that has examined interactional feedback has identified a number of feedback types used by the teacher or interlocutors in interaction with learners (e.g. Ellis et al. 2001; Lyster and Ranta 1997; Panova and Lyster 2002). These feedback types can be generally grouped into two main types: reformulations and elicitations (Nassaji 2009). Reformulations are feedback strategies that rephrase the learner’s erroneous utterance into a correct form. These types of feedback have also been called inputproviding because they provide the learner with targetlike input (Ellis 2009). Elicitations are strategies that do not provide the learner with the correct form but rather attempt to prompt the learner to correct his or her original erroneous output. Therefore, they are also called output-prompting or prompts (Ellis 2009; Lyster 2004). Both reformulation and elicitation can take many different forms. Subtypes of reformulations can include recasts and direct correction. Subtypes of elicitations can be clarification requests, repetition, direct elicitation, metalinguistic cues, and nonverbal cues (see Figure 3.1). In what follows, we will discuss each of these feedback strategies in more detail.

Recasts Reformulations Direct correction Clarification requests

Interactional feedback

Repetition Elicitations

Direct elicitation Metalinguistic cues Nonverbal cues

Figure 3.1  Types and subtypes of interactional feedback.

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

47

Reformulations Recasts One of the interactional feedback types that has received much attention in the field of first and second language acquisition is the recast. In L1 acquisition, the term “recast” has often been used to refer to reformulations produced by an adult in response to a child’s ungrammatical utterances in adult-child interaction. In the field of L2 acquisition, there are a number of definitions, which are slightly different, but they all define recasts as feedback that reformulates the learner’s erroneous utterance into a correct form while preserving the core of the meaning. The definitions provided for recasts in different SLA studies are as follows: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Recasts are utterances that rephrase a child’s utterance by changing one or more components (subject, verb, object) while still referring to its central meaning (Long 1996, 434). Recasts involve the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance minus the error (Lyster and Ranta 1997, 46). A response was coded as a recast if it incorporated the content words of the immediately preceding incorrect NNS utterance and also changed and corrected the utterance in some way (e.g., phonological, syntactic, morphological, or lexical) (Braidi 2002, p. 20). A corrective recast may be defined as a reformulation of all or part of a learner’s immediately preceding utterance in which one or more nontargetlike (lexical, grammatical, etc.) items are replaced by the corresponding target language form (s), and where, throughout the exchange, the focus of the interlocutors is on meaning not language as an object (Long 2007). A recast consists of the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance that contains at least one error within the context of a communicative activity in the classroom (Sheen 2006). (From Ellis and Sheen 2006, 580)

Based on these definitions, a number of characteristics of recasts can be drawn. First, recasts are contingent and occur immediately following a nontarget form. Second, they provide the learner with the correct reformulation of his or her erroneous utterance. They also occur in a context where the primary focus is on meaning. And finally, they attempt to preserve the original

Interactional Feedback Dimension

48

meaning. The following from Mackey (Mackey 1999, 561) provides an example of a recast: Example 2 NNS: Your picture how many how many cat your picture? NS: How many cats are there in my picture? ← Recast NNS: Yeah how many cats?

In the above example, the learner (NNS) has made a few errors when asking the NS interlocutor a question. The NS has provided a recast by reformulating the learner’s erroneous utterance into a correct form without changing the overall meaning. The learner has responded by partially modifying the initial erroneous utterance. Recasts are usually implicit in nature, as it does not provide a clear and explicit indication that the learner’s utterance contains an error. Therefore, they are considered to provide feedback in an unobtrusive way and without interrupting the flow of communication. For that reason, recasts have been considered to be a pedagogically useful strategy in language classrooms. The importance of recasts for language pedagogy is based on the assumption that such feedback promotes form-meaning integration (Doughty 2001; Doughty and Varela 1998; Gass 2003; Williams 2005). It is also suggested that the reformulation in recasts not only provides the learner with the correct form but also signals to the learner that his or her utterance is deviant in some way. In other words, recasts draw learners’ attention to form. In classroom interaction, the importance of recasts for classroom teaching is based on a number of other assumptions. Doughty and Varela described recasts as “potentially effective, since the aim is to add [italics in original] attention to form to a primarily communicative task rather than to depart [italics in original] from an already communicative goal in order to discuss a linguistic feature” (Doughty and Varela, 114). Also contrary to other corrective feedback such as direct correction (see below), recasts not only keep the learners’ focus on meaning, they also allow the teacher to maintain control (Ellis et al. 2001; Long 2007). The significance of recasts in content-focused classrooms is seen in its facilitative role in the delivery of complex messages as well as the provision of supportive and scaffolding conditions that help the lesson move forward smoothly, particularly when the target form that is the focus of the recast is beyond the learner’s ability. Lyster et al. (2012, 10) noted that “[R]ecasts are well

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

49

suited to communicative classroom discourse, because they tend not to interrupt the flow of communication, keep students’ attention focused on meaning, and provide scaffolds that enable learners to participate in interaction that requires linguistic abilities exceeding their current developmental level.” As a form of corrective feedback, however, recasts have been considered to be ambiguous. The ambiguity of recasts results from the fact that they have a dual function, both as a form of confirmation check and also as negative feedback. Also, although recasts may indicate to learners that their utterance contains an error, it does not do it overtly. Therefore (and since it is provided in exchanges where the primary focus is on meaning), learners may not perceive the corrective nature of the recast and instead may interpret it as a reaction to content. Furthermore, in communicative contexts, the role of recasts is most often conversational. As such, although recasts may help the conversational exchange flow smoothly, as a corrective feedback move, they may not be very successful in drawing learners’ attention to form. The ambiguity of the recast can be seen in the following example: Example 3 Student: I like to eat apple everyday. Teacher: That is very good. Eating an apple everyday is very good for you.

In this example, the learner has made an error by missing the indefinite article an before the word apple. The teacher has replied first by indicating his agreement with the learner’s statement. The teacher has then reformulated the erroneous part of the utterance into a correct form. Because of the teacher’s initial positive reaction to the meaning, it is highly possible that the learner’s attention might be drawn to the confirmatory function of the recast rather than its corrective intention. Research by Lyster (1998a, 1998b) in content-based French immersion classrooms documented many instances of the occurrence of recasts as confirmation checks and has also shown that learners often reply to recasts in ways that indicate that they may not have perceived it as corrective feedback. Recasts were also more often followed by topic continuation than learners’ correction of their original errors.

Types of recasts Although the recast is typically considered as one type of feedback, it is not a unified feedback type and can indeed take many different forms. For

Interactional Feedback Dimension

50

instance, a recast may occur in the form of a confirmation check with a falling intonation or it may occur as a confirmation request with a rising intonation (e.g. Lyster 1998b; Sheen 2006). It can also be used alone or combined with various types of intonational or verbal prompts (Nassaji 2007a). Furthermore, it can either partly or fully reformulate the learner utterance or may correct one or many of the errors at the same time (e.g. Braidi 2002; Philp 2003). Depending on the nature and purpose of the recast, recasts can provide different degrees of information about the correctness of a form. Based on the formal and functional characteristics of recasts, in interaction research, researchers have classified recasts into various subtypes, some of which will be discussed below. Declarative versus interrogative recasts: One way in which recasts have been categorized is based on their structure and linguistic mode in the interaction. Depending on the linguistic mode, recasts can be either declarative or interrogative. Declarative recasts are recasts that reformulate the learner’s utterance into a correct form with a confirmatory or declarative tone. This kind of recast is often used to check for message confirmation. Interrogative recasts reformulate the learner’s utterance in the form of a question (with a rising intonation). The communicative aim of this kind of recast is usually to ask for confirmation. The following two examples from Sheen (2006) show these two types of recasts: Example 4  Declarative recast S: They just think hypocritic, hypocritic. T: They are hypocritical. Example 5  Interrogative recast S: Yeah, he know Michael. T: He knows Michael? (Sheen 2006, 372)

Isolated, embedded, and incorporated recasts: Recasts can also be different in terms of the degree to which they single out the error or combine the correction with other information within its linguistic context. Thus, Nassaji (2007a) divided them into isolated, embedded, and incorporated recasts. Isolated recasts are recasts that single out the error only and reformulate it outside of its context without repeating the other words in the utterance. Embedded recasts are recasts that reformulate the error but at the same time repeat the other parts

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

51

of the utterance. Incorporated recasts reformulate the erroneous part into a correct form and also expand on the utterance by adding or seeking for more information (see Examples 6–8). Example 6  Isolated recast Student: And a girl behind the woman is rob, rob her. Teacher: Robbing her. Example 7  Embedded recast Student: Her friend pointed . . . pointed . . . another woman and said to her friend said to his friend . . . Teacher: Ok, another man pointed to the woman. Example 8  Incorporated recast Student: I finish my homework soon last night. Teacher: What did you do when you finished your homework?

Depending on the linguistic mode of recasts and also whether recasts include any additional information, in his research on the role of corrective feedback, Lyster (1998b) categorized recasts into the following four types: (a) isolated declarative, (b) isolated interrogative, (c) incorporated declarative, and (d) incorporated interrogative. Isolated declarative recasts are those that involve a correct reformulation of all or part of the learner’s utterance with falling intonation and no additional information. Isolated interrogative recasts are those that involve a correct reformulation of the utterance but with rising intonation. Incorporated declarative recasts reformulate the learner’s utterance with falling intonation and also provide additional information. Incorporated interrogative recasts reformulate an utterance with rising information and also provide additional information. Partial versus full recasts: Recasts can also be categorized into partial and full in terms of how much of the erroneous utterance the feedback corrects (e.g. Roberts 1995; Sheen 2006). Partial recasts reformulate only part of the erroneous utterance or part of the error. Full recasts reformulate the erroneous utterance in its entirety. In the latter case, if the learner utterance includes more than one error, all errors are reformulated into their correct forms. Example 9  Partial recast Student: I have sell that books now. Teacher: Sold?

Interactional Feedback Dimension

52 Example 10  Full recast

Student: I like travel when I have a time and free. Teacher: You like to travel when you have time and you are free.

Communicative versus corrective recasts: Recasts can also be categorized based on their focus into corrective (or pedagogical) and communicative (or conversational) recasts (e.g. Han and Kim 2008). The communicative recast occurs when the teacher uses recasts as a communication strategy with a focus on meaning. This kind of recast occurs when one of the interlocutors does not understand the meaning and requests confirmation by repeating the learner utterances without the error. Corrective recasts occur when the feedback has a corrective purpose and is used to treat errors more intentionally. This kind of recast occurs when the meaning is quite clear but the teacher or the interlocutor still decides to reformulate the learner error into a correct form. The following two examples show this difference. In the first example, the teacher did not have any difficulty understanding the learner’s utterance but still recasts the utterance. In the second one, the recast is provided as a way of clarifying what the learner meant to say: Example 11  Corrective recast T: Has anyone tried horsemeat? . . . XX, have you? S: No, I am not adventurous of food. T: I am not adventurous with food. S: Adventurous with? Example 12  Communicative recast S: It means I am not familiar about that? T: No, it doesn’t mean that you’re not familiar with that. You’re familiar with that, but you don’t like it. S: Oh, I see. (Han and Kim 2008, 35–6)

Direct correction Another type of reformulation is direct correction. This type of feedback refers to utterances that both rephrase the learner’s erroneous utterance into a correct form and also clearly indicate to the learner that his or her utterance is erroneous in some way by using very explicit words or phrases (such as no, that is not correct, etc.) (see Example 13). Since direct correction overtly informs the learner about the error, it is motivated by a deliberate attention to form.

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

53

Example 13 Student: He has catch a cold. Teacher: Not catch, caught. ← Direct correction

Elicitation strategies Clarification requests Clarification requests refer to feedback that occurs when the teacher or an interlocutor does not fully understand a learner’s utterance and asks for clarification. It usually occurs through phrases such as pardon me?, sorry?, excuse me?, etc. (see Example 14). An important characteristic of clarification requests as feedback is that they do not provide the correct form; therefore, the learner has the opportunity to self-correct: Example 14 Student: I want practice today, today. Teacher: I’m sorry? ← Clarification request (Panova and Lyster 2002, 583)

Saxton et al. (2005) distinguished between two types of clarification requests: general and specific. General clarification requests are in response to the entire utterance in a general fashion and without targeting any specific part. Specific clarification requests focus on a certain part of the utterance, particularly the one that captains an error. The following from Saxton et al. (397) provides an example of these two types of clarification requests: Example 15  General clarification request Speaker: Knights have horse, they do? Listener: What? Example 16  Specific clarification request Speaker: Knights have horse, they do? Listener: They have what?

Since clarification requests do not clearly indicate the presence of the error, similar to recasts, they can be ambiguous and the learner may consider them as a reaction to content rather than to form. For example, phrases like I am sorry?, or What did you say? may be interpreted as a request for meaning clarification

Interactional Feedback Dimension

54

or an indication that the listener did not hear the utterance well. However, the more specific the clarification requests become the better they can signal to the learner that his or her utterance is ill-formed in some way.

Repetition Repetition refers to feedback that repeats all or part of the learner’s erroneous utterances with a rising intonation (see Example 17). Similar to clarification requests, this kind of feedback does not provide the correct form. Therefore, it provides an opportunity for self-correction: Example 17 Student: Oh my God, it is too expensive, I pay only 10 dollars. Teacher: I pay? ← Repetition (Sheen 2004, 279)

Direct elicitation Direct elicitation is feedback that attempts more overtly to push the student to provide the correct form. There are different ways of doing so, for example, by repeating the learner utterance up to the error and waiting for the learner to complete the utterance—what Nassaji (2007a) called “elliptical elicitation” (see Example 18)—or by asking the learner more directly to reproduce the utterance, such as can you say it again?: Example 18 Student: And when the young girl arrive, ah, beside the old woman. Teacher: When the young girl . . .? (Nassaji 2007a, 529)

Metalinguistic cues Metalinguistic cues are feedback types that provide the learner with metalin­ guistic information. This feedback can be provided in the form of comments about language rules or structures and how they work, or questions about the  grammaticality of the student’s utterance. A metalinguistic cue does not provide the correct form; it simply gives the student metalinguistic signals about

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

55

the error; therefore, it provides opportunities for self-repair. The signal can be made about the location of the error or the nature of the error such as you need a past tense. Metalinguistic cues can be provided in the form of metalinguistic comments without providing the correct form or questions. Metalinguistic cues in the form of questions provide some indication about the nature of the error in the form of a question. Thus, it attempts more explicitly to elicit the correct form. The following provides examples of metalinguistic cues in the form of a metalinguistic comment and a metalinguistic question, both of which have resulted in self-correction: Example 19 Student: I see him in the office yesterday. Teacher: You need a past tense. ← Metalinguistic cue (comment) Student: Oh I saw him. Example 20 Student: My mom went to shop yesterday. Teacher: Is went to shop correct? ← Metalinguistic cue (question) Student: Went shopping?

Most research on interactional feedback has used the term metalinguistic cue and metalinguistic feedback interchangeably. However, it might be useful to make a distinction between metalinguistic cue and metalinguistic feedback. Thus, Nassaji (2007a) separated the two by defining metalinguistic cue as feedback that includes a metalinguistic hint but no correction such as Is this correct? or Is it a past tense?, etc. Metalinguistic feedback, on the other hand, was defined as feedback that includes metalinguistic information in combination with correction. Therefore, this kind of feedback does not provide an opportunity for self-repair (see Example 21). Nassaji (2007a) considered metalinguistic feedback as a form of explicit correction since it provides the correct form in an explicit manner. Metalinguistic cues were considered as a form of elicitation because such moves do not provide the learner with the correct form, and instead provide an opportunity for self-repair Example 21 Student: I saw many mans in the park. Teacher: The plural form of man is men. ← Metalinguistic feedback

Interactional Feedback Dimension

56

Nonverbal cues Interactional feedback can also be provided nonverbally using gestures, facial expressions and head, hand and finger movements. For example, shaking the head or frowning could be used to indicate the presence of an error. Hand or finger movements could be used to indicate the nature of the error: Example 22 Learner: Yesterday I go cinema. Teacher: (gestures with right forefinger over left shoulder to indicate past) (R. Ellis 2009, 9)

Implicit versus explicit feedback In the SLA research, a distinction has often been made between explicit and implicit feedback. Explicit feedback is considered to refer to feedback that indicates rather clearly to the learner that his or her utterance is erroneous. In other words, such feedback directs learners’ attention explicitly to the erroneous part. Implicit feedback is feedback that does not overtly correct the learner error; rather it signals to the learner indirectly that his utterance may contain an error. The learner then needs to discover from the signal that his or her utterance is erroneous. Recasts, for example, have often been considered as a form of implicit feedback. Direct correction is an example of explicit feedback. When learners receive explicit feedback, they are provided with explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge, as defined by Ellis (e.g. Ellis 1997b; Ellis et al. 2009), refers to conscious and declarative knowledge of linguistic rules; it is different from implicit knowledge that is intuitive and is not available for conscious analysis and verbalization. Although the nature of the connection between explicit knowledge and language acquisition has been a matter of  debate, it has been argued that explicit knowledge contributes, if not leads,  to  acquisition by promoting conscious awareness of linguistic forms, which is argued to be needed, even if to a small degree (Schmidt 1993, 1995). Research has also shown that explicit feedback may promote implicit knowledge and that it may do so more effectively than implicit feedback (Ellis et al. 2006).

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

57

Simple versus complex feedback exchanges An interactional feedback exchange can be either simple, consisting of only one feedback move, or complex, consisting of a number of feedback moves. For example, a recast exchange may either include only a recast or it may include a recast in combination with other types of feedback. In the above sections, we provided examples of simple recast exchanges, but recasts can also be followed by another feedback move such as a prompt or elicitation. The recast may also be preceded by other feedback moves such as a repetition of the learner error. Multiple feedback moves can occur in either one single feedback turn or in multiple feedback turns. The following shows an example of a feedback turn consisting of two feedback moves: Example 23 S: I pay the cost. T: I pay? I’ll pay the cost. ← Repetition  a recast (Sheen 2006, 371)

In the above example, a recast has been preceded by a repetition in one feedback turn. The following from Ellis and Sheen (2006, 581) provides an example of an exchange consisting of multiple feedback moves in multiple feedback turns. This example contains a clarification request in turn 2 and then a recast in turn 4: Example 24 S1: What do you spend with your wife? T: What? ← Clarification request S1: What do you spend your extra time with your wife? T: Ah, how do you spend? ← Recast S2: How do you spend.

Explicit-implicit continuum Although a distinction has often been made between implicit and explicit feedback, and SLA research has sometimes used this distinction as a way of addressing what feedback type is more effective in general (Carroll and Swain 1993; Ellis et al. 2006; Li 2010; Norris and Ortega 2001), the issue of explicit and implicit is relative and a matter of degree. A better way of conceptualizing

Interactional Feedback Dimension

58

Interactional feedback

Communicative Clarification Repetition recasts requests Implicit

Elicitation

Metalinguistic cues

Explicit correction Explicit

Figure 3.2  Implicit-explicit continuum.

feedback implicit/explicitness, thus, is along a continuum (Loewen and Nabei 2007; Lyster et al. 2012; Nassaji 2007a) on which some feedback types can fall on the more implicit side and some on the more explicit side of the continuum depending on their features. This is demonstrated in Figure 3.2. The degree of explicitness may also vary within each feedback type. For example, as noted above, compared to other types of feedback, recasts are usually relatively more implicit in nature, as they do not provide an explicit indication that the learner’s utterance contains an error. However, although recasts can be relatively considered an implicit type of feedback, the degree of implicitness of recasts can greatly vary depending on a number of factors, including its mode, length, the number of corrections, the context, the nature of the error targeted, etc. An interrogative recast, for example, may be more explicit than an affirmative recast, as the former may better draw the learner’s attention to the targeted form. Similarly, an isolated recast may be more explicit than a full or an incorporated recast as the former singles out the error and hence may inform the learner more effectively of the location of the error. A recast targeting a function word such as a definite or indefinite article may be more implicit than recasts targeting a content word or a lexical item, as the latter may be semantically more salient than the former. In conversational interaction, recasts can also be combined with various verbal or intonational prompts such as added stress or intonation, or with other feedback moves such as repetition or metalinguistic information (see Examples 25 and 26). In these examples, the feedback exchange includes both a reformulation and metalinguistic information. Thus the recasts can be considered to be more explicit than when the recast is not combined with such feedback moves. Example 25 Learner: He kiss her Researcher: Kiss—you need past tense. (Ellis et al. 2006, 535)

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

59

Example 26 Student: There was a fox. Fox was hungry. Teacher: Th  e fox. You should use the definite article “the” because you’ve already mentioned “fox.” (Sheen 2007, 307)

Using the continuum of implicit-explicit, in his study of student-teacher interaction, Nassaji (2007a) identified six types of recasts that varied in terms of explicitness, from highly implicit to more explicit. He also coded and classified them depending on whether they were used in conjunction with any intonational or verbal prompt that pushed the learner to respond to recasts. These different types included isolated recast    prompt; isolated recast    prompt; embedded recast    prompt; embedded recast    prompt; recast    enhanced prompt; and recast    expansion. Examples of these types along with their definitions are provided below. Isolated recast    prompt: The feedback isolates the error and reformulates it with a falling intonation outside of the context. No additional prompts are used with this kind of feedback to highlight the error or to push the learner to respond to feedback. Example 27 Student: And a girl behind the woman is rob, rob her. Teacher: Robbing her.

Isolated recast    prompt: The feedback isolates the error and reformulates it outside of the context. The feedback is used with a rising intonation to prompt the learner to respond to the feedback. Example 28 Student: The woman who stole the purse realized the situation and she ran away more fast. Teacher: More quickly?

Embedded recast  prompt: The feedback reformulates the error with a falling intonation within its context. There is no additional prompt used with this kind of feedback to highlight the error or to prompt the learner to respond to feedback.

Interactional Feedback Dimension

60 Example 29

Student: Her friend pointed . . . pointed . . . another woman and said to her friend said to his friend . . . Teacher: Ok, another man pointed to the woman.

Embedded recast  prompt: The feedback reformulates the error within its context. It is used with a rising intonation to prompt the learner to respond to feedback. Example 30 Student: The woman found a police on the street. Teacher: The woman found a police officer?

Recast  enhanced prompt: The feedback reformulates the erroneous utterance with a rising intonation and/or added stress. There are also other additional verbal prompts used with such kind of feedback, such as Do you mean . . .?, to enhance the salience of feedback. Example 31 Student: At this time the wallet, the wallet fall, um, fall to the ground. Teacher: Do you mean it fell to the ground?

Recast  expansion: The feedback reformulates the erroneous utterance and also expands on it by adding new information to it. This kind of feedback occurs mostly with a falling intonation to confirm the message with no additional prompts. This type of recast is similar to what Lyster (1998b) called incorporated recasts. Example 32 Student: He steal the purse. Teacher: Oh, he stole the purse and ran away.

The explicitness of each of the above recast types can vary and can be shown along the continuum of explicitness-implicitness as in Figure 3.3. Regarding feedback explicitness, another point to note is that explicitness depends not only on how the feedback is provided, but also on how it is Recast + expansion

Embedded recast

Embedded recast + prompt

Implicit

Figure 3.3  Implicit-explicit recast continuum.

Isolated recast

Isolated recast + prompt

Recast + enhanced prompt Explicit

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

61

perceived. It is quite possible that a feedback type is provided implicitly but is perceived by the learner explicitly. It has also been shown in research on recasts that learners interpret recasts differently depending on their background and orientation to form. For example, students in classrooms where the focus of instruction is more on form have been found to perceive recasts more explicitly than those in which the focus is on content or meaning (Lyster and Mori 2006). The explicitness of feedback may also vary depending on whether the learner is a child or an adult. It is possible that adult language learners, due to their more metalinguistic awareness or knowledge, may recognize the corrective force of recasts more explicitly than children, who may have less metalinguistic knowledge.

Extensive versus intensive feedback A distinction can also be made between extensive and intensive feedback (Ellis 2001). Intensive feedback refers to feedback that occurs repeatedly in response to certain preselected target forms. Intensive feedback occurs when the teacher intends to target specific forms. This includes, for example, one or two target forms that the teacher preselects in advance, such as article errors, preposition errors, or regular and irregular past tense. Extensive feedback, however, is not preplanned and occurs in response to a wide range of forms. It typically occurs when the teacher responds incidentally to any error that takes place in the course of communication. It has been suggested that intensive feedback that targets specific forms might be more effective in drawing learners’ attention to form than extensive feedback that targets a variety of forms. Very few studies, however, have directly examined the difference between extensive and intensive feedback (see Chapter 7).

Immediate feedback versus delayed feedback Another distinction has to do with the timing of feedback and whether the feedback is provided immediately after an erroneous utterance or whether it is provided in subsequent turns with some delay. Interactional feedback is often immediate as it happens in reaction to an error in the course of communication. Such feedback, however, can also take place in the form of delayed feedback. In  the latter case, the teacher may listen to students while doing an activity

Interactional Feedback Dimension

62

such as oral presentation, record their errors and then address those errors interactionally after the activity (Nassaji 2007c, 2011a). Another way of doing this is by asking students to participate in an oral discussion with the teacher after a classroom activity in which the teacher can identify or provide feedback on their errors. Example 33 from Rolin-Ianziti (2010, 191) shows such a situation. In this episode, after the student has completed a role-play, the teacher is interacting with the students, during which she provides feedback on the erroneous use of the noun islande in French instead of the correct adjective islandais. The teacher uses an elicitation strategy to inform the student of the error by using the student’s utterance je suis and waits for the learner to correct the error. Example 33  Delayed feedback S1: Je suis islande. ← Original error in role-play Delayed correction sequence: T4: D’accord je suis islande? You should say je suis. S1: Islandais. T4: Oui islandais.

The distinction between immediate and delayed feedback is closely related to the distinction Spada and Lightbown (2008) drew between isolated and integrated form-focused instruction. Spada and Lightbown used these terms to describe two different approaches to L2 instruction in which a learner’s attention is drawn to form in the context of communication. Isolated FFI are activities that occur separate from the communicative language use. They can be used before a communicative activity to prepare the students for the task or they can occur after the activity to address the problems encountered when doing the task. Integrated FFI, however, includes activities that take place when a learner’s primary focus is on processing meaning. It can occur in the form of feedback in response to learner errors or brief explanations to assist students express their meaning in the course of communication. Isolated FFI can be different from Long’s FonFs instruction, which refers to a kind of form-focused instruction that addresses certain grammatical structures in a predetermined manner and without any reference to a communicative activity that is going on in the lesson. As for feedback, although delayed feedback can be an option for teachers, as noted above most of the literature on interactional feedback has focused on immediate feedback. Theoretically, researchers have argued for the preference of immediate feedback as compared to delayed because when the feedback is immediate it takes place while the learner’s attention is on meaning and thus

Interactional Feedback: Types and Subtypes

63

provides a better opportunity for form-meaning mapping (e.g. Doughty 2001). This question, however, is an empirical question that needs to be answered by means of empirical research. To this end, there are a few recent studies that have addressed this issue, examining the differential effects of these two types of feedback on L2 learning (see Chapter 7).

Interactional feedback on written errors Most of the literature on interactional feedback has been on oral errors. Interactional feedback, however, can also be used in response to written errors. When students make errors in their written work, the teacher can address these errors through oral negotiation. Examples of such feedback and how it can be provided can be seen in Nassaji (2007c), which documented the occurrence of such feedback that took place in the context of a routine classroom activity in an adult ESL classroom. In this class, students wrote weekly journals on topics that they liked. The teacher reviewed the journals and identified samples of the erroneous utterances that included common errors. The teacher then conducted follow-up oral feedback sessions in response to those utterances in the next class session. An important strategy that the teacher used was that he addressed the students’ written errors through oral interaction. The teacher used various forms of interactional feedback, including recasts, elicitations or a combination of the two. To this end, the teacher often attempted to tune the degree of negotiation and the feedback to learners’ needs. Therefore, the feedback episode sometimes took the form of a simple feedback exchange, including one feedback move, and sometimes took the form of an extended negotiation, involving many back-andforth feedback turns. Example 34 below from Nassaji (2011a, 321) shows an example of an oral interactional feedback move on a written error. The feedback is triggered in response to the problematic use of the word varieties. The teacher has initially used an elicitation strategy to elicit the correct form from the learner. The learner has responded to the teacher’s elicitation, but her response has failed to correct the error. Following the student’s unsuccessful response, the teacher provides the correct form by using a reformulation. Example 34  Interactional feedback on written errors Trigger: “I am aware that my mother went through varieties of experience when she brought me up.” Teacher: Nemar, what’s your suggestion?

64

Interactional Feedback Dimension Student: Just thinking. . . . It includes “the,” through the . . . Teacher: Went through a variety . . .

Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to introduce the notion of interactional feedback as a form of corrective feedback that occurs in the context of meaning-focused interaction and to discuss its types and subtypes. The taxonomies reviewed have been used in different studies on interactional feedback and how it is provided. In subsequent chapters we will discuss how interactional feedback assists language acquisition and also examine empirical research that has investigated its effectiveness in various contexts.

Questions for discussion 1. In this chapter, we presented a taxonomy of different feedback types. Which of them would you prefer to use as a teacher and why? Is there any other feedback type that you can add to the list of feedback reviewed? 2. What is the difference between metalinguistic feedback and recasts? Do you think there is any difference in their effectiveness, and if so, which one do you think is more effective and why? What evidence can you provide to support your position? 3. Consider the difference between interactional feedback such as recasts and direct correction. One reason researchers are interested in the role of recasts is because of their implicit and unobtrusive nature. Can you think of situations where a direct correction strategy might be more appropriate than a recast strategy? 4. What distinguishes a metalinguistic cue move from a direct correction? Are there situations when you might prefer to use one instead of the other? Do you think they might differ in their effectiveness, and if so why? 5. Consider the notion of negative evidence we discussed in Chapter 1. Which of the feedback types presented in this chapter provides a more reliable source of negative evidence?

4

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

Objectives ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Explore the role of interactional feedback in L2 acquisition. Discuss the acquisitional benefits of interaction and negotiation. Identify the different processes involved in interaction and negotiation. Discuss how interactional feedback and negotiation provides opportunities for modified input and output. Understand how interactional feedback provides opportunities for negative and positive evidence. Discuss the relationship between interaction, feedback, and noticing. Discuss other benefits of interactional feedback.

Introduction The previous chapter discussed the different types and subtypes of interactional feedback and their various features and functions. This chapter considers how interactional feedback assists L2 acquisition. Much of the argument for the role of interactional feedback comes from an interactionist approach to SLA. Within this framework, the beneficial role of interactional feedback is attributed to a process called negotiation, which refers to the interactional modifications and adjustments that occur in conversational discourse between native speakers, or the teacher, and the learner to repair communication breakdowns (Long 1996; Pica 1994). Pica (1994) pointed out that negotiation facilitates L2 acquisition in a number of ways: by making input more comprehensible, by highlighting linguistic problems, and by pushing learners to interactionally modify their output. Negotiation also provides opportunities for negative evidence (Long 1996) as well

66

Interactional Feedback Dimension

as helping learners use and try out their language and communication strategies. Supports for interactional feedback also come from other domains of SLA. In this chapter, we discuss how interactional feedback assists language acquisition. The focus will be more on theoretical underpinnings. The empirical research that has examined the effects of interactional feedback, including both observational and experimental studies, will be reviewed in subsequent chapters.

The role of input Many processes are involved in the acquisition of a second language, among which input is one of the most fundamental. Gass (1997) described input as “the single most important concept of second language acquisition” (Gass, 1). Input has been generally defined as the language “that learners hear or see to which they attend for its propositional content (message)” (VanPatten 1996, 10). In other words, it is the sample of language to which learners are exposed. Input, however, is different from whatever learners are exposed to. It is the language that is or can be processed for meaning. This important characteristic of input has been captured in Sharwood Smith’s conception of input as “the potentially processable language data which are made available by chance or by design, to the language learner” (Sharwood Smith 1993, 167).

Interactional feedback and input Although the centrality of the role of input has been stressed, different theoretical perspectives have interpreted its role differently (Gass 1997; Ellis 2008). For example, some advocates of early theories of L2 learning, such as behaviorists, consider language input essential for acquisition. However, in this view, input is the only data needed for acquisition. Since learning is considered a habit-formation process, the role of input is seen, as data learners needed to imitate without any cognitive processing. Input has also been considered essential for language acquisition from the nativist perspective. However, as discussed earlier, the role of input under this perspective is simply to trigger the UG mechanisms (Ellis 2008a). In other words, although language develops on the basis of exposure to input, what drives language acquisition is the learner’s innate knowledge. Input is also considered important from

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

67

the cognitivist perspectives such as the information-processing perspective and the skill-acquisition perspective (e.g. McLaughlin 1990; McLeod and McLaughlin 1986; Shiffrin and Schneider 1977). The information-processing perspective, for example, distinguishes between two cognitive processes for language acquisition: controlled and automatic processes. Controlled processes are not yet learned processes and remain under the attentional control of the learner. Thus, they usually require a large amount of processing capacity and more time for activation. Automatic processes are quick and demand relatively little processing capacity. In information-processing theories, the role of input is crucial because it is the information in the input that helps learners form a mental representation of the target language. But in this view, the importance of input is explained mainly in terms of its frequency and the extent to which it helps learners automatize language forms. In the skill-acquisition theory, a distinction is made between declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge is knowledge about language and procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to use language. In this view, all knowledge is initially declarative which then becomes procedural through ample practice. Input is essential because it forms our initial declarative knowledge. Input is also viewed as highly important from an interactionist perspective. However, this perspective differs from others in that it emphasizes the importance of interaction, particularly negotiated interaction. While interaction in general refers to any kind of two-way exchange of information between or among participants, negotiated interaction refers to interaction that involves various modifications to repair possible communication breakdowns. It is suggested that when learners interact with a native speaker or a proficient learner, if they cannot understand the input, the interlocutor may make different adjustments to their language in order to address or repair any possible problems or miscomprehension. Such adjustments are usually made as a result of or through various forms of interactional feedback that occurs during communication, such as repetition, reformulation, and clarification requests, as well as various kinds of confirmation and comprehension checks. It is argued that when such interactional strategies occur, the input addressed to the learner becomes adjusted or modified in ways that can enhance comprehension, which in turn assists acquisition (e.g. Gass 2003; Gass and Varonis 1994; Long 1991, 1996; Pica 1994, 1998). The following example from Mackey (1999, 559) demonstrates an example of how interactional modifications occur through interactional feedback and how they help comprehension.

Interactional Feedback Dimension

68 Example 1

NS: There’s a pair of reading glasses above the plant. NNS: A what? NS: Glasses—reading glasses to see the newspaper? NNS: Glassi? NS: You wear them to see with, if you can’t see. Reading glasses. NNS: Ahh ahh glasses glasses to read you say reading glasses. NS: Yeah.

In the above example, a native and a nonnative speaker are interacting. The NNS does not understand the meaning of the word reading glasses used by the NS. Therefore, the NNS asks for clarification. The NNS is still not sure of the meaning and therefore expresses this lack of understanding through repeating the word glasses. The NS further clarifies it by providing additional explanation, which eventually helps the NNS understand its meaning. In the interactional perspective, the role of negotiation is not just limited to making input comprehensible, as comprehensibility of input can be achieved in various ways. It can be achieved not only through interactional modifications during interaction but also through simplified or premodified input. This involves, for example, changing long and complex phrases and sentences into shorter ones, using simpler vocabulary and grammatical structures, or providing examples and illustrations before the learners are exposed to the input. Even when a speaker speaks, he or she can simplify the input by changing the pace of the utterance (making the speech rate slower) or introducing pauses to provide more processing time for the learner (e.g. Griffiths 1990). However, although input can be premodified, it has been shown that when input becomes modified through interaction, it is more effective for acquisition than when it is modified through noninteractional processes. For example, Ellis et al. (1994) compared three kinds of input and their effects on learners’ comprehension: unmodified input (input not changed or modified for the purpose of comprehension) premodified input (input simplified ahead of time) and interactionally modified input (input modified through negotiation). The results showed that interactionally modified input facilitated comprehension significantly more than other types of input. Gass and Varonis (1994) also found similar results. Examining the connection between interactionally modified input and comprehension in interaction between NS-NNS dyads, they found that interactional modification not only increased NNS comprehension but also had a positive effect on learners’ subsequent performance.

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

69

Interactional modifications make it easier for the learner to understand the input not only through simplifying the language but also through providing additional information or expansion of an utterance. This process is called elaboration. Like simplification, elaboration can also be achieved in advance in the form of prescripted materials or through interaction. The following provides an example of modification that involves elaboration. Example 2 NNS: How have increasing food costs changed your eating habits? NS: Well, we don’t eat as much beef as we used to. We eat more chicken, and uh, pork, and uh, fish, things like that. NNS: Pardon me? NS: We don’t eat as much beef as we used to. We eat more chicken and uh, uh pork and fish. . . . We don’t eat beef very often. We don’t have steak like we used to.

Comprehensible input, as defined by Krashen, refers to the language the learners hear and is also slightly beyond their current level of language knowledge. Gass and Selinker (2002) made a distinction between comprehensible input and comprehended input. In Gass and Selinker’s view, input should not only be comprehensible but also be comprehended by the learner. Comprehended input is that part of the input that the learner has assigned meaning to. The notion of comprehended input, they argued, is different from comprehensible input in a number of important ways. First, it shows that the learner has processed the input to some degree for understanding. Second, while comprehensible input emphasizes the input that is controlled by the input provider, comprehended input represents input controlled by the learner. This distinction is important because learning eventually involves intake that is controlled by the learner. In addition, comprehended input involves different degrees of comprehension ranging from getting the semantic meaning of the input to a detailed structural analysis of the input. In the interactionist view, it is not just comprehensibility of the input, or that input is comprehended, but also the incomprehensibility of input that contributes to acquisition. White (1987) pointed out that “[i]f we assume that learners are driven by some general desire to make sense of as much of what they hear as possible, then, on being confronted with this kind of nonsense [incomprehensible input], a reanalysis of the grammar will be forced, in order to make sense of the input” (White, 95). Similarly, Pica (1987, 8) noted that what helps learners

70

Interactional Feedback Dimension

move beyond their current interlanguage knowledge is when they need to understand unfamiliar linguistic input. When language is fully comprehensible, learners may not pay attention to the input and therefore may not notice the linguistic forms it contains. However, when language is incomprehensible to some degree, it may help learners recognize that they do not know the language well. For these reasons, Gass and Varonis (1984, 289) called incomprehensibility of input “the crux of the interaction argument.” To them, it is this phenomenon that necessitates negotiations and modifications to learners’ original utterances, which would then help the restructuring of their interlanguage.

The role of output Although input is essential and its importance cannot be disputed for language acquisition, many researchers have argued that input, whether comprehensible or comprehended, is not enough, as learners may be able to comprehend a message but not yet able to process it for learning. Therefore, they have argued that output (i.e. language production) is also an important process assisting SLA. One of the first scholars who emphasized the importance of output was Swain (1993, 1995, 2005), who argued that input is not sufficient for L2 acquisition and that learners also need to have opportunities for output. Swain has argued that learner output must not be considered just an indication or product of learning, as proposed by Krashen, but also a cause of learning. According to Swain output is essential because it forces learners to move from semantic processing used during comprehension to syntactic processing needed for production, and in doing so, it helps learners acquire the language. Swain’s argument for the role of output grew out of a number of studies of content-based and language immersion programs that demonstrated that mere exposure to meaningful content is inadequate for the acquisition of grammatical accuracy (e.g. Harley and Swain 1984; Lapkin et al. 1991; Swain 1985, 1993). These studies found that although immersion students were exposed to many hours of comprehensible input, their language performance was still inaccurate with respect to certain aspects of the L2. One reason for this was found to be that learners in these programs did not have enough opportunities for L2 production. Based on an analysis and observation of such classroom data, Swain has proposed three important functions for output: a noticing (or triggering) function, a hypothesis testing function, and a metalinguistic function. The noticing function holds that when L2 learners are engaged in producing output,

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

71

such as speaking and writing, they will become aware that they cannot say what they want to say. In other words, they will notice a hole or a gap in their linguistic ability. Output also provides learners with opportunities for testing out their hypotheses about how to express their meaning in an L2. When learners attempt to convey their message, they may try out different ways of saying the same thing or may come to realize whether or not their utterances are comprehensible or well formed. The third function, the metalinguistic function, suggests that output encourages learners to consciously reflect on their language, thinking about what to say and how to say it. In other words, output not only prompts learners to become conscious of their linguistics problems but also raises their awareness of what they need to learn about their L2. There are a number of other ways in which output may facilitate language acquisition, for example, by turning declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge, triggering input for the generation of new declarative knowledge (De Bot 1996), providing opportunities for practice which then enhances automaticity and fluency of language skills (DeKeyser 2007), providing opportunities for feedback, and also helping learners to develop their communication strategies as they participate in interaction. Output can also provide learners with auto input—that is, output that feeds back into the learner’s linguistic system as input and becomes the source of new knowledge (Ellis 2003). In short, since output requires learners to actively use their linguistic resources, it provides them with important learning opportunities that cannot be provided by input alone.

Interactional feedback and output Within an interactionist perspective, the interactional negotiation facilitates second language acquisition not only through enhancing or modifying input but also through providing opportunities for output. Pica et al. (1989, 65) pointed out that “negotiated interaction with an interlocutor helps the learner to understand unfamiliar L2 input . . . it is also through negotiation that learners gain opportunities to attempt production of new L2 words and grammatical structures as well.” However, output that occurs during interaction is different from any language production. It is a form of production that has a communicative intent. When learners produce output in the course of interaction, they should not merely express their communicative meaning, but also do it “precisely, coherently, and appropriately” (Swain 1985, 249). This is what Swain has called

Interactional Feedback Dimension

72

comprehensible output. In addition, Learners “need to be pushed to make use of their resources.” This is what Swain has referred to as pushed output. The notions of comprehensible output and pushed output stress the need for a learner to be stretched in their production in order to make them understood. When learners are pushed to produce output, they “consider ways of modifying it to enhance comprehensibility, appropriateness, and accuracy” (Swain 1993, 160). It is this kind of output that has been considered to assist language acquisition most as it makes the learner go beyond their current level of interlanguage. From an interactionist point of view, the interactional feedback and adjustments that occur during interaction promote the above processes. When, through interactional feedback, the teacher or an interlocutor indicates to the learner that he or she has not understood the learner’s intended message, such feedback pushes learners to clarify or expand on their original message to make it more comprehensible. As a result the learner may restructure their output. This can be seen in the following interactional exchange from Mackey (2002), which provides an example of a situation where the interlocutor has not clearly understood the learner’s original message. The interlocutor has then used strategies such as clarification requests and confirmation checks to indicate to the  learner her lack of understanding. Such strategies have forced learners to revise their original nontargetlike output toward being more accurate or appropriate in response to feedback. Example 3 NNS: And in hand in hand have a bigger glass to see. NS: It’s err. You mean, something in his hand? NNS: Like spectacle. For older person. NS: Mmmm, sorry I don’t follow, it’s what? NNS: In hand have he have has a glass for looking through for make the print bigger to see, to see the print, for magnify NS: He has some glasses? NNS: Magnify glasses he has magnifying glass. NS: Oh aha I see a magnifying glass, right that’s a good one, ok. (From Mackey 2002, cited in Gass and Selinker 2002, 327)

Modified output As noted above, when learners receive feedback on their production, they may revise their original utterance to be more accurate and comprehensible. In the

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

73

SLA literature, this revision to learner output is called modified output. Modified output can occur in response to any kind of feedback. In the example given above, modified output occurred following a clarification request. Learners may also modify their original output in response to reformulation or recasts. Recasts may not always provide opportunities for modified output. However, they can do so when provided in the form of confirmation requests, which is reformulation with rising intonation. The following from Nassaji (2012) provides an example of modified output following recasts. In this example, the learner has produced an utterance that contains an error related to the past tense of the verb steal. The teacher has responded to that utterance by using a recast. The learner has then responded to the feedback by modifying his original utterance and correcting the error. Example 4 Student: The two guys tell the woman her wallet was stole. Teacher: Was stolen? Student: Was stolen. ← Modified output

Benefits of modified output In current SLA research, modified output has been highly emphasized as an important process in language acquisition. Swain, for instance, described modified output as a representation of “the leading edge of a learner’s interlanguage” (Swain 1995, 131). Modified output is assumed to contribute to language acquisition in a number of ways. One way is that it provides learners with opportunities to proceduralize the production of the target language knowledge they already possess (Lyster 2004; Lyster and Saito 2010; Swain 2005). In doing so, modified output promotes automaticity of language forms. The production of modified output also provides learners with opportunities to test their previous assumptions about the L2. As learners attempt to modify or make changes to their initial production, they revise their previous interlanguage assumption about that target language and how it works. This may then facilitate their learning. Furthermore, modified output provides opportunities for noticing. As learners modify their output in response to feedback, they may become more aware of their interlanguage problems. This increased awareness may then help them recognize in what ways their original utterance deviates from the target language input. Relatedly, modified output can also promote reflection on interlanguage production and consequently a subsequent search for solutions. This happens when learners attempt to reformulate their utterances to make them more

74

Interactional Feedback Dimension

accurate, which can in turn help learners attend to and benefit from the presence of the target feature in subsequent input (Swain 1993, 2005). Research has also provided evidence that learners who participate in interaction and provide modified output benefit more from the interaction than those who do not provide modified output (Mackey 1999; Nobuyoshi and Ellis 1993). Motivated by such ideas, some researchers have suggested that feedback moves that do not provide the correct form and instead push the learner to modify their output might be more effective than those that provide the correction. A number of studies in recent years have empirically compared the differential effects of such feedback strategies (see the subsequent chapters for more details).

Interactional feedback and noticing As discussed earlier, an essential source of L2 learning is input. However, as we also pointed out, input should not only be comprehended but also needs to be encoded into the mind of the learner in order to be processed for learning. That is, it should turn into intake. Corder (1967) was the first one who made a distinction between input and intake with input being referred to as what is available to the learner and intake as what is processed and internalized. The provision of input does not necessarily guarantee that it will turn into intake. Such a consideration has led researchers to consider and investigate the various mechanisms through which input can become intake. Many SLA researchers have suggested that intake does not take place until learners recognize in some way what is in the input (Gass 1991; Gass and Varonis 1994; Schmidt 1993; Tomlin and Villa 1994). It is this initial stage of learning that Schmidt (1990) called noticing. Schmidt defined intake as “that part of the input that the learner notices” (Schmidt, 139). Gass (1991) concurred by stating that “nothing in the target language is available for intake into a language learner’s existing system unless it is consciously noticed” (Gass, 136). Gass and Selinker (2002) further pointed out that “what is noticed . . . interacts with a parsing mechanism which attempts to segment the stream of speech into meaningful units for the learner” (Gass and Selinker, 482). This kind of awareness has been argued to be “a prerequisite for the restructuring of a learner’s linguistic knowledge” (Gass and Varonis 1994, 300). In this respect, one important role of interactional feedback is promoting noticing. During interaction, when learners attempt to express or negotiate

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

75

their meaning, it is highly possible that they notice the linguistic forms in the input. It is also possible that they may become aware of their nontargetlike utterances. Two types of noticing have been distinguished in SLA literature, both of which may be promoted by interactional feedback: noticing the gap and noticing the hole. Noticing the hole occurs when learners realize that they are not able to say what they want to say in the target language (Swain 1993; Swain and Lapkin 1995). This happens when the learners are pushed to produce output. When learners need to produce output, they may realize that they cannot express their intended meanings. In other words, they will notice a hole in their linguistic ability. Noticing the gap occurs when the learner compares his or her original output with the teacher’s or the interlocutor’s output, and then realizes that his or her interlanguage differs from the target language (Swain 1998; Williams 2005). Feedback strategies such as clarification requests or repetition, for example, promote noticing the hole. Since these strategies do not provide the learners with the correct form but rather push them to correct their original output, they may make them aware of the potential difficulties they have in expressing their meaning. In other words, such feedback makes learners aware of their interlanguage hole. Feedback strategies such as recasts or direct correction promote noticing the gap. When the teacher or an interlocutor reformulates a learner’s erroneous utterance into a correct form, the learner may compare his or her output to the interlocutor’s output and realize that his or her output may differ from the target language output (Doughty and Varela 1998; Williams 2005). In other words, the learner may notice a gap in his or her interlanguage.

Interactional feedback and testing hypotheses An essential process in learning a new language is forming and testing hypotheses. Interactional feedback provides learners with opportunities to try out different ways of saying the same thing or trying and testing their hypothesis about how to express their intention. For example, as noted earlier, when learners are talking to others and receive feedback they may rephrase their output in response to feedback. When learners modify their output, they may not only be engaged in the acquisition of new forms (Swain and Lapkin 2001) but may also become more actively involved in experimenting with the language by trying out new modified

Interactional Feedback Dimension

76

output. Example 5 below from Mackey et al. (2000, cited in Gass 2003) provides an example of learners’ engagement in hypothesis testing during interaction. In this example, two learners were first asked to interact to find differences between two similar pictures. One of the learners produced the utterance then a glass, which was followed by a clarification request, a what, what?. The learner was then interviewed immediately after the interaction while watching the videotaped data as a reminder. When being interviewed, the learner reported: “I was drawing a blank. Then I thought of a vase but then I thought that since there was no flowers, maybe it was just a big glass. So, then I thought I’ll say it and see. Then, when she said ‘come’ (what?), I knew that it was completely wrong.” (Gass 2003, 227). As noted by Gass, the comment I’ll say it and see suggests that the learner was using interaction as a means to test his or her hypothesis about the correct use of the word. Example 5 NNS: poi un bicchiere then a glass INT: un che, come? a what, what? NNS: bicchiere glass INT = interviewer

Interactional feedback and opportunities for negative and positive evidence Another way in which interactional feedback assists language acquisition is by providing opportunities for negative and positive evidence—that is, by providing learners with information about ungrammaticality and grammaticality of language forms. As we discussed earlier, interactional feedback can occur in various ways. It can occur explicitly in the form of direct correction of learner errors or in the form of implicit feedback such as recasts and repetition of part of the learner’s erroneous utterance with rising intonations (usually meant to confirm message comprehensibility) as well as in various forms of elicitations and clarification requests. Many scholars have argued that such feedback strategies provide learners with an important source of information about how language works.

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

77

Negative and positive evidence through recasts In the SLA literature, among the interactional feedback strategies, the role of recasts has received much attention as an important source of both positive and negative evidence. As noted earlier, recasts refer to feedback that reformulates the learner’s erroneous utterance into a correct form. Thus, one important characteristic of such feedback is that it provides the learner with the correct model of the language, or positive evidence. Correct models can occur not only after ungrammatical utterances but also after grammatical utterances. As noted earlier, Saxton et al. (2005) called the former contingent positive evidence and the latter noncontingent models. In recasts, positive evidence occurs in the form of contingent reformulations since it occurs immediately after a nontargetlike utterance. Recasts also provide learners with opportunities for negative evidence. One source of negative evidence in recasts comes from the contrast created between a nontarget and targetlike utterance in such feedback (Saxton 1995). Since in recasts a correct reformulation is put side by side to an incorrect one (see Example 6), such a juxtaposition is assumed to produce a contrast between the grammatical and ungrammatical forms. This contrast can then alert the learner that his or her original utterance contains an error. Example 6 Learner: He hitted the boy. Teacher: He hit the boy?

The contrast between the targetlike and the nontargetlike has also been assumed to enhance the salience of recasts as positive evidence (Leeman 2001). Leeman argued that when the learner produces an erroneous utterance and the interlocutor provides an utterance that contains a targetlike version of the learner output, the juxtaposition may highlight the correct model contained in recasts. Another source of negative evidence in recasts is what Saxton (2005) called “differential patterns of responding.” As noted earlier, research in the L1 literature has shown that adults respond differently to children’s grammatical and ungrammatical utterances. Hirsh-Pasek et al. (1984), for example, found that parents were more likely to rephrase children’s ill-formed utterances than well-formed utterances and that such rephrasing often included an element of correction. Similarly, Demetras et al. (1986) found that while children’s grammatical utterances tended to be followed more often by utterances that

Interactional Feedback Dimension

78

contributed the topic, ill-formed utterances were more likely to be followed by utterances that asked for clarification. Such differential patterns of responses to grammatical versus nongrammatical utterances have been taken to signal to children that some of their utterances are different from the rest and may contain errors (e.g. Chouinard and Clark 2003; Farrar 1992; Saxton 2005). There is also evidence in the L2 literature that L2 native speakers respond differently to nonnative speakers’ grammatical and nongrammatical utterances. Richardson (1995) and Yamaguchi (1994, reported in Ayoun 2001), for example, found that native speakers recasted NNS’ ungrammatical utterances more often than rephrasing their grammatical utterances and that the learners were also more likely to respond to recasts than to noncorrective reformulations. L2 research has also shown that learners respond differently to reformulations that occur after nontargetlike utterances than those that occur after targetlike utterances. Doughty (1994), for example, reported that L2 learners of French repeated the correct form more frequently (21 percent of the time) following recasts than following noncorrective reformulation of their utterances (2.3 percent of the time). These findings suggest that L2 learners perceived recasts more as corrective or negative evidence than repetition of content.

Negative evidence through elicitations Negative evidence may also occur through various forms of elicitation moves such as repetitions, clarification requests, and metalinguistic cues. For example, when the teacher or an interlocutor does not understand a learner’s message and seeks clarification, the learner’s attention may not only be drawn to meaning but may also be drawn to form as the learner is pushed to make himself or herself understood. By doing so, such feedback may signal to the learner that his or her utterance contains an error. The following example shows how elicitation provides the learner with negative evidence. In this example, the learner has made an error in forming a correct question. The teacher has asked for clarification by using a clarification request. The feedback has helped the learner to realize that he or she has made an error and the learner has modified his original output in response. Example 7 Student: Where you stay? Teacher: What? Student: Where did you stay?

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

79

The facilitative role of elicitation as negative feedback can also be due to the opportunities it provides for modified output in the form of self-correction (Swain 1985, 1993, 1995). As noted earlier, Swain has argued that learners “need to be pushed to make use of their resources; they need to have their linguistic abilities stretched to their fullest; they need to reflect on their output and consider ways of modifying it to enhance comprehensibility, appropriateness, and accuracy” (Swain 1993, 160). Elicitations and clarification requests provide opportunities for pushed output and hence may facilitate language acquisition (Lyster 1998; Swain 2005). In the above example, the feedback has not only made the learner conscious of the ungrammaticality of their utterance but has also pushed the learner to correct his or her previous nontargetlike utterance. There are a number of studies that have examined how elicitations provide opportunities for negative evidence and how such feedback benefits L2 acquisition. See the next chapter for a review of these studies.

Interactional feedback as FonF Another theoretical perspective that has provided support for the role of interactional feedback is the FonF perspective. As discussed earlier (see Chapter  1), FonF instruction is different from the traditional FonFs instruction, in which the teaching of grammatical forms takes place in a highly decontextualized manner. FonF involves drawing learners’ attention to form in the context of meaning-focused communication. In this perspective interactional feedback is considered an important type of FonF as it occurs while learners are expressing their meaning. Long and Robinson (1998) pointed out that when learners interact with the teacher or other interlocutors and receive feedback such as recasts, the feedback, “draws learners’ attention to mismatches between input and output,” and hence “causes them to focus on form” (Long and Robinson, 25). Theoretically, the FonF perspective is based on a number of assumptions about how language is learned. One is that language cannot be learned without some degree of consciousness. Although some researchers have questioned Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis (e.g. Truscott 1998), as noted before, most SLA researchers agree that noticing or awareness of target forms plays an important role in L2 learning. Another assumption is that, although some degree of attention to form is necessary for language learning, human cognition has a limited capacity. Therefore, learners cannot attend to both form and meaning simultaneously

80

Interactional Feedback Dimension

during communication (VanPatten 1996, 2002a). Thus, learners benefit from opportunities that draw their attention to linguistic forms while processing input for meaning. Finally, it is assumed that attention to form is most effective when it is provided in a context where the primary focus is on meaning. The benefit of FonF here is considered to be due to the cognitive support provided by both the overall context of meaning as well as the fact that attention to form takes place at the time when learners need it for communication. Long (2000) pointed out that since FonF occurs during communicative activities, it happens when the learner has a communicative need, and therefore it is learner-centred and accords with the learner’s internal syllabus. Lightbown (1991) also pointed out that “focus on form is most effective, not in advance of communicative contexts, but at the moment when learners know what they want to say, indeed are trying to say something, and the means to say it more correctly are offered to them” (Lightbown, 193). As discussed earlier, another fundamental feature of FonF is that it is brief and involves an occasional break from focus on communication to focus on linguistic forms (Long and Robinson 1998). FonF is also triggered by a problem of some kind, including an error that the learner has made or other anticipated problems in either comprehension or production (Long and Robinson 1998; Williams 2005). Interactional feedback meets these characteristics of FonF as well. As a kind of reactive FonF, interactional feedback occurs during meaningfocused exchanges, and since the feedback is in response to errors in the course of communication, it occurs exactly at the moment when learners need it for communication. For the same reason, the feedback provides opportunities for form-meaning connection (e.g. Doughty and Varela 1998; Long and Robinson 1998). Interactional feedback is also brief and happens in the form of short side sequences rather than through extensive discussion of language forms. Also feedback such as recasts, clarification requests, and repetition are relatively implicit and unobtrusive in nature. Thus, they raise learners’ attention to form without interrupting the flow of communication.

Interactional feedback as a priming device Another important way in which interactional feedback may contribute to language learning is by serving as a priming device. That is, by serving as a means to prompt or prepare the learner to be more attentive to subsequent linguistic input. This phenomenon has also been called syntactic priming,

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

81

which refers to a speaker’s inclination to use a structure that he or she has heard earlier in the interaction (Mackey and Gass 2006). In syntactic priming, a learner may not only use a form he or she has already heard but may also produce the syntactic structure with different linguistic features. This happens because speakers may be sensitive to the general syntactic structure rather than specific surface-level elements (McDonough and Mackey 2008). For example, as McDonough (2006) explained, “when a speaker hears an interlocutor producing a double-object dative (e.g. Susie baked her daughter a cake), that speaker is more likely to produce another double-object dative later in the conversation than she is to produce an equally acceptable prepositional dative (e.g. John bought a bicycle for his mother)” (McDonough, 181). A number of recent studies have examined and demonstrated that such priming effects may indeed occur in subsequent turns as a result of feedback in earlier turns. Learners may also show such priming effects in the form of delayed modifications of their output later during the conversation. An example of such modifications can be seen in the following example from Gass and Varonis (1989, cited in Gass and Selinker 2002, 350). As described by the authors, in this example two learners are involved in a picture-description task. While describing part of the picture, the first NNS produces an utterance in which the word cup has been incorrectly pronounced. The second NNS asks for clarification by repeating what the first learner has said. The learner does not produce a modified output immediately. But seventeen turns later, he or she manages to pronounce the phrase correctly. Example 8 NNS1: Uh holding the [k—p]. NNS2: Holding the cup? NNS1: Hmm hmmm . . .

(seventeen turns later)

NNS2: Holding a cup. NNS1: Yes. NNS2: Coffee cup? NNS1: Coffee? Oh yeah, tea, coffee cup, tea cup. NNS2: Hm hm.

Priming effects suggest that learners benefit from feedback by taking note of it and incorporating it into their subsequent production. These also suggest that the effects of interactional feedback may not always be immediate and that

82

Interactional Feedback Dimension

interactional feedback can have delayed effects. A few studies have recently explored the priming effects of feedback and their relationship with L2 learning (see Chapter 6 for a review of some of these studies).

Interactional feedback from a sociocultural perspective Although much of the theoretical argument for interactional feedback has been within an interaction hypothesis framework (Long 1991, 1996), another source of theoretical support comes from sociocultural theory (Vygotsky 1978, 1986). From an interaction hypothesis perspective, second language learners develop their language knowledge during negotiated interaction. This perspective explains the role of interaction from a cognitive perspective in which the role of negotiation is seen mainly in terms of its facilitative effects on a number of other essential mental processes such as comprehensible input, output, noticing, intake, and negative evidence. The sociocultural theory also emphasizes the importance of interaction and negotiation. However, this theory highlights not only the role of cognitive processes, but also places particular emphasis on the social and dialogic nature of interaction (Nassaji and Swain 2000). In this view, language learning is essentially a social process and interaction is an integral and inherent part of learning. Interaction does not facilitate learning through other mental processes, and learning is not achieved when isolated from interaction. Instead, as Ellis (2009, 12), pointed out, in the sociocultural perspective, learning is viewed as a process that “occurs in rather than as a result of interaction.” A number of key concepts are closely connected with the sociocultural perspective. One is the notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD refers to “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky 1978, 86). According to Vygotsky, cognitive development occurs when assistance is provided within the ZPD. The notion of the ZPD highlights the importance of interaction as a key language learning process. It is through interaction that the teacher or a more capable other is able to discover a learner’s developmental level or ZPD, and then provide appropriate feedback when needed. It is believed that when learners interact within their ZPD, they use their existing linguistic knowledge to develop what they have not

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

83

yet mastered independently (Appel and Lantolf 1994; Donato 1994; Nassaji and Cumming 2000; Nassaji and Swain 2000). At every stage of the learning process, peers who negotiate within their ZPD are likely to achieve more sophisticated developmental levels beyond their actual linguistic ability, but within their potential development level (Nassaji and Cumming 2000). It is through such collaborative interaction within the ZPD that knowledge is constructed and that the knowledgeable interlocutor becomes capable of providing effective assistance to a less knowledgeable one in order to help him reach a higher level of language competence (Donato 1994). In other words, the act of interaction pushes learners toward higher levels of development by enabling them to learn what they are capable of learning. Another related concept is the notion of scaffolding. This notion refers to a gradual and step-by-step supportive environment for assistance, which mediates language learning. From this perspective, negotiated interaction provides a condition through which gradual guidance and feedback is provided by peers or the teacher as needed. Thus, in this view, the value of interactional feedback lies in the opportunities it provides for scaffolding. The following from Donato (1994, 44) provides an example of how scaffolding takes place during interaction and how it helps learners increase their knowledge of the target form. In this example, three learners of French are working together on a collaborative task. Each learner alone has not been able to produce the correct form of “You remembered” (“Tu t’es souvenu”) in French, but through scaffolded feedback from one another, they have been able to do so. In other words, the feedback provided a supportive environment that has enabled the learner to reach a level that he or she was not able to achieve alone. Example 9 Speaker 1: . . . and then I’ll say . . . tu as souvenu notre anniversaire de mariage . . . or should I say mon anniversaire? Speaker 2: Tu as . . . Speaker 3: Tu as . . . Speaker 1: Tu as souvenu . . . you remembered? Speaker 3: Yea, but isn’t that a reflexive? Tu t’as . . . Speaker 1: Ah, tu t’as souvenu. Speaker 2: Oh, it’s tu es . . . Speaker 1: Tu es. Speaker 3: tu es, tu es, tu . . .

Interactional Feedback Dimension

84 Speaker 1: t’es, tu t’es. Speaker 3: tu t’es.

Speaker 1: Tu t’es souvenu.

In SLA research, there are a few studies that have examined the potential effectiveness of interactional feedback within a sociocultural perspective. One such study is by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), which examined negotiated feedback as it occurred in oral interactions between three ESL writers and one tutor. The researchers operationalized the negotiated feedback in terms of a “regulatory scale” consisting of a number of feedback moves, beginning with broad implicit feedback and gradually moving toward more specific direct/ explicit help in a scaffolding manner. Their results showed that when feedback was negotiated, it facilitated students’ learning of new forms and also increased learners’ control over already known forms. Building and expanding on this study, Nassaji and Swain (2000) compared the effectiveness of negotiation in a case study of two adult ESL learners. Using Aljaafreh and Lantolf ’s regulatory scale, they compared negotiated feedback within the learners’ ZPD versus nonnegotiated random feedback. The results of qualitative and quantitative analyses showed that negotiated feedback was more effective than random feedback in not only promoting learner accuracy, but also in accelerating development by giving learners the ability to correct similar linguistic errors in subsequent occasions with much less assistance. See the next chapter for a more detailed review of these studies.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have discussed the various ways in which interactional feedback may contribute to second language development, including facilitating input, providing opportunities for output including modified and pushed output, noticing (drawing learners’ awareness to mismatches between the target and nontarget utterance), and positive and negative feedback. We also discussed other ways in which feedback may contribute to language learning, such as serving as a priming device or serving as a collaborative scaffolding process. In the next chapters, we will examine various descriptive and experimental studies that have investigated the effectiveness of interactional feedback in various classroom and nonclassroom settings.

How Does Interactional Feedback Assist Language Acquisition?

85

Questions for discussion 1. What are the main insights you gained from this chapter? 2. How do you distinguish modified input from modified output, and in what ways do you think they contribute to L2 acquisition? 3. Can you think of any other ways in which interactional feedback contributes to language acquisition in addition to what was discussed in this chapter? 4. How do you view the differences between interactional feedback from an interaction hypothesis perspective and from a sociocultural perspective? 5. Can you think of a situation where an interactional feedback strategy such as recasts might help learners to test hypotheses about how language works? Can you give an example of this situation? 6. What issues or questions were raised or remain unanswered for you after reading this chapter?

Part Two

Researching Interactional Feedback

5

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

Objectives ●●

●●

●●

●●

Review key descriptive studies of interactional feedback in classroom and laboratory contexts. Discuss uptake and repair as measures of feedback effectiveness. Discuss concerns about uptake and its relationship with learning. Explore the implications of the research reviewed for instruction and further research.

Introduction As discussed before, the contribution of interactional feedback to language acquisition is theoretically well demonstrated. Given the various claims regarding the importance of such feedback, a considerable body of research has empirically examined its provision and effectiveness in various contexts. This research has been both descriptive and experimental and has been conducted in both classroom and laboratory settings. It has examined a variety of issues ranging from those related to the occurrence of different feedback types to the degree to which they assist L2 acquisition. In the next two chapters, we review some of the key studies in this area. We begin with descriptive studies that have examined the provision of feedback and how learners respond to feedback, and then move on to experimental studies that have examined more directly the relationship between feedback and learning in the next chapter.

Interactional Feedback Dimension

90

Descriptive research Descriptive research, which is also called observational research, involves observation of interactional contexts in which feedback may occur. The main goals of such research are to identify if and how feedback occurs during L2 interaction, what patterns it takes in different settings, and how learners respond to feedback in the course of interaction. Feedback studies have used various measures to examine the effectiveness of feedback, ranging from immediate learner reactions and modification of their errors in response to feedback to various types of pretest/posttest measures. In descriptive research, the effectiveness of feedback has often been measured through what has been called uptake and repair. Since any judgment about the relationship between feedback and learning depends on understanding how learning gains are measured, we will begin by first discussing the notions of uptake and repair and then reviewing samples of key studies in this area.

Measuring feedback effectiveness The use of uptake In much of descriptive research, the effectiveness of feedback has been measured by what has been called uptake. The term uptake was initially used in classroom research by researchers such as Allwright (1984) and Slimani (1989, 1992) to describe the relationship between classroom interaction and opportunities for learning. These researchers defined uptake as what learners reported or claimed to have learned from a lesson and argued that such data can be used as a means to measure the effectiveness of classroom teaching. Slimani (1992), for example, used post-lesson recall charts in which learners were asked to report whatever they remembered from the lesson. She found that learners reported different degrees of recall depending on the nature of the lesson and the kind of classroom activities in which they were involved. In interactional feedback studies, the term uptake has been used with a different meaning, and mainly as the immediate learner response following feedback. Chaudron (1977) was one of the first scholars who employed, and emphasized the importance of, learner responses to feedback as a measure of feedback success. Chaudron did not use the term uptake but pointed out that

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

91

“the main immediate measurement of effectiveness of any type of corrective reaction would be a frequency count of the students’ correct responses following each type” (Chaudron, 42). The first researchers who used the term uptake to refer to learner responses were Lyster and Ranta (1997), who defined uptake as “a student’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student’s initial utterance” (Lyster and Ranta, 49). They argued that uptake defined as such could be a good measure of feedback effectiveness because it shows what the student tries to do with the feedback. In Lyster and Ranta’s classification, if there is no uptake, there is topic continuation. The following provides an example of a feedback move followed by uptake and another followed by topic continuation. Example 1 Teacher: Did you see the soccer game last night? Student: Yes, I see it Teacher: You saw it? ← Feedback Student: Yes, I saw it. ← Uptake Example 2 Student: I have a white cat with white ear. Teacher: With white ears. ← Feedback Student: It is very cute. ← Topic continuation

Learner repair While uptake has been used to refer to any learner responses following feedback, repair is a concept used to describe learners’ successful responses. The concept comes originally from the field of discourse and conversation analysis (CA) (e.g. Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1968, 1982; Schegloff et al. 1977), in which repair is used to identify how trouble areas are addressed in the course of interaction. In interaction research, the notion of repair has often been used to describe learners’ successful modifications of their original output in response to feedback in the course of interaction. For example, while Lyster and Ranta used uptake to refer to any learner responses, they used the term repair to describe instances where the learner response successfully modified the learner’s erroneous output following feedback, and used the term needs repair when the response did not

92

Interactional Feedback Dimension

successfully modify the output. Ellis et al. (2001) used the term successful uptake when the learner response resulted in successful repair, and unsuccessful uptake when it did not result in repair.

Types and degree of repair As noted above, the concept of repair comes originally from the field of discourse and CA (e.g. Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1968, 1982; Schegloff et al. 1977), in which repair is used to identify how trouble sources are addressed in the course of interaction. During conversation, repair can differ in terms of who initiates the repair and who addresses or completes the repair. Therefore, one classification of repair is based on whether it is the speaker or the listener who does so. According to this, four kinds of repair have been distinguished (e.g. Schegloff et al. 1977): self-initiated self-repair (when the speaker both initiates and completes the repair), self-initiated other-repair (when the speaker initiates the repair and the interlocutor completes it), other-initiated self-repair (when the listener initiates the repair and the speaker completes it), other-initiated other-repair (when the listener initiates and completes the repair). An example of each of these types of repair is provided in Table 5.1. In NS-NS interaction, self-initiated self-repair has been found to be more common and considered the most successful type of repair (Schegloff et al. 1977). Table 5.1  Types of repair during conversation Type of repair

Repair initiation and completion

Example

Self-initiated self-repair

Initiated and completed by the speaker

Speaker: He bought a bike, a motor bike.

Self-initiated other-repair

Initiated by the speaker but completed by the listener

Speaker: There is a kind of saw that is used to cut steel, but I don’t remember its name. Listener:  Hacksaw? Speaker:  Yeah.

Other-initiated self-repair

Initiated by the listener and completed by the speaker

Speaker:  He bought a bike. Listener:  A bike? Speaker:  A motorbike.

Other-initiated other-repair

Initiated and completed by the listener

Speaker: He added a particular herb to the dish. Listener:  Mint, I think.

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

93

In L2 interaction, other-initiated repair has been more common. In particular, in classroom contexts, since it is often the teacher who controls the classroom discourse, the teacher is often the one who prompts or initiates the repair (Nassaji and Wells 2000; Van Lier 1988). In such situations, the teacher may both initiate and complete the repair, such as in recasts, or the teacher may initiate the repair and the learner may complete it, such as in elicitations or clarification requests. In the latter case, the learner has the opportunity to self-repair. That is, he or she can selfcorrect his or her own error in response to feedback that prompts the repair. Repair can be classified not only in terms of who has initiated or completed it, but also in terms of its function. In this respect, thus, a distinction has often been made between didactic repair and conversation repair (Van Lier 1988, 188). Didactic repair takes place in activities where the main purpose is pedagogical and the attention is on the accuracy of language forms. Conversational repair takes place in naturalistic meaning-focused exchanges where the primary focus is on meaning and communication. When learners receive feedback, they may either correctly modify the entire erroneous utterance or may modify only part of the erroneous utterance. Thus, repair can also differ in terms of the degree of repair. In research on interactional feedback, the former has often been called full repair and the latter partial repair. The following from Nassaji (2007a, 529) provides examples of full versus partial repair. Example 3  Full repair Student: One of the ladies, a little girl, she wear a short . . . short . . . short skirt . . . a short skirt. Teacher: She’s wearing a short skirt? Student: Yeah, she’s wearing a short skirt. Example 4  Partial repair Student: And they . . . the . . . three people pointed her. Teacher: Three people are pointing at her. Student: Pointing her.

Learner repair has also been distinguished in terms of whether it simply repeats the correct form provided by feedback or whether it incorporates it into a longer and new utterance. In research on interactional feedback, the former has often been coded as repetition and the latter as incorporation (Examples 5 and 6, respectively).

Interactional Feedback Dimension

94 Example 5  Repetition

Student: The two guys tell the woman her wallet was stole. Teacher: Was stolen? Student: Was stolen. Example 6  Incorporation Student: The woman found a police on the street. Teacher: The woman found a police officer? Student: Yeah, and then she is telling the police officer that the girl is running away and taking her purse. (From Nassaji 2011b, 22)

Research that has examined learners’ responses to feedback has not only found differences in the nature and type of repair provided by learners to different types of feedback, but has also found that the presence or absence of repair or various types of repair may be differentially related to acquisition of the form targeted by feedback. Research in this area will be presented and examined later in the chapter.

The significance of uptake and repair As will be apparent later on, immediate uptake and repair of learners’ original utterances has been used in a number of studies as a measure of feedback effectiveness. Such measures do not indicate that the linguistic form targeted by feedback has been actually acquired. However, researchers have assumed that uptake may contribute to language learning, and it may do so in a number of ways. For example, learner uptake might indicate that learners have noticed the feedback, which has been considered essential for language acquisition. Uptake is also assumed to provide evidence for modified output. Since some learner responses may involve modification of output, these responses can show that the learner has been able to make use of and benefit from the feedback. As discussed earlier, the importance of modified output has been highlighted in the field of SLA. Swain (1996) called it “the leading edge of a learner’s interlanguage,” and thus she argued “[i]t is important that teachers attend to this ‘leading edge’ of their students’ production, as it is at this point, I would suggest, that feedback may be highly facilitative” (Swain, 100). Other benefits of uptake include helping learners practice the language, particularly when it involves self-repair. Lyster and Ranta (1997) pointed out that uptake

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

95

that involves self-repair helps in the retrieval of the target forms, and may also facilitate proceduralization or automatization of the knowledge of the target form. Uptake may play a communicative role by showing that the discourse is occurring and “that the student has the floor again” (Lyster and Ranta 1997, 47).

Studies using uptake and repair As noted earlier, many of the interactional feedback studies have been descriptive in nature. Empirical work of this type has been conducted in both classrooms and laboratory settings. These studies have examined whether and how interactional feedback occurs in these contexts and to what degree learners respond to such feedback. Samples of these studies and their key findings and conclusions will be reviewed below.

Classroom studies One of the first observational studies on interactional feedback in L2 classrooms is Chaudron (1977), which examined the use of feedback in French immersion classrooms. Chaudron’s main purposes were the identification of the various feedback types used and the degree to which learners responded to such feedback. Analyzing data from three French immersion classrooms, he found that the teachers used a variety of feedback moves, including recasting and repetition of the learner utterances with rising intonation. Among the feedback types, recasts were the most frequent feedback move. Learners were also more likely to incorporate the correction into their target language (uptake) when the teacher isolated the error and recasted the utterance with added emphasis. Chaudron’s study led to the development of a model for describing and analyzing teachers’ reactions to learner errors in L2 classrooms, and his model has been used in subsequent studies as a basis for identifying feedback and its relationship with learner uptake in L2 classrooms. Another early descriptive classroom study is Fanselow (1977), which analyzed teachers’ corrective feedback patterns in a number of ESL classrooms. The data involved videotaped classroom lessons of eleven teachers who taught the same lesson to their learners and the identification of the various feedback moves used by the teachers. Similar to Chaudron’s study, Fanselow’s results showed that the teachers used a variety of verbal and nonverbal feedback strategies to

96

Interactional Feedback Dimension

address learner errors and that they were very similar in terms of the type of errors treated. Among the feedback types, giving correct answers following an error (the recast) was the most frequent feedback type. Feedback strategies that elicited an answer from the learner were rare, and when provided, were mostly ambiguous in that the error was not clearly indicated. Among the error types, lexical errors or errors dealing with meaning received more feedback than grammatical errors. Based on these findings, Fanselow recommended that teachers should use feedback types that are more explicit and less ambiguous in nature. Following the above studies, there are a number of more recent observational studies that have examined the use of interactional feedback in classroom settings. These studies have confirmed that interactional feedback does occur in L2 classrooms and that different types of feedback lead to different degrees of student uptake. Lyster and Ranta (1997), for example, examined the occurrence of interactional feedback in four French immersion classrooms. Analyzing 18.3 hours of classroom data from fourteen subject-matter lessons, they identified six main feedback types used by the teachers. These included explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, direct elicitation, and repetition of the learner’s error. Among the feedback types, recasts were the most frequent type (55 percent), followed by elicitation (14  percent), clarification  requests (11 percent), metalinguistic feedback (8  percent), explicit correction (7  percent) and repetition (5 percent). As for learner uptake, it occurred in response to 55 percent of the feedback moves. Of all uptake moves noted, only about one-third (27 percent) resulted in successful repair. Although recasts were the most frequent type of feedback, they led to the least amount of uptake (31 percent of the time, only 18 percent of which was successful repair). Elicitation was the most successful type of feedback in terms of learner repair (46 percent), followed by metalinguistic feedback (45 percent), explicit correction (36 percent), repetition (31 percent) and clarification requests (28 percent). An important conclusion of Lyster and Ranta’s study was that interactional feedback occurred in content-based classrooms and that none of the feedback types disrupted the communicative flow in the classroom. Thus, the authors suggested that it is possible to provide feedback in ways that maintain the communicative flow of interaction. Another conclusion was that among the feedback types, elicitation and metalinguistic feedback types were more effective than recasts in terms of learner uptake and repair. Thus, they recommended that

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

97

instead of providing feedback that gives students the correct answer, teachers should try to use feedback that elicits the correct form. Panova and Lyster (2002) examined the occurrence of interactional feedback and its relationship with learner uptake in an adult ESL classroom. They used the same model of error treatment sequences as used in Lyster and Ranta to classify feedback types. Analyzing 10 hours of classroom interaction, they identified seven feedback types used by the teachers, including recasts, translation, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitations, explicit correction, and repetition. The use and distributions of feedback types were very comparable to those identified by Lyster and Ranta (1997). They found that about 50 percent of learner erroneous utterances received some kind of feedback. Among the feedback types, recasts were the most frequent feedback move (55  percent), while explicit correction (2 percent) and repetition (1 percent) were the least frequent ones. The overall level of repair was very low. Altogether, less than 10 percent of errors were repaired after feedback. The highest rates of uptake were associated with clarification requests, elicitation, and repetition. The lowest rates of repair were associated with recasts, translation, and explicit correction. From these findings, Panova and Lyster recommended that teachers should use different types of feedback as opposed to only one type. Following these studies, several other recent studies have examined how teachers provide feedback in classroom contexts. Ellis et al. (2001), for example, conducted a study in an adult ESL context in New Zealand. The data consisted of 12 hours of audio-recorded student-teacher classroom interaction and explored the types of feedback as well as the degree of uptake following feedback. Like Lyster and Ranta’s study, Ellis et al. found that recasts were the most frequent feedback type. However, unlike Lyster and Ranta’s study, they also found a very high rate of successful uptake following recasts, with 71.6 percent of all recasts resulting in uptake, of which 76.3 percent was successful. Ellis et al. attributed these differences in uptake partly to differences in the instructional contexts in which the two studies were conducted. Lyster and Ranta’s research was conducted in content-based French immersion classrooms with young learners. Ellis et al.’s study was in a private intensive ESL program with adult learners, most of whom were highly motivated to improve their English. Based on these findings, they suggested, “teachers need not be so wary of using recasts to correct errors” (Ellis et al., 314). Sheen (2004) examined interactional feedback in a Korean EFL context and also compared the frequency of both uptake and repair with that found in three

98

Interactional Feedback Dimension

other instructional contexts: Lyster and Ranta’s French immersion context, Panova and Lyster’s Canadian ESL context, and Ellis et al.’s New Zealand ESL context. She found that the rates of uptake and repair following recasts were greater in the New Zealand ESL and the Korean EFL contexts than in the Canadian ESL and the French immersion contexts. The results of Sheen’s study highlighted the importance of instructional context in influencing the effectiveness of interactional feedback with respect to learner uptake and repair. Lochtman (2002) explored the role of different types of oral corrective feedback in a foreign language context. The study looked at German taught as a foreign language in Flanders, Belgium. The results demonstrated frequent use of metalinguistic feedback and elicitations, which reflects the form-focusedness of the instructional context. Recasts were less frequent, but resulted in more correct uptake. In total, the amount of correct uptake for both elicitations (what the researcher called cluing) and recasts was the same. This study suggests that the two correction strategies are effective, but function differently. The recasts were effective for item learning while elicitations were for rule learning. Another study, Havranek (2002), also examined the use of feedback in a foreign language context in Austria. The study involved 207 EFL learners at different ages and proficiency levels. The study showed that learners received 1,700 instances of interactional feedback on their erroneous utterances in these classrooms; about half of these feedback moves were recasts (47 percent). Nabei and Swain (2002) investigated the occurrence of recasts in an EFL classroom in Japan and found a very infrequent occurrence of recasts in the classroom they investigated. Of the 420 minutes of data they recorded, there were only twenty-five episodes in which errors had been treated. A few conclusions can be drawn from the above classroom studies. One is that interactional feedback occurs in second language classrooms. Furthermore, among feedback types recasts occur most frequently; however, the occurrence of different feedback types may not be the same in all contexts and can differ considerably from context to context. There can even be variation in terms of feedback provision in the same school or instructional setting. Loewen (2003), for example, examining twelve ESL classes in New Zealand, found significant variations in frequency and characteristics of incidental feedback across these classes. As for feedback effectiveness, in general, feedback moves that prompt the learner to self-repair, such as elicitations, may result in a greater degree of uptake than recasts that provide the learner with the  correct form. However, this may also vary depending on the nature of the instructional setting. As noted, recasts have often been

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

99

found to be more effective in contexts that are more form focused (such as many EFL contexts) than content based, or immersion classrooms where the focus is more on message and communication.

Outside classroom studies Observational research of interactional feedback has also been carried out outside classroom contexts. This research has examined feedback both in naturalistic NS-NNS interaction and also in dyadic situations in laboratory settings where interaction is elicited from the learners using communicative tasks. One of the earliest studies of interactional feedback outside a classroom context is Pica et al. (1989), which examined the interaction between ten NS-NNS dyads who participated in task-based interactions. The study found that when learners experienced difficulty in expressing their meanings, the NS provided feedback in the form of reformulation that checked for confirmation and clarification requests that queried learners’ production, and that these two types of feedback occurred very frequently (over two-thirds of the time) across all tasks. The study also found that the NNSs frequently modified their utterances in response to feedback and that the nature of the NS’s feedback had a significant effect on the extent to which learners modified their output following feedback. Learners were more likely to modify their output in response to clarification requests than reformulations. Another early study is Chun et al. (1982), which investigated the occurrence of interactional feedback in free conversations between NNS and NS friends. Chun et al. found that only 8.9 percent of the learners’ errors received feedback in such settings. But feedback occurred in response to different types of errors, including grammatical, syntactic, vocabulary, and even discourse errors. In their analysis they found vocabulary and discourse errors received more feedback than grammar errors, which suggests that attention should be paid to such errors in L2 classrooms (see the next chapter for factors affecting feedback). The results of a number of other early studies, which have been discussed in many reviews of interaction research, have also shown that interactional feedback does exist in native-nonnative speaker interaction, and it does help learners modify their output in response to such feedback (Gass and Varonis 1989; Long 1981, 1983a, 1983b, 1985; Pica 1988). A number of more recent descriptive studies of interactional feedback have also examined the use and effectiveness of feedback outside classroom contexts. Oliver (1995) examined interactional feedback and learner responses following feedback among NS-NNS children. The participants worked in pairs on both a

100

Interactional Feedback Dimension

uni- and bi-directional communication task. The study found that NSs provided NNSs with interactional feedback by responding to their grammatical problems. Analysis of the data further showed that NSs provided feedback in the form of two types of interactional feedback: negotiation strategies such as repetition, clarification requests, and comprehension checks, and recasts. The NNSs received interactional feedback on more than a third (61 percent) of their erroneous utterances and were also shown to benefit from such feedback by modifying their original output in response to feedback For example, more than one-third of the exchanges that involved recasts led to uptake and repair when the learners had the opportunity to respond. In another study, Oliver (2000) compared the use and provision of interactional feedback (recasts and negotiations) among ESL children and adults in both classroom and dyadic interactions. The transcription of the learners’ interaction showed all the NNSs received interactional feedback regardless of their age and that they received it in response to a high proportion of their nontargetlike utterances. An examination of learners’ responses to feedback showed that learners repaired between 21 percent and 33 percent of their erroneous output following feedback, with no difference being found between adults and children in the rate of uptake (see also Oliver 2002). Braidi (2002) conducted an observational study on the use of recasts in adult NS-NNS interactions. The focus of the study was on different types of negotiation and its interaction with different levels of grammaticality in dyadic interaction. The study involved ten NNSs randomly paired with ten adult NSs, interacting using a series of two-way and one-way communicative tasks. The focus was on the existence of recasts in three types of negotiations: one-signal, extended, and nonnegotiated interactions. Thus, the interaction data were transcribed and categorized into these different interactional patterns. One-signal negotiation was when meaning was negotiated using only one signal of incomprehensibly; extended negotiation exchanges referred to when negotiation was achieved through multiple signals of incomprehensibility; and nonnegotiated interactions did not include signals of comprehensibility. Interactional exchanges were also coded into their components, including the NNS initial turn, NS feedback, and NNS response to feedback. The study found that recasts were used in response to 15.45 percent of NNSs’ erroneous utterances and that they occurred in all of the three types of negotiations. Recasts also led to successful uptake (incorporation of recasts). The percentage of uptake was 9.5 percent in response to all recasts, but 34.21 percent in response to recasts that provided opportunities for uptake. Braidi’s study confirms that interactional feedback does occur in NS-NNS interaction in nonclassroom settings. However, it also shows that feedback such

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

101

as recasts may occur in different negotiation patterns and that these different interactional formats may affect their occurrence and usefulness. In a series of analyses, Nassaji (2007a, 2007b, 2011b) examined both recasts and elicitations in terms of how they were provided in dyadic interactions and the extent to which they were used with other negotiation prompts. Participants were forty-two adult intermediate-level ESL students and two teachers who participated in task-based interaction. Nassaji (2007a) identified six different types of recasts and five different types of elicitation, which differed from one another in terms of the degree to which they were used. The results revealed that both recasts and elicitations led to higher rates of repair when they were used in combination with other more explicit prompts than with less or no explicit prompts. The findings supported the importance of enhancing the salience of interactional feedback in L2 interactions, and suggested that the role of these strategies should always be considered in light of the degree to which they co-occur with other forms of feedback in interaction. In another analysis of the data, Nassaji (2007b) distinguished three types of recasts. Depending on whether or not the recasts were provided with any additional intonational or verbal prompts, the recasts were categorized into unenhanced recasts, intonationally enhanced recasts, and verbally enhanced recasts. Unenhanced recasts were recasts that reformulated the learner’s erroneous utterance in a declarative form and with no intonational or verbal prompts. This type of recast was mainly used to either acknowledge the receipt of the message or to confirm message comprehensibility. Intonationally enhanced recasts reformulated the learner’s erroneous utterance with additional intonational prompts such as word stress and rising intonation. Verbally enhanced recasts reformulated the learner’s erroneous utterance in conjunction with more explicit verbal prompts such as Do you mean . . .?, Is that what you mean?, etc. About one-third (34 percent) of the total recasts led to successful repair, while two thirds led to no repair. However, of the three types of recasts, unenhanced recasts (i.e. recasts without prompts) led to the lowest rate of successful repair (10 percent). When the recasts were enhanced with intonational prompts, the rate of successful repair increased to 41 percent, and when they were enhanced with verbal prompts the rate increased to 62 percent. As for the nature of repair, most of them involved repetition of the recast, with fewer involving incorporation of the feedback into new utterances. Table 5.2 shows the two types of learner responses that were identified in the study, with examples. There are also a number of other descriptive feedback studies in laboratory contexts (e.g. Mackey et al. 2000; Mackey et al. 2003; McDonough and Mackey 2006;

102

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Table 5.2  Types of learner responses following recasts

Repair

Type of response

Example

1. Repetition of feedback

S:  Skipping, running, the thief. T:  She was running away. S:  Yeah running away.

2. Incorporation of feedback

S:  There was a boy witness see the whole thing. T:  A boy that saw the whole thing? S: Yeah the boy saw the whole thing and he pointed to the girl before it was too late.

Polio et al. 2006). Since the focus of these studies have been more on factors mediating the role of feedback or learners’ perception of feedback, we will discuss them in subsequent chapters. Overall, studies conducted outside the classroom have confirmed that interactional feedback also occurs in such contexts and that among these feedback types recasts may occur most frequently. They also suggest that the information provided in feedback may be used by the learner to repair their erroneous utterances. Some of these studies have even shown that the degree of learner uptake and successful repair following feedback in such contexts is even greater than in meaning-focused classroom contexts, which might be because of the more focused nature of the feedback in laboratory settings. In such contexts interaction takes place in a one-on-one dyadic format. Therefore, students may pay more attention to the interlocutor’s feedback and in turn may be better able to recognize the corrective force of the feedback than in communicative meaning-focused classrooms, in which a learner’s attention may be more focused on meaning, and most of the feedback usually takes place in a teacherfronted format.

Covert uptake (private speech) In classroom settings, interactional feedback may result not only in observable uptake in the form of overt responses to feedback, but also in the form of covert uptake or what can be called private speech. Private speech is a concept that comes from the Vygotskian sociocultural perspective, in which language does not only have a social interpersonal function whereby learners use the language to communicate with each other, but also a private intrapersonal

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

103

function in which learners interact with selves. This self-directed talk is called private speech. Ohta (2000, 2001) examined the use of private speech in reaction to recasts in L2 Japanese classrooms. In her study, she defined private speech as “oral language addressed by the student to himself or herself ” (Ohta, 52). Her data consisted of transcripts of audio-recorded data (34 hours) collected from ten learners of Japanese as a foreign language by means of individual microphones attached to learners in the classroom. Corrective feedback involved teacher responses to learners’ nontargetlike utterances, including recasts. Ohta found many examples of private uptake in response to recasts. The characteristics of such uptake included reduced volume and individual learner responses within a choral context. The following provides an example of such covert uptake. In this example, the student (K) has made an error (Line 2) in negating the adjectival noun hima (having free time) in response to the teacher’s query (Line 1). The teacher has reformulated the error by recasting it (Line 3) and the student has responded by repeating the recast (Line 4). A second student (C) has also repeated the recast silently in Line 5, which signifies covert or private uptake. Example 7 1 T: Kon shuumatsu hima desu ka? Kim san This weekend are you free? Kim 2 K: Um (..) iie (.) um (.) uh:: (.) hima- (.) hima: (.) hima nai Um (. . .) no (.) um (.) uh:: (.) not (.) not (.) not free ((ERROR—“hima nai”)) 3 T: Hima ja ^ arimasen

← Recast

“you’re not free” ((corrects form to “Hima ja arimasen”)) 4 K: Oh ja arim (asen

← Uptake

Oh cop neg 5 C: [“hima ja^ arimasen”

← Private uptake

“not free” ((correct form)) (Ohta 2000, 60)

Ohta found many instances of such uptake with both the same learners receiving the feedback (addressees) and also the learners who were not directly addressed

104

Interactional Feedback Dimension

by the teacher (auditors). However, she found that learners produced private responses most often when they were auditors rather than addressees. These results are significant in a number of ways. First, it shows that individual learners are able to privately and meaningfully engage in classroom events and benefit from feedback. Second, learners may notice and respond to feedback even when they are not addressed by the teacher or when they do not verbally participate in the interaction. This suggests that when interactional feedback occurs in the classroom it can be beneficial to those who receive the feedback and also to those who observe the feedback.

Concerns about uptake In general, descriptive studies of feedback have confirmed that interactional feedback occurs in various instructional and dyadic settings that involve meaning-focused interaction and that they also lead to students’ uptake and successful repair, although in different degrees depending on the type of feedback and its context. However, although uptake has been widely observed in interactional feedback studies, researchers have questioned the use of uptake as a valid measure of language acquisition, arguing that the presence of uptake does not necessarily indicate that any acquisition has taken place. Uptake may indicate that the learners have noticed the feedback, but it does not indicate that they have learned from it or even processed it. Even successful uptake (repair) may not indicate that language acquisition has taken place. It is quite possible that such repair may simply be the result of a mechanical repetition of the teacher’s feedback (Mackey and Philp 1998). Even the absence of uptake cannot be taken as evidence that the learner has not noticed the feedback or has not learned from it. It is likely that the student has noticed the feedback or has even learned from it, but has chosen not to respond. This was shown in Mackey and Philp’s (1998) study, which found that L2 learners developed their knowledge of L2 question formation as a result of feedback even in cases where they did not show any evidence of immediate uptake. This led the researchers to conclude that learners’ immediate responses may in fact be “red herrings” (Mackey and Philp, 338). The absence of uptake may also be the result of a lack of opportunity for uptake. This was shown in a study by Oliver (2000), who found a low rate of uptake in adult and child ESL classrooms, wherein further analysis of the data showed that in about one third of the cases learners did not have an opportunity for uptake. This was because the teacher simply continued with the message without giving students a chance to respond.

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

105

The relationship between uptake and learning Given the question about the role of uptake, researchers have empirically examined whether and to what extent the presence of uptakes relates to the acquisition of the targeted form. There are a number of possibilities here. One is that learner responses to feedback may not contribute to language acquisition, and if a feedback exchange contributes to subsequent learning, it may be simply because of the feedback itself rather than the learner response to feedback. Another possibility is that when learners receive feedback and they repair their erroneous utterance, the immediate repair may contribute to language acquisition, because uptake represents modified output and that modified output contributes to language acquisition. Uptake may also contribute through raising learners’ awareness to their interlanguage gaps. A third possibility is that uptake alone may not contribute to learning, but the combination of both feedback and uptake may. One of the earlier studies that examined the role of learner uptake is a smallscale study by Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993) that investigated whether feedback in the context of focused communicative tasks would promote accurate repair of the learner’s output and whether gains were maintained over time. Focused tasks were defined as tasks that made the target structure prominent while the main focus was on meaning. The study examined the effects of self-repair following clarification requests. The target structure was the English past tense, and learners were six Japanese ESL students who participated in dyadic taskbased interactions with a native speaker interlocutor. Three of the learners received clarification requests in response to their errors and the other three served as a control group receiving no feedback. The results showed that two of the three learners who received clarification requests were able to modify their output 44 percent and 64 percent of the time, respectively, in response to the feedback, suggesting that such feedback helped learners recognize and correct their errors. The following, which shows an interactional exchange between one of these students and the teacher, provides an example of such error recognition and correction. Here, the student has produced an erroneous sentence by using the verb pass incorrectly. The teacher has asked for clarification, and the learner has responded with the correct form. Example 8 Learner: He pass his house. Teacher: Uh? Learner: He passed, he passed, ah, his sign. (Nobuyoshi and Ellis 1993, 205)

106

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Nobuyoshi and Ellis also found some support for the role of learner repair. They found that two of the learners in the feedback group who successfully repaired their errors also showed greater accuracy in the use of the past tense in subsequent tasks than the learners in the control group. This suggested that the modified output following feedback could have an important influence on L2 learning. McDonough (2005) examined the relationship between learners’ responses to clarification requests and learning question formation among Thai learners of English. The effects of two variables were examined: salience of feedback and the production of modified output. Learners’ degree of modified output in response to different types of feedback was then related to their posttest data. The results showed that the production of modified output following feedback was the only significant predictor of the development of question formation among these learners. This finding confirmed the importance of the production of modified output following feedback as a factor that increases the effectiveness of feedback. Mackey and Philp (1998) addressed the relationship between uptake and language learning when learners received intensive recasts. The participants were five native speakers and thirty-five adult nonnative speakers of English who participated in dyadic interaction. The focus of the study was on the development of English question formation. The researchers compared the performance of learners who participated in interaction that involved recasts with those who participated in interaction that contained no recasts. They found that interaction with recasts was more beneficial, particularly for more advanced learners, than interaction without recasts in promoting learners’ ability to produce higher-level morphosyntactic forms. However, no relationship was found between modified output (uptake) and language development; learners developed their knowledge of question formation despite producing very little modified output following recasts (5 percent). Thus, these results were different from McDonough’s study, which found a significant relationship between modified output and the development of question formation. One possible reason for this discrepancy could be the difference in the type of feedback. McDonough examined modified output following elicitation, whereas Mackey and Philp examined modified output following recasts. Thus, in McDonough’s study uptake consisted of learners’ self-correction of their errors. In Mackey and Philp, it consisted of the learners’ repetition of teachers’ recasts. It is possible that responses that involve self-repair promote more learning than those that simply repeat the feedback. More recently, Nassaji (2011) explored this possibility by examining and comparing the relationship between the types of repair, that is, learner self-repair

Feedback Provision and Learner Uptake: Descriptive Research

107

following elicitations and learner repair following recasts. Participants were forty-two adult ESL learners interacting with two native speaker teachers. The degree of each kind of repair following each feedback type during interaction was examined and then compared to the degree of post-interaction correction of the same error immediately after interaction, and also after two weeks. The results showed that learners who repaired their errors during interaction corrected the same error about two thirds of the time immediately after interaction. This was true for both self-repair after elicitations and teacher-generated repair after recasts. However, in the delayed post-interaction correction, learners corrected a higher percentage of the errors when repair consisted of self-repair after elicitations than teacher-generated repair after recasts. Thus, whereas the effects of self-repair were maintained, the effects of teacher-generated repair were reduced over time, particularly when the repair involved repetition rather than incorporation. In sum, the findings of the above studies suggest that uptake in the form of repair and modified output following feedback does contribute to language learning. They also suggest that the facilitative role of repair or modified output is mediated by both the type of feedback and the nature of repair; that is, whether the repair is self-repair following elicitations versus teacher-generated repair following recasts and also whether the repair involves repetition of the feedback versus incorporation of the feedback into new utterances.

Conclusion In this chapter, we provided an overview of some of the key descriptive studies that have investigated the role of interactional feedback in both classroom and nonclassroom settings. As noted earlier, the aim of such research has been to identify whether and how feedback occurs during L2 interaction and also to what extent learners respond to such feedback. In the next chapter, we will review experimental research that has examined more directly the relationship between feedback and learning.

Questions for discussion 1. What are some of key points in the chapter that helped you better understand the role of feedback in language classrooms? 2. What do you know more now about the role of interactional feedback that you did not know before?

108

Interactional Feedback Dimension

3. What is observational research and how useful is this kind of research in exploring the role of feedback? 4. Do you agree with the definition of uptake used in interactional feedback research? If not, how would you define uptake? 5. What are some of the issues and concerns about uptake defined as learner responses to feedback? 6. What is covert uptake and do you think it makes any contribution to language learning?

6

Feedback Effects on Learning: Experimental and Other Pretest-Posttest Studies

Objectives ●●

●●

●●

●●

Review and examine samples of key experimental studies that have investigated the relationship between feedback and learning. Discuss the conclusions and implications of these studies. Describe shortcomings and limitations of experimental research. Review and examine other pretest-posttest studies.

Introduction Chapter 5 reviewed observational (descriptive) studies of interactional feedback whose aim was to document how feedback occurs in interactional contexts and how learners respond to feedback. Although observational research provides evidence for the frequency of different types of feedback and learners’ responses to feedback, this research is not able to show the efficacy of feedback for L2 development. As discussed earlier, in these studies the usefulness of feedback has often been measured in terms of learners’ immediate reaction to feedback, called uptake. Although uptake may show that learners have noticed the feedback, it cannot provide direct evidence for learning. In addition, due to its lack of control, observational research is not able to show how interactional feedback affects learning, what aspects of feedback is responsible for acquisition, and how various feedback factors and other processes interact and impact learning. In order to be able to address these questions, researchers have used research designs that are more systematic and controlled in nature. This chapter provides an overview of this kind of research and other related studies in this area.

110

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Experimental research Experimental research is research in which the researcher systematically manipulates variables under controlled conditions in order to test the effect of one or more variables on other variables. In this design, an intervention or treatment is deliberately introduced, whose outcomes are then measured. Experimental research usually compares an experimental group (the group that receives the treatment) with a control group (the group that does not receive the treatment). The effect of the treatment is then measured using pretests and posttests. The pretest measures the learners’ knowledge before the treatment and the posttest measures the learners’ knowledge after the treatment. The test results are then compared between the experimental and the control group. This comparison can show whether or not the learners have acquired the target features as a result of the treatment. In experimental research, participants are randomly assigned to different groups. However, this characteristic of research is not always possible to follow, particularly when the research is conducted in classroom contexts. Due to the difficulty of random assignment of students to groups in classroom research, many of the experimental studies in classroom settings follow what is called a quasi-experimental research design, in which learners come from intact classes. In feedback studies, the goal of experimental research has been to determine the effects of feedback on learning and also the extent to which these effects are mediated by other factors. To address these issues, a specific type of feedback is often selected and its effects are measured on specific target structures, which are elicited through the use of various communicative tasks. By manipulating the kind of feedback learners receive, the type of target structure, the task, and outcome measures, the researcher is able to test the effects of these different variables. In the following sections, we will review samples of key studies in this area. In this chapter, the focus will be on studies that have examined the effects of feedback on learning in general. We will examine studies that have compared different feedback types and also those focused on the role of various factors mediating the effects of feedback in subsequent chapters.

Experimental research of feedback There are a growing number of experimental studies that have investigated the effectiveness of feedback and these studies have been conducted in both

Feedback Effects on Learning

111

classroom and laboratory settings. As noted above, to measure the effectiveness of feedback, these studies have gone beyond uptake and instead have used various pretest-posttest measures. In this kind of research, usually a particular type of feedback is selected and its effects are measured on the learning of some preselected forms. In general, evidence from these studies has indicated a facilitative effect of feedback on L2 learning, though there are also cases where the results are quite mixed.

Experimental studies in classroom settings One of the first experimental classroom studies on feedback is Dekeyser (1993), which investigated the effects of feedback during oral communicative activities in two second language classrooms. Participants were thirty-five Dutch high school senior students learning French as a second language in these classes. One of the classes served as a treatment group in which students received frequent feedback on their erroneous utterances during communicative activities over a period of one school year, and the other one served as the control group in which students did not receive feedback. In his study, DeKeyser also examined four other variables: (a) previous achievement, (b) grammatical sensitivity, (c) extrinsic motivation, and (d) anxiety. Participants’ fluency and accuracy in oral production as well as their written grammar were measured twice—once at the beginning and again at the end of the school year. The results showed no overall effect of feedback on increasing learners’ proficiency but the analysis further found that the effects of feedback interacted with learner characteristics such as level of motivation and anxiety. Based on these findings, the author concluded that error correction may have beneficial effects on learning some grammatical features but that these effects interact with individual learner differences, with some learners benefiting more from feedback than others. Another study examining the effectiveness of interactional feedback in classroom settings using an experimental research design is Doughty and Varela’s (1998) study on recasts. Using pretest-posttest measures and a quasi-experimental design with intact groups, the researchers investigated the effects of corrective recasting on learning English past tense (simple past and conditional past tense). Two content-based science classes participated in the study. One of the classes was used as an experimental class, receiving corrective feedback in the form of corrective recasts on their oral and written production of the past tense; the other class was used as a control group, receiving no recasts. Corrective recasts were provided in the form of repetition of the learner’s erroneous utterance, with rising

112

Interactional Feedback Dimension

intonation followed by a recast containing the correct form with added stress, as in Example 1. Both classes completed six science experiment reports. The results of the first report were used as a pretest and those of the fifth and the sixth as posttests and delayed posttests, respectively. The study found that students who received recasts outperformed, in both accuracy and use of the target form, those who did not receive recasts, particularly on the immediate posttest. Example 1 L: I think that the worm will go under the soil. T: I think that the worm will go under the soil? L: (no response) T: I thought that the worm would go under the soil. L: I thought that the worm would go under the soil.

Lyster (2004) investigated the differential effects of recasts and prompts (elicitations) in combination with form-focused instruction (FFI). The data were collected from 179 learners in a grade five content-based French immersion classroom. The focus was on learning and accurately assigning grammatical gender in French over a five-week treatment session. Teachers were asked to provide recasts, prompts or no feedback. Using written and oral pretests, posttests and delayed posttests, Lyster found an overall advantage for feedback. He also found that the group receiving prompts with FFI significantly outperformed the group receiving recasts with FFI. Based on these results, Lyster concluded that in comparison to other types of feedback, recasts “are not necessarily the most effective type of feedback in communicatively oriented classrooms” (Lyster, 428). Lyster’s findings are different from Doughty and Varela’s findings, which showed recasts used in content-based communicative classrooms had a significant effect on students’ accuracy of the targeted form as measured by oral and written tests. One reason for this could be that the recast treatment in Doughty and Varela was a combination of recasts and repetition. This could have made recasts more explicit and hence more noticeable by learners as corrective feedback. Another reason could be that in Lyster’s study, the feedback was used in combination with form-focused instruction, so it is not clear whether the effects shown are because of the feedback alone or its combination with formfocused instruction. Furthermore, while the recasts were provided in implicit forms, prompts included very explicit forms of elicitation strategies such as How do we say that in French? and metalinguistic cues.

Feedback Effects on Learning

113

Muranoi (2000) employed an experimental research design to examine the effects of interaction enhancement (IE) (interaction is enhanced through instructor feedback) in a communicative classroom to investigate the effects of IE on the acquisition of English articles. The questions pursued in the study involved how two different types of IE (implicit feedback plus formal debriefing or implicit feedback plus meaning-focused debriefing) affect the development of a learner’s interlanguage. The major findings included: IE had positive longterm effects on the acquisition of the target structure (English article use); IE with formal debriefing (i.e. explicit grammar explanation) was found to be more effective than IE with a meaning-focused debriefing (i.e. no explicit grammar explanation); and both types outperformed the control group. These findings suggest that recasts may be effective in classroom settings if they are salient enough to draw learners’ attention to form.

Experimental laboratory studies As noted above, most of the experimental studies of feedback have been conducted outside the classroom context, in laboratory settings. These studies have usually examined the use and effectiveness of feedback in dyadic interactions between the learner and the researcher or another interlocutor using various forms of communicative tasks. One of the issues in experimental feedback research is whether interaction that involves feedback facilitates language development. Mackey and Philp (1998) is one such study that examined the effects of recasts on L2 learners’ development of question formation by comparing the performance of L2 learners who received interactionally modified input with those who received intensive recasts. The participants were five native speakers and thirtyfive nonnative speakers of English who participated in dyadic interactions. The research compared the performance of groups of learners who participated in interaction that contained intensive recasts with that of those who participated in interaction that contained no recasts. Using a pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest design, they found that interaction with intensive recasts was more beneficial, particularly for more advanced learners than interaction without recasts. Advanced learners who received recasts produced developmentally higher-level questions than those who did not receive recasts. The study thus suggests that recasts can be an effective strategy, particularly for more advancedlevel learners. Another experimental study in the laboratory context is by Han (2002), who also attempted to investigate the role of recasts. The focus was on the effect of

114

Interactional Feedback Dimension

feedback on the acquisition of tense consistency in ESL learners’ oral and written production. Two groups of four adult ESL learners of English participated in the research, with one group receiving recasts and the other group receiving no recasts. Using a pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest design, the researcher found that the recast group outperformed the control group on the ability to maintain a consistent verb tense in both oral and written tasks. From the results, Han identified four conditions that she argued are essential for recasts to aid in learning and promoting learner awareness. These included individualized attention, consistent focus, developmental readiness, and intensity. Han also noted that recasts “act more favorably on linguistic forms that are in the process of being proceduralized than on forms that are at the onset of developing knowledge” (Han, 552). Similar findings were also reported by Ishida (2004), which examined the effects of intensive recasts on Japanese morphology, that is, Japanese aspectual form -te i-(ru). Ishida investigated both the short- and long-term effects of recasts on learners’ production accuracy. Participants were four college-level learners who interacted with the researcher in eight conversational sessions. The researcher provided recasts on their nontargetlike utterances during four of the sessions. Intensive recasts were found to positively affect both short- and long-term accuracy, particularly for the resultative use of the target form rather than its progressive form. Although the small number of participants did not allow for the results to be generalizable, Ishida’s study supports the positive effects of recasts when they are provided frequently enough on linguistic forms of which the learners have some previous knowledge. In another, more recent experimental study with Japanese EFL learners, Saito and Lyster (2011) examined the effectiveness of recasts in conjunction with form-focused instruction for the acquisition of the pronunciation of English /ɹ/. The results of pretest-posttest measures showed that those who received recasts benefited significantly from recasts in improving the accuracy of the target structure. Experimental laboratory studies have also examined the effects of other feedback types such as clarification requests (McDonough 2005; Nobuyoshi and Ellis 1993). Although clarification requests do not provide the correct form, they are believed to provide learners with important sources of negative evidence and also opportunities to notice and pay attention to the target form. Clarification requests also provide opportunities for modified output by pushing the learners to revise their erroneous utterance. McDonough (2005), for example, addressed the role of clarification requests by examining the effect of feedback

Feedback Effects on Learning

115

on the development of English question formation, in which development was operationalized using Pienemann and Johnston’s (1987) developmental hierarchy. The study involved communicative tasks performed between native and nonnative English speakers in four different feedback-output conditions: (a) enhanced opportunity to modify, in which feedback was provided in the form of repetition followed by clarification requests; (b) opportunity to modify, in which the clarification request was provided without repetition; (c) feedback without opportunity to modify, in which feedback was provided in the form of repetition followed immediately by the native speakers’ topic continuation, thus giving learners no opportunity to modify their initial utterance; and (d) a control with no feedback. Examples of feedback in each condition from McDonough (2005) are provided below. Example 2  Enhanced opportunity to modify Learner: What angel doing in this situation? NS: What angel doing? Huh? Learner: What is angel doing? Example 3  Opportunity to modify Learner: What happen for the boat? NS: What? Learner: What’s wrong with the boat? Example 4  Feedback without opportunity to modify Learner: What we do with it? NS: What we do? Uh let’s see well we could talk about the purpose if you want. Example 5  No feedback Learner: Where you going the last holiday? NS: To Laos.

Results indicated that modified output following clarification requests was the only variable that predicted learner development in question formation. These findings suggest that clarification requests themselves may not be sufficient for learning and that the modification of output following such feedback is necessary for language development. Laboratory studies of feedback have also examined what aspect of feedback may be responsible for the beneficial effect of feedback. Leeman (2003), for

116

Interactional Feedback Dimension

example, provided a detailed analysis of the beneficial role of recasts among L2 Spanish learners. In addition to whether recasts assist language acquisition, the study addressed what kind of information in recasts is responsible for their beneficial effects, if any. As noted earlier, recasts may provide learners with both positive and negative evidence. The study also hypothesized that recasts provide positive evidence in a salient manner. The study attempted to methodologically tease apart these different components of recasts. The target structure was nounadjective agreement, including both gender and number agreement. Seventy-four beginner-level learners of Spanish participated in the study. They were divided into four groups, each receiving a particular type of feedback. One group received recasts, which was assumed to provide opportunities for both negative and enhanced positive evidence. Another group received negative feedback in the form of interrogative repetitions of their error. A third group received feedback in the form of phonologically enhanced models of the correct form, which was taken to provide enhanced positive evidence only. A fourth group was the control group, receiving unenhanced models of the targetlike forms. To determine learning, the study used a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest on the target structure. The study found that the recast group and the group that received enhanced positive evidence outperformed the control group. However, the group who received feedback in the form of interrogative repetitions (negative feedback only) did not outperform the control group. Based on these findings, the author concluded that the usefulness of recasts is not necessarily because recasts provide opportunities for negative evidence but because they enhance the salience of positive evidence. Although in Leeman’s study the effect of recasts was found to be due to the positive evidence provided by recasts, some other studies that have compared recasts with positive models have not shown similar advantages for positive evidence. Long et al. (1998), for example, conducted two experiments to investigate the role of recasts versus modeling the correct form among Japanese and Spanish learners. The first one involved twenty-four young adult learners of Japanese and the second thirty young adult Spanish learners. The target forms in Spanish were object topicalization and adverb placement, and those in Japanese were ordering of adjectives and locative constructions. Recasts were defined as utterances that reformulated the target structure after the learners produced the structure and models as those that provided the learners with the target structure (preemptively) or before they produced it. The study found mixed results. Using

Feedback Effects on Learning

117

a pretest, posttest, and control group design, it found that the Spanish learners who received recasts on their adverb placement outperformed those who received models, but not those who received recasts on object topicalization. The Japanese learners who received recasts did not show improvement on either target form. The findings of Long et al.’s study suggest that the effectiveness of recasts may differ depending on the nature of the target structure, but it also suggests that different learners may benefit differently from the same kind of feedback. Of course, as the author also pointed out, there are a few other factors that could have contributed to the discrepancy of the results, including not controlling for the effects of learners’ prior knowledge, not taking into account the learnability of target structures and the peculiarity of the modeling condition, in that it was different from the way learners are exposed to correct models of the language in a naturalistic setting.

Summary and conclusions from experimental classroom and laboratory studies In summary, experimental pretest-posttest studies from both classroom and laboratory settings have contributed significantly to our understanding of the relationship between interactional feedback and L2 acquisition by examining the effects of such feedback more directly than observational research that focuses on uptake. In general, the findings suggest that feedback has a positive effect on learning. In addition, they suggest that the usefulness of feedback may be strongly influenced by the condition in which feedback is provided and the corrective force of feedback. For example, compared to some of the observational classroom studies reviewed earlier that showed recasts are not necessarily a useful strategy in encouraging uptake, experimental studies using dyadic interactions and targeting certain target structures have shown a significantly more positive role for this kind of feedback. This suggests that interactional feedback is more likely to be successful if the learner participates in interaction in which there is more individualized attention to form than whole-class interaction. Of course, as noted above, the results of experimental studies are not uniform either. For example, while some such as Lyster’s (2004) experimental study showed that recasts are not very effective, others such as Doughty and Varela (1998) and Mackey and Philp (1998) found a significantly more positive role for recasts. These discrepancies suggest that the relationship between feedback and learning is complex and may vary depending on a number of factors, including

118

Interactional Feedback Dimension

not only the type and nature of feedback (as well as the focus and intensity of the feedback), but also the type of target form, context, learners’ characteristics, and the types of outcome measures used. We will discuss the various factors influencing feedback and studies that have examined their effects in more detail in subsequent chapters.

Limitations of experimental studies Although experimental studies provide an important means of studying the effects of feedback and its relationship with learning, they are not without limitations. One limitation is that most of these studies, particularly those in classroom contexts, have focused mainly on the changes in the pretest and posttest scores with much less concern for the details of the instructional processes occurring in the classroom. This makes it difficult to determine the exact procedures that have been responsible for the changes in the outcome. Such research also tells us little about how individual learners use the feedback and why feedback results in positive or negative outcomes for each learner. Furthermore, experimental studies have mostly dealt with planned feedback, or feedback provided intentionally on certain preselected target forms. The study of planned feedback can provide important insights into the effects of feedback on certain target forms. However, because the feedback is provided on single forms, it does not tell us much about whether the same effects would be obtained if the feedback is provided on any other forms. In addition, since in such research feedback is provided repeatedly on the target form, it is unclear from this research whether the effects shown for feedback are because of the feedback itself or because of the intensity of feedback or a combination of the two. Indeed, as some researchers have argued, the positive effects shown for feedback in experimental research could be partly due to the repeated provision of the feedback on specific target forms (e.g. Nicholas et al. 2001). Experimental studies can also be questioned in terms of their ecological validity and their implications for feedback occurring in naturalistic classroom contexts. For example, although intensive recasts provided repeatedly in response to preselected forms may be viewed as more effective than incidental recasts, as Ellis and Sheen (2006) pointed out such claims are “of little practical significance for teachers because they are not in a position to know whether their learners are developmentally ready or whether the targeted feature is one amenable to treatment through recasts” (Ellis and Sheen, 597). Thus, feedback that occurs incidentally and in response to any errors taking place in the classroom might have greater practical significance.

Feedback Effects on Learning

119

Individualized posttest studies Due to the theoretical importance attributed to the role of incidental feedback in naturalistic classroom contexts, in recent years a few studies have attempted to examine the effects of such feedback on L2 learning. These studies have adopted a new way of testing the effectiveness of feedback, namely through individualized posttests. These are tests that are based on the specific feedback the learner receives during interaction and are administered to the same learners after interaction. Individualized tests are usually constructed based on learners’ participation in what has been called Language-Related Episodes (LREs) (Kowal and Swain 1994, 1997; Swain 2001; Swain and Lapkin 1998). The concept of an LRE comes from an earlier term by Samuda and Rounds (1993), critical episodes, used to analyze learners’ language use during communicative tasks. LREs have been defined “as any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others” (Swain and Lapkin 1998, 326). LREs are often categorized based on what the learner has focused on during interaction. This includes meaning (e.g. lexical, word choice), various features of grammar (e.g. word order, tense, morphology, syntax, preposition, etc.), or event discourse and content features. The following from Williams (1999, 601) provides an example of an LRE concerning grammar (the correct use of the past tense of freeze). Example 6 U4: He leaped. He freezed. L: Freezed? Frozen? U4: Freeze froze frozen . . . froze. L: He froze? U4: F-R-O-Z-E. Froze. L: Froze. OK.

The occurrence of LREs themselves does not necessary indicate that learners have learned from the feedback. Therefore, to examine the effect of the feedback within the episode, studies have used tailor-made or individual posttests to link what has been happening in LREs to learning and development. Some of the recent studies using such tests are Williams (2001), Loewen (2005), Nabei and Swain (2002) and Nassaji (2010, 2013). Using individualized learner-specific tests, Williams (2001), for example, examined the role of incidental feedback

120

Interactional Feedback Dimension

in student-teacher interaction in adult ESL classrooms. Defining LREs “as interaction in which learner attention is drawn to or focused on form” (Williams 1999, 597), the researcher examined the occurrence of LREs when learners were performing collaborative tasks in pairs. To measure learning, Williams constructed tailor-made individualized tests based on the forms targeted in the LREs and then administered them to the same students who had participated in those episodes. The findings showed many instances of both lexical and grammatical LREs (n = 305) in the 65 hours of classroom interaction observed. They also showed a strong relationship between the items targeted by feedback in the LREs and the learners’ performance on the individualized posttests. The study also found that the higher-proficiency students benefited more from the feedback than the lower-proficiency students. Loewen (2005) used individualized posttests to investigate the effectiveness of incidental feedback in communicative ESL classrooms. He observed, transcribed and analyzed 17 hours of ESL meaning-focused lessons in twelve different classes in a private language school in New Zealand. The researcher used the term FonF episodes (Ellis et al. 2001) instead of LREs and used the term to describe an episode in which a feedback or FonF exchange had occurred. The study identified 491 FonF episodes and then developed individualized tests based on the feedback in those episodes. The analyses showed a significant relationship between feedback and learners’ correction of the targeted forms in the subsequent posttests. Learners were able to recall the targeted linguistic information about 60 percent of the time one day after the interaction and 50 percent of the time after two weeks. Based on these findings, the researcher concluded that incidental feedback had a beneficial effect on L2 learning. Nassaji (2010) examined the occurrence and effectiveness of both reactive and preemptive FonF in adult ESL classrooms. Reactive FonF was defined as occasions where the teacher responded to a learner’s problematic utterance using various forms of interactional feedback such as recasts, clarification requests, repetitions, elicitations, or explicit feedback. Preemptive FonF involved instances where the teacher or learner initiated a FonF episode by posing a query or providing comments about a linguistic form. The study examined 54 hours of classroom interaction within seven intact ESL classes at three levels of language proficiency (beginner, intermediate, and advanced). For the analysis, the classroom interaction data were transcribed and instances of FonF episodes were identified. To measure the effectiveness of feedback, individualized posttests were developed based on the episodes in which individual students

Feedback Effects on Learning

121

had participated and were then administered to the same students one week later. The results revealed that both reactive and preemptive FonF occurred quite frequently. However, preemptive FonF led to higher individualized posttest scores than did reactive FonF. Furthermore, the amount, type, and effectiveness of FonF were strongly related to the learners’ level of language proficiency. Overall, the findings from individualized posttests confirm that interactional feedback that occurs incidentally in classroom contexts assists language learning, and they also show that these effects may vary depending on the type of feedback and learners’ language level.

Limitations of individualized posttest studies The advantage of individualized tests is that they allow the measuring of the effectiveness of feedback on the exact forms that occur and are targeted by feedback during interaction. However, one limitation is the absence of a pretest and the fact that individualized tests have often been used as posttests only. One reason for this is the difficulty of pretesting the forms that occur incidentally in classroom discourse. However, the lack of a pretest is problematic because without a pretest, it is hard to know whether the learner has actually learned the form. As Loewen and Philp (2006) noted, “in the absence of pretests, such measures cannot differentiate between the acquisition of new knowledge and the consolidation of latent knowledge” (Loewen and Philp, 8). Therefore, if the intention is to investigate the relationship between feedback and L2 development, research should find a way of pretesting all or some of the forms that arise incidentally in the course of interaction. Another limitation of individualized tests relates to the way they have been designed in previous research. Individualized tests have often been created based on the errors made in spontaneous discourse. Although such errors may exist, they may occur not only because the learner does not know the form, but also because learners may know the form and make random mistakes in the production of known forms due to other performance factors. In such cases, relying on spontaneous oral errors to measure learning can be problematic. Of course, oral errors may also occur because the learner has not yet fully proceduralized the target form (Ellis et al. 2001a; Swain 2005). Still, the presence of the error may not necessarily represent a real gap in the learners’ acquisition of new forms. To address the above issues, Nassaji (2009) used a research design that allowed for pretesting and posttesting of the forms that arose incidentally and

122

Interactional Feedback Dimension

were targeted by feedback during interaction. The research also assessed the effects of the feedback in ways that minimized the chances that the errors were simply random oral production mistakes. The data involved forty-two adult ESL learners from an intensive ESL program and two ESL teachers. Each learner participated in task-based interactions with one of the teachers and received various forms of interactional feedback, including recasts and elicitations on their erroneous utterances. To this end, in addition to the oral dyadic interaction, the research design included three other components: a written pre-interaction scenario description component, an immediate postinteraction error identification/correction component, and a delayed error identification/ correction component. In the pre-interaction scenario description, the learners were asked to describe a series of pictures before the interaction. They then described the same pictures when interacting with the teacher, who provided feedback. For the postinteraction test, they were asked to review their preinteraction descriptions and correct any errors they could, particularly those they had received feedback on during interaction. To determine the effect of feedback, each learner’s pre-interaction scenario description was analyzed and compared to his or her during-interaction and also postinteraction data to identify errors in common. The effects of feedback were then examined based on the correction of the errors in common for each individual learner. Table 6.1 Table 6.1  An example of a learner’s pre-interaction description, during-interaction description, teacher feedback, and post-interaction modification a) Learner’s preinteraction description

“Lisa was a lucky guy because there was an old woman who helped Lisa to get her money back.” Error: guy Error type: Lexical

b) Learner’s during-interaction description

“Although, I think Lisa is a lucky guy . . .” Error: guy Error type: Lexical

c) Teacher’s feedback

“a lucky girl?” Feedback: Isolated recast

d) Learner’s postinteraction modification

“Lisa was a lucky guy because there was an girl old woman who helped Lisa to get her money back.” Modification: successful correction

(From Nassaji 2009, 431)

Feedback Effects on Learning

123

provides an example of such an analysis. In this example, when describing the pictures before interaction, the learner produced an utterance with a lexical error: guy for girl. Then, during the dyadic interaction, the learner produced the same error, in response to which he received a recast. When given back his original scenario description after the interaction, the learner identified and successfully corrected the error by changing the word guy to girl. The results showed a positive effect of feedback on students’ accuracy of their nontargetlike utterances. Overall, on the immediate postinteraction correction task, learners corrected 35 percent of their nontargetlike forms on which they had received feedback. Of these, they were able to identify and successfully correct 41 percent of the errors that had received recasts and 28 percent of those that had received elicitations on the immediate postinteraction tests. In the delayed testing, the correction rate for recasts decreased from 41 percent in the immediate testing to 28 percent in the delayed testing. However, the correction rates for elicitations decreased from 28 percent in the immediate testing to 26 percent in the delayed testing. These findings provide some support for the effectiveness of incidental feedback on learning, as they show that when learners received incidental feedback on their errors they were likely to remember the corrections about one-third of the time.

Other feedback studies Syntactic priming studies As reviewed earlier, feedback studies have shown that learners are more likely to remember the form targeted by feedback if they have already produced successful uptake immediately in response to feedback. However, there are also studies that have shown that feedback is still beneficial for L2 development irrespective of such immediate responses. This suggests that there might be other kinds of production processes going on during interaction or as a result of feedback that might be beneficial to learning. One such process is what has been termed primed production or syntactic priming. We briefly discussed the priming effects of feedback earlier in Chapter 4 and explained that such effects occur when one speaker produces a syntactic structure similar to one produced by another speaker. In other words, it is an effect that is produced as a result of the learner being prompted to use a structure he or she has heard earlier in the interaction. We also provided an example of such priming effects in Chapter 4.

124

Interactional Feedback Dimension

We provide another example here from McDonough (2006 cited in McDonough and Mackey 2008) (Example 7). In this example, two L2 learners are describing a picture to each other. The first speaker has produced a double-object dative to describe what is going on in the picture. In the next turn, the other speaker has produced a similar double-object dative construction when describing her picture. Thus, the first speaker’s utterance primed the second speaker to use the same syntactic structure in her utterance. Example 7 Speaker 1: The man shows his wife the boot. Speaker 2: A teacher is teaching some kids a game. (McDonough 2006, 182)

There are several studies that have documented and examined the priming effects of feedback in L2 interaction. One of the first studies that found evidence for the presence of such an effect is Gass and Varonis (1989), which reported data from NNS-NNS interactions in which the NNS provided the other NNS with recasts. They found that the recasts resulted in modified output by the NNS speaker who received the feedback but the uptake occurred later in the conversation rather than immediately. Following such findings, a few recent studies have examined the priming effects of feedback in a more detailed and systematic way. McDonough and Mackey (2006), for example, examined the effects of recasts and learners’ responses to recasts on the development of L2 questions. They also examined the syntactic priming effect of feedback defined as learners’ production of the syntactic structure used in the recasts. The study used an experimental pretest/posttest design with Thai learners of English (N = 58). Learners were assigned to two groups, a treatment group and a control group. Learners in the treatment group participated in dyadic interaction with native English speakers and received recasts on their erroneous utterances. Learners in the control group did not receive recasts. Learners then completed four tests in the course of a nine-week period. Learners’ interaction in the treatment group was examined for the occurrence of recasts and learners’ responses to recasts in the form of repetition immediately following recasts and primed production of the targeted form in subsequent turns. The study also analyzed learners’ posttest data for evidence of advancement to a higher stage in the developmental sequence of question formation. Their results showed a significant effect for recasts. They also found instances of both immediate and delayed priming effects on learner production. Examples of such responses are shown below. In Example 8, the

Feedback Effects on Learning

125

primed production occurs immediately after the NS’s recast, and in Example 9, it occurs after a few turns. Example 8  Immediate effect 34 Learner: Why he hit the deer?  Stage 3 question 35 NS: Why did he hit the deer? He was driving home and the deer ran out in front of his car  Recast (stage 5) 36 Learner: What did he do after that?  Primed production (stage 5) Example 9  Delayed effect 23 Learner: Where where where you work this job?  Stage 3 question 24 NS: Where did I work?  Recast (stage 5) 25 Learner: Yeah. 26 NS: I worked in America; it was my part-time job during high school for three years. 27 Learner: Why did you like it?  Primed production (stage 5)

The study also examined the relationship between primed production and language development. The results of Pearson correlations showed that primed production was significantly correlated with learners’ production of higher-level question forms. The results of subsequent logistic regression further confirmed that primed production was a highly significant predictor of question development. McDonough (2006) conducted two experiments with two groups of English L2 learners to investigate the occurrence of syntactic priming during L2 interaction. The target structure was dative alternation, which is the alternating use of a double-object dative (e.g. The man served the girl an ice cream.) and a prepositional dative (e.g. A man is throwing a ball to his girl.). The experiments used a method called confederate scripting to elicit the target structure from the learners. In this method, there is one speaker called the confederate who acts as an assistant to the researcher. The confederate produces his or her utterances based on a script. These utterances are always produced before the participant’s utterances and are supposed to act as a prime for the learner’s production. Two research questions were examined: a) Does syntactic priming occur during interaction between L2 English speakers?; and b) Do English L2 speakers show increased use of the target structure following exposure to primes? In the first experiment, L2 learners were exposed to both prepositional and double-object dative primes. The results showed that syntactic priming occurred

126

Interactional Feedback Dimension

with prepositional dative but not with double-object dative. In the second experiment, the L2 learners were exposed to double-object dative primes only. The aim here was to examine whether any priming effect occurs if the learners are repeatedly exposed to that construction prime. The analysis of the second experiment showed no occurrence of syntactic priming for double-object datives. The lack of priming effects for double-object datives were then attributed to the learners’ lack of knowledge of the semantic and syntactic complexities associated with such constructions. It was also argued that double-object datives are a developmentally more advanced construction and are usually avoided by L2 learners. Syntactic priming studies have a number of important implications for feedback research and practice. The first is that priming effects may occur during L2 interaction in dyadic settings. Therefore, it is also possible that they may occur following feedback in L2 classrooms. Second, studies such as McDonough’s (2006) showed evidence for learners’ primed production following targetlike primes. Thus, they suggest that learners might benefit from interlocutors’ utterances that involve correct modeling such as recasts (see also McDonough and Mackey 2008). Furthermore, priming studies show a possible role for syntactic priming in L2 interaction in contexts where interactional turns are specifically manipulated by a research assistant to elicit such priming effects. Such situations may also be possible in classroom contexts where students can assist each other to produce primed constructions when performing communicative tasks.

Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions So far, we have been examining research that has investigated mainly interactional feedback in student-teacher or native-nonnative interactions. In classroom or other informal contexts, there are also many occasions where learners may interact with other learners. An important question here is whether learners are able to provide or respond to feedback from their peers and also whether or not they learn from such feedback. Although most studies have focused on teacherlearner or native-nonnative interactions, there is evidence that interactional feedback does exist in learner-learner interactions and that students benefit from such feedback, although the nature of the feedback and the degree to which it occurs is different from those occurring in native speaker-learner or teacherlearner interactions. There are several early studies of feedback that reported evidence for the presence of interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions (Gass and

Feedback Effects on Learning

127

Varonis 1989; Maria Garcia and Pica 2000; Pica et al. 1996; Porter 1986). Gass and Varonis (1989), for example, examined NNS-NNS interactions and found evidence for the presence of recasts in such interactions. That is, they found that the NNS correctly reformulated the other speaker’s utterance in the course of interaction. Some recent studies have examined and found evidence for not only the occurrence of interactional feedback but also for their effects on learners’ modification of their output during peer interaction. Zhao and Bitchener (2007), for instance, examined the use of interactional feedback in learnerlearner interaction in two intact classes in an English language program in New Zealand. Analyzing about 10 hours of classroom interaction, they found evidence for a number of interactional feedback types in peer-peer situations including recasts, direct correction, repetition, and elicitations. Among the feedback types, the most frequent was the recast (28 percent), followed by clarification requests (10.6 percent) and repetition (8.1 percent). Zhao and Bitchener also found that learners provided uptake following learner feedback and that the uptake was successful over 50 percent of the time. Fujii and Mackey (2009) investigated the use of learner-learner interactions and the provision of modified output in an intact EFL classroom in Japan. Overall, the amount of feedback during the tasks was low, a fact that was attributed to a Japanese cultural tendency to save interlocutors’ face. However, as for opportunities for modified output, about half of the feedback episodes (46 percent) that provided opportunities for learner responses lead to modified output, suggesting that learners were able to benefit from feedback when provided. Other recent studies have examined the effects of peer feedback more directly in pretest-posttest studies and have confirmed that learners do learn from such feedback. Adams (2007) carried out a study among a group of adult ESL learners with a particular focus on the learning opportunities created through feedback in learner-learner interactions. Twenty-five ESL learners participated in three interaction sessions with other learners. Five days after the final interaction, learners completed a posttest to assess acquisition of the forms they received feedback on during the interaction sessions. The results showed moderate to high rates of learning for all structures included in the posttests. Overall, there was evidence of learning more than half of the items tested. Adams also found evidence of learners’ miscorrections, but these instances were not very frequent. In a recent quasi-experimental study, M. Sato and Lyster (2012) also explored the effects of such feedback, including feedback training among Japanese EFL learners. The learners were divided into four groups, two of which were taught

128

Interactional Feedback Dimension

how to provide interactional feedback, with either prompts or recasts. The third group was only engaged in peer interaction without providing feedback. The results demonstrated that the groups who were trained to provide feedback showed improvement in both accuracy and fluency and the peer-interactiononly group performed better than the control group. Altogether, studies of learner-learner interactions suggest that interactional feedback occurs in learner interaction, although not as frequently as in teacherlearner interaction. They also suggest that when learners participate in peer interaction, they can become aware of the linguistic and interactional features of their peers as well as their own language production. They can also be taught how to process and benefit from such feedback. However, given the very few studies in these areas, the issues of usability and benefits of feedback in learnerlearner interaction need further investigation.

Interactional feedback in computer-assisted language learning In recent years, the use of technology, particularly the computer, has become increasingly popular in L2 teaching and learning. Therefore, an examination of the learning opportunities provided through computer-mediated communi­ cation has attracted much attention. Sauro (2009) argued that computermediated interaction “holds particular promise for the learning of especially complex or low salient forms due to the visual saliency of certain forms during written interaction, the amount of processing and planning time afforded by synchronous chat, and the enduring as opposed to ephemeral nature of the turns” (Sauro, 96). Although the number of studies in this area is far more limited than those conducted in face-to-face interaction, the role of interactional feedback has been examined in online chats or through computer-mediated interaction (e.g. Brandl 1995; Fuente 2003; Heift 2004; Lee 2011; Nagata 1997; Sanz and Morgan Short 2004; Smith 2004). The results have shown that computer-mediated feedback can promote learning, but the effects of feedback in these situations have been found to be different from those in face-to-face interaction. An early investigation into the use of computers in providing corrective feedback was Brandl (1995), which tested different types of feedback among college students when they were performing computerized grammar exercises. The role of feedback type was tested against various levels of task difficulty and two levels (high and low) of German L2 learners. The feedback included the choice of: (a) right or wrong message, (b) error location, (c) grammatical

Feedback Effects on Learning

129

description of correct response, and (d) correct answer. The results revealed that learners selected significantly more often the right/wrong feedback choice than other feedback types. The findings also showed that preference for feedback type was related to learner level. The high-level students chose the right/wrong option more often as a follow-up selection, whereas the low-level learners chose error location and grammatical description. Nagata (1997) investigated the role of computer-mediated feedback on learning Japanese particles. Fourteen secondyear Japanese language learners participated in the study. After completing a Japanese particle test, the students were divided into two groups: computermediated metalinguistic feedback and computer-mediated translation feedback. The study found that the group that received computer-mediated metalinguistic feedback significantly outperformed the group that received computer-mediated translation feedback. A few studies have also investigated the effectiveness of peer feedback during learner-learner computer-mediated interaction. This line of research has examined whether, when, and how learners provide feedback on one another’s utterances during online interaction. These studies have found that students do provide feedback to each other when they interact online and that such feedback may assist language learning. One of the studies of this kind is Lee (2011), which examined the different types of feedback and feedback strategies used by students in the US and Spain during peer-to-peer online chat sessions. Participants in both countries were advanced foreign-language learners of English or Spanish and participated in chat sessions during which they were asked to provide corrective feedback to their chat partners. Lee found that both groups provided helpful feedback to each other; however, neither group responded with a high number of error corrections. Lee concludes that an online peer-to-peer chat session may not be an effective format for providing feedback. Similarly, Ware and O’Dowd (2008) examined how and when L2 learners of English and Spanish provide corrective feedback on their use of the target language during online interactions. Learners were divided into two groups, one in which they were explicitly asked to provide peer feedback and another group in which students were not explicitly asked to do so but they could if they wished. The study examined both the type and frequency of feedback strategies and also students’ attitudes toward incorporating feedback. The findings showed that feedback occurred in these sessions but only when the learners were explicitly required to provide such feedback. Altogether, the results of the studies examining interactional feedback in computer-assisted language learning confirms that interactional feedback occurs

130

Interactional Feedback Dimension

in computer-mediated instructional settings. This research also indicates that the provision and facilitative effects found for different types of feedback in these situations is different from what has been found in face-to-face interaction. In many cases, when the computer provides the feedback, the effect seems to be more pronounced than feedback during face-to-face interaction, which could be due to the more explicit nature of such feedback. Online interactions may also provide learners with more time to process the feedback, which could also contribute to its effectiveness.

Meta-analysis studies of interactional feedback In recent years, there have also been several meta-analyses of research regarding feedback effectiveness. Meta-analysis is a method for summarizing the results of a group of quantitative studies in a given area. In meta-analysis, the effects of variables are examined in terms of the strength of the differences they make on research outcomes. These differences are estimated and reported in the form of effect sizes calculated for individual studies and then averaged across studies. Meta-analysis is a very useful method of synthesizing research findings because it allows researchers to examine the degree to which a set of related findings converge or diverge (Fitz-Gibbon 1985). So far a few studies have used this method of analysis to summarize research results across a number of interactional feedback studies and have revealed that interactional feedback has a facilitative effect on L2 development in general. Russell and Spada (2006), for example, provided a meta-analysis of fifteen feedback studies and found that corrective feedback was beneficial to language learning in both oral and written formats. They found a relatively large mean effect size of 1.16 for feedback effectiveness, suggesting that feedback has a substantial effect on language learning. Russell and Spada concluded by recommending that research practices become more consistent and that more corrective feedback studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of corrective feedback through meta-analysis. Mackey and Goo (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of twenty-eight interaction studies. The results found a medium effect size for feedback effects on immediate posttest (0.71) and a larger effect size on delayed posttests (1.09). The latter finding suggests that although feedback may not show an effect when immediately tested, feedback may still be beneficial in the long run. Finally, Lyster and Saito (2010) examined fifteen classroom-based studies. They also reported a significant and durable effect for interactional feedback in general.

Feedback Effects on Learning

131

Conclusion This chapter has examined experimental research that has investigated the effectiveness of interactional feedback in various settings. The goal of experimental research has been to gain a better understanding of the relationship between interactional feedback and L2 acquisition by examining the effects of such feedback more directly than those using uptake. The findings of these studies, including those of the meta-analyses, confirm that interactional feedback is beneficial for L2 learning in general. They have also demonstrated that such feedback promotes not only modified output but also actual learning. However, in addition to whether feedback facilitates language learning, another important question concerns the relative efficacy of different feedback types and whether there is a particular type of feedback that is more effective than others. This question is important not only pedagogically, but also theoretically, as different feedback types provide learners with different types of linguistic data. Therefore, if a particular type of feedback is found to be more effective than others, this has important implications for the kind of information that is useful for language acquisition. We will address this question in the next chapter.

Questions for discussion 1. Which section of the chapter helped you better understand the role of feedback in language learning? 2. What are some of the key differences between the research examined in this chapter and the previous chapter? 3. How can the findings of research reviewed in this chapter be used to inform teachers about how to use interactional feedback in the classroom, if any? 4. What place do you think learner-learner interaction should have in language classrooms? 5. What are some of the implications of syntactic priming studies for language teaching? 6. Discuss some of the ways in which one might incorporate computermediated feedback in language classrooms.

7

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

Objectives ●●

●●

●●

Discuss the controversy and debates around the effectiveness of different feedback types. Review key studies that have compared the relative efficacy of different feedback types. Discuss the conclusions and implications of these studies for language teaching and learning.

Introduction In previous chapters, we examined the role of interactional feedback in both observational and experimental research. We concluded that observational research has shown that interactional feedback of various types occur in L2  interactional contexts and that they contribute to language learning in general. However, this type of research has used uptake as a measure of feedback effectiveness, which has been argued to be inadequate in providing evidence for learning. We then reviewed experimental research and other pretest-posttest studies that have investigated more directly the relationship between feedback and learning. This research has confirmed the importance of feedback and its relationship with learning by showing that learners who receive feedback perform better than those who do not. However, the majority of the studies we have examined so far have focused either on one particular type of feedback or have been conducted in contexts where the learners have received feedback in an indiscriminate fashion. Therefore, this research has not been able to tell us what type of feedback is more effective. The goal of this chapter is to examine research that has focused on the relative efficacy of different feedback types

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

133

and the question of whether there is a particular type of feedback that is more beneficial for L2 acquisition than others.

Feedback types Recasting versus eliciting As noted earlier, two major types of interactional feedback are recasts and elicitations. Both have been considered to be useful strategies in meaningfocused interaction. Their significance is based on a number of assumptions about how they affect learning (Doughty 2001; Doughty and Varela 1998; Williams 2005). As for recasts, Doughty and Varela (1998) described them as “potentially effective, since the aim is to add [italics in original] attention to form to a primarily communicative task rather than to depart [italics in original] from an already communicative goal in order to discuss a linguistic feature” (Doughty and Varela, 114). Loewen and Philp (2006, 537) described them as “pedagogically expeditious” and “time-saving,” and as techniques that, contrary to other corrective feedback moves such as explicit correction, keep the learners’ focus on meaning (see also Ellis et al. 2001; Long 2007). As for elicitations, they are considered to provide opportunities for negotiation of form, a process that happens when learners are not provided with the target form but instead are pushed to reformulate their erroneous output (Lyster 1998b). In other words, elicitations promote opportunities for self-repair. Since elicitations push learners to self-repair, they help learners automatize the retrieval of the target form or practice what they already know, and for that reason, they assist learners “in the transition of declarative to procedural knowledge” (Lyster 2004, 406).

Theoretical debate Although both recasts and elicitations are considered to be potentially beneficial for L2 acquisition, there is a debate on which of the two is more effective. As for recasts, one major issue is whether such feedback can provide opportunities for negative evidence and attention to form. While some researchers have argued that recasts are potentially effective in doing so, others have expressed doubt about this role. Doughty (2001), for example, argued that recasts help learners not only notice a gap in their interlanguage but also make the necessary form-meaning connection needed for acquisition. In other words, recasts facilitate what has been

134

Interactional Feedback Dimension

called cognitive comparison (Doughty 2001), a process considered essential for language acquisition. Cognitive comparisons occur when the learner compares his or her original output with the teacher’s output and then realizes that his or her interlanguage differs from the target language. Doughty pointed out that recasts provide “the most efficient means to promoting cognitive comparison” (Doughty, 253). De Bot (1996), however, challenged these ideas, observing that “My reading of the psycholinguistic literature on processing leads me to believe that there is never a direct comparison between input and output” (De Bot, 228). De Bot argued that the input presented to the learner during meaning-focused interaction is immediately processed for meaning and does not become stored in memory in the form usable for input-output comparisons. Thus, he believed that recasts cannot effectively draw learners’ attention to mismatches between their interlanguage output and the target language input. Lyster and his colleagues have argued that recasts are ambiguous and hence not perceptible by learners as corrective feedback (e.g. Lyster 1998b; Lyster and Ranta 1997; Panova and Lyster 2002). Based on data from his research on French immersion classrooms, Lyster (1998b), in particular, has argued that although recasts provide a reformulation of the error, they serve other noncorrective discourse functions such as providing or seeking confirmation or additional information. This dual function of recasts makes it hard for learners to notice the corrective purpose of recasts. Thus, although recasts may provide learners with “exemplars of what is possible in the L2 . . . recasts do not covey to learners what is unacceptable in the language,” particularly in contexts where the primary focus is on content (Lyster 1998b, 75). Lyster has argued that in content-based classrooms, elicitations, or what he called prompts, are more effective than recasts, because in such contexts, learners have had ample exposure to L2 input and the target forms, and therefore, pushing them to produce output is more helpful than simply providing them with the correct form. When learners are pushed to produce output, he argued, they become engaged in a kind of retrieval process, which is different from simply repeating a correct form provided in recasts. Such processes encourage learners “to reanalyze what they have already internalized at some level and may thus contribute to a destabilization of interlanguage forms” (Lyster 2002, 249). In short, Lyster has argued that elicitations are more beneficial for L2 acquisition than recasts. Some researchers, however, have disagreed with the arguments made against recasts. Long (2007), for example, contended that although recasts may be ambiguous in certain content-based classrooms, “there is evidence from the

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

135

first and second language acquisition literature that learners are able to perceive a sufficient proportion of recasts in order to benefit from them” (Long, 96). He also identified a number of advantages for recasts from a psycholinguistic perspective that he believed could enhance the role of recasts as negative evidence. He argued that recasts contextualize the information needed about the target language and they do so when interlocutors have a shared attentional focus. Since recasts rephrase an utterance whose meaning is already understood, the learner can use his or her cognitive resources for processing the target form. In other words, recasts provide learners with free attentional resources for focus on form. In addition, in recasts a nontargetlike utterance is juxtaposed with a targetlike utterance. This juxtaposition increases the salience of recasts and thus facilitates their effectiveness as negative evidence (Saxton 1997). In their recent analysis of the role of recasts, Goo and Mackey (2013) noted that the argument made by Lyster against recasts is not warranted, as it is based on “a relatively small number of repairs following recasts evidenced in Lyster’s observations of a specific context—namely, French immersion classrooms” (Goo and Mackey, 135). As for elicitations, Long (2007) argued that although elicitations can be helpful in providing opportunities for self-repair, only those learners who know the target form can benefit from the feedback. In other words, elicitations “can only assist deployment, not acquisition; and even then, not necessarily do so any better than recasts” (Long, 102). He also argued that elicitations can sometimes be embarrassing to learners. If a learner does not know the form and is still pushed to provide it, it may make the learner’s lack of knowledge public, which may then make the learner uncomfortable. There are other researchers who have also questioned the role of elicitations on other grounds. Ellis (2009) pointed out that learners often expect and prefer the teacher to provide the correction rather than eliciting it from the learners. If learner and teacher expectations do not match, this can negatively affect learning. Ellis also pointed out that although elicitation strategies “signal that there is some kind of problem with the learner’s utterance, they do not make it clear that the problem is a linguistic one (as opposed to just a communicative one)” (Ellis, 7). This reduces the effectiveness of elicitations as a focus on form strategy. Pica et al. (1989) pointed out that although reformulation in the form of recasts may provide fewer opportunities for modified output, this does not mean “that they have less of a role to play in second language acquisition (SLA).” Instead they argued that because recasts “provide a model to NNS of what the NS believes that NNS are

136

Interactional Feedback Dimension

trying to say, they may prove to be more important than clarification requests in other aspects of SLA, for example serving as a source of target language input for the learner” (Pica et al., 84).

Research comparing recasts and elicitations The above debates have led to a growing number of studies in recent years examining and comparing the differential effectiveness of various feedback types. As reviewed earlier, a number of studies have provided empirical evidence for the beneficial effects of recasts in both classroom and laboratory settings (e.g. Braidi 2002; Doughty and Varela 1998; Han 2002; Ishida 2004; Mackey and Philp 1998; McDonough and Mackey 2006; Saito and Lyster 2011). These studies have all shown that recasts are beneficial. However, they have focused only on recasts without comparing them with other types of feedback. Therefore, these studies do not tell us much about the effectiveness of recasts compared to other feedback types. In light of the importance of this question and the debate discussed above, several studies have empirically compared the relative efficacy of recasts with other feedback types, such as elicitations or metalinguistic feedback, in order to find out which one is more facilitative for L2 acquisition. One of the first studies that examined the differential effects of recasts versus elicitation was Lyster (2004), which we reviewed briefly earlier. His design included three treatment groups and one comparison group, with each of the treatment groups receiving form-focused instruction on French grammatical gender followed by one of the following three feedback treatments: recasts, prompts, and no feedback. Prompts included feedback types such as clarification requests, repetitions, metalinguistic cues, and elicitations. One characteristic of these feedback types is that they do not provide the learner with the correct form but instead push the learner to self-correct. Thus, they differ from recasts that provide the learners with the correct form. Using pretests, posttests and delayed posttests, Lyster (2004) found that the group that received instruction followed by recasts performed similarly to the group who received instruction with no feedback. However, the group who received prompts outperformed both the ones receiving recasts and the no feedback group on written immediate and delayed posttests. Based on these findings, Lyster concluded that elicitation strategies have a greater effect on L2 learning than recasts. Another study with a similar design is Ammar and Spada (2006), which compared the role of recasts and prompts in three intensive ESL classrooms. The experiment included instruction on the target forms (i.e. English third-person possessive determiners) plus

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

137

either recasts, prompts, or no feedback. Using pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests, the research found that the prompt group outperformed the recast group on both the immediate and the delayed written posttests. On the oral posttest, there was no significant difference between the prompt and the recast groups on the first posttest. However, by the second posttest, the prompt group outperformed the recast group. The results also showed that these effects were mediated by learners’ level of language proficiency. Although both Lyster and Ammar and Spada reported an advantage for elicitations over recasts, this advantage has not been reported in several other studies, in which recasts have been found to be either equally effective or more effective than elicitations (e.g. Loewen and Philp 2006; Lyster and Izquierdo 2009; McDonough 2007; Nassaji 2009; Yang and Lyster 2010). McDonough (2007), for example, compared the impact of recasts and clarification requests on the emergence of English simple past tense. Participants were 106 first-year EFL university students enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program in English at a university in Thailand. Using a pretest-posttest design, the study found that both clarification requests and recasts facilitated the emergence of the target form, and there was no statistically significant difference in their impact on development. Lyster and Izquierdo (2009) examined the difference between recasts and prompts among intermediate-level learners of French. Participants received classroom instruction and then met with a researcher one-on-one during which the learners received either recasts or prompts on their errors. The study found that the different feedback types did not result in differences in effectiveness: learners from both feedback groups demonstrated improvement in immediate and delayed posttests. Yang and Lyster (2010) compared prompts and recasts and their effects on the acquisition of regular and irregular English past tense. The accurate use of regular past tense was affected more by prompts than recasts in both oral and written production; however, both recasts and prompts were found to have a similar effect on the accurate use of irregular past tense, both in oral and written form. Loewen and Philp (2006) compared the effectiveness of incidental recasts and elicitations in adult English classrooms, and found no significant difference between the two. Both feedback types were able to lead to at least 50 percent of accurate posttest scores. Finally, Nassaji (2009) compared the effectiveness of incidental recasts and elicitations and found that recasts resulted in greater increase in the accuracy of the targeted form than elicitations. Based on the above findings, it is difficult to conclude which type of feedback is more effective as the results of the studies are quite mixed. However, in light of the results, the following conclusions can be made. First, it seems that the beneficial

138

Interactional Feedback Dimension

effects of recasts or elicitations depend greatly on the instructional context in which the feedback is provided. For example, the studies that have shown an advantage of elicitations over recasts are classrooms studies in content-based classrooms (e.g. Lyster 2004). However, most of the studies that demonstrated an advantage for recasts are mainly laboratory studies or experimental studies conducted in form-focused contexts (e.g. Mackey and Philp 1998; McDonough 2007; Yang and Lyster 2010). This suggests that context may play a role in the effectiveness of recasts. Furthermore, it suggests that the effects of each of the strategies depend on how the feedback is provided. In relation to Lyster (2004) and Ammar and Spada (2006), which found a greater effect for elicitations than recasts, a few points need to be considered that may explain their results. First, elicitations included four types of feedback compared against only one type, namely recasts. In such situations, it is possible that when learners are exposed to various types of feedback, they receive more instances of feedback and hence their attention will be drawn more effectively to the form than when they receive only one feedback type. In other words, the effectiveness of feedback in such cases could be because of the greater frequency of the feedback (Nassaji 2014). Also in these two studies, elicitations involved fairly salient metalinguistic cues or feedback that clearly indicated to the learner what there was a problem with their utterance. On the other hand, recasts were used in a very nonsalient manner. Ammar and Spada stated: the teacher who was assigned to the prompts condition was asked to (a) immediately react to students’ PD errors and (b) provide students with metalinguistic clues whenever a PD error occurred in order to help them reformulate their utterance.  . . . These different moves made the prompts treatment explicit and salient for two reasons. First, they unambiguously indicated the presence of an error and, therefore, encouraged and directed students to think about alternative forms. Second, once the learners were aware of the fact that there was a problem in the form that they had used to express their meaning, they were given metalinguistic clues to help them identify the nature and locus of the error. (Ammar and Spada, 562–3)

Finally, in both Lyster (2004) and Ammar and Spada (2006), feedback was used in  conjunction with form-focused instruction. When learners are elicited to provide the correct form, they may become aware of the gap in their knowledge and their attention may be directed to subsequent input (Doughty  2001; Swain  1995). In such situations, if the target form is taught or becomes immediately available in form-focused instruction, the learners may benefit from the combination of feedback and instruction.

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

139

Implicit versus explicit feedback As we have discussed, another issue regarding the effectiveness of feedback is the degree of feedback explicitness. Although the notion of explicit and implicit is relative, SLA researchers have often used this dichotomy as a way of addressing which type of feedback is more effective (Carroll and Swain 1993; Ellis et al. 2006; Li 2010; Loewen and Nabei 2007; Nassaji 2009; Norris and Ortega 2001). Explicit feedback refers to feedback that indicates rather clearly to the learner that his or her utterance is erroneous by directing the learner’s attention explicitly to the erroneous part. Implicit feedback is feedback that does not overtly correct the learner error. Rather it signals to the learner indirectly that his or her utterance may contain an error. The learner then needs to discover from the signal that his or her utterance is erroneous. Due to the different characteristics of implicit and explicit feedback, a key question in this context is whether there are differences in their effectiveness and if so, which type is more effective. The distinction between implicit and explicit feedback is related to the one between implicit and explicit learning. The former is usually defined as learning that occurs without intention or awareness and can be acquired through exposing learners to meaning-focused input. Explicit learning, however, is more conscious and is acquired when learners are provided with explicit rules. When learners receive correction that directly indicates and also explains what their errors are, they develop explicit knowledge that is conscious and more declarative in nature. This is different from knowledge that underlies language acquisition, which is implicit, intuitive and does not need to be accessed through conscious analysis and verbalization (Ellis 1997, 2008). Interactional feedback such as recasts is generally considered to be implicit and thus promotes implicit knowledge because such feedback implies, rather than explicitly indicates, that the learner’s utterance is incorrect. However, metalinguistic feedback such as What’s the past tense of this verb?, or direct correction of the learner error are more explicit and hence promotes explicit knowledge because they highlight the error more clearly and draw the learner’s attention to form more overtly. Although the connection between explicit and implicit knowledge or learning has been a matter of debate, it has been argued that explicit knowledge contributes, if not leads, to acquisition of implicit knowledge by promoting awareness of linguistic forms, which is argued to be needed even if to a small degree (Schmidt 1993, 1995). When it comes to implicit versus explicit feedback, Ellis and Sheen (2006) pointed out that two questions become of theoretical importance: (a) whether there is any difference between the contribution of explicit and implicit feedback

140

Interactional Feedback Dimension

in the development of L2 knowledge, and (b) whether explicit feedback makes any contribution to the development of implicit knowledge. A third question is also the degree of explicitness or how explicit or implicit the feedback should be in order to be effective. Motivated by such questions, a number of studies have examined the differential effects of implicit feedback such as recasts with other more explicit feedback such as metalinguistic feedback or explicit correction. The majority of these studies have shown an advantage for explicit feedback but there are also studies that have reported mixed results. One of the first studies that compared the effectiveness of implicit and explicit feedback is Carroll and Swain (1993). The participants were 100 low-level intermediate adult Spanish and ESL learners and the target structure was English dative verbs. Four groups of learners were compared, each receiving one of the following feedback types that differed in terms of degree of explicitness: direct metalinguistic feedback, explicit rejection (indicating to participants that they were wrong with no explanation), implicit recasts, and indirect metalinguistic feedback (in which the learners were simply asked if they were sure of the correctness of their answer). There was also a control group that received no feedback. The results showed that all of the feedback groups performed better than the control group when tested on the recall of the targeted form immediately after the treatment and then again one week later. Also, in the first immediate posttest, the group receiving explicit feedback in the form of metalinguistic feedback outperformed the other three groups but not the recast group. In the delayed testing, the group receiving explicit metalinguistic feedback performed better than all feedback groups. Overall the study provided evidence for the advantage of explicit feedback over more implicit feedback. Ellis et al. (2006) compared the usefulness of explicit metalinguistic explanation and implicit recasts on how well low-intermediate L2 learners acquire a specific target form (past tense –ed). Tests of both explicit and implicit knowledge were used. The results indicated explicit metalinguistic feedback contributed to the development of both implicit and explicit knowledge. Also implicit corrective feedback was less successful in influencing implicit knowledge. Based on these results, Ellis et al. concluded that explicit feedback may be more likely to promote the cognitive comparison between the target and the interlanguage form, which has been claimed to assist learning. Sheen (2007) conducted an experimental classroom-based study comparing the effects of recasts and metalinguistic feedback on the acquisition of English articles. Sheen found that the metalinguistic feedback group significantly outperformed the recast and the control group, whereas the recast group did not perform significantly better than the control

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

141

group. A positive relationship was also found between students’ posttest scores and language aptitude measured by a language analytic ability test and learners’ attitude, but such a relationship was not found for the recast group. There are also a few computer-based studies that have compared implicit and explicit forms of feedback. Sauro (2009) and Yilmaz (2012) compared the effects of recasts with more explicit feedback (e.g. metalinguistic feedback or direct correction) in computer-mediated environments, and both reported advantages for explicit feedback. Sauro analyzed the effects of computer-mediated recasts and metalinguistic feedback on learning English articles by Swedish adult L2 learners. The results of the pretests, posttests and delayed posttests did not show considerable gains for feedback in general. However, the group that received metalinguistic feedback showed significant immediate gains in comparison to the control group. Yilmaz (2012) examined the effects of explicit correction and implicit recasts in both face-to-face and computer-mediated interaction. The results of oral production, comprehension, and recognition tests revealed that the explicit correction group outperformed the recast group in both immediate and delayed posttests. As can be seen, the above studies have all reported an advantage of explicit over implicit feedback. In particular, those that have examined the differential effects of recasts versus metalinguistic feedback have often demonstrated that explicit metalinguistic feedback is more effective than implicit recasts. This advantage can be partially explained by the increased degree of metalinguistic knowledge and understanding provided by metalinguistic feedback, and thus the greater likelihood that learners will become more aware of their errors. However, explicit feedback has not always been found be more effective than implicit feedback. For example, Loewen and Erlam (2006) examined the relative effectiveness of recasts versus metalinguistic feedback during small group interaction among beginnerlevel learners in a text-based chatroom. They reported no significant effects for either feedback types and also no difference between the two. They attributed this lack of overall and differential effect to a number of reasons, including learners’ low level of knowledge of the target structure (English past tense –ed) and lack of opportunities for uptake following feedback. Feedback was also often provided after several intervening turns and not immediately in response to the error, which could have made it difficult for the learners to recognize that the feedback had been related to their errors. Similarly, Loewen and Nabei’s (2007) classroom-based study compared the effectiveness of three types of feedback (recasts, metalinguistic feedback, and clarification requests) on the acquisition of English question formation and found no differential effects. Using timed and

142

Interactional Feedback Dimension

untimed grammaticality judgment tests as well as oral production tests, they found some effect for feedback compared to no feedback, but no difference between the different feedback types. Loewen and Nabei attributed this to the length of the treatment (half an hour), which they believed could have been too short to produce any differential effect and also to the lack of explicitness of the feedback (the metalinguistic feedback did not provide any explicit information about the error, but simply identified the error). Overall, such findings suggest that although in general explicit feedback may be more effective than implicit feedback, such feedback is not equally effective for all learners at all times, and under all circumstances (see Chapter 8). It is important to make another point here. When it comes to feedback effectiveness, it is not just the explicitness of the feedback from the provider’s perspective that is important but also how the feedback is perceived by the learner. Even if the feedback is provided explicitly or if the researcher or the teacher may consider it to be explicit, the learners may not necessarily recognize it as such. This was shown in a study by Erlam and Loewen (2010) that examined two types of recasts that they had categorized as implicit and explicit: one that included a single recast with interrogative intonation and the other that included a declarative recast preceded by repetition of the error. Although the researchers had labeled the former implicit recasts and the latter explicit recasts, the analysis of the data revealed that learners showed the same level of awareness of the target structure that was the focus of each feedback type. For that reason, the researchers did not find any difference between the two feedback types. Such findings suggest that there is not always a match between the feedback provider’s intention and the feedback receiver’s perception. This issue will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

Conversational versus didactic feedback As discussed earlier, depending on the function of feedback, researchers have also made a distinction between didactic and conversational feedback. Conversational feedback involves negotiation of meaning, defined as exchanges that attempt to resolve communication breakdowns and work toward comprehensibility (Pica et  al. 1989). Didactic feedback involves negotiation of form, defined as side sequences to the flow of communication that attempt to draw the learner’s attention to a particular linguistic problem more deliberately (Van  den  Branden  1997).

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

143

A question that arises here is whether there are differences in the effectiveness of these two types of feedback. A few studies have recently attempted to address this question and they have found different results. One of the studies that compared the above two types of feedback is Ellis et al. (2001). The main purpose of this research was to examine the effects of incidental feedback in ESL classrooms. However, they also categorized the feedback moves according to whether they occurred as a result of a communication problem (such as when the teacher failed to understand what the learner meant and asked for clarification) or linguistic problems (when the teacher understood what the learner meant but still decided to draw the learner’s attention to form). Analyzing 12 hours of communicative ESL lessons, they found that didactic feedback involving negotiation of form occurred more frequently than conversational feedback involving negotiation of meaning. The former occurred more than twice the latter. Learners, however, were more likely to respond to feedback involving negotiation of meaning than negotiation of form. This finding was surprising given the more explicit nature of negotiation of form and the expectation that the linguistic form should be better noticed in the case of negotiation of form than the negotiation of meaning. The reason, the researchers explained, could have been because most of the negotiation of meaning strategies were in response to lexical errors, which despite involving meaning, were addressed quite explicitly. Lyster and Ranta (1997) compared feedback involving negotiation of form versus negotiation of meaning in content-based French immersion programs. They defined negotiation of form as feedback that did not provide the learner with the correct form but instead pushed the learner to self-correct. They argued that feedback moves that provide learners with opportunities for self-correction invite students to draw on their own resources to produce output, and as such they draw learners’ attention to form more effectively than feedback that reformulates the learner error in the context of meaning-focused interaction. Using such criteria, they classified clarification requests, elicitation, repetition, and metalinguistic feedback as instances of negotiation of form and recasts as an instance of negotiation of meaning. Analyzing 18.3 hours of classroom interaction, they found that overall negotiation of form was more effective in promoting modified output than negotiation of meaning, in particular when the former targeted grammatical and lexical errors. Van den Branden (1997) investigated the role of negotiation, including both negotiation of form and meaning among forty-eight NSs and NNSs of Dutch.

144

Interactional Feedback Dimension

The participants were three groups of primary school children, who were assigned to one of the three interactional conditions: peer interaction in which a learner interacted with another learner, teacher-pupil interaction in which a learner interacted with the researcher and a comparison group that involved no interaction. The learners’ task was to orally describe a series of pictures to their partners. After the interaction the learners completed a posttest, which was a second description of the same drawings. The study found that the learners received feedback involving both negotiation of form and meaning, but negotiation of form was present only in teacher-learner interaction and not in peer interaction. It also found that negotiation in general pushed the learners to produce higher levels of modified output during the course of interaction. However, the description of the drawing used as the posttest showed no significant effect of negotiation of form or meaning on learners’ grammatical accuracy. This lack of effect was explained as possibly due to the children’s greater attention to discourse and pragmatic features of their output than the grammaticality of their output during the posttest description. As can be seen, the results of the above studies seem to indicate that overall negotiation including both form and meaning can be beneficial for L2 learning. However, as for the difference between the two, the results vary. For example, while Lyster found an overall advantage for negotiation of form over negotiation of meaning, Ellis et al. found the opposite, despite the expectation about the superiority of feedback that provided opportunities for negotiation of form due to the more explicit and form-oriented nature of the former. On the other hand, Van den Branden found no effect for negotiation. To explain such differences in findings, a few issues need to be considered. One is that although these studies have all used the concepts of negotiation of form versus meaning, these notions have not been defined similarly across studies. For example, in Lyster’s study, negotiation of form was defined as feedback that provided opportunities for self-repair. Based on this definition, they considered clarification requests as a kind of negotiation of form despite the fact that the function of this feedback is often conversational and it is to seek clarification of meaning rather than form. Ellis et al., however, considered clarification requests as instances of negotiation of meaning. Following Pica (1992, 200), they defined negotiation of meaning as “activity that occurs when a listener signals to a speaker that the speaker’s message is not clear, and the listener and speaker work linguistically to resolve this impasse.” On the other hand, they defined negotiation of form “as activity that occurs when a participant in the conversation signals that there is a linguistic problem which another participant explicitly deals with” (Ellis et al. 2001, 285).

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

145

Another issue is the possibility of a mismatch between the intention of the teacher and the learner’s interpretation of the feedback (see Chapter 9). For example, it is quite possible that even if the teacher’s intention may be didactic when providing a particular feedback type (such as clarification requests), the learner may interpret them as strategies to deal with communication problems rather than linguistic problems. Finally, as Ellis (2008) noted, in many cases it is not very easy to determine whether it is the form or the meaning that is negotiated in an exchange. For this reason, it is possible that an exchange that is coded by the researcher as a negotiation of meaning exchange might in fact be a negotiation of form exchange and vice versa.

Intensive versus extensive feedback Another distinction with reference to types of feedback is the difference between extensive versus intensive feedback. Extensive feedback refers to feedback that targets incidentally a wide range of forms, whereas intensive feedback targets repeatedly a single predetermined linguistic form (Ellis 2001; Ellis and Sheen 2006). When feedback is provided intensively on a single target form repeatedly, it may be assumed to be more explicit and thus more effectively draw learners’ attention to form. On the other hand, when the feedback targets extensively a variety of linguistic forms, it may become less focused and thus less likely to draw learners’ attention to form. Some evidence for this comes indirectly from studies that have examined feedback in different contexts and have found different results. As noted earlier, Lyster (2004) investigated the differential effects of recasts versus prompts when learners received instruction in conjunction with feedback in the classrooms, and found that elicitation strategies were more effective than recasts. However, conducting a similar study, Lyster and Izquierdo (2009) provided learners with instruction in the classroom, but feedback in dyadic interaction outside the classroom. They found that both recasts and elicitations were equally effective. The effectiveness of both recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction outside the classroom could be due to the fact that in dyadic interaction learners may not only receive the feedback more intensively but they may also receive it in individualized one-on-one fashion, which can then increase the likelihood of learners’ attention to form. Very few studies, however, have directly examined the difference between extensive and intensive feedback. One study is Nassaji (2014), which investigated

146

Interactional Feedback Dimension

the differential effects of intensive versus extensive recasts on learning English articles. Intensive recasts were operationalized as recasts provided on article errors only. Extensive recasts were provided on a range of errors including article errors. Forty-eight adult intermediate ESL learners were randomly divided into three groups: an intensive recast group, an extensive recast group, and a control group. Learners carried out two communicative tasks in dyadic interaction with a native speaker. They were pretested and posttested (immediately and after two weeks) on their knowledge of English articles, using an oral picture description task, a written grammaticality judgment task, and a written storytelling task. On the grammaticality judgment and oral picture description tasks, the extensive recast group significantly outperformed the control group. On the written storytelling task, both recast groups outperformed the control group (though the difference was not statistically significant). These findings, particularly from the grammaticality judgment and the oral description tasks, suggest that learners benefited more from extensive than intensive recasts. These findings thus question the assumption that the intensive feedback is always advantageous to extensive feedback. The advantage of extensive recasts in this study can be explained in terms of feedback frequency and its effects on enhancing the noticing of implicit recasts. If we consider feedback as a kind of input (positive and negative), in extensive feedback learners were exposed to more instances of recasts. The frequency of feedback in extensive recasts could have then increased its salience and hence could be taken to account for its effectiveness. However, since there are not many studies in this area, we cannot yet come to any conclusion about the effects of these two types of feedback and there is a need for further research.

Immediate versus delayed feedback Another issue related to the type of feedback is the timing of feedback and whether there are differences between the effectiveness of feedback provided immediately after an erroneous utterance versus feedback provided with some delay. Although interactional feedback is often immediate, it can also take place in the form of delayed feedback after interaction (see Chapter 3). Theoretically, there are arguments both for and against delayed versus immediate feedback. Some researchers have argued that immediate feedback is more effective than delayed feedback. Doughty (2001), for example, argued that since immediate

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

147

feedback takes place immediately after the error and while learners’ attention is on meaning it provides a better opportunity for form-meaning mapping. Such an opportunity does not exist in the case of delayed feedback. Delayed feedback has also been questioned on the grounds that it might lead to explicit knowledge rather than implicit knowledge. As noted earlier, explicit knowledge is analyzed and abstract and becomes available to learners as a result of conscious attention. Implicit knowledge is intuitive and is not available through conscious analysis. It is argued that immediate feedback facilitates the development of implicit knowledge whereas delayed feedback facilitates explicit knowledge. Some researchers, on the other hand, have questioned the role of immediate feedback on the grounds that such feedback may disrupt communication. Murphy (1986), for example, has argued that “we find no evidence to show that correction has to be given in the instant following the error, so there is no value in interrupting an activity to correct mistakes when they can be corrected afterwards” (Murphy, 146). Therefore, teachers should not disrupt conversation and only provide feedback after the conversation is ended. Despite such arguments, however, the question of which of the two types of feedback is more effective is an empirical question that should be answered through empirical research rather than theoretical arguments. Not many studies have directly compared immediate and delayed feedback and their differential effects on learning. Varnosfadrani (2006) investigated the effects of immediate and delayed oral feedback among EFL learners and found no difference between the two. Data were collected from fifty-six intermediate-level EFL university students in a private school in Iran. Each participant was asked to read a written text and then retell it in his or her own words during an oral interview with the researcher. The participant received feedback either during or after the interview using either recasts or metalinguistic information. Individualized tests were constructed and then administered to the students. The results showed no significant differences between the immediate and delayed feedback, although those who received explicit metalinguistic correction outperformed those who received recasts. In a classroom study, Nassaji (2007c) examined the effectiveness of delayed feedback. He documented the occurrence of such feedback in the context of a routine classroom activity in an adult ESL classroom and then examined its effects using pretest-posttest measures. In the class observed, students wrote weekly journals on topics that they liked. The teacher reviewed the journals and identified samples of the erroneous utterances that included common errors. The teacher then conducted follow-up oral feedback sessions in response to those

148

Interactional Feedback Dimension

utterances. The teacher used various forms of interactional feedback including recasts, elicitations, or a combination. In addition to examining the effects of such delayed feedback, the study also examined the effect of feedback negotiation. To this end, the feedback exchanges were classified depending on the degree of negotiation into three types: feedback with no negotiation, feedback with limited negotiation and feedback with extended negotiation. The results showed an effect of delayed feedback by demonstrating that students who received such feedback were able to correct their errors. The effect of feedback was also shown to depend on the amount of negotiation. Feedback with negotiation was found to be more effective than feedback with no negotiation. However, since the study did not examine immediate feedback as compared to delayed, it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion from this study about which type is more effective. It is possible that both types of feedback may be potentially useful. This is an area that needs further investigation.

Conclusion In this chapter, we examined research that has investigated the differential effects of different feedback types. In general, feedback studies demonstrate that interactional feedback can have a beneficial effect on L2 acquisition. However, as for which type of feedback is more effective, research has not been able to provide a straightforward answer to this question as the results vary significantly across studies. There could be many reasons for this variation in results, some of which are methodological, relating to how studies have been conceptualized and designed and others relate to the various form- and feedback-related factors that may mediate the relationship between feedback and learning. To gain a better understanding of the role of feedback and how learners benefit from it, we will examine the various factors that may influence feedback effectiveness in the next chapter.

Questions for discussion 1. In this chapter, we presented research that has compared different types of feedback. Based on your understanding of this research, which feedback type do you think is more effective and why?

Comparative Studies of Interactional Feedback

149

2. Some research has shown that metalinguistic feedback is more beneficial than recasts while others have not. What do you think the reasons could be for these differences in results? 3. Can you think of a few differences between explicit and implicit feedback and how they may contribute to language acquisition? 4. Can you think of a situation where immediate feedback strategies are more appropriate than delayed feedback strategies? 5. Do you agree with the argument that immediate feedback may interrupt the flow of communication and therefore should not be used? Why or why not?

Part Three

Factors Affecting Interactional Feedback

8

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

Objectives ●●

●●

●●

Identify the different factors that may mediate the use and effectiveness of feedback. Explore how and why these factors can affect learning and feedback. Examine empirical research that has investigated the role of these factors and explore their implications.

So far, we have reviewed studies that have examined and compared the provision and usefulness of various interactional feedback types in different settings. While there is strong empirical evidence in favor of the usefulness of feedback in general, significant variations have also been observed in the results of studies with respect to both the amount and efficacy of different types of feedback. There could be many reasons for these differences, including not only various form-, feedback-, and context-related factors, but also many other learner-related factors such as learners’ developmental readiness, language proficiency and various individual learner differences such as attitude, motivation, anxiety, working memory capacity, etc. In this chapter we will discuss these factors and review research that has examined their potential role in the effectiveness of feedback.

Form- and feedback-related factors Linguistic target As suggested by many SLA researchers (e.g. Doughty 2003; Ellis 2008a; Lightbown 2004; VanPatten 2002a), not all linguistic forms are the same and not all are learned in the same manner. Thus, it is possible that different language

154

Interactional Feedback Dimension

forms may respond differently to instruction and feedback. Indeed, research that has examined the role of feedback in both classroom and laboratory contexts has found a significant effect on both the provision and effectiveness of feedback for the type of linguistic form addressed by feedback. One of the early studies that found evidence for the influence of the target structure is C. Sato (1986), who examined the relationship between interaction and learning in a study of two young Vietnamese learners in naturalistic conversational interaction. Using a longitudinal study, Sato analyzed the learners’ production of past time reference and found no effects of the input and interaction on increasing the learners’ accuracy of these grammatical features. Sato explained that part of the reason could be because of the nature of the target structure (the past tense marker -ed). The researcher argued that such forms are not phonologically salient, thus affecting the noticeability of the form in interaction. The analysis of the interaction confirmed this possibility by showing that the past time reference was largely understandable from situational or linguistic context and there was no need for the learners to process or rely on that morphological feature to derive the necessary past time information. Thus, Sato’s results suggested that the extent to which learners are able to notice and learn from feedback depends on the nature of their error. Several more recent studies have examined and have provided more direct evidence for the influence of linguistic forms. One such study is Lyster’s (1998a) observational study of French immersion classrooms, which found that both the provision and usefulness of recasts and negotiation strategies differed significantly depending on the nature of errors targeted (grammatical, lexical, and phonological). As for the provision of feedback, phonological and grammatical errors were found to receive more recasts (72 percent of grammatical and 64 percent of phonological errors received recasts while only 38 percent of lexical errors received recasts) whereas lexical errors were found to receive more negotiations (55 percent). The study also found a significant relationship between error types and learner repair of those errors. The results showed that 62 percent of phonological errors were repaired following feedback; however, only 22 percent of grammatical errors that received feedback were repaired. Learners also tended to repair phonological errors more often following recasts, but repair grammatical and lexical errors more often following negotiation of form. Similar findings were also reported by Shi (2004), who examined the role of interactional feedback in an EFL classroom. Shi found a greater degree of repair of phonological errors following recasts, but a higher degree of grammatical and lexical errors following negotiation of form.

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

155

The interaction between type of feedback and error type has also been reported in studies that have examined the role of feedback in NS-NNS interaction outside classroom contexts. Oliver (1995), for example, found that NS interlocutors provided recasts least often in response to NNS lexical errors (10 percent), but most often in response to grammatical errors such as singular/plural forms (47  percent). They also provided negotiation more frequently in response to lexical errors (54 percent) than singular/plural errors (18 percent). Oliver explained these findings in terms of clarity of meaning and the complexity of the error type, with negotiation being provided when the error made understanding difficult (such as in the case of word choice) and recasts being provided more often when meaning was clear (in the case singular/plural errors). Nassaji (2009) examined the relationship between learner immediate repair and learners’ ability to correct the same errors in subsequent posttests. The results showed that learners were able to correct a higher percentage of their lexical errors after interaction than the morphosyntactic errors that they had repaired after recasts during interaction but the percentage of successfully repaired errors that led to correction was higher for the lexical errors than for the morphosyntactic errors. However, this was true only in the immediate testing. In the delayed testing the correction rate of lexical repairs dropped considerably in comparison to morphosyntactic repairs. This finding was explained in terms of the mechanisms proposed for the effectiveness of recasts, which suggests that recasts would be more effective when provided “on linguistic forms that are in the process of being proceduralized than on forms that are at the onset of developing knowledge” (Han 2002, 552). It is possible that learners had some partial knowledge of the morphosyntactic forms even though they made errors in using them in the course of interaction. They may not have had such knowledge of the lexical forms because the teacher introduced them in the recasts, and therefore, those forms may have been new to the learner. The effects of linguistic targets have also been examined in some other experimental studies. Ellis (2007), for instance, examined the effects of recasts and metalinguistic explanations on two different grammatical forms: regular past tense –ed and comparative –er. The results showed that feedback in the form of metalinguistic feedback had differential effects on learning the two target structures. Learners who received metalinguistic feedback showed significantly greater gains in the use of comparative –er than the use of past –ed. Ellis explained this difference in terms of the more explicit nature of metalinguistic feedback and also in terms of learners’ potentially lower level of knowledge of comparatives and further room for improvement as a result of feedback. Yang and Lyster (2010)

156

Interactional Feedback Dimension

conducted an experimental study on the role of recasts versus prompts on the acquisition of past tense forms in English. The study found a differential effect of such feedback on learning regular versus irregular past tense forms. Using both oral and written production tests, the study found that the accurate use of regular past tense was affected more by prompts than by recasts. However, both recasts and prompts were found to have a similar effect on the accurate use of irregular past tense. Yang and Lyster concluded that prompts outperformed recasts because of the ability of prompts to provide consistent opportunities for learner self-repair and their higher degree of saliency (in oral production). In short, the above studies all suggest an important role for the type of linguistic error addressed by feedback by demonstrating that both the provision and usefulness of feedback vary considerably depending on the nature of the target structure.

Feedback characteristics Research has also demonstrated that the effectiveness of feedback varies depending on the formal and functional characteristics of the feedback. For example, as noted earlier, recasts have often been considered to be an implicit form of feedback. These feedback moves, however, can occur in different ways that can differ substantially from one another in terms of their formal and functional characteristics. They can occur in a declarative form with falling intonation to confirm the intended meaning and also in interrogative form with rising intonation to seek confirmation of the message. Recasts may also reformulate either the learner’s entire utterance, called full recasts, or may simply reformulate part of the erroneous utterance, called partial recasts. Since there are different forms of recasts, a key question here becomes whether there are differences in the effectiveness of the various forms of recasts. Ellis and Sheen (2006) pointed out that although distinctions have been made among different forms of recasts, so far very few L2 studies have empirically investigated and compared the effectiveness of these different forms, particularly with respect to L2 development. Some recent studies, however, have begun to examine these differences and have found significant variation in feedback effectiveness depending on their formal or functional features. Sheen (2006), for example, found that recasts that were shorter, used fewer changes, or were declarative were more positively related with learner uptake than recasts that were longer or used multiple changes. Philp (2003) also found that shorter recasts were more accurately noticed and recalled than longer recasts. Egi (2007) found that L2 learners interpreted recasts

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

157

more accurately as corrective feedback when they involved fewer changes than when they involved multiple changes. There may be a number of reasons why shorter recasts with fewer changes might be more effective than longer recasts. As Philp (2003) pointed out, one reason could be that learners may be better able to keep shorter recasts in their memory for comparison. When recasts are longer, they may be harder to remember. Furthermore, when the recast is long or involves a number of changes, it may be harder for the learner to recognize the focus of the recast or what errors have been corrected and what errors have not. Loewen and Philp (2006) examined and compared the effects of different types of recasts on both the learners’ uptake and their performance on individualized posttests. They found that recasts that were stressed, involved one change, were declarative, or consisted of multiple moves were significant predictors of successful uptake whereas interrogative recasts were a better predicator of subsequent test scores. The researchers explained that while declarative recasts may be more noticeable as feedback and hence promote uptake, interrogative recasts may facilitate cognitive comparisons more effectively and thus are better related to learning. Comparing the accuracy of modified output following recasts, Nassaji (2007b) compared three types of recasts: unenhanced recasts, intonationally enhanced recasts and verbally enhanced recasts. Unenhanced recasts were recasts that were confirmative in nature and did not include any additional intonational prompts such as added stress or rising intonation. Intonationally enhanced recasts were those that reformulated the target form with added stress, and verbally enhanced recasts were those that were combined with additional verbal prompts such as Do you mean?, Is that what you mean?, etc. The results showed that intonationally and verbally enhanced recasts resulted in higher rates of accurate modification of output following feedback than unenhanced recasts. Nassaji (2009) further confirmed these results by showing that the more enhanced forms of recasts led to higher rates of immediate and delayed posttest correction than unenhanced forms of recasts.

Learner-related factors Developmental readiness and language proficiency Evidence indicates that differences in the effectiveness of feedback are also related to learners’ linguistic or developmental readiness. This notion of developmental readiness suggests that learners must have reached a certain level of linguistic

158

Interactional Feedback Dimension

knowledge in order to learn a language form successfully (Pienemann 1984, 1985). This idea suggests that instruction and feedback cannot be effective if it targets developmental features for which the learners are not developmentally ready. Using the notion of developmental readiness, Mackey and Philp (1998) examined the effects of recasts on the development of question formation by adult ESL learners and found important effects for learners’ developmental readiness. Developmental effect of feedback was measured in terms of its influence on helping learners to move from one stage to the next. It was considered to have occurred when the learners produced at least two appropriate questions belonging to a higher stage of development. Participants were divided into four groups based on whether or not they received feedback (i.e. intensive recasts in task-based interaction versus task-based interaction with no recasts) and readiness to acquire certain question structures (ready or unready). The study showed that recasts had differential effects on L2 development for the learners who were at different stages of development. It showed that learners who were at a higher stage of question development (what they called developmentally ready) benefited more from recasts than those who were at a lower stage (what they called developmentally unready). Also, the only group that showed sustained development was the group ready to acquire the target structure. Therefore, the results suggest that the extent to which learners benefit from recasts depends on their linguistic developmental levels. A factor related to learners’ developmental level is learners’ degree of language proficiency. It can be assumed that learners who have higher levels of language proficiency may be better able to process and benefit from feedback than those who do not. It has been suggested that in order to be able to attend to linguistic forms during meaning-focused interaction, learners need to have reached a level of language proficiency wherein they can focus on the language form. Since beginner-level learners are at the initial stages of the learning process, they may not be able to pay as much attention to form because they need to use their attentional resources in order to process language for meaning. Therefore, they may benefit less than advanced-level learners who are better able to allocate their attentional resources to processing form. Empirical support for the effect of language proficiency comes from a number of studies, one of which is Williams (1999), which examined the use and effectiveness of feedback in eight adult learners working in pairs in language classrooms. The results showed that as proficiency level increased, so did the occurrence of attention to form. Williams suggested that such findings were related to the gap in beginner-level learners’ interlanguage (IL) and their inability to attend

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

159

to both form and meaning to the same degree as high-proficiency learners. Ammar and Spada (2006) investigated the role of learners’ level of language proficiency on the effectiveness of recasts versus elicitations in ESL classrooms. They divided the participants into low- and high-proficiency groups based on the results of a pretest. They found that more advanced learners benefited equally from both types of feedback, whereas less advanced learners benefited more from elicitations than recasts. These results were explained in terms of noticeability of feedback in that high-proficiency learners may have been able to notice the corrective force of recasts more effectively than lower-proficiency learners. Similar findings were also replicated by Trofimovich et al. (2007), who found that higher-proficiency learners benefit more from recasts than lowerproficiency learners. Lin and Hedgcock (1996) investigated to what extent L2 learners received and incorporated corrective feedback, and if any systematic differences existed between low- and high-proficiency learners. The researchers used one-onone interviews of about 30 minutes in length with eight Mandarin-speaking learners of Spanish. Based on the NS judges’ opinions of the learners’ holistic L2 performance in the interview, learners were divided into two groups: low proficiency and high proficiency. The interviews were transcribed and occurrences of corrective feedback provided by the NS interviewer and the extent to which learners modified their utterances following feedback were determined. The  results showed important differences between the two proficiency groups. The low-proficiency learners were given four times more negative feedback than high-proficiency learners. However, the former group only incorporated 7.1  percent of the feedback into their speech, whereas the other group incorporated 69.5 percent of the feedback. Overall, the above studies suggest that learners’ readiness to learn a linguistic form depends on their level of language proficiency. It should be noted, however, that although some level of language proficiency may be needed for any kind of interactional feedback to be useful, it is also possible that language proficiency interact with other factors and that lowproficiency learners may still benefit from certain types of feedback in a particular context. Iwashita (2001), for example, investigated the role of language proficiency by grouping learners into three dyadic pairs (low-low, high-high, and low-high) when conducting communicative tasks. The results indicated no significant difference among the pairs in terms of the frequency of types of interactional feedback used (confirmation checks and clarification requests) as well as the production of modified output. The researcher noted that the absence

160

Interactional Feedback Dimension

of significant difference between different proficiency groups might have been due to the small difference in language proficiency between high- and low-level learners and also the possible interaction of language proficiently with other individual learner factors. For example, there was some evidence that learner preferences for types of interlocutor could have played a role.

The role of gender The role of gender and how it affects language use has been the focus of much SLA research in the past few decades. This research has shown important differences between males and females in the ways they produce language (e.g. Cameron 2003a, 2003b; Drummond et al. 1996; Goodwin 1990; Holmes 1995, 1998; Tannen 1990). In this respect, important differences have been found in both quality and quantity of language use. Just to cite a few, Tannen (1990), for example, found that girls produced more talk and also showed little difficulty in engaging in conversation with their same-sex friends. Boys, however, were less at ease and also preferred to talk more about personal topics as well as less extensively. Holmes (1995, 1998) found that women used language in ways that showed more solidarity through using more compliments in their speech whereas men used utterances that showed more authority and control. Drummond et al. (1996) found that men produced more complex but incomplete sentences than women, who produced shorter sentences and also revised their sentences more often than men. Given such differences in language use and interaction between men and women, a few recent studies have also been exploring whether gender influences other features of interaction including the use and provision of interactional feedback. The results of these studies are mixed. While some indicate that gender differences can affect patterns of negotiation and feedback, others do not. One of the first studies that found evidence for the role of gender was that of Gass and Varonis (1985). They found differences in the degree of meaning negotiation in male-male and male-female dyads, with the latter producing more negotiation than the former. The participants were twenty NNS Japanese learners of English who formed ten pairs of male/female, male/male, and female/ female. The learners were engaged in three communication tasks, a conversation, and two picture-description tasks. The results showed important differences between males and females in the degree of negotiation and the opportunities for comprehensible input and output. According to the researchers, while men used interaction in ways that provided them with greater opportunities for

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

161

comprehensible output, females “utilized the conversation to obtain a greater amount of comprehensible input” (Gass and Varonis, 349). In a subsequent study, Pica et al. (1989) examined the use of learner modification in response to NSs’ clarification requests during a series of two-way communication tasks. The participants were ten NNSs of English, five males and five females paired with female NSs of English. The results showed that male NNSs received more clarification requests from NSs than female NNSs. But no difference was found between male and female NNSs in terms of production of modified output in response to feedback. These results suggest that learning opportunities provided by feedback did not differ in these task-based interactions based on the learner’s gender. Oliver (2002) examined the effect of gender in a study of conversational interaction between children. For the study, 192 participants were put into 96 pairs of age- and gender-matched dyads of NS and NNS. The pairs interacted during one-way and two-way communication tasks. The findings demonstrated that in child-child interactions, nativeness and language proficiency influenced the amount of negotiation for meaning, but gender showed no significant difference. In a more recent study, Ross-Feldman (2007) investigated the influence of learner gender on L2 task-based interactions and the language learning opportunities that arose in the course of such interactions. The findings indicated that the gender of the learners participating in task-based interactions influenced the interactional patterns in terms of the incidence as well as resolution of languagerelated episodes. For example, male-male dyads produced fewer instances of language related episodes than the other two gender compositions (male-female and female-female). However, this was true only on the picture story task, not on the other two tasks used (i.e. picture difference task and picture placement task). Overall, these findings suggest that gender may have an effect on interactional features in task-based interaction, but these effects are not straightforward and may be mediated by the type of task or interactional features as well as the context in which the feedback is used.

Learners’ literacy As reviewed earlier, studies have indicated that a learner’s developmental readiness and level of language proficiency are key factors in noticing and benefiting from interactional feedback. A factor related to language proficiency is the learner’s literacy level. Tarone and Bigelow (2005) pointed out that learners’ literacy levels can have an important effect on the development of

162

Interactional Feedback Dimension

metalinguistic knowledge. They noted that by becoming literate learners “develop an explicit and analytical awareness of language itself ” and that “with that awareness comes increasing cognitive control” (Tarone and Bigelow, 85). With these considerations, Bigelow et al. (2006) conducted a study to examine literacy as a possible factor influencing the effectiveness of recasts. Participants were a group of Somali L2 learners (eight) who had limited formal education and thus had low alphabetic literacy skills. They were divided into two groups of low and moderate literacy groups according to scores on L1 and L2 literacy measures. The following three questions were examined: 1. Is the ability to recall a recast related to the literacy level of the learner? 2. Is the ability to recall a recast related to the length of the recast? Do learners at higher literacy levels have better recall of longer recasts than learners at lower literacy levels? 3. Is the ability to recall a recast related to the number of changes made by the recast? Do learners at higher literacy levels have better recall of recasts with more changes than learners at lower literacy levels? (Bigelow et al., 671) To address the research questions, the learners were asked to perform communicative tasks with one of the researchers, who provided recasts on their nontargetlike interrogative sentences. The analysis of the interaction data revealed that those learners who had a higher level of literacy were better able to recall the recasts received during the interaction than those with lower literacy levels. The authors explained that this could have been because students with low-literacy levels might not process interactional feedback in the same way as those having higher literacy levels. The low-literacy learners might rely more on “semantic processing strategies as opposed to morphosyntactic processing strategies” (Bigelow et al., 685). It is important to note that the sample size of this study was small and hence it makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusion or implication from this study. It is also the only study of interactional feedback that has examined the role of learner level of literacy with respect to recasts and therefore more studies in this area are needed.

Learners’ age Age is a factor that has historically received much attention in L2 acquisition. Thus, a wide range of research both in the past and present has investigated its role in L2 acquisition. Although the results are complex, they have all indicated

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

163

that age is an important factor. For that reason, the role of age has also been a topic of interest to researchers examining the effects of interactional feedback. Although studies in this area are very limited, those that have examined the role of age have indeed shown that the use and effectiveness of interactional feedback may also vary depending on the learner’s age. One such study is Oliver (2000), which compared the provision of interactional feedback in both child and adult classroom and dyadic interactions (ten adult and ten child ESL classes, and thirty-two NS-NNS dyads: sixteen adult and sixteen child). Oliver found important differences in the pattern of interactions among these learners in that interactional feedback was provided more often in response to adult learners than children. Oliver explained this difference in terms of teachers’ “greater expectations for adult learners, encouraging greater risk taking from their learners” (Oliver, 138). The study also showed differences in the type of feedback, with negotiation strategies being provided more in response to errors made by adult learners, whereas recasts were provided more in response to errors made by children. Oliver found no significant difference in learner responses to feedback between the two age groups, although she speculated that older learners may “have a greater ability to make use of [negative] feedback, at least in the beginning stages of acquisition” (Oliver, 143). Mackey et al. (2003) examined the role of age among forty-eight dyads (children and adults) interacting with native or nonnative speakers. The feedback provided was recasts, clarification requests and confirmation checks. The data were analyzed in terms of degree of feedback, learner responses to feedback, opportunities for modified output (when the feedback allowed learner responses), and actual modified output (when learners produced modified output). When the data were examined for the difference between NS-NNS dyads, the study found greater amount of feedback provided by NSs than NNSs in adult dyads. Such a difference, however, did not exist in child dyads. The results also showed that in child dyads, learners produced more modified output when interacting with NSs but not when interacting with NNSs. When the data were examined for the difference between child and adult dyads, there was no difference in terms of amount of feedback provided in NS and NNS dyads. As for the opportunities for modified output, there was no difference between child and adult dyads in NS-NNS dyads. However, there was a significant difference between the two among NNS-NNS dyads, with adult learners having a greater opportunity than child learners. Furthermore, although there were more opportunities for modified output among adult learner pairs in NNS-NNS groups, the actual production of modified output was greater among pairs of child learners than adult learners.

164

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Altogether these findings suggest an interaction between age and opportunity for modified output in response to feedback in L2 learner interaction. Lyster and Saito (2010) examined the effect of age in their meta-analysis of classroom feedback. Their study revealed an important effect for age. Age explained about 26 percent of the variance in the effect of feedback in general and there was also a negative correlation between age and the effect of feedback, with younger learners benefiting more from feedback than older learners. The researchers explained that the younger learners’ advantage may be related to the sensitivity of younger learners to corrective feedback, particularly implicit feedback such as recasts. Lyster and Saito also argued that the difference could be because the recast “engages implicit learning mechanisms that are more characteristic of younger than older learners” (Lyster and Saito, 293). Of course, since the nature of feedback in studies examined in their meta-analysis varied greatly in terms of explicitness of feedback, such an explanation may not be very convincing. They also hypothesized that the differences could be due to the fact that in those studies children “received relatively longer instructional treatments (e.g., 7.5 hr in Ammar and Spada 2006; 9 hr in Lyster 2004) in comparison with adult learners (e.g., 90 min in Ellis, 2007; 90 min in Sheen, 2007)” (Lyster and Saito, 293).

Interlocutor factors Interlocutor type Another factor that may affect the use of interactional feedback is related to the types of interlocutor (e.g. native versus nonnative speakers or peer versus the teacher). This factor may play a role not only due to the learner’s perception of his or her interlocutor (a teacher versus a peer), but also due to the degree of negotiation needed to carry on a conversation (in the case of a native versus nonnative speaker). M. Sato and Lyster (2007) compared the interactional patterns of learner-learner and learner-NS dyads in a foreign-language setting to determine if learners’ production of modified output during a communicative task differed depending on whether the interlocutor was another learner or a NS. Participants were eight Japanese EFL learners and four NSs. Results showed that opportunities for learners to negotiate meaning were proportionally similar in both types of dyads. However, learners provided one another with significantly more elicited feedback than NSs did, and learners modified their output significantly more in learner-learner dyads than in learner-NS dyads.

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

165

As reviewed earlier Mackey et al. (2003) investigated the effects of two variables: age (children versus adults) and whether the interlocutor is a NS or a NNS. The results revealed that NS interlocutors provided significantly more feedback in response to NNS errors than the NNS interlocutors did in adult dyads, which suggests an interaction between feedback and the type of interlocutor. Furthermore, although the NNSs provided less feedback on errors, the NNSs had more opportunities for modified output in response to the feedback received from the NNSs than the NSs. The researchers speculated that part of the reason for this could have been the NNSs’ lower level of understanding due to their lower level of linguistic knowledge as compared to the NS. This could have pushed the NNSs to ask for more clarifications and thus provided more opportunities for modified output than the NSs. As the authors noted, no conclusion can be made from these results about the effect of interlocutor on feedback effectiveness and further research is needed in this area.

Interlocutor background, experience, and education It is possible that the interlocutor’s experience and education may also have an effect on the nature and effect of feedback. For example, education and experience may raise the interlocutor’s awareness (for example the teacher) of the type and nature of feedback and its role, which may then affect the quality of the feedback he or she provides. Two studies have so far examined this issue. Mackey et al. (2004) studied the use of interactional feedback in meaning-focused classrooms by experienced and less experienced instructors, and also included a follow-up study to examine how training and education on focus on form techniques influence instructors’ use of feedback. Data were collected from eighteen teachers, nine experienced and nine inexperienced. The experienced teachers had MA degrees in TESOL and an average of ten years of EFL/ESL teaching experience. The inexperienced teachers were university undergraduate students who had enrolled in an introduction to TESOL methods class, with little formal supervised teaching experience and no TESOL certificates. Their results showed that the level of teacher experience had an effect on the amount of feedback used by the teachers: less experienced teachers did not use feedback as much as experienced teachers. Polio et al. (2006) examined the effect of experience on enhancing the usefulness of recasts outside classroom settings. Two groups of NSs were studied, one that consisted of preservice teachers (n = 11) who had little experience with NNSs and another group that consisted of eight teachers with many years of teaching

Interactional Feedback Dimension

166

and experience interacting with L2 learners. Each of the teachers completed an information exchange task with an L2 learner and immediately after the task they each viewed a videotape of their interaction with the learner and were asked to comment on the interaction. The results did not reveal a significant difference between the two groups of the teachers in the quantity of feedback used. However, those teachers who had less experience talked much more than the experienced teachers, giving the learner fewer opportunities for interaction. The results of these two studies provide some evidence that the interlocutor experience and education may have an impact on the provision of opportunities for interaction when interlocutors interact with L2 learners both inside and outside the classroom.

Task- and context-related factors The role of tasks In interaction research, researchers analyze samples of interaction that take place between an interlocutor and a language learner. These samples are either based on naturalistic data happening in free conversation or are elicited from learners for the purpose of the study. Communicative tasks have often been used as an important means of eliciting and collecting data in interaction research both outside and within classroom settings. Such tasks, however, are not all the same and they vary in terms of a number of features, including the nature and the design of the tasks, task goals, interactional direction, and interaction requirement (amount of information held by participants and required to be exchanged for task completion) (e.g. Pica et al. 1993). In terms of interactional direction, tasks, for example, can be either one way or two way. In one-way tasks, the information flows only from one interlocutor to another but in two-way tasks there is a need for a two-way exchange of information. In terms of their goal, tasks can have a convergent goal with the participants trying to reach a single outcome or they can be divergent when there is no single outcome (such as a debate). Because of these differences it has been suggested that task design and task features can have important effects on the degree of negotiation, amount of feedback, as well as the extent to which learners make use of feedback during interaction. Research that has examined task attributes has shown that task characteristics can affect the type and degree of interaction and feedback as well as the modified

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

167

output following feedback. One of the first studies that examined and provided evidence for the effects of tasks and task characteristics is Crookes and Rulon (1988), which compared the provision and incorporation of feedback in NS-NNS interactions in three conditions, one free conversation and two information-gap tasks. They found that learners received a greater amount of negative feedback (operationalized as correct reformulation of the learner’s erroneous utterances) in task-based conditions than free conversation. As for the difference between tasks, there were fewer instances of feedback in the picture difference task than the other task, which suggests that the degree to which the learners receive feedback may be related to the characteristics of tasks. No evidence was found for greater learning as a result of differences in task-based interaction. Pica et al. (1989) compared three types of tasks (information-gap tasks, jigsaw tasks, and discussion tasks) in terms of the opportunities they provide for modification of output in NS-NNS interaction. They found that information-gap tasks provided the NNSs with the greatest opportunity to modify their original output than the other tasks, suggesting that the former task type provided a more favorable learning condition than the latter ones. Two-way convergent tasks have often been suggested to generate more negotiation than one-way divergent tasks (Long 1989). Since in two-way tasks, each of the participants holds a different portion of the information, they need to interact in order to complete the task. This might put a demand on both interlocutors not only for meaning negotiation but also message modification and accuracy. However, it is not just the direction of the information that plays a role in the amount of interactional modification. Task direction might interact with other task characteristics such as the degree of shared knowledge, the need to exchange information, also learners’ familiarly with task content and procedure (Gass and Varonis 1986). Therefore, although overall two-way tasks may be more effective in generating negotiation than one-way tasks, under certain circumstances, one-way tasks may lead to the same or ever greater degree of interactional feedback depending on the nature of the task. Iwashita (1999), for example, examined L2 learner-learner interaction using one-way and twoway tasks. She found that both tasks provided learners with ample opportunities for interactional feedback and attention to form. However, there was a significant difference between them, with one-way tasks (i.e. picture drawing tasks) providing learners with significantly greater opportunities for feedback (clarification requests and confirmation checks) and also a greater amount of output modification in response to feedback than the two-way task. Shehadeh

168

Interactional Feedback Dimension

(1999) also found that a one-way task (a picture-description task) provided significantly greater opportunities for feedback than an opinion-exchange task (a two-way task). As noted above, task effectiveness might interact with a number of other task characteristics such as task complexity, task familiarity as well as task condition and task planning. A number of recent studies have examined the effects of these variables. Robinson (2001), for example, examined the relationship between task complexity and interaction. He defined task complexity as the amount of cognitive processing efforts needed to carry out the task. Robinson found that more complex tasks (such as direction-giving map tasks) resulted in significantly more instances of feedback types such as confirmation checks than the simpler tasks. He also found the cognitive complexity of the task also affected learners’ perception of task difficulty, which could in turn affect how much learners might benefit from a task. In another study, Robinson (2007) found that task complexity had a positive impact not only on the amount of interaction and attention to input, but also on the amount of uptake of the linguistic forms including the incorporation of negative feedback (such as recasts). More complex tasks generated more interactional turns including a higher occurrence of interactional feedback, such as clarification requests and confirmation checks and also more uptake of feedback in response to feedback (such as recasts) than simpler versions. Robinson also distinguished between task complexity and task difficulty, defining the former as “differences in the intrinsic cognitive processing demands of tasks” and the latter as “the learners’ perceptions of these task demands” (Robinson, 210). Révész (2009) examined the effects of recasts and their relationship with task complexity on learning a targeted morphosyntactic form (present progressive –ing) among adult EFL learners. Participants were ninety learners who were divided into five groups: four comparison and one control. After viewing a picture for 10 seconds, the participants in the comparison groups were asked to describe the pictures, and they differed in whether or not they received recasts during their descriptions, and also whether or not they were allowed to continue viewing the photo during the descriptions. Révész found that: (1) the group receiving recasts without continuing to view the photos performed better than those who received recasts while viewing the photos and (2) the group that received recasts without continuing to view the photos improved in their L2 learning more than the groups who did not continue to view the photos or receive recasts. Révész concluded that recasts without contextual task support was more beneficial than recasts with contextual support.

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

169

Mackey, Kanganas, and Oliver (2007) examined the effects of task familiarity (familiarity with content and procedure) on interactional feedback generated in the course of task performance. The participants were forty ESL children who carried out communicative tasks in groups of two in L2 classrooms. They operationalized content familiarity as knowledge of the subject or topic of the task and procedure familiarity as knowledge of how to carry out the tasks (developed through 30-minute talks before the task about task content). They found that unfamiliar tasks resulted in a greater degree of negotiation including clarification requests and confirmation checks as well as corrective feedback on learners’ nontargetlike utterances. However, familiar tasks led to greater opportunities for modified output and the actual correction of learner errors following feedback. The researchers explained that this could be because when the task is familiar, the learners do not need to think much about content and hence they have move cognitive resources to pay attention to form. Thus, task familiarity “may mitigate the limitations of learners’ working memories” (Mackey et al., 290). Overall, the above results suggest that task characteristics can have important effects on task effectiveness and interactional feedback that learners receive during the task. Pedagogically, these findings suggest that in order to have appropriate and successful tasks for classroom interaction and feedback, teachers should pay attention to the various task designs and features.

The role of context In addition to the factors discussed above, another important one is the context in which feedback takes place. The role of context has received considerable attention in L2 acquisition theory and research in recent years. This has been because of both the observed relationship of context with changes in learner production and language use and also the effects of context on the learner interlanguage itself and the acquisitional processes underlying its development (Firth and Wagner 1997, 2007; Lantolf and Thorne 2006; Ohta 2000; Tarone 2000, 2007). With regard to feedback, research evidence seems to suggest that context plays an important role in both the provision and usefulness of feedback. This evidence comes from different results of studies that have examined the same feedback type in different instructional contexts, and also those that have examined more directly the influence of context on the provision of feedback and its effectiveness. For example, in an observational study of the role of corrective feedback in French immersion classrooms, Lyster and Ranta (1997)

170

Interactional Feedback Dimension

found a high rate of recasts, but a low rate of uptake following recasts. In a similar observational study with ESL students in New Zealand, Ellis et al. (2001a) found both a high rate of recasts and also a high level of uptake following recasts. These differences have been partly attributed to the variation in the contexts of the two studies. Lyster and Ranta’s research was conducted in content-based French immersion classrooms with young learners, whereas Ellis et al.’s research was conducted in an intensive ESL program with adult learners, most of whom were highly motivated to improve their English. As reviewed earlier, Sheen (2004) compared the frequency of corrective feedback and learner uptake in four studies conducted in four different contexts: Ellis et al. (2001a) in ESL classrooms in New Zealand, Panova and Lyster (2002) in ESL classrooms in Canada, Lyster and Ranta (1997) in French immersion classrooms in Canada, and a study of EFL classrooms in Korea. She found that while recasts were the most frequent type of feedback in all four contexts, they were more frequent in the Korean EFL and the New Zealand ESL classrooms than the other two contexts. Lyster and Mori (2006) compared how learner uptake and repair is affected by three types of feedback (explicit correction, recasts, and prompts) in two different instructional environments: Japanese immersion and French immersion. Recasts were found to be the most frequently used type of feedback in both instructional environments, but repair and uptake patterns differed between the two settings. Prompts resulted in higher levels of repair in the French setting and recasts produced the most repair in the Japanese setting. Such results provide evidence that instructional context plays a role in the provision and effectiveness of feedback. In a recent study, Nassaji (2013) extended the above line of research on context by examining a particular aspect of classroom context, namely, studentteacher participation structure. Participation structure was used to refer to the organization of classroom talk, and in particular, the variations in patterns of student-teacher interaction that occur within the classroom (Erickson 1982; Philips 1972; 1983). He distinguished between three different types of participation structures in the classroom setting, which differed from one another in terms of the number of students involved in the interaction with the teacher: whole class (when the teacher interacted with all students in the class), small group (when the teacher interacted with only a group of students), and one-onone (when the teacher interacted with a single student). The results revealed that feedback occurred in all three types of participation structures but with different frequency. They also showed a significant relationship between participation structure and the effectiveness of feedback as measured by tailor-made posttests.

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

171

These results were taken to suggest that the occurrence and effectiveness of incidental feedback may vary even within the same classroom context, according to the organization of interaction in which it takes place. In addition to the above individual studies, meta-analyses of research on feedback have also confirmed the importance of context. Mackey and Goo’s (2007) meta-analysis of interaction studies, for example, found that the effects of interactional feedback were significantly greater in foreign-language contexts (effect size = 0.88) than in second-language contexts (effect size = 0.64). They also found significantly larger effects of studies conducted in laboratory settings that in classroom settings. The latter findings were further confirmed in Li’s (2010) meta-analysis, which also found similar effects of research contexts, with corrective feedback having a larger effect in laboratory versus classroom settings. The greater effect of feedback in EFL contexts could be due to the more formfocused nature of such contexts as comported to ESL contexts (see Sheen 2004). The more positive effects of feedback in laboratory context could be related to the more controlled nature of studies in these contexts and the more intensive and repeated provision of feedback on certain target structures, which could then draw learners’ attention to form more effectively than in classroom contexts where the feedback is often on a whole range of errors (Nicholas et al. 2001).

Other cognitive and individual difference factors In addition to the above factors, there are a number of other cognitive and individual learner differences that are believed to influence the effectiveness of feedback such as learners’ working memory, motivation, anxiety, and beliefs. In what follows, we consider these factors and examine the research that has investigated their impact on the ways learners process and learn from feedback.

Working memory In language learning, learners need to be able to store the various linguistic information and then access it immediately when they need to use it during communicative interaction. This storage system has been called working memory, which refers to the mechanism involved in the temporary storing and manipulating of verbal information (Baddeley 1994; Baddeley and Hitch 1974). This system is used during online cognitive processing of complex tasks including language learning, comprehension, and reasoning (Baddeley 2003).

172

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Working memory capacity has been considered to be limited in terms of the amount of information it can hold, and also people differ in their memory capacity and in how much information they can store or process (Harrington and Sawyer 1992). Therefore, this factor has been considered an important variable, particularly in spontaneous processing of language. This factor has also been suggested to play a role in the effectiveness of interactional feedback that occurs in the course of interaction. In order to benefit from feedback during communicative interaction, learners must be able to notice the information in the feedback and compare it with their nontargetlike utterance. To this end, they should be able to detect and temporarily hold the information in feedback in their memory long enough to be able to make the cognitive comparison needed between their original production and the targetlike production. Although the role of working memory in relation to recognizing linguistic elements or L2 learning in general has been extensively researched (see Juffs and Harrington 2011), the significance of this variable in learning from feedback has just recently begun to be empirically investigated. One of the studies that examined the relationship between learners’ working memory and the efficacy of interactional feedback is Mackey et al. (2002). These researchers examined in particular the role of L2 learners’ working memory capacities in noticing of feedback and the ways in which learners’ interlanguage changed after the feedback. Psychometric tests of working memory capacities were administered to thirty learners in both their L1 (Japanese) and their L2 (English). The results suggested a relationship between working memory composite scores and reports of noticing, that the developmental level of the learner appeared to be a mediating factor in this relationship, and that learners with high working memory capacity were more likely to benefit from interactional treatment (not immediately after the treatment but after a time interval). Following that research, Mackey et al. (2010) examined the relationship between working memory capacity and the amount of modified output produced by learners in response to feedback. The authors found that increased working memory capacity was related to increased modified output when learners were exposed to feedback such as clarification requests and repetition. Goo (2012) examined the effectiveness of recasts and metalinguistic feedback in association with working memory capacity. Korean EFL participants received one of the feedback types on their erroneous utterance that-trace filter. The results showed that working memory capacity predicted the effect of recasts but not metalinguistic feedback. Mackey and Sachs (2011) investigated the relationship between language development and working memory through a study of older (over 65) learners

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

173

of ESL, an often neglected demographic in ESL research. Their small-scale study of nine ESL learners evaluated the learners’ abilities to acquire English question formation through recasts provided in communicative dyads. Results showed a connection between learning from feedback and working memory, with the learners who had the highest scores on the initial listening span test showing more improvement on the posttest scores than those with the lowest initial listening span scores. All in all, the above studies indicate that learners’ working memory is a significant factor in constraining the efficacy of interactional feedback, particularly recasts. Thus, such individual learner characteristics should be taken into account when discussing, explaining, or designing research on the role of such feedback.

Attitudes, motivation, and anxiety In addition to the cognitive factors such as working memory, other variables that can affect learners’ ability to learn from feedback are affective factors, including learners’ attitudes, motivation, and anxiety. Although the effects of these variables and their interaction with other variables have always been complex, many researchers have argued that these variables play an important role in language learning. Considerable research, for example, has shown that learners’ attitudes toward a language correlate significantly with L2 achievement. They have also shown that those who are more motivated to learn a second language are more successful than those who are less motivated (e.g. Dornyei 2001; Gardner 2001; Gardner and Lambert 1972; Gardner and MacIntyre 1993). Language anxiety, a personality trait which is generally defined as an emotional response including the feeling of fear or nervousness that people exhibit when speaking or learning a language (Horwitz 2001), has also been found to affect learners’ success (Gardner and MacIntyre 1993; Horwitz and Young 1991). For example, reviewing the research in this area, Gardner and MacIntyre (1993, 3) concluded that “anxious students will have lower levels of verbal production, will have difficulty in basic learning and production, will be less likely to volunteer answers in class, and will be reluctant to express personally relevant information in a second language conversation.” Although considerable research has examined the role of affective variables in L2 acquisition in general, only a few studies have investigated the role of this factor in corrective feedback effectiveness. One study is Dekeyser (1993), which, as was reviewed earlier, investigated the effectiveness of feedback among

174

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Dutch high school senior students learning French as a second language. The results showed no effect of feedback on increasing learners’ proficiency but the analysis further found that the effects interacted with learner characteristics such as learners’ level of motivation and anxiety. Sheen (2007b) investigated the effects of recasts and metalinguistic feedback and their relationship with learner aptitude and attitude toward error correction. She found a positive relationship in the metalinguistic group between students’ posttest scores and language aptitude, measured by a language analytic ability test, and learners’ attitude but such a relationship was not found for the recast group. In another study, Sheen (2008) examined the effects of language anxiety on the effectiveness of recasts. L2 Learners of English were divided into two anxiety groups (high and low) and were either exposed to recasts or no recasts, making four groups in total. The focus was on learning English articles. In two of the treatment conditions, the groups received recasts on their erroneous utterances. The study used a pretest, posttest, delayed posttest design using two testing methods: a speeded dictation test and a writing test. The results showed that the low-anxiety recast group performed better in the immediate posttests than their high-anxiety counterparts as well as the low-anxiety without recast group. No difference in performance was observed between the high-anxiety recast and high-anxiety without recast groups. Additionally, the low-anxiety learners who produced more modified output were shown to benefit from recasts. Based on the results of the above studies, it can be concluded that individual learner differences such as attitudes, motivation, and anxiety influence learning from feedback, but their relationship may also be mediated by the type of feedback.

Methodological factors In addition to all the variables examined, other important factors that can explain some of the differences in the effectiveness of interactional feedback reported in different studies are methodological factors. This includes different research designs used, different ways of operationalizing the feedback, and also different ways of measuring learning. For example, as discussed earlier, Lyster and Ranta (1997) reported that although recasts were the most frequent type of feedback, it was the least effective compared to other types of feedback. On the other hand, Doughty and Varela reported that recasts were highly effective

Factors Affecting the Provision and Usefulness of Interactional Feedback

175

in helping learners to increase their accuracy of the target forms. However, Lyster and Ranta’s study was descriptive, examining the effect of recasts that occurred on a wide range of forms, whereas Doughty and Varela’s (1998) study was experimental, examining the effects of recasts on a single form. It can be assumed that the recasts that are more focused and occur intensively on a single targeted form can be better noticed as feedback than recasts that occur on a wide range of forms. Furthermore, Lyster and Ranta measured the effectiveness of feedback using uptake and repair in the course of instruction whereas Doughty and Varela used pretest-posttest measures. Goo and Mackey (2013) reviewed empirical studies on the effectiveness of recasts and argued against ones that supported the relative inefficiency of recasts. They raised a number of methodological and interpretative questions in research conducted on recasts including: (a) modified output opportunities (i.e. some research has controlled for this factor and some has not), (b) single-versus-multiple comparisons (some research compared recasts with multiple feedback types), (c) form-focused instruction (some research has used feedback combined with form-focused instruction), (d) prior knowledge (some previous studies have controlled learners’ prior knowledge and some have not), and (e) outof-experiment exposure (some studies have controlled this factor and some have not). Due to these differences, the authors suggested that comparing the research results of these studies are problematic. This review also suggests that in order to discuss and explain the effectiveness of corrective feedback, these methodological factors need to be considered.

Conclusion In this chapter we have examined the various factors that can mediate the use and effectiveness of feedback as well as the research that has investigated their effects. As shown earlier, there is now strong evidence that interactional feedback facilitates the acquisition of L2 grammatical forms. However, this does not mean that the effectiveness of feedback is similar for all language forms, for all learners, and in all contexts. Learners benefit differently from different feedback types depending on many form-, feedback-, learner-, interlocutor-, task-, and context-related factors. In light of such evidence, it seems advisable to conclude that there is no inherent value in any specific feedback type by itself, and for the same reason arguing for or against a particular type of feedback without considering these factors may not be a worthwhile attempt. Given such

176

Interactional Feedback Dimension

a situation, instead of simply asking or studying which feedback type is more effective, a more reasonable question to ask could be under what condition a particular feedback type is most effective and why.

Questions for discussion 1. Research has suggested that the provision and usefulness of feedback may vary depending on the type of target structure. What do you think are some of the reasons for this finding? 2. What do you think are some of the main factors that teachers should consider when designing tasks for classroom teaching? Explain some of the ways in which research on the role of tasks and task characteristics can help teachers to do so. 3. Research has highlighted the importance of context as a factor influencing the role of corrective feedback and learner output. What do you think the reasons are for such findings? Do you think that the way we learn a language changes depending on the context in which we learn the language? Why or why not? 4. We have discussed age as an important factor that may affect learning from feedback. What are some of the characteristics of adult learners that differentiate them from younger learners? 5. Two-way tasks have often been suggested to generate more negotiation and feedback than one-way tasks. What do you think the reasons are for this? 6. As reviewed, research has suggested an important relationship between learners’ working memory capacity and learning from recasts. What do you think the implications of such findings are for language teaching? 7. Select three factors from the ones discussed in this chapter that you think are most important to consider when providing feedback. Discuss why they are so important. 8. Drawing on the ideas presented in this chapter, discuss what you believe about the role of individual learner differences in affecting the effectiveness of feedback. 9. Some research has suggested learners may modify their output significantly more in learner-learner dyads than in learner-NS dyads. What reason(s) do you have for this finding?

9

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

Objectives ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Explore learners’ perception and noticing of interactional feedback and their relationship with feedback types and feedback targets. Understand the relationship between teachers’ intention and learners’ interpretation of feedback. Examine the link between learner interpretation of feedback and L2 learning. Identify the different factors that may mediate the relationship between feedback perception and feedback effectiveness. Discuss students’ and teachers’ feedback preferences and how this affects learning.

Introduction So far, we have examined issues related to the impact and potential benefits of interactional feedback and reviewed research in this area, including observational, experimental, and quasi-experimental studies. We have also examined a number of factors that can mediate the efficacy of such feedback. Related to the use and effectiveness of feedback is also understanding how learners notice and perceive such feedback and the extent to which their perception and interpretation relates to how feedback works for individual learners. In this chapter, we explore the role of learner perception and interpretation of feedback and examine empirical research in this area.

Learners’ perception of feedback In order to understand how feedback affects learning, we need to understand how learners allocate their attention resources when they receive feedback.

178

Interactional Feedback Dimension

As discussed earlier, an essential condition for language acquisition is noticing. Schmidt (1995) pointed out “not all learning is deliberate or intentional, but all learning does require attention” (Schmidt, 1). From this perspective, the relationship between feedback and learning is mediated by learners’ noticing of feedback. When feedback is provided to learners, it is not simply enough if the  teacher intends for it to be corrective. The learner should also be able to perceive it as correction. In addition, learners should not only be able to recognize the feedback as correction but should also be able to understand what aspect of their output should be corrected. For instance, if the feedback is on a pronunciation error, the learner should be able to perceive it as feedback on pronunciation in order to be able to successfully repair that nontargetlike production. One factor that may play a great role in noticeability of feedback is the degree of feedback explicitness. Since different feedback types differ in their degree of explicitness, learners may show different degrees of noticeability and perception of feedback. When feedback is implicit, it may be harder for learners to recognize it as corrective feedback. As discussed earlier, recasts have been found to be one of the most frequently used feedback types in L2 classrooms. However, recasts have also been found to lead to a lower rate of uptake compared to other types of feedback, particularly in content-based classrooms where the primary focus is on meaning. This has been attributed to the fact that recasts may be ambiguous in such contexts. As reviewed earlier, the ambiguity of recasts was documented by Lyster (1998b), who found that recasts not only correct but also confirm message acceptability. In his reanalysis of the database used in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997), Lyster (1998b) found that teachers not only recasted learners’ erroneous forms but also repeated or rephrased their nonerroneous forms, and that the rephrasing of the non-erroneous forms was very similar in type and distribution to recasting erroneous forms. Because of this, Lyster speculated that learners might have difficulty recognizing which reformulation is a recast and which is not. Therefore, he concluded: Recasts may be less successful at drawing learners’ attention to their non-target output—at least in content-based classrooms where recasts risk being perceived by young learners as alternative or identical forms fulfilling discourse functions other than corrective ones. . . . Thus, recasts of grammatical errors probably do not provide young classroom learners with negative evidence, in that they fail to convey what is unacceptable in the L2. (Lyster, 207)

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

179

In the literature, most of the discussion about the ambiguity of feedback has been around recasts. However, other forms of feedback such as elicitations or clarification requests can also be fairly ambiguous. For example, when the teacher uses an elicitation move such as a clarification request (e.g. I’m sorry?), the learner might think that the teacher did not hear the learner’s utterance well and is simply asking the learner to repeat his or her utterance. This ambiguity can be seen in Example 1, in which the learner has produced an error in his initial utterance, the teacher has used a clarification request in response to learner utterance, and the learner has responded by repeating the same erroneous utterance with no change. In this example, it is possible that the learner has noticed the feedback but has not been able to produce a correct version of his utterance. It is also possible that the learner did not notice the corrective force of the feedback and interpreted the teacher’s move as a discourse move asking for repetition rather than as a corrective feedback move. Example 1 Student: I was cooking on most day? Teacher: Sorry? Student: I was cooking on most day?

In their study of classroom feedback, Lyster and Ranta (1997) reported that clarification requests led to 100 percent of uptake (defined as learner responses to feedback). However, 67 percent of the responses was simply students’ repetition of their own erroneous utterance after the clarification request. In such cases, it is possible that the learner did not perceive the teacher’s utterance as corrective feedback. Another factor in learners’ ability to interpret feedback appropriately can be learners’ metalinguistic skills. Carroll (2001, 390) pointed out that interpretation of feedback moves as correction requires a certain degree of metalinguistic knowledge because “the correct construal of the corrective intention requires treating language itself as an object of thought.” If metalinguistic ability plays a role in interpreting feedback as correction, it is possible that in some contentbased contexts such as immersion classrooms with young learners, one reason that implicit feedback such as the recast has been ambiguous could be because the learners may not have had the necessary metalinguistic awareness to interpret such feedback as corrective feedback. However, although theoretical claims can be made about ambiguity of feedback and the underlying reasons, empirical studies are needed in order to

180

Interactional Feedback Dimension

better understand whether and how learners perceive feedback and what factors affect their perception. In response to this need, in recent years, there have been a number of studies that have examined learner perception and interpretation of feedback empirically. Four main questions have been the focus of such research: (a) how learners interpret interactional feedback in general, (b) whether learners interpret feedback differently depending on the type or target of feedback, (c) what factors mediate learners’ perception of feedback, and (d) whether there is any relationship between feedback perception and L2 learning. Another question related to interpretation of feedback is how learners perceive the importance of feedback for learning. In the latter case, perception can refer to learners’ beliefs and perspectives about corrective feedback, rather than noticeability of feedback. In the following sections we will discuss these issues and the research that has addressed them. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to understand what procedures researchers have used to determine learners’ awareness or perception of feedback. Therefore, we will discuss this issue first.

Measuring learner perception of feedback Although noticing has been theoretically argued to be essential for language acquisition, as Mackey et al. (2000, 474) pointed out, “[d]irect evidence about the role of attention has proven difficult to demonstrate.” The reason for this is that noticing is not a simple concept, and therefore the task of operationalizing and measuring it is not simple either. As Schmidt pointed out, attention involves a variety of mechanisms, including “alertness, orientation, preconscious registration, selection, facilitation, and inhibition” (Schmidt 2001, 3). Due to the multifaceted nature of noticing, researchers have defined and examined it from a number of perspectives. In interaction research, some studies have defined noticing as learners’ implicit awareness of feedback in the course of interaction. These studies have often used learner responses to feedback or uptake as a measure of feedback noticeability. Since uptake is learners’ reaction to feedback, it has been assumed that this suggests that the learner has become aware of the feedback (e.g. Lyster and Ranta 1997). Egi (2010) for example, found that when learners produced uptake following recasts, they were more likely to indicate that they had noticed the recasts as corrective than when they did not produce uptake. However, as discussed earlier, even though the presence of uptake may indicate that learners

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

181

have noticed the feedback, the absence of uptake does not necessarily indicate that learners have not noticed the feedback. The use of uptake as a noticing measure can also be problematic because there may be many cases where the feedback move does not require a response from the learner. For example, when recasts are used in a declarative form to confirm the learner’s meaning or message comprehensibility, the learner does not need to respond. This lack of response, however, cannot be taken as an indication that the learner did not notice the feedback. Finally, although there might be a relationship between uptake and noticing, this relationship is not direct. For example, exploring the relationship between the two, Yoshida (2010) found many cases where the learners had responded to the feedback, but then reported that they had not noticed the feedback. In addition to uptake, some studies have operationalized noticing as learners’ conscious awareness of what goes on during the feedback exchange. These studies have often used various introspective and retrospective measures to examine learners’ perception or interpretation of feedback, such as introspective thinkaloud conducted during the interaction, various forms of self-report data after the feedback or interaction and other post-task measures such as questionnaires, dailies, journals, and uptake sheets that students complete following the treatment and report if they have noticed the feedback or the language form. One retrospective measure that has been used in perception studies is immediate recall (e.g. Egi 2007; Philp 2003). In such measures, the learner is asked immediately after the feedback to verbalize his or her thoughts when receiving the feedback. With such a technique, usually the learner is prompted by a signal such as some knocking sounds, to recall the feedback (see Philp 2003 below). The accurate recall of the feedback is then taken as evidence for noticing the feedback. Another retrospective method widely used in feedback perception studies is stimulated recall (e.g. Egi 2007, 2008; Gass and Lewis 2007; Kim and Han 2007; Mackey et al. 2000, 2007). In stimulated recall, the learners are presented after the interaction with the task in which they had participated, and are asked to report their thoughts at that time (Gass and Mackey 2000). As described in Gass and Mackey (2000), in stimulated recall, the recall session is usually conducted after the task is completed instead of immediately following each feedback turn. After the interaction is completed, the learners are shown video recorded feedback episodes from their interaction. The videotape is then paused at the time the learner has received feedback and the learner is asked to report what they were

182

Interactional Feedback Dimension

thinking when they were receiving feedback. This method is assumed to provide retrospective data of learners’ perception during the time that learners received feedback. It is important to note that although self-report data such as those described above provide important information about what learners think when doing a task, measuring perception through such methods is not without limitations. Methods such as introspective think aloud, which requires learners to verbalize their mental processes while doing the task, may provide data about mental processes or what learners pay attention to while they are engaged in performing the task. However, think aloud can have its own effect. Since think aloud is often concurrent, it creates an additional task with its own cognitive processes, which may then interfere with the cognitive processes involved in the actual task. This issue has been known as the reactivity problem of verbal reports in SLA research (Bowles 2008; Bowles and Leow 2005; Leow and Morgan-Short 2004). This reactivity can be either positive, enhancing the thought processes and heightening attention (Sanz et al. 2009; Yanguas and Lado 2012), or negative, having a debilitating effect on the learners’ performance (see Bowles 2010 for a discussion and an overview of research). Another shortcoming of such methods is what has been referred to as the veridicality problem, which concerns whether or not what learners verbalize during the think aloud is a true reflection of what went on during the original task (e.g. Bowles and Leow 2005; Leow and Morgan-Short 2004). Also, since learners’ working capacity is limited, this limitation constrains learners’ recall. Because of memory decay, learners may not be able to recall what went on during the task (Bowles 2008). In the case of feedback, learners may sometimes be able to recall the feedback itself, but they may not remember exactly what kind of information was provided by the feedback or in what way the feedback differed from their own utterance. In stimulated recall, since learner reports are provided after the feedback session, memory effects may be more pronounced because of the greater interval between the feedback and the recall session. Immediate recall may be more advantageous than stimulated recall in this sense, since in the former learners are asked to recall immediately after each feedback move. However, such measures may also be prone to the interference effect because the researcher interrupts the flow of communication by asking the learner to do a different task. In addition, if self-report data are collected through the learners’ L2, learners may not be able to fully express their thoughts due to language proficiency limitations. In such cases, a student may have understood the task but may be

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

183

unable to verbalize it. Thus, the data obtained from the participants with lowerlevel language skills can be limited in terms of the information it can provide. The above limitations suggest that using recall measures including think aloud, immediate, or stimulated recall, cannot provide a very reliable and valid measure of learners’ noticing and perception of feedback. Having said that, it is important to note that still such measures provide important insight into learners’ thought processes when doing a task. Furthermore, although such methods have limitations, if learners are able to accurately recall the feedback, it can be assumed that noticing has occurred.

Empirical studies of feedback perception Perception of feedback and the mediating factors Due to the importance of feedback perception and its assumed relationship with learning, a number of studies have recently investigated learners’ perception of interactional feedback, using one or a combination of the measures described above. One such study is Philp (2003), which examined learners’ noticing of recasts in dyadic task-based interaction. Data were collected from thirty-three adult ESL learners who participated in oral interaction with native speakers. The target structure was the English question forms, which were elicited through a set of pictures that required the NNSs to ask the NSs questions. When the NNSs asked the NSs questions, they received recasts in response to their nontargetlike utterances. Noticing was operationalized as remembering recasts following the feedback and was measured by cued immediate recall. To this end, after each recast, the learner’s response was interrupted by the sound of two knocks used to cue him or her to recall the feedback by repeating the last thing he or she heard before that sound (see Example 2). Example 2 NNS: Why he is very unhappy? NS: Why is he very unhappy? [2 knocks] NNS: Yeah why is very unhappy?

The results showed that learners were able to notice a substantial portion of the recasts (60–70 percent). The amount of noticing was also found to be affected by the length of recasts, with shorter recasts being better noticed than longer recasts. For example, recasts that involved five or fewer morphemes were recalled

184

Interactional Feedback Dimension

more accurately than those including six or more morphemes. Philp  (2003) attributed these finding to the limitation of working memory capacity and the idea that shorter recasts may be better retained in memory than longer recasts, which may overload learners’ working memory, making them unable to retain the information contained in recasts. Philp also found that the level of L2 proficiency affected the amount of noticing, with higher-level learners being more likely to notice recasts than lower-level learners. As noted earlier, another recall measure to examine learner perception is stimulated recall. One of the first studies that used this procedure is the smallscale classroom study by Roberts (1995), which examined how beginner-level university students learning Japanese as a foreign language noticed teachers’ intention of correcting them in teacher-fronted activities. The data consisted of a 50-minute video-recorded lesson that was watched by three volunteer students a few days after the classroom interaction. The learners were asked to locate when the teacher had corrected a student and also to identify the target of the correction. The results showed that on average learners were able to recognize only about one-third of the feedback moves. Based on these findings, Roberts argued that interactional feedback, particularly the less salient form such as recasts, may not be perceived accurately as feedback in language classrooms, and therefore such feedback may not be useful to learners. He then argued that there is a need to provide feedback in ways that learners can learn from. He proposed two criteria for effective feedback. First, students have to notice that feedback has taken place, and second, students have to understand the nature of the correction. Using stimulated recall measures, Mackey et al. (2000) examined learners’ perceptions of implicit interactional feedback during task-based interaction. The study took place with adult learners in two instructional contexts: an ESL context and an Italian foreign language (IFL) context. The feedback was either negotiation or recasts provided in response to learners’ erroneous utterances while they were performing communicative tasks. The learners’ interactions were videotaped and then analyzed. To assess learners’ perception, the learners were asked to watch their videotaped interaction immediately following the interaction and provide retrospective comments on it. When the tape reached a section that included the feedback, it was paused and the learner was asked to recall his or her thoughts at that moment. To analyze the data, the researchers identified the types of errors on which feedback was provided and classified them into morphosyntactic, phonological, and lexical errors. The results showed important mismatches between the feedback intention and the learner

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

185

perception. Learners were most successful in perceiving lexical and phonological feedback but less successful in perceiving morphosyntactic feedback. The IFL learners perceived morphosyntactic feedback as being about morphosyntax only 24 percent of the time and the ESL learners only 13 percent of the time. In many cases, the IFL learners interpreted morphosyntactic feedback as feedback about lexical forms (44 percent of the time) and the ESL learners perceived such feedback as feedback about meaning or lack of understanding (38 percent of the time). The following exchange (Example 3) from the study shows an example of a situation where an ESL learner perceived a morphosyntactic error as feedback about meaning. In this episode, the learner produced an utterance with two errors, one related to the verb feed and the other related to the preposition for. The NS has provided a recast, reformulating the utterance into a correct form and the NNS has responded by repeating part of the utterance following the feedback. During the stimulated recall, the learner was asked what he was thinking about the feedback at the time of feedback. The learner stated that he had been thinking about how to describe the scene, without mentioning that he had been thinking about any feedback. This suggests that the learner did not perceive the intention of the NS’s feedback. Based on such findings, the authors concluded that recasts may not be perceived accurately as feedback, particularly when provided in response to morphosyntactic errors. Example 3 NNS: So one man feed for the birds. NS: So one man’s feeding the birds? NS: The birds. Recall: When I saw the picture I thought this is a park and I tried to describe.

Mackey et al.’s study further showed that learners not only differ in their interpretation of the feedback depending on the target of the feedback, but also the nature of the feedback. Recasts were mostly provided on morphosyntactic errors (75 percent of all recasts were on these errors). However, ESL learners perceived the target of feedback on morphosyntactic errors much less accurately (13 percent) than the target of feedback on lexical (83 percent) and phonological errors (60 percent). Similar findings were also reported in Gass and Lewis (2007), which examined feedback perception between Italian heritage and non-heritage learners and found that both groups of learners perceived morphosyntactic feedback less accurately than lexical and phonological feedback. (see also Kim

186

Interactional Feedback Dimension

and Han 2007). In Mackey et al.’s study, feedback on lexical and phonological errors was mostly in the form of negotiation or recasts plus negotiation. Thus, while recasts were provided more in response to morphosyntactic errors, negotiation was provided mostly in response to phonological errors, and in the latter case the nature of errors targeted was perceived more accurately. This suggests that learners’ perceptions about the target of feedback may be in part due to the different types of feedback received. However, although Mackey et al. (2000) found that recasts in response to morphosyntactic errors were perceived less accurately than recasts targeting phonological errors, Mackey et al. (2007) did not find such results. They instead found that learners’ perception was more accurate when recasts targeted morphosyntactic or lexical errors than phonological errors. The focus of their study was on the extent to which teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback overlap. The study took place in Arabic foreign-language classrooms in which students received interactional feedback including recasts and elicitations on a range of linguistic targets (e.g. phonology, morphology/ lexis and syntax). Similar to Mackey et al. (2000), the research used stimulated recall. However, in this study both the teachers and the students watched video clips of their feedback exchanges immediately after the class and commented on those videos. The results showed that learners’ and teachers’ perceptions overlapped more when the feedback targeted lexical and morphological errors than phonological errors. The overlap between teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions was the highest for morphological/lexical errors (39.5 percent) followed by syntactic errors (33.3 percent). The overlap was the least for phonological errors (17.6 percent). These findings were different from Mackey et al.’s (2000) study that found less accurate perception of morphosyntactic errors compared to phonological errors. The researchers attributed these differences to the way the two studies had operationalized linguistic foci and the difference between Arabic and English in the ways in which the two languages encode lexical, phonological, and morphosyntactic information. They explained that in Arabic there is a greater overlap between morphosyntactic and phonological patterns than in English. This means that those errors coded as morphosyntactic errors could have been coded as phonological errors and vice versa. These language differences point to the need for further exploration into the role of interactional feedback and learners’ perception, with languages other than English and in other instructional contexts. Another finding of Mackey et al.’s (2007) study was that learners perceived the linguistic targets of the feedback more accurately when the feedback targeted

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

187

their own errors rather than their classmates’ errors. This finding was different from Havranek’s (2002) study, which found that observers benefited more from feedback than those who participated in the feedback episodes directly. In Havranek’s study, however, the learners’ prior knowledge of the forms was not controlled. As revealed through further analysis, the observers (who were called auditors) had a higher level of prior knowledge related to the targeted forms than those who were directly addressed in the feedback episodes. Sakai (2004) addressed the question of whether learners’ perception of feedback differs depending on whether the feedback provides positive versus negative evidence. As noted earlier, negative evidence provides information about what is not possible in the language. Positive evidence provides information about what is possible. It can be hypothesized that learners are better able to notice the feedback when it indicates to them what is not possible than simply providing them with the correct form. Sakai examined this issue by exploring learners’ noticing of recasts (as feedback providing negative evidence) versus models (considered to provide positive evidence) in an experimental study of sixteen Japanese learners of English who were divided into two groups: a recast group and a model group. Model was operationalized as a targetlike utterance, which was provided after some interval following a learner’s utterance. Recasts were utterances that were provided immediately after the error. The learners performed communicative tasks, following which they were interviewed, using stimulated recall, about what they had noticed during the interaction. The results showed that recasts were more effective in helping learners perceive their errors. The researcher attributed this difference to the characteristics of recasts versus models. Because in recasts the correct form is provided immediately after a nontargetlike form, it is easier for the learners to compare their own original utterance with the targetlike structure. As can be seen, researchers have attributed part of the reason for the effectiveness of recasts to the fact that in recasts a targetlike utterance is juxtaposed with the learners’ nontargetlike utterance. The assumption here is that this juxtaposition increases the salience of the feedback and consequently causes the learner to perceive the feedback more effectively. Carpenter et al.’s (2006) study investigated this issue empirically. They conducted a laboratory study to examine: (a) whether or not ESL learners could successfully identify NSs’ utterances in dyadic task-based interactions as corrective recasts, and (b) whether the learners’ initial nontarget utterance before the recast plays any role in disambiguating the recast. The researchers used think aloud protocols to identify the strategies learners used to identify recasts. Learners were advanced

188

Interactional Feedback Dimension

ESL learners (n = 34) who were exposed to video clips of instructors providing recasts and repetition on their utterances. Half of the learners viewed the recasts with the learner’s initial erroneous utterance and the other half viewed the recasts without the initial learner utterance (the initial utterance was removed from the video). Learners in both conditions were asked to indicate their perception by saying whether they thought they had heard a recast, a repetition, or both. Carpenter et al. found that learners were significantly better able to correctly differentiate recasts from repetition when the learner utterance was included. The results of the think aloud further indicated that the learners did not use the nonverbal cues in feedback to determine the nature of the feedback. This study shows that the learners’ initial erroneous utterances in the recast exchange played an important role in helping learners perceive recasts as corrective. Thus, the study provides support to Saxton’s (1997) direct contrast hypothesis of negative evidence, which suggests that the juxtaposition of the learner’s erroneous utterance with the corrected form in recasts creates a contrast that helps the learner to recognize the corrective force of recasts.

Feedback perception and L2 learning A key issue in studies of feedback perception is whether there is any relationship between learner’s perception and interpretation of feedback and L2 learning. Although it can be assumed that the better the learners perceive the focus of feedback, the more able they are to make use of the feedback, there is a need for empirical studies to support such assumptions. To this end, a few studies in recent years have empirically examined the relationship between feedback perception and L2 development. Mackey (2006), for example, examined whether interactional feedback promoted noticing and also whether learners’ reports of noticing were associated with learning the target forms. Participants were twentyeight ESL learners from two intact classes in a university-level intensive English program. One of the classes served as an experimental group and received interactional feedback in response to utterances that included errors of question forms, plurals, and past tense forms. The other class served as a control group. The teachers were two experienced ESL instructors who were trained in the provision of feedback while using task-based materials. Learners’ noticing was measured through a combination of online learning journals, stimulated recall interviews, and questionnaire data. Learning outcomes were measured through pretest-posttest comparisons. The results showed a high level of noticing of all three target forms in the experimental group, who received feedback. Very few

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

189

students in the control group reported noticing of the target form in the activities used in the classroom. Based on these results, the researcher concluded that when learners received interactional feedback, they noticed those forms more than when they did not receive interactional feedback. The results also showed a relationship between reports about noticing and the learning outcomes. In general, those learners who had reported noticing of the target forms showed a higher level of learning of the targeted forms as compared to those who did not report such noticing. However, this relationship was statistically significant only for the question form, which suggests that the relationship between noticing and learning is mediated by the nature of the target form. In another experimental study, Egi (2007) examined the relationship between learners’ interpretation of recasts and L2 development. Participants were fortynine learners of Japanese as a foreign language who performed task-based activities and received recasts on their morphosyntactic and lexical errors. Two methods were used to collect data about learners’ interpretations of recasts, immediate reports in which learners’ comments were elicited immediately after the feedback, and stimulated recall, where learners’ comments were elicited after the task was completed. As for the interpretation of the recast, the focus was on what learners thought the recast was about: a response to content, a corrective move, positive evidence, or a combination of negative and positive evidence. If the learner reported that he or she attended to the meaning of the recast, the recast was coded as a response to content. If the learner commented that the recast was in response to his or her errors, it was coded as negative evidence. If the comment indicated that the learner paid attention to the correct form without mentioning the error, the recast was coded as positive evidence. And if the learner’s comment indicated attention to both the correct form and the error, the recast was coded as negative and positive evidence. Another aim was to examine whether and to what extent recast features such as the linguistic targets, length, number of changes might affect the interpretation of recasts. Results of posttest scores indicated that when learners interpreted recasts as positive evidence or both positive and negative evidence, they showed greater gains than when they interpreted recasts as reaction to content. Learners’ interpretation of lexical recasts as positive evidence led to substantially greater learning relative to other interpretation of recasts. Finally, learners were more likely to interpret recasts as reaction to content when the recasts were different from their production and when they were long. The findings of Egi’s (2007) study are significant as they suggest that the relationship between recasts and learning depends on what function learners assign to feedback. It also confirms previous studies (e.g. Mackey et al. 2000;

190

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Philp 2003) that indicate that recast features such as its target and its length may play a role in learners’ interpretation of recasts as corrective feedback. However, studies of feedback interpretation and its link with learning are few and there is still a lack of knowledge about how teachers’ perception of feedback relates to responses to feedback and how they can both influence students’ learning.

Teachers’ and students’ beliefs and perspectives toward feedback Other important questions related to feedback perception that researchers have been examining include learners’ and/or teachers’ beliefs and perspectives toward feedback and how students’ feedback perspectives match or differ from teachers’ perspectives. In the above sections, we reviewed evidence that has shown discrepancies between teachers’ intention and learners’ noticing of the feedback (e.g. Mackey et al. 2000). Part of the reason for such discrepancies may relate to teachers’ and learners’ perspectives toward feedback. When teachers correct learner errors, they often do so based on what they think is beneficial for learners. However, at times the teacher’s strategy may not match what the learner thinks is needed. If the teacher’s and the learner’s perceptive about feedback do not match, learning may suffer (Amrhein and Nassaji 2010; Schulz 2001) and the feedback may not result in the desired outcome. Because of the importance of these issues, a number of studies have investigated and compared teachers’ and students’ beliefs and perceptions about the value and usefulness of feedback and their similarities and differences (e.g. Amrhein and Nassaji 2010; Fu 2012; Junqueira and Kim 2013; Lasagabaster and Sierra 2005; Loewen et al. 2009; Schulz 2001). Studies that have examined learners’ perspectives have often shown a positive attitude toward the value of feedback. However, those that compared students and teachers have produced mixed results. While some have shown agreement between students and teachers, others have found considerable discrepancies. Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005), for example, compared learners’ and teachers’ perceptions about what they considered to be the most effective feedback for learning. Eleven university students who were enrolled in an English course and ten EFL teachers participated in the study. First, they watched a 15-minute video clip with error correction episodes twice. They were then individually asked to identify error correction episodes in the video, categorize them, evaluate the efficiency of the corrections, and provide explanations about their evaluation. Afterward, they were divided into three teacher groups and three student groups, and then shared their opinions about

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

191

the error correction episodes and their effectiveness. The findings demonstrated that the participating teachers were more able to recognize (48.3 percent) error correction episodes than the participating students (28 percent), even though the overall rates of recognizing the correction episodes were low in both groups. In addition, the students and teachers showed discrepancies in the perceptions of error correction. The students tended to show more concern for learners’ affective factors in the video than the teachers. For the correction of pronunciation errors, the teachers believed repetition of the correct pronunciation was effective while the students preferred visual aids in addition to mere repetition. However, both groups suggested that more time for explanations would be helpful and should be provided after the correction. Schulz (2001) examined the perception of teachers and students from two different cultures: the United States and Colombia. Data were collected through a questionnaire from 607 Colombian foreign-language students and 122 of their teachers and also from 824 US students and 92 teachers. The results indicated a number of similarities and differences between students and teachers within and across contexts. While both groups of teachers highlighted the importance of error correction, there was much less agreement between the two groups on oral versus written correction. For example, while 60 percent of the teachers agreed that oral errors should be corrected, about 90 percent agreed that written errors should be corrected. There were also mismatches between students’ and teachers’ perceptions about oral correction. More than 90 percent of students from both cultures believed that their teachers should correct their oral errors during class (see also Jean and Simard 2011, for similar results). However, only about half of the teachers from both groups believed that these errors should be corrected. Schulz attributed the teachers’ and students’ perceptions here to a number of sources. As for students’ favorable perceptions toward correction, she suggested three main reasons: how languages are taught and/ or tested, misconception about the role of correction or instruction, and actual personal experiences. As for teachers, she also identified three reasons: teachers’ preparation and in-service education, their experience of student success, and their own language learning experience. Amrhein and Nassaji’s (2010) study also revealed mismatches between students’ and teachers’ perceptions. The focus of their study was on written corrective feedback, but they investigated both students’ and teachers’ perceptions about both usefulness of different types, as well as the amount of feedback. Data were collected from thirty-one ESL teachers and thirty-three ESL students by means of written questionnaires. The results showed that while there were some areas of agreement between teachers’ and

192

Interactional Feedback Dimension

students’ perceptions, there were also important discrepancies in their opinions. These differences had to do with not only how feedback should be provided but also why it should be provided. Fu (2012) examined teacher feedback, learner uptake, and teachers’ perceptions about the frequency of feedback in an adult Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) context. Thirteen class sessions (10 hours) were video-recorded. A post-interaction questionnaire was used at the end of each class session to elicit the teacher’s and the students’ perceptions of feedback frequency. Videorecorded data was transcribed and coded for the instances of feedback and learner responses. The results showed that both the teacher and the students were generally not very accurate in perceiving the nature and frequency of each feedback type, but when they did, the teacher was more accurate than the students. The researcher attributed the results pertaining to the inaccuracy of perception to the shortcomings of short-term memory and the challenge of remembering the feedback move after the lesson had finished. As reviewed earlier, research has shown a number of factors that may affect the use and effectiveness of feedback in L2 classrooms. A few studies have also examined the factors that may affect students’ and teachers’ views and perspectives on corrective feedback. Junqueira and Kim (2013), for instance, examined the role of the teacher’s experience and how this contributes to their views. One novice and one experienced teacher teaching the same course were observed in their own classes in an ESL context and stimulated recall interviews were used to collect data about their perceptions. Results showed similar amounts of feedback and learner uptake in both classes. However, the experienced teacher made use of a wider range of feedback moves on different linguistic targets and also in a more balanced way than the inexperienced teacher. As for their beliefs, interestingly neither believed in the effectiveness of feedback, which was suggested to be due to the importance these teachers attributed to communication over error correction (see Loewen et al. 2009 below). Based on the notion of “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie 1975), they also pointed out that previous language learning experience rather than teaching experience or teacher training may have a greater impact on their feedback practices (see Borg 1998, 2001, 2006 for a detailed discussion of this issue). Related to the factors underlying perspectives on error correction, Loewen et al. (2009) carried out a study with a focus on L2 learners. Conducting a survey among a large group of learners (n = 754), they found a general agreement about the usefulness of grammar instruction among the learners although they did not find the same level of agreement about error correction. They also found

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

193

that learners differed in their view depending on the context of their study, such as ESL versus EFL or the target language. For example, the EFL learners had a more positive perspective about the value of error correction than ESL learners, who seemed to be prioritizing communication over error correction. Some of the reasons for these differences, the researcher pointed out, could have been the greater need for communication in ESL contexts and also the greater amount of error correction these ESL learners reported to have received in their past instruction. As for target language, learners of Chinese and Arabic had a more positive view on grammar instruction and error correction than learners of other languages such as German or Spanish. They speculated that this difference could have been partly due to the nature of the target language. As non-IndoEuropean languages, Chinese and Arabic might have been more challenging to learn than Spanish and German. They recommended more in-depth qualitative studies with individual learners to provide a more detailed account of the reasons for these discrepancies.

Feedback preferences There are a number of other important questions related to feedback perception that researchers have been exploring, including both students’ and teachers’ preferences of different feedback types and also their relationship with learner noticing or learning. Feedback preferences are also important to examine because they may affect the use and the beneficial effect of feedback. If, for example, a learner has a more positive view or preference toward a particular type of feedback, he or she may pay more attention to, and learn more from that feedback than when the learner has a negative or less positive perspective toward that feedback. Teachers may also have different preferences for different feedback types, which may affect their use in the classroom. If a teacher, for example, has a more positive perspective toward recasts, he or she may use that feedback type more often than other types of feedback. A few studies have recently examined learner and teacher feedback preferences and have reported important relationship between them and also with learning. In a series of analyses based on data in Japanese EFL classrooms, Yoshida (2008) examined teachers’ and learners’ preferences for different feedback types and its relationship with actual feedback use and error types. Data consisted of 30 hours of audio-recorded classroom interaction from two teachers in three different classrooms and seven learners as well as stimulated recall interviews of both teacher and student participants. Learners’ errors were classified into

194

Interactional Feedback Dimension

five types: (a) morphosyntactic, (b) phonological, (c) lexical, (d) semantic, and (e)  kanji reading. Corrective feedback was categorized into nine types: (a) recasts, (b) incidental recasts, (c) explicit correction, (d) metalinguistic feedback, (e) repetition, (f) elicitation, (g) re-asks, (h) clarification, and (i) delayed recasts. The results showed that morphosyntactic errors received corrective feedback most frequently (64 percent) and that recasts were the most frequently used feedback type (51 percent), echoing the results of some previous feedback studies (Lyster and Ranta 1997; Panova and Lyster 2002). As for teacher preferences and choice of feedback, in their interviews, the teachers expressed preference for feedback that encourages self-correction over feedback that provides the correct form, such as recasts. However, in practice, they still provided recasts most frequently. When asked why, they indicated that they did so because of the classroom time constraints and their concern about learners’ affective factors. The teachers also reported that they chose to provide feedback types such as metalinguistic feedback or elicitations only when they thought students were able to self-correct their errors. The students, however, reported that they preferred to receive feedback in ways that give them time to think about the correct answer on their own rather than receiving the correct form immediately after their erroneous utterances. These findings reveal a gap between the teachers’ feedback preference and the actual feedback use, on the one hand, and also between the use of feedback and students’ preference of feedback. However, they also suggest that teachers’ decision about a particular feedback type is not simply based on their preferences. They also take into account other factors such as learners’ linguistic ability and classroom conditions and constraints. In a follow-up examination, Yoshida (2010) investigated teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of learner responses to feedback and its relationship with noticing. Using the same database as used in Yoshida (2008), the researcher coded the different feedback types and the responses to feedback. Stimulated recalls were used to examine learners’ noticing and perception of feedback. This investigation showed that learners’ responses to feedback did not necessarily indicate learners’ noticing of the feedback, as shown in the following example. In this example, although the teacher has corrected the learner error and the learner has responded to the feedback, the follow-up interview with the learner shows that the learner did not understand the corrective nature of the feedback. Example 4 R: Otearai wa atarachi ni gozaimasu The toilet is over there ((error))

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

195

T: Otearai wa achira ni gozaimasu The toilet is over there R: Hai Yes The learner’s recall: The teacher repeated my answer. (Yoshida 2010, 301)

In addition, Yoshida found a mismatch between teachers’ and learners’ understanding of feedback. She reported cases where the teacher, based on learner responses, thought that the student understood the corrective nature of the feedback. However, the learner reported that he or she did not understand his or her teachers’ feedback. The teachers’ tendency to perceive learners’ understanding of corrective feedback was found to be more pronounced when the teachers believed that the student was a strong student. The latter findings suggest that teachers’ perception of learners’ noticing of the feedback is mediated by the teachers’ perception about the learner’s level of language proficiency. In a recent study, Kartchava and Ammar (2014) examined the relationship between learner beliefs about feedback and learners’ noticing and learning. The study involved 197 beginner-level ESL learners and their teachers who completed a belief questionnaire, the results of which were correlated with learners’ noticing of feedback (measured by immediate recall) and learning the targeted form (the past tense and questions in the past) as measured by a pretest-posttest comparison. The results showed no relationship between learner beliefs and learning (which the authors attributed to the short length of instruction time), but it did show a significant relationship between learners’ beliefs and noticing, particularly noticing recasts. This latter finding highlights the relationship between learners’ perspectives about feedback and the degree to which they attend to it in L2 classrooms. It suggests that if learners have a more positive view of a particular feedback, they may attend more to the feedback, and as a result they may notice feedback more effectively.

Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to examine learners’ and teachers’ perception of feedback. To this end, we examined how learners notice and perceive interactional feedback in general and how their perception and interpretation of the feedback relates to learning from feedback. We also examined teachers’

196

Interactional Feedback Dimension

and students’ preferences for feedback and how they relate to teachers’ choices of feedback or learner responses and noticing of the feedback. In general, studies that have examined learners’ noticing and perception of feedback suggest that learners do not always notice the corrective nature of the teachers’ feedback, even when they respond to the feedback. There is also a perceived gap between learner responses and teachers’ perceptions of those responses. As was shown, for example, sometimes teachers may think that learners’ responses indicate noticing of their errors, whereas learners have not noticed the error or vice versa. This discrepancy can be pedagogically problematic because if teachers think that learners have already realized what their problems are, they may stop providing further feedback, even in cases when feedback is needed (Yoshida 2010). Studies of learners’ and teachers’ views toward the value of feedback have generally found a favorable attitude displayed by students toward feedback, but those comparing students’ and teachers’ perspectives have shown a discrepancy between their views of feedback. Mismatches between teachers’ and learners’ views about the importance of feedback can also be pedagogically problematic, as it may negatively affect learning. One implication is that it is important for both teachers and students to be clear on what works for them and how. One way of doing this could be by training students and explaining to them what the teacher’s approach is to error correction and why. There is some evidence that if teachers discuss their approaches with students it is possible that the disagreements would be resolved and students’ perceptions of feedback might improve (Plonsky and Mills 2006). However, this evidence is limited and thus more research is needed in this area. More research is also needed to explore the relationships among teachers’ and students’ perceptions and preferences of feedback, noticing, and the acquisition of the target form in different classroom settings. Continued research in this area is important which, when considered and used with findings of previous research, can deepen our understanding of effective feedback practices.

Questions for discussion 1. In this chapter, we have examined and discussed learners’ perceptions and views of interactional feedback. How can this examination provide us with an understanding of how feedback works in interactional settings?

Perception and Interpretation of Feedback

197

2. Research has shown that the provision of feedback varies considerably among individual teachers. Thus, one factor that may play a role in feedback use is the teachers’ teaching style. To what extent do you think this factor may also affect learners’ perception and interpretation of feedback? 3. In this chapter, we discussed a number of introspective and retrospective methods that researchers have used to examine teachers’ perception. But we also discussed that they have important limitations. What other measures can you think of that could be used to examine learners’ perception and noting of feedback in addition to what we discussed in this chapter? 4. Research has highlighted the importance of a match between students’ and teachers’ perspectives toward corrective feedback, but at the same time has shown important discrepancies between the two. What do you think the reasons for these discrepancies are and how they can be resolved? 5. Research has shown a gap between teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions of feedback such as recasts. What do you think the implications of such findings are for the use of feedback in language classrooms? 6. Some studies have shown a connection between learners’ perception and the effectiveness of feedback. Do you think that there is also a link between teachers’ perception and the effectiveness of feedback?

Part Four

Linking Theory, Research, and Practice

10

Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations

Objectives ●●

●●

Discuss the implications of the theory and research for classroom practice. Provide concluding remarks to sum up the points made throughout the book.

Introduction One of the goals of this book has been to discuss current theory and research regarding interactional feedback and its implications for classroom instruction. In previous chapters, we have examined recent research in various contexts and have discussed its implications briefly. In this final chapter, these implications are discussed in more detail. Before doing so, however, we need to stress a few points. First, although the practical implications of research are discussed, interactional feedback is a complex phenomenon, and there is still a need for far more research in order to better understand how and under what conditions it works and affects acquisition. Therefore, any implications or suggestions for instruction should be considered tentative. Furthermore, in any discussion of feedback, we must be careful not to over-simplify the issue, and note that there is no simple answer as to how to treat learner errors in L2 classrooms. Therefore, by discussing practical implications, we do not intend to dictate to teachers how to correct learner errors. Our goal rather is to enhance teachers’ awareness of the complexities involved in how interactional feedback works and consequently encourage them to think about how to use it best in their own practices. As Stern (1983) noted despite all the research, practitioners must be prepared to exercise caution. “They

202

Interactional Feedback Dimension

will often find themselves in a position where decisions involving some sort of psychological judgment have to be made in the classroom or in school system in the face of the fact that theories we operate with are provisional and the research evidence is sometimes inconclusive, questionable, or altogether lacking” (Stern, 337). In the following sections, we pose a number of questions and try to provide some tentative answers based on the research reviewed. Question 1: How can we enhance opportunities for interaction and feedback in the classroom? As discussed in various sections throughout this book, it is now widely acknowledged that L2 learners need to have plenty of opportunities for communicative interaction. Ample classroom research has suggested that learners’ communicative abilities are developed most effectively through instruction that is primarily meaning focused. However, research has also shown that purely meaning-focused instruction is inadequate and that there is a need for focus on form and error correction. The major implications of such research are that classroom instruction needs to ensure that learners have opportunities not only for interaction and exposure to the target language but also for feedback and attention to form. The question that arises here is how to provide and enhance such dual opportunities in classroom instruction. From a communicative perspective, an effective way to provide opportunities for communicative interaction is through communicative tasks, that is, through activities that encourage talk, not in order to produce language as an end, but “as a means of sharing ideas and opinions, collaborating toward a single goal, or competing to achieve individual goals” (Pica et al. 1993, 10). Communicative tasks are activities in which learners interact in order to achieve a particular communicative goal and in doing so they use their own L2 resources and communicative strategies to create their own meaning. Task-based instruction is based on the assumption that learning occurs when students are engaged in activities that promote output that involves negotiation and interaction (Ellis  2003). Tasks promote such conditions and also provide effective opportunities for feedback and focus on form. In the field of task-based instruction, a variety of one-way and two-way tasks have been proposed, such as information-gap tasks, jigsaw tasks, problemsolving tasks, decision-making tasks, and opinion-exchange tasks. Jigsaw tasks and information-gap tasks are tasks in which the interlocutors are required to exchange information in order to complete the task. In a jigsaw task, each student has only a portion of the information and they have to share that information to

Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations

203

complete the task. Decision-making and problem-solving tasks require students to work together to make a decision or arrive at a possible solution to a problem. Opinion tasks require students to exchange their opinions about an issue. All these tasks provide good tools for meaning-focused interaction. However, they are not the same in terms of the degree of negotiation they promote. Among the tasks, two-way tasks, such as jigsaw tasks and informationgap tasks are suggested to be more effective at providing opportunities for negotiation and feedback than one-way tasks (Pica et al. 2006). An example of an information-gap task would be a spot-the-difference task in which participants must communicate to find a number of differences between two similar pictures. An example of a jigsaw task would be a picture-sequencing task when each student holds only some of the pictures related to a scene and they need to exchange information in order to create the whole scene. In such tasks, both participants are required to negotiate meaning when performing the task. Swain and Lapkin (2001) examined the amount of output generated by such jigsaw tasks and found that they led to a “substantial proportion of form-focused language-related episodes” (Swain and Lapkin, 111). Thus, one way of providing opportunities for meaning-focused interaction in classrooms in by using such tasks. Question 2: How can we integrate feedback into meaning-focused interaction Creating opportunities for meaning-focused negotiation and learner output is essential. However, once this is achieved, the next important question would be how to incorporate feedback and attention to form in such contexts in ways that promote learning. In meaning-focused instruction, this can be achieved in two ways: through process and through design (Nassaji 1999). Attention to form through process refers to when meaning-focused tasks are used and learners’ attention is drawn to form while learners are involved in carrying out the task. Attention to form through design is when the tasked is designed to be form focused. Attention to form through process: One way in which attention to form through process can be achieved is through interactional feedback, which can be incorporated into the task interaction at the various stages of the task implementation. In the literature, three stages of task implementation are suggested for effective task-based instruction: a pre-task stage, a during-task stage, and a post-task stage (Ellis 2003; Willis 1996). Feedback can be incorporated into the task-based interaction at each of these stages, both implicitly as a negotiation of meaning strategy to address communicative problems and more explicitly as a negotiation of form strategy.

204

Interactional Feedback Dimension

The pre-task stage refers to when the students are doing some pre-task activities to get prepared for the task, such as brainstorming ideas, reviewing task-relevant materials, discussing group formation, and going over any language forms needed for the task performance. The during-the-task stage refers to when the students are actually performing the task, in pairs or in small groups. The post-task stage refers to task-related follow-up activities that students do after the task is completed. Examples include preparing a written report, presenting the task results back to the class, or discussing the results with peers during small group discussions. As noted, interactional feedback can be incorporated at all the three stages. For example, while students are conducting pre-task activities or performing the task itself, the teacher can go around and monitor the students’ performance. At the same time, he or she can listen to the students, identify their linguistic problems or nontargetlike utterances, and provide them with feedback on those utterances. Post-task activities also provide useful occasions for feedback. Similar to the pre-task and during-task stages, the teacher can listen to students when carry out post-task activities, identify their linguistic problems, and provide them with feedback when needed. Interactional feedback is often immediate, but it can also be used in the form of delayed feedback. Although it is often suggested that feedback is more effective when it is provided at the time when learners are processing the input and when there is a need for feedback (Doughty 2001), research has also found positive effects for delayed feedback (see Chapter 7). Therefore, such feedback can also be used as a viable strategy to respond to learners’ oral errors in the classroom. Delayed feedback can be provided in the form of subsequent mini lessons or interactional feedback sessions after the task is completed (see Nassaji 2007c, 2011a). In all the above task stages, not only can the teacher provide the feedback, students can also be encouraged to provide each other with peer feedback. As reviewed earlier (Chapter 6), there is evidence that learners are able to provide each other with feedback during learner-learner interactions and that such feedback is beneficial for language learning. Of course, sometimes students may believe that peer feedback is not effective or may feel that they are not be able to use appropriate feedback. In such cases, the teacher can train the learners by familiarizing them with different types of feedback and how and when to use them. Such procedures have been shown to be effective in enhancing the provision and effects of peer feedback (M. Sato and Lyster 2012). Attention to form through design: The primary reason for using communicative tasks is to generate meaning-focused interaction. However, communicative tasks can also be designed to draw learners’ attention to specific linguistic forms. In his

Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations

205

discussion of task-based instruction, Ellis (2003) made a distinction between focused and unfocused tasks. Unfocused tasks are those that are designed to have an exclusive communicative focus, and no effort is made in the design of the task to draw learners’ attention to any particular linguistic form. Focused tasks, however, are designed in such a way that some linguistic features become focused in the design of the task. Unfocused tasks, if properly designed, can provide ample opportunities for meaning-focused interaction and feedback. However, there are often linguistic forms that learners need to master that may not occur during unfocused tasks. In such cases, the teacher can design and use focused tasks to elicit those target structures. Focused tasks provide opportunities for intensive feedback, which has been argued to be effective, as the feedback is provided repeatedly on similar target structures (Nassaji and Fotos 2010). When learners use the predetermined target structures erroneously during the task performance, the teacher can provide feedback on those errors. An example of a focused task is the Tic Tac Toe game used by Bell (2008) to elicit ESL question formation. Tic Tac Toe is a game that consists of a blank grid, with two players of the game filling in the grid with Xs and Os to make complete rows in vertical, horizontal, and diagonal directions. The game is considered over when no squares in the grid remain and the player with the highest number of completed rows wins the game. In Bell’s study, the game was conducted in the following three steps. Step 1) Students were presented with a game board that contained nine vocabulary cards in three rows of three. The cards were placed face down so that students did not see what the card showed. There was one vocabulary word or phrase on each card that was familiar to the student. Step 2) Students were divided into teams: A and B. Students from each team came to the front of the class to play the game. They took turns selecting one of the cards from the grid and made a question with the word on the card. Step 3) When students made the question with an error, the teacher provided recasts in response to the erroneous utterance. Bell found that the task provided ample opportunities for the use of the target structure and feedback on that structure. Question 2: What kind of interactional feedback should be used? The taxonomies of interactional feedback presented in previous chapters suggest that there is a wide range of interactional feedback types and subtypes that

206

Interactional Feedback Dimension

teachers can use. These feedback types can vary along two main dimensions: the degree of explicitness and the degree to which they provide the correct form. Although many factors interact in complex ways to determine the effectiveness of feedback (Chapter 8), research suggests that in general the more explicit forms of feedback are more effective than the more implicit forms. As reviewed, this advantage has been demonstrated in both individual studies (e.g. Carroll and Swain 1993; Ellis 2007; Ellis et al. 2006) as well as meta-analytic research of feedback studies. For example, both Li (2010) and Lyster and Saito (2010) found higher effect sizes in their meta-analysis of feedback studies for explicit feedback (e.g. explicit correction and metalinguistic information) than implicit feedback (e.g. recasts). Part of the reason for such findings is that when feedback is more explicit, the learner is better able to recognize the corrective intention of feedback. This then suggests that teachers should attempt to make feedback as explicit as needed so that students can recognize the corrective nature of the feedback. Of course, studies also suggest that implicit feedback contributes to language acquisition, given there is enough exposure. For example, in his metaanalysis, Li (2010) found that while explicit feedback was more effective than implicit feedback on both immediate and short-term delayed posttests, implicit feedback had more significant long-term effects. Although research indicates an overall advantage for explicit feedback, some have argued that the beneficial effects of explicit feedback are more limited to the improvement of language accuracy or the development of explicit knowledge, rather than fluency or the development of implicit knowledge (e.g. Krashen 1993). This might be a legitimate argument given the fact that most of the studies examining the effects of feedback have used measures that test explicit knowledge rather than implicit knowledge. However, as reviewed earlier, Ellis et al. (2006), using tests of both implicit and explicit knowledge, found that explicit feedback was able to assist not only in the development of explicit knowledge but also in the development of implicit knowledge. In their meta-analysis, Spada and Tomita (2010) also concluded that “explicit instruction positively contributes to learners’ controlled knowledge and spontaneous use of complex and simple forms” (Spada and Tomita, 263). Thus, it might be expected that under equal conditions, more explicit feedback may work better for language learning than more implicit feedback, at least in the short term. As for feedback types that provide the correct form (e.g. recasts) versus those that do not (e.g. elicitations), research has shown that in general the latter is more effective than the former in promoting learner responses such as uptake and modified output. The implication is that teachers should try to use feedback

Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations

207

strategies such as elicitations more often or at least before they resort to feedback that provides the correct form. As discussed, there are a number of elicitation strategies, including clarification requests, repetition of the learner error with rising intonation, and metalinguistic cues. Within elicitation strategies, the more explicit form has been shown to be more effective. Nassaji (2009), for example, found that eliciting learner self-correction by repeating the utterance up to the error and waiting for the learner to complete the utterance led to higher instances of output modification than other types of elicitations such as clarification requests. Elicitations can also be provided nonverbally using signals such as gestures, facial expressions, or head, hand, and finger movements. When using gestures or body movements, it might be helpful if the teacher demonstrates the meanings of the body movements in advance so that students know how to interpret them. A number of caveats, however, should be kept in mind when using elicitations. First, as noted earlier, elicitations can be effective in promoting uptake and repair only if learners already have sufficient declarative knowledge of the target form. If the learner does not have the declarative knowledge needed, pushing the learner further than his or her ability may not only be unhelpful, but may also be embarrassing to the learner as it can make his or her lack of knowledge or understanding public (Long 2007). Finally, although research has suggested that feedback strategies that promote self-correction assist acquisition, students often prefer that the teacher provides the correction, or at least confirms the correct form. Question 3: What kind of errors should be corrected? An important question that teachers confront when dealing with learner errors is when and what kinds of errors they should correct. Cohen (1975, 414) suggested that teachers should consider four dimensions of correction when correcting an error: “the adequacy of information about the error, the importance of correction, the ease of correction, and the characteristics of the students” (Allwright 1975). However, before all this can be considered, correcting any errors entails that the teacher knows that an error has been committed. As we discussed in Chapter 1, with respect to errors, a number of distinctions have been made in the literature, which might be helpful when making decisions about what errors to correct. One is the distinction between errors and mistakes (Corder 1967). As noted earlier, errors occur because of a lack of knowledge but mistakes are simply performance related. Teachers may be advised to pay more

208

Interactional Feedback Dimension

attention to errors than mistakes. Of course, such recommendations may not be easy in practice as it is not always easy to distinguish errors from mistakes (Ellis 2009). For example, if errors occur during a grammatical exercise where students have time to monitor their performance, it is possible that the cause is incomplete knowledge of the grammar. However, if they occur during a communicative activity, it is hard to know the exact cause (Chastain 1981). Also, as discussed, language knowledge is relative and may range from no knowledge, to declarative (explicit) knowledge (in case of explicit instruction), to procedural (implicit) knowledge, all on one continuum. The acquisition of language knowledge is also gradual and takes place over time. Learners, for example, may have declarative knowledge of the form, but may still make a mistake when using it in a communicative context because they do not yet have full control over the use of that form. Another distinction is between local and global errors (Burt and Kiparsky 1974). Local errors are those that do not affect general understanding of the message. They usually have to do with minor errors such as those related to the omission of morphological markers or function words (e.g. There were many tourist in the town.). Global errors, however, cause problems in communication and include errors such as wrong word order or inappropriate uses of lexical items (e.g. They English use.). Since global errors affect intelligibility, it has been suggested that teachers should pay more attention to the correction of global errors than local errors (Burt and Kiparsky 1974). This is also more in line with how NSs react to NNSs’ utterances, where NSs’ focus is mainly on meaning rather than on form and they do not react to utterances that do not interfere with communication. Again, although teachers may be advised to pay more attention to global errors than to local errors, the distinction between global and local errors is not straightforward. There might be many cases where the error is local but may also interfere with communication. An example would be when the learner uses the phrase little money to mean a little money. Here, the error may seem local but the meanings of the two expressions are quite different. Furthermore, as Cohen (1975) pointed out, utterances such as What means this in English? could be perfectly intelligible, but might still deserve attention particularly in circumstances where the commitment of such errors signals inadequate commands of English. Celce-Murcia (1991) suggested that it is useful to make a distinction between sentence-level and discourse-level errors. Sentence-level errors are local errors,

Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations

209

while discourse-level errors are more global and have to do with familiarity of discourse features and cohesive devices that connect sentences to create coherent discourse. Celce-Murcia suggested that discourse-level errors might deserve more attention because they are more likely to be a source of miscommunication or confusion than sentence-level errors. However, although such recommendations are noteworthy, many of the errors students make might be surface-level errors. Therefore, following the criterion of sentence- versus discourse-level errors can lead to many errors not getting the desired attention they need. Furthermore, as far as interactional feedback is concerned, most corrections may occur at the sentence level because it is hard to provide discourse-level correction interactionally in the course of communication. To address discourse errors there might be a need to take time out from communication in order to confront them in more detail. Such errors seem to be better candidates for written feedback than spontaneous oral feedback. Another criterion for identifying what kind of errors to correct is common versus uncommon errors. Common errors are those that are made frequently by the same or a group of learners. When errors are made by a group of learners, they are good candidates for correction because the correction can help a larger number of students in the classroom. Sometimes, this could be a better use of the instructional time rather than spending time correcting individual learner errors (Cohen 1975). Of course, even though the same error might be committed by a group of learners, the reasons might be different. Some learners, for example, might make the error because they are not yet developmentally at the level to produce the form correctly. Others may make it because they have not yet developed full control over their declarative knowledge. If learners are not developmentally ready to produce a correct form, correcting the error may not benefit the learner. Teachers may also decide to correct errors that are related to the goal of the lesson. If, for example, the goal of the lesson is to learn the correct use of English articles, the teacher might pay more attention to those errors. Errors that are related to general grammatical rules might also be more important to consider than those that involve exceptions, although in some cases exceptions might also be considered important from the learners’ perspective and hence may need attention. Finally, the teacher may also decide to correct an error because it might not be salient enough to be noticed, such as certain morphosyntactic errors. The teacher may decide not to correct any errors if the focus is on fluency or if the teacher feels the correction may interfere with the flow of communication.

210

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Question 5: How can we enhance feedback effectiveness? Despite the general finding that interactional feedback facilitates language acquisition, studies have found that such feedback is not always effective and that a number of factors influence its effectiveness. Based on the research literature in this area and what we have reviewed throughout the book, a number of recommendations are proposed that can be used to help enhance the effectiveness of feedback, including: 1. Help learners notice the corrective nature of the feedback. 2. Consider the type and nature of the target structure. 3. Be aware that teacher intention does not always match learner interpretation. 4. Target single rather than multiple errors in a feedback move. 5. Consider learners’ developmental readiness. 6. Provide feedback in ways that promote opportunities for modified output. 7. Take into account the social and instructional context of the feedback. 8. Increase opportunities for negotiation. 9. Take into account individual learner differences. We will discuss each of these in more detail below. 1) Help learners notice the corrective nature of the feedback. It is now well established that noticing is an important requirement for language learning. Research has repeatedly shown that the degree of effectiveness of feedback depends largely on the extent to which students are able to perceive the feedback as correction. Thus, as a rule of thumb, when providing feedback, teachers should make sure that learners notice the corrective force of the feedback. This is particularly important when the feedback is implicit, such as recasts, which are potentially ambiguous and tend to be perceived as feedback on content rather than on form, particularly in meaning-focused classrooms. This is also true of other implicit feedback types such as clarification requests, which due to their implicit nature may go unnoticed. In meaning-focused classrooms, similar to recasts, clarification requests may be interpreted as a reaction to content or asking for repetition. The salience of both recasts and clarification requests can depend on how they are provided. For example, recasts involving fewer changes or targeting fewer errors are more likely to be perceived as corrective feedback than longer recasts or those targeting multiple errors.

Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations

211

2) Consider the type and nature of the target structure. It is important to note that not all grammatical structures are the same, and therefore they do not respond equally to the same type of feedback or instruction. As discussed earlier (Chapter 8), research has shown that the effectiveness of different types of feedback is related to the type of error or the linguistic target of the feedback. It has been shown, for example, that recasts are less effective when they address target structures that are less salient in the input, such as certain morphosyntactic features. On the other hand, they are more likely to be beneficial when they target forms that are linguistically more salient, such as lexical or phonological items. Learners may have less difficulty noticing target structures that are more salient in the input because they either carry more semantic value or are physically more noticeable due to other formal or positional properties. In general, content words are more salient than function words because they carry more meaning. Thus, they are more likely to be noticed if they become the target of the feedback. If the target form is nonsalient, and the feedback is also implicit, chances are that the feedback may not be noticed. With regard to the nature of the target form, it has also been suggested that the effectiveness of feedback is related to the degree of difficulty of the target structure (e.g. DeKeyser and Sokalski 1996; Hulstijn and de Graaff 1994; Robinson 1996; Spada and Tomita 2010). For example, Kiparsky (1971) proposed two kinds of grammatical rules: opaque and transparent. Opaque rules are those that are not simple and therefore need detailed explanation to be learned. Transparent rules are easier to explain and to learn. It can be assumed that when the error involves transparent rules, corrective feedback may be more effective than when it involves opaque rules. For the same reason, it can be assumed that implicit feedback may be more effective for easy structures or those that learners already have some knowledge about. More explicit correction might be needed for more difficult forms or those that require more attention and explanation. When the target form is easy, the learner may process the correction more easily, but when the rule is more complex, it might need more time to process and understand the feedback. Of course, some researchers have argued that hard rules are less responsive to instruction and feedback as they are difficult to explain and thus are better learned through implicit instruction (Krashen 1982). Research findings in this area are mixed. For example, while some studies have shown that explicit feedback may be more effective for easy rules (Williams and Evans 1998), others have found

212

Interactional Feedback Dimension

that explicit feedback might be equally effective for both simple and complex rules (Housen et al. 2005; Robinson 1996). Also, in a recent meta-analysis of the relationship between the types of linguistic structure and instruction, Spada and Tomita (2010) found no relationship between rule complexity and the effectiveness of feedback. Of course, such discrepancies in research findings could be due to a number of reasons, including in particular the difficulty of defining and measuring complexity. For example, Spada and Tomita (2010) defined complexity in terms of linguistic criteria—that is, the number of linguistic transformations required to construct the structure. Thus, they classified English yes/no questions as complex, but English articles, despite their difficulty for many L2 learners to learn, as simple. As they acknowledged, if they had used other criteria, they might have found different results. Even the primary studies included in Spada and Tomita’s meta-analysis used very different criteria for complexity, including “developmental stage, L1/L2 differences, form-meaning relationships, learnability, teachers’ perceptions of learner difficulty, the lexical preference principle, structure complexity, and typological markedness” (Spada and Tomita, 289). It should also be noted that if a rule is linguistically simple, it does not necessarily mean that it is easy to learn. Some forms, such as English articles, might be linguistically simple, but difficult to explain and learn. Some forms might also be simple and easy to explain, such as the third-person singular -s or past -ed, but still quite difficult to acquire. In his study of easy and difficult rules, Ellis (2006b) found that learners scored quite low on tests of implicit knowledge of these structures (knowledge that underlies their communicative use), despite the fact that they had scored quite high on tests of explicit knowledge. This suggests that it is possible that learners have good declarative knowledge of these forms but are not yet able to use them accurately in the course of communication. It also suggests that there is no direct relationship between ease of explanation and learning and that the teacher should be aware of this fact. 3) Be aware that teacher intention does not always match learner interpretation. It should also be noted that it is not simply enough if the teacher intends the feedback to be corrective or explicit. As Carroll (2001, 348) noted, “an utterance can count as feedback or correction only if a learner is willing to construe some bit of language as expressing a corrective intention on the part of some speaker.”

Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations

213

This suggests that when providing feedback, teachers should make sure that learners interpret the feedback as something that is corrective. Also, learners should not only interpret feedback as correction, but also be able to recognize what the feedback is about. During interaction it is possible that the learner may interpret the feedback as correction, but may not be able to recognize the location of the error. This is what Carroll (2001) referred to as “blame assignment problem,” and happens because the learner needs to make inferences about the feedback and the inference may be wrong. Thus, it is important for the teacher to make sure that learners are able to identify the error that is the focus of the correction. 4) Target single rather than multiple errors in a feedback move. Another factor shown to play a role in feedback effectiveness is feedback intensity or the degree to which the feedback repeatedly targets the same structure. As reviewed earlier, research has shown that feedback is more effective when it targets a single linguistic feature at a time rather than a wide range of forms. The implication is that as much as possible teachers should select specific types of errors and provide feedback on those errors in a single feedback move rather than on all the errors in the utterance. Targeting single errors may be specifically helpful if the form is perceptually nonsalient and needs increased attention to be perceived. Providing feedback in this manner is also helpful if the goal is the development of accuracy of certain target structures. 5) Consider learners’ developmental readiness. Research has shown that feedback is effective if it targets forms for which learners are developmentally ready (Chapter 8). This suggests that teachers should take into account learners’ developmental readiness and provide feedback in such a way that matches learners’ developmental level. Of course, as Ellis (2005) pointed out, it is not always easy for teachers to determine developmental readiness of individual learners. Even research on developmental stages has not yet been conclusive about what the developmental sequences are for many of the target structures. Therefore, teachers should try to consider other possibilities. One possibility is to be flexible and make use of different types of feedback on different occasions (Ellis 2009). When teachers use a variety of strategies, they can address a wider group of students with more

214

Interactional Feedback Dimension

varied linguistic abilities, feedback needs, and preferences. Another possibility is to use what Nassaji and Swain (2000) and Nassaji (2007c, 2011a) have called negotiated or scaffolded feedback. Following Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), Nassaji and Swain (2000) took a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky 1978) toward corrective feedback and defined effective feedback as feedback that is collaborative and is tailored to the learners’ ongoing needs. Such feedback has a number of characteristics. One is that it occurs through negotiation. Second, it consists of feedback exchanges that involve multiple feedback moves rather than single feedback moves. Third, the feedback always begins with indirect hints and moves progressively, and in a scaffolding manner, toward more direct feedback until the problem is resolved. An example of feedback involving scaffolding can be seen in the following feedback exchange between a tutor and a learner from Nassaji and Swain (2000, 41–2). Example 1  Feedback involving scaffolding Teacher: “ I think I am such stupid girl.” There is something wrong with this sentence. Can you see? Student: Such stupid the girl? Teacher: No. Student: No? Teacher: There is something wrong with “stupid.” Student: Uh . . . stupidary? Teacher: I mean there is something wrong with “stupid girl.” Student: Article? Need article? Teacher: Yes. Student: But . . . but . . . Teacher: Which . . . what article? Student: Ah . . . a?

6) Provide feedback in ways that promote opportunities for modified output. Another feature of effective feedback is that it promotes modified output. As shown by research reviewed in a number of previous chapters, interaction and feedback that encourages uptake and modification of output is more effective than feedback that does not provide opportunities for modified output. A major implication drawn from such research is that teachers should use feedback moves in ways that provide opportunities for uptake and modified output. Feedback

Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations

215

moves such as elicitations would naturally provide such opportunities because elicitations do not provide the target form, but instead push the learner to provide the correction. However, feedback types that provide the correct form, such as recasts or direct correction, are more limited in terms of opportunities for modified output. Feedback types such as recasts may not even lead to modified output in certain circumstances, such as when they are immediately followed by another discourse move that continues the topic. This then suggests that when providing such feedback, teachers should use it in a way that allows learners to respond to feedback. Nassaji (2007a) found that learners were more likely to produce modified output in response to recasts when they were used in conjunction with verbal prompts such as Did you mean? or Is that what you mean?. These additional prompts pushed the learner to respond to feedback and hence increased the opportunities for modified output. 7) Take into account the social and instructional context of the feedback. The effectiveness of feedback also depends on the social and instructional context of feedback. As reviewed in Chapter 8, research has shown that learners respond differently to different types of feedback depending on the context in which the feedback occurs. Just to reiterate, Sheen (1994), for example, found that students in EFL contexts benefited more from recasts than those in content-based French immersion contexts. Lyster and Mori (2006) found that recasts were more effective in Japanese immersion classrooms than in French immersion classrooms. A meta-analysis by Mackey and Goo (2007) found a significant difference between studies that had used feedback in classroom settings versus those in dyadic laboratory settings. They also found that foreign language learners benefited significantly more from feedback than second language learners. These findings suggest that contextual differences affect the effectiveness of feedback and thus teachers should be aware of this and adjust their feedback strategies in ways that suit their context. However, what is also crucial to consider is that context is multifaceted and cannot be simply taken to refer to macro-level differences between settings such as ESL versus EFL. As reviewed earlier, Nassaji (2013), for instance, found that even differences in the organization of a classroom lesson, such as studentteacher participation structure, influenced the effectiveness of feedback. Other studies also suggest that variables such as lesson formats, activity and task type and lesson topics are all important aspects of classroom context that can influence

216

Interactional Feedback Dimension

the effectiveness of feedback. Thus, teachers should be aware of these various dimensions of context and attempt to adapt their instructional and feedback strategies accordingly. 8) Increase opportunities for negotiation. Most of the literature on interactional feedback has been about single feedback moves. However, research has also shown that the effectiveness of feedback may differ depending on the extent of negotiation. As reviewed earlier, Nassaji (2007c, 2011a), for instance, found that feedback with extended negotiation resulted in more learning than feedback with limited negotiation. He examined the role of negotiated feedback in an adult ESL classroom in which the teacher used interactional feedback in response to learners’ written errors. The findings showed a clear advantage for feedback exchanges with extended negotiation over those with limited or no negotiation. The following examples illustrate feedback exchanges with limited and extended negotiations. Example 2  Limited negotiation Student’s erroneous utterance: “It’s cheaper than Canadian’s one.” Teacher: It’s cheaper than Canadian’s one? Student: Canadians. Teacher: Th  e Canadian. The S is in the wrong place. A pack of cigarettes is cheaper than Canadian ones. Example 3  Extended negotiation Student’s erroneous utterance:  “Teachers in class like our friend . . .” Teacher: So who can make a correction? Who’s got an idea to correct this? Mitny what would you do to correct this? Any idea? Student: I don’t know. I don’t know. Teacher: Just try. Just try. Just try your best. Student: Okay, okay. Their. Teacher: OK so there is “their”? Student: Their teachers? Teacher: How about I’ll help here. How about “our teachers”? Student: Our teachers?

Conclusions, Implications, and Pedagogical Recommendations

217

Teacher: Can you start with that? Student: Our teachers? Teacher: Yeah. Student: Hm. Hm. They are? Teacher: O  K. So we have “teachers,” so we don’t need “their.” We just need “teachers are.” (Nassaji 2007c, 124)

The implication for instruction drawn from such findings is that the teacher should attempt to use feedback moves in a way that gives students sufficient opportunities for negotiation, scaffolding, and discovery of the correct form. 9) Take into account individual learner differences. Finally, learners are different and learn in different ways. Thus, teachers should be aware of individual learner differences (see, for example, Dornyei 2006; Dornyei and Skehan 2003). As reviewed earlier, research suggests that the provision and effect of even the same type of feedback varies considerably depending on the type of the learner involved and his or her characteristics, including his or her age, proficiency level, motivation, attitude, aptitude, personality, learning styles and strategies, working memory etc. Adults, for example, (due to their more analytic skills and knowledge) are more likely to benefit from metalinguistic feedback or explicit instruction than children, whereas children are more likely to benefit from more implicit forms of feedback and exposure (e.g. DeKeyser 2000). Advanced-level learners are better able to notice the corrective force of implicit recasts than beginner- or less-advanced-level learners (e.g. Ammar and Spada 2006; Mackey and Philp 1998), suggesting a role for language proficiency. Learners with higher-working memory capacity are more likely to benefit from recasts than those with lower-working memory capacity (e.g. Goo 2011; Li 2013; Mackey et al. 2002; Mackey and Sachs 2011). Moreover, learners with higher analytic ability are more likely to benefit from metalinguistic feedback than learners with lower-level ability (e.g. Sheen 2007a). There is still much research that needs to be done on how individual differences interact with feedback characteristics and other related variables. However, it is quite clear that there are substantial differences among learners in the extent to which they benefit from feedback. Thus, teachers should be aware of these differences and use and adjust their feedback strategies in a way that takes into account these differences.

218

Interactional Feedback Dimension

Concluding remarks In this final chapter, we have discussed the implications of the findings of the studies reviewed in previous chapters and also provided a number of suggestions about how to use feedback more effectively. However, we would like to emphasize once again that language learning is a complex and gradual process and that we should not expect that a reaction in response to learner errors in the course of interaction or in the context of a few lessons would lead to immediate substantial effects on their learning. Improvement takes place over time and, therefore, for feedback to be maximally effective it should be provided regularly and consistently over a long period of time. In addition, learners must have opportunities not only for feedback, but also for processing and using the target forms in various form and meaning relationships so that the forms can become part of their interlanguage system.

Questions for discussion 1. In this chapter as well as previous ones, we have discussed a number of factors influencing the effectiveness of feedback. Which factors do you think play the most important role and why? 2. Consider the notions of easy and difficult rules. How do you define easy rules versus difficult rules? What are some of the factors that may affect the ease or difficulty of a target structure? 3. In your opinion, what are some of the characteristics of effective feedback? List them in terms of their importance. 4. In this chapter, we have discussed a number of criteria whereby errors can be selected for correction. Which of them would make more sense to you? Can you think of any other criteria that should be used in deciding what kind of errors should be corrected? 5. Do you agree that children are more likely to benefit from implicit feedback than explicit feedback? What are your arguments for or against this? 6. What are some of the advantages and/or disadvantages of using communicative tasks in language classrooms? How can this facilitate feedback? 7. Why is it important to take into account the nature of the instructional context when providing feedback? Do you think feedback should be provided differently in ESL versus EFL classrooms, and if so, why?

References Adams, R. (2007), “Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other?,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 29–51. Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. (1994), “Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development.” The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–83. Allwright, R. (1975), Problems in the Study of Language Teachers’ Treatment of Learner Errors. Paper presented at the The 9th Annual TESOL Convention, March 4–9. Allwright, R. (1984), “Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach?: The interaction hypothesis,” in D. Singleton and D. Little (eds), Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts. Dublin: IRAL, pp. 3–18. Ammar, A. and Spada, N. (2006), “One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–74. Amrhein, H. and Nassaji, H. (2010), “Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why?” Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127. Appel, G., and Lantolf, J. (1994), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp. Baddeley, A. (1994), “Working memory: The interface between memory and cognition,” in D. L. Schachter and E. Tulving (eds), Memory Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 351–67. Baddeley, A. (2003), “Working memory and language: An overview.” Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208. Baddeley, A. and Hitch, G. (1974), “Working memory.” Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89. Bailey, N., Madden, C., and Krashen, S. (1974), “Is there a ‘natural sequence’ in adult second language learning?” Language Learning, 24, 235–43. Bell, A. (2008), Interactional Feedback and Esl Question Development. Unpublished MA, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K., and Tarone, E. (2006), “Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA.” TESOL Quarterly, 40, 665–89. Bley-Vroman, R. (1988), “The fundamental character of foreign language learning,” in R. W. and M. Sharwood-Smith (eds), Grammar and Second Language Teaching: A Book of Readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 19–30.

220

References

Bohannon, J. N. and Stanowicz, L. (1988), “The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children’s language errors.” Developmental Psychology, 24, 684–9. Borg, S. (1998), “Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study.” TESOL Quarterly, 32, 9–38. Borg, S. (2001), “Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar.” ELT Journal, 55, 21–9. Borg, S. (2006), Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum. Bowles, M. (2008), “Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at a L2 task other than reading.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 359–87. Bowles, M. (2010), The Think Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research. New York: Routledge. Bowles, M. and Leow, R. (2005), “Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–40. Braidi, S. M. (2002), “Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnativespeaker interactions.” Language Learning, 52, 1–42. Brandl, K. (1995), “Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and responses.” Modern Language Journal, 79, 194–211. Brooks, N. (1960), Language and Language Learning: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Brown, D. H. (1987), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (2nd edn). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Brown, R. (1973), A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, R., and Hanlon, C. (1970), “Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech,” in J. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: Wiley, pp. 11–53. Burt, M. K. and Kiparsky, C. (1974), “Global and local mistakes,” in J. Schumann and N. Stenson (eds), New Frontiers in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 71–80. Cadierno, T. (1995), “Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense.” The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–93. Cameron, D. (2003a), “Gender and language ideologies,” in J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff (eds), Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell, 447–67. Cameron, D. (2003b), “Gender issues in language change.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 187–201. Carpenter, H., Jeon, K., MacGregor, D., and Mackey, A. (2006), “Learners’ interpretations of recasts.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–36. Carroll, S. (2001), Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition (vol. 25). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

References

221

Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., and Swain, M. (1992), “The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173–98. Carroll, S. and Swain, M. (1993), “Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–86. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991a), “Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching.” TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459–80. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991b), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (2nd edn). Boston, MA: Newbury House. Chastain, K. (1981), “Native speaker evaluation of student composition errors.” The Modern Language Journal, 65, 288–94. Chaudron, C. (1977), “A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors.” Language Learning, 27, 29–46. Chaudron, C. (1986), “Teachers’ priorities in correcting learners’ errors in french immersion classes,” in R. Day (ed.), Taking to Learn. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 64–84. Chaudron, C. (1988), Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chouinard, M. and Clark, E. (2003), “Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence.” Child Language, 30, 637–69. Chun, A. E., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, N., and Luppescu, S. (1982), “Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native-normative conversations*.” TESOL Quarterly, 16, 537–47. Cohen, A. (1975), “Error correction and the training of language teacehrs.” The Modern Language Journal, 59, 414–22. Cook, V. (1991), Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold. Cook, V. (1993), Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: MacMillan Press. Corder, S. P. (1967), “The significance of learners’ errors.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–9. Corder, S. P. (1971), “Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis.” IRAL, 9, 147–60. Crookes, G. and Rulon, K. (1988), “Topic and feedback in native-speaker/nonnativespeaker conversation.” TESOL Quarterly, 22, 675–81. De Bot, K. (1996), “The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis.” Language Learning, 46, 529–55. de Villiers, J. G. and de Villiers, P. A. (1973), “A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 267–78. Dekeyser, R. (1993), “The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency.” The Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–14.

222

References

DeKeyser, R. (2000), “The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533. DeKeyser, R. (2007), “Situating the concept of practice,” in R. DeKeyser (ed.), Practicing in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–18. DeKeyser, R. and Sokalski, K. (1996), “The differential role of comprehension and production practice.” Language Learning, 46, 613–42. Demetras, M., Post, K., and Snow, C. (1986), “Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions.” Child Language, 13, 275–92. Donato, R. (1994), “Collective sarrolding in second language learning,” in J. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 33–59. Dornyei, Z. (2001), Teaching and Researching Motivation. London: Longman. Dornyei, Z. (2006), “Individual differences in second language acquisition.” ILA Review, 19, 42–68. Dornyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003), “Individual differences in second language learning,” in D. C. and M. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 589–630. Doughty, C. (1994), “Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners,” in J. Alatis (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table 1993: Strategic Interaction and Language Acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 96–108. Doughty, C. (2001), “Cognitive underpinning of focus on form,” in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–57. Doughty, C. (2003), “Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement,” in C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 256–310. Doughty, C. and Varela, E. (1998), “Communicative focus on form,” in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 114–38. Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (1998a), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (1998b), “Pedagogical choices in focus on form,” in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–261. Drummond, S., Dancer, J., and Pierce, B. (1996), “Gender differences in language production.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 82, 1182. Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1973), “Should we teach children syntax?.” Language Learning, 23, 245–58. Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974), “Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.” Language Learning, 24, 37–53.

References

223

Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982), Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press. Egi, T. (2007), “Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The role of linguistic target, length, and degree of change.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–37. Egi, T. (2008), “Investigating stimulated recall as a cognitive measure: Reactivity and verbal reports in SLA research methodology.” Language Awareness, 17, 212–28. Egi, T. (2010), “Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness.” The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21. Ellis, R. (1990), Instructed Second Language Acquisition : Learning in the Classroom. Oxford, UK; Cambridge, MA, USA: B. Blackwell. Ellis, R. (1994), The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1997a), Second Language Acquisition. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1997b), SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1999), “Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroomoriented research.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64–80. Ellis, R. (2001), “Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction.” Language Learning, 51, 1–46. Ellis, R. (2003), Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2005), “Principles of instructed language learning.” System, 33, 209–24. Ellis, R. (2006a), “Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.” TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107. Ellis, R. (2006b), “Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge.” Applied Linguistics, 27, 431–63. Ellis, R. (2007), “The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 339–60. Ellis, R. (2008a), The Study of Ssecond Language Acquisition (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2008b), “A typology of written corrective feedback types.” ELT Journal, 63, 97–107. Ellis, R. (2009), “Corrective feedback and teacher development.” L2 Journal, 1, 3–18. Ellis, R. and Barkhuizen, G. (2005), Analysing Learner Language. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., and Loewen, S. (2001), “Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.” Language Learning, 51, 281–318.

224

References

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., and Erlam, R. (2006), “Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–69. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R., Philp, J., Elder, C., and Reinders, H. (eds) (2009), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. and Sheen, Y. (2006), “Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600. Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., and Yamazaki, A. (1994), “Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings.” Language Learning, 44, 449–91. Erlam, R. and Loewen, S. (2010), “Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral french interaction.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 877–905. Fanselow, J. F. (1977), “The treatment of error in oral work.” Foreign Language Annals, 10, 583–93. Farrar, M. J. (1990), “Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes.” Journal of Child Language, 17, 607–24. Farrar, M. J. (1992), “Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition.” Developmental Psychology, 28, 90–8. Felix, S. (1981), “The effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition.” Language Learning, 31, 87–112. Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (1997), “On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research.” The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300. Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (2007), “Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA.” The Modern Language Journal, 91, 800–19. Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1985), “The implications of meta-analysis for educational research.” British Educational Research Journal, 11, 45–9. Flynn, S. (1988), “Nature of development in L2 acquisition and implications for theories of language acquisition in general,” in S. Flynn and W. O’Neill (eds), Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 277–94. Flynn, S. (1996), “A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition,” in W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 121–58. Fotos, S. (1994), “Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks.” TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323–51. Fotos, S., and Ellis, R. (1991), “Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach.” TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–28. Fu, T. (2012). “Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a Chinese as a foreign language class: Do perceptions and the reality match?” Unpublished MA thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Fuente, M. J. (2003), “Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to call? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 47–81.

References

225

Fujii, A. and Mackey, A. (2009), “Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 267–301. Gallaway, C., and Richards, B. J. (1994), Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, R. C. (2001), “Integrative motivation and second language acquisition,” in Z. Dornyei and R. Schmidt (eds), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, pp. 1–19. Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E. (1972), Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gardner, R. C. and MacIntyre, P. (1993), “On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning.” Language Learning, 43, 157–94. Gass, S. (1991), “Grammar instruction, selective attention and learning processes,” in R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith and M. Swain (eds), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 124–41. Gass, S. (1997), Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gass, S. (2003), “Input and interaction,” in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 224–55. Gass, S., and Lewis, K. (2007), “Perceptions about interactional feedback: Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 79–99. Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2000), Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, S., Mackey, A., and Pica, T. (1998), “The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition – introduction to the special issue.” The Modern Language Journal, 82, 299–307. Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (2002), Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1989), “Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse,” in M. Eisenstein (ed.), Variation and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Plenum, pp. 71–86. Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1994), “Input, interaction, and second language production.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302. Goldschneider, J. M. and Dekeyser, R. (2001), “Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants.” Language Learning, 51, 1–50. Goo, J. (2011), Corrective Feedback, Individual Variation in Cognitive Capacities, and L2 Development: Recasts vs. Metalinguistic Feedback. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Georgetown University.

226

References

Goo, J., and Mackey, A. (2013), “The case against the case against recasts.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–65. Goodwin, M. H. (1990), “Tactical uses of stories: Participation frameworks within girls’ and boys’ disputes.” Discourse Processes, 13, 33–71. Griffiths, R. (1990), “Speech rate and NNS comprehension: A preliminary study in time-benefit analysis.” Language Learning, 40, 311–36. Han, Z. (2002), “A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output.” TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–72. Han, Z. and Kim, J. (2008), “Corrective recasts: What teachers might want to know.” Language Learning Journal, 36, 35–44. Harley, B. and Swain, M. (1984), “The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching,” in A. Davies, C. Criper, and A. P. R. Howatt (eds), Interlanguage. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 291–311. Harrington, M. and Sawyer, M. (1992), “L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38. Havranek, G. (2002), “When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?.” International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255–70. Heift, T. (2004), “Corrective feedback and learner uptake in call.” ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 16, 416–31. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., and Schneiderman, M. (1984), “Brown and hanlon revisited: Mothers’ sensitivity to ungrammatical forms.” Journal of Child Language, 11, 81–8. Holmes, J. (1995), Women, Men, and Politeness. London: Longman. Holmes, J. (1998), “Complimenting- a positive politeness strategy,” in J. Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 100–20. Horwitz, E. (2001), “Language anxiety and achievement.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112–26. Horwitz, E. and Young, D. (eds). (1991), Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs. Housen, A., Pierrard, M., and Van Daele, S. (2005), “Rule complexity and the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction,” in A. Housen and M. Pierrard (eds), Nvestigations in Instructed Ssecond Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 235–69. Hulstijn, J. H. and de Graaff, R. (1994), “Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge?: A research proposal.” AILA Review, 11, 97–112. Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006), “Feedback on second language students’ writing.” Language Teaching, 39, 83–101. Ishida, M. (2004), “Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i- (ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language.” Language Learning, 54, 311–94.

References

227

Iwashita, N. (1999), “Tasks and learners’ output in nonnative-nonnative interaction,” in K. Kanno (ed.), The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 53-70. Iwashita, N. (2001), “The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language.” System, 29, 267–87. James, C. (1998), Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Eerror Analysis. London: Longman. Jean, G. and Simard, D. (2011), “Grammar learning in English and french L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions.” Foreign Language Annals, 44, 465–92. Juffs, A. and Harrington, M. (2011), “Aspects of working memory in L2 learning.” Language Teaching, 44, 137–66. Junqueira, L. and Kim, Y. (2013), “Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers’ corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 181–206. Kartchava, E. and Ammar, A. (2014), “Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom.” TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86–109. Kim, J. and Han, Z. (2007), “Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teachers intent and learner interpretation overlap?,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 269–97. Kiparsky, P. (1971), “Historical linguistics,” in W. O. Dingwall (ed.), A Survey of Linguistic Science. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press, pp. 577–649. Kowal, M. and Swain, M. (1994), “Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness.” Language Awareness, 3, 73–93. Kowal, M. and Swain, M. (1997), “From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the immersion classroom?,” in R. K. Johnson and M. Swain (eds), Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–309. Krashen, S. (1981), Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S. (1982), Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1993), “The effect of formal grammar teaching: Sill peripheral.” TESOL Quarterly, 27, 722–5. Lantolf, J. and Appel, G. (1994), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp. Lantolf, J. and Thorne, S. L. (2006), Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

228

References

Lapkin, S., Hart, D., and Swain, M. (1991), “Early and middle french immersion programs – french-language outcomes.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 48, 11–40. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. (1991), An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman. Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J. (2005), “Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions.” Language Awareness, 14, 112–27. Lee, L. (2011), “Focus-on-form through peer feedback in a Spanish–american telecollaborative exchange.” Language Awareness, 20, 343–57. Leeman, J. (2003), “Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. Lennon, P. (1991), “Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction.” Applied Linguistics, 12, 180–96. Leow, R. P. and 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. Li, S. (2010), “The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta analysis.” Language Learning, 60, 309–65. Li, S. (2013), “The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory.” The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–54. Lightbown, P. (1992), “What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning,” in R. Philipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith and M. Swain (eds), Foreign Language Pedagogy Research: A Commemorative Volume for Claus Faerch. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 197–212. Lightbown, P. (2004), “Commentary: What to teach? How to teach?,” in B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 65–78. Lightbown, P. (2008), “Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition,” in Z. Han (ed.), Understanding Second Language Process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 27–44. Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1990), “Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–48. Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1993), How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2006), How Languages are Learned (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lin, Y. H. and Hedgcock, J. (1996), “Negative feedback incorporation among highproficiency and low-proficiency Chinese speaking learners of Spanish.” Language Learning, 46, 567–611. Lochtman, K. (2002), “Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching.” International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271–83.

References

229

Loewen, S. (2003), “Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form.” Language Teaching Research, 7, 315–45. Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006), “ Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14. Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., and Chen, X. (2009), “Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction.” The Modern Language Journal, 93, 91–104. Loewen, S. and Nabei, T. (2007), “Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 361–78. Loewen, S. and Philp, J. (2006), “Recasts in adults English L2 classrooms: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness.” Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–56. Long, M. (1981), “Input, interaction, and second language acquisition,” In H. Winitz (ed.), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 259–78. Long, M. (1983a), “Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–93. Long, M. (1983b), “Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input.” Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41. Long, M. (1985), “A role for instruction in second language acquisition,” in K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon Avon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 77–99. Long, M. (1989), “Task, group and task-group interaction.” University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8, 1–26. Long, M. (1991), “Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology,” in K. DeBot, R. Ginsberge and C. Kramsch (eds), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–52. Long, M. (1996), “The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition,” in W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 413–68. Long, M. (2000), “Focus on form in task-based language teaching,” in R. D. Lambert and E. Shohamy (eds), Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honor of a. Ronald Walton. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 179–92. Long, M. (2007), Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Long, M., Inagaki, S. and Ortega, L. (1998), “The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish.” Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–71. Long, M. and Robinson, P. (1998), “Focus on form: Theory, research and practice,” in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–41. Lortie, D. (1975), School Teacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

230

References

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. Lyster, R. (1998b), “Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81. Lyster, R. (2002), “Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction.” International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237–53. Lyster, R. (2004), “Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432. Lyster, R. and Izquierdo, J. (2009), “Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction.” Language Learning, 59, 453–98. Lyster, R. and Mori, H. (2006), “Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300. Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997), “Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. Lyster, R. and Saito, K. (2010), “Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302. Lyster, R., Saito, K., and Sato, M. (2012), “Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms.” Language Teaching, 46, 1–40. Mackey, A. (1999), “Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–87. Mackey, A. (2006), “Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning.” Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–30. Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., and Winke, P. (2010), “Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity.” Language Learning, 60, 501–33. Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., and Nakatsukasa, K. (2007), “Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom.” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 129–52. Mackey, A. and Gass, S. (2006), “Introduction.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–78. Mackey, A., Gass, S., and McDonough, K. (2000), “How do learners perceive interactional feedback?.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–97. Mackey, A. and Goo, J. (2007), “Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 407–52. Mackey, A., Kanganas, A., and Oliver, R. (2007), “Feedback in child ESL classrooms.” TESOL Quarterly, 41, 285–312.

References

231

Mackey, A., Oliver, R., and 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. Mackey, A. and Philp, J. (1998), “Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?.” Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–56. Mackey, A., Philp, J., Fujii, A., Egi, T., and Tatsumi, T. (2002), “Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development,” in P. Robinson (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 181–208. Mackey, A., Polio, C., and McDonough, K. (2004), “The relationship between experience, education and teachersí use of incidental focus-on-form techniques.” Language Teaching Research, 8, 301–27. Mackey, A. and Sachs, R. (2011), “Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development.” Language Learning, 62, 1–37. Marcus, G. (1993), “Negative evidence in language acquisition.” Cognition, 46, 53–85. Maria Garcia, P. and Pica, T. (2000), “L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed?” IRAL, 38, 35–58. McDonough, K. (2005), “Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103. McDonough, K. (2006), “Interation and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 179–207. McDonough, K. (2007), “Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 323–38. McDonough, K. and Mackey, A. (2006), “Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development.” Language Learning, 56, 693–720. McDonough, K. and Mackey, A. (2008), “Syntactic priming and ESL question development.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 31–47. McLaughlin, B. (1990), “Restructuring.” Applied Linguistics, 11, 113–28. McLeod, B. and McLaughlin, B. (1986), “Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a second language.” Language Learning, 36, 109–23. McNeill, D. (1966), “Developmental psycholinguistics,” in F. Smith and G. Miller (eds), The Genesis of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 15–84. Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (1998), Second Language Learning Theories (2nd edn). London: Arnold. Muranoi, H. (2000), “Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms.” Language Learning, 50, 617–73.

232

References

Murphy, D. F. (1986), “Communication and correction in the classroom.” ELT Journal, 40, 146–51. Nabei, T. and Swain, M. (2002), “Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning.” Language Awareness, 11, 43–63. Nagata, N. (1997), “The effectiveness of computer-assisted metalinguistic instruction: A case study in Japanese.” Foreign Language Annals, 2, 187–200. Nassaji, H. (1999), “Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 385–402. Nassaji, H. (2007a), “Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction.” Language Learning, 57, 511–48. Nassaji, H. (2007b), “Focus on form through recasts in dyadic student-teacher interaction: A case for recast enhancement,” in C. Gascoigne (ed.), Assessing the Impact of Input Enhancement in Second Language Education. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, pp. 53–69. Nassaji, H. (2007c), “Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners’ written errors,” in S. Fotos and H. Nassaji (eds), Form-focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–29. Nassaji, H. (2009), “Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness.” Language Learning, 59, 411–52. Nassaji, H. (2010), “The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL classrooms.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 907–33. Nassaji, H. (2011a), “Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback.” Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 315–34. Nassaji, H. (2011b), “Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction.” System, 39, 17–29. Nassaji, H. (2013), “Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms.” Language Learning, 63, 835–69. Nassaji, H. (2014), The Differential Effects of Extensive Versus Intensive Recasts. Paper presented at AILA World Congress, Brisbane, Australia. Nassaji, H. and Cumming, A. (2000), “What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals.” Language Teaching Research, 4, 95–121. Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. (2004), “Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–45. Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. (2010), Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms: Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Context. London: Routledge.

References

233

Nassaji, H. and Swain, M. (2000), “Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles.” Language Awareness, 9, 34–51. Nassaji, H. and Wells, G. (2000), “What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction.” Applied Linguistics, 21, 376–406. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., and Spada, N. (2001), “Recasts as feedback to language learners.” Language Learning, 51, 719–58. Nobuyoshi, J. and Ellis, R. (1993), “Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition.” ELT Journal, 47, 113–28. Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000), “Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis.” Language Learning, 50, 417–528. Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2001), “Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review.” Language Learning, 51, 157–213. Ohta, A. (2000), “Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition and L2 grammar,” in J. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–78. Ohta, A. (2001), Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Oliver, R. (1995), “Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–81. Oliver, R. (2000), “Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork.” Language Learning, 50, 119–51. Oliver, R. (2002), “The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions.” Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111. Panova, I. and Lyster, R. (2002), “Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom.” TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–95. 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. Pica, T. (1987), “Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom.” Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–21. Pica, T. (1988), “Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction.” Language Learning, 38, 45–73. Pica, T. (1992), “The textual outcomes of native speaker-nonnative speaker negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning?,” in C. Kramsch and S. McConnell-Ginet (eds), Text and Context. Cambridge, MA: D.C. Heath, pp. 198–237. Pica, T. (1994), “Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?.” Language Learning, 44, 493–527. Pica, T. (1996), “Do second language learners need negotiation?” IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34, 1–21.

234

References

Pica, T. (1998), “Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives,” in V. Regan (ed.), Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition in Social Context. Dublin: University College Dublin Press, pp. 9–31. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., and Morgenthaler, L. (1989), “Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., and Falodun, J. (1993), “Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction,” in S. Gass and G. Crookes (eds), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9–34. Pica, T., Kang, H., and Sauro, S. (2006), “Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301–38. Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., and Linnell, J. (1996), “Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners?” TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84. Pica, T., Young, R., and Doughty, C. (1987), “The impact of interaction on comprehension.” TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–58. Pienemann, M. (1984), “Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214. Pienemann, M. (1985), “Learnability and syllabus construction,” in K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 23–75. Pienemann, M. and Johnston, M. (1987), “Factors influencing the development of language proficiency,” in D. Nunan (ed.), Applying Second Language Acquisition Research. Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP, pp. 45–141. Pinker, S. (1989), Leamability and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pinker, S. (1979), “Formal models of language learning.” Cognition, 1, 217–83. Plonsky, L. and Mills, S. V. (2006), “An exploratory study of differing perceptions of error correction between teachers and students: Bridging the gap.” Applied Language Learning, 16, 55–74. Polio, C., Gass, S., and Chapin, L. (2006), “Using stimulated recall to investigate speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 237–67. Porter, P. (1986), “How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions,” in R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 200–22. Révész, A. (2009), “Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437. Richards, J. C. (1974), Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman.

References

235

Richardson, M. A. (1995), The Use of Negative Evidence in Second Language Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth. Roberts, M. (1995), “Awareness and the efficacy of error correction,” in R. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 163–82. Robinson, P. (1995), “Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis.” Language Learning, 45, 283–331. Robinson, P. (1996), “Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–67. Robinson, P. (2001), “Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework.” Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. Robinson, P. (2003), “Attention and memory during SLA,” in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., pp. 631–78. Robinson, P. (2007), “Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty.” IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 193–213. Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010), “The organization of delayed second language correction.” Language Teaching Research, 14, 183–206. Ross-Feldman, L. (2007), “Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities?,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53–77. Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006), “The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research,” in J. Norris and L. Ortega (eds), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 131–64. Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. (1985), “Consciousness-raising and universal grammar.” Applied Linguistics, 6, 274–82. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G. (1974), “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language, 50, 696–735. Saito, K. and Lyster, R. (2011), “Effects of form focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /r/ by Japanese learners of English.” Language Learning, 62, 595–633. Sakai, H. (2004), “Roles of output and feedback for L2 learners’ noticing.” JALT Journal, 26, 25–54. Samuda, V. and Rounds, P. (1993), “Critical episodes: Reference points for analyzing a task in action,” in G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds), Tasks from a Pedagogical Perspective: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 125–38.

236

References

Sanz, C., Lin, H., Lado, B., Bowden, H., and Stafford, C. (2009), “Concurrent verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: Two call studies.” Language Learning, 59, 33–71. Sanz, C. and Morgan Short, K. (2004), “Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study.” Language Learning, 54, 35–78. Sato, C. (1986), “Conversation and interlanguage development,” in R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 23–45. Sato, M., and Lyster, R. (2007), “Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor versus feedback types”, in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123–42. Sato, M. and Lyster, R. (2012), “Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626. Sauro, S. (2009), “Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar.” Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96–120. Saxton, M. (1997), “The contrast theory of negative input.” Journal of Child Language, 24, 139–61. Saxton, M. (2000), “Negative evidence and negative feedback: Immediate effects on the grammaticality of child speech.” First Language, 20, 221–52. Saxton, M. (2005), “‘Recast’ in a new light: Insights for practice from typical language studies.” Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21, 23–38. Saxton, M., Backley, P., and Gallaway, C. (2005), “Negative input for grammatical errors: Effects after a lag of 12 weeks.” Journal of Child Language, 32, 643–72. Saxton, M., Houston-Price, C., and Dawson, N. (2005), “The prompt hypothesis: Clarification requests as corrective input for grammatical errors.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 393–414. Schachter, J. (1991), “Corrective feedback in historical perspective.” Second Language Research, 7, 89–102. Schegloff, E. (1968), “Sequencing in conversational openings.” American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–95. Schegloff, E. (1982), “Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences,” in D. Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977), “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language, 53, 361–82. Schmidt, R. (1990), “The role of consciousness in secodn language learning.” Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–58. Schmidt, R. (1993), “Awareness and second language acquisition.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–26. Schmidt, R. (1995), “Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in language learning,” in R. Schmidt (ed.), Attention

References

237

and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 1–63. Schmidt, R. (2001), “Attention,” in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–32. Schmidt, R. and Frota, S. (1986), “Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of portuguese,” in R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 237–326. Schulz, R. (2001), “Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-colombia.” The Modern Language Journal, 85, 244–58. Schwartz, B. (1993), “On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–63. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993), “Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–79. Sharwood-Smith, M. (1986), “Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input.” Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–56. Sheen, Y. (2004), “Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings.” Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300. Sheen, Y. (2006), “Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake.” Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–92. Sheen, Y. (2007a), “The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles.” TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255. Sheen, Y. (2007b), “The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 301–22. Sheen, Y. (2008), “Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning.” Language Learning, 58, 835–74. Shehadeh, A. (1999), “Non-native speakers’ production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning.” Language Learning, 49, 627–75. Shi, G. (2004), “Teacher’s corrective feedback and learner repair in secondary EFL classrooms.” Foreign Language and Literature, 86, 242–8. Shiffrin, R. and Schneider, W. (1977), “Controlled and automatic human information processing: Perceptual learning, automatic, attending and a general theory.” Psychological Review, 84, 127–90. Skehan, P. (1998), “Task-based instruction.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–86. Slimani, A. (1989), “The role of topicalization in classroom language learning.” System, 17, 223–34. Slimani, A. (1992), “Evaluation of classroom interaction,” in C. Anderson and A. Beretta (eds), Evaluating Second Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–221.

238

References

Smith, B. (2004), “Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–98. Snow, C. (1986), “Conversations with children,” in P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds), Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–89. Sokolov, J. L. and Snow, C. E. (1994), “The changing role of negative evidence in theories of language development,” in C. Gallaway and B. R. Richards (eds), Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 38–55. Spada, N. (1997), “Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research.” Language Teaching, 29, 1–15. Spada, N. and Lightbrown, P. M. (1993), “Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–24. Spada, N. and Lightbown, P. M. (2008), “Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated?” TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207. Spada, N. and Tomita, Y. (2010), “Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta analysis.” Language Learning, 60, 263–308. Stern, H. (1983), Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1985), “Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development,” in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 235–53. Swain, M. (1993), “The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–64. Swain, M. (1995), “Three functions of output in second language learning,” in H. G. Widdowson, G. Cook, and B. Seidlhofer (eds), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 125–44. Swain, M. (1996), “Discovering successful second language teaching strategies and practices: From programme evaluation to classroom experimentation.” 17, 89–104. Swain, M. (1998), “Focus on form through conscious rEFLection,” in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–81. Swain, M. (2001), “Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44–63. Swain, M. (2005), “The output hypothesis: Theory and research,” in E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook on Research in Ssecond Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 471–83. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995), “Problems in output and the cognitive-processes they generate – a step towards 2nd language-learning.” Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–91. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1998), “Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent french immersion students working together.” The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–37.

References

239

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2001), “Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects,” in M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 99–118. Tannen, D. (1990), You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tarone, E. (2000), “Still wrestling with context in interlanguage theory.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 182–98. Tarone, E. (2007), “Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research.” The Modern Language Journal, 91, 837–48. Tarone, E. and Bigelow, M. (2005), “Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second language acquisition research.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 77–97. Tomasello, M. and Herron, C. (1988), “Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237–46. Tomasello, M. and Herron, C. (1989), “Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385–95. Tomlin, R. and Villa, V. (1994), “Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–202. Trahey, M. (1996), “Positive evidence in second language acquisition: Some long-term effects.” Second Language Research, 12, 111–39. Trahey, M. and White, L. (1993), “Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204. Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., and Gatbonton, E. (2007), “How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability,” in A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–95. Van den Branden, K. (1997), “Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output.” Language Learning, 47, 589–636. Van Lier, L. (1988), The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman. VanPatten, B. (1996), Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Ssecond Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. VanPatten, B. (2002a), “Processing instruction: An update.” Language Learning, 52, 755–803. VanPatten, B. (2002b), “Processing the content of input-processing and processing instruction research: A response to dekeyser, salaberry, robinson, and harrington.” Language Learning, 52, 825–31. Varnosfadrani, A. (2006), “A comparison of the effects of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed corrective feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Auckland.

240

References

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986), Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ware, P. and O’Dowd, R. (2008), “Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration.” Language Learning & Technology, 12, 43–63. White, L. (1991), “Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom.” Second Language Research, 7, 133–61. White, L. (2003), Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, J. (2005), “Form-focused instruction,” in E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook on Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 673–91. Williams, J. and Evans, J. (1998), “What kind of focus and on which forms?,” in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–55. Willis, J. (1996), “A flexible framework for task-based learning,” in J. Willis and D. Willis (eds), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann, pp. 52–62. Yamaguchi, Y. (1994), Negative Evidence and Japanese as a Foreign Language Acquisition. Unpublised manuscript, University of Western Australia, Perth. Yang, Y. and Lyster, R. (2010), “Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learnersíacquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–63. Yanguas, I. and Lado, B. (2012), “Is thinking aloud reactive when writing in the heritage language?” Foreign Language Annals, 45, 380–99. Yilmaz, Y. (2012), “The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes.” Language Learning, 62, 1134–69. Yoshida, R. (2008), “‘Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types.” Language Awareness, 17, 78–93. Yoshida, R. (2010), “How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom?” The Modern Language Journal, 94, 293–314. Zhao, S. and Bitchener, J. (2007), “Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions.” System, 35, 431–47.

Index alertness  12 attention, concept of  11–12 attention to form through design  204–5 through process  203–4 attitudes, motivation, and anxiety, affecting learners’ ability  173–4 Audio-Lingual method  7, 36, 37 automatic processes  67 blame assignment problem  213 clarification requests  9, 27, 45, 53–4, 57, 67, 72–3, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 93, 96, 97, 99, 100, 105–6, 114–15, 120, 127, 136, 137, 141, 143, 144, 145, 159, 161, 163, 167–9, 172, 179, 207, 210 cluing see elicitations Cognitive Approach, to language teaching  37 cognitive comparison  134, 157 cognitive development  82 common vs. uncommon errors  209 communication strategy errors  6 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)  37–8 communicative vs. corrective recasts  52 comprehended input  69 comprehensible input  69 hypothesis  29, 30 comprehensible output  71–2 comprehension errors  6 computer-assisted language learning, interactional feedback in  128–30 computer-mediated metalinguistic feedback  129 computer-mediated translation feedback  129 confederate scripting  125

confirmation checks  9, 45, 49, 50, 72, 159, 163, 167–9 content-focused classrooms, recasts in  48 contingent and non-contingent negative evidence, distinction between  9–10 contingent positive evidence  10–11, 77 controlled processes  67 conversational vs. didactic feedback  142–5 conversation repair  93 corrective feedback  2–3, 23, 103, 159, 169, 170, 173, 191, 194 implicit  140 in L1 acquisition interactionist perspective  27–8 nativist theory  24–6 in L2 acquisition  28–9 interactionist perspective in  34–5 issues with nativist approach  30–3 nativist perspective  29–30 pedagogical perspectives of  35–8 recasts and  49 research evidence for  39–42 theoretical perspectives of  24 corrective recast  47 covert errors  8 critical episodes  119 declarative knowledge  8, 56, 67, 208, 209 declarative recasts  50, 142, 147 delayed feedback  146–8, 204 vs. immediate feedback  61–3 delayed vs. immediate feedback  146–8 descriptive research see repair; uptake detection  12 developmental errors see intralingual errors developmental readiness and language proficiency  157–60 didactic repair  93 differential patterns, of responding  77

242

Index

direct correction  52–3, 56, 75 discourse-level errors  209 during-task stage  204 dyadic interactions  3, 99–102, 104–6, 113, 117, 122–4, 126, 145, 146, 163, 183, 187, 215 elaboration  69 elicitations  46, 96, 101, 107, 120, 143, 145, 179, 207 clarification requests and  53–4 direct  55, 96 metalinguistic cue and  54–5 metalinguistic feedback and  55 negative evidence through  78–9 nonverbal feedback and  56 vs. recasting  133–6 research on  136–8 repetition and  54 elliptical elicitation  55 embedded recasts  50–1 minus prompt  59 plus prompt  60 error vs. mistakes  7–8, 207–8 notion of  3–5 significance of  7 types of  5–7 see also individual entries explicit feedback  3, 25, 27, 56, 120, 206, 211–12 explicit–implicit continuum  57–61 explicit knowledge  56, 139, 140, 147, 206, 208, 212 explicit learning  139 extended negotiation  100 extensive vs. intensive feedback  61 feedback effects, on learning  109 experimental research of  110–11 classroom setting studies  111–13, 117–18 experimental laboratory studies  113–18 individualized posttest studies of  119–21 limitations of  121–3 interactional feedback and in computer-assisted language learning  128–30

in learner-learner interactions  126–8 meta-analysis studies of  130 syntactic priming studies and  123–6 feedback provision and learner uptake and descriptive research  89–90 see also repair; uptake focused tasks  15, 105, 205 focus on form (FonF)  13–16, 120–1, 135, 165, 202 characteristics of  14–15 corrective feedback and  38 by design  15 distinction with focus on form (FonF) instruction  14, 15 interactional feedback as  79–80 by process  15 focus on form (FonF) instruction  2, 14, 15, 62, 79 categories of  15 focus on forms  15 focus on meaning  1, 14, 48, 52, 133 form-focused instruction (FFI)  1–2, 41–2, 62, 112, 136 integrated  62 isolated  62 full recasts  156 full repair  93 garden path technique  40 gender role, in affecting language  160–1 global errors  208 Grammar Translation method  35–6 grammatical errors  4, 6, 28, 96, 154, 155, 178 hypothesis testing and interactional feedback  75–6 hypothesis testing function  71 immediate recall technique  181, 182 implicit feedback  3, 9, 26, 27, 34, 76, 84, 113, 164, 179, 210, 211 vs. explicit feedback  56, 139–42, 206 implicit knowledge  56, 139, 140, 147, 206, 208, 212 implicit learning  139 incidental focus on form  15–16 incomprehensibility, of input  70

Index incorporated declarative recasts  51 incorporated interrogative recasts  51 incorporated recasts  51, 60 incorporation  93, 94, 102 induced errors see methodological errors information-processing perspective  67 input and intake, distinction between  74 input-providing feedback see reformulations input role, in interactional feedback  66–70 integrated form-focused instruction  62 intensive recast  114, 118, 146 intensive vs. extensive feedback  145–6 interactional feedback  44–5, 102, 117 assisting language acquisition  65–6 input role in  66–70 output role in  70–4 comparative studies of  132–3 conversational vs. didactic feedback  142–5 delayed vs. immediate feedback  146–8 feedback types  133–9 implicit vs. explicit feedback  139–42 intensive vs. extensive feedback  145–6 in computer-assisted language learning  128–30 definition of  45 delayed feedback vs. immediate feedback and  61–3 elicitation strategies clarification requests and  53–4 direct  55 metalinguistic cue and  54–5 metalinguistic feedback and  55 nonverbal feedback and  56 repetition and  54 explicit–implicit continuum and  57–61 extensive vs. intensive feedback and  61 factors affecting provision and usefulness of  153 cognitive and individual difference factors  171–4 feedback characteristics  156–7 interlocutor factors  164–6 learner-and interlocutor-related factors  157–64

243

linguistic target  153–6 methodological factors  174–5 task-and context-related factors  166–71 as FonF  79–80 implicit vs. explicit feedback and  56, 206 in learner-learner interactions  126–8 meta-analysis studies of  130 noticing and  74–5 opportunities for negative and positive evidence and  76 negative and positive evidence through recasts  77–8 negative evidence through elicitations  78–9 perceptions and interpretation of  177 empirical studies  183–95 learner perception measurement  180–3 as priming device  80–2 reformulations direct correction and  52–3 recasts and  47–52 simple vs. complex feedback exchanges and  57 from sociocultural perspective  82–4 testing hypothesis and  75–6 types and subtypes of  46, 205–7 on written errors  63–4 interactionally modified input  68 interaction enhancement (IE)  113 interactionist perspective  27–8 in L1 acquisition  27–8 in L2 acquisition  34–5 interlanguage errors  6 interlanguage grammar  29 interlingual errors  5 interlocutor background, experience, and education of  165–6 type of  164–5 interrogative recasts  50, 58, 157 intonationally enhanced recasts  101, 157 intralingual errors  5–6 isolated declarative recasts  51 isolated form-focused instruction  62 isolated interrogative recasts  51

244

Index

isolated recasts  50, 51, 58 minus prompt  59 plus prompt  59 Krashen’s Monitor Model  29–30, 37 language acquisition device (LAD)  29 Language-Related Episodes (LREs)  119–20 learner-learner interactions, interactional feedback in  126–8 learners’ age  162–4 learners’ literacy  161–2 lexical errors  186, 189 local errors  208 meaning-focused debrief  113 meaning-focused instruction  15, 80 meaning-focused interaction  134 meta-analysis studies, of interactional feedback  130 metalinguistic cues  54–5, 78, 136, 138, 207 metalinguistic feedback  46, 55, 96, 97, 112, 141, 142, 143, 155, 174, 194, 217 computer-mediated  129 explicit  140 metalinguistic function  71 methodological errors  6 modified output  72–3 benefits of  73–4 morpheme studies (L1)  25, 37 morphosyntactic errors  185–6, 189, 194 morphosyntactic errors see grammatical errors multiple feedback  57 native speakers (NS)  34, 48, 68, 92, 99–100, 143, 155, 161, 163, 165, 167, 183, 185, 208 nativist perspective in L1 acquisition  24–6 in L2 acquisition  29–30 issues  30–3 Natural Approach, to language teaching  36–7 Natural Order Hypothesis  37 negative evidence  8–10, 25, 26, 29, 33, 187, 188, 189 through elicitations  78–9

interactionist perspective and  27–8 through recasts  77–8 types of  9–10 negative feedback  9–10, 24, 26–9, 34, 49, 78, 79, 84, 116, 133, 159, 163, 167, 168 negotiated feedback  84, 214 negotiation  9, 34, 35, 45, 63, 65–6, 68, 70, 71, 82, 84, 100–1, 148, 154, 155, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 184, 186, 202, 203, 214, 216–17 of form  133, 154 and negotiation of meaning  17–18, 142–5 increasing opportunities for  216–17 non-contingent negative evidence  10 non-contingent positive evidence  10, 11, 77 nonnative speakers (NNS)  34, 48, 68, 78, 81, 99–100, 124, 127, 135, 143, 155, 160–1, 163, 165, 167, 183, 185, 208 nonnegotiated interactions  100 nontargetlike utterances  2, 28, 75, 78, 100, 103, 114, 123, 169, 183, 204 nonverbal feedback  56, 95 norm, notion of  4 noticing  74–5, 79, 178, 180, 183–4, 187–9, 194, 195, 210 of gap  75 of hole  75 notion of  11–13 noticing function  70–1 observational research see descriptive research one-on-one participant structures, in classroom setting  170 one-signal negotiation  100 one-way tasks  166, 167 opaque rules  211 oral feedback  3 orientation  12 output prompts see elicitations output role, in interactional feedback  70–4 overt errors  8 partial recasts  156 partial repair  93 partial vs. full recasts  51–2

Index

245

Pedagogical Grammar Hypothesis (PGH)  11 pedagogical perspectives, of corrective feedback  35–8 phonological errors  186 picture-sequencing task  203 planned focus on form  15 positive evidence  10, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 116, 187, 189 through recasts  77 types of  10–11 positive feedback  11 post-task stage  204 pragmatic errors  7 preemptive FonF  120 preferences, of feedback  193–5 pre-modified input  68 pre-task stage  204 primed production see syntactic priming priming effects and interactional feedback  80–2 Proactive FonF  2 procedural knowledge  8, 67, 71, 133 production errors  6 prompts  46, 50, 57, 58, 93, 98, 101, 112, 128, 134, 136–8, 145, 156, 157, 170, 215 embedded recast and  59–60 isolated recast and  59 pushed output  72

feedback perception  183–9, 194 full  156 implicit–explicit continuum of  59–61 intensive  118, 146 effects on Japanese morphology  114 negative and positive evidence through  77–8 partial  156 plus enhanced prompt  59 plus expansion  60 relationship with task complexity  168 role of  113–14 single  142 types of  49–52, 101, 157 reformulations  9, 27, 28, 46, 58–60, 63, 67, 73, 75, 77, 78, 99, 101, 103, 116, 127, 133–5, 138, 143, 156, 157, 167, 178, 185 direct correction and  52–3 recasts and  47–52 repair learner  91–2 significance of  94–5 types and degrees of  92–4 see also self-repair; uptake repetition  9, 45, 46, 54, 67, 75, 78, 80, 93, 94, 96, 97, 100, 102, 112, 120, 127, 136, 143, 172, 207

Reactive FonF  2, 120 reactivity problem, of verbal reports  182 recasts  9, 47–9, 57, 58, 73, 75, 79, 80, 96, 97, 98, 100, 107, 120, 124–5, 127, 137, 139, 140–1, 143, 145, 154, 162, 164, 170, 178–9, 210, 215 in adult NS–NS interactions  100 conditions essential for  114 corrective  111–12 declarative  50, 142, 157 effectiveness of  155, 174, 175 effects  116–17, 157, 158, 168, 174, 175 on L2 learners’ development of question formation  113 vs. eliciting  133–6 research on  136–8 exchanges  27 extensive  146

scaffolded feedback see negotiated feedback scaffolding  83 self-repair  54, 55, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 105–7, 133, 135, 144 self-report data  181, 182 sentence-level errors  208–9 simple vs. complex feedback exchanges  57 skill acquisition perspective  67 small group participant structures, in classroom setting  170 spot-the-difference task  203 stimulated recall technique  181, 182, 184–6, 188, 189, 192, 194 structural linguistics  36 successful uptake  92 syntactic priming  80–1, 123–6

246

Index

task complexity, and task difficulty, difference between  168 task familiarity  169 teacher-generated repair  107 teachers’ and students’ beliefs and perspectives, towards feedback  190–3 transfer errors see interlanguage errors translation feedback, computermediated  129 transparent rules  211 two-way tasks  166, 167 understanding and noticing, distinction between  13 unenhanced recasts  101, 157 unfocused tasks  205 universal grammar (UG)  24, 29, 31–2 unmodified input  68 unsuccessful uptake  92 uptake  92, 109, 111, 117, 123, 124, 127, 131, 132, 141, 156, 157, 168, 170, 175, 178–81, 192, 206, 207, 214

concerns about  104 covert (private speech) and  102–4 relationship between learning and  105–7 repair studies and  95 classroom studies  95–9 outside classroom studies  99–102 significance of  94–5 use of  90–1 verbally enhanced recasts  101, 157 veridicality problem  182 whole class participant structures, in classroom setting  170 working memory  171–3, 184 written errors, interactional feedback on  63–4 written feedback  3 Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)  82–3