Language Trajectory through Corrective Feedback
Abstract
This quasi-experimental study was designed to investigate the effects of corrective feedback on SLA/EFL to determine the potential benefits of two different corrective feedback techniques, namely recasts and elicitation. The research hypotheses were: 1) Learners who are exposed to interactive focused task that requires CR will benefit more than those who are exposed to communicative activities only; 2) Elicitation will be more effective than recasts in leading to L2 development; Three intensive EFL classes in a language center in Songkhla province, Thailand were selected to participate in the study. Based on the study design, two class were assigned to the treatment conditions elicitation group and recasts group and the third was used as a control group. The treatment took place over a period of 9 meetings focusing on teaching third person singular –s morpheme and the provision of CF where it was necessary. The participants' knowledge of the intended syntantic point was tested before treatment and post tested after receiving the treatment. A multiple choice and focused-cloze reading grammar test was used in the pre-test and the post-test to evaluate the effects of the treatments on the learners' acquisition of third person singular morpheme. This classroom-based study showed that the two treatment groups benefited from CF strategies, but according to the study, elicitation group outperformed the recast one.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alavi, S., Chow Voon Foo, T. (2012). The Effect of Planning Time and Task Complexity on Second/Foreign Language Learners; Oral Discourse. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 1(4).
Alavi, S. S., Foo, T. C. V., & Amini, M. (2015). L2 Learners’ Proficiency Development through Noticing Feedback. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 2(5), 25-41.
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Linguistics, 11. 129-158.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Krasch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross• cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language learning, 59(2), 411-452-Results and Discussion.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. Routledge.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Leaming, 21, 719-758.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528..
Panova, I. (1999). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom.
Panova, I., & Lyster, .R (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult.
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second language acquisition, 31(3), 437-470.
Révész, A. (2011). Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A Classroom‐Based Study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162-181.
Sakai, H. (2011). Promote recasts do Noticing the Gap in Learning L2?. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly March the 2,011th Volume 13, Issue , 13 (1).
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp 3-32), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective Feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 32 (02), two hundred and three to two hundred and thirty-four.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1984). A review of immersion education in Canada: Research and evaluation studies. In a Collection of U.S. Educators. California State Department of Education.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.
Swan, M. (2005). By legislation hypothesis: The Case of Task-based Instruction. Applied Linguistics , 26 (3), from 376 to 401. Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.
Vartanian, MM (the 2,011th). Differential effects of corrective Feedback on L2 Acquisition (Doctoral Dissertation, California State University, Long Beach).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v3i4.53
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2016 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.