Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:19:59.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE ROLE OF EXPOSURE CONDITION IN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXPLICIT CORRECTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2015

Yucel Yilmaz
Yucel Yilmaz*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Yucel Yilmaz, Indiana University, Memorial Hall 303, Bloomington, IN 47408. E-mail: yyilmaz@indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports on a study that investigated the effects of two feedback exposure conditions on the acquisition of two Turkish morphemes. The study followed a randomized experimental design with an immediate and a delayed posttest. Forty-two Chinese-speaking learners of Turkish were randomly assigned to one of three groups: receivers, nonreceivers, and control. All learners performed three communication games with a Turkish native speaker in which their errors on the Turkish plural and locative morphemes were treated according to their group assignment. The receivers’ errors were corrected through explicit correction. The nonreceivers were allowed to hear the feedback provided to the receivers; however, they did not receive feedback on their own errors. The learners in the control group neither received feedback on their own errors nor were allowed to hear the feedback other learners received. Results indicated that feedback exposure condition has an effect on the extent to which learners benefit from feedback but that this effect may be moderated by linguistic structure.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 65 - 96
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34, 77–95.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 2–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammar teaching practice or consciousness-raising? In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and second language pedagogy (pp. 232–241). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.Google Scholar
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA review, 19, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 61, 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.Google Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361–377). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, second-language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259–278). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15–41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Ono, L., & Witzel, J. (2002). Recasts, salience, and morpheme acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker–nonnative speaker negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? In Kramsch, C. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 198–237). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.Google Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative evidence effecting and affecting competence and “linguistic behavior.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, C. (2006). Chinese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 144–171). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.Google Scholar
Xu, D. (2012). Plurality and classifiers across languages in China. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013b). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.Google Scholar