The Efficacy of the Inclusion of Recast and Prompts Corrective Feedback in Task- based Language Teaching on Iranian EFL Learners' Knowledge of Grammar
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)نورالدین یوسفی 1 , وحید محمدی 2
1 - Razi University
2 - Razi University
کلید واژه: Corrective feedback, Recast, prompt, Oral Performance Test, Untimed Grammatical Judgment Test,
چکیده مقاله :
This study was an attempt to explore the impacts of recast and prompt as two types of corrective feedback on the development of knowledge of past tense by Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners. This study followed quasi- experimental design including pre-test, treatment, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test procedure. Initially, the pretest data from learners' performance on the Oral Performance Test (OPT) and the Untimed Grammatical Judgment Test (UGJT) was collected. After administering the pretest, the researchers gave the treatment to two experimental groups. Recast corrective feedback was supplied to the first experimental group, prompt corrective feedback was provided to the second experimental group, and no specific corrective feedback was given to the control group. The immediate post-test was given immediately following the delayed post-test, which was performed three weeks later. The findings of the study showed that when it came to their explicit and implicit knowledge of past tense, students who received prompt or recast corrective feedback outperformed those who received no particular corrective feedback. The results also showed that in this area, students in the group receiving prompt corrective feedback still did significantly much better than those in the recast group. The findings of this study may be useful for all stakeholders in the field of education but particularly for language teachers and students. They would benefit language teachers, teacher trainers, and material developers interested in employing task-based approach with feedback in their pedagogical activities.
This study was an attempt to explore the impacts of recast and prompt as two types of corrective feedback on the development of knowledge of past tense by Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners. This study followed quasi- experimental design including pre-test, treatment, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test procedure. Initially, the pretest data from learners' performance on the Oral Performance Test (OPT) and the Untimed Grammatical Judgment Test (UGJT) was collected. After administering the pretest, the researchers gave the treatment to two experimental groups. Recast corrective feedback was supplied to the first experimental group, prompt corrective feedback was provided to the second experimental group, and no specific corrective feedback was given to the control group. The immediate post-test was given immediately following the delayed post-test, which was performed three weeks later. The findings of the study showed that when it came to their explicit and implicit knowledge of past tense, students who received prompt or recast corrective feedback outperformed those who received no particular corrective feedback. The results also showed that in this area, students in the group receiving prompt corrective feedback still did significantly much better than those in the recast group. The findings of this study may be useful for all stakeholders in the field of education but particularly for language teachers and students. They would benefit language teachers, teacher trainers, and material developers interested in employing task-based approach with feedback in their pedagogical activities.
AbuSeileek, A. F. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333.
Ahmadian, M. J. (2016). Task-based language teaching and learning, The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 377-380.
Bao, R. & Du, X. (2015). Implementation of task-based language teaching in Chinese as a foreign language: Benefits and challenges. Language, Culture and Curriculum.
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native speaker/nonnativespeaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.
Breen, M. P. (1987) Learner contributions to task design. In: Candlin, C. N. and Murphy, D. (eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23–46). Lancaster practical papers in English language education,7. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International.
Brown, D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: a meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.
Bygate, M. (2015). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, doi: 10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 15, 357-386.
Chaudron, C. 1977. A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46.
Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2016). Learners’ interpersonal beliefs and generated feedback in an online role-playing peer-feedback activity: An exploratory study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 105–122.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of oral corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in secondlanguage acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.
Garcia Mayo, M.P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156-175.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543-572.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,25, 1-36.
Schachter, J. (1991) Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89–102.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback : a critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52.
Kang, H. S. (2010). Negative evidence and its explicitness and positioning in the learning of Korean as a heritage language. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 4, 582-599.
Klimova, B., Pikhart, M., Benites, A. D., Lehr, C., & Sanchez-Stockhammer, C. (2022). Neural machine translation in foreign language teaching and learning: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 663-682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11194-2
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.
Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-48.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153-188.
Loewen, S. (2014). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.
Loewen, S. &Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 361-376). Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(03), 285-329.
Loumpourdi, L. (2005). Developing from PPP to TBL: A focused grammar task. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English languageteaching (pp. 33-39). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language Research inCross-cultural Perspective (pp. 39-52). Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-68). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2006). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In Long, M. H. (Ed.), Problemsin SLA (pp. 75-116). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R., Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R., Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: a meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2012). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL questions development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (1), 79-103.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction, Language Learning, 57(4), 511–548
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.
Nassaji, H., 2017. The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368.
Nassaji, H. and Kartchava, E. (2017) The role of corrective feedback: theoretical and pedagogical perspectives. In H. Nassaji and E. Kartchava (eds) Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications ix–xv. Routledge.
Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519-33.
Panova, I., &Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Rahimi, M. & Zhang, L. J. (2013). The role of incidental unfocused prompts and recasts in improving English as a foreign language learners' accuracy. The Language Learning Journal, doi: 10.1080/09571736.2013.858368
Sarandi, H. (2017). Mixed corrective feedback and the acquisition of third person ‘-s’, The Language Learning Journal.
Sarré, C., Grosbois, M. & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 1-23. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164
Schachter, J. (1991) Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89–102.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer, (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language. Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A. &, Gatbonton. E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytic ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies (pp. 171-195). Oxford University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
Wang, W., Li, S. (2020). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in American ESL and Chinese EFL classrooms: a comparative study. Language Culture and Curriculum, 34(1), 1-16.
Zhai, K., & Gao, X. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL speaking task complexity in China’s university classroom. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1-13.
Zou, D., & Lambert, J. (2017). Feedback methods for student voice in the digital age. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(5), 1081–1091.
