Impact of Recasts and Prompts on the Learning of English Third Person Singular Marker by Persian Learners of English

International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research

مقاله 3، دوره 1، شماره 2، شهریور 2013، صفحه 35-48   

نوع مقاله: Research Papers

نویسندگان

Ali Akbar Jafarpour؛ Mahmood Hashemian

Assistant Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Shahrekord University

چکیده

Based on the controversial beliefs among L2 teachers about effective corrective feedback (CF) strategies, recast and prompts as 2 kinds of CF have drawn the attention of L2 researchers(e.g., Braidi, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004). Despite these numbers of studies, debate continues to exist about their usefulness as a CF technique. Whereas recasts provide a correct reformulation of L2 learners’ nontarget utterance, the other alternative type of feedback in L2 classroom settings is referred to as prompts (Lyster, 2004) because they provide signals that prompt L2 learners to self-repair rather than provide them with a correct reformulation of their nontarget utterance. Hence, the focus of this study was to examine the effect of recasts in comparison to prompts on the learning of English third person singular marker “s” by Iranian preintermediate L2 learners. Two CF techniques of recasts and prompts were utilized in 2 experimental groups in response to their errors in using the correct form of the verb for third person singular subject. In the third group as the control group, No-CF was provided by the L2 teacher. The results revealed that the Prompts Group had outperformed the Recast Group and No-CF Group. Thus, it could be concluded that prompts as a CF strategy led to more gains than CF that provided the L2 learners with the correct form (recast) than No-CF.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

corrective feedback؛ recast؛ prompts؛ negative evidence؛ positive evidence

مراجع

Aljaafreh, A., &Lantolf, J. (1994).Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 65-483.

Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education: On TESOL 75 (pp.96-109).Washington, DC: TESOL.

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.

Braidi, S.M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative- speaker interaction. Language Learning, 52(1), 1-42.

Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 114-138). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies (pp. 339-360). London: Oxford University Press.                    

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.

Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600.

Farrar, M. J. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 17, 607-624.

Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28, 90-98.

Gass, S., &Varonis, E. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302.

Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543-572.

Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-270.

Hendrickson, J.M (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-395.

Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects of L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1-36.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. England: Alemany Pr.

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63. 

Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.

Long, M. H. (2006). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative evidence in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15-41). NY: Cambridge University Press.            

Lyster, R. (1998). 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. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.

Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009).The effects of prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 110-122.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal,82, 338-356.

Nelson, K. E., Denninger, M., Bonvillian, J. D., Kaplan, B., & Baker, N. (1984). Maternal input adjustments and nonadjustments as related to children’s advances and to language acquisition theories. In A. D. Pellegrini & T. D. Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oral and written language in social contexts (pp. 31-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719-758.

Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaeste (Eds.), The Construction of Second and Foreign Language Learning Through Classroom Instruction (pp. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.

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.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, R., & 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 (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

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(4), 361-392.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

Van Lier, L. (1998). The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning. Language Awareness, 7, 129-145.

Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26, 281-295.