This article reviews previous studies of the effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on SLA, pointing out a number of methodological problems. It then reports on a new study of the effects of these two types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of past tense -ed. In an experimental design (two experimental groups and a control group), low-intermediate learners of second language English completed two communicative tasks during which they received either recasts (implicit feedback) or metalinguistic explanation (explicit feedback) in response to any utterance that contained an error in the target structure. Acquisition was measured by means of an oral imitation test (designed to measure implicit knowledge) and both an untimed grammaticality judgment test and a metalinguistic knowledge test (both designed to measure explicit knowledge). The tests were administered prior to the instruction, 1 day after the instruction, and again 2 weeks later. Statistical comparisons of the learners' performance on the posttests showed a clear advantage for explicit feedback over implicit feedback for both the delayed imitation and grammaticality judgment posttests. Thus, the results indicate that metalinguistic explanation benefited implicit as well as explicit knowledge and point to the importance of including measures of both types of knowledge in experimental studies.
The article reports on a study investigating the comparative effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback in learning the English past passive construction, a linguistic structure of which the learners had little prior knowledge. A total of 120 learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) from 4 intact classes at a Chinese middle school were randomly assigned to conditions: immediate feedback, delayed feedback, task-only, and control. The 3 experimental groups attended a 2-hour treatment session where they performed 2 dictogloss (narrative) tasks in groups, each followed by a reporting phase in which they took turns telling the narrative to the class. The 2 feedback groups received either immediate or delayed corrective feedback in the form of a prompt, followed by recasts of utterances containing errors in their use of the target structure. No effect for the corrective feedback was found on elicited imitation test scores, but both the immediate and delayed feedback resulted in gains in grammaticality judgment test scores, with immediate feedback showing some advantage over delayed feedback. We interpret these results as showing that the feedback only aided the development of declarative/explicit knowledge and that the advantage found for immediate feedback was due to the learners using the feedback progressively in the production of new past passive sentences, whereas this did not occur in the delayed feedback condition.
This study investigated the effectiveness of task-based and task-supported instruction in the acquisition of the English passive construction—a structure about which learners had limited prior knowledge. A total of 150 Chinese middle school English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were randomly assigned to five groups—one control group who only took the pretest and posttests and four experimental groups who attended a 2-hour treatment session where they performed two dictogloss tasks in groups, each including a reporting phase when the learners took turns to tell the narrative. Among the four experimental groups, one just performed the two oral tasks; a second group received explicit instruction before performing the tasks; a third group received within-task feedback but no explicit instruction; and the fourth group received both explicit instruction and within-task feedback. Treatment effects were gauged via a grammaticality judgment test (GJT) and an elicited imitation test (EIT). On the GJT, the conditions with explicit instruction and/or feedback led to significant gains with explicit instruction plus feedback showing the largest effects. On the EIT, there was no effect for any of the three treatment groups when the data were analyzed for the whole cohort. However, when the learners were subdivided into those with zero and some prior knowledge based on their pretest EIT scores, explicit instruction plus within-task feedback was more effective than the other treatment types for the latter.
Corrective feedback (CF) research conducted within a cognitive-interactionist framework has examined the effectiveness of specific types of CF (e.g. Ellis et al., 2006). In contrast, CF research conducted within a sociocultural framework has sought to show how tailoring the feedback to the learners' zone of proximal development assists learning (e.g. Aljaafreh and Lantolf, 1994). The study reported in this article was designed to compare these two approaches to investigating CF by examining two types of feedback on students' errors in oral conferences following two pieces of writing. Some students received 'graduated feedback' in accordance with sociocultural theory and others explicit feedback in accordance with cognitive-interactionist theory. The detailed analysis of the feedback sessions showed that while the graduated feedback was effective in promoting self-correction, there was no evidence of any systematic reduction in the level of assistance provided over time. In contrast, the explicit feedback resulted in less selfcorrection but was accomplished much more quickly. Crown
This study investigated the effect of input-based tasks on the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar by beginner-level learners of L2 French and reported the introduction of task-based teaching as an innovation in a state secondary school. The experimental group (n = 19) completed a series of focused input-based language tasks, taught by their teacher, over two lessons. These tasks drew students’ attention to markers of plurality in French. Students did not receive any explicit explanation of these features. Tests established that they acquired receptive knowledge of new vocabulary and target structures in comparison with a control group (n = 15) that completed the tests only. The teacher successfully implemented the tasks and considered the materials effective but also suggested improvements.
Erlam & Ellis (2018) published, in Canadian Modern Language Review, an experimental study that investigated the effect of input-based tasks on the acquisition of vocabulary and markers of plurality by adolescent near-beginner learners of L2 (second language) French. The present paper reports an approximate replication of the original study with the aim of confirming or disconfirming the results.1 The research questions of both studies addressed the receptive acquisition of new vocabulary and the receptive and productive acquisition of markers of plurality resulting from instruction using input-based tasks. Both studies investigated near-beginner adolescent learners of French. The teacher, the students’ usual classroom teacher, was the same in both studies. In the replication study, a new, larger group of students were investigated, the length of the instruction was increased, involving the development of additional tasks, and productive as well as the receptive knowledge of the vocabulary items was assessed. The results of the replication study confirm and extend those of the original study. The teachers’ views about the role of input-based tasks with near-beginner learners remained constant in the two studies. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contribution that approximate replications can make to instructed second language acquisition research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.