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.

No abstract

Experimental second language acquisition research typically investigates the effectiveness of instruction in terms of overall group gains. A particular instructional method may not, however, benefit all learners uniformly. This study, conducted in a New Zealand secondary school, establishes whether there is any relationship between the effectiveness of three instructional methods, and learner aptitude. Students (n = 60) were assigned to one of three groups (deductive instruction group, inductive instruction group, structured input instruction group) and received instruction that targeted direct object pronouns in L2 French. All students were assessed on the following three measures of language aptitude: (a) language analytic ability, (b) phonemic coding ability and (c) working memory. Results indicate that deductive instruction that gives students opportunities to produce language output may neutralize individual differences in language aptitude.

Ellis (2003) identifies four key criteria that distinguish a ‘task’ from the types of situational grammar exercises that are typically found in the more traditional language classroom. This study investigates how well teachers were able to design tasks that fulfilled these four criteria (Ellis, 2003) at the end of a year-long professional development programme in which TBLT figured prominently. Forty-three tasks designed by the teachers for use in their own foreign language classrooms are analysed against Ellis’s four criteria in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development programme, on the premise that adequate understanding of the construct of task underpins successful implementation of TBLT. The findings show that some aspects of task-design were difficult for teachers. Implications for professional development programmes that focus on TBLT, such as the one whose effectiveness is evaluated here, are discussed.

This article presents results from a recent study that isolated grammar instruction that is deductive (i.e., involving rule presentation and metalinguistic information) as a variable and contrasted it with an instructional treatment that is inductive (i.e., focusing on form with no explicit grammar instruction). The effectiveness of these two types of instruction was compared on measures of both comprehension and production. The study also investigated the interaction between type of instruction and the morphological and syntactical features involved in the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The results revealed a significant advantage for the deductive instruction group. The study highlighted the difficulty of designing language measures that access implicit language knowledge. It also underlined the strong relationship that exists between the observed effectiveness of a particular type of instruction and tests/measures used.THERE IS NOW SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT lends support to an explicit focus on form in language program design. Norris and Ortega (2000) summarised findings from experimental and quasi-experimental investigations into the effectiveness of second language (L2) instruction published between 1980 and 1998 and found that focused L2 instruction, in comparison to simple exposure or meaning-driven communication, makes a significant difference. They also reported robust evidence to suggest that treatments involving an explicit focus on the rule-governed nature of L2 structures are more effective than treatments that do not include such a focus. However, as the studies reviewed by Norris and Ortega demonstrated, explicit instruction may be operationalized in many different ways. The studies underlined the need for systematic investigation of subtypes of explicit L2 instruction so that inferences regarding their relative effectiveness can be drawn.¹ The purpose of the present study was to isolate deductive and inductive grammar teaching as two subtypes of L2 instruction that have been the object of a small number of research investigations. The article presents a brief overview of research to date and the results from a study conducted by the researcher. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH REVIEWThe Inductive-Deductive Opposition

This paper reviews studies that have contrasted the effectiveness of structured-input instruction with output-based instruction. It then presents results from a study comparing the relative effects of structured-input and output-based instruction on students' ability to comprehend and produce direct object pronouns in second language French. Three classes of students (N = 70) were assigned to three groups: structured-input instruction, output-based instruction, and control. Students were assessed on listening comprehension, reading comprehension, written production, and oral production tasks. All but one of these language measures required a pressured response. Overall, the results showed greater gains for the outputbased instruction group.

No abstract

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