Advertisement

English Teaching & Learning

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 213–233 | Cite as

Task Repetition and Corrective Feedback: The Role of Feedback Types and Structure Saliency

  • Sima KhezrlouEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of task and procedural repetition provided with oral corrective feedback on the development of regular and irregular past tense structures. Seventy-four English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in mixed-age groups from a private language institute were randomly assigned to four conditions: input-providing recasts with exact task repetition (IP+TR), input-providing recasts with procedural repetition (IP+PR), output-prompting clarification requests with exact task repetition (OP+TR), and output-prompting clarification requests with procedural repetition (OP+PR). Learners took part in a pretest, three repeated task performances, and a delayed posttest over a 6-week period. Corrective feedback either as recast or clarification requests was provided to the groups after the performance of the first task. The task repetition groups repeated the same narrative task with the same content, while the procedural repetition groups performed the same task procedure with different content on 3 consecutive days. Statistical comparisons revealed the superiority of clarification requests over recasts irrespective of repetition type or linguistic structure. Additionally, structure saliency and task repetition had the most notable influence on the IP+TR group by enhancing the impact of recasts that otherwise had limited effect. These findings are discussed in terms of different features of task repetition and the role of corrective feedback in directing attention to form.

Keywords

Task repetition Procedural repetition Recast Clarification request Linguistic saliency 

任務重複與糾正反饋: 反饋類型和結構顯著性的作用

摘要

本研究探討在口語活動「任務重複」與「程序重複」情況下, 兩種教師口語糾正反饋(oral corrective feedback: recast口語重塑vs. clarification request澄清詢問) 對英語為外語(EFL) 學習者的規則和不規則過去式結構發展的影響。為此, 本研究從私人語言機構招募了74名不同年齡之英語為外語學習者。這些學習者被隨機分配至下列四種實驗介入組別: 輸入型口語重塑+任務重複(IP + TR) 、輸入型口語重塑+程序重複(IP + PR) 、輸出型澄清詢問+任務重複(OP + TR) 、輸出型澄清詢問+程序重複(OP + PR) 。每組學習者於六週內參與了前測、三次口語任務與延遲後測。在完成第一次口語任務後, 學習者接受口語重塑或澄清詢問的 糾正反饋。除此之外, 若分配在任務重複組, 他們在接下來的(兩次) 口語任務就重複相同內容的敘述任務; 若分配在程序重複組, 則接續的口語任務則完成不同內容但相同的程序的敘述任務。比較統計結果顯示無論重複類型為何或是針對的語言結構為何, 澄清詢問介入效果皆優於口語重塑。此外, 所針對的文法結構顯著性 (structural saliency) 和任務重複因素(task repetition)對於增強(IP + TR) 組別中口語重塑的效果有著相當顯著的影響。有鑒於上述結果, 本研究就如何以任務重複及糾正反饋引導學生注意力進行深入討論。

關鍵詞

任務重複 程序重複 口語重塑 澄清詢問 語言顯著性 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060268.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khezrlou, S. (2018). Form-focused instruction in CALL: What do learners think? RELC, 1-17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217738820.
  3. 3.
    Khezrlou, S., Ellis, R., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System, 65, 104–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.009.
  4. 4.
    Azkarai, A., & Oliver, R. (2016). Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. The Language Learning Journal, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1196385.
  5. 5.
    Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2018). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921.
  6. 6.
    Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: a meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A.-M. (2019). Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006.
  8. 8.
    Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Task-based learning: Language teaching, learning, and assessment (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of oral corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: a critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    García-Fuentes, C., & McDonough, K. (2016). The effect of explicit instruction and task repetition on Colombian EFL students’ use of politeness strategies during disagreements. The Language Learning Journal, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1167232.
  16. 16.
    Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2005). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: a meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55, 27–77.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00295.x.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. English Language Teaching, 66, 327–336.  https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr059.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heaton, J. B. (1997). Beginning composition through pictures. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung, Y., Kim, Y., & Murphy, J. (2017). The role of task repetition in learning word-stress patterns through auditory priming tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000031.
  20. 20.
    Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pre-task modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 8–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.52.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, Y., & Payant, C. (2014). A pedagogical proposal for task sequencing: An exploration of task repetition and task complexity on learning opportunities. In M. Baralt, M. R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 151–177). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: what needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41, 829–840.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, Y., Crossley, S., Jung, Y., Kyle, K., & Kang, S. (2018). The effect of task repetition and task complexity on L2 lexical use. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 75–96). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167–196.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee, J. (2018). Task complexity, cognitive load, and L1 speech. Applied Linguistics, 1–35.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx054.
  26. 26.
    Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510384.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–9). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00465.x.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Long, M. H., & Norris, J. (2015). An international collaborative research network (CRN) on task complexity. Colloquium at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00003-X.
  36. 36.
    Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: the case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167–184.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311200071X.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: a meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mackey, A., Kanganas, A., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 285–312.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00060.x.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nassaji, H. (2018). Corrective feedback. In J. L. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.). (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Patanasorn, C. (2010). Effect of procedural content and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Payant, C., & Reagan, D. (2018). Manipulating task implementation variables with incipient Spanish language learners: a classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 169–188.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816669742.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sato, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2018). Effects of video-based interaction on the development of second language listening comprehension ability: a longitudinal study. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 163–176.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.362.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 1–39.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12283.
  50. 50.
    Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sheppard, C., & Ellis, R. (2018). The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated performance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 177–199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Skehan, P. (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. London: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of Henry G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2016). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 300–320.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609616.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00726.x.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593-610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Taiwan Normal University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent researcher (previously affiliated to Urmia University)UrmiaIran

Personalised recommendations