Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 841–858 | Cite as

Effects of Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Acquisition of Third-Person Singular Form and the Mediating Role of Cognitive Style

  • Xinyue Guo
  • Yingli Yang
Article
  • 163 Downloads

Abstract

The present study investigated the effectiveness of recasts and prompts on the acquisition of the English third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style on the effects of feedback. One hundred and seventy-five college students from four intact classes were assigned to four groups: form-focused instruction with recast (FFI-recast), FFI with prompt (FFI-prompt), FFI, and control. The group embedded figures test (Witkin et al. in Rev Educ Res 47:1–64, 1977) was adopted to test learners’ cognitive style (field dependence/independence). The results show that the FFI-prompt group outperformed the FFI-recast group and the control group on the immediate post-test; the FFI-prompt group also achieved significantly higher scores than the other groups on the delayed post-test in the written test. However, no significant difference was found among groups in the text-completion test. Regression analyses reveal that in the text-completion test, field dependence/independence mediates the effect of recasts on the immediate post-test.

Keywords

Recasts Prompts Cognitive style Form-focused instruction 

Notes

Funding

This study is jointly funded by a research grant for young scholars from China National Natural Science Foundation (31400896), program for Young Excellent Talents (17YQ09), UIBE, and supported by Program for Innovative Research Team in UIBE.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest with any other people or organizations.

Ethical Approval

We declare that our study complies with the ethical standards of the journal.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. Abraham, R. (1983). Relationships between use of the strategy of monitoring and cognitive style. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(6), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham, R. (1985). Field independence–dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 689–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Algarawi, B. (2010). The effects of repair techniques on L2 learning as a product and as process: A CA-for-SLA investigation of classroom interaction. Ph.D dissertation, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.Google Scholar
  4. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter, E. (1988). The relationship of field dependent/independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A preliminary report. The Modern Language Journal, 72(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46(3), 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darabad, A. (2013). Oral accuracy, field independent/dependent cognitive style, and corrective feedback. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 204–221.Google Scholar
  9. Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 877–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (1980). Individual differences in second language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansen, J. (1984). Field dependence-independence and language testing: Evidence from six Pacific island cultures. TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen, J., & Stanfield, C. (1981). The relationship of field dependent–independent cognitive style to foreign language learning achievement. Language Learning, 31(2), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffman, S. (1997). Field dependence/independence in second language acquisition and implications for educators in instructional designers. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, J., Prior, S., & Artuso, M. (2000). Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production. Language Learning, 50(3), 529–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin, Y. H., & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46(4), 567–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu, M., & Reed, W. (1994). The relationship between the learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(4), 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Luk, S. C. (1998). The influence of a distance-learning environment on students’ field dependence/independence. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyster, R. (1998). The ambiguity of recasts and repetition in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60(3), 501–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Naiman, M., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Research in Education Series No. 7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
  37. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rassaei, E. (2015). Recast, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1), 96–120.Google Scholar
  41. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanfield, C., & Hansen, J. (1983). Field dependence–independence as a variable in second language cloze test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  47. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In B. Seidlhofer (Ed.) Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tucker, G., Hamayan, E., & Genesee, F. (1976). Affective, cognitive and social factors in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, 214–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, R. W. (1977). Field independent and field dependent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wu, Y., & Liu, R. (1993). A survey of Chinese English majors’ language performance. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1, 36–46.Google Scholar
  51. Xu, H., & Lyster, R. (2014). Differential effects of explicit form-focused instruction on morphosyntactic development. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xu, W. (1999). Field dependence/independence and college English teaching. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 51–52.Google Scholar
  53. 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(2), 235–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yang, Y., & Yu, Y. (2016). Effects of feedback type and task involvement load on vocabulary development. Modern Foreign Languages, 39(3), 408–417.Google Scholar
  55. Zhu, Z. (2002). The impact of field dependence/independence on foreign language learning. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 28–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Basic CoursesSuzhou Vocational Health CollegeSuzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of International StudiesUniversity of International Business and EconomicsBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations