Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, R. (1983). Relationships between use of the strategy of monitoring and cognitive style. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(6), 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abraham, R. (1985). Field independence–dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 689–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46(3), 529–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 877–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (1980). Individual differences in second language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. (1984). Field dependence-independence and language testing: Evidence from six Pacific island cultures. TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J., & Stanfield, C. (1981). The relationship of field dependent–independent cognitive style to foreign language learning achievement. Language Learning, 31(2), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, S. (1997). Field dependence/independence in second language acquisition and implications for educators in instructional designers. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 222–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., Prior, S., & Artuso, M. (2000). Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production. Language Learning, 50(3), 529–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R. (1998). The ambiguity of recasts and repetition in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rassaei, E. (2015). Recast, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1), 96–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanfield, C., & Hansen, J. (1983). Field dependence–independence as a variable in second language cloze test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Tucker, G., Hamayan, E., & Genesee, F. (1976). Affective, cognitive and social factors in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, 214–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y., & Liu, R. (1993). A survey of Chinese English majors’ language performance. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1, 36–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, H., & Lyster, R. (2014). Differential effects of explicit form-focused instruction on morphosyntactic development. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, W. (1999). Field dependence/independence and college English teaching. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 51–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zhu, Z. (2002). The impact of field dependence/independence on foreign language learning. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic Courses, Suzhou Vocational Health College, Rm. 402, Xingzheng Building, No. 28 Kehua Rd., Suzhou National Hi-tech District, Suzhou, 215009, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Xinyue Guo

  2. School of International Studies, University of International Business and Economics, Rm. 1327, Chengxin Building, No. 10 Huixin Dongjie St., Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People’s Republic of China

    Yingli Yang

Authors
  1. Xinyue Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yingli Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingli Yang.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guo, X., Yang, Y. Effects of Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Acquisition of Third-Person Singular Form and the Mediating Role of Cognitive Style. J Psycholinguist Res 47, 841–858 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9566-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9566-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation