Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Ed. by Jordens, Peter / Roberts, Leah


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.667
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.296

CiteScore 2018: 1.02

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.891
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.341

Online
ISSN
1613-4141
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 54, Issue 4

Issues

Effect of corrective feedback for learning verb second

Bart Penning de Vries / Catia Cucchiarini / Stephen Bodnar / Helmer Strik / Roeland van Hout
Published Online: 2016-11-11 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0121

Abstract

This paper presents a detailed study on the role of corrective feedback (CF) in the development of second language (L2) oral proficiency. Learners practiced speaking with a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) system that employs automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology to provide CF. The system tracks learner behaviour by logging the system-user interactions. Two language learning conditions are compared. In the CF condition learners received immediate, automatic CF on the grammaticality of their spoken output. In theOCF condition, learners practiced speaking with the option to self-correct. The target structure under investigation is Dutch verb second (V2) in the main clause. The results show that learner proficiency improved in both conditions. The CF condition shows an additional benefit for learning that is related to the learner’s initial knowledge of the target structure (which we call V2 proficiency). Learners at a lower V2 proficiency level benefitted more from practice with CF than learners in the NOCF condition. Learner evaluations are in line with these results: both the CF and the NOCF groups positively evaluated practice with the system, but the CF condition was preferred by learners starting at a lower V2 proficiency level. For more information on these outcome measures, we investigated the learners’ behaviour during practice. The two groups were found to receive equal amounts of input, but learners in the CF condition produced more (grammatically correct) output during treatment. We found that the CF group repaired their errors in fewer attempts as they progressed through practice. Learners in the NOCF condition generally did not (attempt to) repair their errors. However, the learners answered correctly more often as they progressed in the training. The log data, therefore, shows learning of the target structure in both conditions. We discuss these results and how learning outcome is related to learner behaviour.

Keywords: Computer-assisted language learning (CALL); corrective feedback (CF); second language acquisition (SLA); automatic speech recognition (ASR)

References

  • Aljaafreh, A. & J. Lantolf. 1994. Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal 78(4). 465–483. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Bohnacker, U. 2006. When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2. Second Language Research 22(4). 443–486. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chapelle, C. 2005. Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (eds.), Research perspectives on CALL, 53–64. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Chapelle, C. 2007. Technology and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27. 98–114. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Collentine, J. 2000. Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided by user-behavior tracking technologies. Language Learning & Technology 3(2). 44–57. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num2/collentine/.Google Scholar

  • De Bot, K. 1996. Review article: The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning 46(3). 529–555.Google Scholar

  • De Bot, K., W. Lowie & M. Verspoor. 2007. A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1). 7–21. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Graaff, R. 1997. The experanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(2). 249–276.Google Scholar

  • DeKeyser, R. 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 language acquisition, 42–63. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • DeKeyser, R. 2007. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Diez-Bedmar, M. & P. Perez-Paredes. 2012. The types and effects of peer native speakers’ feedback on CMC. Language Learning & Technology 16(1). 62–90. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ972345.Google Scholar

  • Doughty, C. & M. Long. 2003. Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology 7(3). 50–75. Retrieved from http://ir.nul.nagoya-u.ac.jp/jspui/handle/2237/6283.Google Scholar

  • Ehrman, M., B. Leaver & R. Oxford. 2003. A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System 31(3). 313–330. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, R. 2000. Learning a second language through interaction. Studies in bilingualism, 17. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, N. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 141–188.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, R. 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A Psychometric Study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 141–172.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, R. 2007. The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies, 339–360. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, R. 2009. The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 30. 474–509.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, R. 2010. Epilogue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2). 335–349. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen & S. Loewen. 2001. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning 51(2). 281–318. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellis, R., S. Loewen & R. Erlam. 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 339–368.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, R. & Y. Sheen. 2006. Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(04). 575–600. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fischer, R. 2007. How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning 20(5). 409–442. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Gass, S. 2003. Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. 224–255. MA: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Gass, S. & L. Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Language 71. 1–7. doi: .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goo, J. & A. Mackey. 2013. The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(01). 127–165. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Han, Z. 2001. Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals 34(6). 582–599.Google Scholar

  • Hanaoka, O. 2007. Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research 11. 459–479. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hattie, J. & H. Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77(1). 81–112. doi: .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hegelheimer, V. & C. Chapelle. 2000. Methodological issues in research on learner-computer interactions in CALL. Language Learning & Technology 4(1). 41–59. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/hegchap/default.html.Google Scholar

  • Hegelheimer, V. & D. Tower. 2004. Using CALL in the classroom: Analyzing student interactions in an authentic classroom. System 32(2). 185–205. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heift, T. 2002. Learner control and error correction in ICALL: Browsers, peekers, and adamants. CALICO Journal 19(2). 295–313.Google Scholar

  • Heift, T. 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL 16(02). 416–431. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heift, T. 2010. Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. Modern Language Journal 94(2). 198–216 (8).Google Scholar

  • Heift, T. & A. Rimrott. 2012. Task-related variation in computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal 96(4). 525–543. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heift, T. & M. Schulze. 2007. Errors and intelligence in computer-assisted language learning: Parsers and pedagogues. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Hulstijn, J. 1997. Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Possibilities and limitations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19. 131–143.Google Scholar

  • Hulstijn, J. 2000. The use of computer technology in experimental studies of second language acquisition: A survey of some techniques and some ongoing studies. Language Learning & Technology 3(2). 32–43. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/record/84048.Google Scholar

  • Iwashita, N. 2003. Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25(1). 1–36.Google Scholar

  • Jean, G. & D. Simard. 2011. Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring?. Foreign Language Annals 44(3). 467–494. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jordens, P. 1988. The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2. Second Language Research 4(1). 41–65. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kartchava, E. & A. Ammar. 2013. Noticing and learning: Relationship patterns. Studies in English Language Teaching 1(1). 8–25. Retrieved from http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt/article/download/63/69.Google Scholar

  • Li, S. 2010. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2). 309–365. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Li, S. 2013. The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research. 1–24. doi:.Crossref

  • Lin, Y. & J. Hedgcock. 1996. Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning 46(4). 567– 611.Google Scholar

  • Loewen, S. 2004. Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning 54(1). 153–188. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Long, M. 1996. The role of linguistic environment in second language instruction. In Ritchie, W. & T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language Acquisition 2. 413–468. New York: Academic Press.

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

  • Lyster, R. & L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 37–66.Google Scholar

  • Lyster, R. & L. Ranta. 2013. Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(01). 167–184. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lyster, R. & K. Saito. 2010. Interactional feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 1(2). 276–297. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Mackey, A. 1999. Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21. 557–587.Google Scholar

  • Mackey, A. 2006. Epilogue: From introspections, brain scans, and memory tests to the role of social context: Advancing research on interaction and learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 369–379. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mackey, A. & S. Gass. 2006. Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 169–178. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mackey, A., R. Oliver & J. Leeman. 2003. Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning 53(1). 35–66.Google Scholar

  • Mackey, A. & J. Philp. 1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?. The Modern Language Journal 82. 338–356. doi: .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mackey, A., J. Philp, A. Fujii, T. Egi & T. Tatsumi. 2002. Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning, 181–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Malmberg. 1999. Nieuwe Buren: Opzoekboek. Den Bosch: Malberg.Google Scholar

  • Nicholas, H., P. Lightbown & N. Spada. 2001. Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning 51(4). 719–758. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Norris, J. & L. Ortega. 2003. Defining and measuring SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, 717–761. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Odlin, T. 1989. Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Penning de Vries, B., C. Cucchiarini, S. Bodnar, H. Strik & R. van Hout. 2014. Spoken grammar practice and feedback in an ASR-based CALL system. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 1–27. doi:.Crossref

  • Penning de Vries, B., C. Cucchiarini, H. Strik & R. van Hout. 2011. Adaptive corrective feedback in second language learning. In S. de Wannemacker, G. Clarebout, & P. de Causmaecker (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to adaptive learning: A look at the neighbours, Vol. 126, 1–14. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Philp, J. 2003. Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25(1). 99–126.Google Scholar

  • Put, J. & J. Peekel. 2001. Nieuwe Buren. Den Bosch: Malmberg.Google Scholar

  • Ringbom, H. 1992. On L1 transfer in L2 comprehension and L2 production. Language Learning 42(1). 85–112.Google Scholar

  • Robinson, P. 2003. The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies 21(2). 45–105.Google Scholar

  • Russell, J. & N. Spada. 2006. The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, 133–164. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sanz, C. & K. Morgan-Short. 2004. Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning 54(1). 35–78. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11. 129–158. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schmidt, R. 1993. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13. 206–226.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, R. 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. W. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 1–63. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar

  • Schulz, R. 1996. Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals 29(3). 343–364. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schulze, M. 2011. CALL in the year 2011. Still in search of research paradigms? Presentation at EuroCALL 2011, Nottingham.

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

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

  • Sheen, Y. 2010. Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2). 169–179. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shintani, N., R. Ellis & W. Suzuki. 2014. Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning 64(1). 103–131. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Smith, B. 2012. Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology 16(3). 53–81. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/smith.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (eds.), Input and second language acquisition, 235–256. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

  • 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 William E. Rutherford, 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar

  • Swain, M. & S. Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82(3). 320–337. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Uzum, B. 2010. Who gains more ? A case of motivation and corrective feedback in ESL classes. In Michigan Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Conferences, 19–39.

  • Van de Craats, I. 2009. The role of ‘is’ in the acquisition of finiteness by adult learners of Dutch. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31. 59–92. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van der Linden, E. 1993. Does feedback enhance computer-assisted language learning?. Computers & Education 21(1/2). 61–65. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Doremalen, J., C. Cucchiarini & H. Strik. 2010. Optimizing automatic speech recognition for low-proficient non-native speakers. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing. 1–13. doi:.Crossref

  • VanPatten, B. 2004. On the role(s) of input and output in making form-meaning connections. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott & M.Overstreet (eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition, 29–47. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Warschauer, M. 1996. Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal 13(2). 7–26.Google Scholar

  • Yilmaz, Y. 2012. The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning 62(4). 1134–1169. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Young-Scholten, M. 2013. Low-educated immigrants and the social relevance of second language acquisition research. Second Language Research 29(4). 441–454. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-11-11

Published in Print: 2016-11-01


Citation Information: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 347–386, ISSN (Online) 1613-4141, ISSN (Print) 0019-042X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0121.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Bart WF Penning de Vries, Catia Cucchiarini, Helmer Strik, and Roeland van Hout
Language Teaching Research, 2019, Page 136216881881902
[2]
Stephen Bodnar, Catia Cucchiarini, Bart Penning de Vries, Helmer Strik, and Roeland van Hout
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2017, Volume 30, Number 3-4, Page 223

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in