Abstract
The provision of corrective feedback is now regarded as an important instructional option in teaching foreign language grammar, which is evident in the numerous studies, both descriptive and experimental in nature, that have set out to determine the effects of different types of oral and written correction on the acquisition of target language forms (e.g. Ellis 2010; Li 2010; Lyster and Saito 2010). The findings of such research indicate that the contribution of this type of pedagogic intervention is a function of a number of factors, one of which is the need to modify one’s output in response to the teacher’s corrective move. This requirement has been operationalized in the literature in terms of the distinction between input-providing and output-inducing feedback, the former of which typically takes the form of recasts and the latter involves the use of different types of prompts. The chapter reports the results of a quasi-experimental study which sought to investigate the effects of these two types of feedback in the context of Polish upper secondary school, with respect to the development of implicit and explicit second language knowledge. The results of the research project are complex and stand to some extent in contrast to the outcomes of the majority of previous empirical investigations, but they have to be interpreted with caution due to some design problems, the characteristics of the participants and the specificity of the instructional setting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The authors are fully aware that, as DeKeyser (2010) convincingly argues, considering explicit and implicit knowledge to be exact equivalents of declarative and procedural knowledge may be an oversimplification. They are also cognizant of the fact that, in the case of foreign language learners, it might be highly automatized explicit knowledge that enables fluent communication. Such technicalities, however, are by and large ignored as they are not the main concern of the present chapter.
- 2.
Such strict scoring criteria were necessary given the surprisingly good performance of the students on the pretest (see the following section for details).
- 3.
The interpretation of the magnitude of the effect size follows the guidelines proposed by Cohen (1988), according to which: small = 0.02, medium = 0.13, and large = 0.26.
References
Ammar, A. and Spada, N. 2006. One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 543–574.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DeKeyser, R. M. 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, eds. C. J. Doughty and J. Williams, 42–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. 2007a. Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, ed. R. M. DeKeyser, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. 2007b. Conclusion: The future of practice. In Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, ed. R. M. DeKeyser, 287–304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Egi, T. 2007. Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29: 511–538.
Ellis, R. 2001. Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. In Form-focused instruction and second language learning, ed. R. Ellis, 1–46. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2008. The study of second language acquisition. (second edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2009a. Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal 1: 3–18.
Ellis, R. 2009b. Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, eds. R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. M. Erlam, J. Philp, and H. Reinders, 3–25. Bristol – Buffalo – Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. 2010. Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 335–349.
Havranek, G. 2002. When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research 37: 255–270.
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice Hall.
Lantolf, J. P. 2006. Sociocultural Theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 67–109.
Lantolf, J. P. and S. L. Thorne. 2007. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, eds. B. VanPatten and J. Williams, 201–224. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Li, S. 2010. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60: 309–365.
Loewen, S. 2011. Focus on form. In Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching. Volume II, ed. E. Hinkel, 577–592. London and New York: Routledge.
Long, M. H. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, ed. K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Handbook of research on second language acquisition, eds. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 413–468. New York: Academic Press.
Lyster, R. 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 51–81.
Lyster, R. 2004. Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 37–66.
Lyster, R. and J. Izquierdo. 2009. Prompts vs. recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning 59: 453–498.
Lyster, R. and H. Mori. 2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 269–300.
Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 37–66.
Lyster, R. and K. Saito. 2010. Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta–analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 265–302.
Mackey, A. and J. Philp. 1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal 82: 338–356.
McDonough, K. 2007. Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, ed. A. Mackey, 323–338. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonough, K. and A. Mackey. 2006. Responses to recasts: Repetition, primed production, and language development. Language Learning 56: 693–720.
Nassaji, H. 2007. Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning 57: 511–548.
Nassaji, H. 2009. Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning 59: 411–452.
Nassaji, H. and S. Fotos. 2011. Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. London and New York: Routledge.
Niżegorodcew, A. 2007. Input for instructed L2 learners: The relevance of relevance. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Oliver, R. and A. Mackey. 2003. Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal 87: 519–533.
Panova, I. and R. Lyster. 2002. Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 36: 573–595.
Pawlak, M. 2012a. Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Poznań – Kalisz – Konin: Adam Mickiewicz University and State School of Higher Professional Education in Konin Press.
Pawlak, M. (ed.). 2012b. New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. Heidelberg – New York: Springer.
Sauro, S. 2009. Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology 13: 96–120.
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11: 17–46.
Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention. In Cognition and second language instruction, ed. P. Robinson, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, Y. 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional contexts. Language Teaching Research 8: 263–300.
Sheen, Y. 2010. Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Berlin – New York: Springer.
Sheen, Y. and R. Ellis. 2011. Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching. Volume II, ed. E. Hinkel, 593–610. London and New York: Routledge.
Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In Principles and practice in applied linguistics. Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson, eds. G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer, 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching, ed. E Hinkel, 471–483. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spada, N. and N. Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60: 263–308.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Truscott, J. 1999. What’s wrong with oral grammar correction? Canadian Modern Language Review 55: 437–456.
Tseng, W. 2004. Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. RELC Journal 35: 187–209.
Williams, J. 2005. Form-focused instruction. In Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching, ed. E Hinkel, 671–691. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yang, Y. and R. Lyster. 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: 235–262.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pawlak, M., Tomczyk, E. (2013). Differential Effects of Input-Providing and Output-Inducing Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of English Passive Voice. In: Piechurska-Kuciel, E., Szymańska-Czaplak, E. (eds) Language in Cognition and Affect. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35305-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35305-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35304-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35305-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)