The Effect of Explicit and Implicit Corrective Feedback on Eliminating Pronunciation Errors

Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed an abundance of research on the effectiveness of different forms of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a variety of grammatical features (e.g. Russell and Spada in Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2006; Ellis in Studies in second language acquisition 32:335–349, 2010; Li in Lang Learn 60:309–365, 2010; Lyster and Saito in Stud Second Lang Acquis 32:265–302, 2010; Pawlak in Heteronomie glottodydaktyki: Domeny, pogranicza i specjalizacje nauczania języków obcych. Instytut Filologii Angielskiej, Poznań, 2010; Sheen and Ellis in Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching. Routledge, London and New York, 2011; Pawlak in Error correction in the foreign language classroom: reconsidering the issues. Adam Mickiewicz University and State School of Higher Professional Education in Konin Press, Poznań–Kalisz–Konin, 2012), which demonstrated, that the treatment of errors in the course of communicative activities results in increased control over the targeted linguistic features, not only in terms of explicit but also implicit knowledge, with the qualification that such pedagogic intervention should be focused, intensive and consistent (cf. Leeman in Practice in a second language: perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007; Ellis in L2 J 1:3–18, 2009; Pawlak in Heteronomie glottodydaktyki: Domeny, pogranicza i specjalizacje nauczania języków obcych. Instytut Filologii Angielskiej, Poznań, 2010; Sheen and Ellis in Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching. Routledge, London and New York, 2011; Pawlak in Error correction in the foreign language classroom: reconsidering the issues. Adam Mickiewicz University and State School of Higher Professional Education in Konin Press, Poznań–Kalisz–Konin, 2012). Little research specifically addresses the impact of various techniques of providing corrective feedback on the acquisition of foreign language pronunciation. The paper reports the findings of a pilot study which compared the effect of explicit (overt) and implicit (covert) correction on eliminating pronunciation errors committed by advanced learners of English. The study involved 36 English philology students and took the form of a quasi-experiment with two experimental and one control groups. The students in the experimental groups took part in communicative activities in the course of which their mispronunciations of selected words were corrected explicitly and implicitly while the control group focused on other tasks. Ability to pronounce the targeted words was measured on a pretest and a posttest, both of which included a reading text and a free production task. The results serve as a basis for a handful of recommendations on how pronunciation errors should most beneficially be dealt with and some suggestions for further research.

References

  1. Allwright, Richard L. and Kathleen M. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brock, Cynthia, Graham Crookes, Richard R. Day and Michael H. Long. 1986. Differential effects of corrective feedback in native speaker—nonnative speaker conversation. In Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, ed. Richard R. Day, 229–236. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, Susanne and Merrill Swain. 1993. Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaudron, Craig. 1986. Teachers’ priorities in correcting learners’ errors in French immersion classes. In Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, ed. Richard R. Day, 64–84. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  5. DeKeyser, Robert 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. Catherine J. Doughty and Jessica Williams, 42–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. DeKeyser, Robert M. 2007. Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, ed. Robert M. DeKeyser, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Doughty, Catherine J. and Jessica Williams. 1998. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, eds. Catherine J. Doughty and Jessica Williams, 197–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ellis, Rod. 2001. Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. In Form-focused instruction and second language learning, ed. Rod. Ellis, 1–46. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, Rod. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ellis, Rod. 2006. Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly 40: 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis, Rod. 2007. The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, ed. Alison Mackey, 339–360. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, Rod. 2009. Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal 1: 3–18.Google Scholar
  13. Ellis, Rod, Sean Loewen and Rosemary Erlam. 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 339–368.Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, Rod. 2010. Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jelska-Cydzik, Agnieszka. 2006. Does explicit treatment help students eradicate word stress errors. In Dydaktyka fonetyki języka obcego, eds. Włodzimierz Sobkowiak and Ewa Waniek-Klimczak, 93–105. Płock: Wydawnictwo Państwowej Wyższej Szkoły Zawodowej w Płocku.Google Scholar
  16. Kim, He-Rim and Glenn Mathes, G. 2001. Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal 4: 1–15.Google Scholar
  17. Lantolf, James. P. 2006. Sociocultural Theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 67–109.Google Scholar
  18. Lantolf, James P. and Steven L. Thorne. 2007. Sociocultural Theory and second language learning. In Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, eds. Bill VanPatten and Jessica Williams, 201–224. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Leeman, Jennifer. 2007. Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, ed. Robert M. DeKeyser, 11–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Li, Shaofeng. 2010. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60: 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loewen, Sean. 2011. Focus on form. In Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching. Volume II, ed. Eli Hinkel, 577–592. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Loewen, Sean and Toshiyo Nabei. 2007. Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, ed. Alison Mackey, 361–377. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Long, Michael H. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, ed. Kees de Bot, Ralph Ginsberg and Claire Kramsch, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. Long, Michael H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Handbook of research on second language acquisition, eds. William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, 413–468. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lyster, Roy. 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyster, Roy and Hirohide Mori. 2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyster, Roy and Leila Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lyster, Roy and Kazuya Saito. 2010. Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Niżegorodcew, Anna. 2007. Input for instructed L2 learners: The relevance of relevance. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  30. Panova, Iliana and Roy Lyster. 2002. Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 36: 573–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pawlak, Mirosław. 2004. The role of error correction in teaching pronunciation. In Dydaktyka fonetyki języka obcego w Polsce, eds. Włodzimierz Sobkowiak and Ewa Waniek-Klimczak, 66–74. Konin: Wydawnictwo Państwowej Szkoły Zawodowej w Koninie.Google Scholar
  32. Pawlak, Mirosław. 2006. The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Poznań–Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pawlak, Mirosław. 2007. An overview of focus on form in language teaching. In Exploring focus on form in language teaching, ed. Mirosław Pawlak, 5–26. Poznań–Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pawlak, Mirosław. 2010. Rola korekty błędów językowych w nauczaniu gramatyki. In Heteronomie glottodydaktyki: Domeny, pogranicza i specjalizacje nauczania języków obcych, eds. Zdzisław Wąsik and Aleksandra Wach, 243–260. Poznań: Instytut Filologii Angielskiej.Google Scholar
  35. Pawlak, Mirosław. 2012. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Pawlak, Mirosław and Magdalena Pospieszyńska. 2003. Does implicit corrective feedback work for pronunciation errors? In Dydaktyka fonetyki języka obcego, eds. Włodzimierz Sobkowiak and Ewa Waniek-Klimczak, 125–138. Płock: Wydawnictwo Państwowej Wyższej Szkoły Zawodowej w Płocku.Google Scholar
  37. Ramirez, Arnulfo G. and Nelly P. Stromquist. 1979. ESL methodology and student language learning in bilingual elementary schools. TESOL Quarterly 13: 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosa, Elena M. and Ronald P. Leow. 2004. Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics 25: 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell, Virginia and Nina Spada. 2006. The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, eds. John M. Norris and Lourdes Ortega, 133–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Saito, Kazuya, and Roy Lyster. 2011. Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /Open image in new window/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning 62.Google Scholar
  41. Sanz, Cristina. 2003. Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. Mahwah, ed. Bill VanPatten, 241–255. NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, Richard. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11: 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schmidt, Richard. 2001. Attention. In Cognition and second language instruction, ed. Peter Robinson, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sheen, Younghee. 2007. The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, ed. Alison Mackey, 301–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sheen, Younghee. 2010. Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sheen, Younghee and Rod Ellis. 2011. Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching. Volume II, ed. Eli Hinkel, 593–610. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Spada, Nina and Patsy M. Lightbown. 2009. Interaction research in second/foreign language classrooms. In Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass, eds. Alison Mackey and Charlene Polio, 157–175. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Swain, Merrill. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In Principles and practice in applied linguistics. Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson, eds. Guy Cook and Barbara Seidlhofer, 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Swain, Merrill. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching, ed. Eli Hinkel, 471–483. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Szpyra-Kozłowska, Jolanta, Iwona Chaber, Grzegorz Pietroń and Sławomir Stasiak. 2004. To correct or not to correct? A study in phonetic correction. In Dydaktyka fonetyki języka obcego w Polsce., eds. Włodzimierz Sobkowiak and Ewa Waniek-Klimczak, 124–132. Konin: Wydawnictwo Państwowej Szkoły Zawodowej w Koninie.Google Scholar
  51. Szpyra-Kozłowska, Jolanta and Sławomir Stasiak. 2010. From focus on sounds to focus on words in English pronunciation instruction. Research in Language 8:163–174.Google Scholar
  52. Varnosfadrani, Azizollah D. and Helen Basturkmen 2009. The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System 37: 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams, Jessica. 2005. Form-focused instruction. In Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching, ed. Eli Hinkel, 671–691. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adam Mickiewicz UniversityKaliszPoland

Personalised recommendations