Post on 28-Jul-2015
transcript
Corrective Feedback in Task-based
Grammar Instruction:
A Case of Recast vs. Metalinguistic Feedback
Saeed Rezaei
Lap Lambert Academic Publishing
2011
I
نھ حسنت آخری دارد نھ سعدی را سخن پایان
ھ مستسقی و دریا ھمچنان باقی استبمیرد تشن
Sa’adi ( سعدی(
II
This work is dedicated to my nephew and nieces
Parham Rezaei, Maryam and Mehrsa Lahsaei
III
AbstractCurrently task-based language teaching and corrective feedback are two fertile areas of
research for exploration. This study investigated these two areas in a single study. First it
investigated the effect of methodology in grammar instruction, i.e. traditional vs. task-based
approach. Furthermore, it investigated the effect of corrective feedback in task-based
grammar instruction. After administering a Nelson test (for the intermediate) eighty
participants out of one hundred were selected from the intact classes at the Iran Language
Institute in Tehran. These eighty participants were randomly assigned to four groups
namely, recast group (G1), metalinguistic group (G2), no-feedback group (G3), and control
group (G4) each comprising of twenty participants. After that a test developed by the
researcher inquiring the conditionals and wish statements was given to the participants in
order to assure that the participants did not have a prior knowledge of these target structures.
Then, each group was treated based on its own specific methodology. After the treatment,
the same pre-test was given to the participants in order to measure the effectiveness of the
instructional approaches in each group. In order to answer the first research question, an
independent t-test was run and it indicated that task-based language teaching was more
effective than the traditional approach in grammar instruction. In addition, the results of the
one-way ANOVA and another t-test revealed that first of both corrective feedback types
were effective in task-based grammar instruction and secondly between the two corrective
feedback types metalinguistic feedback was more effective than recast in task-based
grammar instruction. The results of this study are considered to be useful in methodological
issues related to grammar instruction and error correction techniques. Moreover, teacher
educators can use the findings of this study in their teacher education courses for pre-service
or in-service teachers.
IV
Epigraph IDedication IIAbstract IIITable of Contents IVList of Tables VIIIList of Figures IXList of Abbreviations X
Table of ContentsChapter 1: Introduction1.1. Introduction 21.2. Significance of the study 31.3. Statement of the problem 41.4. Purpose of the study 51.5. Research Questions 51.6. Null Hypotheses 61.7. Limitations and delimitations 61.8. Theoretical and Operational Definitions of the key terms 7
1.8.1. Task 71.8.2. Task-based Language Teaching 71.8.3. Grammar Instruction 81.8.4. Corrective Feedback 81.8.5. Recast 81.8.6. Metalinguistic Feedback 9
Chapter 2: Review of the Related Literature
2.1. Corrective Feedback 112.1.1. Introduction 112.1.2 Error Correction: a General Overview 11
2.1.2.1. Error Correction from ALM to CLT 112.1.2.2. To Correct or not to Correct: A Controversy in SLA 13
2.1.3. Theoretical Rationale for Error Correction 132.1.3.1. Direct Contrast Hypothesis (Saxton, 1997) 132.1.3.2. Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990) 142.1.3.3. Universal Grammar Model (Nativist Position) 142.1.3.4. Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) 152.1.3.5. Connectionist Model of Language Learning 15
V
2.1.4. Different Types of Corrective Feedback 162.1.4.1. Recast 16
2.1.4.1.1. Theoretical Advantages and Limitations of Recasts 18
2.1.4.1.2. Recasts Ambiguity and Perception/Noticing 212.1.4.2. Explicit Feedback 232.1.4.3. Clarification Requests 242.1.4.4. Metalinguistic Feedback 252.1.4.5. Elicitations 262.1.4.6. Prompt 272.1.4.7. Repetitions 282.1.4.8. Translations 29
2.1.5. Corrective Feedback and Uptake 302.1.6. A Review of Major Studies on Error Correction in L1 322.1.7. Corrective Feedback and L2 Development: A Review of
Major Studies 33
2.2. Grammar Instruction 492.2.1. Introduction 492.2.2. Schools of Linguistics in a Glance 50
2.2.2.1. Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar 502.2.2.2. Chomsky’s Formalism vs. Hallidayan Functionalism 50
2.2.3. Historical Overview of Grammar Instruction 512.2.4. Grammar Instruction: to Teach or not to Teach 522.2.5. Main Approaches to Grammar Instruction 53
2.2.5.1. Deductive vs. Inductive Approach 532.2.5.2. Structured-Input Option 542.2.5.3. Production Practice 542.2.5.4. Negative Feedback 552.2.5.5. Processing Instruction 552.2.5.6. Interactional Feedback 552.2.5.7. Textual Enhancement 562.2.5.8. Form-focused Instruction (FFI) 562.2.5.9. Focus on Form vs. Focus of forms 582.2.5.10. Task-based approach 592.2.5.11. Focused vs. unfocused tasks 592.2.5.12. Consciousness-raising Tasks 602.2.5.13. Discourse-based Approaches 60
2.2.6. A Brief History of Task-based Language Teaching 612.2.7. Definitions of Task 61
VI
2.2.8. Task-Based Methodology 622.2.9. Task-based Language Teaching and SLA Theories 64
2.2.9.1. Monitor Model (Krashen, 1981, 1982) 642.2. 9.2. Output Hypothesis (Swain, 2000) 642.2. 9.3. Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1985 and 1996) 652.2. 9.4. Vygotskyan Socio-cultural Theory 652.2. 9.5. Skehan’s Cognitive Approach to TBLT (1998) 662.2. 9.6. Experiential Learning 66
2.2.10. Grammar Instruction in Practice: A Review of Major Studies 67
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1. Overview 723.2. Research Questions and Hypotheses 723.3. Research Site 733.4. Participants 743.5. Sampling 753.6. Instrumentation 75
3.6.1. Proficiency Test 753.6.2. Pre-test 753.6.3. Post-test 76
3.7. Targeted Grammar Structure 763.7.1. Conditionals 773.7.2. Wish 78
3.8. Tasks 783.9. Procedure 793.10. Data Analysis 803.11. Design 803.12. Summary of the Chapter 81
Chapter 4: Results & Discussions
4.1. Overview 834.2. Results of the Proficiency Test 834.3. Results of the Pre-test 844.4. Results of the Post-test 854.5. Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 86
4.5.1. Recast Group (G1) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 864.5.2. Metalinguistic Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 874.5.3. No Feedback Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 884.5.4. Traditional Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 88
VII
4.6. Investigating the First Research Question 894.7. Investigating the Second Research question 914.8. Investigating the Third Research Question 924.9. Summary of the Chapter 94
Chapter5: Conclusions, Implications and Suggestions for Further Research5.1. Introduction 965.2. Discussion and Conclusions 965.3. Pedagogical Implications 97
5.3.1. Language Teaching Methodology in Iran 985.3.2. Syllabus Design and Materials Development 995.3.3. Teacher Training Courses 99
5.4. Suggestions for Further Research 100
References 102
Appendices
Appendix A: ILI Research and Planning Department Consent 132Appendix B: Nelson Proficiency Test for the Intermediate 133Appendix C: Test of Conditionals and Wish Statements 137
VIII
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 2.1. Definitions of recasts 18
Table 2.2. Prompts 28
Table 2.3. Some Definitions of tasks 61-62
Table 2.4. A Framework of task-base language teaching 63
Table 3.1. The ILI Levels of Language Proficiency 73
Table 3.2. Number of Participants in Each Group 74
Table 3.3. Features of the administered Nelson test 75
Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics :Proficiency test 83
Table4.2. Descriptive Statistics: Pretest 84
Table 4.3. Descriptive statistics for the four groups: post-test 85
Table 4.4. Descriptive Statistics for Recast Group (G1) 86
Table 4.5 Control narrative group(G1): pre-test and posttest: matched T-test 86
Table 4.6. Descriptive Statistics for Metalinguistic Group (G1) 87
Table 4.7. Table 4.7. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G2: Matched t-test 87
Table 4.8. Descriptive Statistics for No-Feedback Group (G3) 88
Table 4.9. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G3: Matched t-test 88
Table 4.10. Descriptive Statistics for the Traditional Group (G4) 89
Table 4.11. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G4: Matched t-test 89
Table 4.12. Descriptive Statistics for G3 and G4 90
Table 4.13. Independent t–test for G3 and G4 performance on the posttest (Q1) 90
Table 4.14. One-way ANOVA for Q2 92
Table 4.15. Descriptive Statistics for G3 and G4 93
Table 4.16. Independent t–test for G1 and G2 performance on the posttest (Q3) 93
IX
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 4.1. Proficiency Test Bar Graph 83
Figure 4.2. Pre-test Bar Graph 84
Figure 4.3. Post-test Graph 85
Figure 4.4 Means of G1, G2, and G3 91
X
List of Abbreviations
ALM: Audiolingual Method
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
CR: Consciousness-raising
FFI: Form-focused Instruction
G: Group
SLA: Second Language Acquisition
TBLT: Task-based Language Teaching
1
Chapter I
Introduction
2
1.1. Introduction Research in L1 and L2 is a dynamic process every now and then undertaking a
specific aspect of the complex system of language. If we briefly go over the literature
in the field of language studies, we easily find the diversity of issues and areas
investigated in different era of language research.
One of the main areas of research in L1 and L2 research which has recently been
resurrected is the significance of error treatment/correction and its subsequent effects
on language learning. Also, task-based language teaching is an area which has been
put on pedestal by Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers including Ellis
(2003), Nunan (2004), Willis and Willis (2007), and Skehan (1996a). A lot is being
done in these two areas and this is a good reason for the vitality and fertileness of
these two lines of research. A big question mark on the top of language researchers’
heads which is constantly bewildering both our language researchers and practitioners
is the way error correction occurs through various corrective feedback techniques
especially in grammar instruction. Questions like how to treat errors, when to treat
errors, which type of errors to treat etc. are the main questions directing this area of
research.
Researchers in this area have investigated corrective feedback and its effect on
different aspects of language including grammar, pronunciation, and writing accuracy
(e.g. Bitchener, 2008; Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman,
2005). Studies on corrective feedback and grammar instruction approaches have
yielded different results, some confirming the previous research and some others
casting doubt on what the predecessors have tackled.
Research is usually motivated by what we practice. Error correction especially in
grammar instruction is an area which is constantly researched. The reason is initially
its prominence and occurrence in language classes. Every now and then we bump into
erroneous utterances made by our students which make us hesitant whether to correct
on the spot or let them pass. There are differing views regarding these incidents which
leave us in a limbo. Shall I correct? Does my correction affect the learners’ feelings?
Should I terminate the flow of speech or…?
3
All the above-mentioned questions and so many others lead us to make a final
decision and put an end to all our irresolution and uncertainty. Therefore, this work is
an attempt to contribute to this line of research.
1.2. Significance of the Study
Language teaching research like other areas of research has been constantly
changing its scope and focus. The results of these studies inform what we practice in
our language teaching practice and any other related domain. Corrective feedback and
task-based language teaching as two modern areas of research are the main focuses of
the present study.
The researcher believes that what we undertake as research in our field is not linked
to what we perform in our language classroom in Iran. In other words, grammar
instruction where grammar is taught through focused tasks followed by corrective
feedbacks is considered by the researcher as fruitful and facilitative which
significantly can enhance learners’ learning process in EFL/ESL classrooms especially
in our public school teaching practicum. The researcher believes that task-based
grammar instruction can be a good complement or substitute to the way teachers teach
grammar at school or university. As experience and research shows, it is more
enjoyable, motivating and helpful in terms of learning grammar (e.g. Ellis, 2003;
Fotos, 1994; Fotos & Ellis, 1991; Garcia Mayo, 2002; Loumpourdi, 2005). In
addition, research indicates that providing learners with appropriate corrective
feedback including recasts, metalinguistic explanation, and prompts are considered to
be helpful in providing learners with accurate use of language (Ammar & Spada,
2006; Carpenter, Jeon, MacGregor, & Mackey, 2006; Han, 2002; Ishida, 2004;
Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Lyster, 1994 & 2004).
There are benefits for language teachers, teacher trainers, and material developers
in that they might be interested to implement the task-based approach with feedback in
their teaching practice. On the other hand, integrating the task-based teaching
approach into grammar instruction brings language instruction more closely to its
main goal, i.e. the development of communicative competence and enabling learners
to use language for communicative purposes.
4
1.3. Statement of the problem
Grammar has experienced its ups and downs in the course of language instruction.
It was once regarded as the most crucial issue in language instruction, i.e. prior to
Communicative Language Teaching (henceforth CLT). With the rise of CLT in the
late 1970s, some scholars treated grammar as irrelevant and unnecessary which did not
contribute to our acquired knowledge (e.g. Krashen 1981, 1982 cited in Nassaji and
Fotos, 2004). Notwithstanding, current researchers (e.g. Ellis, 2006; Garcia Mayo,
2002; Loumpourdi, 2005; Mitchell, 2000; Mohammed, 2004; Nassaji and Fotos, 2004;
Williams, 2005) have demonstrated the need for formal instruction for learners to
attain high levels of accuracy. In other words, currently form-focused instruction or
task-based instruction are two closely related approaches to grammar instruction
where both form and meaning are attended to (Fotos & Nassaji, 2006).
Furthermore, there are new ideas about error correction techniques especially in
oral and written language which are strongly validated by research. Corrective
feedback is considered to enhance accuracy in language production (see e.g., Lyster &
Ranta, 1997).
In spite of all the above-mentioned innovations in grammar instruction and
corrective feedback, most if not all the teachers in Iranian schools and universities and
also some foreign countries still follow the principles of old deductive teacher-fronted
approach ignorant of the new ideas regarding error correction and corrective feedback.
The problem arises when learners graduate for language courses with a weak
command of accurate language production. Furthermore, students in such classes often
feel disillusioned with deductive translation-based approach and always nag about the
boring grammar classes. Task-based Language Teaching with appropriate error
correction techniques, as the research confirms, can be a supplement or an alternative
to traditional approaches to grammar instruction where feedback is mostly in the form
of translation rather than elicitation, recasts, or other newly proposed feedback
techniques. Task-based language teaching is a more enjoyable approach to language
learning or as Lochana and Deb (2006) put it is a way toward ‘learning English
without tears’.
5
1.4. Purpose of the Study
This study intends to investigate two areas of research which are currently under
exploration by language researchers in a single study. In other words, this is a two-
folded study. First of all, the researcher intends to investigate the effect of
methodology in grammar teaching. In other words, the researcher wishes to enquire if
task-based language teaching as an alternative to the traditional approach to grammar
instruction is facilitative for grammar learning. This line of research is motivated due
to the outstanding place of grammar in language syllabus at schools and elsewhere.
Furthermore, this study intends to investigate if providing learners with different
types of feedback, i.e. recast vs. metalinguistic feedback as implicit vs. explicit
feedback types respectively, have any significant effects on Iranian Intermediate EFL
learners’ grammatical knowledge.
These two purposes establish the grounds for conducting this study. The researcher
hopes that the findings of this study can contribute to the improvement of grammar
instruction and corrective feedback implementation in Iranian EFL context and also
those abroad.
1.5. Research Questions
The current study seeks the following research questions:
1. Does Task-based grammar instruction have any significant effect on Iranian
intermediate EFL learners’ development of a specific set of linguistic features
(conditionals and wish statements in this study)?
2. Is Task-based grammar instruction more effective with feedback (i.e. recast vs.
metalinguistic feedback) than without any feedback?
3. Which type of feedback is more effective in task-based grammar instruction, recast or
metalinguistic feedback?
6
1.6. Null Hypotheses
Based on the above-mentioned research questions, the following null hypotheses were
made:
1. Task-based grammar instruction has no significant effect on Iranian intermediate EFL
learners’ development of grammatical knowledge.
2. Recast and Metalinguistic feedback have no significant effect on grammatical
knowledge of Iranian intermediate EFL learners achieved through task-based grammar
instruction.
3. Types of feedback, i.e. recast vs. metalinguistic feedback, have no differential effect
on the grammatical achievement of Iranian intermediate EFL learners.
1.7. Limitations and Delimitations1. The participants in this study were from intact classes at the Iran Language Institute
(ILI). Convenience sampling was adopted. Hence, the generalizeability of this study to
larger populations might be questioned.
2. In order to make the study more manageable, the researcher had to limit the study to
only conditionals and wish statements. Possibly more generalizations would be
achieved by taking into account more grammatical patterns.
3. The researcher exclusively investigated intermediate-level participants. In order to
make it more generalizeable, other studies should include participants of different
language proficiency (e.g., advanced or elementary), i.e. across proficiency levels.
4. The researcher investigated only the immediate effects of corrective feedback in task-
based grammar instruction. In order to fully contribute the findings to corrective
feedback, long term effects can also be investigated.
5. The researcher did not consider uptake as a way to evaluate the effectiveness of
corrective feedback due to logistical issues like time and facilities (e.g. audio or video
recording) for measuring the number of uptakes. Other studies can accomplish this.
6. Participants were from intact classes. Hence total randomization was not observed. To
get a more general view of the effect of corrective feedbacks we can have absolute
randomization.
7
1.8. Theoretical & Operational Definitions of the Key Terms
1.8.1. Task
The literature is replete with definitions for task to the extent that Kumaravadivelu
(2006) states that ‘a task is a task is a task’. However, in the present research, focused
task is used which is ‘an activity which has all the characteristics of a task but has
been designed to induce learners’ attention to some specific linguistic form when
processing either input or output’ (Ellis, 2003; p. 342). Ellis (2003) further states that
focused tasks have three major purposes:
They can be language activating and fluency stretching.
They can be knowledge constructing.
They can contribute to the development of explicit linguistic knowledge.
(Ellis, 2003; p. 172)
According to Nitta and Gardner (2005), currently there are mainly five types of
form-focused tasks used in language coursebooks. They include: grammar
consciousness-raising tasks, interpretations tasks, focused communication tasks,
grammar exercises, and grammar practice activities. The first three are proposed by
Ellis (1993) based on C-R. The fourth one is similar to grammar exercises as practiced
traditionally in grammar classes. Finally the last one is communicative grammar
practice as mentioned by Ur (1988).
An example is asking the learners to reconstruct a text. This type of task is called
text reconstruction task. Or an opinion-gap task with a focus on conditionals or wish
statements as utilized in the current study. Another type of task that was employed in
this study included picture description task which focus on the use of target
grammatical features of this study.
1.8.2. Task-based Language Teaching
A teaching approach, as an alternative to Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP),
based on the use of communicative and interactive tasks as the central units for the
planning and delivery of instruction. It is an extension of CLT and an attempt by its
proponents to apply the principles of SLA to teaching (Richards & Schmidt, 2002). Or
8
as Richards and Rodgers (2001) put it task-based Language Teaching ‘refers to an
approach based on the use of tasks as the core unit of planning and instruction in
language teaching’. In this study, task-based language teaching focused on the use of
focused tasks. The teacher went through Willis’s framework in teaching a set of
grammatical points.
1.8.3. Grammar Instruction
Ellis (2006) defines grammar teaching succinctly as incorporating
…any instructional technique that draws learners’ attention to some specific grammatical
form in such a way that it helps them either to understand it metalinguistically and/or process
it in comprehension and/or production so that they can internalize it (Ellis, 2006, p.84).
Grammar instruction in this study focused only on the teaching of conditionals and
wish statements. The researcher used task-based language teaching in order to teach
grammar in the experimental groups. Traditional deductive teacher-fronted approach
was used for the comparison group.
1.8.4. Corrective Feedback
Corrective feedback takes the form of responses to learner utterances that contain
an error (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Of the corrective techniques identified in the
literature, recast, elicitation or prompts, metalinguistic feedback, repetition,
clarification requests, translation, and explicit negative feedback are the most
important ones. The two that are the focus of this study are: recast and metalinguistic
feedback.
1.8.5. Recast
Long (1996) defined a recast as a discourse move that ‘rephrases an utterance by
changing one or more sentence components (subject, verb, or object) while still
referring to its central meanings’ (cited in Carpenter et al 2006). Recasts are thought to
help L2 learners notice the discrepancy between their non-native like utterances and
the target-like reformulation (Ammar & Spada, 2006). An example of recast is:
Learner: I lost my road.Teacher: Oh, yeah, I see, you lost your way. And then what happened?(Adapted from Brown, 2007; p. 277)
9
Recast was operationalised in this study as the teachers’ reformulation of all or part
of a learner’s problematic utterance that corrected the errors without changing the
central meaning of the utterance.
1.8.6. Metalinguistic Feedback
Metalinguistic feedback is defined by Lyster and Ranta (1997) as “comments,
information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the learner’s utterance”.
For example, when a learner makes a mistake you can provide him/her with
metalinguistic feedback as:
- I goed to cinema yesterday.-you need to use past tense here.
Metalinguistic explanation was operationalised in this study as the teachers’ use of
metalinguistic terminologies and explaining the errors made by learners accompanied
with metalinguistic cues.
10
Chapter II
Review of the Related
Literature
2.1. Corrective Feedback
2.2. Grammar Instruction
11
2.1. Corrective Feedback
2.1.1. Introduction
Since the purpose of this study is to investigate the potential effects of corrective
feedback, this chapter will provide a review of major issues relevant to this purpose.
First a very short and brief overview of error correction tendencies from Audiolingual
Method (ALM) era to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) era is given.
Second, the controversy in SLA over error correction is briefly discussed. Third, the
theoretical rationale for error correction is provided. Fourth, corrective feedback types
and their different dimensions are comprehensively dealt with. Fifth, corrective
feedback and uptake is explained. Finally, in two separate sections, studies done on
corrective feedback in L1 and L2 are reviewed and reflected upon. (See Rezaei,
Mozaffari, & Hatef, 2011 for a concise review).
2.1.2. Error Correction: A General Overview
2.1.2.1. Error Correction from ALM to CLT
In the mid 1970s, language pedagogy was dominated by two theoretical paradigms
of the era. One was the behaviorist psychology and the other was structuralism
advocated by the educational psychology and the linguistic school of the age
respectively. As Johnson and Johnson (1998) put it, Behaviorism is:
A predominantly American Learning theory developed earlier this century and
associated with psychologists like Thorndike and Skinner. Learning is viewed as the
development of stimulus-response associations through habit formation, habits being
developed by practice and reinforcement (Johnson & Johnson, 1998; p. 28)
On the other hand, Johnson and Johnson (1998) define structuralism as:
Structural linguistics is associated with Bloomfield (1933) and is so called because
of the techniques it employs, involving the use of contrastive units like the phoneme
and morpheme.
12
The Audiolingual method was the aural-oral approach to language teaching which
was exclusively informed by Behaviorism and Structuralism. The advocates of
Audiolingualism strongly prohibited errors and errors were considered as taboos in
their teaching practice discourse. Among these Audiolingual proponents was Brooks
(1960) who favored immediate, consistent, and explicit error correction. Brooks
(1960) states that:
Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected.... The principal method of avoiding error in language learning is to observe and practice the right model a sufficient number of times; the principal way of overcoming it is to shorten the time lapse between the incorrect response and the presentation once more of the correct model. (p. 58)
One of the main principles underlying Audiolingual method was that errors must be
prevented because they lead to the formation of bad habits. In other words, in ALM
when errors occur, they should be immediately corrected by the teacher (Brown, 2007;
Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards &Rodgers, 2001). In the 1970s and 1980s, some
scholars claimed that error correction was not only unnecessary, but also harmful to
language learning. Perhaps the most well known proponent of this approach is Stephen
Krashen (1981), whose Monitor Model as realized in Natural Approach prohibits error
correction.
After the ALM era, came the era of methods such as community language learning
and Natural Approach. According to Brown (2007), they adopted a ‘laissez-faire’
approach to error correction (p. 273).
Although Audiolingualism was the dominant approach to language teaching up to
the early 1970s, the emergence of communicative approaches marked an epoch of
different attitudes and practices with respect to error correction, and L2 teachers and
researchers started to view learners' errors differently (Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada,
2001, Russell, 2009). CLT approaches, including task-based instruction, strike a
balance between what Audiolinguilists and Gonitivists do. That is, an error is viewed
as evidence of learners' linguistic development, not as a sin to be avoided. CLT
advocates recognize the need for fluency and this allows teachers to leave some errors
uncorrected. See also Loewen (2007) for more recent view on error correction.
13
2.1.2.2. To Correct or not to Correct: A Controversy in SLA
One of the main concerns of researchers in the area of error correction and corrective
feedback is the legitimate question of whether errors should be corrected or not.
Hendrickson (1978) in an important article published in Modern Language Journal
argues that (a) errors should be corrected; (b) global errors, rather than local errors,
should be corrected; and (c) errors should be corrected with consistency and
systematicity. Lee (1990), and Bailey and Celce-Murcia (1979) also believe that error
correction is an indispensible part of mastery in language learning.
However, opponents of error correction such as Truscott (1999) argue that it causes
“embarrassment, anger, inhibition, and feelings of inferiority” (p.441). On the other
hand, Chaudron (1988) reports a study in which only 30 percent of corrections in an
immersion class led to subsequent observable avoidance of the corrected errors (cited
in Johnson & Johnson, 1998). Krashen (1981) also stresses his ‘no-interface’ position
with no error correction.
It has been argued by some scholars that corrective feedback should be abandoned
because it can have potential negative effects on learners’ affect, and hence impeding
the flow of communication (Krashen, 1981; Truscott, 1999).
However, currently SLA researchers strongly believe in error correction and
corrective feedback (e.g. Ellis, 2006; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).
2.1.3. Theoretical Rationale for Error Correction
2.1.3.1. Direct Contrast Hypothesis (Saxton, 1997)
Research in the area of interactional feedback and how conversation and feedback
might lead to language development is partly informed by direct contrast hypothesis
which is defined within the context of child language acquisition as follows:
When the child produces an utterance containing an erroneous form, which is
responded to immediately with an utterance containing the correct adult alternative to
the erroneous form (i.e., when negative evidence is supplied), the child may perceive
the adult form as being in contrast with the equivalent child form. Cognizance of a
relevant contrast can then form the basis for perceiving the adult form as a correct
alternative to the child form (Saxton, 1997; p.155 emphasis in original).
14
According to this hypothesis, when the child recognizes the contrast between the
adult construction and his/her construction, the first step in modifying the interlanguage
to the target language norms occurs.
2.1.3.2. Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990)
As part of his own experience as a learner of Portuguese, Schmidt (1990, 2001)
postulates that input does not become intake for language learning unless it is noticed,
i.e., consciously registered. As part of his strong version of the noticing hypothesis, he
further proposed that nothing is learned unless it has been noticed. In a more
conservative weak version, it is said that noticing does not itself result in acquisition,
but it paves the way for acquisition to occur. However, connectionists believe that the
likelihood of acquisition is best achieved by the frequency with which something is
available for processing, not the noticing alone. Noticing hypothesis is related to
corrective feedback studies in that attention, noticing, and awareness, are crucial in
perceiving different types of feedback and enhancing their benefits for language
learners. In L2 research, the most often cited explanations of the benefits of recasts are
based on Schmidt’s (1990) “noticing hypothesis,” which suggests that in order to
acquire new linguistic features, learners must first notice these features in the input.
2.1.3.3. Universal Grammar Model (Nativist Position)
Based on some interpretations of a Universal Grammar model of language
acquisition, it might be hypothesized that any effectiveness of recasts is not solely due
to their role as “negative evidence” (i.e., information about what is not acceptable in
the target language), rather they also provide “positive evidence” (i.e., examples of
acceptable target language sentences). From this perspective, learners have no
conscious awareness that the recast is intended as corrective, and the benefit of the
recast would be that the appropriate positive evidence was present in an accessible
way in the input the learner was exposed to.
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982), for example, have long rejected any significant
role for negative evidence in SLA. The evidence they cite in support of their position,
however, relates mainly to children (who arguably learn differently from adults) or to
writing (which involves more than the immediate processing in which the present
study is interested).
15
2.1.3.4. Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996)
Long’s (1996) interaction hypothesis proposes that feedback obtained during
conversational interaction promotes interlanguage (IL) development because
interaction ‘‘connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention,
and output in productive ways’’ (Long, 1996, pp. 451–452). Gass (1997) and Pica
(1994) have made similar arguments for the efficacy of interactional feedback.
As Han (2002a) argues, much of the L2 research on recast is motivated by Long’s
Interaction Hypothesis. This hypothesis was proposed by Long in two versions, first
in 1980s and the updated version in 1996. This hypothesis strongly insists that
language acquisition requires or greatly benefits from interaction, communication, and
especially negotiation of meaning. Long’s (1996) interactional hypothesis evolved
from Hatch’s (1978) observation of the importance of conversation in developing
grammar and also Krashen’s (1981) input hypothesis which claimed that
‘comprehensible input’ is a necessary condition for SLA (cited in Baleghizadeh,
2007). According to Ellis (2003) and Pica (1994) interaction hypothesis helps L2
learning in three ways:
It helps learners obtain comprehensible input. It helps learners with negative feedback, and It prompts learners to reformulate their utterances (cited in Baleghizadeh, 2007;
p.125).
2.1.3.5. Connectionist Model of Language Learning According to Nick Ellis (2005), as cited in Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006),
connectionists models also lend support to explicit error correction. Nick Ellis (2005)
differentiates conscious and unconscious learning. He emphasizes the role of attention
and consciousness in conscious learning and the role of connectionist learning in
implicit learning.
According to the connectionist model as closely related to Parallel Distributed
Processing (PDP) model, neurons in the brain may be linked to so many other neurons
and therefore the stronger these neurons are connected to each other through
experience, the better learning occurs (Brown, 2007; pp.31-32).
For more information regarding connectionist model of learning you can see
Carroll (2008), and Mitchell & Myles (1998, 2004).
16
2.1.4. Different Types of Corrective Feedback
Lyster and Ranta (1997) identified five corrective strategies other than recasts (i.e.,
explicit correction, clarification requests, metalinguistic information, elicitation, and
repetition), whereas Panova and Lyster (2002) added one more, i.e., translation. In the
following section each of these corrective feedback techniques is explained.
2.1.4.1. Recast
As a corrective feedback technique, recasts were initially used by L1 acquisition
researchers (e.g., Bohannon & Stanowicz, 1988) who observed that adults or caregivers
tended to repair their children’s ill-formed utterances by recasting morphosyntactic or
semantic errors therein. In L1 studies, Nelson, Carskaddon, and Bonvillian (1973)
appear to have been the first to use the term “recast” to refer to responses by adults to
children’s utterances (cited in Nicholas et al, 2001; p.724). Perhaps the best-known
advocate of implicit corrective feedback (i.e., recast) in L2 studies is Michael Long,
who endorses the use of recasts, for he claims that they are the most effective way to
direct attention to form without undue detraction from an overall focus on meaningful
communication (Long, 1996, 2007).
Nicholas et al (2001) argued that L2 researchers, contrary to L1 researchers, have
utilized different definitions for recasts as an implicit corrective feedback. For
example, Doughty and Varela (1998) used ‘corrective feedback’ which is
operationalized almost totally different from what other researchers have used. As
Ellis and Sheen (2006, pp. 78-80) argue recasts are of various types including
corrective recasts (Doughty & Varela, 1998), corrective/non-corrective recasts (Farrar,
1992), full/partial recasts, single/multiple recasts, single utterance/extended utterance
recasts, and simple/complex recasts (Ellis & Sheen, 2006). In the 1980s, the definition
of recasts was further divided into simple and complex recasts. According to Nelson,
Denninger, Bonvillian, Kaplan, & Baker (1983) simple recasts are characterized as
minimal changes to the child's utterance, whereas complex recasts are made by
providing the child with substantial additions. Nelson et al. (1983) report that children
benefit from simple recasts more than from complex recasts, in terms of their
linguistic development. Apart from the variety in operationalizing recast which leads
17
to mixed results, there are other difficulties inherent in recast put forward by Ellis and
Sheen (2006) as follows:
Recasts are functionally different, i.e., one might address negotiation of meaning and another addressing negotiation of form.
Recasts are said to be implicit corrective feedback. However, it constitutes explicit focus as well.
It is not possible to clarify whether recasts provide negative evidence or positive evidence because it is dependent on the learners’ orientation to the interaction.
Recasts are multifunctional and it might be difficult for the learners to perceive its corrective force.
Depending on which orientation the learners adopt, different interpretations can be obtained.
Recasts are mostly investigated from a cognitive point of view, whereas sociopsychological factors must also be considered.
The role of uptake must be made clear. Various factors might influence the facilitative impact of recasts including
learner factors, target structure, the type of recasts… The effectiveness of intensive and focused recasts should also be explored. We must be wary not to extrapolate the findings from laboratory studies of
intensive focused recasts to classroom situations. More studies and evidence are required to make the effectiveness of recast over
other types of feedbacks clear.
Lyster (1998b) recoded the recasts from Lyster and Ranta (1997) in terms of four
types: isolated declarative recasts (a reformulation in an utterance with falling
intonation and no additional meaning), isolated interrogative recasts (a reformulation
in an utterance with rising intonation and no additional meaning), incorporated
declarative recasts (a reformulation in an utterance with falling intonation and
additional information), and incorporated interrogative recasts (a reformulation in an
utterance with rising information and additional information). However, in his review
of the nature and function of recasts, Saxton (2005) argues that the existing
categorization of recasts is not useful for theory or practice, and therefore calls for a
more fine-grained categorization.
Despite the various definitions proposed for corrective recasts in the related
literature, there seems to be a set of definite agreed-upon characteristics inherent in
corrective recasts as recapitulated here: a recast (is)
- a corrective move which comes after an erroneous utterance, - a reformulation of the ill-formed utterance, - an expansion of the ill-formed utterance, and- maintains its central meaning.
18
The definition of recasts varies among studies in SLA. Some studies simply
consider the implicit reformulation, yet, some other studies add other additional
elements in the definition of recasts, such as length (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997),
stressed intonation (Doughty & Varela, 1998), and number of reformulation (e.g.
Philp, 2003). Given such variety of definitions of recasts, it is hard to directly contrast
the interpretation of the results or conduct a meta-analytic study because of the
diversity in defining and operationalizing recasts. Table 2.1 shows the most important
definitions offered for recast in the literature.
Table 2.1. Definitions of recasts (adapted from Ellis & Sheen, 2006; p. 580)Long (1996, p. 434)Recasts are utterances that rephrase a child’s utterance by changing one or more components (subject, verb, object) while still referring to its central meaning.
Lyster and Ranta (1997, p. 46)Recasts involve the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance minus the error.
Braidi (2002, p. 20)A response was coded as a recast if it incorporated the content words of the immediately preceding incorrect NNS utterance and also changed and corrected the utterance in some way (e.g., phonological, syntactic, morphological, or lexical).
Long (2006) A corrective recast may be defined as a reformulation of all or part of a learner’s immediately preceding utterance in which one or more non-target-like (lexical, grammatical, etc) items are replaced by the corresponding target language form(s), and where, throughout the exchange, the focus of the interlocutors is on meaning not language as an object.
Sheen (2006) A recast consists of the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance that contains at least one error within the context of a communicative activity in the classroom.
2.1.4.1.1. Theoretical Advantages and Limitations of Recasts
Several theoretical reasons emphasize the importance and effectiveness of recasts in
SLA studies (Long, 2006; Saxton, 2005). First of all, recasts pop up in meaningful
communicative activities where interlocutors share a "joint attentional focus" (Long,
2006; p. 114). Second, the reactive nature of recasts bring a specific feature into focus
which brings with it attention and motivation on the part of the learners. Third, the
content of recasts is considered to be comprehended by the learners and hence provide
the learners with additional resources available, which in turn facilitates learners'
19
form-function mapping (Doughty, 2001). Fourth, due to the reactive nature of recasts
they do not impede the flow of communication and is hence considered to be more
effective and helpful than explicit corrective feedbacks. Finally, Saxton's (2005)
Direct Contrast Hypothesis has also accounted for the effectiveness of recasts in
language development. The Direct Contrast Hypothesis states that "when negative
evidence is supplied, the child may perceive the adult form as being in contrast with
the equivalent child form”. This is what Loewen and Philp (2006) refer to as
‘juxtaposition’. Drawing on Saxton (1997), they argue that recasts provide learners
with opportunities to juxtapose the incorrect forms with the correct forms and hence be
a model and a contrast with the learners’ non-target-like utterance.
The first limitation of recast is related to its being noticeable or not. Although
recasts are upheld by some researchers as an effective corrective feedback technique,
others (e.g., Lyster, 1998a; Panova & Lyster, 2002) believe that recasts usually pass
unnoticed by the learners and hence are not facilitative for interlanguage development.
Another issue raised against recasts is that some researchers believe that recasts are
ambiguous and hence are sometimes perceived as synonymous in function as mere
repetition for language learners (e.g., Long, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Morris &
Tarone, 2003; Nicholas et al, 2001).
The third limitation of recasts is related to its repairing function, i.e. according to
Loewen and Philp (2006) recasts do not elicit repair and learners are simply provided
with the correct form without being pushed to modify their interlanguage.
Furthermore, as the forth limitation of recasts we can refer to its various
effectiveness based on the targeted form under study. In other words, Loewen and
Philp (2006) believe that based on previous research (e.g., Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Long,
1996; Long, Inagaky, Ortega, 1998) recasts may be differentially effective depending
on the targeted form under study.
Evidence for the positive impact of recasts on L2 learning comes form the bulky
research done in the last two decades or so (Ayoun, 2001; Braidi, 2002; Doughty &
Varela, 1998; Han, 2002; Havranek, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003; Long,
Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Muranoi, 2000; Oliver, 1995, 2000;
Philp, 2003).
20
Observational studies cast doubt on whether recasts are an effective type of
corrective feedback, while experimental studies generally find that recasts have a
positive impact on L2 learning. Some researchers argue that recasts are ineffective to
trigger successful repair (Lochtman, 2002; Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997;
Morris, 2002; Oliver, 1995), whereas others support the corrective force of recasts to
elicit learners' repair (Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Mackey &
Philp, 1998). Nicholas et al (2001) believe that the contradictory interpretations of
recasts can be attributed to the different contexts in which recasts are implemented, i.e.
classroom vs. laboratory settings. Nicholas et al (2001) further argue that recasts seem
to be more effective in a laboratory context than in a classroom context, probably due
to the fact that target item and type of feedback tend to be highly controlled and
attended to in a laboratory setting, so that learners are likely to recognize the intention
of the feedback and differentiate it from simple repetitions.
Studies in a classroom setting generally suggest the ineffectiveness of recasts as
corrective feedback (e.g., Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b;
Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Morris & Tarone, 2003; Nabei & Swain, 2002; Panova &
Lyster, 2002). One potential source of problem with such results was that many of the
classroom studies did not measure developmental changes resulting from recasts (e.g.,
Ellis et al., 2001; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster,
2002). Instead, they based their claims on uptake, defined as learners' immediate use of
recasts, or lack thereof. Conversely, studies conducted in a tightly controlled laboratory
setting, using a pretest-posttest design, generally support the benefits of recasts for
learning (e.g., Carroll & Swain, 1993; Han, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003;
Long et al., 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998).
These mixed findings about the utility of recasts in SLA seem to have partly
resulted from measures of development and the contexts in which studies were
conducted (classroom vs. laboratory and/or teacher-fronted interaction vs. dyadic
interaction).
Contrary to the findings of the classroom-based studies, studies conducted in a
controlled laboratory setting have generally lent support for the utility of recasts in
SLA (e.g., Braidi, 2002; Carroll & Swain, 1993; Han, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman,
21
2003; Long et al., 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Oliver, 1995). These studies
measured developmental changes resulting from exposure to recasts using pre- and
posttests.
In most of the studies, recasts were found effective, although their efficacy seemed
largely dependent upon such factors as the nature of the target feature, learner
developmental readiness, LI influence, and working memory (Han, 2001; Ishida,
2004; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Long et al., 1998).
In summary, experimental studies on recasts indicate that they are effective at least
for the investigated target linguistic items in the previous studies. Classroom studies
generally suggest a minimal contribution of recasts to learning, mostly on the basis of
a lower rate of learner uptake of recasts. In contrast, laboratory studies generally lend
support for the facilitative effects of recasts on at least short-term L2 development,
typically measured by gains on posttests.
2.1.4. 1.2. Recasts Ambiguity and Perception/Noticing
Although recent research considers recast as an effective technique in promoting L2
development, some other researchers have brought up the ambiguity of recasts as a
hindering point for L2 development. In other words, a number of interaction
researchers (e.g., Braidi, 2002; Chaudron, 1977, 1988; Fanselow, 1977; Long, 1996;
Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey et al., 2000; Nicholas et al.,
2001; Oliver & Mackey, 2003) believe that learners might perceive recasts not as a
corrective feedback but simply as a repetition without any corrective function
(Carpenter et al, 2006). Hence, the learners might fail in perceiving the corrective
function of recasts.
Hence, some researchers have embarked on studies investigating recast ambiguity
(Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002). Lyster (1998a)
demonstrated the ambiguity of recasts in classroom discourse where both recasts and
non-corrective repetitions co-occurred. He argued that young learners were not likely to
notice the majority of recasts. He also revealed that teachers used recasts following
learners’ ill-formed utterances in the same way that they used non-corrective repetition
22
following well-formed learner utterances. This added to the ambiguous nature of
recasts for the learners.
Similarly, Long (1996) recognizes the ambiguous nature of recasts, and argues that
it is hard for NNS to determine "whether a NS response is a model of the correct way
or just a different way of saying the same thing" (p. 449).
One of major studies in noticing of recasts was done by Philp (2003). She reported
that learners noticed over 60-70% of recasts in her experimental research. The
participants of her study were thirty-three adult ESL learners who took part in five
sessions of dyadic task-based interaction with native interlocutors. In an interactional
way, the NS provided the learners with recasts whenever they produced an erroneous
utterance especially with regard to the target feature which was question formation.
Noticing in this study was operationalized as the learners' ability to repeat recasts
verbatim immediately after the recall cue (two knocks). An example was:
NNS: Why he is very unhappy?NS: Why is he very unhappy? [2 knocks]NNS: Yeah why is very unhappy?(Philp, 2003, p. 108, italics in original)
Results showed that although learners noticed 60-70% of recasts, accurate recall of
recasts was constrained by two factors: learners’ level of language proficiency and the
length and number of changes in the recasts.
Carpenter et al (2006) used a video-tape stimulus to explore learners’ interpretation
of recasts. The participants were shown video clips and were asked whether they
thought they were hearing a recast, a repetition, or other types of feedback.
Egi (2007a) explored how learners interpreted recasts occurring in NSs-NNSs task-
based interactions. The tasks in her study included a picture description task and a
spot-difference task. The participants of her study were forty-nine adult learners of
Japanese as a foreign language (JEL) who were engaged in a one-on-one interaction
with a NS. The NS provided the learners with recasts whenever they produced an
erroneous utterance while interacting. The results showed that the learners noticed
64.64% of morphosyntactic recasts and 57.46% of lexical recasts. Of the
morphosyntactic recasts, 21% of the recasts were interpreted as response to content,
34% were positive evidence, 19%> were positive evidence, and 26% were positive and
23
negative evidence. She also examined how such interpretations were related to the
length of recasts and the number of changes made in recasts: it was evident that, in
both morphosyntactic and lexical recasts, the learners were more likely to interpret
longer recasts and those with more changes as responses to content. In contrast, when
recasts were shorter and involved fewer changes, the learners were more likely to
attend to the linguistic evidence in recasts. These findings corroborated Philp's (2003)
study.
Han (2002a) noted that “recasts are among the least clear and direct forms of
negative feedback” (p. 550). Also Mackey, Gass, and McDonough’s (2000) study
provided evidence that learners do indeed often fail to perceive recasts as corrections,
especially for morphosyntactic errors. As a number of studies (e.g. Doughty & Varela,
1998; Han, 2002) have shown, the ambiguity of recasts can be reduced by ensuring
that they focus on a single linguistic feature and that their corrective force is
linguistically signaled by, for example, the use of emphatic stress on the target item as
did Doughty & Varela (1998).
All in all, more research is required in this area in order to establish an agreed-upon
conception about the ambiguity of recasts in their effectiveness for L2 development.
2.1.4.2. Explicit Feedback
Feedback that carries explicit error correction falls at the explicit extreme on the
continuum of corrective feedback. In their observation of French immersion classrooms,
Lyster and Ranta (1997) documented "the explicit provision of the corrected form
[through which the teacher] clearly indicates that what the student had said was incorrect".
Such explicit negative feedback was sometimes introduced by phrases such as "Oh, you
mean X," or "You should say Y" as illustrated in Example below.
ExampleStudent: La note pour le shot (The note for the shot)Teacher: Oh, pour la, oh, pour ca. Tu veux dire pour la piqure. Piqure. Oui? (Oh, for the, oh, for that. You mean for the needle. Needle. Yes?)(Lyster & Ranta, 1997; pp. 63-64)
24
Explicit error correction, therefore, is characterized by an overt and clear indication of
the existence of an error and the provision of the target-like reformulation. Its
communicatively intrusive nature amplifies the provision of both negative and positive
evidence, potentially aiding learners in noticing the gap between their interlanguage and
the target-like form. However, in providing the target-like reformulation, explicit error
correction reduces the need for the learner to produce a modified response. Thus, explicit
error correction, because it supplies the learner with both positive and negative evidence,
facilitates one type of processing, the noticing of an interlanguage/target language
difference, but reduces another type of processing, the modified production of an
interlanguage form to a more target-like form.
According to Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) explicit feedback can take two forms:
a) Explicit correction: This type of corrective feedback provides both positive and
negative evidence by clearly saying that what the learner has produced is
erroneous, e.g. No, not goed - went.
b) Metalinguistic feedback: It is defined by Lyster and Ranta (1997) as “comments,
information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the learners’
utterance” (p.47). For example, ‘you need past tense’. It provides only negative
evidence.
2.1.4.3. Clarification Requests
The clarification request which Lyster and Ranta (1997, p.47) define as "a feedback
type that can refer to problems in either comprehension, accuracy, or both" shares its
name with a discourse move used to indicate that a misunderstanding in meaning has
occurred. The commonplace function of clarification requests as a discourse move in
conversation makes this kind of corrective feedback the least communicatively obtrusive
and, therefore, perhaps the most implicit. This dual corrective/discursive function means
that clarification requests, unlike other feedback approaches, seek clarification of meaning
as well as form. Typical requests for clarification may take the form of "I'm sorry",
"Pardon?", or "I don't understand" in spoken interaction as illustrated in Example below:
25
ExampleS: I want practice today, today. T: I'm sorry? (Panova & Lyster, 2002, p. 583)
At their most minimal, clarification requests provide the learner with almost no
information concerning the type or location of the error. Thus, clarification requests,
unlike explicit error correction, recasts, and translations, can be more consistently relied
upon to generate modified output from learners.
2.1.4.4. Metalinguistic Feedback
Much like explicit error correction, metalinguistic feedback- because it diverts the
focus of conversation towards rules or features of the target language- falls at the explicit
end of the corrective feedback spectrum. Lyster and Ranta (1997) categorize
metalinguistic feedback as “either comments, information, or questions related to the
well-formedness of the student's utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form”.
Despite its name, however, Lyster and Ranta (1997) explain that metalinguistic feedback
need not contain metalanguage. That is to say, though it is indeed possible, even likely, for
metalinguistic feedback to contain metalanguage, the inclusion of metalanguage is not the
defining characteristic of metalinguistic feedback. Instead, the defining characteristic of
metalinguistic feedback is its encoding of evaluations or commentary regarding the non-
target-like nature of the learner's utterance. By encoding direct reference to the existence
of an error or to the nature of the error, metalinguistic feedback supplies the language
learner with negative evidence regarding the target form. Lyster and Ranta (1997) go on to
divide metalinguistic feedback into three different subcategories:
1. Metalinguistic comments,
2. Metalinguistic information, and
3. Metalinguistic questions
Metalinguistic comments, the most minimally informative of the three, simply indicate
the occurrence of an error. Such metalinguistic feedback may include a general statement
that an error has occurred (e.g. Can you find your error) or may directly pinpoint the error
(e.g. Not X).
26
The next subcategory of metalinguistic feedback- metalinguistic information- goes
beyond simply indicating the occurrence or location of the error and "generally provides
some metalanguage that refers to the nature of the error" (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 47).
Thus, metalinguistic information can provide the learner with a range of hints concerning
the possible reformulation of the non-target-like form. This can range from the most
general information which labels the type of error made to information regarding a more
target-like alternative, particularly when there are more than two potential options.
The third subcategory of metalinguistic feedback identified by Lyster and Ranta
(1997) - metalinguistic questions- "point to the nature of the error but attempt to elicit
the information from the student". Unlike metalinguistic information which uses
metalanguage to label the nature of the error, metalinguistic questions call upon the
learner to reconsider their assumptions regarding the target language form (e.g. did
you use dative?). This can be seen in the exchange between a student and teacher in
Example below. The teacher's metalinguistic question asks the student to reflect upon
the appropriateness of le elephant. The use of a question as a form of feedback
anticipates a response from the learner, thus supplying the learner with the opportunity
to respond with either analysis of the form in question or an attempt at reformulation.
Example- I goed to cinema yesterday.- You need to use past tense here
2.1.4.5. Elicitations
According to Panova and Lyster (2002), "elicitation is a correction technique that
prompts the learner to self-correct" and may be accomplished in one of three ways
during face-to-face interaction:
Through requests for reformulation of an ill-formed utterance (e.g. Say that
again? or did you say that right?)
Through the use of open questions (e.g. How do we say X in French?), and
Through the use of strategic pauses to allow a learner to complete an utterance.
27
These three elicitation strategies themselves vary in their degree of implicitness or
explicitness. Among these three strategic pausing is the least communicatively
intrusive one and hence the most implicit, while the two questioning strategies as
slightly more explicit. Thus, as a category, elicitation falls within the explicit and
implicit distinction of corrective feedback types.
ExampleT: In fast food restaurants, how much do you tip?S: No money (lexical error)T: What's the word? (elicitation)SmS: Five ... four... (needs repair)T: What's the word . . . in a fast food restaurant? (elicitation)DifS: Nothing. (repair)T: Nothing, yeah. Okay, what tip should you leave for the following...(topic continuation)(Panova & Lyster, 2002; p.584)
It is not uncommon for elicitation moves, particularly strategic pausing, to be
accompanied by other feedback types such as metalinguistic comments and repetition, as
can be seen in the example below. After repeating the learner's entire previous utterance,
the teacher then repeats a segment of the initial utterance and pauses to elicit a
reformulation of the infinitival stem of the French verb to run.
ExampleSt: Le chien peut court. "The dog can runs." T: Le chien peut court? Le chien peut.. "The dog can runs? The dog can..."(Lyster & Ranta, 1997; p. 64)
Brown (2007) refers to elicitation as a corrective technique the same as prompting moves as
explained in the next section.
2.1.4.6. Prompt
According to Lyster and Mori (2006) and Lyster (2004a) two other terms used by
researchers interchangeably for prompts in the literature are negotiation of form
(Lyster, 2002b; Lyster, 1998b; and Lyster & Ranta, 1997) and form-focused
negotiation (Lyster, 2002b). Further Lyster and Mori (2006) introduce four prompting
moves. In other words, they introduce prompts as a range of feedback types as shown
in the following table. What all the prompting moves in table 2.2 have in common is
that they all ‘withhold the correct form (and other signs of approval) and instead offer
28
learners an opportunity to self-repair by generating their own modified responses’
(Lyster, 2004; p. 405).
Table 2.2. Prompts (adopted from Lyster and Mori, 2006; p. 272)
Type of prompt Speaker Student utterance + teacher promptElicitation Student
Teacher
Ben y a un jet de parfum qui sent pas très bon. . .[lexical error]“Well there’s a stream of perfume that doesn’t smell very nice..
Alors un jet de parfum, on va appeler ça un..?“So a stream of perfume, we’ll call that a…?”
Metalinguistic clue Student
Teacher
Kuruma. [lexical error]“A car.”
Kuruma janai yo.“(It)’s not a car.”
Clarification request Student
Teacher
Bashi ni. [phonological error]“On the wagon.”
Nani?“What?”
Repetition Student
Teacher
La guimauve, la chocolat. [gender error]“Marshmallow, chocolate (fem.).”
La chocolat?“Chocolat (fem.)?”
2.1.4.7. Repetitions
Repetitions are also an approach to providing corrective feedback that, like the strategic
pausing of elicitations, is less communicatively intrusive than either explicit error correction or
metalinguistic feedback (at least during face-to-face interaction), and thus falls toward the
implicit end of the corrective feedback spectrum. In face-to-face classroom contexts, repetition,
as the name suggests, is a teacher's or interlocutor's repetition "of the ill-formed part of the
student's utterance, usually with a change in intonation" (Panova & Lyster, 2002, p.584). In the
example below, the teacher repeats the student's utterance using rising intonation (here
represented with a question mark), indicating a need to reevaluate some element of the lexical
item, in this case the gender.
ExampleSt: Le...le girafe?" The...the giraffe?" T3: Le girafe? "The giraffe?" (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; p. 64)
29
2.1.4.8. Translations
Initially treated as a subcategory of recasts by Lyster and Ranta (1997), translations
are corrective feedbacks that are provided in response to "a student's unsolicited use of
their LI" (Panova & Lyster, 2002: 582). That is to say, while recasts are generated in
response to a learner's ill-formed utterance in the target language, translations are
generated in response to a learner's well-formed utterance in a language other than the
target language. Like recasts, the lack of overt indicators that an error has been
produced places translation toward the implicit end of the corrective feedback
spectrum, though the degree to which translations are communicatively obtrusive can
also vary. It is possible, for example, for translations to match the range of
obtrusiveness of recasts based on whether they are isolated from or incorporated into
new information. At their most unobtrusive, translations of a learner's unsolicited use
of their LI may be subtly embedded in a confirmation check. An example is:
T: All right now, which place is near the water?S: Non J'aipas fini.T: You haven't finished? Okay Bernard, have you finished?(Panova & Lyster, 2002, p. 583)
Like recasts and explicit error correction, translations contain the target-like
reformulation of the learner's error and thus provide the learner with positive evidence.
This positive evidence may be helpful in introducing new lexical items and phrases
which are otherwise missing from the learner's interlanguage. However, the provision of
the target language reformulation also pre-empts the need for the learner to access
partially acquired target language knowledge to attempt a target language reformulation
and subverts the opportunity for the learner to produce pushed output. Compared to
recasts and other feedback types, translations are relatively rare in the face-to-face
classroom.
30
2.1.5. Corrective Feedback and Uptake
Uptake is a key term in studies on corrective feedback. It has mainly two meanings
in the literature. Allwright (1984) has used it to refer to what learners are able to report
and recall during or at the end of the lesson (see Ellis, 1994, and Slimani, 1989, for
examples of studies of uptake in this sense). The second sense of uptake is the one
used by interactionist researchers. Lyster and Ranta (1997), drawing on Speech Act
Theory, define uptake as:
…a student’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that
constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to
some aspect of the student’s initial utterance (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; p.49).
However, Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001a, 2001b) expanded this definition
by incorporating both preemptive and reactive focus-on-form. The definition they give
is as follows:
1. Uptake is a student move.
2. The move is optional (i.e., a focus on form does not obligate the student to
provide an uptake move).
3. The uptake move occurs in episodes where learners have demonstrated a gap in
their knowledge (e.g., by making an error, by asking a question, or by failing to
answer a teacher’s question).
4. The uptake move occurs as a reaction to some preceding move in which another
participant (usually the teacher) either explicitly or implicitly provides
information about a linguistic feature.
Currently uptake (in the second sense)) is used as a way of evaluating the
effectiveness of feedback types. Chaudron (1977) was one of the first researchers to
refer to the term “uptake.” Chaudron (1977) suggested evaluating the effectiveness of
feedback in language classrooms based on the number of times students respond to
feedback with correct responses. Later on, Lyster and Ranta (1997) expanded
Chaudron’s definition by dividing learners’ uptake into two categories: “repair” and
“needs repair” (p. 49).
31
There are a number of arguments against the utility of uptake. The first argument
comes from the researchers who argued that a lack of learner response to recasts may
be attributed to conversational constraints, i.e., learners are sometimes simply not
given an adequate opportunity for uptake (Oliver, 1995, 2000; Nabei & Swain, 2002).
Hence, based on this argument we can exclude the effectiveness of corrective
feedbacks solely to uptake.
The second argument in the literature questions the reliability of uptake as an
indication of learning. Long (2006) notes that a learner's ability to repeat a teacher's
model utterance is "notoriously unreliable as an indication that the structure involved
has really been learned" and "it is all too often no more than 'language-like' behavior"
(p. 99). Similarly, Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001a) mention that learners'
successful uptake does not indicate acquisition of a feature. Rather, learners' ability to
autonomously use the feature in their own later utterances without prompting (i.e.,
feedback) seems a more reliable indication of learning.
A third argument is based on research showing that a lack of immediate uptake
does not preclude the possibility that recasts are in fact useful. For instance, Mackey
and Philp (1998) found that although recasts rarely elicited uptake, they had positive
developmental effects on the targeted linguistic form (question formation). As
Carpenter et al (2006) argue, the utility of recasts should not be denied simply because
of the lack of uptake following recasts.
As Lyster and Mori (2006) argue, uptakes that involve a simple repetition of a recast
do not engage learners in the same deep level of processing as self-repairs require
following a prompt. However, Lyster and Mori (2006) further argue that there are
three studies in the literature which corroborate the effectiveness of uptake in the form
of learners’ repetitions. These are Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000), Havranek
and Cesnik (2001), and Loewen (2005).
It should be noted here that whether uptake facilitates language acquisition or not
must be further empirically investigated. Loewen (2004) reports that the effectiveness
and successfulness of uptake hinges on a number of characteristics of feedbacks
including: complexity, timing, and type of feedback. Loewen (2004) further brings
forth the importance of uptake as follows:
32
1. Loewen (2004) states that one way in which uptake may facilitate acquisition is by
‘‘providing opportunities for learners to proceduralize target language knowledge
already internalized in declarative form’’ (Lyster, 1998, p. 191).
2. Drawing on Swain (1985, 1995, 2000), Loewen (2004) believes that uptake
constitutes one type of ‘‘pushed output’’.
3. Drawing on Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis (1990, 1995, 2001), Loewen (2004)
says that the production of an uptake can indicate that a linguistic item has been
learnt.
4. Self-repair requires deeper cognitive processing than other-repairing.
For more studies on uptake see Farrokhi & Gholami (2007), Lyster and Ranta
(1997), Mackey and Philp (1998), Oliver (1995), Pica (2002), Loewen (2004), Sheen
(2004), and Tsang (2004)
2.1.6. A Review of Major Studies on Error Correction in L1
It is important to remember that corrective feedback was initially a fertile area of
research in L1 studies. L2 researchers conducted studies based on the studies done in
L1. In other words, studies on corrective feedback in L2 development has been inspired
by research results in L1 acquisition (e.g., Baker & Nelson, 1984; Farrar, 1990, 1992).
In an early study focusing on the nature and role of feedback, Brown and Hanlon
(1970) realized that neither explicit positive reinforcement nor explicit negative
comments could account for why children were so successful at learning their L1
(cited in Nicholas et al, 2001).
Morgan and Travis (1989) and Morgan, Bonamo, and Travis (1995) reexamined
Brown’s (1973) study of Adam, eve, and Sarah and found that there was no relation
between recasts and the acquisition of the articles. They examined ‘minimal recasts’
and ‘expanded recasts’ where in the former they added only the missing feature
whereas in the latter they added the missing feature along with some related material.
All in all, they found no evidence to support that recasts provide negative evidence
and serve as corrections (cited in Nicholas et al, 2001).
Later on, Bohannon, Padgett, Nelson, and Mark (1996) challenged the study done
by Morgan et al (1995). According to Bohannon, Ill, & Stanowicz, (1996), Morgan,
33
Bonamo, and Travis (1995) have neglected the joint influence of children and
caregivers. And regarded recasts as an independent source of change in the children’s
language.
In LI acquisition, Farrar (1992) also distinguished two types of recasts, namely,
corrective recasts and non-corrective recasts. The former "corrects a child's preceding
ungrammatical sentence through adding or replacing a grammatical morpheme to a
child's noun or verb phrase" whereas the latter "expands a child's sentence by using
some of the same words from the previous sentence and models a grammatical
morpheme but is not a correction of a noun or verb phrase" (p. 92)., Farrar (1992)
reported that most corrective recasts were in response to children's utterances with a
single error. In terms of their immediate use of recasts, they were less likely to imitate
recasts with multiple corrections because they exceeded the children's ability to
process various grammatical changes (Farrar, 1992). He finally held that corrective
recasts were more effective than non-corrective recasts.
2.1.7. Corrective Feedback and L2 Development: A Review of Major
Studies
A quick review of literature indicates that the last decade has witnessed so many
studies done in the area of corrective feedback and L2 development. Important figures
in this field are Lyster (2004), Mackey (2007), Gass (1997), Oliver (2000), Sheen
(2008), and Ellis (2008). McGill University in Canada has focused specifically on this
issue and most of the researches done in the area of corrective feedback are affiliated
with this university. Below is a quick review of the main studies done on corrective
feedback and L2 development.
Early studies on corrective feedback in SLA can be traced in 1970s (e.g. Fanselow,
1977; Henderickson, 1978). Approximately 39 years ago, researchers began to
investigate different techniques of error correction. For example, Fanselow (1977)
investigated error feedback patterns of 11 experienced English teachers (p. 583). He
discovered that the most frequently used type of error feedback was simply stating
whether their response was right or wrong (Fanselow, 1977). He suggested that
feedback provided to learners should embody something more than providing ready
34
answers to the erroneous constructions. Fanselow (1977) argued that feedbacks should
involve such processes that could help the learner to connect and analyze information.
Moreover, Fanselow (1977) identified 16 error treatment techniques including:
1. No treatment
2. Acceptance of response containing error
3. Setting the task again with no new information provided
4. Provision of correct response orally
5. Correct response is given orally by another student
6. Gives part of correct response or established cue in a different medium
7. Gives information about the incorrect utterance (such as provision of a rule)
8. Presents alternatives
9. Repeating of the incorrect utterance with rising intonation
10. Provision of indirect information
11. Stops a student from continuing without explicitly correcting it
12. Indicates no with a gesture
13. Says “no” or “uh-uh”
14. Gestures plus says “no” or “uh-uh”
15. Says no and repeats student’s incorrect utterance
16. Miscellaneous: student stops in mid-response and corrects self; teacher simply
waits and student starts again without error. (Fanselow, 1977; p. 585)
Early studies on error correction (e.g. Allwright, 1975; Corder, 1967; Hendrickson,
1978; and Vigil & Oller, 1976) argued that pushing learners in their output rather than
providing them with correct forms could benefit their interlanguage development. On
the other hand, Van Lier (1988) argued that teachers should delay the use of corrective
feedback and let learners self-repair. Similarly, Allwright and Bailey (1991) held that
learners should be allowed time and opportunity for self-repair.
White (1991) conducted a study with 11- and 12-year-old ESL students learning
adverb placement. The results of the immediate post-test indicated that the group that
was provided with positive input along with negative feedback scored higher than the
35
group that was given only positive input. However delayed post-testing did not show
any difference in long-term retention between the two test groups.
Carroll, Roberge, and Swain (1992) found that the feedback group outperformed
the no-feedback group in acquiring two complex French noun suffixes (-age, and –
ment).
In an experimental study, Carroll and Swain (1993) investigated the effects of
feedback on the ability of 100 adult Spanish-speaking ESL learners to recognize dative
shift/movement possibility in verbs. There were five groups in this study. Four groups
received one specific type of feedback including direct metalinguistic feedback,
explicit rejection, recast, indirect metalinguistic feedback, and finally the fifth group
was a control group. Carroll and Swain (1993) reported that the group receiving
explicit metalinguistic feedback outperformed all other groups including the recast
group based on recall sessions administered immediately after the treatment session
and again one week after the treatment session.
Oliver (1995) investigated the effect of negative feedback in child NS/NNS
conversations. She recorded interactions between eight pairs of young NNS and NS
and realized that the NS’s used ‘implicit negative feedback’ to 61% of the NNS’s
erroneous utterances. Oliver (1995) concluded that her study supported the
effectiveness of recasts but suggested that in order to substantiate such claims, future
studies will need to be conducted longitudinally and involve both pre-test and post-
tests in order to assess learners’ knowledge.
In four French immersion classrooms at the primary level in Canada, Lyster and
Ranta (1997) examined corrective feedback and learner uptake. In fact they explored
the effectiveness of corrective feedback as measured by learner uptake. Let it be noted
here that Lyster and Ranta (1997) borrowed the term “uptake” from Austin’s Speech
Act Theory. Lyster and Ranta (1997) investigated the feedback types used by four
teachers in French immersion classes. The teachers in these classes taught science,
social studies, mathematics, and language arts lessons to 9-to10-year-old students.
After analyzing the transcripts of classroom interactions and the type of feedback that
the teachers provided to the students’ ill-formed utterances, they identified six
categories of teacher feedback with their frequency as shown below:
36
Explicit Correction: 7%
Recasts: 55%
Elicitation: 14%
Metalinguistic Clues: 8%
Clarification Requests: 11%
Repetition: 5%
The findings from Lyster and Ranta (1997) revealed that recasts were the most
frequently used corrective feedback. However, recasts resulted in the lowest rate of
uptake whereas elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, and repetition
of error led to higher rates of uptake (see also Fanselow, 1977).
Ortega and Long (1997) tested four groups of Spanish L2 learners on object
topicalization and adverb placement with a picture-description oral task and a
grammaticality judgment task. No learning of object topicalization occurred with
either condition, but the recast group scored significantly better than the model group
on adverb placement. Object topicalization may have been too difficult, but it seems
that the adults took advantage of the implicit negative feedback on adverb placement,
which is a finding that lends some support to the hypothesis that recasts may have a
greater facilitative effect than models, at least in the short term.
In a continuation to Oliver’s (1995) study, Izumi (1998) investigated the
availability and usefulness of negative feedback in task-based conversations carried
out by ten adult NS-NNS dyads. Izumi (1998) found a relatively infrequent occurrence
of negative feedback and low uptake occurrence. Izumi finally suggested that
activities focusing on meaning should be accompanied an added focus on form.
Mackey and Philp (1998) reported a positive effect of recasts on the acquisition of
question formation in English. Participants were assigned to two groups of readies and
unreadies based on their proficiency level. After that, the participants were assigned to
the following three groups:
G1: Interactor Group, where participants were allowed to negotiate but were not given
recasts on a single target structure (question forms).
37
G2: Recast Group, where participants received recasts whenever non target-like
utterances were observed in pairs with an NS. And
G3: Control Group, which participated only in pre- and post-tests.
They concluded that advanced ready learners benefitted more from interaction with
intensive recasts than from interaction without recasts. In other words, they argued
that in order for a recast to be effective, learners must have reached a stage of
developmental readiness as Farrar (1990) contended.
In a dyadic experimental study, Long, Inagaki, and Ortega (1998) provided
different types of feedback and input to English speaking learners of Japanese and
Spanish. The learners in this study received either ‘recast’ as an implicit negative
feedback or ‘modeling’ as a preemptive positive input. The target features under
investigation in this study were ordering of adjectives and a locative construction in
Japanese, and topicalization and adverb placement in Spanish. The results of this study
showed that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups (i.e.
recast and model groups) and the control group in the Japanese context. However, the
results support that recasts can be more beneficial than preemptive positive input (i.e.
models) in achieving at least short-term development in Spanish as a second language.
This result is also in line with previous findings in L1 acquisition (e.g. Farrar, 1990).
Doughty and Varela (1998) examined the effects of corrective recasts on 34
intermediate-level learners’ two grammatical structures in an L2 contend-based
classroom. Corrective recasts included a recast preceded by a repetition of the learners’
errors and intonational stress added to both repetition and recast to emphasize the
incorrect and correct forms. They reported that learners who received the corrective
recasts gained more on both oral and written measures in comparison to the learners in
the control group who received no corrective feedback. The question raised against the
finding s of this study was the operational definition of recast. Doughty and Varela
(1998) corrective recasts as follows: when a student produced an error in past
reference, the teacher repeated the student’s incorrect utterance, putting emphasis on
the incorrect form through rising intonation+ Students were then given a chance to
self-correct or peer-correct.
38
Mackey and Philp (1998) investigated the effects of recasts and interaction on the
acquisition of word order in English question formation. They specifically wanted to
inquire into the role of proficiency/readiness and the effectiveness of recasts. They
reported that intensive recast where the emphasis and focus is specifically on one
linguistic feature is more effective for developmentally ready adult learners than
interaction without corrective recasts. In other words, they argued that recasts might
be effective only when a certain developmental readiness is attained which was
already advanced by Farrar (1990) in L1 learning and further advocated in an L2
classroom study by Netten (1991, cited in Ammar & Spada, 2006).
Lyster (1998b) investigated the relationships among error types, feedback types,
and immediate learner repair in 4 French immersion classrooms at the elementary
level. He studied different types of corrective feedback including negotiation of form
(i.e., elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, or repetition of error),
recasts, and explicit correction.
The findings of his study revealed that grammatical and phonological errors tended
to invite recasts, whereas lexical errors tended to invite negotiation of form more often
than recasts. Also the study indicated that the majority of phonological repairs were
learner repetitions following recasts and the majority of grammatical and lexical
repairs were peer and self-repairs following negotiation of form.
In a study that employed a stimulated recall procedure to access the learners’
interpretation of interactional feedback, Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000) found
that learners often failed to notice recasts provided in response to morphosyntactic
errors. In fact the learners in this study accurately perceived lexical, semantic, and
phonological feedback but as above-mentioned they did not appear to notice
morphosyntactic feedback.
Nassaji and Swain (2000) in an innovative study investigated the effect of random
and negotiated help in the acquisition articles. In order to do so, they adopted a
vygotskian approach for corrective feedback. Similar studies were conducted by Ohta
(2000, 2001) and Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) with a sociocultural framework for
recast and interactional feedback, respectively.
39
In a study of corrective feedback versus positive evidence, Muranoi (2000) found
that Japanese university learners of L2 English receiving either prompts or recasts
showed significantly better acquisition of indefinite articles than did learners without
any type of corrective feedback. The effect of interaction enhancement in this study
lasted at least for 5 weeks on L2 learning of English articles.
Ohta (2000) argues that a lack of uptake by the receivers of recasts does not
necessarily mean that students do not make use of recasts. In order to establish his
argument in this regard, Ohta (2000) recorded individual students in class and found
that students actively repeat recasts as well as modify their speech in their ‘private
speech’ while listening to recasts provided to their classmates. Private speech is speech
addressed to oneself in sotto voice rather than speech addressed to an audience. Ohta
(2000) further claimed that uptake does not guarantee longer-term L2 changes nor is
an accurate indicator of learners' use or no use of recasts. However, many researchers
argue for the effectiveness of recasts on the basis of learner uptake of recasts or a lack
thereof (e.g., Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002).
In an observational study of an elementary L2 French immersion class, however,
Lyster (2001) found recasts to work better than negotiation for phonological errors but
the reverse to be true for lexical and grammatical errors.
However, Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001a) reported a much higher rate of
uptake of recasts (71.6%) in an ESL classroom than has been reported in other studies
(e.g. Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002). Ellis et al (2001a) investigated
learner uptakes in focus-on-form episodes occurring in 12 hours of communicative
ESL teaching. The results of this study was different form the previous ones in that
Ellis et al (2001) found a much higher rate of uptake of recasts than has been reported
elsewhere. Nonetheless, the rate of uptake of recasts was still lower relative to other
feedback types, showing the same trend found in the studies by Lyster and Ranta
(1997) and Panova and Lyster (2002).
In a pre-test, repeated exposure, and post-test design, Ayoun (2001) investigated the
effects of computer-based (designed with HyperCard®) written recasts on 2nd, 3rd, and
4th semester university L2 French learners’ acquisition of passé composé and imparfait
aspectual distinctions. There were three groups in this study namely: recasting group
40
(R), modeling group (M), and finally grammar group (G). The results indicated that
the R group outperformed the G group but not the M group.
Panova and Lyster (2002) extended Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study by
investigating the feedback types in a non-immersion setting. The database for this
study consisted of 10 hours of transcribed interaction in a communicative adult EFL
classroom where the focus on linguistic form was minimal, and a strong emphasis was
put on vocabulary, speaking, and listening comprehension. Panova and Lyster (2002)
concluded that recasts elicited a lower rate of uptake as Lyster and Ranta (1997)
contended. In other words, clarification requests, elicitation, repetition, and
metalinguistic feedback were more likely to lead to successful uptake than recasts.
Similar to Oliver’s (1995) study, Braidi (2002) also investigated the role of recasts
in native-speaker (NS)/ non-native speaker (NNS) interactions. The participants of her
study included ten native speakers of English and ten non-native speakers of English
who were originally Japanese learning English as a second language. Braidi (2002)
focused specifically on two factors: negotiation types (i.e., non-negotiated, one-signal
negotiations, and extended negotiations), and different levels of utterance
grammaticality (i.e., single error vs. multiple error). In addition, the conditions under
which adult NNSs responded to NS recasts were probed. The results of her study
showed that adult NS-NNS interactions triggered recasts, which is affected by types of
negotiation and by levels of grammaticality. Braidi (2002) concluded that recasts bear
fruits in SLA studies. However, one of the weaknesses of Oliver (1995) and Braidi’s
(2002) study was that they measured the effectiveness of corrective feedbacks based
on the rate of uptakes which is not an agreed-upon procedure in the literature.
Han (2002b) investigated the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output.
She adopted pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test design for her study with eight
female upper-intermediate level participants. These eight participants were assigned to
recast and non-recast groups. The results indicated that recast did have a significant
effect on tense consistency. In other words, the results revealed that the recast group
outperformed the non-recast group on the posttest and delayed posttest in both oral
and written measures, lending support for the effectiveness of recasts on improvement
in tense consistency. Furthermore, Han (2002b) identified four conditions that may
41
affect the utility of recasts: (1) individualized attention, (2) consistent linguistic focus,
(3) learners' developmental readiness, and (4) intensity of the treatment. In Han’s
(2002b) study individualized attention was enhanced to the small number of students
participating in her small-scale study, the linguistic focus was promoted by focusing on
one specific linguistic feature i.e. tense consistency for which the participants were
developmentally ready, and finally the fourth condition was met by intensifying the
frequency and salience of the target input. (see the table in Han, 2002b; pp. 547-549)
Morris and Tarone (2003) investigated the perception of recasts by students using it
in collaborative work in classroom setting. They examined the effect of this perception
on the language learning process. The study was conducted in a large Mid-Western
University with ten learners of Spanish at the beginning proficiency level. Results of
the post-tests showed that students continued to produce incorrect utterances, although
their peers used recasts to correct their errors during peer interaction. Morris and
Tarone (2003) pointed out that some learners in their study failed to recognize recasts
and therefore actually didn’t receive this feedback on their performance. The results
also indicated that learner use of implicit corrective feedback, recast in particular,
might be influenced by negative peer relationships. As Morris and Tarrone (2003)
suggested, some of the participants even perceived recasts as criticism, which
prevented them from using it as helpful information.
Iwashita (2003) also explored the role of task-based conversation in the L2
acquisition of the Japanese locative-initial construction and te-form verbs. Three
issues were investigated in that study:
The type of interactional moves provided by NS interlocutors.
The effects of interaction on L2 learning of the grammar targets, and
The relationship between specific types of NS interactional moves and the
short-term development of the acquisition target.
Iwashita (2003) found that learners with an above-average score on the pre-test, i.e.
ready learners, benefited from the positive evidence provided. In addition, the results
showed that implicit negative feedback, i.e. recasts, were effective on short term
development of grammatical structures under study irrespective of learners’ language
42
proficiency level. Moreover, Iwashita (2003) as in tandem with the previous studies
concluded that recasts were more effective in comparison to other conversational
moves on short-term L 2grammatical development. In other words, Iwashita (2003)
provided some empirical support for the utility of recasts over models.
Since recasts not only provide negative evidence but also simultaneously provide
positive evidence in the form of a target reformulation (Leeman, 2003; Long, 1996), a
recent line of exploration in research on recasts is to examine the developmental
sources of recasts closely by separating linguistic evidence involved in recasts. In
other words, as Leeman (2003) states due to the complex nature of recasts, we should
substantiate to what we can attribute the success of recasts: negative evidence only or
positive evidence.
In order to do so, Leeman (2003) investigated the effects of four different types of
interactional input on the L2 development of Spanish noun-adjective agreement.
Seventy-four first-year university learners of Spanish as a foreign language conducted
two one-way information gap tasks with a NS in one of four conditions below:
Recasts (i.e. negative evidence and enhanced salience of positive evidence)
Negative evidence
Enhanced salience of positive evidence, and
Unenhanced positive evidence (i.e. control group)
The results of this study revealed that only the recast and enhanced-salience groups
were significantly better than the control group in their performance. This finding
suggests that the enhanced salience is a very crucial factor in the success of recasts. In
summary, Leeman (2003) stressed the role of attention and salience in SLA.
Ammar (2003) in a form-focused instruction study investigated the differential
effects of recasts and prompts. The target feature in this study was third-person
possessive determiners in English (i.e. her and his). The three groups in this study
were all taught based on form-focused instruction but the groups varied in the
feedback type, i.e. group one received recasts, group two received prompts, and the
third group did not receive any feedback at all. The results of this study based on pre-
tests, immediate post-tests and delayed post-tests revealed that the groups receiving
43
feedback, i.e. recast and prompt, benefitted most from the form-focused instruction
treatment. Furthermore, Ammar (2003) reported that the prompt group outperformed
the recast group on the written and oral post-tests. In addition, she found that lower
proficiency learners benefitted more from prompts, whereas higher proficiency
learners appeared to benefit similarly from both recasts and prompts.
Lyster (2004a) in a quasi-experimental study with a pre-test, immediate post-test
and delayed post-test design in French immersion classrooms with 148 grade-five 10-
to-11-years-olds compared the effects of recasts and prompts on young L2 learners’
rule-bases system. He used two written tasks (binary choice and text completion) and
two oral tasks (object identification and picture description) to assess the students’
ability to assign grammatical gender in French. Three groups participated in this study,
namely recast group, prompt group and no-feedback group. Lyster (2004a) found that
recasts were less effective than prompts in fostering L2 development in immersion
programs since as Swain (1985, 2000) argues the learners in such settings are already
in contact with positive evidence, i.e. L2 norms, and they need to be pushed to
produce language in a way to test their hypotheses about the L2 norms and rules and
hence extend their interlanguage. Lyster (2004a) attributed this finding to the
ambiguous nature of recasts inherent in noticing morphosyntactic errors.
Sheen (2004) in a study that compared the frequency of recasts in immersion,
communicative English as a second language (ESL), and English as a foreign
language (EFL) contexts, found that, on average, 60% of all the feedback moves
involved recasts.
McDonough (2005) in an experimental setting investigated the impact of negative
feedback and learners’ responses on learners’ question development among Thai
English learners. McDonough (2005) operationalized negative feedback in the form of
enhanced clarification requests by (a) repetition, (b) stress and rising intonation to
draw learners' attention to their erroneous features, and (c) pause to provide learners
with the opportunity to modify their original utterance. She investigated four groups in
her study including: enhanced opportunity to modify, opportunity to modify, feedback
without opportunity to modify, and no feedback to investigate the relationship
between modified output and L2 learning on English question formation. The results
44
of her study indicated that the production of modified output was the only significant
predictor in question formation. Additionally, negative feedback in the form of
clarification requests might indirectly contribute to question development by creating
opportunities for learners to modify their output. In fact, McDonough’s study provided
empirical support for Swain’s output hypothesis, i.e. modified output has a strong
effect on question development.
Lyster and Mori (2006) compared recorded data of teacher-student interactions
from four French immersion settings and three JFL settings. They investigated the
immediate effects of explicit correction, recasts and prompts on learner uptake and
repair. It is important to note that they introduced a ‘counter-balanced hypothesis’ into
their study. Finally, their study reported an interesting piece of information. The
results indicated that 53% of prompts and 38% of recasts were repaired in French
immersion settings, whereas 23% of prompts and 68% of recasts were repaired in JFL
settings. (For a more recent view on counterbalance studies see Lyster & Mori, 2008)
In a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest control group design, Ammar
and Spada (2006) investigated the effects of recasts and prompts on L2 learners’
written and oral ability across different proficiency levels. Sixty four students from
three intact classes at grade 6 in the Montreal area participated in their study. The
target feature in this study was third-person possessive determiners ‘his’ and ‘her’
which was considered as a problematic grammatical point for Francophone learners.
Participants’ knowledge of the target structure was measured immediately before the
treatment i.e. before giving recasts and prompts, and twice later, once immediately
after the provision of feedback, and again 4 weeks later through written and oral tasks.
The results of this study indicated that prompts were more effective than recasts and
that the effectiveness of recasts was sensitive to the learners’ proficiency level. In
particular, high-proficiency learners benefited equally from both prompts and recasts,
whereas low-proficiency learners benefited significantly more from prompts than
recasts.
Also, McDonough and Mackey (2006), in pre-test post-test design investigated the
impact of recasts and different types of responses for the development of question
formation among Thai English as a foreign language. The results revealed that both
45
recasts and learners’ primed production of the syntactic structures targeted in the
recasts are predictive of subsequent development.
Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) in an experimental study investigated the effects
of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of past test ‘-ed’ among
low-intermediate learners. In order to do so they had three groups, i.e. two
experimental groups and one control group. The implicit feedback in this study was
recast and the explicit feedback was metalinguistic feedback. This study was unique in
three aspects:
1. Methodologically unique in that it was the first study which experimentally
investigated the effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback, i.e. recast vs.
metalinguistic feedback.
2. Contrary to the previous studies where corrective feedback was investigated in a
focus-on-forms context, this study happened in a task-based setting.
3. The instruments used in this study were distinctive i.e. Oral Imitation Test,
Grammaticality Judgment Test, and Metalinguistic Knowledge Test.
The results of this study indicated that explicit feedback containing metalinguistic
information is more effective than implicit feedback containing recasts.
Loewen (2005), in his research into the relation between the quality of uptake
prompted by corrective feedback (unsuccessful uptake vs. successful uptake) and L2
development, found that successful uptake was associated with L2 development.
Loewen (2005) conducted his study in Auckland, New Zealand based on focus-on-
form episodes.
Examining 12 adult ESL learners during 17 hours of meaning-based interaction in
classroom settings, Loewen and Philp (2006) investigated the effectiveness of recasts
as compared with elicitation and metalinguistic feedback. In opposition to the results
from many ESL classroom-based studies (e.g., Ellis et al., 2001; Sheen, 2004), recasts
were found as effective as other types of corrective feedback in their study. Upon
conducting logistical regression analyses on various characteristics of recast that might
have enhanced its corrective intent, Loewen and Philp found that stressed intonation
was one of the predictive factors for learners' successful uptake.
46
Russell and Spada (2006) in a meta-analytic review have corroborated the
effectiveness of corrective feedback in previous studies. In their metanalysis, they
excluded corrective feedback in writing and pronunciation and focused on grammar.
Their review comprises a good collection of the previous research on corrective
feedback and grammar.
Nassaji (2007) investigated the effect of elicitation and reformulation as two major
types of corrective feedback in dyadic interaction. The focus was on the different ways
in which each feedback type is provided and their relationship with learner repair.
Forty two adult learners participated in this study. Analysis of data on output accuracy
following feedback showed that both reformulation and elicitation resulted in higher
rates of accurate repair when they were combined with explicit intonational or verbal
prompts compared with less explicit prompts or no prompts. One of the main
questions in this study concerned the relationship between feedback and learner repair.
The results showed that learners successfully modified their output about one third of
the time following reformulations and elicitations in general (34% and 31%,
respectively). Nassaji focused that this rate of repair for reformulation is low.
Egi (2007a) used stimulated recall as a tool for investigating recast. She reported
that learners failed to recognize recasts as a corrective feedback when they were too
long. However, they did perceive the effectiveness of recasts when they were short.
Ammar (2008) in a quasi-experimental study compared the differential effect of
recast and prompts among Francophone learners. The target structure he selected was
third person possessive determiners. The participants were given corrective feedback
meanwhile they were doing some communicative activities. The results based on
picture description tasks and computerized fill-in-the-blanks tasks indicated that
prompts were more effective than recasts in the learners’ development of third person
possessive determiners.
Dabaghi (2008) also investigated the effect of explicit and implicit correction in
grammatical errors made by language learners. Simultaneously he investigated the
effects of explicit and implicit error corrections in morphological and syntactic errors
and the correction of developmental early and late features. In order to collect his data,
Dabaghi ask the participants to read a text and retell it as part of an oral interview. In
47
order to correct the learners’ errors, he used recast (implicit corrective feedback) and
explicit corrective feedback. The results of his study indicated that explicit error
correction techniques were significantly more effective than implicit corrective
feedback techniques. Furthermore, data analysis revealed that explicit error correction
was more effective for the acquisition of developmental early features, and implicit
error correction was more effective for the acquisition of developmental late features.
Naeini (2008) also investigated the effect of form-focused instruction and
corrective feedback. She explored if corrective feedback in the form of prompt
affected the linguistic accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability at the upper-
intermediate level of language proficiency, comparing with another group receiving no
feedback. Thirty two female participants studying at a Kish language Institute in
Tehran participated in her study. The analysis of the data done through correlation
coefficient and t-test revealed that the participants in the experimental group
outperformed the participants in the control group.
Wong and Waring (2009) reported that teachers’ use of explicit positive
assessments such as 'very good' given to the students might inhibit learners from
learning.
Nassaji (2009) investigated two types of interactional feedback, i.e. recasts vs.
elicitations and their subsequent effects in grammatical features popping up in
incidental dyadic interactions. This study investigated both immediate and delayed
effects of corrective feedbacks. The results of his study revealed that recasts were
more effective than elicitations in immediate effects. Also the results of this study
indicated that in both corrective feedback types, the more explicit form was more
effective than its implicit form. Therefore the degree of explicitness was reported to be
very crucial in the effectiveness of these two types of corrective feedback.
Lyster & Izquierdo (2009) also in a recent study investigated the effect of two
different types of corrective feedbacks in the acquisition of grammatical gender among
adult French learners. The focus of this study was exclusively directed toward the
differential effects of recasts vs. prompts in dyadic interactions. The results found both
types of feedbacks effective. Learners receiving recasts benefited from repeated
exposure to positive exemplars as well as from opportunities to infer negative
48
evidence, whereas learners receiving prompts or clarification requests benefited from
repeated exposure to negative evidence as well as from opportunities to produce
modified output.
49
2.2. Grammar Instruction
2.2.1. Introduction
Grammar instruction before the advent of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
was considered the be-all and end-all of language instruction. Grammar was taught
deductively through explicit presentation of grammatical rules followed by mechanical
drills. Such an approach was evident in Grammar Translation Method. However, with
the rise of CLT in 1970s some applied linguists argued that such an explicit grammar
instruction was unnecessary and did not contribute to the development of our
‘acquired’ knowledge (Krashen 1981, 1982). Hence the place of grammar in language
curriculum became rather uncertain (Nunan, 2004) and subsequently grammatical
syllabi were superseded by communicative ones based on functions and tasks
(Richards, 2001). In this section, the researcher will review the following issues in
grammar instruction:
Schools of Linguistics in a Glance
Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar
Chomsky’s Formalism vs. Hallidayan Functionalism
Grammar Instruction: to Teach or not to Teach
Main Approaches to Grammar Instruction including:
Deductive vs. Inductive Approach
Focus on Form vs. Focus of forms
Task-based approach
Focused vs. unfocused tasks
Consciousness-raising Tasks
…
Grammar Instruction in Practice: A Review of Major Studies
50
2.2.2. Schools of Linguistics in a Glance
2.2.2.1. Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar
Grammarians usually distinguish two types of grammar, i.e. prescriptive vs.
descriptive. Richards and Schmidt (2002) state that prescriptive grammar is one which
states rules for what is considered the best or most correct usage. Prescriptive
grammars are often based not on descriptions of actual usage, but rather on the
grammarian’s views of what is best. Many of traditional grammars are of this kind.
On the other hand, descriptive grammar is a grammar which describes how a language
is actually spoken and/or written, and does not state or prescribe how it ought to be
spoken or written. Current views on grammar are oriented toward the descriptive
approach to grammar rather than the prescriptive one.
2.2.2.2. Chomsky’s Formalism vs. Hallidayan Functionalism
These two theories differ in the way they describe language and its grammar.
Formalism is closely associated with Chomsky’s transformational/generative theory.
In this theory the focus is primarily syntax and morphology. Generative theory is
based on a rationalism approach in Rene Descartes Philosophy, the major principle of
which is that language is represented as a speaker’s mental grammar, a set of abstract
rules for generating grammatical sentences. Chomsky refers to this internalized mental
grammar as ‘competence’. Formal grammar is only concerned with grammatical
competence aiming to explaining syntactic facts without recourse to pragmatics.
Functional grammar, on the other hand is a linguistic theory which was derived in the
1970s as an alternative to the abstract, formalized view of language presented by
transformational grammar and relying on a pragmatic view of language as social
interaction. This approach is advocated by Halliday (for thorough reviews see Cook &
Newson, 2007; Crystal, 2003; Halliday, 1994; Newmeyer, 1986; Sampson, 1980).
51
2.2.3. Historical Overview of Grammar Instruction
Historically speaking, the teaching of grammar had always maintained a central position in
the syllabus until the early 1970's (Celce-Murcia, 1991; Rutherford, 1987). Initially, the
grammar-translation method, as its name points out, assumed an automatic relationship
between grammar and translation activities and the learning of language (Hammond, 1988).
Later, the audiolingual approach, popular during the post-World War II years, reacted to the
hegemony of grammar teaching. Influenced by behavioral psychology, this approach was
the driving force in foreign language methodology for many years to come. Meanwhile, L2
learning theories of the 1960's, which focused more on the internal contributions of the
learner challenged the behaviorist accounts of learning and prompted changes in methodology
as well (Ellis, 1992) .
The 1970's and the 1980's welcomed a variety of teaching methods that emphasized
different aspects of language and language learning. For example, the communicative
approach viewed language as an instrument of communication, where the role of grammar
was secondary. In other words, the syllabus would no longer be centered around grammar,
but around subject matter, communicative tasks, and social functions. Likewise, the
humanistic methods of teaching shifted the focus away from the central importance of
grammar to emphasize the role of the learner. With a vast body of research supporting
learners' variables, such as learning style, strategies, and affective factors, language teachers
were faced with lots of choices but no clear solution to the teaching of grammar. The fact is
that some methods would present grammar inductively or deductively (Mitchell &
Redmond, 1993), while others, not at all (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).
The 1990's welcomed a renewed interest in the role of grammar, in part due to the lack of
empirical evidence that shows that 'communicative' approaches, especially those that leave
out focus on the linguistic form, could produce better language learners than the traditional
ones (Richards, 1985). A rich body of research re-examined the role of grammar under new
perspectives. For example, Celce-Murcia (1985; 1991) proposes that grammar be taught not
as an end in itself, but in relationship to meaning, social functions, discourse, or a combination
of any of them. In fact, CR activities do precisely use grammar to facilitate the understanding
of language, such as with clear form-meaning relationships, and not to perpetuate the
traditional approach of memorizing rules for their own sake. Even researchers (Terrell, 1991)
52
that in the past had not found a role for grammar in the classroom, came to compromise for
an explicit presentation of grammar so long as it be accompanied by examples in a
communicative fashion.
2.2.4. Grammar Instruction: to Teach or not to Teach
Ellis (2006) defines grammar teaching succinctly as incorporating
…any instructional technique that draws learners’ attention to some specific grammatical form in such a way that it helps them either to understand it metalinguistically and/or process it in comprehension and/or production so that they can internalize it (Ellis, 2006, p.84).
As aforementioned the argument over teaching grammar explicitly or implicitly
heated up with Krashen’s and other applied linguists’ contention that teaching
grammar was not only unhelpful but might actually be detrimental (Nassaji & Fotos,
2004). It was claimed that language should be acquired through natural exposure, not
learned through formal instruction. Nassaji and Fotos (2004) mention that formal
grammar lessons would develop only declarative knowledge of grammar structures,
not the procedural ability to use forms correctly, and that there was no interface
between these two types of knowledge since they existed as different systems in the
brain. Currently, however, there has been resurgence in grammar instruction. Nassaji
and Fotos (2004) mention four reasons for the reevaluation of grammar as a necessary
component of language instruction:
1. The first line of support for explicit grammar instruction comes from Schmidt’s
Noticing Hypothesis (1990, 1994, 2001) who argues that conscious attention to
form is a necessary condition for language learning (see Ellis, 2008; Mitchell &
Myles, 1998; 2004;).
2. The second line of revived interest in grammar instruction comes from
Pienemann’s Teachability Hypothesis (see Ellis, 2008; Lightbown & Spada,
2006) which posits that while certain developmental sequences are fixed and
cannot be altered by grammar teaching, other structures can benefit from
instruction any time they are taught. Based on this hypothesis, it is possible to
influence sequences of development favorably through instruction if grammar
53
teaching coincides with the learner’s readiness to move to the next developmental
stage of linguistic proficiency (Lightbown, 2000 cited in Nassaji & Fotos).
3. The third line of renewed interest in grammar instruction comes from the
abundant research done in SLA which indicates that meaning-focused instruction
at the expense of form-focused instruction does not prepare students for the
accurate communicative use of language (e.g. Doughty & Williams, 1998).
4. A fourth reason for the reconsideration of grammar teaching in the L2 classroom
is evidence for the positive effects of grammar instruction. This evidence comes
from a large number of laboratory and classroom-based studies as well as
extensive reviews of studies on the effects of instruction over the past 20 years
(e.g. Fotos, 1994; Fotos & Ellis, 1991).
Interested readers can also consult DeCarrico and Larsen-Freeman (2002), Larsen-
Freeman (2001) for more information.
2.2.5. Main Approaches to Grammar Instruction
There are many different options and approaches to grammar instruction (Celce-
Murcia, & Hilles, 1988; Celce-Murcia, & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Ellis, 1998; Fotos,
2001; Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).
2.2.5.1. Deductive vs. Inductive Approach
Thornbury (1999) defines a deductive vs. inductive approach to grammar
instruction as:
A deductive approach starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by
examples in which the rule is applied. An inductive approach starts with some
examples from which a rule is inferred (Thornbury, 1999: 29).
A deductive approach is mainly a rule-driven approach as in Grammar Translation
Method whereas an inductive approach is discovery-based learning in
communicatively-oriented approaches (for sample lessons based on these two
approaches see Thornbury, 1999). Recent studies in this approach include Erlam
(2005), Haight, Herron, and Cole (2007).
54
2.2.5.2. Structured-Input Option
Ellis (1998) introduces four options for grammar teaching. These four options are
structured-Input option, explicit instruction, production practice, negative feedback.
Ellis (1998) defines structures-input option as:
This option asks learners to process input that has been specially contrived to induce comprehension of the target structure. Learners are required to listen to or read texts consisting of discrete sentences or continuous discourse and to indicate their understanding of them, for example by carrying out a command, drawing a picture, ticking a box, or indicating agreement or disagreement. The learners’ responses to the input stimuli are nonverbal or minimally verbal; they do not involve actually producing the structure (Ellis, 1998; p. 44).
As cited in Ellis (1998), studies investigating this type of grammar teaching include
Cadierno (1995), DeKeyser and Sokalski’s (1996), Salaberry (1997), Tanaka (1996),
VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996), VanPatten and Sanz
(1995).
2.2.5.3. Production Practice
As the second option to grammar instruction according to (Ellis, 1998), in this
approach to grammar instruction ‘learners are guided into producing their own
sentences using the target structure (Ellis, 1998; p. 50). Text-creation and text-
manipulation activities are examples of such tasks. An example is:
Text manipulation (a production-practice task)
Fill in the blanks in these sentences.
1. Mr. Short was born ___ 1944 ___ a Tuesday ___ May ___ two o’clock ___ the
morning.
2. Mr. Long was born ___ 1955 ___ a Saturday ___ November ___five o’clock ___ the
afternoon.
Adopted from Ellis (1998, p.50)
55
Ellis (1998) discusses a number of studies researching this type of activities for
teaching grammar. These studies include Harley (1989), Spada and Lightbown,
(1993), White, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta (1991).
2.2.5.4. Negative Feedback
Negative feedback shows to the learners that what they have produced is erroneous
and hence awareness is made of the gap in the learners’ interlanguage (Ellis, 1998).
This is the fourth and last option proposed by Ellis (1998) - explicit instruction will be
explained in consciousness-raising section. Negative feedback makes the core of the
present study through corrective feedback techniques including recast and
metalinguistic feedback. As current research confirms, negative feedback is very
influential in promoting learners’ interlanguage. Research in this area comprises what
the researcher covered in the first section of this chapter like Long, Inagaki, & Ortega
(1998), Oliver (1995), Doughty and Varela (1995), White (1991), Lightbown and
Spada (1990) .
2.2.5.5. Processing Instruction
This approach to grammar instruction is strongly advocated by VanPatten (1993,
1996, 2002). In this approach to grammar instruction ‘explicit instruction is combined
with a series of input processing activities, consisting mainly of tasks that encourage
the comprehension of the target structure rather than its production (Nassaji & Fotos,
2004). Since this approach acknowledges explicit focus on form, some researchers
including Sheen (2004) associate this approach with Long’s focus on forms. However,
VanPatten (2002) disagrees with such labeling. For studies investigating grammar
instruction based on processing instruction see: Allen (2000), Benati (2001) Cadierno
(1995), DeKeyser and Sokalski (2001), VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), VanPatten
and Oikennon (1996)
2.2.5.6. Interactional Feedback
According to Nassaji and Fotos (2004) in this approach to grammar instruction, the
learners are provided with implicit or explicit feedback and hence are guided to correct
their errors and hence modify their interlanguage. Such corrective feedback types
56
include: recast, prompt, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, repetition,
explicit/implicit feedback, elicitation, and translations (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). This
line of research which is also the main concern of this study has recently gained
momentum among SLA researchers. For a review of major studies in this area see the
review of section above.
2.2.5.7. Textual Enhancement
According to Nassaji and Fotos (2004) this approach to grammar instruction is the least
intrusive and explicit method. Nassaji and Fotos (2004) describe this method as:
It involves highlighting certain features of input that might go unnoticed under normal circumstances by typographically manipulating them through boldfacing, italicizing, underlining, or capitalizing. The assumption is that such manipulations enhance the perceptual saliency of the target structures, and this, hence, increases their chance of being noticed.
It is also related to input flood technique as proposed by Trahey and White (1993).
For the studies done based in textual enhancement for grammar instruction see
Doughty (1991), Fotos (1994), White (1998), Leow (2001), Izumi (2002).
2.2.5.8. Form-focused Instruction (FFI)
As a reaction to the failures of the non-interventionist view of the 1970s and 1980s,
researchers in the 1990s revisited the cognitive, structural aspects of language learning of the
1950s and 1960s and saw the need to return to some form of grammar instruction (Hinkel &
Fotos, 2002) for some students, on some forms, at some point in time (DeKeyser, 1995; Ellis,
1993; Robinson, 1996; VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993).
Form-focused instruction is language instruction which draws learners’ attention to
form either reactively or preemptively (Spada, 1997, cited in Norris & Ortega, 2000).
In other words, FFI is the integration of a linguistic syllabus into a content-based, a
meaning-based, or a communicatively-based syllabus. Early on in this discussion, Long
(1991,1988) proposed a distinction be made in the types of FFI which were then called (1)
Focus on Form and (2) Focus on FormS as explained below.
57
Spada has proposed the term form-focused instruction (FFI) to allow for both
incidental and pre-planned formal instruction as learners appear to benefit from formal
instruction, at least in the short term. In her definition, FFI denotes "pedagogical
events which occur within meaning-based approaches to L2 instruction but in which a
focus on language is provided in either spontaneous or predetermined ways" (1997, p.
73). Such a definition, however, does not include traditional, isolated and discrete-
point grammar instruction.
Doughty and Williams (1998) conceive of FFI in a manner compatible with Long's
FonF model: a continuum of strategies ranging from the most incidental, brief, and
embedded (input floods, input enhancement, recasts) to the least incidental (CR-tasks,
input processing). It is characteristic of their approach, in line with Long's argument
that incidental attention should be given to form, that meaningful interaction must be in
evidence before form is introduced (Doughty, 2003). According to Norris and Ortega
(2000), Spada (1997) believes that formal intervention may be either proactive or
reactive, and on the other hand Long believes that formal instruction be as brief and as
unobtrusive as possible.
R. Ellis’ FFI links formal awareness with fluency, whatever their technique or
ideology. Not only is the term FFI used "to refer to any planned or incidental
instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to
linguistic form" but it also subsumes a substantial array of techniques within it:
"analytic teaching, corrective feedback, error correction, negotiation of form, FonF,
FonFs, as well as traditional approaches to grammar teaching" (2001, p. 3).
Furthermore, FFI can be done either implicitly or explicitly. Implicit FFI can be
done either reactively through recasts (e.g. Doughty and Varela, 1998), or proactively
through input floods or enhanced input (e.g., Trahey and White, 1993; Izumi, 2002).
Explicit FFI, on the other hand, can also be practiced either reactively through
corrective feedback, garden path, and meta-talk (e.g., Carrol and Swain, 1993; Lyster,
2004; Sharwood Smith, 1992; Tomasello & Herron, 1988) or proactively.
For more information regarding form-focused instruction see Ellis (2001, 2002),
Fotos and Nassaji (2006), Lyster (2004b), Norris and Ortega (2000), Williams (2005).
58
2.2.5.9. Focus on Form vs. Focus of formS
Long (1991, cited in Ellis 2003) distinguished focus on form from focus on formS
approach to grammar instruction. Whereas focus on formS involves discrete
grammatical forms selected and presented in an isolated manner, focus on form
involves the teacher’s attempts to draw the student's attention to grammatical forms in
the context of communication. In other words, Focus on Form (instruction which is said to
be meaning based) would support a more non-interventionist view of grammar instruction
where form is attended to briefly and reactively and Focus on FormS (instruction which is said
to be more structure based) would support a more traditional, interventionist view. However,
little has been done investigating the effect of these two instructional approaches. In
spite of this paucity, applied linguists generally take side with focus on form approach
where grammar and communication are integrated. This is in line with the argument
that if the goal of second language learning is the development of communicative
competence, i.e. enabling learners to use language for communicative purposes, then
grammar and communication must be integrated. Long and Robinson (1998) consider
Focus on forms instruction less effective than Focus on form.
According to Shak and Gardner (2008), focus-on-form has turned into such tasks as
processing instruction (e.g. VanPatten, 2002), textual enhancement (e.g. Sharwood
Smith, 1993; Harley, 1998; White, 1998), and linguistic or grammar-problem solving
activities (e.g. Bourke, 2004; Ellis, 1997; Thornbury, 2001; Willis, 1996).
The literature is fleeting with studies investigating different aspects of focus-on-
form tasks. Such studies include Shak and Gardner (2008), Zhao and Bitchener
(2007), Shak (2006), Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis (2004), Basturkmen, Loewen, &
Ellis (2002), Muranoi (2000), Doughty and Williams (1998). According to Nassaji
(1999, 2000) focus on form can be achieved either through ‘process’ or through
‘design’. In focus on form through process both the teacher and learner focus on
meaning. On the other hand, in focus on form through design there are specific tasks
which have deliberate attention to explicit form. Furthermore, based on Ellis et al
(2001a, 2001b, 2002) focus on form can also be achieved either ‘reactively’ through
providing reactional feedback or ‘preemptively’ by using metalanguage for example
prior to the occurrence of an error.
59
2.2.5.10. Task-based approach
The use of tasks has been widely advocated in current research in grammar
instruction. A weak point at the early days of task-based instruction was its negligence
of focus on form. In fact there was thorough attention given to meaning with little or
no attention to form. This negligence of focus on form later became a weak point in
task-based grammar instruction and instigated researchers to integrate form and
meaning through a number of approaches including ‘consciousness-raising approach’,
focused vs. unfocused tasks’ and etc.
Ellis (2003) and Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993) introduced three types of structure-
based tasks namely: structure-based production tasks, comprehension tasks, and
finally consciousness-raising tasks. Whereas the first two attend to implicit grammar
the last one grammar is the content of the task.
Collaborative output tasks as proposed by Swain (2001) provide another way of
promoting accuracy. Also, dictogloss provide good opportunities for such
collaborative output tasks that is not only effective foe meaningful communication but
also improving in the accuracy (Nassaji and Fotos, 2004).
2.2.5.11. Focused vs. unfocused tasks
The question addressed here is whether to employ ‘certain structures’ or ‘any
linguistic resources’ in completing a task. Focused tasks prompt the learners to apply a
particular structure while ‘unfocused tasks’ leave the learners to pick and choose in
their language repertoire (Nunan, 2004). Ellis (2003) defines unfocused and focused
tasks as:
Unfocused tasks may predispose learners to choose from a range of forms but they are not designed with the use of a specific form in mind. In contrast, focused tasks aim to induce learners to process, receptively or productively, some particular linguistics feature, for example a grammatical structure…focused tasks, then have two aims: one is to stimulate communicative language use (as with unfocused tasks), the other is to target the use of a particular, predetermined target feature. Therefore there are mainly two ways in which a task can achieve a focus. One is to design the task in such way that it can only be performed if learners use a particular linguistics feature. An example is a task which needs the learners to use prepositions only to perform. The second way to construct a focused task is by making language itself the content of the task. An example is when learners discuss different types of prepositions and the appropriate position they can take in a sentence. The second type of focused task is a 'Consciousness Raising (CR) Task.’ (Ellis, 2003; p.16).
60
2.2.5.12. Consciousness-raising Tasks
Consciousness-Raising (CR) tasks are a particular form of ‘focused tasks’.
‘Consciousness-raising tasks’ are “designed to draw learners’ attention to a particular
linguistic feature through a range of inductive and deductive procedures” (Nunan,
2004). In such tasks a language point becomes the topic of task completion. For the
completion of CR tasks learners must use metalanguage (Ellis, 1997). As Nitta and
Gardner (2005) state New Headway Books are good examples of employing CR tasks.
As Ellis (1998) states CR tasks are one type of indirect explicit grammar instruction.
For example:
What is the difference between conditional sentence type I and II below?
I will say hello to her if I see her again.
I would say hello to her if I saw her again.
Studies tackling the appropriateness of direct and indirect CR include Fotos (1993,
1994), Fotos and Ellis (1991), Willis and Willis (1996b).
2.2.5.13. Discourse-based Approaches
According to Nassaji and Fotos (2004), this is a recent approach to grammar
instruction that:
…instruction of target forms is supported by extensive use of authentic or simplified discourse, including corpus analysis, to supply learners with abundant examples of contextualized usages of the target structure to promote the establishment of form-meaning relationships.
Research in this area include Batstone, (1994); Carter, Hughes, & McCarthy,
(2000); Celce-Murcia, (2002), Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell, (1997); Hinkel,
(2002a), (2002b), (2002c); Hughes & McCarthy, (1998). For comprehensive
information about practical issues in grammar instruction see Gerngross, Puchta, and
Thornbury (2007).
61
2.2.6. A Brief History of Task-based Language Teaching
The history of English language teaching unravels the manifold methods and
approaches which have been given tribute to and then thrown away in the dustbins of
English language teaching methodologies. The last two decades, however, have seen
an enormous growth of interest in task-based language teaching and learning (see for
example Edwards and Willis, 2005; Ellis, 2005; Ellis, 2003; Johnson, 2003; Leaver
and Willis, 2004; Lochana and Deb, 2006; Nunan, 2004; Oxford, 2006, Willis &
Willis, 2007; Willis, 1996). Some of its proponents (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004;
Willis, 1996, Willis & Willis, 2007) demonstrate it as a ‘logical development of CLT’
since it draws several principles from CLT (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). There have
also been so many conferences and workshops held in the world for the propagation
and introduction of TBLT. As an example, the Asian EFL Journal Quarterly (2006)
allocated the whole conference in Pusan Korea to TBLT. TBLT evolved in response to
some limitations of the traditional PPP approach, represented by the procedure of
presentation, practice, performance (Ellis, 2003; Long & Crookes, 1991).
2.2.7. Definitions of Task
A brief review of the literature on ‘TBLT’ reveals the numerous definitions
proposed for task (Crookes, 1986; Long, 1985; Nunan, 1989; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan,
1996a; 1996b). Table 2.3 shows the main definitions of task in the literature.
Table 2.3. Some Definitions of Tasks (Adapted from Ellis, 2003; pp.4-5)
Ellis (2003):
"A task is a work plan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes" (p. 16).
62
Skehan (1996):
A task is ‘an activity in which: meaning is primary; there is some sort of relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of task is in terms of task outcome’.
Nunan (1989):
A communicative task is ‘a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interpreting in the target language while their attention is principally on meaning rather than form.
Prabhu (1987)
A task is ‘an activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process of thought and which allowed teachers to control and regulate that behavior’.
Crookes (1986):
A task is ‘a piece of work or an activity, usually with a specified objective, undertaken as part of an educational course, at work or used to elicit data for research’.
Long (1985):
A task is ‘a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward. Thus examples of tasks include filling out a form, making an airline reservation, and writing a check. In other words, by task is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life or at work…
2.2.8. Task-Based Methodology
According to Ellis (2003) a task-based lesson consists of three phases or stages as
follows:
a) Pre-task Phase
According to Ellis (2003) this phase can involve the following activities:
Perform a similar task
Providing a model
Non-task preparation activities like brainstorming and schemata activating
Strategic planning
63
b) During-task Phase
According to Ellis (2003) this phase includes one of the following options:
Task Performance Options
Process Options
c) Post-task Phase
Based on Ellis (2003) this phase includes the following activities:
Repeat Performance
Reflecting on the task: e.g. give a report on how the learners did the task
Focusing on Forms
Mostly similar to what Ellis (2003) proposes, Willis (1996) puts forward the
following task-based framework especially where focus on form is crucial- as in this
study.
Table 2.4. A framework of task-based language teaching Adapted from Willis, 1996; p.581. Pre-task
The teacher introduces the topic and gives the students clear instructions on what they will have to do at the task stage and might also highlight useful words and phrases but would not pre-teach new structures. This phase is mainly a preparatory stage for task-cycle stage.
2. Task-cycleThis stage consists of three elements: task, planning, and reports.
2.1. Task The task is done by students either in pair or groups using whatever language they can recall. The teacher monitors the learners but do not intervene to correct errors of form.
2.2. PlanningStudents prepare a short oral or written report to tell the class how they did the task and what the outcome was. Meanwhile the teacher can polish and correct their language.
2.3. ReportHere the students give their oral or written report to the class and meanwhile the teacher comments on the content of their reports, rephrases perhaps but gives no overt public correction.
3. Language FocusIn the first two stages, students put their emphasis on the meaning of their language; while in the third stage, they focus their attention on the form. This stage includes two steps:
3.1. Language AnalysisHere the teacher sets some language-focused tasks based on the texts students have read. Students analyze the language with a primary focus on form.
3.2. Language PracticeStudents consolidate their mastery of the language form through some activities. Practice activities include memory challenge games and sentence completion.
64
2.2.9. Task-based Language Teaching and SLA Theories
TBLT is founded on a series of major SLA theories and informed by a number of
research agenda. The researcher has elected a selective coverage of these theories
here. For more information regarding these theories, interested readers can see Ellis,
1994, 2008, Mitchell and Myles, 1998; 2004).
2.2.9.1. Monitor Model (Krashen, 1981, 1982)
This model consisted of four hypotheses-i.e. acquisition-learning, input, monitor,
and affective filter Hypothesis. TBLT informed by this hypothesis emphasized
subconscious acquisition rather than conscious learning. In other words based on this
hypothesis no time or opportunities were given to form-focused grammar instruction.
Instead the whole class time was devoted to meaning-focused communicative tasks
(Nunan, 2004, p. 77). This stance is associated with the strong version of TBLT.
Nunan (2004) contrarily believes that there should be form-focused instruction along
with meaning-focused ones. Also based on Monitor Model, teachers/students should
not spend time monitoring the output. Krashen believes that learners should be
exposed to abundant amount of written or spoken language for acquisition to take
place. (For a comprehensive review of this model see: McLaughlin, 1978)
2.2.9.2. Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2000, 2005)
Swain (1985, 1995, 2000, 2005) in her immersion and content-based program in
Canada proposed her eloquent ‘Output Hypothesis’ as a complement to ‘Input
Hypothesis’. Swain believed that, while input was necessary, it was not sufficient for
language acquisition. She further stressed that in order for language acquisition to take
place, learners should be allowed to produce language. She believes that output serves
to help learners notice gaps and deficiencies in their linguistic knowledge and try to
reformulate this knowledge. In addition based on output hypothesis learners will be
capable of testing their linguistic knowledge through production- i.e. hypothesis
testing.
65
2.2.9.3. Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1985 and 1996)
Long (1985) argued that language acquisition benefits largely from interaction,
communication and negotiation of meaning. He further argued that ‘conversational
adjustments’ promoted acquisition (Cited in Nunan, 2004; p. 80). Based on this
hypothesis, TBLT gives prominence to input especially the kind of input which is
accompanied by negotiation of meaning. In its later form, Long (1996) added that the
feedback learners receive in their production which results in the modified output and
being pushed to produce language enhances language learning (see Baleghizadeh,
2007 for a comprehensive review).
2.2.9.4. Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory
This approach views language learning as socially constructed through interaction
of one kind or another. Scaffolding, collaborative Dialog, and Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) were the revolutionary concept in learning theories first proposed
by Vygotsky. Quite in line with Vygotsky's theory, Task-based language teaching
borrowed some brainstorms from Vygotsky's negligently-dusted words. Scaffolding is
the dialogic process by which one speaker assists another in performing a function that
he or she cannot perform alone. In more recent publications, however, scaffolding has
fallen out of favor and the preferred term now is 'collaborative dialog, i.e. the talk that
enables learners to produce spoken or written texts collaboratively while performing a
task (Ellis, 2003). ZPD on the other hand refers to the learners' potential as opposed to
actual level of development. According to the socio-cultural theory learning arises not
through interaction but in interaction (Ellis, 2000). Ellis (2000) also asserts that unlike
psycholinguistic theories which ‘emphasize the inherent role of the inherent task
properties on performance…socio-cultural researchers have focused on how tasks are
accomplished by learners and teachers’. For a more comprehensive source of
information, interested readers can also see Lantolf and Poehner (2008), Lantolf
(2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2007), Lantolf and Thorne (2005), Lantolf & Appel (1994),
Lantolf (1993, 1994), Lantolf and Aljaafreh (1995), for a comprehensive review.
66
2.2.9.5. Skehan’s Cognitive Approach to TBLT (1998)
Skehan distinguishes between two types of processing that learners are liable to
engage in namely ‘lexical processing’ and ‘rule-based processing’. Ellis (2000) says
that:
Skehan distinguishes three aspects of production: (1) fluency (i.e. the capacity of the learner to mobilize his/her system to communicate in real time); (2) accuracy (i.e. the ability of the learner to perform in accordance with target language norms); and (3) complexity (i.e. the utilization of interlanguage structures that are ‘cutting edge’, elaborate and structured). Skehan suggests that language users vary in the extent to which they emphasize fluency, accuracy or complexity, with some tasks predisposing them to focus on fluency, others on accuracy and yet others on complexity. These different aspects of production draw on different systems of language. Fluency requires learners to draw on their memory-based system, accessing and deploying ready-made chunks of language, and, when problems arise, using communication strategies to get by. In contrast, accuracy and, in particular complexity are achieved by learners drawing on their rule-based system and thus require syntactic processing. Skehan argues that it may be possible to influence different aspects of language acquisition (i.e. fluency, accuracy and complexity) by providing opportunities for learners to engage in different types of production.
See also Skehan (1996a, 1996b, 1998a, 1998b) for further information regarding
Skehan’s approach to task-based language teaching.
2.2.9.6. Experiential Learning
Nunan (2004) refers to the experiential learning as a conceptual basis for TBLT. He
defines the experiential learning and its relation to tasks in this way: This approach
takes the learner's immediate personal experience as the point of departure for the
learning experience. Intellectual growth occurs when learners engage in and reflect on
sequences of tasks. The active involvement of the learner is therefore central to the
approach, and a rubric that conveniently captures the active, experiential nature of the
process is "learning by doing". In this, it contrasts with a "transmission" approach to
education in which the learner acquires knowledge passively from the teacher (p. 12).
67
2.1.10. Grammar Instruction in Practice: A Review of Major Studies
There is a large body of experimental research on task-based grammar instruction.
Fotos and Ellis (1991) investigated the effect of task-based grammar instruction
among Japanese EFL college students at a women’s junior college. Their study
indicated that grammar tasks encouraged communicating about grammar and enabled
EFL learners to increase their knowledge of dative alternations. However, they argued
that grammar tasks did not result in the same level of longer term learning as did the
traditional approach. The main reasons they mentioned for this lack of long term
durability were ‘the absence of teacher feedback and the learners’ unfamiliarity and
lack of experience in performing group/pair work’.
Fotos (1994), in a similar vein, as a continuation of her study with Ellis,
demonstrated that CR tasks dealing with word order promoted both proficiency gains
and L2 negotiated interaction in learners. In addition, Fotos (1994) clarified that the
gains achieved through such tasks were durable even after two weeks had passed.
Chen and Li (2002) conducted a study on the effect of CR approach to remedial
instruction using explicit form-focused negative feedback. Their study indicated that
such an approach has great potential for helping learners notice morpho-syntactically
well-defined errors in their L2 and progressively approximate target language.
Similarly, Garcia Mayo (2002) confirmed how two form-focused tasks, dictogloss and
text reconstruction, were effective for high-intermediate/advanced EFL learners in
producing language and reflecting on its form in a major Spanish university. The
results of her study indicated that text-reconstruction tasks were more suitable form-
focused tasks in comparison to the dictogloss.
Another study on CR tasks by Mohamed (2004) at a New Zealand tertiary
institution indicated that learners viewed the two types of the tasks implemented, i.e.
deductive and inductive tasks, as to be helpful in learning English. In the deductive
tasks, a grammar structure was explicitly explained whereas in inductive tasks learners
discovered the rules by themselves. The questionnaire administered at the end of her
study also revealed that the students showed positive attitudes towards both types of
tasks regardless of their language proficiency.
68
Schneider (2005) investigated the effectiveness of teaching grammar explicitly by
linking it to local issues and concerns. Schneider (2005) taught passive voice in this
way and reported that such an approach to grammar instruction is very motivating and
effective.
In the bargain, Loumpourdi (2005) adopted Willis’s framework to investigate the
effect of task-based approach in grammar instruction in an intermediate level class at a
private language institute in Greece. In order to achieve his objective, i.e. an
alternative approach to PPP approach for grammar instruction in Greece, he ‘made a
smooth shift to teaching grammar through task-based learning’ by incorporating a
number of tasks in his syllabus. The results revealed promising advantages over the
PPP approach including:
Students engaged whole-heartedly with the task.
They were focusing on meanings and on putting their ideas into words while
performing the task.
They were much excited even those who felt intimidated by rules and
recalling them.
(Loumpourdi, 2005; p. 39)
In an interesting study, Williams (2006) reported how maths descriptions can be
used as a class tool and how it can be incorporated into our grammar classes.
Haight, Herron, and Cole (2007) investigated the effectiveness of deductive and guided
inductive approaches for teaching grammar in college French classrooms. Forty seven
second semester French students participated in this study. They were taught eight
grammatical structures namely, adverbial pronoun en [some, any], adverbial pronoun y
[there], indirect object pronouns, imperative + pronouns, verb with d + indirect object
plaire [to please/ be pleasing to], relative pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, partitive
articles. Four of these grammatical pints were taught based on deductive approach and
four others were taught based on inductive approach. Long-term and short term effects of
the instructional approaches were assessed. The results revealed that the inductive
approach was significantly more effective than the deductive approach for the target
structures in this study.
69
Cullen (2008) in an innovative study taught grammar as a liberating force. For this
purpose he introduced four types of tasks fulfilling the liberating force. They included:
grammatization tasks, synthesis tasks, dictogloss and picture description tasks. He finally
concluded that such types of tasks are very facilitative for gaining the liberating force.
Within the Iranian context, there are a number of studies investigating different
aspects of grammar instruction. Zargar Vafa (1994) investigated the effect of
grammatical consciousness-raising activities on learning English question formation.
He concluded that this type of approach to grammar instruction is indeed facilitative
for question formation in English.
Moradi (2006) in an extension to Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993) investigated the
effect of focused vs. unfocused tasks on the accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. The
participants also received different types of feedback including clarification request
and metalanguage. The results indicated that the focused group outperformed the
unfocused and control group. The learners’ reflection on the questionnaire also
revealed that they considered task-based language teaching as motivating but
challenging as well.
Also, Mohammad Hossein Pour (2006) explored learners’ attitude to learning
grammar through the use of two types of consciousness-raising tasks. He also
investigated the effect of the learners’ cognitive style (FD/FI), proficiency level (i.e.,
upper-intermediate, intermediate, and low-intermediate level), and gender on their task
preference. The results of his study indicated that learners preferred deductive CR
tasks over inductive ones and viewed it to be more useful. On the hand, the results
indicated that learners’ cognitive style (i.e., FD/FI), proficiency level, and gender did
not appear to affect their preference or attitudes to the tasks.
Haghnevis (2007) investigated the effect of two perspectives to the teaching of verb
tenses on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’. The instructional approaches included
structural practice approach as opposed to grammar task performance through the
application of awareness-raising approach. The results of this study indicated that both
approaches were effective. However, the approach of awareness-raising was more
beneficial. Finally, the researcher argued that both of these approaches should be
included in foreign language programs.
70
Morovvati (2008) also investigated the effect of focus on form upon noticing. In
fact, he enquired to see if any focus on form could enhance noticing opportunities.
Similarly, the result of this study was in line with previous ones, i.e. focus on form
enhanced noticing of passive structure and conditionals.
Rezaei (2009) also in an action research investigated the application of task-based
language teaching in grammar instruction in a private language institute. They
reported that the grammatical knowledge gained through task-based language teaching
was significantly higher than that of the control group which was given traditional
teacher-fronted deductive approach. In addition, the results of their study revealed that
the durability of knowledge gained through task-based language teaching was more
than that of the control group based on the delayed post-test administered with a two-
week interval after the administration of the first post-test.
71
Chapter III
Methodology
72
3.1. Overview
This chapter is exclusively allocated to the methodology of current study. Hence,
detailed information regarding the participants, instruments, target structures, tasks,
procedures, data analysis, and design is provided.
3.2. Research Questions and Hypotheses
The current study explored the following research questions:
1. Does Task-based grammar instruction have any significant effect on Iranian
intermediate EFL learners’ performance on a specific set of linguistic
features (conditionals and wish statements in this study)?
2. Is Task-based grammar instruction more effective with feedback (i.e. recast
vs. metalinguistic feedback) than without any feedback?
3. Which type of feedback is more effective in task-based grammar instruction,
recast or metalinguistic feedback?
Based on the above-mentioned research questions, the following null hypotheses
were made:
1. Task-based grammar instruction has no significant effect on Iranian
intermediate EFL learners’ development of grammatical knowledge.
2. Recast and Metalinguistic feedback have no significant effect on
grammatical knowledge of Iranian intermediate EFL learners achieved
through task-based grammar instruction.
73
3.3. Research Site
This study was conducted at the Iran Language Institute (ILI), Sadeqieh Branch in
the west side of Tehran. The ILI English department provides English classes for three
age-groups including kids, young adults, and adults. The adult section which is the
concern of this study consists of the following levels:
Table 3.1. The ILI Levels of Language ProficiencyLevels Sub-levelsBasic Basic 1
Basic 2Basic 3
Elementary EL 1EL 2EL 3
Pre-intermediate
Pre 1Pre 2Pre 3
Intermediate Inter 1Inter 2Inter 3
High-intermediate
High 1High 2High 3
Advanced Advanced 1Advanced 2Advanced 3
Each term starts at the beginning of each season (quarter) and lasts for eleven
weeks. Classes meet twice a week on Saturday-Wednesday, Sunday-Tuesday, or
Monday-Thursday. Each session is 105 minutes long. The learners are put in different
levels based on their placement exams which consist of a proficiency test and an
interview. The ILI employs an eclectic methodology and the textbooks for adult levels
are mostly developed and its content localized by the Research and Planning
Department of the ILI.
74
3.4. Participants
The participants of the current research were from four intact classes at the Iran
Language Institute (ILI), Sadeqieh Branch in the summer of 2009. Each of these four
classes consisted of twenty to thirty male students and their age ranged from 15 to 25.
The researcher received approval and formal admission from the ILI Research and
Planning Department for conducting this study (see appendix A). Since the treatment
was provided after the usual class time, the researcher also received the participants’
consent.
There were two main reasons that motivated the researcher to conduct this study in
these four classes. First of all, the students had classes with the researcher for three
terms and second of all, the researcher who was also the teacher of these classes knew
that the students were not familiar with the target grammar structures, i.e. conditionals
and wish statements. However, most of the participants of these classes were sharp
students who eagerly cooperated with the researcher.
Of the whole 92 participants, 7 were excluded due to their inadequate English
proficiency for the purpose of this study which employed task-based language
instruction for conditionals and wish statements and 5 others were excluded since they
missed some of the treatment sessions. Finally 80 participants remained, each group
comprising of 20 male participants and hence fulfilling the purpose of balanced design
in research. According to Hatch and Farhady (1982) and Hatch and Lazaraton (1991),
balanced designs or orthogonal designs have equal N sizes for all the groups and
subgroups to be compared.
Table 3.2. Number of Participants in Each GroupGroup Name Number of Participants
Group 1 (Recast Group) 20
Group 2 (Metalinguistic Group) 20
Group 3 (No Feedback Group) 20
Group 4 (Control Group) 20
75
3.5. Sampling
The participants of this study were from four intact classes at the ILI. The
researcher employed accidental or convenience sampling in intact classes. Accidental,
haphazard, or convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that
simply uses conveniently available subjects (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996; Dörnyei,
2007; Mackey & Gass, 2005; Riazi, 1999). However, the participants were randomly
assigned to four groups, i.e. group assignment occurred randomly.
3.6. Instrumentation
3.6.1. Proficiency Test
At the outset of the study, Nelson English language test 200 A, adapted from
Fowler and Coe (1976) devised for intermediate level was used as a proficiency test in
order to assure the homogeneity of the groups (see Appendix B).
Table 3.3. Features of the administered Nelson test
SECTION NUMBER OF ITEMS
Structure 36Cloze Test 14
Total 50
As you can see in the table above, the Nelson test of proficiency for the intermediate
comprised of fifty items. Of these fifty items, fourteen items were cloze test and thirty six
others were structure tests.
3.6.2. Pre-test
After establishing the homogeneity of the learners in terms of grammatical
knowledge through the proficiency test, i.e. the Nelson Test, another test comprising
of items testing the conditionals and wish statements was administered (See Appendix
C). The purpose of this test was to make certain that the learners did not have prior
knowledge of conditionals and wish statements. It is important to note that since there
76
was no valid and reliable ready-made test in the market fulfilling the purpose of this
research, this pre-test was developed by the researcher.
At first, a test of 100 items was developed and after pilot testing it, i.e. trying out
the newly written test before final administration, items analysis was done on this test.
Through item analysis, poor items were either discarded or modified. Also the
researcher had colleagues to reflect on each item and hence check the appropriateness
of each item with the alternatives. Since the same pre-test was used for the post-test, a
counterbalanced test design was employed by the researcher. According to Mousavi
(2009) a counterbalanced design is:
A design in which half of the individuals take one form of the test first and the other half take the other form first…[hence test-retest effect, practice effect and ordering effect will be minimized] (Mousavi, 2009; p. 163).
It is needed to add here that the items were made based on different types of
conditional structures and wish sentences, i.e. it was developed based on a pool of
these target structures.
3.6.3. Post-test
At the end of the study, i.e. after a two-week treatment, a post-test was
administered in order to measure the participants’ grammatical knowledge gained and
also investigate the effectiveness of corrective feedback techniques in the four groups.
The counter-balanced design pre-test was again used as the post-test. It is important to
note here that test-retest effect was considered to be diminished after two weeks.
3.7. Target Grammar Structure
The researcher selected conditionals and wish statements for this study due to their
frequency and communicative value. In addition, they seem to be more easily
applicable in task-based language teaching. Moreover, as far as the researcher is
concerned, no study has investigated these grammar structures in corrective feedback
and task-based language teaching.
77
3.7.1. Conditionals
A conditional sentence contains two clauses: a dependent clause beginning with if
(or another conjunction performing the same general function and approximately
synonymous with it, such as provided that, as long as, so long as, on condition that,
etc.) and a main clause answering the condition of the if-clause. They reflect the
dependence of one circumstance on another as shown below:
▪ If you treat her kindly, she’ll do anything for you.
Conditional type I, also called real conditionals, is used for future possible
situations which may or may not take place. It leaves unresolved the question of the
fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the condition, and hence also the truth of the
proposition expressed by the main clause. In such conditionals the present tense of the
verb is used in the if-clause, and the future tense in the main clause, which may follow
or precede the if-clause.
▪ I will give her your message if I see her.
Conditional type II and III, also called unreal conditionals, suggest that a situation
is imaginary or untrue. In such conditionals, to talk about present situations, we use a
past tense (either simple or continuous) in the if-clause and would + bare infinitive in
the result clause (type II). An example is:
▪ If your grandfather were still alive, he would be a hundred today.
Conditionals type III indicating past time reveal an unreal and unfulfilled situation.
The past perfect tense is used in the if-clause, and would have + past participle in the
main or answer clause. In unreal conditionals, we can also use could, might, and
should instead of would.
▪ If she had been awake, she could have heard the noise.
78
3.7.2. Wish
According to Swan (1995), wish has different usages in English.
wish + infinitive
In this sense, wish means want which has a formal meaning. And note that
progressive forms are not used in this sense.
I wish to leave this city.
Also, Wish + Object + infinitive
I wish our children to respect us.
I wish you…
It is used in some fixed expressions. An example is:
I wish you a prosperous year.
wish + that clause
In this structure, wish is used for unreal situations when you desire different things.
An example is:
I wish that I was walking on the moon now.
In this structure, past tense is used in that-clause to convey present or future
meanings. We use were instead of was in this structure especially in very formal
contexts. An example is:
I wish I were in my hometown now.
Past perfect tenses are used for wishes about the past.
She wishes she hadn’t gone abroad.
3.8. Tasks
In this study, focused tasks were employed. These tasks were given to the learners to
complete after the treatment. In other words, first the participants in G1, G2, and G3 were
taught the grammatical features and then in order to establish what they have been taught,
they were given the tasks to complete in pairs. In order to familiarize them with the tasks,
the researcher provided the students with a model prior to completing the tasks.
79
3.9. Procedure
This study was conducted at the Iran Language Institute in Tehran in summer 2009.
Four intact English classes from this institute which were taught by the researcher
were selected for the purpose of this study. These four classes met twice a week, each
session 105 of language instruction. Since the methodology of this study was partly
incongruent with the ILI methodology, the researcher implemented this study in the
15-min breaks between the classes. That is after the 1.45 hr of usual class time; the
researcher had the students stay and conducted this study. The selection of the
conditionals and wish clauses was made on the basis of a number of reasons including:
Students had many problems with these two target structures.
These two target structures are very salient and useful.
Focused tasks addressing the use of these two target structures are more easily
made.
Based on the design of this study, four equal classes whose homogeneity was
established through Nelson English Language Test were randomly assigned to three
experimental and one comparison group. These four groups were:
G1) Task-based grammar instruction with recasts
G2) Task-based grammar instruction with metalinguistic feedback
G3) Task-based grammar instruction without feedback on form
G4) Traditional deductive teacher-fronted approach to grammar instruction
For implementing task-based grammar instruction in the experimental groups, the
researcher adopted Willis’s framework (1996) as shown in table 2.4 in Chapter 2.
In all the experimental groups in this study, the researcher taught the target
grammatical features, i.e. conditionals and wish statements through focused tasks
following Willis’s framework. The only difference between the experimental groups
in this study was that the researcher, who was also the instructor of all the groups,
adopted different corrective feedbacks to the learners’ errors. In G1 the researcher used
recast as an implicit corrective feedback, in G2 the researcher used metalinguistic
explanation as an explicit feedback. And finally in G3 the researcher focused only on
80
meaning. Let it be noted here that corrective feedbacks were given wherever erroneous
utterances were made by the learners.
With regard to G4, the researcher taught grammar through traditional deductive
teacher-fronted approach. In this group which is considered as the comparison group
in this study, the researcher explained grammatical rules explicitly using both L1 and
L2. After the researcher explained the target grammatical features, the learners were
given some written exercises in line with the target structures (conditionals and wish
statements). Task-based language teaching and corrective feedback i.e. recast or
metalinguistic feedback, were not employed in this group and learners spent most of
the time looking for rules.
3.10. Data analysis
After the administration of the post-test at the end of the study and the computation
of the participants’ scores on the post-test, appropriate statistical tests were employed
in order to answer the research questions. In order to answer the first research
question, G4 mean score on the post-test was compared with the mean score of the
experimental group, i.e. G3 mean score. In order to do so, a t-test was run. In order to
answer the second research question, the mean score of G1 and G2 were compared with
the mean score of G3. In order to do so a one-way ANOVA was run. It indicated
whether there was any significant difference between the groups receiving feedback
(G1 and G2) and the group (G3) not receiving recast or metalinguistic feedback as
provided to G1 and G2. In order to answer the third research question, the mean score
of G1 was compared with that of G2. In order to do so another t-test was run. The result
of the t-test intended to indicate the differential effects of recast vs. metalinguistic
feedback.
3.11. Design
In the current research, there was one comparison group and three experimental
groups. The participants were from four equal intact classes. A pre-test-treatment-
posttest design was employed to identify the effect of recast vs. metalinguistic
81
feedback in task-based grammar instruction. The schematic representation of the
design of this study is as follows:
G1: T1 X T2
G2: T1 X T2
G3: T1 X T2
G4: T1 O T2
3.12. Summary of the Chapter
This study investigated the effect of two types of corrective feedback in task-based
grammar instruction. Furthermore, it investigated the differential effect of
methodology in grammar instruction, i.e. task-based vs. traditional approach to
grammar instruction. For so doing as above-mentioned, 80 intermediate students from
four intact classes at the ILI participated in this study based on convenience sampling.
In order to establish their homogeneity, a proficiency test was given to them. After
that another test developed by the researcher inquiring the conditionals and wish
statements was given to them to ensure that the participants did not have prior
knowledge of the target grammar structures. Finally, out of 92 participants 80 were
selected in four groups of each group comprising 20 participants. After giving the
treatment to the groups, the researcher administered a post-test to compute the gains.
Employing a counter-balanced design in order to diminish any possible test effect, the
researcher used the same pre-test as the post-test. After gathering the relevant data
through a post-test from the four groups, appropriate statistical tests were employed to
find the answers to the research questions.
82
Chapter IV
Results
&
Discussions
83
4.1. Overview This chapter reports the results of this study and the data analyses required for
answering the research questions. In brief, it gives the results of the proficiency test,
pre-test, and post-test accompanied with discussions.
4.2. Results of the Proficiency Test
In this section the results of the Nelson proficiency test administered at the outset
of the study is reported. The main purpose of this proficiency test was to homogenize
the participants in terms of language proficiency. The test was given to all the
participants in all the four classes which were selected for the purpose of this study at
the ILI. The results of this proficiency test are given in the table below and graphically
represented in the figure 4.1.
Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics: Proficiency test
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
G1 20 28 46 37 5.92
G2 20 26 46 37.1 6.42
G3 20 30 46 37.2 5.03
G4 20 28 48 37.5 5.78
Valid N (list wise) 20
Figure 4.1. Proficiency Test Bar Graph
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
G 1 G 2 G 3 G4
G4
G3
G2
G1
84
4.3. Results of the Pre-test
After homogenizing the students in terms of language proficiency, another test
developed by the researcher was given to the participants in order to assure that the
participants did not have prior knowledge of the conditionals and wish statements
prior to the commencement of this study. As abovementioned in the methodology
section, this test was developed and piloted by the researcher due to the unavailability
of any standardized ready test in the market fulfilling the purpose of this study. The
results of this pre-test are reported in the table below and graphically shown in the
figure 4.2.
Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistics: Pretest
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
G1 20 8.00 40.00 16.9000 6.85872
G2 20 8.00 32.00 15.4000 5.68840
G3 20 8.00 33.00 15.3000 5.92142
G4 20 10.00 31.00 16.8500 4.89118
Valid N (list wise) 20
Figure 4.2. Pre-test Bar Graph
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4
G 4
G 3
G 2
G 1
85
4.4. Results of the Post-test
After giving the specified treatments to each group, a post-test developed by the
researcher was given to the participants in order to measure their gains. The results of
this post-test are presented in the table and figure below.
Figure 4.3. Post-test Graph
Table 4.3. Descriptive statistics for the four groups: post-test
Groups
N MeanStd.
DeviationStd.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Min MaxLower Bound
Upper Bound
Recast Group 20 39.55 5.90 1.32 36.78 42.31 25.00 48.00
Metalinguistic Group20 42.90 3.47 .77 41.27 44.52 35.00 49.00
No Feedback20 34.20 4.56 1.01 32.06 36.33 28.00 41.00
Control Group20 28.40 7.35 1.64 24.95 31.84 18.00 45.00
Total80 36.26 7.74 .86 34.53 37.98 18.00 49.00
86
4.5. Pre-test Post-test Comparisons
Before answering the research questions, the researchers used four matched t-tests
in order to see if the groups had gained any improvements over the different
instructional approaches in the four groups. In order to do so, each group’s pre-test
mean was compared with its post-test mean. In the following section each group’s
improvement from pre-instruction to post-instruction is shown.
4.5.1. Recast Group (G1) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons
In this section, the recast group’s pre-test is compared with its post-test in order to
see if any possible improvement has occurred due to the particular instruction given to
this group. For so doing, the pre-test mean and the post-test mean are compared in this
group. Matched t-test is the appropriate statistical test for this purpose. The descriptive
statistics of pre-test and post-test along with the results of the matched t-test are shown
below.
Table 4.4. Descriptive Statistics for Recast Group (G1)
Mean NStd.
Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 pretest 16.90 20 6.85 1.53
posttest 39.55 20 5.90 1.32
Table 4.5. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G1: Matched t-test
Paired Differences
t dfSig.(2-tailed)Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
G1 pretest -posttest
-2.26 8.53 1.90 -26.64 -18.65 -11.86 19 .000
87
Based on the table 4.5, since the observed value for t far exceeds the critical value
t, i.e. t(19)< tObs = 11.86, we can conclude that the difference is significant and the
task-based approach with recast has been significantly helpful in improving the
learners’ knowledge of conditionals and wish statements.
4.5.2. Metalinguistic Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons
In this section, the metalinguistic group’s pre-test is compared with its post-test in
order to see if any possible improvement has occurred due to the particular instruction
given to this group. Similar to recast group pre-test post-test comparisons, the pre-test
mean and the post-test mean are compared in this group. The descriptive statistics of
pre-test and post-test along with the results of the matched t-test are shown below.
Table 4.6. Descriptive Statistics for Metalinguistic Group (G2)
Mean NStd.
DeviationStd. Error
Mean
Pair 1 pretest 15.4000 20 5.68840 1.27196
posttest 42.9000 20 3.47775 .77765
Table 4.7. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G2: Matched t-test
Paired Differences
t dfSig.(2-tailed)Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
G1 pretest -posttest -2.750 6.06 1.35 -30.33 -24.66 -20.27 19 .000
Based on the table 4.7, since the observed value for t exceeds the critical value t,
i.e. t(19)< tObs = 20.27, we can conclude that the difference is significant and the task-
based approach with metalinguistic feedback has been significantly helpful in
improving the learners’ knowledge of conditionals and wish statements.
88
4.5.3. No Feedback Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons
In this section, the no-feedback group’s pre-test is compared with its post-test in order
to see if any possible improvement has occurred due to the particular instruction given
to this group. Similar to the previous comparisons, the pre-test mean and the post-test
mean are compared in this group. The descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test
along with the results of the matched t-test are shown below.
Table 4.8. Descriptive Statistics for No-Feedback Group (G3)
Mean N Std. DeviationStd. Error
Mean
G3 pretest 15.30 20 5.92 1.32
posttest 34.20 20 4.56 1.01
Table 4.9. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G3: Matched t-test
Paired Differences
t dfSig.(2-tailed)Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
G3 pretest -posttest
-1.89 5.83 1.30 -21.62 -16.17 -14.49 19 .000
Based on the table 4.9., since the observed value for t exceeds the critical value t,
i.e. t(19)< tObs = 14.49, we can conclude that the difference is significant and the
instructional approach has been significantly helpful in improving the learners’
knowledge of conditionals and wish statements.
4.5.4. Traditional Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons
Similar to the previous sections, in this section the traditional group’s pre-test is
compared with its post-test in order to see if any possible improvement has occurred
due to the particular instruction given to this group. Not unlike the previous
comparisons, the pre-test mean and the post-test mean are compared in this group. The
89
descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test along with the results of the matched t-
test are shown below.
Table 4.10. Descriptive Statistics for the Traditional Group (G4)
Mean NStd.
DeviationStd. Error
Mean
G4 pretest 16.55 20 4.99 1.11
posttest 28.40 20 7.35 1.64
Table 4.11. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G4: Matched t-test
Paired Differences
t dfSig.(2-tailed)Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
G4 pretest -posttest
-1.18 9.25 2.06 -16.18 -7.51 -5.72 19 .000
Based on the table 4.11, since the observed value for t exceeds the critical value t,
i.e. t(19)< tObs = 5.72 , we can conclude that the difference is significant and even the
instructional approach has been significantly helpful in improving the learners’
knowledge of conditionals and wish statements.
4.6. Investigating the First Research Question
The first research question in this study was:
Does Task-based grammar instruction have any significant effect on Iranian
intermediate EFL learners’ development of a specific set of linguistic features
(conditionals and wish statements in this study)?
The first research question investigated the effect of methodology in grammar
instruction. In other words, the researcher intended to explore which of the
methodologies would be more effective in grammar instruction. For so doing, two
groups were compared, i.e. the traditional approach (G4) with the task-based approach
90
(G3). The descriptive statistics for group G3 and G4 are presented in the table 4.12
below. The mean score for group 3 is higher than the mean score for group 4.
Table 4.12. Descriptive Statistics for G3 and G4
Control Group N MeanStd.
DeviationStd. Error
Mean
Posttest Scores No Feedback Group 20 34.20 4.56 1.01
Control Group 20 28.40 7.35 1.64
However, in order to make sure that the difference between these two groups is
statistically significant a t-test was run. The results of this t-test are shown in the table
4.13 below.
As shown in the table 4.13. t-test observed exceeds t critical and hence the first
hypothesis is rejected and we can conclude that task-based approach is significantly
better than the traditional approach in grammar instruction.
This result corroborates previous studies including Loumpourdi (2005),
Mohammed (2004), Chen and Li (2002), Garcia Mayo (2002), Fotos (1994), Fotos
Table 4.13 Independent t–test for G3 and G4 performance on the posttest (Q1)
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Post-test Equal variances assumed 4.20 .047 2.99 38 .05 5.80 1.93 1.88 9.71
Equal variances not assumed 2.99 3.17 .05 5.80 1.93 1.85 9.74
91
and Ellis (1991). It confirms the effectiveness of task-based language teaching for
grammar instruction especially for the conditionals and wish statements. It can be a
good alternative to traditional approach to grammar instruction. This result establishes
the place of tasks in grammar instruction. As above-mentioned studies have also
recommended, task-based grammar instruction is more helpful than the traditional
approach.
4.7. Investigating the Second Research question
The second research question in the current study was:
Is Task-based grammar instruction more effective with feedback (i.e. recast vs.
metalinguistic feedback) than without any feedback?
This question centered on the effect of corrective feedback in task-based grammar
instruction. It intended to investigate if corrective feedback has any significant effect
on the Iranian EFL learners’ grammar achieved through task-based approach. The
mean of G1, G2, and G3 are displayed in the figure 4.4 below.
Figure 4.4. Means of G1, G2, and G3
92
In order to answer this question the mean of G1, G2, and G3 were compared. The
best statistical test for this purpose is one-way ANOVA. The results of the one-way
ANOVA are presented in the table 4.14 below.
Table 4.14. One-way ANOVA for Q2
Posttest Scores Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
770.23 2 385.11 17.04 .000
Within Groups 1287.95 57 22.59
Total 2058.18 59
As the table 4.14. shows F observed exceeds F critical for df=2 and hence our
second null hypothesis is also rejected and we can conclude that the feedbacks in this
study did have a significant effect in the task-based grammar instruction.
This result confirms previous studies including Lyster & Izquierdo (2009), Nassaji
(2009), Ammar (2008), Egi (2007a), Nassaji (2007), Russell and Spada (2006),
Loewen and Philp (2006), Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006), McDonough and Mackey
(2006).
Corrective feedback can weed out the erroneous structures from the learners’
utterances and hence approximate the learners’ production to the native-like accurate
language productions. Lack of corrective feedback might lead to the fossilizations of
the errors. Currently as the present study confirms, researchers strongly recommend
that language teachers should employ appropriate corrective feedback techniques in
order to minimize the inaccurate structures in the learners’ interlanguage.
4.8. Investigating the Third Research Question
The third research question in this study was: Which type of feedback is more effective in task-based grammar instruction, recast or
metalinguistic feedback?
The third research question intended to unravel any possible differential effect of
different corrective feedbacks in task-based grammar instruction. In other words, the
93
sole purpose of this research question was to answer the dubious stand currently held
by the researchers concerning the effect of different types of corrective feedback.
The descriptive statistics for the group G1 and G2 are presented in the table 4.15
below. The mean score for the group 2 is higher than the mean score for group 1 and
this shows the prominence of the metalinguistic group over the recast group.
Table 4.15. Descriptive Statistics for G3 and G4
Groups N Mean
Std. Deviatio
nStd. Error
Mean
Posttest Scores Recast Group 20 39.55 5.90 1.32
Metalinguistic Group
20 42.90 3.47 .77
However, to assure this significance statistically a t-test was run. The results of this
t-test are presented in the table 4.16 below.
As shown in the table above t observed exceeds t critical and hence we can
conclude that metalinguistic feedback is significantly more advantageous over recast
as a corrective feedback in task-based grammar instruction.
Table 4.16. Independent t–test for G1 and G2 performance on the posttest (Q3)
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean Differen
ce
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Post-test Equal variances assumed
2.30 .137 -2.18 38 .035 -3.35 1.53 -6.45 -.24
Equal variances not assumed
-2.18 30.75 .037 -3.35 1.53 -6.47 -.22
94
This result supports previous research investigating the differential effects of
explicit feedback (i.e. metalinguistic feedback) and implicit feedback (i.e. recast)
including Dabaghi (2008), Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam (2006).
This result might be due to the explicit nature of the metalinguistic feedback in
comparison to the recast. As aforementioned, recasts are not usually noticed by the
learners and hence their corrective nature is not recognized by them whereas
metalinguistic feedbacks are more explicit and their occurrence raises the learners’
consciousness toward their errors.
4.9. Summary of the Chapter
This chapter was exclusively allocated to data analysis and results. In this chapter, the
research questions were answered based on the data collected. The results of the data
collected and the statistical tests run indicated that:
1. Task-based instruction is more effective in grammar instruction than the traditional
teacher-fronted approach.
2. Corrective feedback is significantly better than no feedback in task-based grammar
instruction.
3. Between the two types of corrective feedbacks in this study, the results showed that
metalinguistic feedback is better than recasts in task-based grammar instruction.
95
Chapter V
Conclusions,
Implications
&
Suggestions
for
Further Research
96
5.1. Introduction
This study was an attempt to investigate two areas of research in English language
teaching. First, it investigated how methodology might be effective in grammar
instruction. Furthermore, it explored the potential effect of corrective feedbacks
provided after erroneous structures in the learners’ language. The results of this study
as comprehensively explained in chapter four indicated that task-based language
teaching is an effective methodology in grammar instruction. Furthermore, the results
confirmed that corrective feedbacks are effective in removing erroneous structures
from the learners’ language and metalinguistic feedback especially is more effective in
comparison to recasts. This chapter summarizes and synthesizes the findings of this
study and possible pedagogical implications for this study are also given. Finally,
some suggestions for further research are provided to interested readers and
researchers for exploring related issues to this study.
5.2. Discussion and Conclusions
Based on the data gathered and analyzed, briefly we can conclude that:
1. Task-based instruction is an effective teaching method to grammar instruction
especially conditionals and wish statements in this study.
2. Corrective feedback is effective in task-based grammar instruction of conditionals
and wish statements.
3. Between the two types of corrective feedbacks in this study, metalinguistic
feedback appeared to be more effective than recasts.
The researcher believes that task-based instruction was effective in comparison to
the traditional deductive approach due to the meaningful, purposeful, communicative
and authentic nature of the task-based approach. As other studies have also confirmed
(e.g. Loumpourdi, 2005; Nobuyoshi and Ellis, 1993, Moradi, 2006; Haghnevis, 2007;
Rezaei, 2009), task-based instruction is an innovative and motivating approach where
learners are highly motivated and it is devoid of boring mere grammar explanations.
Learners in such an approach are more engaged in the process of learning and
heuristic principles and leaner-centeredness is vividly observed in such an approach.
97
Furthermore in response to the second research question, the researcher believes
that in line with the previous studies corrective feedbacks are considered to be
effective in eliminating possible erroneous structures in the learners’ interlanguage. In
other words, in response to the question whether to correct or not we can say that
leaving the errors unnoticed might result in the fossilization of these erroneous
structures. Hence, the researcher stands against too much error negligence and
subsequently believes that errors should be corrected either on the spot as in this study
or with delay.
Moreover, as shown in the third research question the researcher concluded that
metalinguistic feedback was more effective than recasts. The reason for such a result
might be partially or wholly due to the explicit nature of metalinguistic feedback. In
other words, between the two camps in corrective feedback studies where either
implicit or explicit feedback is favored, the current researcher takes side with more
explicit type of error correction. Such a claim can be especially considered in settings
like Iran where learners are after explicit rather than implicit corrective feedback. In
other words, research has revealed that implicit corrective feedbacks are usually left
unnoticed (e.g. recasts) and hence their corrective effect are less effective when
compared with more explicit types of feedbacks like metalinguistic feedback. In
addition, usually in implicit types of corrective feedback such as recast usually the
teachers’ intent and the learners’ interpretation do not match, i.e. the learners usually
do not recognize the corrective nature of recasts and might consider recasts as mere
teachers’ repetition of their utterances.
5.3. Pedagogical Implications
Acknowledging that one has to be very cautious in drawing implications from a
single study and the limitations exerted upon this study, there are pedagogical
implications which bring forth fruitful results for language teaching regarding
different issues in ELT including, language teaching methodology, syllabus design
and materials development, and teacher training courses, and pre-service or in-service
teachers.
98
5.3.1. Language Teaching Methodology in Iran and Elsewhere
The results of this and other studies cited in line with the current study confirm that
task-based language teaching is a practically effective method for grammar
instruction. The present study extends empirical support for task-based language
teaching especially in the area of grammar instruction and ergo corroborated the fact
that integrating task-based teaching approach into grammar instruction is a good
alternative to traditional teacher-fronted deductive approach to grammar instruction.
Hence, based on the findings of this study, language teachers and instructors at schools
and universities can sweeten the bitter pill of traditional grammar classes by engaging
learners in tasks. Furthermore, integrating task-based teaching approach into grammar
instruction brings language instruction more closely to its main goal, i.e. the
development of communicative competence and enabling learners to use language for
communicative purposes.
In addition, this study confirms and corroborates that providing feedback to
learners’ erroneous utterances have significant effects on the elimination of such
erroneous structure from the learners’ interlanguage. Among the corrective feedback
types, the current researcher similar to other researchers takes side with the explicit
type of corrective feedback like metalinguistic feedback. This stance is due to the
result of this study and similar studies where the effects of more explicit types of
feedback are recognized as more salient than implicit ones. Currently language
teachers in Iran have mostly a blur image of new corrective feedback techniques and
what they practice is based on what they are prescribed to practice in classes by either
the institutes or policy makers. Keeping them abreast of current theoretical and
practical issues related to error correction can be illuminating for language teachers
and our language educational system. However, teachers should be alert not to direct
the class to over-error-corrections. In such situations, classes might lead to a
haphazard amalgamation of the excess use of error correction and hence the main
purpose of language learning, i.e. communication, might go to the periphery. Hence,
sophisticated use of corrective feedback techniques are recommended in language
classes.
99
5.3.2. Syllabus Design and Materials Development
The results of this study can also be helpful and informative for syllabus designers
and materials developers. Syllabus designers can incorporate different kinds of tasks
in their syllabus. In order to make the syllabus more flexible, different types of tasks
for different skills and sub-skills can be included. Focused tasks or consciousness-
raising tasks are good alternatives to traditional exercises. The syllabus can be totally
or partly designed based on tasks, i.e. task-based or task-supported syllabus.
Materials developers are also suggested to develop specific tasks for grammar
instruction. As the current study confirms, focused tasks are more advantageous than
the traditional exercises. It is also more motivating and interesting to the learners.
Hence, textbook writers can incorporate such tasks in their textbooks.
5.3.3. Teacher Training Courses
The results of this study can also be illuminating for teacher training courses.
Teacher trainers inculcate certain types of language teaching ideologies and
perceptions to their trainees. With regard to the following issues, teacher trainers
should be alert to instruct appropriate practices:
a) Error correction techniques and corrective feedback types
b) When to correct errors
c) How to correct errors
d) Which types of errors to correct
As Baleghizadeh and Rezaei (2010) observed, teachers’ pre-service cognition
partly if not completely is shaped by teacher training courses. Hence, teacher trainers
should be aware of current theories and ideas about language teaching, so that they
will not communicate wrong or outdated teaching techniques to their trainees. The
results of this study and the effectiveness of corrective feedback techniques can
enlighten the teacher trainers about the effectiveness of such feedback types.
Consequently, some space should be allocated to error correction techniques in such
teacher training courses.
100
5.4. Suggestions for Further Research
Based on the current study and what the researcher has already covered for the
review section of this thesis, he offers the following lines of research for the expansion
and development of what has already been covered or is currently being done.
A fertile line of research currently investigated by SLA researchers is the effect of
different types of written corrective feedbacks. Researchers interested in investigating
the potential effects of written corrective feedback can consult Sheen, Wright,
Moldawa (2009), Sheen (2010), Sheen, & Lyster (Eds.) (2011), Bitchener and Knoch
(2009a, 2009b), Lee (2009); Bitchener (2008).
As researchers contend (e.g. Han, 2002) some linguistic features might be less
effective to recasts than other types of feedbacks. As previous studies indicate (e.g.,
Havranek and Cesnik, 2001; Leeman, 2003; Iwashita, 2003; Ishida, 2004), the
effectiveness of recasts is partially dependent upon the target structure under study.
Hence, further studies investigating other grammatical structures are required to add
credence to the findings obtained in this study and the previous ones and cast away all
the doubts regarding the potential effect of different types of corrective feedbacks for
different target structures.
This study investigated the differential effects of recasts and metalinguistic
feedback. As Ellis & Sheen (2006) offer, interested researchers can investigate the
facilitative impact of learner factors and corrective feedbacks. Such learner factors
include developmental readiness, language aptitude, personality factors, motivation,
and attitude toward correction. See for instance Sheen (2008) on language anxiety and
the effectiveness of recasts, Sheen (2007b) for language proficiency and corrective
feedback, and for the role of attention, memory and analytical ability see Trofimovich,
Ammar, and Gatbonton (2007), for interlocutor impact (i.e., native vs. non-native
interactions, non-native vs. non-native interactions) and the nature of classroom
interactions see Sato and Lyster (2007).
Recent studies have addressed the importance of alphabetic literacy level in
processing oral L2 input and corrective feedback recall (e.g. Bigelow, Delmas,
Hansen, and Tarone, 2006; Tarone and Bigelow, 2007). This area seems to have been
left not explored comprehensively. Further research is required in this area.
101
Another area of research for exploration is corrective feedback in CALL settings.
For studies done in this area, interested readers can see Sauro (2009), Heift & Rimrott
(2008), Neri, Cucchiarini, Strik (2008), Sachs and Suh (2007), Sagarra (2007), Heift
(2004), Pujolà (2001), Nagata (1993, 1996, 1997),
Teachers and learners’ perceptions and interpretations is another line of research
for interested researchers. Interested researchers can explore Iranian language
teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and cognition regarding corrective feedback. Studies in
this area include Brown (2009), Loewen, Li, Fei, and Thompson (2009), Lee (2008),
Yoshida (2008), Gass and Lewis (2007), Egi (2007b), Kim and Han (2007),
Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005), Mackey, Al-Kalil, Atanassova, Hama, Logan-Terry,
and Nakatsukasa (2007), Kartchava (2006), Mori (2002), Schulz (1996).
This study was exclusively directed toward corrective feedback in grammar
instruction. Other researchers can investigate the effect of corrective feedback in other
areas of language learning like interlanguage pragmatics development (e.g. Koike and
Pearson, 2005).
This study investigated the effects of corrective feedback for adult EFL learners.
Similar studies can be done for young language learners in EFL/ESL settings (See
Mackey, Kanganas, and Oliver (2007), Mackey and Polio (2009), Mackey and Silver
(2005), Mackey, Oliver, and Leeman (2003), Oliver and Mackey (2003), Mackey and
Oliver (2002), Oliver (2002, 2000).
Gender is another influential factor in the process of interactional feedback.
Therefore, researchers can pursue the impact of gender on interactional moves in
classroom interactions. For this line of research you can consult Ross-Feldman,
(2007).
102
References
Allen, Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69–84.
Allwright, R.L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of
learner errors. In M.K. Burt, & H.C. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second
language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp.96-109). Selected papers
from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention, Los Angeles.
Allwright, D., & Baily, K.M. (1992). Focus on the classroom: an introduction to
classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ammar, A. (2003). Corrective feedback and L2 learning: Elicitation and recasts.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, McGill University, Montreal.
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language
morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12 (2), 183–210.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning.
Studies Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th
Ed.). TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Ashwell, T. (2000). ‘Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft
composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best
method?’ Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–57.
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language
acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85,
226-243.
Ayoun, D. (2004). The effectiveness of written recasts in the second language
acquisition of aspectual distinctions in French: a follow-up study. Modern
Language Journal, 88(I), 31-55.
Bailey, K. & Celce-Murcia, M. (1979). Classroom skills for ESL teachers. In M.
Celce-Murcia & L. McIntosh (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign
Language (pp. 315-330). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
103
Baker, N., & Nelson, K. (1984). Recasting and related conversational techniques for
triggering syntactic advances by young children. First Language, 5, 3–22.
Baleghizadeh, S. (2007). Key concepts in ELT: Interaction hypothesis. ILI Language
Teaching Journal, 3 (2), 121-132.
Baleghizadeh, S., Rezaei, S. (2010). Pre-service Teacher Cognition on Corrective
Feedback: A Case Study. Journal of Technology of Education. 4 (4), 321-327.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., Ellis, R., 2002. Metalanguage in focus on form in the
communicative classroom. Language Awareness 11 (1), 1–13.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about
incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2),
243–272.
Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and
output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language
Teaching Research, 5, 95–127.
Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K., and Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the
processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665-689.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback
to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation. Applied Linguistics, 1-22.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written
corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-212.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for
migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
correctivefeedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
14, 191-205.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
Bohannon, J. N., Padgett, R. J., Nelson, K. E., & Mark, M. (1996). Useful evidence on
negative evidence. Developmental Psychology, 32, 551–555.
Bohannon, J. N., Ill, & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult
responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684-689.
104
Bourke, J. (2004). Towards the design of a problem-solving programme of instruction
for teaching English grammar to secondary-level ESL students. Journal of
Applied Research in Education, 8(1), 104–122.
Braidi, S. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/non-native speaker
interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1-42.
Branden, K. V. D. (2006). Task-based language education. UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language learning: Theory and practice. New
York: Harcourt, Brace.
Brown, A.V. (2009). Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Effective Foreign
Language Teaching: A Comparison of Ideals. The Modern language Journal,
93(1), 46-60.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New
York: Pearson Education.
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in
child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language
(pp.11–53). New York: Wiley.
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An
investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–
193.
Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Recasts and repetitions:
Learners' interpretations of native speaker responses. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28, 209-236.
Carroll, D.W. (2008). Psychology of language (5th Ed.). CA: Thomson & Wadswoth.
Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., & Swain, M. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second
language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 13, 173-198.
Carroll, S. (2000). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language
acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
105
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical
study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
Carter, R., Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (2000). Exploring grammar in context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1985). Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in
language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 297-301.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-480.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and
through discourse. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar
teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 119–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2
instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 141–152.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching
grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL
teacher’s course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement
in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12, 267-296.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of
learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners'
processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1-14.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and
learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, A.Y.W., & Li, D.S.C. (2002). Form-focused remedial instruction: an empirical
study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 24-53.
106
Cazden, C. B. (1965). Environmental assistance to the child's acquisition of grammar.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of
learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
Cook, V.J., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction.
(3rd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Corder. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL, 5, 161-70.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. London: Oxford University
Press.
Crookes, G. (1986). Task-classification: a cross-disciplinary review. Technical report
No.4. Honolulu: Center for second language Classroom Research, Social science
research Institute, University of Hawaii.
Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (5th ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Cullen, R., & Kuo, I.C. (2007). Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: a missing
link. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 361-386.
Dabaghi, A. (2008). A comparison of the effects of implicit and explicit corrective
feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests. Journal of Applied
Sciences, 8 (1), 1-13.
DeCarrico, J., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Grammar. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An
introduction to applied linguistics (pp.19-34). Arnold.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. An experiment
with aminiature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17,
379-401.
DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. (2001). The differential role of comprehension and
production practice. Language Learning, 51, 81–112.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence
from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 13, 431–496.
107
Doughty, C. (2001). The cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson
(Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Doughty, C. (2001).Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In
C. Doughty and M. Long, (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp.256 310). New York: Blackwell.
Doughty, C, & Pica, T. (1986). Information-gap tasks: Do they facilitate second
language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325.
Doughty, C, & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
114-138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Edwards, C., & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in ELT. Oxford:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Egi, T. (2007a). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic
target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29,
511-537.
Egi, T. (2007b). Recasts, interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of
empirical studies (pp.249-267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, R. (1992). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. New York:
Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: interactions of
explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3),
289-318.
108
Ellis, R. (1993). Talking shop: second language acquisition research: how does it help
teachers? An interview with Rod Ellis. ELT Journal, 47 (1), 3-11.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 39-60.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research, 4 (3): 193-220.
Ellis, R. (2000). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit
knowledge?: A review of research. Studies in second language acquisition, 24,
223–236.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language
Learning, 51, Supplement, 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005a). Planning and task performance in a second language.
Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Ellis, R. (2005b). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel
(Ed), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.713-
728). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ellis, R. (2006a). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 19-
45.
Ellis, R. (2006b). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Leaner uptake in communicative ESL
lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001b). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (3), 281-318.
109
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System 30, 419–
432.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback
and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28,
339–368.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused
and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language
context. System, 36, 353–371.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition
of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language
Journal, 87, 242-60.
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10,
583-593.
Farrar, M. J. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal
of Child Language, 77,607-624.
Farrokhi, F. & Gholami, J. (2007). Reactive and Preemptive Language Related
Episodes and Uptake in an EFL Class. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 58-92.
Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 90-98.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A
response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D. R. (2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M.
Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp.
298-314).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring second
language writing (pp. 119–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
110
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "grammar correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we,
and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime ... ?).
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
Ferris, D.R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the
short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland
(Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, (pp. 81-104).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit
does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar
task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use
through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323–351.
Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT
Journal, 52, 301–307.
Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a Second and Foreign Language (3rd Ed.). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E.
Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp. 135–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach.
TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.
Fotos, S., & Nassaji, H. (2006). Form-focused instruction and teacher education:
Studies in honor of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, W.S., and Coe, N. (1976). Nelson English language tests. Thomas Nelson
Ltd.
Garcia Mayo, M.P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced
EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156-175.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
111
Gass, S. M., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perceptions about interactional feedback: differences
between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. In A.
Mackey (Ed), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a
series of empirical studies (pp.249-267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S.M., Mackey, A., Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interaction in
classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575-611.
Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., and Thornbury, S. (2007). Teaching Grammar Creatively.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Green, P. & Hetch, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: an empirical study.
Applied Linguistics, 13, 168-184.
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in
studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.
Haghnevis, M. (2007). Teaching verb tenses from two perspectives: formal instruction
through structural practice approach vs. grammar tense performance through
awareness-raising approach. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Allameh Tabataba’i
University, Tehran, Iran.
Haight C. E., Herron, C., and Cole, S.P. (2007). The Effects of Deductive and Guided
Inductive Instructional Approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary
foreign language college classrooms. Foreign language Annals, 40 (2), 288-310.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward
Arnold.
Hammond, R. (1988). Accuracy vs. communicative competency: The acquisition of grammar
in the L2 classroom. Hispania, 71, 408-417.
Han, Z-H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 582-
599.
Han, Z-H. (2002a). Rethinking of corrective feedback in communicative language
teaching. RELC Journal, 33, 1-33.
Han, Z-H. (2002b). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output.
TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543-572.
Han, Z-H. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
112
Han, Z-H. (2007a). On the role of meaning in focus on form. In Z-H, Han (Ed.),
Understanding Second Language Process (pp. 45-79). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Han, Z-H. (2007b). Pedagogical implications: Genuine or pretentious. TESOL
Quarterly, 41, 387-393.
Han, Z-H., & Kim, J.H. (2008). Recasts: What teachers might want to know?
Language Learning Journal, 36(1), 35-44.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom
experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359.
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition.
In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition (pp. 156–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In J. Richards (Ed.),
Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 34–70). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1981). Research design and statistics for applied
linguistics. Tehran: Rahnama Publications
Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991).The research manual: Design and statistics for
applied linguistics. Newbury House Publication.
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?
International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-70.
Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective
feedback. In S. H. Foster-Cohen & A. Nizegorodcew (Eds.), EUROSLA
yearbook, 1, (pp. 99–122). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL 15 (2),
416–431.
Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling
errors in CALL. System, 36, 196-213.
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory,
research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
113
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. The Modern
Language Journal, 64, 216-221.
Hinkel, E. (2002a). Grammar teaching in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In E.
Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp.181–198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E. (2002b). Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn). In E. Hinkel
& S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp. 233–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching of the four skills. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 109-131.
Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (Eds.) (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in
second language classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
Publishers.
Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (1998). From sentence to discourse: Discourse grammar
and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 263–287.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written
feedback. Journal of Second language Writing, 10, 185–212.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on second language students’ writing.
Language Teaching 39, 83–101.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Feedback in Second Language Writing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ishida, M. (2004). Effect of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by
learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311-394.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction:
Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
25, 1-36.
Izumi, S. (1998). Negative feedback in NS-NNS task-based conversations. Paper
presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of Applied
Linguistics, Seattle, WA.
114
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An
experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. (Eds.), (1998). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied
linguistics: A handbook for language teachers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers
Ltd.
Kartchava, E. (2006). Corrective feedback: Novice ESL teachers’ beliefs and
practices. An Unpublished Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
Kim, J.H. (2007). Learner recognition of recasts: A study of the interaction of Korean
learners of English with native interlocutors. KOTESOL, 9(1), 1-26.
Kim, J.H., & Han, Z-H. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher
intent and learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational
interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 269-
297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koike, D.A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the
development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481–501.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1981). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S.D., & Terrel, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language
acquisition in the classroom. New York: Pergamon Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, Challenging trends.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.
Lantolf, J.P. (Ed), (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning [Special
issue], Modern Language Journal, 78 (4).
Lantolf, J.P. (1996). Second language acquisition theory building: Letting all the
flowers bloom! Language Learning, 46, 713 749.
115
Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2002). Sociocultural theory and SLA. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook
of applied linguistics (pp. 109–119). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J.P. (2005). Sociocultural and second language learning research: an exegesis.
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2005). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J.P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 28, 67-109.
Lantolf, J. P. (2007). Sociocultural theory and English language teaching. In J.
Cummins (Ed.), International handbook of English language education. New
York: Springer.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian Approaches to Second
Language Research. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M.E. (Eds.), (2008). Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching
of Second Languages. London: Equinox.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principals in language teaching. (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Grammar. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2005). Error correction: Students' versus teachers'
perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 112–127.
Leaver, B. L. & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language
education: Practices and programs. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.
Lee, I. (2008a). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong
secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (2), 69–85.
116
Lee, I. (2008b). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback
practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22.
Lee, I. (2009). Feedback revolution: what gets in the way? ELT Journal, 1-12.
Lee, N. (1990). Notions of error and appropriate corrective treatment. Hong Kong
Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 13, 55-69.
Leech, G. (2000). Grammars of spoken English: new outcomes of corpus-oriented
research. Language Learning, 50, 4, 675-724.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Beyond negative
evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63.
Leow, R. (2001). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language
Learning, 51, 113–155.
Liu, Y. (2008). The Effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona
Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second
language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–462.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching: Effect on second language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lochana, M. and Deb, G. (2006). Task Based Teaching: Learning English without
Tears. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 140-64.
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How
it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal
of Educational Research, 37, 271-283.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL
lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153-188.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361-386.
Loewen, S. (2007). Error correction in second language acquisition. Clear News, 11
(2), 1-7.
117
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A. (2009). Second Language Learners' Beliefs
about Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. The Modern language Journal,
93(1), 91-104.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom:
Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90,
536-556.
Long, M.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based
language training. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and
assessing second language acquisition (pp.77-99).Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in
second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology.
In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in
cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Long, M. H. (2006). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In Long, M. H. (Ed.), Problems
in SLA (pp. 75-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in
SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language
Journal, 52,357-371.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.
TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Long, M. H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In
C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
118
Loumpourdi, L. (2005). Developing from PPP to TBL: A focused grammar task. In
C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language
teaching (33-39). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to
error type and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48,
183-218.
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to
error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51
(Suppl. 1), 265-301.
Lyster, R. (2004a). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused
instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R. (2004b). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms:
Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 14,
321-341.
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction.
Language Learning, 59(2), 453-498.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 321-341.
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2008). Instructional Counterbalance in Immersion Pedagogy.
In T. Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving
Perspectives on Immersion Education (133-151). Multilingual Matters.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation
form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,
37-66.
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners' perceptions about interactional
processes. International journal of educational research, 37, 379- 394.Mackey,
A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 405-430.
119
Mackey, A. (Ed). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition:
a series of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Ham, M., Logan-Terry, A., &
Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about
corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 1,129-152.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000), How do learners perceive
interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
Mackey, A., Kanganas, A.P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task Familiarity and Interactional
Feedback in Child ESL Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 285-312.
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A, & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners'
reports about the L2 classroom. IRAL, 39, 285-308.
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children's L2
development. System, 30, 459-477.
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (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.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language
development: Recast responses, and red herring? Modern Language Journal, 82,
338-356.
Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.).(2009). Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second
Language Research in Honor of Susan M. Gass. New York and London:
Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Silver, R.E. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by
immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239-260.
Macaro, E. & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction
make all the difference? Language Teaching Research, 10, 297-327
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1998). What is spoken grammar and how should we teach
it? ELT Journal, 49(3), 207-217.
120
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’
responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetition, primed
production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693-720.
McLaughlin, B. (1978). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
Mitchell, R. (2000). Anniversary article: Applied linguistics and evidence-based
classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied
Linguistics, 21(3), 281–303.
Mitchell, R. ,& Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories (2nd Ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, R. ,& Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd Ed.). London:
Hodder Arnold.
Mitchell, J. & Redmond, M. (1993). Rethinking grammar and communication. Foreign
Language Annals, 26, 13-19.
Mohammad Hossein Pour, R. (2006). On the role of C.R tasks in learning grammar: a
learner perspective. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Tehran University: Tehran.
Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising tasks: a learner perspective.ELT Journal,
58 (3), 228-37.
Moradi, S. (2006). On the effect of focused vs. unfocused tasks on the development of
linguistic competence. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Tehran University, Tehran,
Iran.
Morovvati, A.R. (2008). On the effect of Focus on Form upon Noticing. Unpublished
M.A. Thesis, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
Morgan, J. L., Bonamo, K. M., & Travis, L. L. (1995). Negative evidence on negative
evidence. Developmental Psychology, 31, 180–197.
Morgan, J. l., & Travis, L. (1989). Limits on negative information in language input.
Journal of Child Language, 16, 531–552.
Mori, R. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and corrective feedback. JALT Journal, 24, 1.
121
Morris, F. A. (2002). Negotiation and recasts in relation to error types and learner
repair. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 395-404.
Morris, F., & Tarone, E. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of
recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53, 325–368.
Rezaei, S. (2009). Integrating Task-based Teaching Approach into Grammar
Instruction: An Action Research. Paper presented at the 2nd Regional Conference
on English Literature & Teaching (December 2009), Islamic Azad University,
Bushehr, Iran.
Mousavi, S.A. (2009). An encyclopedic dictionary of language testing (4rd Ed). Iran:
Rahnama Press.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating
formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language
Learning, 50, 617-673.
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction:
A case study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language
Awareness, 11, 43-63.
Naeini, J. (2008). Error correction: an indication of consciousness-raising. Novitas-
ROYAL, 2 (2), 120-137.
Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction.
Modern Language Journal, 77(iii), 330–339.
Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition.
CALICO Journal, 14(1), 53–75.
Nagata, N. (1997) An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback
generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515–534.
Nassaji, H. (1999). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative
interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 385–402.
Nassaji, H. (2000). A reply to Sheen. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56,
507–513.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of Recasts and Elicitations in Dyadic Interaction and the
Role of Feedback Explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452.
122
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of
grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback:
The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles.
Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
Nelson, K. E., Carskaddon, G., & Bonvillian, J. D. (1973). Syntax acquisition: Impact
of experimental variation in adult verbal interaction with the child. Child
Development, 44, 497-504.
Nelson, K. E., Denninger, M., Bonvillian, J. D., Kaplan, B., & Baker, N. (1983).
Maternal input adjustments and non-adjustments as related to children's
advances and to language acquisition theories. In A. D. Pellegrini & T. D.
Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oral and written language in social contexts
(pp. 31-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H. (2008). The effectiveness of computer-based
speech corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2 Dutch.
ReCALL 20(2), 225-243.
Newmeyer, F.J. (1986). Linguistic theory in America (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language
learners. Language Learning, 51, 719-758.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language
acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-210.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A Research synthesis
and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching: A comprehensively revised edition
of designing tasks for communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
123
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective
feedback in the Japanese classroom. In J.K. Hall & L. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second
and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction (47-71).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning
Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 18, 459-481.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and
pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119-151.
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The
Modern Language Journal, 86 (i), 97-111.
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL
classrooms. The Modern language Journal, 87(4), 519-33.
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition
of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied
Linguistics, 1(1), 65-86.
Oxford, R. (2006). Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning: an overview.
Asian EFL Journal, 8 (3), 94-121.
Pujolà, J. T. (2001). Did CALL feedback feed back? Researching learners' use of
feedback. ReCALL, 13(1), 79–98.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult
ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Park, E.S., & Han, Z-H. (2007). Learner spontaneous attention in L2 input processing:
An exploratory study. In Z-H, Han (Ed.), Understanding Second Language
Process (pp. 106-132). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on 'noticing the gap': Normative speakers' noticing of
recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-
126.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language
learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
124
Prahbu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University.
Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective feedback in SLA: Classroom
practice and future directions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1),
21-29.
Richards, J. C. (1985). The context of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching
(2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and
applied linguistics (3rd Ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Riazi, A. M. (1999). A dictionary of research methods: Quantitative and qualitative.
Tehran: Rahnama Publications.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under
implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence
learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed), Conversational interaction in second
language acquisition: a series of empirical studies (pp. 53-77). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and
Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 6(1), 21-31.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second
language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega
(Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Rutherford, W.E, (1987). Second language grammar: learning and teaching. London:
Longman.
125
Sachs, R., and C. Polio. (2007). Learners’ use of two types of written feedback on an
L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 67–100.
Sachs, R., & Suh, B., (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2
outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In. A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of
empirical studies (pp. 197-227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: the effect of computer-
delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In. A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of
empirical studies (pp. 229-248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salaberry, M. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language
acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422–451.
Sampson, G. (1980). Schools of linguistics. London: Hutchinson.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: variable
effects of interlocutor versus feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of
empirical studies (pp.123-142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sauro, Sh. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2
grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13 (1), 96-120.
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language,
24, 139-161.
Saxton, M. (2005). 'Recast' in a new light: Insights for practice from typical language
studies. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21, 23-38.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt., R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G.
Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.). Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt., R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for
applied linguistics. In J. Hulstijin & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Consciousness in second
language learning (pp. 11-26): AILA Review, Vol. 11.
126
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the
role of attention and awareness in learning. In R, Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and
awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, J. (2005). Teaching grammar through community issues. ELT Journal, 59
(4), 298-305.
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, 343-364.
Shak, J. (2006). Children using dictogloss to focus on form. Reflections on English
Language Teaching 5(2), 47–62.
Shak, J., & Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form
tasks. Language Teaching Research 12 (3), 387–408.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1992). Second language learning: Theoretical foundations. New
York: Longman Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–179.
Sheen, R. (2002). Focus on form and focus on forms. ELT Journal, 56(3), 303-305.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative
classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-
300.
Sheen, Y, (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and
learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.
Sheen, Y. (2007a). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language
aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41,255-
283.
Sheen, Y. (2007b). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner
attitude on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed),
127
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of empirical
studies (pp.301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning.
Language Learning, 58(4), 835-874.
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the
ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203-234.
Sheen, Y. & Lyster, R. (Eds.) (2010). Special Issue: The role of oral and written
corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford
University Press.
Sheen, Y. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in L2 teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II).
New York and London: Routledge
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and
unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult
ESL learners. System 37 (4), 556-569.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal,
23, 103-110.
Shin, S-K. (2008). Fire your proofreader!: Grammar correction in the writing
classroom. ELT Journal, 62(4), 358-65.
Skehan, P. (1996a). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In
D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching.
Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.
Skehan, P. (1996b). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistic, 17, 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998a). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,
268-286.
Skehan, P. (1998b). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A
review of classroom and laboratory research. Language teaching, 29, 1–15.
128
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in
L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–24.
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.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G, Cook,
& B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in
honor of KG. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative
tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44–63.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1989). Canada immersion and adult second language
teaching: What's the connection? Modern Language Journal, 73, 150-159.
Tanaka, Y. (1996). The comprehension and acquisition of relative clauses by
Japanese high school students through formal instruction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Temple University Japan, Tokyo.
Terrell, T. (1991) . The role of grammar in a communicative approach. Modern Language
Journal, 75, 52-63.
Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2007). Alphabetic print literacy and oral language
processing in SLA. In A. Mackey (Ed), Conversational interaction in second
language acquisition: a series of empirical studies (pp.101-121). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. London: Longman.
Thornbury, S. (2001). Uncovering grammar. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
129
Timmis, I. (2005). Towards a framework for teaching spoken grammar. ELT Journal,
59(2), 117-125.
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: inducing and correcting
overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 9, 237-46.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in second language
classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204.
Trofimovich, R., Ammar, A., and Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts?
The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of
empirical studies (pp. 171- 195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for "the case for grammar correction in L2 writing
classes": A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-122.
Truscott, J. (2004). Dialogue: Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A
response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 337–4.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write
accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
Tsang, W. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: an analysis of
18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Regional Language
Centre Journal. 35, 187-209.
Ur, P. (1988).Grammar practice activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. (1994). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign
Language Annals, 26, 435–450.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language
acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52,
755–803.
130
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–244.
VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing
instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and
communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R.
Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and practice (pp. 169–185).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vigil, N., & Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: a tentative model. Language Learning,
26, 281-295.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement
study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of
positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research.
7(2), 133-61.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2
question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416–432.
Widdowson, H. (1998). Skills, abilities, and contexts of reality. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics. 18, 323-33.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 671–692). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Williams, H. (2006). Maths in the grammar classroom. ELT Journal, 60(1), 23-33.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
Willis, J. & Willis, D. (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford:
Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996a). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In D.
Willis, J. Willis (Eds.), Challenges and change in language teaching, (pp.52-62).
Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.
131
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996b). Consciousness-raising activities in the language
classroom. In D. Willis, J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language
teaching, (pp.63-76). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language
Teaching.
Willis, J. & Willis, D. (2001). Task-based language leaning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan
(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages
(pp.173-179). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J. & Willis, D. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.
Wong, J., Waring, H.Z. (2009). ‘Very good' as a teacher response. ELT Journal, 63(3),
195-203.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign
Language Annals, 41 (3), 525-541.
Zargar Vafa, M. (1994). The Effect of Grammatical Consciousness-raising Activities
on Learning English Question Formation. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Tarbiat
Modares University. Tehran, Iran.
Zhao, S.Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and
learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431-47.
132
Appendix A
ILI Research and Planning Department Consent
133
Appendix B
Nelson Proficiency Test for the Intermediate
134
135
136
137
Appendix C
Test of Conditionals and Wish StatementsForm A
1. If I win the lottery, I ....... buy you a very big car as a present.a. should b. will c. couldd. would
2. I’ll call the police, ………you give my car back.a. howeverb. unlessc. sod. even
3. I wish that I………never…….my wife.a. was-metb. were-metc. have-metd. had-met
4. ....... I bought you a new car, would you be very happy?a. When b. If c. Asd. Although
5. She wishes she ……..a bid whenever she sees a bird in the sky.a. isb. wasc. wered. has
6. He will not pass the exam, unless you……….harder.a. studyb. studiesc. have studiedd. had studied
138
7. If you ....... got that job, would you have been able to move to a new house?a. have b. had c. will haved. were
8. We can walk to the cinema,………it is raining.a. unlessb. whetherc. whereasd. for
9. I would want very much to move to a new house if I ....... that job.a. haveb. have hadc. hadd. am having
10. If the weather………good now, I would go to the seaside.a. wasb. werec. isd. be
11. She would have worked less, if she…….enough money.a. has hadb. had hadc. hadd. has
12. The party was awful and we all wished we …………….to it.a. have not comeb. would have comec. could comed. had not come
139
13. Will you come to dinner with us if we ....... a babysitter for you?a. had found b. will find c. findd. would find
14. They would have been successful, if they………….more.a. would tryb. had triedc. would have triedd. have tried
15. If he…………a millionaire, no body……….care about him.a. wasn’t-shouldb. weren’t-couldc. weren’t-wouldd. wasn’t-might
16. I will try very hard to come and have dinner at your house if I ....... able to.a. am b. wasc. wered. had been
17. We don’t have any money but we wish that we ……. buy an apartment.a. canb. couldc. willd. should
18. If I ....... you, I should work very hard so that I could earn more money.a. am b. were c. ared. had been
140
19. Had we known about this sooner, we………..you.a. would helpb. would have helpedc. had helpedd. have helped
20. ....... you able to lend me some money if I promise you that you will get it back very soon?a. Areb. Wasc. Wered. Have been
21. She is living in New York now. However, she wishes she……. abroad.a. didn’t gob. hadn’t gonec. haven’t goned. couldn’t go
22. The Johnsons are very poor but they wish that they……….a villa near the beach. a. haveb. have hadc. hadd. had had
23. Had I enough time, I……….my relatives.a. would have visitedb. had visitedc. visitedd. would visit
24. Will it play the video if I……….this button.a. pressb. pressedc. will pressd. had pressed
141
25. If you really want to be helpful, then you ....... to tell me the truth.a. have b. had c. will haved. had had
26. What……..you do if you were the president of your country?a. willb. wouldc. shalld. should
27. Were I in your place, I………….that car.a. should buyb. would buyc. would have boughtd. had bought
28. If I ....... very hard, I would have been able to stop smoking.a. try b. would have tried c. had triedd. have tried
29. If I ....... you, I wouldn't risk it.a. had been b. am c. would be d. were
30. Where would you go if you……..a two-week leave?a. were givenb. have been givenc. are givend. had been given
142
31. If they had waited another month, they could probably....a better price for their housea. would getb. had gotc. have gotd. could get
32. I…………see the doctor please. a. wishb. want toc. like tod. need
33. If you………..to your parents last year, you………..in trouble now.a. have listened-weren’tb. listened-wouldn’t bec. listened-aren’td. had listened-wouldn’t be
34. I am very worried about the exam. I wish I……….more relaxed.a. can beb. should bec. could bed. am
35. It's quite simple really. When it's cold, water ........a. frozeb. has frozenc. freezesd. had frozen
36. If he decides to accept that job, he ....... it for the rest of his life.a. has regrettedb. had regrettedc. is regrettingd. will regret
143
37. I can’t speak English. I wish I……..speak English fluently. a. canb. couldc. willd. should
38. If you ....... of applying for that job, my advice is: forget it.a. are thinkingb. will thinkc. will be thinkingd. would think
39. If he hadn't been driving so fast, he ....... have hit the motorcyclist.a. didn'tb. hadn'tc. wouldn'td. hasn't
40. She always talks too much. I wish she…….less.a. is talking b. can talkc. talkedd. had talked
41. ....... he been more careful, he would have spotted the mistake.a. Wereb. Hadc. Hasd. Is
42. If she goes on passing her exams, ....... soon be qualified to practise as a lawyer.a. she'sb. she hadc. she hasd. she'll
144
43. If I pay you twice as much, will you ....... to finish by Tuesday?a. are ableb. is ablec. be abled. can be able
44. She is talking now. I wish she…….stop talking. a. canb. doesc. wouldd. will
45. If only I'd invested in that company, I'd ....... a millionaire by now.a. becameb. have becomec. had becomed. would become
46. Sometimes I wish I ....... what the future is like.a. knowb. knownc. knewd. knows
47. I wish I………turn the clock back and tell my wife how wrong I was.a. canb. willc. couldd. should
48. What would you do, if you……….a lot of money?a. had wonb. should winc. would wind. won
145
49. John……………at Oxford University now if he……….for this university.a. would be studying-had appliedb. would study-applyc. would have studied-appliedd. has studied-had applied
50. I will be very angry if you………on me.a. would cheatb. had cheatedc. cheatedd. cheat
Finished
146
Test of Conditionals and Wish StatementsForm B
1. If I win the football match, I ....... buy you a present.a. should b. couldc. wouldd. will
2. I’ll tell my dad………you give my money back.a. Howeverb. Soc. Evend. Unless
3. I wish that I………never…….Jack.a. had-seenb. was-metc. were-metd. have-met
4. ....... I bought you a motorcycle, would you be very happy?a. When b. If c. Asd. Although
5. He wishes he ……..on a place whenever he sees a plane in the sky.a. Wasb. Isc. Wered. Has
6. He will not pass the test, unless he……….harder.a. Workb. Workc. has d. had worked
147
7. If you ....bought that job, would you have been able to drive me to school every day?a. had b. have c. will haved. were
8. We can walk to the park,………it is raining.a. Whetherb. Whereasc. Ford. Unless
9. I would want very much to move to a new city if I ....... that job.a. Hadb. Havec. have hadd. am having
10. If the car………here now, I would go to the seaside.a. Wasb. Isc. Bed. Were
11. She would have bought that house, if she…….enough money.a. has hadb. hadc. hasd. had had
12. The trip was awful and we all wished we …………….on such a boring trip. a. have not goneb. had not gonec. would have goned. could go
148
13. Will you come to party with us if we .......your parents?a. had asked b. will askc. askd. would ask
14. They would have won the match, if they………….more.a. would tryb. would have triedc. have triedd. had tried
15. If he…………the boss, no body……….care about him.a. wasn’t-shouldb. weren’t-couldc. weren’t-wouldd. wasn’t-might
16. I will try very hard to help you if I ....... able to.a. Wasb. Werec. had beend. am
17. We don’t have any money but we wish that we ……. buy a Mercedes. a. Couldb. Canc. Willd. Should
18. If I ....... you, I should work very hard so that I could pass the exam. a. am b. were c. ared. had been
149
19. Had we known about this sooner, we………..you.a. would stopb. would have stoppedc. had stoppedd. have stopped
20. ....... you able to lend me you car if I promise to return it safe. a. Wasb. Werec. Have beend. Are
21. She is living in Sydney now. However, she wishes she……. abroad.a. didn’t gob. haven’t gonec. couldn’t god. hadn’t gone
22. The Johnsons are very rich but they wish that they……….more. a. Haveb. Hadc. have hadd. had had
23. Had I enough time, I……….my old friends. a. had visitedb. visitedc. would visitd. would have visited
24. Will it start the car if I……….this button.a. Pressb. Pressedc. will pressd. had pressed
150
25. If you really want to help, then you ....... to give us true information. a. had b. have c. will haved. had had
26. What……..you do if you were the Nobel Prize winner?a. Willb. Shallc. Shouldd. Would
27. Were I in your place, I………….that girl. a. Should marryb. would marryc. would have marriedd. had married
28. If I ....... very hard, I would have been able to stop getting up late.a. try b. would have tried c. had triedd. have tried
29. If I ....... you, I wouldn't tell my friends. a. had been b. am c. wered. would be
30. Where would you go if you……..to go on a vacation.a. Wantedb. have wantedc. wantd. had wanted
151
31. If he had waited another month, he could....... their house more. a. Sellb. had soldc. have soldd. sells
32. I…………see the manager of this office please. a. Wishb. want toc. like tod. need
33. If you………..to your dad last year, you………..in trouble now.a. had listened-wouldn’t beb. have listened-weren’tc. listened-wouldn’t bed. listened-aren’t
34. I am very worried about the results of my tests. I wish I……….more relaxed.a. could beb. can bec. should bed. am
35. It's quite simple really. When it's hot, ice........a. Meltsb. Meltedc. has meltedd. had melted
36. If he doesn’t study now, he ....... it for the rest of his life.a. has regrettedb. had regrettedc. is regrettingd. will regret
152
37. I can’t read in English. I wish I……..read English fast. a. Couldb. Canc. Willd. Should
38. If you ....... of going to that university, I think you are wrong. a. will thinkb. will be thinkingc. would thinkd. are thinking
39. If he hadn't been absent for five sessions, he ....... have fail this course. a. didn'tb. wouldn'tc. hadn'td. hasn't
40. Her mom speaks too much. I wish she…….less.a. Talkedb. is talking c. can talkd. had talked
41. ....... he been more careful, he wouldn’t have had an accident. a. Hadb. Werec. Hasd. Is
42. If she goes on passing her exams,....... soon be sent to U.S. for higher education. a. she'sb. she hadc. she hasd. she'll
153
43. If you work more, will you ....... to finish by Tuesday?a. be ableb. are ablec. is abled. can be able
44. She is speaking loudly now. I wish she…….stop doing that. a. Canb. Doesc. Wouldd. Will
45. I'd ....... a millionaire by now, if only I'd worked with him on that project. a. have becomeb. becamec. had becomed. would become
46. Sometimes I wish I ....... the answer to all the questions in the world. a. knewb. knowc. knownd. knows
47. I wish I………help my family get a better place to live in. a. Canb. Willc. Shouldd. Could
48. What would you do, if you……….a lot of money?a. Wonb. had wonc. should wind. would win
154
49. John……………at Microsoft Company now if he……….hardera. would study-applyb. would be working-had workedc. would have studied-appliedd. has studied-had applied
50. I will be very happy if you…….me.a. would helpb. had helpedc. helpedd. help
Finished