Article

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THE ACQUISITION OF L2 GRAMMAR

Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Impact Factor: 1.11). 05/2006; 28(02):339 - 368. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263106060141

ABSTRACT This article reviews previous studies of the effects of implicit and
explicit corrective feedback on SLA, pointing out a number of
methodological problems. It then reports on a new study of the effects of
these two types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of past tense
-ed. In an experimental design (two experimental groups and a
control group), low-intermediate learners of second language English
completed two communicative tasks during which they received either
recasts (implicit feedback) or metalinguistic explanation (explicit
feedback) in response to any utterance that contained an error in the
target structure. Acquisition was measured by means of an oral imitation
test (designed to measure implicit knowledge) and both an untimed
grammaticality judgment test and a metalinguistic knowledge test (both
designed to measure explicit knowledge). The tests were administered prior
to the instruction, 1 day after the instruction, and again 2 weeks later.
Statistical comparisons of the learners' performance on the posttests
showed a clear advantage for explicit feedback over implicit feedback for
both the delayed imitation and grammaticality judgment posttests. Thus,
the results indicate that metalinguistic explanation benefited implicit as
well as explicit knowledge and point to the importance of including
measures of both types of knowledge in experimental studies. a

23 Bookmarks
 · 
1,379 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compares the efficacy of Explicit Teaching and Consciousness-Raising on Iranian EFL learners' score in IELT Writing Task 1 of Academic Module. Forty five IELTS candidates, placed in two experimental and one control groups, participated in the study. Participants of the Explicit group were given detailed instructions on all parts of the Task. For the C-R group, participants were instructed to provide reasons why they chose particular grammatical structures for sentences they had written. Results showed raising students' consciousness was a more effective way than mere explicit teaching. peer-review under responsibility of [name organizer]
    Akdeniz Language Studies Conference 2012; 07/2013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article was an attempt to investigate the nature of two corrective explicit vs. implicit feedback typologies: 'Recasting' as implicit and 'Meta-Linguistic Talk' as explicit feedback on the writing performance of a group of Iranian non-major English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. To this aim, data were collected from 55 female Iranian university students majoring at Nursing at Islamic Azad university of Sabzevar, Iran. Based on a standardized Nelson English Level Test, they were first randomly divided into three homogeneous groups; (2 Exp. and 1 Con.). Each experimental group received one of the two corrective feedback types 'Recasting' vs. 'Meta-linguist talk' while the control group didn't receive any focused corrective feedback. A writing post-test sample was given after the three-month treatment stage. The writing sample was rated by two English instructors in terms of word order and tense use only. Data from three target groups above were analyzed by One-Way ANOVA to compare the performance of the three groups at 0.05 sig. level. The results showed that feedback treatments significantly improved writing skills in the experimental groups; however, the subsequent post-test Scheffet results didn't indicate an exclusive superiority for any of the two feedback types over the other in the two experimental groups (1&2). (Sig.0.09> 0.05). Possible educational implications have been contrastively discussed for the two corrective feedback typologies esp. in Iranian contexts. INTRODUCTION Error production by Language learners is considered a normal status and of a revealing nature; however, of more crucial fact is deciding on how to approach the errors made by the learners. In
    International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. 08/2013; 3(3):77-87.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article was an attempt to investigate the nature of two corrective explicit vs. implicit feedback typologies: 'Recasting' as implicit and 'Meta-Linguistic Talk' as explicit feedback on the writing performance of a group of Iranian non-major English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. To this aim, data were collected from 55 female Iranian university students majoring at Nursing at Islamic Azad university of Sabzevar, Iran. Based on a standardized Nelson English Level Test, they were first randomly divided into three homogeneous groups; (2 Exp. and 1 Con.). Each experimental group received one of the two corrective feedback types 'Recasting' vs. 'Meta-linguist talk' while the control group didn't receive any focused corrective feedback. A writing post-test sample was given after the three-month treatment stage. The writing sample was rated by two English instructors in terms of word order and tense use only. Data from three target groups above were analyzed by One-Way ANOVA to compare the performance of the three groups at 0.05 sig. level. The results showed that feedback treatments significantly improved writing skills in the experimental groups; however, the subsequent post-test Scheffet results didn't indicate an exclusive superiority for any of the two feedback types over the other in the two experimental groups (1&2). (Sig.0.09> 0.05). Possible educational implications have been contrastively discussed for the two corrective feedback typologies esp. in Iranian contexts. INTRODUCTION Error production by Language learners is considered a normal status and of a revealing nature; however, of more crucial fact is deciding on how to approach the errors made by the learners. In

Full-text

View
249 Downloads
Available from