Cover not available
Part of
Expanding Individual Difference Research in the Interaction Approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 16] 2017
► pp. 71–97

Chapter 4
The role of language analytic ability in the effectiveness of different feedback timing conditions

 | Indiana University
 | Indiana University
This chapter describes an empirical study that investigated the role of language analytic ability (LAA) in the effectiveness of feedback under two timing conditions, and whether the timing conditions were differentially effective after controlling for LAA. Forty-five Spanish learners were randomly assigned to three groups: immediate feedback, delayed feedback, and control. All learners completed an information-gap task with a native speaker of Spanish through synchronous computer-mediated communication. Learners’ errors on Spanish noun-adjective gender agreement were treated according to their group assignment. Learners’ knowledge of the linguistic target was assessed by means of oral production and grammaticality judgment tests. Language analytic ability was measured with LLAMA F, a subtest of the LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests (Meara, 2005). Results revealed that LAA did not play any role in the effectiveness of either feedback timing condition, and immediate feedback was more effective than delayed feedback after controlling for LAA.
Keywords: aptitude, computer-mediated communication, cognitive individual differences, feedback timing, language analytic ability, negative feedback, recasts
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Reformulations
    • Feedback timing
    • Language analytic ability and negative feedback
    • Present study
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Linguistic target
    • Treatment task
    • Feedback treatment
    • Language measures
    • LLAMA F
    • Procedure
  • Results
    • OPT results
    • GJT results
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.16.04arr
References (65)
References
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 93, 139–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2008). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning and Technology, 15, 41–71.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education (pp. 87–136). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
(1981). Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In K. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test: Form A. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Oxford: Irvington.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-García, M. (1999). Patterns of gender agreement in the speech of second language learners. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach & F. Martínez-Gil (Eds.), Advances in Hispanic Linguistics: Papers from the 2nd Spanish Linguistics Symposium (pp. 3–15). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction, and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT researching technology and tasks (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–483). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Language aptitude and long-term achievement in early childhood L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 35, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (2002). Age, aptitude, and second language learning on a bilingual exchange. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Individual differences and instructed language learning, (pp. 301–330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & Graaff, R. D. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.Google Scholar
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. H., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 269–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 1–25.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Z. H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (Vol. 2, pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academy Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 83, 338–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea: Lognostics.Google Scholar
Nakata, T. (2014). Effects of feedback timing on second language vocabulary learning: Does delaying feedback increase learning? Language Teaching Research, 19, 416–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 65–86.Google Scholar
Ozdener, N., & Satar, H. M. (2008). Computer-mediated communication in foreign language education: Use of target language and learner perceptions. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 9(2). Retrieved from [URL]
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser, (Ed.), Practice in a second language. Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Abilities and aptitudes for second language learning and performance. JACET-KANTO Journal, 9, 5–14.Google Scholar
Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language Teaching Research, 14, 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13, 96–120.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S., & Durow, V. (2003). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The acquisition, processing, and use of formulaic sequences (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles, TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 100, 296–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4, 82–119.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3–20). San Francisco: Logos International.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). The linguistic environment, interaction, and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 45–86.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2016). Explicit language aptitude and the relative effectiveness of explicit, implicit, and mixed feedback: An ATI study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Canals, Laia, Gisela Granena, Yucel Yilmaz & Aleksandra Malicka
2025. The relative effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback in video-based computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research 29:1 ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
Yamashita, Taichi
2024. Effectiveness and inclusiveness of locally adapted human-delivered synchronous written corrective feedback for English referential articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning 37:5-6 ► pp. 1074 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Mingfei & Simin Zeng
2023. Optimal timing of treatment for errors in second language learning – A systematic review of corrective feedback timing. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Fu, Mengxia & Shaofeng Li
2021. THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND THE EFFECTS OF THE TIMING OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43:3 ► pp. 498 ff. DOI logo
Henderson, Carly
2021. The effect of feedback timing on L2 Spanish vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research 25:2 ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
YILMAZ, YUCEL & GISELA GRANENA
2019. Cognitive Individual Differences as Predictors of Improvement and Awareness Under Implicit and Explicit Feedback Conditions. The Modern Language Journal 103:3 ► pp. 686 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.