Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Input, Evidence, and Exposure in Language Acquisition: Studies in honour of Susanne E. Carroll
Edited by Lindsay Hracs
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 69] 2024
► pp. 162–190

Chapter 7
Isolated and combined effects of models and corrective feedback in the acquisition of the Turkish locative morpheme

| Indiana University
| Chonnam National University
| The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

This study investigated the relative effects of models, corrective feedback, and a mixed treatment including both models and corrective feedback in the development of the Turkish locative morpheme. Native speakers of English were assigned to one of four conditions: models, corrective feedback, mixed, or control. Participants performed one input-based and one output-based task with a native Turkish speaker and received treatment according to their group assignments. Learners’ performance was measured through a multiple-choice task and an oral picture description test once immediately after the treatment and once two weeks after the treatment. Results showed that the mixed treatment in which learners received models first and then corrective feedback was the most effective treatment.

Keywords: corrective feedback, negative evidence, positive evidence, explicit correction, models
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Models versus corrective feedback in the context of L2 interaction
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Design
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Target structure
    • 3.4Procedure
    • 3.5Treatment tasks
      • 3.5.1Models group
      • 3.5.2Corrective feedback group
      • 3.5.3Mixed group
      • 3.5.4Control group
    • 3.6Outcome measures
    • 3.7Scoring
    • 3.8Analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Descriptive statistics for the multiple-choice test
    • 4.2Descriptive statistics for the oral picture description test
    • 4.3Inferential statistics
    • 4.4Summary of results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References
Carroll, S. E.
2001 Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cedrus
2003 SuperLab [Computer software]. Cedrus Corporation. [URL]
Ellis, R.
1991 Grammar teaching practice or consciousness-raising? In Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy, R. Ellis (ed.), 232–241. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2005 Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2): 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Form-focused instruction and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, P. Rebuschat (ed.), 417–441. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A.
2006 Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review 19: 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C.
2005 Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y. & Novella, M.
2015 Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, P. Rebuschat (ed.), 443–482. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L.
2006 Multivariate Data Analysis [6th edn]. New York NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M.
1988 Learning grammatical structures in a foreign language: Modelling versus feedback. French Review 61(6): 910–923.Google Scholar
Housen, A. & Pierrard, M.
2005 Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
2005 Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2): 129–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J.
1997 Turkish. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krashen, S.
1981 Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D.
1983 The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. New York NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Leeman, J.
2003 Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25(1): 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S.
2010 The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2): 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
1980 Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
1981 Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy Sciences 379(1): 259–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds), 413–468. Cambridge MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2015 Second Language Acquisition and Task-based Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
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 82(3): 357–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K.
2010 Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2): 265–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, L. & Witzel, J.
2002 Recasts, Salience, and Morpheme Acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawaii.
Phakiti, A.
2014 Experimental Research Methods in Language Learning. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pica, T.
1983 Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(1): 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Interlanguage adjustments as outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning 38(1): 45–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
1998 Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R.
2007 A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In Practice in a Second language: Perspectives From Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology, R. DeKeyser (ed.), 141–160. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
1990 The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2): 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Attention. In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, P. Robinson (ed.), 3–32. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S.
1986 Developing basic conversation ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner. In Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, R. Day (ed.), 237–326. New York NY: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D.
1993 On explicit and negative evidence effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2): 147–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y.
2004 Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research 8(3): 263–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M.
1999 Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 83(1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J.
1999 What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review 55(4): 437–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B.
2013 Mental representation and skill in instructed SLA. In Innovations in SLA, Bilingualism and Cognition: Research and Practice, J. Schwieter (ed.), 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y.
2012 The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning 62(4): 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(3): 344–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 The effectiveness of explicit correction under two different feedback exposure conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(1): 65–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar