Cover not available
Part of
Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser and Goretti Prieto Botana
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 52] 2019
► pp. 107–126

Chapter 6
The effects of recasts versus prompts on immediate uptake and learning of a complex target structure

| University of Victoria
This study compared the effects of recasts and prompts on learning a complex target structure (English relative clauses). It also examined how these effects were mediated by learners’ level of language proficiency. Fifty-four high- and low-proficiency ESL learners were assigned to three groups: recast (n = 18), prompt (n = 18), and control (n = 18). Both uptake and pretest-posttest measures were used to assess feedback effectiveness. Each learner met with a native-speaker interlocutor outside the classroom four times over a four-week period for the pretest, treatment, and immediate and delayed posttests. Picture-cued oral production tasks were developed and used to elicit the use of relative clauses. The findings revealed an advantage for recasts over prompts, and also showed that the two feedback types varied in their effects on uptake versus learning and also interacted differently with learners’ levels of language proficiency. Although the study was conducted outside the classroom, the pedagogical relevance will be discussed.
Keywords: interactional feedback, recasts, prompts, complex target structures, English relative clauses
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The present study
  • Research questions
    • Participants
    • Target structure
    • Procedures
    • Outcome measures
  • Analysis
    • Identification of uptake and repair
    • Scoring the pretest-posttest oral production measures
  • Results
    • Learner uptake and repair
    • Pretest-posttest results
  • Discussion
  • Relevance for classroom instruction
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • References
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.06nas
References (53)
References
Allwright, R. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The Interaction Hypothesis. In D. Singleton & D. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3–18). Dublin: IRAL.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language learning, 46, 529–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De López, K. J., Olsen, L. S., & Chondrogianni, V. (2014). Annoying Danish relatives: Comprehension and production of relative clauses by Danish children with and without SLI. Journal of child language, 41, 51–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
Dilans, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 787–816. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning 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 second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 journal, 1, 3–18.Google Scholar
Fu, T. & Nassaji. H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 159–181.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language learning, 55, 575–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. Tesol Quarterly, 36, 543–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in adults English L2 classrooms: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language learning, 59, 453–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Fujii, A., Egi, T., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., & Lech, D. (2003). The production system’s formulation of relative clause structures: Evidence from polish. Language Acquisition, 11, 63–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Bernstein, J. (1998). How children’s relatives solve a problem for minimalism. Language, 74, 308–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language learning, 57, 511–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.Google Scholar
(2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 907–933. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Interactional feedback: Insights from theory and research. In A. Benati, C. Laval, & A. M. (Eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language learning: Theory, research and practice (pp. 103–123). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 353–368.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on ‘noticing the gap’: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in ns-nns interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language learning, 44, 493–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2011). Effects of form focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /r/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language learning, 58, 835–874. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & 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.Google Scholar
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learnersíacquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Alipour, Javad, Maryam Mohebi & Ali Roohani
2023. The interaction of working memory capacity and engagement with recasts on different L2 outcome measures: A replication of Révész (2012). Language Teaching 56:3 ► pp. 377 ff. DOI logo
Mackey, Alison
2020. Interaction, Feedback and Task Research in Second Language Learning, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. 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.