Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T00:22:11.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECTS OF IMPLICIT VERSUS EXPLICIT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON MANDARIN TONE ACQUISITION IN A SCMC LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2019

Lara Bryfonski  and
Xue Ma
Lara Bryfonski*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Xue Ma
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics, Poulton Hall 240, 1421 37th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20057. E-mail: Leb110@georgetown.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current study investigates the effects of more explicit versus more implicit corrective feedback on beginner Mandarin learners’ perception and production of Mandarin tones. The effects of oral corrective feedback have been extensively investigated for various domains of second language acquisition (see Mackey & Goo, 2007). For phonological errors, implicit feedback has shown to be particularly salient to learners (Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000) and therefore potentially more effective for tone learning. However, for lower proficiency beginners, explicit corrective feedback has been shown to be more effective (Li, 2009, 2014). Using a mixed methods design, the current study investigated the acquisition of Mandarin tones in beginner, adult learners (n = 41) enrolled in a 14-week, one-on-one, synchronous computer-mediated communication course. Learners were divided into two experimental groups: a more implicit feedback group and a more explicit feedback group. Pretests and posttests assessed changes in tone perception and production. Upon completion of the course, learners in the more implicit feedback group had greater improvement in tone production compared to the more explicit feedback group (d = .75). Both learners and the instructor indicated a preference toward recasts for tone feedback. No statistically significant differences were found for tone perception.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 61 - 88
Open Practices
Open materials
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank Dr. Alison Mackey for her advising, input, and feedback on all stages of design and implementation of this project. Special thanks to our colleagues Wenjia Ma and Xiaozheng Dai who reviewed and piloted instruments and provided interrater reliability, as well as Mina Niu, Xiaopei Wu, and Amelia Becker who collaborated on pilot versions of the current study and to Özgur Parlak for his feedback on the manuscript. We would also like to thank the students who participated in both semesters of data collection for their time and effort. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york:936368.

References

REFERENCES

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atanassova, G. (2012). Beginning and advanced learners’ awareness of corrective feedback in the Arabic foreign language classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E. (1986). Stress and non-stress accent . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, A., & Wang, Y. (2012). The influence of linguistic and musical experience on Cantonese word learning. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, 4756–4769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, A., & Wang, Y. (2013). Effects of tone training on Cantonese word learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134, EL133. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4812435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native Speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Schirru, C., & MacKay, I. R. A. (2003). Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication, 40, 467–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Svetics, I., & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53, 495–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfried, T. L., & Suiter, T. L. (1997). Effect of linguistic experience on the identification of Mandarin Chinese vowels and tones. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfried, T. L., Staby, A. M., & Ziemer, C. J. (2004). Musical experience and Mandarin tone discrimination and imitation. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 115, 2545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, S. G., & Pederson, E. (2007). Investigating the role of attention in phonetic learning. In Bohn, O. S. & Munro, M. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 57–76). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hao, Y. C. (2012). Second language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese tones by tonal and non-tonal language speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 465–492.Google Scholar
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2008). Age-related differences in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language: Attitudes, selves, and motivated learning behavior. Language Learning, 58, 327–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2016a). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2016b). Effects of different types of corrective feedback on receptive skills in a second language: A speech perception training study. Language Learning, 66, 809–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217–230.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2009). The differential effects of implicit and explicit feedback on second language (L2) learners at different proficiency levels. Applied Language Learning, 19, 53–79.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Shu, D (2016). The differential effects of immediate and delayed feedback on learners of different proficiency levels. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Research, 286, 1–15.Google Scholar
Li, M., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Perception practice, production practice, and musical ability in L2 Mandarin tone-word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 593–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y. (2016). English and Thai Speakers’ perception of Mandarin tones. English Language Teaching, 9, 122–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., Brubaker, B., Wu, S., & MacWhinney, B. (2011). Learning a tonal language by attending to the tone: An in vivo experiment. Language Learning, 61, 1119–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Isbell, D. R. (2017). Pronunciation in face-to-face and audio-only synchronous computer-mediated learner interactions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 407–453). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. (2012). Interactionist approach. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–24). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.CrossRefGoogle 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 Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyễn, T. A. T., Ingram, C. J., & Pensalfini, J. R. (2008). Prosodic transfer in Vietnamese acquisition of English contrastive stress patterns. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 158–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in programme implementation. In Johnson, R. (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 176–186). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parlak, Ö., & Ziegler, N. (2017). The impact of recasts on the development of primary stress in a synchronous computer-mediated environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. (1999). Interaction, noticing and second language acquisition: An examination of learners’ noticing of recasts in task-based interaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piske, T., MacKay, I. R. A., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Ortega, L. & Norris, J. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2013). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63, 499–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. (2015). Variables affecting the effects of recasts on L2 pronunciation development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 276–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning. Language Learning, 8, 835–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solon, M., Long, A. Y., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2014, October), Task complexity and L2 pronunciation. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Second Language Research Forum, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vásquez, C. & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14, 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. (2013). Perception of Mandarin tones: The effect of L1 background and training. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 144–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (2003). Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1033–1043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y., Spence, M. M., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (1999). Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3649–3658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wayland, R. P., & Guion, S. G. (2004). Training English and Chinese listeners to perceive Thai tones: A preliminary report. Language Learning, 54, 681–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wayland, R. P., & Li, B. (2007). Effects of two training procedures in cross-language perception of tones. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, P. C. M., & Perrachione, T. K. (2007). Learning pitch patterns in lexical identification by native English-speaking adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 565–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, P. C. M., Skoe, E., Russo, N. M., Dees, T., & Kraus, N. (2007). Musical experience shapes human brainstem encoding of linguistic pitch pattern. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 420–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 525–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Nissen, S. L., & Francis, A. L. (2008). Acoustic characteristics of English lexical stress produced by native Mandarin speakers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 4498–4513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N., & Bryfonski, L. (2018). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Advanced learners. In Malovrh, P. & Benati, A. (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 94–113). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bryfonski and Ma supplementary material

Bryfonski and Ma supplementary material
Download Bryfonski and Ma supplementary material(File)
File 80.1 KB