Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:52:24.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IDENTIFYING THE IMPACT OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNERS' RESPONSES ON ESL QUESTION DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2005

Kim McDonough
Kim McDonough
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Swain's (1985, 1995, 2000) output hypothesis states that language production is facilitative of second language (L2) learning. An important component of the output hypothesis involves pushing learners to produce appropriate, accurate, and complex language (Swain, 1993), which may occur when interlocutors provide learners with negative feedback (Gass, 1997, 2003; Long, 1996; Mackey, in press; Pica, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). When learners modify their previous utterances in response to negative feedback, learning opportunities are created by both the provision of negative feedback and the production of modified output. Consequently, it is difficult to determine how these interactional features—alone or in combination—positively impact L2 development. The current study examines the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on English as a second language (ESL) question development, which is operationalized as stage advancement in Pienemann and Johnston's developmental sequence for ESL question formation (Pienemann & Johnston, 1987; Pienemann, Johnston, & Brindley, 1988). Thai English as a foreign language (EFL) learners (n = 60) carried out a series of communicative tasks with native English speakers in four conditions that provided different negative feedback and modified output opportunities and also completed four oral production tests over an 8-week period. Analysis of the treatment data identified the amount of modified output involving developmentally advanced question forms produced by the learners, and analysis of the test data revealed whether the learners' stage assignment changed over time. Logistic regression indicated that the only significant predictor of ESL question development was the production of modified output involving developmentally advanced question forms in response to negative feedback.I am grateful to Alison Mackey for her insightful comments on this paper and on the dissertation research on which it is based. I also thank Rhonda Oliver, Jeff Connor-Linton, Jennifer Leeman, Jenefer Philp, Ana-Maria Nuevo, and the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their valuable comments. Any errors, of course, are my own.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 79 - 103
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 303–318.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128–143.Google Scholar
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 232–262.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. (1995). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York: Springer Verlag.
Bock, K. (1995). Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In J. Miller & P. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language, and communication (pp. 181–216). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–985). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Carroll, S. (1995). The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 73–88). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers' priorities in correcting learners' errors in French immersion classes. In R. R. Day (Ed.), “Talking to learn”: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Cox, D., & Snell, E. (1989). Analysis of binary data. London: Chapman & Hall.
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–555.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 129–154). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. In E. Sadtano (Ed.), Language acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom ( pp. 179–211). Singapore: Regional English Language Centre.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 4, 385–407.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267–287.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (1999). The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behaviour of L2 learners. System, 27, 207–221.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2000). The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production. Language Learning, 50, 343–384.Google Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26, 175–182.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Linnell, J. (1995). Can negotiation provide a context for learning syntax in a second language? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 11, 83–103.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., 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.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1997). Interactional modifications and the development of questions in ESL. Unpublished manuscript, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
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.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2000, March). Interactional feedback on L2 morpho-syntax: Learners' perceptions and developmental outcomes. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Mackey, A. (in press). Interaction and second language development: Perspectives from SLA research. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from linguistics and psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners' reports about the L2 classroom. IRAL, 39, 285–307.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children's L2 development. System, 30, 459–477.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In P. Robinson & P. Skehan (Eds.), Individual differences in L2 learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
McDonough, K. (2001). Exploring the relationship between modified output and L2 learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Morris, F., & Tarone, E. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53, 325–368.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481.Google Scholar
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203–210.Google Scholar
O'Malley, J., Chamot, A., Stewner-Manzanares, R., Russo, R., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 185–296.Google Scholar
Pampel, F. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer. London: Sage.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.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. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.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.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and second language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Politzer, R., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103–123.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 163–182). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Saito, H. (1999). Dependence and interaction in frequency data analysis in SLA research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 453–475.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language teaching and testing ( pp. 119–140). London: Longman.
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 211–225.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89–102.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.Google Scholar
Shonerd, H. (1994). Repair in spontaneous speech: A window on second language development. In V. John-Steiner, C. Panofsky, & L. Smith (Eds.), Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy (pp. 82–108). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Silver, R. (2000). Input, output and negotiation: Conditions for second language development. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 345–371). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83, 1–22.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). Comparing ESL learners' attention to grammar on three different classroom tasks. RELC Journal: A journal of language teaching and research in Southeast Asia, 21, 104–124.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–191.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437–456.Google Scholar
Young, R., & Yandell, B. (1999). Top-down versus bottom-up analyses of interlanguage data: A reply to Saito. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 477–488.Google Scholar