Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T23:20:07.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF PROMPTS AND RECASTS IN FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2004

Roy Lyster
Affiliation:
McGill University

Abstract

Four teachers and their eight classes of 179 fifth-grade (10–11-year-old) students participated in this quasi-experimental classroom study, which investigated the effects of form-focused instruction (FFI) and corrective feedback on immersion students' ability to accurately assign grammatical gender in French. The FFI treatment, designed to draw attention to selected noun endings that reliably predict grammatical gender and to provide opportunities for practice in associating these endings with gender attribution, was implemented in the context of regular subject-matter instruction by three of the four teachers, each with two classes, for approximately 9 hours during a 5-week period, while the fourth teacher taught the same subject matter without FFI to two comparison classes. Additionally, each of the three FFI teachers implemented a different feedback treatment: recasts, prompts, or no feedback. Analyses of pretest, immediate-posttest, and delayed-posttest results showed a significant increase in the ability of students exposed to FFI to correctly assign grammatical gender. Results of the written tasks in particular, and to a lesser degree the oral tasks, revealed that FFI is more effective when combined with prompts than with recasts or no feedback, as a means of enabling L2 learners to acquire rule-based representations of grammatical gender and to proceduralize their knowledge of these emerging forms.This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (nos. 410-98-0175 and 410-2002-0988). Parts of this study were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics in Salt Lake City on April 7, 2002; the Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities in Toronto on May 26, 2002; and at the Congress of the International Association for Applied Linguistics in Singapore on December 12, 2002. I am grateful to the participating teachers and their students, to Lucy Fazio for her role as research associate in the data collection, to José Correa for his assistance with the statistical analyses, and to the following research assistants for contributions to various phases of this research: Susan Ballinger, Kristina Eisenhower, Andréanne Gagné, Sophie Beaudoin, Laura-Annie Bouffard, France Bourassa, Sophie Bourgeois, Elisa David, Mélanie Mathieu, Sophie Prince, Andrea Sterzuk, and David Syncox. I gratefully acknowledge Leila Ranta, Iliana Panova, and four anonymous SSLA reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2004 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

Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 5781). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Allwright, D. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher's treatment of learner error. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education: On TESOL '75 (pp. 96109). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Ammar, A. (2003). Corrective feedback and L2 learning: Elicitation and recasts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.
Anderson, J., Corbett, A., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 4, 167207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, R., & Offord, M. (1993). Using French: A guide to contemporary usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonate, P. (2000). Analysis of pretest-posttest designs. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRef
Bosquart, M. (1998). Nouvelle grammaire [New grammar]. Montreal: Guérin.
Braidi, S. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 142.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (1989). Second-language acquisition and the computational paradigm. Language Learning, 39, 535594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 2946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, W., & Iman, R. (1982). Analysis of covariance using the rank transformation. Biometrics, 38, 715724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K. (2000). Psycholinguistics in applied linguistics: Trends and perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 224237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 4263). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125151). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206257). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197261). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1984). Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of WH questions by children. Applied Linguistics, 5, 138155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit language learning (pp. 79114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 146.Google Scholar
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10, 583593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, L., & Lyster, R. (1998). Immersion and submersion classrooms: A comparison of instructional practices in language arts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19, 303317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grevisse, M., & Goosse, A. (1995). Nouvelle grammaire française [New French grammar]. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium: Duculot.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 542572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. (1998). The role of form-focused tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156174). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B., Cummins, J., Swain, M., & Allen, P. (1990). The nature of language proficiency. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 725). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. (1990). A comparison between the information-processing and the analysis/control approaches to language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 3045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huot, C. (1991). Dictionnaire des genres [Dictionary of genders]. Montreal: Éditions du Méridien.
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Larose, C., Le Petitcorps, F., Jutras, L., & Bissonnette, L. (1994). Mémo mag 5 [Memo mag 5]. Montreal: Graficor.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 3763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y.-H., & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46, 567611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77 (pp. 278293). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative evidence in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in the classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1541). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (1990). The role of analytic language teaching in French immersion programs. Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, 159176.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students' sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183218.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 5585.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1999). Immersion. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 626632). New York: Pergamon.
Lyster, R. (2002a). The importance of differentiating negotiation of form and meaning in classroom interaction. In P. Burmeister, T. Piske, & A. Rohde (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 381397). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Lyster, R. (2002b). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237253.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004, May). How to predict the grammatical gender of 8,000 French nouns. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 3766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings. Modern Language Journal, 82, 338356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46, 5385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 19, 349377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Arnold.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286325.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, 4363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netten, J. (1991). Towards a more language oriented second language classroom. In L. Malavé & G. Duquette (Eds.), Language, culture, and cognition (pp. 284304). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. Verplaeste (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 4771). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
O'Malley, M., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 4573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493527.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 119.Google Scholar
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2003). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students' oral language abilities: The Awareness-Practice-Feedback sequence. Unpublished manuscript submitted for publication.
Rebuffot, J. (1993). Le point sur l'immersion au Canada [Update on immersion in Canada]. Montreal: Éditions CEC.
Robinson, P., & Ha, M. (1993). Instance theory and second language rule learning under explicit conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 413438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, M. (1997). The Contrast Theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 332). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Part 2. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127190.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 7387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surridge, M. (1986). Genre grammatical et dérivation lexicale en français [Grammatical gender and lexical derivation in French]. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 31, 267283.Google Scholar
Surridge, M. (1995). Le ou la? The gender of French nouns. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
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. 235253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 6883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1997). French immersion programs in Canada. In J. Cummins & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 5. Bilingual education ( pp. 26269). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 370391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Tucker, R. (1967). The French speaker's skill with grammatical gender: An example of rule-governed behaviour. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
Tucker, R., Rigault, A., Lambert, W., & Segalowitz, N. (1968). A psychological investigation of French speakers' skill with grammatical gender. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 312316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar