Corrective Feedback in Task-based

Grammar Instruction:

A Case of Recast vs. Metalinguistic Feedback

Saeed Rezaei

Lap Lambert Academic Publishing

2011

I

نھ حسنت آخری دارد نھ سعدی را سخن پایان

ھ مستسقی و دریا ھمچنان باقی استبمیرد تشن

Sa’adi ( سعدی(

II

This work is dedicated to my nephew and nieces

Parham Rezaei, Maryam and Mehrsa Lahsaei

III

AbstractCurrently task-based language teaching and corrective feedback are two fertile areas of

research for exploration. This study investigated these two areas in a single study. First it

investigated the effect of methodology in grammar instruction, i.e. traditional vs. task-based

approach. Furthermore, it investigated the effect of corrective feedback in task-based

grammar instruction. After administering a Nelson test (for the intermediate) eighty

participants out of one hundred were selected from the intact classes at the Iran Language

Institute in Tehran. These eighty participants were randomly assigned to four groups

namely, recast group (G1), metalinguistic group (G2), no-feedback group (G3), and control

group (G4) each comprising of twenty participants. After that a test developed by the

researcher inquiring the conditionals and wish statements was given to the participants in

order to assure that the participants did not have a prior knowledge of these target structures.

Then, each group was treated based on its own specific methodology. After the treatment,

the same pre-test was given to the participants in order to measure the effectiveness of the

instructional approaches in each group. In order to answer the first research question, an

independent t-test was run and it indicated that task-based language teaching was more

effective than the traditional approach in grammar instruction. In addition, the results of the

one-way ANOVA and another t-test revealed that first of both corrective feedback types

were effective in task-based grammar instruction and secondly between the two corrective

feedback types metalinguistic feedback was more effective than recast in task-based

grammar instruction. The results of this study are considered to be useful in methodological

issues related to grammar instruction and error correction techniques. Moreover, teacher

educators can use the findings of this study in their teacher education courses for pre-service

or in-service teachers.

IV

Epigraph IDedication IIAbstract IIITable of Contents IVList of Tables VIIIList of Figures IXList of Abbreviations X

Table of ContentsChapter 1: Introduction1.1. Introduction 21.2. Significance of the study 31.3. Statement of the problem 41.4. Purpose of the study 51.5. Research Questions 51.6. Null Hypotheses 61.7. Limitations and delimitations 61.8. Theoretical and Operational Definitions of the key terms 7

1.8.1. Task 71.8.2. Task-based Language Teaching 71.8.3. Grammar Instruction 81.8.4. Corrective Feedback 81.8.5. Recast 81.8.6. Metalinguistic Feedback 9

Chapter 2: Review of the Related Literature

2.1. Corrective Feedback 112.1.1. Introduction 112.1.2 Error Correction: a General Overview 11

2.1.2.1. Error Correction from ALM to CLT 112.1.2.2. To Correct or not to Correct: A Controversy in SLA 13

2.1.3. Theoretical Rationale for Error Correction 132.1.3.1. Direct Contrast Hypothesis (Saxton, 1997) 132.1.3.2. Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990) 142.1.3.3. Universal Grammar Model (Nativist Position) 142.1.3.4. Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) 152.1.3.5. Connectionist Model of Language Learning 15

V

2.1.4. Different Types of Corrective Feedback 162.1.4.1. Recast 16

2.1.4.1.1. Theoretical Advantages and Limitations of Recasts 18

2.1.4.1.2. Recasts Ambiguity and Perception/Noticing 212.1.4.2. Explicit Feedback 232.1.4.3. Clarification Requests 242.1.4.4. Metalinguistic Feedback 252.1.4.5. Elicitations 262.1.4.6. Prompt 272.1.4.7. Repetitions 282.1.4.8. Translations 29

2.1.5. Corrective Feedback and Uptake 302.1.6. A Review of Major Studies on Error Correction in L1 322.1.7. Corrective Feedback and L2 Development: A Review of

Major Studies 33

2.2. Grammar Instruction 492.2.1. Introduction 492.2.2. Schools of Linguistics in a Glance 50

2.2.2.1. Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar 502.2.2.2. Chomsky’s Formalism vs. Hallidayan Functionalism 50

2.2.3. Historical Overview of Grammar Instruction 512.2.4. Grammar Instruction: to Teach or not to Teach 522.2.5. Main Approaches to Grammar Instruction 53

2.2.5.1. Deductive vs. Inductive Approach 532.2.5.2. Structured-Input Option 542.2.5.3. Production Practice 542.2.5.4. Negative Feedback 552.2.5.5. Processing Instruction 552.2.5.6. Interactional Feedback 552.2.5.7. Textual Enhancement 562.2.5.8. Form-focused Instruction (FFI) 562.2.5.9. Focus on Form vs. Focus of forms 582.2.5.10. Task-based approach 592.2.5.11. Focused vs. unfocused tasks 592.2.5.12. Consciousness-raising Tasks 602.2.5.13. Discourse-based Approaches 60

2.2.6. A Brief History of Task-based Language Teaching 612.2.7. Definitions of Task 61

VI

2.2.8. Task-Based Methodology 622.2.9. Task-based Language Teaching and SLA Theories 64

2.2.9.1. Monitor Model (Krashen, 1981, 1982) 642.2. 9.2. Output Hypothesis (Swain, 2000) 642.2. 9.3. Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1985 and 1996) 652.2. 9.4. Vygotskyan Socio-cultural Theory 652.2. 9.5. Skehan’s Cognitive Approach to TBLT (1998) 662.2. 9.6. Experiential Learning 66

2.2.10. Grammar Instruction in Practice: A Review of Major Studies 67

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1. Overview 723.2. Research Questions and Hypotheses 723.3. Research Site 733.4. Participants 743.5. Sampling 753.6. Instrumentation 75

3.6.1. Proficiency Test 753.6.2. Pre-test 753.6.3. Post-test 76

3.7. Targeted Grammar Structure 763.7.1. Conditionals 773.7.2. Wish 78

3.8. Tasks 783.9. Procedure 793.10. Data Analysis 803.11. Design 803.12. Summary of the Chapter 81

Chapter 4: Results & Discussions

4.1. Overview 834.2. Results of the Proficiency Test 834.3. Results of the Pre-test 844.4. Results of the Post-test 854.5. Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 86

4.5.1. Recast Group (G1) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 864.5.2. Metalinguistic Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 874.5.3. No Feedback Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 884.5.4. Traditional Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons 88

VII

4.6. Investigating the First Research Question 894.7. Investigating the Second Research question 914.8. Investigating the Third Research Question 924.9. Summary of the Chapter 94

Chapter5: Conclusions, Implications and Suggestions for Further Research5.1. Introduction 965.2. Discussion and Conclusions 965.3. Pedagogical Implications 97

5.3.1. Language Teaching Methodology in Iran 985.3.2. Syllabus Design and Materials Development 995.3.3. Teacher Training Courses 99

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research 100

References 102

Appendices

Appendix A: ILI Research and Planning Department Consent 132Appendix B: Nelson Proficiency Test for the Intermediate 133Appendix C: Test of Conditionals and Wish Statements 137

VIII

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 2.1. Definitions of recasts 18

Table 2.2. Prompts 28

Table 2.3. Some Definitions of tasks 61-62

Table 2.4. A Framework of task-base language teaching 63

Table 3.1. The ILI Levels of Language Proficiency 73

Table 3.2. Number of Participants in Each Group 74

Table 3.3. Features of the administered Nelson test 75

Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics :Proficiency test 83

Table4.2. Descriptive Statistics: Pretest 84

Table 4.3. Descriptive statistics for the four groups: post-test 85

Table 4.4. Descriptive Statistics for Recast Group (G1) 86

Table 4.5 Control narrative group(G1): pre-test and posttest: matched T-test 86

Table 4.6. Descriptive Statistics for Metalinguistic Group (G1) 87

Table 4.7. Table 4.7. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G2: Matched t-test 87

Table 4.8. Descriptive Statistics for No-Feedback Group (G3) 88

Table 4.9. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G3: Matched t-test 88

Table 4.10. Descriptive Statistics for the Traditional Group (G4) 89

Table 4.11. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G4: Matched t-test 89

Table 4.12. Descriptive Statistics for G3 and G4 90

Table 4.13. Independent t–test for G3 and G4 performance on the posttest (Q1) 90

Table 4.14. One-way ANOVA for Q2 92

Table 4.15. Descriptive Statistics for G3 and G4 93

Table 4.16. Independent t–test for G1 and G2 performance on the posttest (Q3) 93

IX

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 4.1. Proficiency Test Bar Graph 83

Figure 4.2. Pre-test Bar Graph 84

Figure 4.3. Post-test Graph 85

Figure 4.4 Means of G1, G2, and G3 91

X

List of Abbreviations

ALM: Audiolingual Method

ANOVA: Analysis of Variance

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

CR: Consciousness-raising

FFI: Form-focused Instruction

G: Group

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

TBLT: Task-based Language Teaching

1

Chapter I

Introduction

2

1.1. Introduction Research in L1 and L2 is a dynamic process every now and then undertaking a

specific aspect of the complex system of language. If we briefly go over the literature

in the field of language studies, we easily find the diversity of issues and areas

investigated in different era of language research.

One of the main areas of research in L1 and L2 research which has recently been

resurrected is the significance of error treatment/correction and its subsequent effects

on language learning. Also, task-based language teaching is an area which has been

put on pedestal by Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers including Ellis

(2003), Nunan (2004), Willis and Willis (2007), and Skehan (1996a). A lot is being

done in these two areas and this is a good reason for the vitality and fertileness of

these two lines of research. A big question mark on the top of language researchers’

heads which is constantly bewildering both our language researchers and practitioners

is the way error correction occurs through various corrective feedback techniques

especially in grammar instruction. Questions like how to treat errors, when to treat

errors, which type of errors to treat etc. are the main questions directing this area of

research.

Researchers in this area have investigated corrective feedback and its effect on

different aspects of language including grammar, pronunciation, and writing accuracy

(e.g. Bitchener, 2008; Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman,

2005). Studies on corrective feedback and grammar instruction approaches have

yielded different results, some confirming the previous research and some others

casting doubt on what the predecessors have tackled.

Research is usually motivated by what we practice. Error correction especially in

grammar instruction is an area which is constantly researched. The reason is initially

its prominence and occurrence in language classes. Every now and then we bump into

erroneous utterances made by our students which make us hesitant whether to correct

on the spot or let them pass. There are differing views regarding these incidents which

leave us in a limbo. Shall I correct? Does my correction affect the learners’ feelings?

Should I terminate the flow of speech or…?

3

All the above-mentioned questions and so many others lead us to make a final

decision and put an end to all our irresolution and uncertainty. Therefore, this work is

an attempt to contribute to this line of research.

1.2. Significance of the Study

Language teaching research like other areas of research has been constantly

changing its scope and focus. The results of these studies inform what we practice in

our language teaching practice and any other related domain. Corrective feedback and

task-based language teaching as two modern areas of research are the main focuses of

the present study.

The researcher believes that what we undertake as research in our field is not linked

to what we perform in our language classroom in Iran. In other words, grammar

instruction where grammar is taught through focused tasks followed by corrective

feedbacks is considered by the researcher as fruitful and facilitative which

significantly can enhance learners’ learning process in EFL/ESL classrooms especially

in our public school teaching practicum. The researcher believes that task-based

grammar instruction can be a good complement or substitute to the way teachers teach

grammar at school or university. As experience and research shows, it is more

enjoyable, motivating and helpful in terms of learning grammar (e.g. Ellis, 2003;

Fotos, 1994; Fotos & Ellis, 1991; Garcia Mayo, 2002; Loumpourdi, 2005). In

addition, research indicates that providing learners with appropriate corrective

feedback including recasts, metalinguistic explanation, and prompts are considered to

be helpful in providing learners with accurate use of language (Ammar & Spada,

2006; Carpenter, Jeon, MacGregor, & Mackey, 2006; Han, 2002; Ishida, 2004;

Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Lyster, 1994 & 2004).

There are benefits for language teachers, teacher trainers, and material developers

in that they might be interested to implement the task-based approach with feedback in

their teaching practice. On the other hand, integrating the task-based teaching

approach into grammar instruction brings language instruction more closely to its

main goal, i.e. the development of communicative competence and enabling learners

to use language for communicative purposes.

4

1.3. Statement of the problem

Grammar has experienced its ups and downs in the course of language instruction.

It was once regarded as the most crucial issue in language instruction, i.e. prior to

Communicative Language Teaching (henceforth CLT). With the rise of CLT in the

late 1970s, some scholars treated grammar as irrelevant and unnecessary which did not

contribute to our acquired knowledge (e.g. Krashen 1981, 1982 cited in Nassaji and

Fotos, 2004). Notwithstanding, current researchers (e.g. Ellis, 2006; Garcia Mayo,

2002; Loumpourdi, 2005; Mitchell, 2000; Mohammed, 2004; Nassaji and Fotos, 2004;

Williams, 2005) have demonstrated the need for formal instruction for learners to

attain high levels of accuracy. In other words, currently form-focused instruction or

task-based instruction are two closely related approaches to grammar instruction

where both form and meaning are attended to (Fotos & Nassaji, 2006).

Furthermore, there are new ideas about error correction techniques especially in

oral and written language which are strongly validated by research. Corrective

feedback is considered to enhance accuracy in language production (see e.g., Lyster &

Ranta, 1997).

In spite of all the above-mentioned innovations in grammar instruction and

corrective feedback, most if not all the teachers in Iranian schools and universities and

also some foreign countries still follow the principles of old deductive teacher-fronted

approach ignorant of the new ideas regarding error correction and corrective feedback.

The problem arises when learners graduate for language courses with a weak

command of accurate language production. Furthermore, students in such classes often

feel disillusioned with deductive translation-based approach and always nag about the

boring grammar classes. Task-based Language Teaching with appropriate error

correction techniques, as the research confirms, can be a supplement or an alternative

to traditional approaches to grammar instruction where feedback is mostly in the form

of translation rather than elicitation, recasts, or other newly proposed feedback

techniques. Task-based language teaching is a more enjoyable approach to language

learning or as Lochana and Deb (2006) put it is a way toward ‘learning English

without tears’.

5

1.4. Purpose of the Study

This study intends to investigate two areas of research which are currently under

exploration by language researchers in a single study. In other words, this is a two-

folded study. First of all, the researcher intends to investigate the effect of

methodology in grammar teaching. In other words, the researcher wishes to enquire if

task-based language teaching as an alternative to the traditional approach to grammar

instruction is facilitative for grammar learning. This line of research is motivated due

to the outstanding place of grammar in language syllabus at schools and elsewhere.

Furthermore, this study intends to investigate if providing learners with different

types of feedback, i.e. recast vs. metalinguistic feedback as implicit vs. explicit

feedback types respectively, have any significant effects on Iranian Intermediate EFL

learners’ grammatical knowledge.

These two purposes establish the grounds for conducting this study. The researcher

hopes that the findings of this study can contribute to the improvement of grammar

instruction and corrective feedback implementation in Iranian EFL context and also

those abroad.

1.5. Research Questions

The current study seeks the following research questions:

1. Does Task-based grammar instruction have any significant effect on Iranian

intermediate EFL learners’ development of a specific set of linguistic features

(conditionals and wish statements in this study)?

2. Is Task-based grammar instruction more effective with feedback (i.e. recast vs.

metalinguistic feedback) than without any feedback?

3. Which type of feedback is more effective in task-based grammar instruction, recast or

metalinguistic feedback?

6

1.6. Null Hypotheses

Based on the above-mentioned research questions, the following null hypotheses were

made:

1. Task-based grammar instruction has no significant effect on Iranian intermediate EFL

learners’ development of grammatical knowledge.

2. Recast and Metalinguistic feedback have no significant effect on grammatical

knowledge of Iranian intermediate EFL learners achieved through task-based grammar

instruction.

3. Types of feedback, i.e. recast vs. metalinguistic feedback, have no differential effect

on the grammatical achievement of Iranian intermediate EFL learners.

1.7. Limitations and Delimitations1. The participants in this study were from intact classes at the Iran Language Institute

(ILI). Convenience sampling was adopted. Hence, the generalizeability of this study to

larger populations might be questioned.

2. In order to make the study more manageable, the researcher had to limit the study to

only conditionals and wish statements. Possibly more generalizations would be

achieved by taking into account more grammatical patterns.

3. The researcher exclusively investigated intermediate-level participants. In order to

make it more generalizeable, other studies should include participants of different

language proficiency (e.g., advanced or elementary), i.e. across proficiency levels.

4. The researcher investigated only the immediate effects of corrective feedback in task-

based grammar instruction. In order to fully contribute the findings to corrective

feedback, long term effects can also be investigated.

5. The researcher did not consider uptake as a way to evaluate the effectiveness of

corrective feedback due to logistical issues like time and facilities (e.g. audio or video

recording) for measuring the number of uptakes. Other studies can accomplish this.

6. Participants were from intact classes. Hence total randomization was not observed. To

get a more general view of the effect of corrective feedbacks we can have absolute

randomization.

7

1.8. Theoretical & Operational Definitions of the Key Terms

1.8.1. Task

The literature is replete with definitions for task to the extent that Kumaravadivelu

(2006) states that ‘a task is a task is a task’. However, in the present research, focused

task is used which is ‘an activity which has all the characteristics of a task but has

been designed to induce learners’ attention to some specific linguistic form when

processing either input or output’ (Ellis, 2003; p. 342). Ellis (2003) further states that

focused tasks have three major purposes:

They can be language activating and fluency stretching.

They can be knowledge constructing.

They can contribute to the development of explicit linguistic knowledge.

(Ellis, 2003; p. 172)

According to Nitta and Gardner (2005), currently there are mainly five types of

form-focused tasks used in language coursebooks. They include: grammar

consciousness-raising tasks, interpretations tasks, focused communication tasks,

grammar exercises, and grammar practice activities. The first three are proposed by

Ellis (1993) based on C-R. The fourth one is similar to grammar exercises as practiced

traditionally in grammar classes. Finally the last one is communicative grammar

practice as mentioned by Ur (1988).

An example is asking the learners to reconstruct a text. This type of task is called

text reconstruction task. Or an opinion-gap task with a focus on conditionals or wish

statements as utilized in the current study. Another type of task that was employed in

this study included picture description task which focus on the use of target

grammatical features of this study.

1.8.2. Task-based Language Teaching

A teaching approach, as an alternative to Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP),

based on the use of communicative and interactive tasks as the central units for the

planning and delivery of instruction. It is an extension of CLT and an attempt by its

proponents to apply the principles of SLA to teaching (Richards & Schmidt, 2002). Or

8

as Richards and Rodgers (2001) put it task-based Language Teaching ‘refers to an

approach based on the use of tasks as the core unit of planning and instruction in

language teaching’. In this study, task-based language teaching focused on the use of

focused tasks. The teacher went through Willis’s framework in teaching a set of

grammatical points.

1.8.3. Grammar Instruction

Ellis (2006) defines grammar teaching succinctly as incorporating

…any instructional technique that draws learners’ attention to some specific grammatical

form in such a way that it helps them either to understand it metalinguistically and/or process

it in comprehension and/or production so that they can internalize it (Ellis, 2006, p.84).

Grammar instruction in this study focused only on the teaching of conditionals and

wish statements. The researcher used task-based language teaching in order to teach

grammar in the experimental groups. Traditional deductive teacher-fronted approach

was used for the comparison group.

1.8.4. Corrective Feedback

Corrective feedback takes the form of responses to learner utterances that contain

an error (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Of the corrective techniques identified in the

literature, recast, elicitation or prompts, metalinguistic feedback, repetition,

clarification requests, translation, and explicit negative feedback are the most

important ones. The two that are the focus of this study are: recast and metalinguistic

feedback.

1.8.5. Recast

Long (1996) defined a recast as a discourse move that ‘rephrases an utterance by

changing one or more sentence components (subject, verb, or object) while still

referring to its central meanings’ (cited in Carpenter et al 2006). Recasts are thought to

help L2 learners notice the discrepancy between their non-native like utterances and

the target-like reformulation (Ammar & Spada, 2006). An example of recast is:

Learner: I lost my road.Teacher: Oh, yeah, I see, you lost your way. And then what happened?(Adapted from Brown, 2007; p. 277)

9

Recast was operationalised in this study as the teachers’ reformulation of all or part

of a learner’s problematic utterance that corrected the errors without changing the

central meaning of the utterance.

1.8.6. Metalinguistic Feedback

Metalinguistic feedback is defined by Lyster and Ranta (1997) as “comments,

information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the learner’s utterance”.

For example, when a learner makes a mistake you can provide him/her with

metalinguistic feedback as:

- I goed to cinema yesterday.-you need to use past tense here.

Metalinguistic explanation was operationalised in this study as the teachers’ use of

metalinguistic terminologies and explaining the errors made by learners accompanied

with metalinguistic cues.

10

Chapter II

Review of the Related

Literature

2.1. Corrective Feedback

2.2. Grammar Instruction

11

2.1. Corrective Feedback

2.1.1. Introduction

Since the purpose of this study is to investigate the potential effects of corrective

feedback, this chapter will provide a review of major issues relevant to this purpose.

First a very short and brief overview of error correction tendencies from Audiolingual

Method (ALM) era to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) era is given.

Second, the controversy in SLA over error correction is briefly discussed. Third, the

theoretical rationale for error correction is provided. Fourth, corrective feedback types

and their different dimensions are comprehensively dealt with. Fifth, corrective

feedback and uptake is explained. Finally, in two separate sections, studies done on

corrective feedback in L1 and L2 are reviewed and reflected upon. (See Rezaei,

Mozaffari, & Hatef, 2011 for a concise review).

2.1.2. Error Correction: A General Overview

2.1.2.1. Error Correction from ALM to CLT

In the mid 1970s, language pedagogy was dominated by two theoretical paradigms

of the era. One was the behaviorist psychology and the other was structuralism

advocated by the educational psychology and the linguistic school of the age

respectively. As Johnson and Johnson (1998) put it, Behaviorism is:

A predominantly American Learning theory developed earlier this century and

associated with psychologists like Thorndike and Skinner. Learning is viewed as the

development of stimulus-response associations through habit formation, habits being

developed by practice and reinforcement (Johnson & Johnson, 1998; p. 28)

On the other hand, Johnson and Johnson (1998) define structuralism as:

Structural linguistics is associated with Bloomfield (1933) and is so called because

of the techniques it employs, involving the use of contrastive units like the phoneme

and morpheme.

12

The Audiolingual method was the aural-oral approach to language teaching which

was exclusively informed by Behaviorism and Structuralism. The advocates of

Audiolingualism strongly prohibited errors and errors were considered as taboos in

their teaching practice discourse. Among these Audiolingual proponents was Brooks

(1960) who favored immediate, consistent, and explicit error correction. Brooks

(1960) states that:

Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected.... The principal method of avoiding error in language learning is to observe and practice the right model a sufficient number of times; the principal way of overcoming it is to shorten the time lapse between the incorrect response and the presentation once more of the correct model. (p. 58)

One of the main principles underlying Audiolingual method was that errors must be

prevented because they lead to the formation of bad habits. In other words, in ALM

when errors occur, they should be immediately corrected by the teacher (Brown, 2007;

Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards &Rodgers, 2001). In the 1970s and 1980s, some

scholars claimed that error correction was not only unnecessary, but also harmful to

language learning. Perhaps the most well known proponent of this approach is Stephen

Krashen (1981), whose Monitor Model as realized in Natural Approach prohibits error

correction.

After the ALM era, came the era of methods such as community language learning

and Natural Approach. According to Brown (2007), they adopted a ‘laissez-faire’

approach to error correction (p. 273).

Although Audiolingualism was the dominant approach to language teaching up to

the early 1970s, the emergence of communicative approaches marked an epoch of

different attitudes and practices with respect to error correction, and L2 teachers and

researchers started to view learners' errors differently (Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada,

2001, Russell, 2009). CLT approaches, including task-based instruction, strike a

balance between what Audiolinguilists and Gonitivists do. That is, an error is viewed

as evidence of learners' linguistic development, not as a sin to be avoided. CLT

advocates recognize the need for fluency and this allows teachers to leave some errors

uncorrected. See also Loewen (2007) for more recent view on error correction.

13

2.1.2.2. To Correct or not to Correct: A Controversy in SLA

One of the main concerns of researchers in the area of error correction and corrective

feedback is the legitimate question of whether errors should be corrected or not.

Hendrickson (1978) in an important article published in Modern Language Journal

argues that (a) errors should be corrected; (b) global errors, rather than local errors,

should be corrected; and (c) errors should be corrected with consistency and

systematicity. Lee (1990), and Bailey and Celce-Murcia (1979) also believe that error

correction is an indispensible part of mastery in language learning.

However, opponents of error correction such as Truscott (1999) argue that it causes

“embarrassment, anger, inhibition, and feelings of inferiority” (p.441). On the other

hand, Chaudron (1988) reports a study in which only 30 percent of corrections in an

immersion class led to subsequent observable avoidance of the corrected errors (cited

in Johnson & Johnson, 1998). Krashen (1981) also stresses his ‘no-interface’ position

with no error correction.

It has been argued by some scholars that corrective feedback should be abandoned

because it can have potential negative effects on learners’ affect, and hence impeding

the flow of communication (Krashen, 1981; Truscott, 1999).

However, currently SLA researchers strongly believe in error correction and

corrective feedback (e.g. Ellis, 2006; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).

2.1.3. Theoretical Rationale for Error Correction

2.1.3.1. Direct Contrast Hypothesis (Saxton, 1997)

Research in the area of interactional feedback and how conversation and feedback

might lead to language development is partly informed by direct contrast hypothesis

which is defined within the context of child language acquisition as follows:

When the child produces an utterance containing an erroneous form, which is

responded to immediately with an utterance containing the correct adult alternative to

the erroneous form (i.e., when negative evidence is supplied), the child may perceive

the adult form as being in contrast with the equivalent child form. Cognizance of a

relevant contrast can then form the basis for perceiving the adult form as a correct

alternative to the child form (Saxton, 1997; p.155 emphasis in original).

14

According to this hypothesis, when the child recognizes the contrast between the

adult construction and his/her construction, the first step in modifying the interlanguage

to the target language norms occurs.

2.1.3.2. Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990)

As part of his own experience as a learner of Portuguese, Schmidt (1990, 2001)

postulates that input does not become intake for language learning unless it is noticed,

i.e., consciously registered. As part of his strong version of the noticing hypothesis, he

further proposed that nothing is learned unless it has been noticed. In a more

conservative weak version, it is said that noticing does not itself result in acquisition,

but it paves the way for acquisition to occur. However, connectionists believe that the

likelihood of acquisition is best achieved by the frequency with which something is

available for processing, not the noticing alone. Noticing hypothesis is related to

corrective feedback studies in that attention, noticing, and awareness, are crucial in

perceiving different types of feedback and enhancing their benefits for language

learners. In L2 research, the most often cited explanations of the benefits of recasts are

based on Schmidt’s (1990) “noticing hypothesis,” which suggests that in order to

acquire new linguistic features, learners must first notice these features in the input.

2.1.3.3. Universal Grammar Model (Nativist Position)

Based on some interpretations of a Universal Grammar model of language

acquisition, it might be hypothesized that any effectiveness of recasts is not solely due

to their role as “negative evidence” (i.e., information about what is not acceptable in

the target language), rather they also provide “positive evidence” (i.e., examples of

acceptable target language sentences). From this perspective, learners have no

conscious awareness that the recast is intended as corrective, and the benefit of the

recast would be that the appropriate positive evidence was present in an accessible

way in the input the learner was exposed to.

Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982), for example, have long rejected any significant

role for negative evidence in SLA. The evidence they cite in support of their position,

however, relates mainly to children (who arguably learn differently from adults) or to

writing (which involves more than the immediate processing in which the present

study is interested).

15

2.1.3.4. Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996)

Long’s (1996) interaction hypothesis proposes that feedback obtained during

conversational interaction promotes interlanguage (IL) development because

interaction ‘‘connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention,

and output in productive ways’’ (Long, 1996, pp. 451–452). Gass (1997) and Pica

(1994) have made similar arguments for the efficacy of interactional feedback.

As Han (2002a) argues, much of the L2 research on recast is motivated by Long’s

Interaction Hypothesis. This hypothesis was proposed by Long in two versions, first

in 1980s and the updated version in 1996. This hypothesis strongly insists that

language acquisition requires or greatly benefits from interaction, communication, and

especially negotiation of meaning. Long’s (1996) interactional hypothesis evolved

from Hatch’s (1978) observation of the importance of conversation in developing

grammar and also Krashen’s (1981) input hypothesis which claimed that

‘comprehensible input’ is a necessary condition for SLA (cited in Baleghizadeh,

2007). According to Ellis (2003) and Pica (1994) interaction hypothesis helps L2

learning in three ways:

It helps learners obtain comprehensible input. It helps learners with negative feedback, and It prompts learners to reformulate their utterances (cited in Baleghizadeh, 2007;

p.125).

2.1.3.5. Connectionist Model of Language Learning According to Nick Ellis (2005), as cited in Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006),

connectionists models also lend support to explicit error correction. Nick Ellis (2005)

differentiates conscious and unconscious learning. He emphasizes the role of attention

and consciousness in conscious learning and the role of connectionist learning in

implicit learning.

According to the connectionist model as closely related to Parallel Distributed

Processing (PDP) model, neurons in the brain may be linked to so many other neurons

and therefore the stronger these neurons are connected to each other through

experience, the better learning occurs (Brown, 2007; pp.31-32).

For more information regarding connectionist model of learning you can see

Carroll (2008), and Mitchell & Myles (1998, 2004).

16

2.1.4. Different Types of Corrective Feedback

Lyster and Ranta (1997) identified five corrective strategies other than recasts (i.e.,

explicit correction, clarification requests, metalinguistic information, elicitation, and

repetition), whereas Panova and Lyster (2002) added one more, i.e., translation. In the

following section each of these corrective feedback techniques is explained.

2.1.4.1. Recast

As a corrective feedback technique, recasts were initially used by L1 acquisition

researchers (e.g., Bohannon & Stanowicz, 1988) who observed that adults or caregivers

tended to repair their children’s ill-formed utterances by recasting morphosyntactic or

semantic errors therein. In L1 studies, Nelson, Carskaddon, and Bonvillian (1973)

appear to have been the first to use the term “recast” to refer to responses by adults to

children’s utterances (cited in Nicholas et al, 2001; p.724). Perhaps the best-known

advocate of implicit corrective feedback (i.e., recast) in L2 studies is Michael Long,

who endorses the use of recasts, for he claims that they are the most effective way to

direct attention to form without undue detraction from an overall focus on meaningful

communication (Long, 1996, 2007).

Nicholas et al (2001) argued that L2 researchers, contrary to L1 researchers, have

utilized different definitions for recasts as an implicit corrective feedback. For

example, Doughty and Varela (1998) used ‘corrective feedback’ which is

operationalized almost totally different from what other researchers have used. As

Ellis and Sheen (2006, pp. 78-80) argue recasts are of various types including

corrective recasts (Doughty & Varela, 1998), corrective/non-corrective recasts (Farrar,

1992), full/partial recasts, single/multiple recasts, single utterance/extended utterance

recasts, and simple/complex recasts (Ellis & Sheen, 2006). In the 1980s, the definition

of recasts was further divided into simple and complex recasts. According to Nelson,

Denninger, Bonvillian, Kaplan, & Baker (1983) simple recasts are characterized as

minimal changes to the child's utterance, whereas complex recasts are made by

providing the child with substantial additions. Nelson et al. (1983) report that children

benefit from simple recasts more than from complex recasts, in terms of their

linguistic development. Apart from the variety in operationalizing recast which leads

17

to mixed results, there are other difficulties inherent in recast put forward by Ellis and

Sheen (2006) as follows:

Recasts are functionally different, i.e., one might address negotiation of meaning and another addressing negotiation of form.

Recasts are said to be implicit corrective feedback. However, it constitutes explicit focus as well.

It is not possible to clarify whether recasts provide negative evidence or positive evidence because it is dependent on the learners’ orientation to the interaction.

Recasts are multifunctional and it might be difficult for the learners to perceive its corrective force.

Depending on which orientation the learners adopt, different interpretations can be obtained.

Recasts are mostly investigated from a cognitive point of view, whereas sociopsychological factors must also be considered.

The role of uptake must be made clear. Various factors might influence the facilitative impact of recasts including

learner factors, target structure, the type of recasts… The effectiveness of intensive and focused recasts should also be explored. We must be wary not to extrapolate the findings from laboratory studies of

intensive focused recasts to classroom situations. More studies and evidence are required to make the effectiveness of recast over

other types of feedbacks clear.

Lyster (1998b) recoded the recasts from Lyster and Ranta (1997) in terms of four

types: isolated declarative recasts (a reformulation in an utterance with falling

intonation and no additional meaning), isolated interrogative recasts (a reformulation

in an utterance with rising intonation and no additional meaning), incorporated

declarative recasts (a reformulation in an utterance with falling intonation and

additional information), and incorporated interrogative recasts (a reformulation in an

utterance with rising information and additional information). However, in his review

of the nature and function of recasts, Saxton (2005) argues that the existing

categorization of recasts is not useful for theory or practice, and therefore calls for a

more fine-grained categorization.

Despite the various definitions proposed for corrective recasts in the related

literature, there seems to be a set of definite agreed-upon characteristics inherent in

corrective recasts as recapitulated here: a recast (is)

- a corrective move which comes after an erroneous utterance, - a reformulation of the ill-formed utterance, - an expansion of the ill-formed utterance, and- maintains its central meaning.

18

The definition of recasts varies among studies in SLA. Some studies simply

consider the implicit reformulation, yet, some other studies add other additional

elements in the definition of recasts, such as length (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997),

stressed intonation (Doughty & Varela, 1998), and number of reformulation (e.g.

Philp, 2003). Given such variety of definitions of recasts, it is hard to directly contrast

the interpretation of the results or conduct a meta-analytic study because of the

diversity in defining and operationalizing recasts. Table 2.1 shows the most important

definitions offered for recast in the literature.

Table 2.1. Definitions of recasts (adapted from Ellis & Sheen, 2006; p. 580)Long (1996, p. 434)Recasts are utterances that rephrase a child’s utterance by changing one or more components (subject, verb, object) while still referring to its central meaning.

Lyster and Ranta (1997, p. 46)Recasts involve the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance minus the error.

Braidi (2002, p. 20)A response was coded as a recast if it incorporated the content words of the immediately preceding incorrect NNS utterance and also changed and corrected the utterance in some way (e.g., phonological, syntactic, morphological, or lexical).

Long (2006) A corrective recast may be defined as a reformulation of all or part of a learner’s immediately preceding utterance in which one or more non-target-like (lexical, grammatical, etc) items are replaced by the corresponding target language form(s), and where, throughout the exchange, the focus of the interlocutors is on meaning not language as an object.

Sheen (2006) A recast consists of the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance that contains at least one error within the context of a communicative activity in the classroom.

2.1.4.1.1. Theoretical Advantages and Limitations of Recasts

Several theoretical reasons emphasize the importance and effectiveness of recasts in

SLA studies (Long, 2006; Saxton, 2005). First of all, recasts pop up in meaningful

communicative activities where interlocutors share a "joint attentional focus" (Long,

2006; p. 114). Second, the reactive nature of recasts bring a specific feature into focus

which brings with it attention and motivation on the part of the learners. Third, the

content of recasts is considered to be comprehended by the learners and hence provide

the learners with additional resources available, which in turn facilitates learners'

19

form-function mapping (Doughty, 2001). Fourth, due to the reactive nature of recasts

they do not impede the flow of communication and is hence considered to be more

effective and helpful than explicit corrective feedbacks. Finally, Saxton's (2005)

Direct Contrast Hypothesis has also accounted for the effectiveness of recasts in

language development. The Direct Contrast Hypothesis states that "when negative

evidence is supplied, the child may perceive the adult form as being in contrast with

the equivalent child form”. This is what Loewen and Philp (2006) refer to as

‘juxtaposition’. Drawing on Saxton (1997), they argue that recasts provide learners

with opportunities to juxtapose the incorrect forms with the correct forms and hence be

a model and a contrast with the learners’ non-target-like utterance.

The first limitation of recast is related to its being noticeable or not. Although

recasts are upheld by some researchers as an effective corrective feedback technique,

others (e.g., Lyster, 1998a; Panova & Lyster, 2002) believe that recasts usually pass

unnoticed by the learners and hence are not facilitative for interlanguage development.

Another issue raised against recasts is that some researchers believe that recasts are

ambiguous and hence are sometimes perceived as synonymous in function as mere

repetition for language learners (e.g., Long, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Morris &

Tarone, 2003; Nicholas et al, 2001).

The third limitation of recasts is related to its repairing function, i.e. according to

Loewen and Philp (2006) recasts do not elicit repair and learners are simply provided

with the correct form without being pushed to modify their interlanguage.

Furthermore, as the forth limitation of recasts we can refer to its various

effectiveness based on the targeted form under study. In other words, Loewen and

Philp (2006) believe that based on previous research (e.g., Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Long,

1996; Long, Inagaky, Ortega, 1998) recasts may be differentially effective depending

on the targeted form under study.

Evidence for the positive impact of recasts on L2 learning comes form the bulky

research done in the last two decades or so (Ayoun, 2001; Braidi, 2002; Doughty &

Varela, 1998; Han, 2002; Havranek, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003; Long,

Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Muranoi, 2000; Oliver, 1995, 2000;

Philp, 2003).

20

Observational studies cast doubt on whether recasts are an effective type of

corrective feedback, while experimental studies generally find that recasts have a

positive impact on L2 learning. Some researchers argue that recasts are ineffective to

trigger successful repair (Lochtman, 2002; Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997;

Morris, 2002; Oliver, 1995), whereas others support the corrective force of recasts to

elicit learners' repair (Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Mackey &

Philp, 1998). Nicholas et al (2001) believe that the contradictory interpretations of

recasts can be attributed to the different contexts in which recasts are implemented, i.e.

classroom vs. laboratory settings. Nicholas et al (2001) further argue that recasts seem

to be more effective in a laboratory context than in a classroom context, probably due

to the fact that target item and type of feedback tend to be highly controlled and

attended to in a laboratory setting, so that learners are likely to recognize the intention

of the feedback and differentiate it from simple repetitions.

Studies in a classroom setting generally suggest the ineffectiveness of recasts as

corrective feedback (e.g., Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b;

Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Morris & Tarone, 2003; Nabei & Swain, 2002; Panova &

Lyster, 2002). One potential source of problem with such results was that many of the

classroom studies did not measure developmental changes resulting from recasts (e.g.,

Ellis et al., 2001; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster,

2002). Instead, they based their claims on uptake, defined as learners' immediate use of

recasts, or lack thereof. Conversely, studies conducted in a tightly controlled laboratory

setting, using a pretest-posttest design, generally support the benefits of recasts for

learning (e.g., Carroll & Swain, 1993; Han, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003;

Long et al., 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998).

These mixed findings about the utility of recasts in SLA seem to have partly

resulted from measures of development and the contexts in which studies were

conducted (classroom vs. laboratory and/or teacher-fronted interaction vs. dyadic

interaction).

Contrary to the findings of the classroom-based studies, studies conducted in a

controlled laboratory setting have generally lent support for the utility of recasts in

SLA (e.g., Braidi, 2002; Carroll & Swain, 1993; Han, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman,

21

2003; Long et al., 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Oliver, 1995). These studies

measured developmental changes resulting from exposure to recasts using pre- and

posttests.

In most of the studies, recasts were found effective, although their efficacy seemed

largely dependent upon such factors as the nature of the target feature, learner

developmental readiness, LI influence, and working memory (Han, 2001; Ishida,

2004; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Long et al., 1998).

In summary, experimental studies on recasts indicate that they are effective at least

for the investigated target linguistic items in the previous studies. Classroom studies

generally suggest a minimal contribution of recasts to learning, mostly on the basis of

a lower rate of learner uptake of recasts. In contrast, laboratory studies generally lend

support for the facilitative effects of recasts on at least short-term L2 development,

typically measured by gains on posttests.

2.1.4. 1.2. Recasts Ambiguity and Perception/Noticing

Although recent research considers recast as an effective technique in promoting L2

development, some other researchers have brought up the ambiguity of recasts as a

hindering point for L2 development. In other words, a number of interaction

researchers (e.g., Braidi, 2002; Chaudron, 1977, 1988; Fanselow, 1977; Long, 1996;

Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey et al., 2000; Nicholas et al.,

2001; Oliver & Mackey, 2003) believe that learners might perceive recasts not as a

corrective feedback but simply as a repetition without any corrective function

(Carpenter et al, 2006). Hence, the learners might fail in perceiving the corrective

function of recasts.

Hence, some researchers have embarked on studies investigating recast ambiguity

(Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002). Lyster (1998a)

demonstrated the ambiguity of recasts in classroom discourse where both recasts and

non-corrective repetitions co-occurred. He argued that young learners were not likely to

notice the majority of recasts. He also revealed that teachers used recasts following

learners’ ill-formed utterances in the same way that they used non-corrective repetition

22

following well-formed learner utterances. This added to the ambiguous nature of

recasts for the learners.

Similarly, Long (1996) recognizes the ambiguous nature of recasts, and argues that

it is hard for NNS to determine "whether a NS response is a model of the correct way

or just a different way of saying the same thing" (p. 449).

One of major studies in noticing of recasts was done by Philp (2003). She reported

that learners noticed over 60-70% of recasts in her experimental research. The

participants of her study were thirty-three adult ESL learners who took part in five

sessions of dyadic task-based interaction with native interlocutors. In an interactional

way, the NS provided the learners with recasts whenever they produced an erroneous

utterance especially with regard to the target feature which was question formation.

Noticing in this study was operationalized as the learners' ability to repeat recasts

verbatim immediately after the recall cue (two knocks). An example was:

NNS: Why he is very unhappy?NS: Why is he very unhappy? [2 knocks]NNS: Yeah why is very unhappy?(Philp, 2003, p. 108, italics in original)

Results showed that although learners noticed 60-70% of recasts, accurate recall of

recasts was constrained by two factors: learners’ level of language proficiency and the

length and number of changes in the recasts.

Carpenter et al (2006) used a video-tape stimulus to explore learners’ interpretation

of recasts. The participants were shown video clips and were asked whether they

thought they were hearing a recast, a repetition, or other types of feedback.

Egi (2007a) explored how learners interpreted recasts occurring in NSs-NNSs task-

based interactions. The tasks in her study included a picture description task and a

spot-difference task. The participants of her study were forty-nine adult learners of

Japanese as a foreign language (JEL) who were engaged in a one-on-one interaction

with a NS. The NS provided the learners with recasts whenever they produced an

erroneous utterance while interacting. The results showed that the learners noticed

64.64% of morphosyntactic recasts and 57.46% of lexical recasts. Of the

morphosyntactic recasts, 21% of the recasts were interpreted as response to content,

34% were positive evidence, 19%> were positive evidence, and 26% were positive and

23

negative evidence. She also examined how such interpretations were related to the

length of recasts and the number of changes made in recasts: it was evident that, in

both morphosyntactic and lexical recasts, the learners were more likely to interpret

longer recasts and those with more changes as responses to content. In contrast, when

recasts were shorter and involved fewer changes, the learners were more likely to

attend to the linguistic evidence in recasts. These findings corroborated Philp's (2003)

study.

Han (2002a) noted that “recasts are among the least clear and direct forms of

negative feedback” (p. 550). Also Mackey, Gass, and McDonough’s (2000) study

provided evidence that learners do indeed often fail to perceive recasts as corrections,

especially for morphosyntactic errors. As a number of studies (e.g. Doughty & Varela,

1998; Han, 2002) have shown, the ambiguity of recasts can be reduced by ensuring

that they focus on a single linguistic feature and that their corrective force is

linguistically signaled by, for example, the use of emphatic stress on the target item as

did Doughty & Varela (1998).

All in all, more research is required in this area in order to establish an agreed-upon

conception about the ambiguity of recasts in their effectiveness for L2 development.

2.1.4.2. Explicit Feedback

Feedback that carries explicit error correction falls at the explicit extreme on the

continuum of corrective feedback. In their observation of French immersion classrooms,

Lyster and Ranta (1997) documented "the explicit provision of the corrected form

[through which the teacher] clearly indicates that what the student had said was incorrect".

Such explicit negative feedback was sometimes introduced by phrases such as "Oh, you

mean X," or "You should say Y" as illustrated in Example below.

ExampleStudent: La note pour le shot (The note for the shot)Teacher: Oh, pour la, oh, pour ca. Tu veux dire pour la piqure. Piqure. Oui? (Oh, for the, oh, for that. You mean for the needle. Needle. Yes?)(Lyster & Ranta, 1997; pp. 63-64)

24

Explicit error correction, therefore, is characterized by an overt and clear indication of

the existence of an error and the provision of the target-like reformulation. Its

communicatively intrusive nature amplifies the provision of both negative and positive

evidence, potentially aiding learners in noticing the gap between their interlanguage and

the target-like form. However, in providing the target-like reformulation, explicit error

correction reduces the need for the learner to produce a modified response. Thus, explicit

error correction, because it supplies the learner with both positive and negative evidence,

facilitates one type of processing, the noticing of an interlanguage/target language

difference, but reduces another type of processing, the modified production of an

interlanguage form to a more target-like form.

According to Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) explicit feedback can take two forms:

a) Explicit correction: This type of corrective feedback provides both positive and

negative evidence by clearly saying that what the learner has produced is

erroneous, e.g. No, not goed - went.

b) Metalinguistic feedback: It is defined by Lyster and Ranta (1997) as “comments,

information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the learners’

utterance” (p.47). For example, ‘you need past tense’. It provides only negative

evidence.

2.1.4.3. Clarification Requests

The clarification request which Lyster and Ranta (1997, p.47) define as "a feedback

type that can refer to problems in either comprehension, accuracy, or both" shares its

name with a discourse move used to indicate that a misunderstanding in meaning has

occurred. The commonplace function of clarification requests as a discourse move in

conversation makes this kind of corrective feedback the least communicatively obtrusive

and, therefore, perhaps the most implicit. This dual corrective/discursive function means

that clarification requests, unlike other feedback approaches, seek clarification of meaning

as well as form. Typical requests for clarification may take the form of "I'm sorry",

"Pardon?", or "I don't understand" in spoken interaction as illustrated in Example below:

25

ExampleS: I want practice today, today. T: I'm sorry? (Panova & Lyster, 2002, p. 583)

At their most minimal, clarification requests provide the learner with almost no

information concerning the type or location of the error. Thus, clarification requests,

unlike explicit error correction, recasts, and translations, can be more consistently relied

upon to generate modified output from learners.

2.1.4.4. Metalinguistic Feedback

Much like explicit error correction, metalinguistic feedback- because it diverts the

focus of conversation towards rules or features of the target language- falls at the explicit

end of the corrective feedback spectrum. Lyster and Ranta (1997) categorize

metalinguistic feedback as “either comments, information, or questions related to the

well-formedness of the student's utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form”.

Despite its name, however, Lyster and Ranta (1997) explain that metalinguistic feedback

need not contain metalanguage. That is to say, though it is indeed possible, even likely, for

metalinguistic feedback to contain metalanguage, the inclusion of metalanguage is not the

defining characteristic of metalinguistic feedback. Instead, the defining characteristic of

metalinguistic feedback is its encoding of evaluations or commentary regarding the non-

target-like nature of the learner's utterance. By encoding direct reference to the existence

of an error or to the nature of the error, metalinguistic feedback supplies the language

learner with negative evidence regarding the target form. Lyster and Ranta (1997) go on to

divide metalinguistic feedback into three different subcategories:

1. Metalinguistic comments,

2. Metalinguistic information, and

3. Metalinguistic questions

Metalinguistic comments, the most minimally informative of the three, simply indicate

the occurrence of an error. Such metalinguistic feedback may include a general statement

that an error has occurred (e.g. Can you find your error) or may directly pinpoint the error

(e.g. Not X).

26

The next subcategory of metalinguistic feedback- metalinguistic information- goes

beyond simply indicating the occurrence or location of the error and "generally provides

some metalanguage that refers to the nature of the error" (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 47).

Thus, metalinguistic information can provide the learner with a range of hints concerning

the possible reformulation of the non-target-like form. This can range from the most

general information which labels the type of error made to information regarding a more

target-like alternative, particularly when there are more than two potential options.

The third subcategory of metalinguistic feedback identified by Lyster and Ranta

(1997) - metalinguistic questions- "point to the nature of the error but attempt to elicit

the information from the student". Unlike metalinguistic information which uses

metalanguage to label the nature of the error, metalinguistic questions call upon the

learner to reconsider their assumptions regarding the target language form (e.g. did

you use dative?). This can be seen in the exchange between a student and teacher in

Example below. The teacher's metalinguistic question asks the student to reflect upon

the appropriateness of le elephant. The use of a question as a form of feedback

anticipates a response from the learner, thus supplying the learner with the opportunity

to respond with either analysis of the form in question or an attempt at reformulation.

Example- I goed to cinema yesterday.- You need to use past tense here

2.1.4.5. Elicitations

According to Panova and Lyster (2002), "elicitation is a correction technique that

prompts the learner to self-correct" and may be accomplished in one of three ways

during face-to-face interaction:

Through requests for reformulation of an ill-formed utterance (e.g. Say that

again? or did you say that right?)

Through the use of open questions (e.g. How do we say X in French?), and

Through the use of strategic pauses to allow a learner to complete an utterance.

27

These three elicitation strategies themselves vary in their degree of implicitness or

explicitness. Among these three strategic pausing is the least communicatively

intrusive one and hence the most implicit, while the two questioning strategies as

slightly more explicit. Thus, as a category, elicitation falls within the explicit and

implicit distinction of corrective feedback types.

ExampleT: In fast food restaurants, how much do you tip?S: No money (lexical error)T: What's the word? (elicitation)SmS: Five ... four... (needs repair)T: What's the word . . . in a fast food restaurant? (elicitation)DifS: Nothing. (repair)T: Nothing, yeah. Okay, what tip should you leave for the following...(topic continuation)(Panova & Lyster, 2002; p.584)

It is not uncommon for elicitation moves, particularly strategic pausing, to be

accompanied by other feedback types such as metalinguistic comments and repetition, as

can be seen in the example below. After repeating the learner's entire previous utterance,

the teacher then repeats a segment of the initial utterance and pauses to elicit a

reformulation of the infinitival stem of the French verb to run.

ExampleSt: Le chien peut court. "The dog can runs." T: Le chien peut court? Le chien peut.. "The dog can runs? The dog can..."(Lyster & Ranta, 1997; p. 64)

Brown (2007) refers to elicitation as a corrective technique the same as prompting moves as

explained in the next section.

2.1.4.6. Prompt

According to Lyster and Mori (2006) and Lyster (2004a) two other terms used by

researchers interchangeably for prompts in the literature are negotiation of form

(Lyster, 2002b; Lyster, 1998b; and Lyster & Ranta, 1997) and form-focused

negotiation (Lyster, 2002b). Further Lyster and Mori (2006) introduce four prompting

moves. In other words, they introduce prompts as a range of feedback types as shown

in the following table. What all the prompting moves in table 2.2 have in common is

that they all ‘withhold the correct form (and other signs of approval) and instead offer

28

learners an opportunity to self-repair by generating their own modified responses’

(Lyster, 2004; p. 405).

Table 2.2. Prompts (adopted from Lyster and Mori, 2006; p. 272)

Type of prompt Speaker Student utterance + teacher promptElicitation Student

Teacher

Ben y a un jet de parfum qui sent pas très bon. . .[lexical error]“Well there’s a stream of perfume that doesn’t smell very nice..

Alors un jet de parfum, on va appeler ça un..?“So a stream of perfume, we’ll call that a…?”

Metalinguistic clue Student

Teacher

Kuruma. [lexical error]“A car.”

Kuruma janai yo.“(It)’s not a car.”

Clarification request Student

Teacher

Bashi ni. [phonological error]“On the wagon.”

Nani?“What?”

Repetition Student

Teacher

La guimauve, la chocolat. [gender error]“Marshmallow, chocolate (fem.).”

La chocolat?“Chocolat (fem.)?”

2.1.4.7. Repetitions

Repetitions are also an approach to providing corrective feedback that, like the strategic

pausing of elicitations, is less communicatively intrusive than either explicit error correction or

metalinguistic feedback (at least during face-to-face interaction), and thus falls toward the

implicit end of the corrective feedback spectrum. In face-to-face classroom contexts, repetition,

as the name suggests, is a teacher's or interlocutor's repetition "of the ill-formed part of the

student's utterance, usually with a change in intonation" (Panova & Lyster, 2002, p.584). In the

example below, the teacher repeats the student's utterance using rising intonation (here

represented with a question mark), indicating a need to reevaluate some element of the lexical

item, in this case the gender.

ExampleSt: Le...le girafe?" The...the giraffe?" T3: Le girafe? "The giraffe?" (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; p. 64)

29

2.1.4.8. Translations

Initially treated as a subcategory of recasts by Lyster and Ranta (1997), translations

are corrective feedbacks that are provided in response to "a student's unsolicited use of

their LI" (Panova & Lyster, 2002: 582). That is to say, while recasts are generated in

response to a learner's ill-formed utterance in the target language, translations are

generated in response to a learner's well-formed utterance in a language other than the

target language. Like recasts, the lack of overt indicators that an error has been

produced places translation toward the implicit end of the corrective feedback

spectrum, though the degree to which translations are communicatively obtrusive can

also vary. It is possible, for example, for translations to match the range of

obtrusiveness of recasts based on whether they are isolated from or incorporated into

new information. At their most unobtrusive, translations of a learner's unsolicited use

of their LI may be subtly embedded in a confirmation check. An example is:

T: All right now, which place is near the water?S: Non J'aipas fini.T: You haven't finished? Okay Bernard, have you finished?(Panova & Lyster, 2002, p. 583)

Like recasts and explicit error correction, translations contain the target-like

reformulation of the learner's error and thus provide the learner with positive evidence.

This positive evidence may be helpful in introducing new lexical items and phrases

which are otherwise missing from the learner's interlanguage. However, the provision of

the target language reformulation also pre-empts the need for the learner to access

partially acquired target language knowledge to attempt a target language reformulation

and subverts the opportunity for the learner to produce pushed output. Compared to

recasts and other feedback types, translations are relatively rare in the face-to-face

classroom.

30

2.1.5. Corrective Feedback and Uptake

Uptake is a key term in studies on corrective feedback. It has mainly two meanings

in the literature. Allwright (1984) has used it to refer to what learners are able to report

and recall during or at the end of the lesson (see Ellis, 1994, and Slimani, 1989, for

examples of studies of uptake in this sense). The second sense of uptake is the one

used by interactionist researchers. Lyster and Ranta (1997), drawing on Speech Act

Theory, define uptake as:

…a student’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that

constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to

some aspect of the student’s initial utterance (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; p.49).

However, Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001a, 2001b) expanded this definition

by incorporating both preemptive and reactive focus-on-form. The definition they give

is as follows:

1. Uptake is a student move.

2. The move is optional (i.e., a focus on form does not obligate the student to

provide an uptake move).

3. The uptake move occurs in episodes where learners have demonstrated a gap in

their knowledge (e.g., by making an error, by asking a question, or by failing to

answer a teacher’s question).

4. The uptake move occurs as a reaction to some preceding move in which another

participant (usually the teacher) either explicitly or implicitly provides

information about a linguistic feature.

Currently uptake (in the second sense)) is used as a way of evaluating the

effectiveness of feedback types. Chaudron (1977) was one of the first researchers to

refer to the term “uptake.” Chaudron (1977) suggested evaluating the effectiveness of

feedback in language classrooms based on the number of times students respond to

feedback with correct responses. Later on, Lyster and Ranta (1997) expanded

Chaudron’s definition by dividing learners’ uptake into two categories: “repair” and

“needs repair” (p. 49).

31

There are a number of arguments against the utility of uptake. The first argument

comes from the researchers who argued that a lack of learner response to recasts may

be attributed to conversational constraints, i.e., learners are sometimes simply not

given an adequate opportunity for uptake (Oliver, 1995, 2000; Nabei & Swain, 2002).

Hence, based on this argument we can exclude the effectiveness of corrective

feedbacks solely to uptake.

The second argument in the literature questions the reliability of uptake as an

indication of learning. Long (2006) notes that a learner's ability to repeat a teacher's

model utterance is "notoriously unreliable as an indication that the structure involved

has really been learned" and "it is all too often no more than 'language-like' behavior"

(p. 99). Similarly, Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001a) mention that learners'

successful uptake does not indicate acquisition of a feature. Rather, learners' ability to

autonomously use the feature in their own later utterances without prompting (i.e.,

feedback) seems a more reliable indication of learning.

A third argument is based on research showing that a lack of immediate uptake

does not preclude the possibility that recasts are in fact useful. For instance, Mackey

and Philp (1998) found that although recasts rarely elicited uptake, they had positive

developmental effects on the targeted linguistic form (question formation). As

Carpenter et al (2006) argue, the utility of recasts should not be denied simply because

of the lack of uptake following recasts.

As Lyster and Mori (2006) argue, uptakes that involve a simple repetition of a recast

do not engage learners in the same deep level of processing as self-repairs require

following a prompt. However, Lyster and Mori (2006) further argue that there are

three studies in the literature which corroborate the effectiveness of uptake in the form

of learners’ repetitions. These are Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000), Havranek

and Cesnik (2001), and Loewen (2005).

It should be noted here that whether uptake facilitates language acquisition or not

must be further empirically investigated. Loewen (2004) reports that the effectiveness

and successfulness of uptake hinges on a number of characteristics of feedbacks

including: complexity, timing, and type of feedback. Loewen (2004) further brings

forth the importance of uptake as follows:

32

1. Loewen (2004) states that one way in which uptake may facilitate acquisition is by

‘‘providing opportunities for learners to proceduralize target language knowledge

already internalized in declarative form’’ (Lyster, 1998, p. 191).

2. Drawing on Swain (1985, 1995, 2000), Loewen (2004) believes that uptake

constitutes one type of ‘‘pushed output’’.

3. Drawing on Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis (1990, 1995, 2001), Loewen (2004)

says that the production of an uptake can indicate that a linguistic item has been

learnt.

4. Self-repair requires deeper cognitive processing than other-repairing.

For more studies on uptake see Farrokhi & Gholami (2007), Lyster and Ranta

(1997), Mackey and Philp (1998), Oliver (1995), Pica (2002), Loewen (2004), Sheen

(2004), and Tsang (2004)

2.1.6. A Review of Major Studies on Error Correction in L1

It is important to remember that corrective feedback was initially a fertile area of

research in L1 studies. L2 researchers conducted studies based on the studies done in

L1. In other words, studies on corrective feedback in L2 development has been inspired

by research results in L1 acquisition (e.g., Baker & Nelson, 1984; Farrar, 1990, 1992).

In an early study focusing on the nature and role of feedback, Brown and Hanlon

(1970) realized that neither explicit positive reinforcement nor explicit negative

comments could account for why children were so successful at learning their L1

(cited in Nicholas et al, 2001).

Morgan and Travis (1989) and Morgan, Bonamo, and Travis (1995) reexamined

Brown’s (1973) study of Adam, eve, and Sarah and found that there was no relation

between recasts and the acquisition of the articles. They examined ‘minimal recasts’

and ‘expanded recasts’ where in the former they added only the missing feature

whereas in the latter they added the missing feature along with some related material.

All in all, they found no evidence to support that recasts provide negative evidence

and serve as corrections (cited in Nicholas et al, 2001).

Later on, Bohannon, Padgett, Nelson, and Mark (1996) challenged the study done

by Morgan et al (1995). According to Bohannon, Ill, & Stanowicz, (1996), Morgan,

33

Bonamo, and Travis (1995) have neglected the joint influence of children and

caregivers. And regarded recasts as an independent source of change in the children’s

language.

In LI acquisition, Farrar (1992) also distinguished two types of recasts, namely,

corrective recasts and non-corrective recasts. The former "corrects a child's preceding

ungrammatical sentence through adding or replacing a grammatical morpheme to a

child's noun or verb phrase" whereas the latter "expands a child's sentence by using

some of the same words from the previous sentence and models a grammatical

morpheme but is not a correction of a noun or verb phrase" (p. 92)., Farrar (1992)

reported that most corrective recasts were in response to children's utterances with a

single error. In terms of their immediate use of recasts, they were less likely to imitate

recasts with multiple corrections because they exceeded the children's ability to

process various grammatical changes (Farrar, 1992). He finally held that corrective

recasts were more effective than non-corrective recasts.

2.1.7. Corrective Feedback and L2 Development: A Review of Major

Studies

A quick review of literature indicates that the last decade has witnessed so many

studies done in the area of corrective feedback and L2 development. Important figures

in this field are Lyster (2004), Mackey (2007), Gass (1997), Oliver (2000), Sheen

(2008), and Ellis (2008). McGill University in Canada has focused specifically on this

issue and most of the researches done in the area of corrective feedback are affiliated

with this university. Below is a quick review of the main studies done on corrective

feedback and L2 development.

Early studies on corrective feedback in SLA can be traced in 1970s (e.g. Fanselow,

1977; Henderickson, 1978). Approximately 39 years ago, researchers began to

investigate different techniques of error correction. For example, Fanselow (1977)

investigated error feedback patterns of 11 experienced English teachers (p. 583). He

discovered that the most frequently used type of error feedback was simply stating

whether their response was right or wrong (Fanselow, 1977). He suggested that

feedback provided to learners should embody something more than providing ready

34

answers to the erroneous constructions. Fanselow (1977) argued that feedbacks should

involve such processes that could help the learner to connect and analyze information.

Moreover, Fanselow (1977) identified 16 error treatment techniques including:

1. No treatment

2. Acceptance of response containing error

3. Setting the task again with no new information provided

4. Provision of correct response orally

5. Correct response is given orally by another student

6. Gives part of correct response or established cue in a different medium

7. Gives information about the incorrect utterance (such as provision of a rule)

8. Presents alternatives

9. Repeating of the incorrect utterance with rising intonation

10. Provision of indirect information

11. Stops a student from continuing without explicitly correcting it

12. Indicates no with a gesture

13. Says “no” or “uh-uh”

14. Gestures plus says “no” or “uh-uh”

15. Says no and repeats student’s incorrect utterance

16. Miscellaneous: student stops in mid-response and corrects self; teacher simply

waits and student starts again without error. (Fanselow, 1977; p. 585)

Early studies on error correction (e.g. Allwright, 1975; Corder, 1967; Hendrickson,

1978; and Vigil & Oller, 1976) argued that pushing learners in their output rather than

providing them with correct forms could benefit their interlanguage development. On

the other hand, Van Lier (1988) argued that teachers should delay the use of corrective

feedback and let learners self-repair. Similarly, Allwright and Bailey (1991) held that

learners should be allowed time and opportunity for self-repair.

White (1991) conducted a study with 11- and 12-year-old ESL students learning

adverb placement. The results of the immediate post-test indicated that the group that

was provided with positive input along with negative feedback scored higher than the

35

group that was given only positive input. However delayed post-testing did not show

any difference in long-term retention between the two test groups.

Carroll, Roberge, and Swain (1992) found that the feedback group outperformed

the no-feedback group in acquiring two complex French noun suffixes (-age, and –

ment).

In an experimental study, Carroll and Swain (1993) investigated the effects of

feedback on the ability of 100 adult Spanish-speaking ESL learners to recognize dative

shift/movement possibility in verbs. There were five groups in this study. Four groups

received one specific type of feedback including direct metalinguistic feedback,

explicit rejection, recast, indirect metalinguistic feedback, and finally the fifth group

was a control group. Carroll and Swain (1993) reported that the group receiving

explicit metalinguistic feedback outperformed all other groups including the recast

group based on recall sessions administered immediately after the treatment session

and again one week after the treatment session.

Oliver (1995) investigated the effect of negative feedback in child NS/NNS

conversations. She recorded interactions between eight pairs of young NNS and NS

and realized that the NS’s used ‘implicit negative feedback’ to 61% of the NNS’s

erroneous utterances. Oliver (1995) concluded that her study supported the

effectiveness of recasts but suggested that in order to substantiate such claims, future

studies will need to be conducted longitudinally and involve both pre-test and post-

tests in order to assess learners’ knowledge.

In four French immersion classrooms at the primary level in Canada, Lyster and

Ranta (1997) examined corrective feedback and learner uptake. In fact they explored

the effectiveness of corrective feedback as measured by learner uptake. Let it be noted

here that Lyster and Ranta (1997) borrowed the term “uptake” from Austin’s Speech

Act Theory. Lyster and Ranta (1997) investigated the feedback types used by four

teachers in French immersion classes. The teachers in these classes taught science,

social studies, mathematics, and language arts lessons to 9-to10-year-old students.

After analyzing the transcripts of classroom interactions and the type of feedback that

the teachers provided to the students’ ill-formed utterances, they identified six

categories of teacher feedback with their frequency as shown below:

36

Explicit Correction: 7%

Recasts: 55%

Elicitation: 14%

Metalinguistic Clues: 8%

Clarification Requests: 11%

Repetition: 5%

The findings from Lyster and Ranta (1997) revealed that recasts were the most

frequently used corrective feedback. However, recasts resulted in the lowest rate of

uptake whereas elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, and repetition

of error led to higher rates of uptake (see also Fanselow, 1977).

Ortega and Long (1997) tested four groups of Spanish L2 learners on object

topicalization and adverb placement with a picture-description oral task and a

grammaticality judgment task. No learning of object topicalization occurred with

either condition, but the recast group scored significantly better than the model group

on adverb placement. Object topicalization may have been too difficult, but it seems

that the adults took advantage of the implicit negative feedback on adverb placement,

which is a finding that lends some support to the hypothesis that recasts may have a

greater facilitative effect than models, at least in the short term.

In a continuation to Oliver’s (1995) study, Izumi (1998) investigated the

availability and usefulness of negative feedback in task-based conversations carried

out by ten adult NS-NNS dyads. Izumi (1998) found a relatively infrequent occurrence

of negative feedback and low uptake occurrence. Izumi finally suggested that

activities focusing on meaning should be accompanied an added focus on form.

Mackey and Philp (1998) reported a positive effect of recasts on the acquisition of

question formation in English. Participants were assigned to two groups of readies and

unreadies based on their proficiency level. After that, the participants were assigned to

the following three groups:

G1: Interactor Group, where participants were allowed to negotiate but were not given

recasts on a single target structure (question forms).

37

G2: Recast Group, where participants received recasts whenever non target-like

utterances were observed in pairs with an NS. And

G3: Control Group, which participated only in pre- and post-tests.

They concluded that advanced ready learners benefitted more from interaction with

intensive recasts than from interaction without recasts. In other words, they argued

that in order for a recast to be effective, learners must have reached a stage of

developmental readiness as Farrar (1990) contended.

In a dyadic experimental study, Long, Inagaki, and Ortega (1998) provided

different types of feedback and input to English speaking learners of Japanese and

Spanish. The learners in this study received either ‘recast’ as an implicit negative

feedback or ‘modeling’ as a preemptive positive input. The target features under

investigation in this study were ordering of adjectives and a locative construction in

Japanese, and topicalization and adverb placement in Spanish. The results of this study

showed that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups (i.e.

recast and model groups) and the control group in the Japanese context. However, the

results support that recasts can be more beneficial than preemptive positive input (i.e.

models) in achieving at least short-term development in Spanish as a second language.

This result is also in line with previous findings in L1 acquisition (e.g. Farrar, 1990).

Doughty and Varela (1998) examined the effects of corrective recasts on 34

intermediate-level learners’ two grammatical structures in an L2 contend-based

classroom. Corrective recasts included a recast preceded by a repetition of the learners’

errors and intonational stress added to both repetition and recast to emphasize the

incorrect and correct forms. They reported that learners who received the corrective

recasts gained more on both oral and written measures in comparison to the learners in

the control group who received no corrective feedback. The question raised against the

finding s of this study was the operational definition of recast. Doughty and Varela

(1998) corrective recasts as follows: when a student produced an error in past

reference, the teacher repeated the student’s incorrect utterance, putting emphasis on

the incorrect form through rising intonation+ Students were then given a chance to

self-correct or peer-correct.

38

Mackey and Philp (1998) investigated the effects of recasts and interaction on the

acquisition of word order in English question formation. They specifically wanted to

inquire into the role of proficiency/readiness and the effectiveness of recasts. They

reported that intensive recast where the emphasis and focus is specifically on one

linguistic feature is more effective for developmentally ready adult learners than

interaction without corrective recasts. In other words, they argued that recasts might

be effective only when a certain developmental readiness is attained which was

already advanced by Farrar (1990) in L1 learning and further advocated in an L2

classroom study by Netten (1991, cited in Ammar & Spada, 2006).

Lyster (1998b) investigated the relationships among error types, feedback types,

and immediate learner repair in 4 French immersion classrooms at the elementary

level. He studied different types of corrective feedback including negotiation of form

(i.e., elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, or repetition of error),

recasts, and explicit correction.

The findings of his study revealed that grammatical and phonological errors tended

to invite recasts, whereas lexical errors tended to invite negotiation of form more often

than recasts. Also the study indicated that the majority of phonological repairs were

learner repetitions following recasts and the majority of grammatical and lexical

repairs were peer and self-repairs following negotiation of form.

In a study that employed a stimulated recall procedure to access the learners’

interpretation of interactional feedback, Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000) found

that learners often failed to notice recasts provided in response to morphosyntactic

errors. In fact the learners in this study accurately perceived lexical, semantic, and

phonological feedback but as above-mentioned they did not appear to notice

morphosyntactic feedback.

Nassaji and Swain (2000) in an innovative study investigated the effect of random

and negotiated help in the acquisition articles. In order to do so, they adopted a

vygotskian approach for corrective feedback. Similar studies were conducted by Ohta

(2000, 2001) and Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) with a sociocultural framework for

recast and interactional feedback, respectively.

39

In a study of corrective feedback versus positive evidence, Muranoi (2000) found

that Japanese university learners of L2 English receiving either prompts or recasts

showed significantly better acquisition of indefinite articles than did learners without

any type of corrective feedback. The effect of interaction enhancement in this study

lasted at least for 5 weeks on L2 learning of English articles.

Ohta (2000) argues that a lack of uptake by the receivers of recasts does not

necessarily mean that students do not make use of recasts. In order to establish his

argument in this regard, Ohta (2000) recorded individual students in class and found

that students actively repeat recasts as well as modify their speech in their ‘private

speech’ while listening to recasts provided to their classmates. Private speech is speech

addressed to oneself in sotto voice rather than speech addressed to an audience. Ohta

(2000) further claimed that uptake does not guarantee longer-term L2 changes nor is

an accurate indicator of learners' use or no use of recasts. However, many researchers

argue for the effectiveness of recasts on the basis of learner uptake of recasts or a lack

thereof (e.g., Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002).

In an observational study of an elementary L2 French immersion class, however,

Lyster (2001) found recasts to work better than negotiation for phonological errors but

the reverse to be true for lexical and grammatical errors.

However, Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001a) reported a much higher rate of

uptake of recasts (71.6%) in an ESL classroom than has been reported in other studies

(e.g. Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002). Ellis et al (2001a) investigated

learner uptakes in focus-on-form episodes occurring in 12 hours of communicative

ESL teaching. The results of this study was different form the previous ones in that

Ellis et al (2001) found a much higher rate of uptake of recasts than has been reported

elsewhere. Nonetheless, the rate of uptake of recasts was still lower relative to other

feedback types, showing the same trend found in the studies by Lyster and Ranta

(1997) and Panova and Lyster (2002).

In a pre-test, repeated exposure, and post-test design, Ayoun (2001) investigated the

effects of computer-based (designed with HyperCard®) written recasts on 2nd, 3rd, and

4th semester university L2 French learners’ acquisition of passé composé and imparfait

aspectual distinctions. There were three groups in this study namely: recasting group

40

(R), modeling group (M), and finally grammar group (G). The results indicated that

the R group outperformed the G group but not the M group.

Panova and Lyster (2002) extended Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study by

investigating the feedback types in a non-immersion setting. The database for this

study consisted of 10 hours of transcribed interaction in a communicative adult EFL

classroom where the focus on linguistic form was minimal, and a strong emphasis was

put on vocabulary, speaking, and listening comprehension. Panova and Lyster (2002)

concluded that recasts elicited a lower rate of uptake as Lyster and Ranta (1997)

contended. In other words, clarification requests, elicitation, repetition, and

metalinguistic feedback were more likely to lead to successful uptake than recasts.

Similar to Oliver’s (1995) study, Braidi (2002) also investigated the role of recasts

in native-speaker (NS)/ non-native speaker (NNS) interactions. The participants of her

study included ten native speakers of English and ten non-native speakers of English

who were originally Japanese learning English as a second language. Braidi (2002)

focused specifically on two factors: negotiation types (i.e., non-negotiated, one-signal

negotiations, and extended negotiations), and different levels of utterance

grammaticality (i.e., single error vs. multiple error). In addition, the conditions under

which adult NNSs responded to NS recasts were probed. The results of her study

showed that adult NS-NNS interactions triggered recasts, which is affected by types of

negotiation and by levels of grammaticality. Braidi (2002) concluded that recasts bear

fruits in SLA studies. However, one of the weaknesses of Oliver (1995) and Braidi’s

(2002) study was that they measured the effectiveness of corrective feedbacks based

on the rate of uptakes which is not an agreed-upon procedure in the literature.

Han (2002b) investigated the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output.

She adopted pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test design for her study with eight

female upper-intermediate level participants. These eight participants were assigned to

recast and non-recast groups. The results indicated that recast did have a significant

effect on tense consistency. In other words, the results revealed that the recast group

outperformed the non-recast group on the posttest and delayed posttest in both oral

and written measures, lending support for the effectiveness of recasts on improvement

in tense consistency. Furthermore, Han (2002b) identified four conditions that may

41

affect the utility of recasts: (1) individualized attention, (2) consistent linguistic focus,

(3) learners' developmental readiness, and (4) intensity of the treatment. In Han’s

(2002b) study individualized attention was enhanced to the small number of students

participating in her small-scale study, the linguistic focus was promoted by focusing on

one specific linguistic feature i.e. tense consistency for which the participants were

developmentally ready, and finally the fourth condition was met by intensifying the

frequency and salience of the target input. (see the table in Han, 2002b; pp. 547-549)

Morris and Tarone (2003) investigated the perception of recasts by students using it

in collaborative work in classroom setting. They examined the effect of this perception

on the language learning process. The study was conducted in a large Mid-Western

University with ten learners of Spanish at the beginning proficiency level. Results of

the post-tests showed that students continued to produce incorrect utterances, although

their peers used recasts to correct their errors during peer interaction. Morris and

Tarone (2003) pointed out that some learners in their study failed to recognize recasts

and therefore actually didn’t receive this feedback on their performance. The results

also indicated that learner use of implicit corrective feedback, recast in particular,

might be influenced by negative peer relationships. As Morris and Tarrone (2003)

suggested, some of the participants even perceived recasts as criticism, which

prevented them from using it as helpful information.

Iwashita (2003) also explored the role of task-based conversation in the L2

acquisition of the Japanese locative-initial construction and te-form verbs. Three

issues were investigated in that study:

The type of interactional moves provided by NS interlocutors.

The effects of interaction on L2 learning of the grammar targets, and

The relationship between specific types of NS interactional moves and the

short-term development of the acquisition target.

Iwashita (2003) found that learners with an above-average score on the pre-test, i.e.

ready learners, benefited from the positive evidence provided. In addition, the results

showed that implicit negative feedback, i.e. recasts, were effective on short term

development of grammatical structures under study irrespective of learners’ language

42

proficiency level. Moreover, Iwashita (2003) as in tandem with the previous studies

concluded that recasts were more effective in comparison to other conversational

moves on short-term L 2grammatical development. In other words, Iwashita (2003)

provided some empirical support for the utility of recasts over models.

Since recasts not only provide negative evidence but also simultaneously provide

positive evidence in the form of a target reformulation (Leeman, 2003; Long, 1996), a

recent line of exploration in research on recasts is to examine the developmental

sources of recasts closely by separating linguistic evidence involved in recasts. In

other words, as Leeman (2003) states due to the complex nature of recasts, we should

substantiate to what we can attribute the success of recasts: negative evidence only or

positive evidence.

In order to do so, Leeman (2003) investigated the effects of four different types of

interactional input on the L2 development of Spanish noun-adjective agreement.

Seventy-four first-year university learners of Spanish as a foreign language conducted

two one-way information gap tasks with a NS in one of four conditions below:

Recasts (i.e. negative evidence and enhanced salience of positive evidence)

Negative evidence

Enhanced salience of positive evidence, and

Unenhanced positive evidence (i.e. control group)

The results of this study revealed that only the recast and enhanced-salience groups

were significantly better than the control group in their performance. This finding

suggests that the enhanced salience is a very crucial factor in the success of recasts. In

summary, Leeman (2003) stressed the role of attention and salience in SLA.

Ammar (2003) in a form-focused instruction study investigated the differential

effects of recasts and prompts. The target feature in this study was third-person

possessive determiners in English (i.e. her and his). The three groups in this study

were all taught based on form-focused instruction but the groups varied in the

feedback type, i.e. group one received recasts, group two received prompts, and the

third group did not receive any feedback at all. The results of this study based on pre-

tests, immediate post-tests and delayed post-tests revealed that the groups receiving

43

feedback, i.e. recast and prompt, benefitted most from the form-focused instruction

treatment. Furthermore, Ammar (2003) reported that the prompt group outperformed

the recast group on the written and oral post-tests. In addition, she found that lower

proficiency learners benefitted more from prompts, whereas higher proficiency

learners appeared to benefit similarly from both recasts and prompts.

Lyster (2004a) in a quasi-experimental study with a pre-test, immediate post-test

and delayed post-test design in French immersion classrooms with 148 grade-five 10-

to-11-years-olds compared the effects of recasts and prompts on young L2 learners’

rule-bases system. He used two written tasks (binary choice and text completion) and

two oral tasks (object identification and picture description) to assess the students’

ability to assign grammatical gender in French. Three groups participated in this study,

namely recast group, prompt group and no-feedback group. Lyster (2004a) found that

recasts were less effective than prompts in fostering L2 development in immersion

programs since as Swain (1985, 2000) argues the learners in such settings are already

in contact with positive evidence, i.e. L2 norms, and they need to be pushed to

produce language in a way to test their hypotheses about the L2 norms and rules and

hence extend their interlanguage. Lyster (2004a) attributed this finding to the

ambiguous nature of recasts inherent in noticing morphosyntactic errors.

Sheen (2004) in a study that compared the frequency of recasts in immersion,

communicative English as a second language (ESL), and English as a foreign

language (EFL) contexts, found that, on average, 60% of all the feedback moves

involved recasts.

McDonough (2005) in an experimental setting investigated the impact of negative

feedback and learners’ responses on learners’ question development among Thai

English learners. McDonough (2005) operationalized negative feedback in the form of

enhanced clarification requests by (a) repetition, (b) stress and rising intonation to

draw learners' attention to their erroneous features, and (c) pause to provide learners

with the opportunity to modify their original utterance. She investigated four groups in

her study including: enhanced opportunity to modify, opportunity to modify, feedback

without opportunity to modify, and no feedback to investigate the relationship

between modified output and L2 learning on English question formation. The results

44

of her study indicated that the production of modified output was the only significant

predictor in question formation. Additionally, negative feedback in the form of

clarification requests might indirectly contribute to question development by creating

opportunities for learners to modify their output. In fact, McDonough’s study provided

empirical support for Swain’s output hypothesis, i.e. modified output has a strong

effect on question development.

Lyster and Mori (2006) compared recorded data of teacher-student interactions

from four French immersion settings and three JFL settings. They investigated the

immediate effects of explicit correction, recasts and prompts on learner uptake and

repair. It is important to note that they introduced a ‘counter-balanced hypothesis’ into

their study. Finally, their study reported an interesting piece of information. The

results indicated that 53% of prompts and 38% of recasts were repaired in French

immersion settings, whereas 23% of prompts and 68% of recasts were repaired in JFL

settings. (For a more recent view on counterbalance studies see Lyster & Mori, 2008)

In a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest control group design, Ammar

and Spada (2006) investigated the effects of recasts and prompts on L2 learners’

written and oral ability across different proficiency levels. Sixty four students from

three intact classes at grade 6 in the Montreal area participated in their study. The

target feature in this study was third-person possessive determiners ‘his’ and ‘her’

which was considered as a problematic grammatical point for Francophone learners.

Participants’ knowledge of the target structure was measured immediately before the

treatment i.e. before giving recasts and prompts, and twice later, once immediately

after the provision of feedback, and again 4 weeks later through written and oral tasks.

The results of this study indicated that prompts were more effective than recasts and

that the effectiveness of recasts was sensitive to the learners’ proficiency level. In

particular, high-proficiency learners benefited equally from both prompts and recasts,

whereas low-proficiency learners benefited significantly more from prompts than

recasts.

Also, McDonough and Mackey (2006), in pre-test post-test design investigated the

impact of recasts and different types of responses for the development of question

formation among Thai English as a foreign language. The results revealed that both

45

recasts and learners’ primed production of the syntactic structures targeted in the

recasts are predictive of subsequent development.

Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) in an experimental study investigated the effects

of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of past test ‘-ed’ among

low-intermediate learners. In order to do so they had three groups, i.e. two

experimental groups and one control group. The implicit feedback in this study was

recast and the explicit feedback was metalinguistic feedback. This study was unique in

three aspects:

1. Methodologically unique in that it was the first study which experimentally

investigated the effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback, i.e. recast vs.

metalinguistic feedback.

2. Contrary to the previous studies where corrective feedback was investigated in a

focus-on-forms context, this study happened in a task-based setting.

3. The instruments used in this study were distinctive i.e. Oral Imitation Test,

Grammaticality Judgment Test, and Metalinguistic Knowledge Test.

The results of this study indicated that explicit feedback containing metalinguistic

information is more effective than implicit feedback containing recasts.

Loewen (2005), in his research into the relation between the quality of uptake

prompted by corrective feedback (unsuccessful uptake vs. successful uptake) and L2

development, found that successful uptake was associated with L2 development.

Loewen (2005) conducted his study in Auckland, New Zealand based on focus-on-

form episodes.

Examining 12 adult ESL learners during 17 hours of meaning-based interaction in

classroom settings, Loewen and Philp (2006) investigated the effectiveness of recasts

as compared with elicitation and metalinguistic feedback. In opposition to the results

from many ESL classroom-based studies (e.g., Ellis et al., 2001; Sheen, 2004), recasts

were found as effective as other types of corrective feedback in their study. Upon

conducting logistical regression analyses on various characteristics of recast that might

have enhanced its corrective intent, Loewen and Philp found that stressed intonation

was one of the predictive factors for learners' successful uptake.

46

Russell and Spada (2006) in a meta-analytic review have corroborated the

effectiveness of corrective feedback in previous studies. In their metanalysis, they

excluded corrective feedback in writing and pronunciation and focused on grammar.

Their review comprises a good collection of the previous research on corrective

feedback and grammar.

Nassaji (2007) investigated the effect of elicitation and reformulation as two major

types of corrective feedback in dyadic interaction. The focus was on the different ways

in which each feedback type is provided and their relationship with learner repair.

Forty two adult learners participated in this study. Analysis of data on output accuracy

following feedback showed that both reformulation and elicitation resulted in higher

rates of accurate repair when they were combined with explicit intonational or verbal

prompts compared with less explicit prompts or no prompts. One of the main

questions in this study concerned the relationship between feedback and learner repair.

The results showed that learners successfully modified their output about one third of

the time following reformulations and elicitations in general (34% and 31%,

respectively). Nassaji focused that this rate of repair for reformulation is low.

Egi (2007a) used stimulated recall as a tool for investigating recast. She reported

that learners failed to recognize recasts as a corrective feedback when they were too

long. However, they did perceive the effectiveness of recasts when they were short.

Ammar (2008) in a quasi-experimental study compared the differential effect of

recast and prompts among Francophone learners. The target structure he selected was

third person possessive determiners. The participants were given corrective feedback

meanwhile they were doing some communicative activities. The results based on

picture description tasks and computerized fill-in-the-blanks tasks indicated that

prompts were more effective than recasts in the learners’ development of third person

possessive determiners.

Dabaghi (2008) also investigated the effect of explicit and implicit correction in

grammatical errors made by language learners. Simultaneously he investigated the

effects of explicit and implicit error corrections in morphological and syntactic errors

and the correction of developmental early and late features. In order to collect his data,

Dabaghi ask the participants to read a text and retell it as part of an oral interview. In

47

order to correct the learners’ errors, he used recast (implicit corrective feedback) and

explicit corrective feedback. The results of his study indicated that explicit error

correction techniques were significantly more effective than implicit corrective

feedback techniques. Furthermore, data analysis revealed that explicit error correction

was more effective for the acquisition of developmental early features, and implicit

error correction was more effective for the acquisition of developmental late features.

Naeini (2008) also investigated the effect of form-focused instruction and

corrective feedback. She explored if corrective feedback in the form of prompt

affected the linguistic accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability at the upper-

intermediate level of language proficiency, comparing with another group receiving no

feedback. Thirty two female participants studying at a Kish language Institute in

Tehran participated in her study. The analysis of the data done through correlation

coefficient and t-test revealed that the participants in the experimental group

outperformed the participants in the control group.

Wong and Waring (2009) reported that teachers’ use of explicit positive

assessments such as 'very good' given to the students might inhibit learners from

learning.

Nassaji (2009) investigated two types of interactional feedback, i.e. recasts vs.

elicitations and their subsequent effects in grammatical features popping up in

incidental dyadic interactions. This study investigated both immediate and delayed

effects of corrective feedbacks. The results of his study revealed that recasts were

more effective than elicitations in immediate effects. Also the results of this study

indicated that in both corrective feedback types, the more explicit form was more

effective than its implicit form. Therefore the degree of explicitness was reported to be

very crucial in the effectiveness of these two types of corrective feedback.

Lyster & Izquierdo (2009) also in a recent study investigated the effect of two

different types of corrective feedbacks in the acquisition of grammatical gender among

adult French learners. The focus of this study was exclusively directed toward the

differential effects of recasts vs. prompts in dyadic interactions. The results found both

types of feedbacks effective. Learners receiving recasts benefited from repeated

exposure to positive exemplars as well as from opportunities to infer negative

48

evidence, whereas learners receiving prompts or clarification requests benefited from

repeated exposure to negative evidence as well as from opportunities to produce

modified output.

49

2.2. Grammar Instruction

2.2.1. Introduction

Grammar instruction before the advent of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

was considered the be-all and end-all of language instruction. Grammar was taught

deductively through explicit presentation of grammatical rules followed by mechanical

drills. Such an approach was evident in Grammar Translation Method. However, with

the rise of CLT in 1970s some applied linguists argued that such an explicit grammar

instruction was unnecessary and did not contribute to the development of our

‘acquired’ knowledge (Krashen 1981, 1982). Hence the place of grammar in language

curriculum became rather uncertain (Nunan, 2004) and subsequently grammatical

syllabi were superseded by communicative ones based on functions and tasks

(Richards, 2001). In this section, the researcher will review the following issues in

grammar instruction:

Schools of Linguistics in a Glance

Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar

Chomsky’s Formalism vs. Hallidayan Functionalism

Grammar Instruction: to Teach or not to Teach

Main Approaches to Grammar Instruction including:

Deductive vs. Inductive Approach

Focus on Form vs. Focus of forms

Task-based approach

Focused vs. unfocused tasks

Consciousness-raising Tasks

…

Grammar Instruction in Practice: A Review of Major Studies

50

2.2.2. Schools of Linguistics in a Glance

2.2.2.1. Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar

Grammarians usually distinguish two types of grammar, i.e. prescriptive vs.

descriptive. Richards and Schmidt (2002) state that prescriptive grammar is one which

states rules for what is considered the best or most correct usage. Prescriptive

grammars are often based not on descriptions of actual usage, but rather on the

grammarian’s views of what is best. Many of traditional grammars are of this kind.

On the other hand, descriptive grammar is a grammar which describes how a language

is actually spoken and/or written, and does not state or prescribe how it ought to be

spoken or written. Current views on grammar are oriented toward the descriptive

approach to grammar rather than the prescriptive one.

2.2.2.2. Chomsky’s Formalism vs. Hallidayan Functionalism

These two theories differ in the way they describe language and its grammar.

Formalism is closely associated with Chomsky’s transformational/generative theory.

In this theory the focus is primarily syntax and morphology. Generative theory is

based on a rationalism approach in Rene Descartes Philosophy, the major principle of

which is that language is represented as a speaker’s mental grammar, a set of abstract

rules for generating grammatical sentences. Chomsky refers to this internalized mental

grammar as ‘competence’. Formal grammar is only concerned with grammatical

competence aiming to explaining syntactic facts without recourse to pragmatics.

Functional grammar, on the other hand is a linguistic theory which was derived in the

1970s as an alternative to the abstract, formalized view of language presented by

transformational grammar and relying on a pragmatic view of language as social

interaction. This approach is advocated by Halliday (for thorough reviews see Cook &

Newson, 2007; Crystal, 2003; Halliday, 1994; Newmeyer, 1986; Sampson, 1980).

51

2.2.3. Historical Overview of Grammar Instruction

Historically speaking, the teaching of grammar had always maintained a central position in

the syllabus until the early 1970's (Celce-Murcia, 1991; Rutherford, 1987). Initially, the

grammar-translation method, as its name points out, assumed an automatic relationship

between grammar and translation activities and the learning of language (Hammond, 1988).

Later, the audiolingual approach, popular during the post-World War II years, reacted to the

hegemony of grammar teaching. Influenced by behavioral psychology, this approach was

the driving force in foreign language methodology for many years to come. Meanwhile, L2

learning theories of the 1960's, which focused more on the internal contributions of the

learner challenged the behaviorist accounts of learning and prompted changes in methodology

as well (Ellis, 1992) .

The 1970's and the 1980's welcomed a variety of teaching methods that emphasized

different aspects of language and language learning. For example, the communicative

approach viewed language as an instrument of communication, where the role of grammar

was secondary. In other words, the syllabus would no longer be centered around grammar,

but around subject matter, communicative tasks, and social functions. Likewise, the

humanistic methods of teaching shifted the focus away from the central importance of

grammar to emphasize the role of the learner. With a vast body of research supporting

learners' variables, such as learning style, strategies, and affective factors, language teachers

were faced with lots of choices but no clear solution to the teaching of grammar. The fact is

that some methods would present grammar inductively or deductively (Mitchell &

Redmond, 1993), while others, not at all (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).

The 1990's welcomed a renewed interest in the role of grammar, in part due to the lack of

empirical evidence that shows that 'communicative' approaches, especially those that leave

out focus on the linguistic form, could produce better language learners than the traditional

ones (Richards, 1985). A rich body of research re-examined the role of grammar under new

perspectives. For example, Celce-Murcia (1985; 1991) proposes that grammar be taught not

as an end in itself, but in relationship to meaning, social functions, discourse, or a combination

of any of them. In fact, CR activities do precisely use grammar to facilitate the understanding

of language, such as with clear form-meaning relationships, and not to perpetuate the

traditional approach of memorizing rules for their own sake. Even researchers (Terrell, 1991)

52

that in the past had not found a role for grammar in the classroom, came to compromise for

an explicit presentation of grammar so long as it be accompanied by examples in a

communicative fashion.

2.2.4. Grammar Instruction: to Teach or not to Teach

Ellis (2006) defines grammar teaching succinctly as incorporating

…any instructional technique that draws learners’ attention to some specific grammatical form in such a way that it helps them either to understand it metalinguistically and/or process it in comprehension and/or production so that they can internalize it (Ellis, 2006, p.84).

As aforementioned the argument over teaching grammar explicitly or implicitly

heated up with Krashen’s and other applied linguists’ contention that teaching

grammar was not only unhelpful but might actually be detrimental (Nassaji & Fotos,

2004). It was claimed that language should be acquired through natural exposure, not

learned through formal instruction. Nassaji and Fotos (2004) mention that formal

grammar lessons would develop only declarative knowledge of grammar structures,

not the procedural ability to use forms correctly, and that there was no interface

between these two types of knowledge since they existed as different systems in the

brain. Currently, however, there has been resurgence in grammar instruction. Nassaji

and Fotos (2004) mention four reasons for the reevaluation of grammar as a necessary

component of language instruction:

1. The first line of support for explicit grammar instruction comes from Schmidt’s

Noticing Hypothesis (1990, 1994, 2001) who argues that conscious attention to

form is a necessary condition for language learning (see Ellis, 2008; Mitchell &

Myles, 1998; 2004;).

2. The second line of revived interest in grammar instruction comes from

Pienemann’s Teachability Hypothesis (see Ellis, 2008; Lightbown & Spada,

2006) which posits that while certain developmental sequences are fixed and

cannot be altered by grammar teaching, other structures can benefit from

instruction any time they are taught. Based on this hypothesis, it is possible to

influence sequences of development favorably through instruction if grammar

53

teaching coincides with the learner’s readiness to move to the next developmental

stage of linguistic proficiency (Lightbown, 2000 cited in Nassaji & Fotos).

3. The third line of renewed interest in grammar instruction comes from the

abundant research done in SLA which indicates that meaning-focused instruction

at the expense of form-focused instruction does not prepare students for the

accurate communicative use of language (e.g. Doughty & Williams, 1998).

4. A fourth reason for the reconsideration of grammar teaching in the L2 classroom

is evidence for the positive effects of grammar instruction. This evidence comes

from a large number of laboratory and classroom-based studies as well as

extensive reviews of studies on the effects of instruction over the past 20 years

(e.g. Fotos, 1994; Fotos & Ellis, 1991).

Interested readers can also consult DeCarrico and Larsen-Freeman (2002), Larsen-

Freeman (2001) for more information.

2.2.5. Main Approaches to Grammar Instruction

There are many different options and approaches to grammar instruction (Celce-

Murcia, & Hilles, 1988; Celce-Murcia, & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Ellis, 1998; Fotos,

2001; Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).

2.2.5.1. Deductive vs. Inductive Approach

Thornbury (1999) defines a deductive vs. inductive approach to grammar

instruction as:

A deductive approach starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by

examples in which the rule is applied. An inductive approach starts with some

examples from which a rule is inferred (Thornbury, 1999: 29).

A deductive approach is mainly a rule-driven approach as in Grammar Translation

Method whereas an inductive approach is discovery-based learning in

communicatively-oriented approaches (for sample lessons based on these two

approaches see Thornbury, 1999). Recent studies in this approach include Erlam

(2005), Haight, Herron, and Cole (2007).

54

2.2.5.2. Structured-Input Option

Ellis (1998) introduces four options for grammar teaching. These four options are

structured-Input option, explicit instruction, production practice, negative feedback.

Ellis (1998) defines structures-input option as:

This option asks learners to process input that has been specially contrived to induce comprehension of the target structure. Learners are required to listen to or read texts consisting of discrete sentences or continuous discourse and to indicate their understanding of them, for example by carrying out a command, drawing a picture, ticking a box, or indicating agreement or disagreement. The learners’ responses to the input stimuli are nonverbal or minimally verbal; they do not involve actually producing the structure (Ellis, 1998; p. 44).

As cited in Ellis (1998), studies investigating this type of grammar teaching include

Cadierno (1995), DeKeyser and Sokalski’s (1996), Salaberry (1997), Tanaka (1996),

VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996), VanPatten and Sanz

(1995).

2.2.5.3. Production Practice

As the second option to grammar instruction according to (Ellis, 1998), in this

approach to grammar instruction ‘learners are guided into producing their own

sentences using the target structure (Ellis, 1998; p. 50). Text-creation and text-

manipulation activities are examples of such tasks. An example is:

Text manipulation (a production-practice task)

Fill in the blanks in these sentences.

1. Mr. Short was born ___ 1944 ___ a Tuesday ___ May ___ two o’clock ___ the

morning.

2. Mr. Long was born ___ 1955 ___ a Saturday ___ November ___five o’clock ___ the

afternoon.

Adopted from Ellis (1998, p.50)

55

Ellis (1998) discusses a number of studies researching this type of activities for

teaching grammar. These studies include Harley (1989), Spada and Lightbown,

(1993), White, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta (1991).

2.2.5.4. Negative Feedback

Negative feedback shows to the learners that what they have produced is erroneous

and hence awareness is made of the gap in the learners’ interlanguage (Ellis, 1998).

This is the fourth and last option proposed by Ellis (1998) - explicit instruction will be

explained in consciousness-raising section. Negative feedback makes the core of the

present study through corrective feedback techniques including recast and

metalinguistic feedback. As current research confirms, negative feedback is very

influential in promoting learners’ interlanguage. Research in this area comprises what

the researcher covered in the first section of this chapter like Long, Inagaki, & Ortega

(1998), Oliver (1995), Doughty and Varela (1995), White (1991), Lightbown and

Spada (1990) .

2.2.5.5. Processing Instruction

This approach to grammar instruction is strongly advocated by VanPatten (1993,

1996, 2002). In this approach to grammar instruction ‘explicit instruction is combined

with a series of input processing activities, consisting mainly of tasks that encourage

the comprehension of the target structure rather than its production (Nassaji & Fotos,

2004). Since this approach acknowledges explicit focus on form, some researchers

including Sheen (2004) associate this approach with Long’s focus on forms. However,

VanPatten (2002) disagrees with such labeling. For studies investigating grammar

instruction based on processing instruction see: Allen (2000), Benati (2001) Cadierno

(1995), DeKeyser and Sokalski (2001), VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), VanPatten

and Oikennon (1996)

2.2.5.6. Interactional Feedback

According to Nassaji and Fotos (2004) in this approach to grammar instruction, the

learners are provided with implicit or explicit feedback and hence are guided to correct

their errors and hence modify their interlanguage. Such corrective feedback types

56

include: recast, prompt, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, repetition,

explicit/implicit feedback, elicitation, and translations (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). This

line of research which is also the main concern of this study has recently gained

momentum among SLA researchers. For a review of major studies in this area see the

review of section above.

2.2.5.7. Textual Enhancement

According to Nassaji and Fotos (2004) this approach to grammar instruction is the least

intrusive and explicit method. Nassaji and Fotos (2004) describe this method as:

It involves highlighting certain features of input that might go unnoticed under normal circumstances by typographically manipulating them through boldfacing, italicizing, underlining, or capitalizing. The assumption is that such manipulations enhance the perceptual saliency of the target structures, and this, hence, increases their chance of being noticed.

It is also related to input flood technique as proposed by Trahey and White (1993).

For the studies done based in textual enhancement for grammar instruction see

Doughty (1991), Fotos (1994), White (1998), Leow (2001), Izumi (2002).

2.2.5.8. Form-focused Instruction (FFI)

As a reaction to the failures of the non-interventionist view of the 1970s and 1980s,

researchers in the 1990s revisited the cognitive, structural aspects of language learning of the

1950s and 1960s and saw the need to return to some form of grammar instruction (Hinkel &

Fotos, 2002) for some students, on some forms, at some point in time (DeKeyser, 1995; Ellis,

1993; Robinson, 1996; VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993).

Form-focused instruction is language instruction which draws learners’ attention to

form either reactively or preemptively (Spada, 1997, cited in Norris & Ortega, 2000).

In other words, FFI is the integration of a linguistic syllabus into a content-based, a

meaning-based, or a communicatively-based syllabus. Early on in this discussion, Long

(1991,1988) proposed a distinction be made in the types of FFI which were then called (1)

Focus on Form and (2) Focus on FormS as explained below.

57

Spada has proposed the term form-focused instruction (FFI) to allow for both

incidental and pre-planned formal instruction as learners appear to benefit from formal

instruction, at least in the short term. In her definition, FFI denotes "pedagogical

events which occur within meaning-based approaches to L2 instruction but in which a

focus on language is provided in either spontaneous or predetermined ways" (1997, p.

73). Such a definition, however, does not include traditional, isolated and discrete-

point grammar instruction.

Doughty and Williams (1998) conceive of FFI in a manner compatible with Long's

FonF model: a continuum of strategies ranging from the most incidental, brief, and

embedded (input floods, input enhancement, recasts) to the least incidental (CR-tasks,

input processing). It is characteristic of their approach, in line with Long's argument

that incidental attention should be given to form, that meaningful interaction must be in

evidence before form is introduced (Doughty, 2003). According to Norris and Ortega

(2000), Spada (1997) believes that formal intervention may be either proactive or

reactive, and on the other hand Long believes that formal instruction be as brief and as

unobtrusive as possible.

R. Ellis’ FFI links formal awareness with fluency, whatever their technique or

ideology. Not only is the term FFI used "to refer to any planned or incidental

instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to

linguistic form" but it also subsumes a substantial array of techniques within it:

"analytic teaching, corrective feedback, error correction, negotiation of form, FonF,

FonFs, as well as traditional approaches to grammar teaching" (2001, p. 3).

Furthermore, FFI can be done either implicitly or explicitly. Implicit FFI can be

done either reactively through recasts (e.g. Doughty and Varela, 1998), or proactively

through input floods or enhanced input (e.g., Trahey and White, 1993; Izumi, 2002).

Explicit FFI, on the other hand, can also be practiced either reactively through

corrective feedback, garden path, and meta-talk (e.g., Carrol and Swain, 1993; Lyster,

2004; Sharwood Smith, 1992; Tomasello & Herron, 1988) or proactively.

For more information regarding form-focused instruction see Ellis (2001, 2002),

Fotos and Nassaji (2006), Lyster (2004b), Norris and Ortega (2000), Williams (2005).

58

2.2.5.9. Focus on Form vs. Focus of formS

Long (1991, cited in Ellis 2003) distinguished focus on form from focus on formS

approach to grammar instruction. Whereas focus on formS involves discrete

grammatical forms selected and presented in an isolated manner, focus on form

involves the teacher’s attempts to draw the student's attention to grammatical forms in

the context of communication. In other words, Focus on Form (instruction which is said to

be meaning based) would support a more non-interventionist view of grammar instruction

where form is attended to briefly and reactively and Focus on FormS (instruction which is said

to be more structure based) would support a more traditional, interventionist view. However,

little has been done investigating the effect of these two instructional approaches. In

spite of this paucity, applied linguists generally take side with focus on form approach

where grammar and communication are integrated. This is in line with the argument

that if the goal of second language learning is the development of communicative

competence, i.e. enabling learners to use language for communicative purposes, then

grammar and communication must be integrated. Long and Robinson (1998) consider

Focus on forms instruction less effective than Focus on form.

According to Shak and Gardner (2008), focus-on-form has turned into such tasks as

processing instruction (e.g. VanPatten, 2002), textual enhancement (e.g. Sharwood

Smith, 1993; Harley, 1998; White, 1998), and linguistic or grammar-problem solving

activities (e.g. Bourke, 2004; Ellis, 1997; Thornbury, 2001; Willis, 1996).

The literature is fleeting with studies investigating different aspects of focus-on-

form tasks. Such studies include Shak and Gardner (2008), Zhao and Bitchener

(2007), Shak (2006), Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis (2004), Basturkmen, Loewen, &

Ellis (2002), Muranoi (2000), Doughty and Williams (1998). According to Nassaji

(1999, 2000) focus on form can be achieved either through ‘process’ or through

‘design’. In focus on form through process both the teacher and learner focus on

meaning. On the other hand, in focus on form through design there are specific tasks

which have deliberate attention to explicit form. Furthermore, based on Ellis et al

(2001a, 2001b, 2002) focus on form can also be achieved either ‘reactively’ through

providing reactional feedback or ‘preemptively’ by using metalanguage for example

prior to the occurrence of an error.

59

2.2.5.10. Task-based approach

The use of tasks has been widely advocated in current research in grammar

instruction. A weak point at the early days of task-based instruction was its negligence

of focus on form. In fact there was thorough attention given to meaning with little or

no attention to form. This negligence of focus on form later became a weak point in

task-based grammar instruction and instigated researchers to integrate form and

meaning through a number of approaches including ‘consciousness-raising approach’,

focused vs. unfocused tasks’ and etc.

Ellis (2003) and Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993) introduced three types of structure-

based tasks namely: structure-based production tasks, comprehension tasks, and

finally consciousness-raising tasks. Whereas the first two attend to implicit grammar

the last one grammar is the content of the task.

Collaborative output tasks as proposed by Swain (2001) provide another way of

promoting accuracy. Also, dictogloss provide good opportunities for such

collaborative output tasks that is not only effective foe meaningful communication but

also improving in the accuracy (Nassaji and Fotos, 2004).

2.2.5.11. Focused vs. unfocused tasks

The question addressed here is whether to employ ‘certain structures’ or ‘any

linguistic resources’ in completing a task. Focused tasks prompt the learners to apply a

particular structure while ‘unfocused tasks’ leave the learners to pick and choose in

their language repertoire (Nunan, 2004). Ellis (2003) defines unfocused and focused

tasks as:

Unfocused tasks may predispose learners to choose from a range of forms but they are not designed with the use of a specific form in mind. In contrast, focused tasks aim to induce learners to process, receptively or productively, some particular linguistics feature, for example a grammatical structure…focused tasks, then have two aims: one is to stimulate communicative language use (as with unfocused tasks), the other is to target the use of a particular, predetermined target feature. Therefore there are mainly two ways in which a task can achieve a focus. One is to design the task in such way that it can only be performed if learners use a particular linguistics feature. An example is a task which needs the learners to use prepositions only to perform. The second way to construct a focused task is by making language itself the content of the task. An example is when learners discuss different types of prepositions and the appropriate position they can take in a sentence. The second type of focused task is a 'Consciousness Raising (CR) Task.’ (Ellis, 2003; p.16).

60

2.2.5.12. Consciousness-raising Tasks

Consciousness-Raising (CR) tasks are a particular form of ‘focused tasks’.

‘Consciousness-raising tasks’ are “designed to draw learners’ attention to a particular

linguistic feature through a range of inductive and deductive procedures” (Nunan,

2004). In such tasks a language point becomes the topic of task completion. For the

completion of CR tasks learners must use metalanguage (Ellis, 1997). As Nitta and

Gardner (2005) state New Headway Books are good examples of employing CR tasks.

As Ellis (1998) states CR tasks are one type of indirect explicit grammar instruction.

For example:

What is the difference between conditional sentence type I and II below?

I will say hello to her if I see her again.

I would say hello to her if I saw her again.

Studies tackling the appropriateness of direct and indirect CR include Fotos (1993,

1994), Fotos and Ellis (1991), Willis and Willis (1996b).

2.2.5.13. Discourse-based Approaches

According to Nassaji and Fotos (2004), this is a recent approach to grammar

instruction that:

…instruction of target forms is supported by extensive use of authentic or simplified discourse, including corpus analysis, to supply learners with abundant examples of contextualized usages of the target structure to promote the establishment of form-meaning relationships.

Research in this area include Batstone, (1994); Carter, Hughes, & McCarthy,

(2000); Celce-Murcia, (2002), Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell, (1997); Hinkel,

(2002a), (2002b), (2002c); Hughes & McCarthy, (1998). For comprehensive

information about practical issues in grammar instruction see Gerngross, Puchta, and

Thornbury (2007).

61

2.2.6. A Brief History of Task-based Language Teaching

The history of English language teaching unravels the manifold methods and

approaches which have been given tribute to and then thrown away in the dustbins of

English language teaching methodologies. The last two decades, however, have seen

an enormous growth of interest in task-based language teaching and learning (see for

example Edwards and Willis, 2005; Ellis, 2005; Ellis, 2003; Johnson, 2003; Leaver

and Willis, 2004; Lochana and Deb, 2006; Nunan, 2004; Oxford, 2006, Willis &

Willis, 2007; Willis, 1996). Some of its proponents (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004;

Willis, 1996, Willis & Willis, 2007) demonstrate it as a ‘logical development of CLT’

since it draws several principles from CLT (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). There have

also been so many conferences and workshops held in the world for the propagation

and introduction of TBLT. As an example, the Asian EFL Journal Quarterly (2006)

allocated the whole conference in Pusan Korea to TBLT. TBLT evolved in response to

some limitations of the traditional PPP approach, represented by the procedure of

presentation, practice, performance (Ellis, 2003; Long & Crookes, 1991).

2.2.7. Definitions of Task

A brief review of the literature on ‘TBLT’ reveals the numerous definitions

proposed for task (Crookes, 1986; Long, 1985; Nunan, 1989; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan,

1996a; 1996b). Table 2.3 shows the main definitions of task in the literature.

Table 2.3. Some Definitions of Tasks (Adapted from Ellis, 2003; pp.4-5)

Ellis (2003):

"A task is a work plan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes" (p. 16).

62

Skehan (1996):

A task is ‘an activity in which: meaning is primary; there is some sort of relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of task is in terms of task outcome’.

Nunan (1989):

A communicative task is ‘a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interpreting in the target language while their attention is principally on meaning rather than form.

Prabhu (1987)

A task is ‘an activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process of thought and which allowed teachers to control and regulate that behavior’.

Crookes (1986):

A task is ‘a piece of work or an activity, usually with a specified objective, undertaken as part of an educational course, at work or used to elicit data for research’.

Long (1985):

A task is ‘a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward. Thus examples of tasks include filling out a form, making an airline reservation, and writing a check. In other words, by task is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life or at work…

2.2.8. Task-Based Methodology

According to Ellis (2003) a task-based lesson consists of three phases or stages as

follows:

a) Pre-task Phase

According to Ellis (2003) this phase can involve the following activities:

Perform a similar task

Providing a model

Non-task preparation activities like brainstorming and schemata activating

Strategic planning

63

b) During-task Phase

According to Ellis (2003) this phase includes one of the following options:

Task Performance Options

Process Options

c) Post-task Phase

Based on Ellis (2003) this phase includes the following activities:

Repeat Performance

Reflecting on the task: e.g. give a report on how the learners did the task

Focusing on Forms

Mostly similar to what Ellis (2003) proposes, Willis (1996) puts forward the

following task-based framework especially where focus on form is crucial- as in this

study.

Table 2.4. A framework of task-based language teaching Adapted from Willis, 1996; p.581. Pre-task

The teacher introduces the topic and gives the students clear instructions on what they will have to do at the task stage and might also highlight useful words and phrases but would not pre-teach new structures. This phase is mainly a preparatory stage for task-cycle stage.

2. Task-cycleThis stage consists of three elements: task, planning, and reports.

2.1. Task The task is done by students either in pair or groups using whatever language they can recall. The teacher monitors the learners but do not intervene to correct errors of form.

2.2. PlanningStudents prepare a short oral or written report to tell the class how they did the task and what the outcome was. Meanwhile the teacher can polish and correct their language.

2.3. ReportHere the students give their oral or written report to the class and meanwhile the teacher comments on the content of their reports, rephrases perhaps but gives no overt public correction.

3. Language FocusIn the first two stages, students put their emphasis on the meaning of their language; while in the third stage, they focus their attention on the form. This stage includes two steps:

3.1. Language AnalysisHere the teacher sets some language-focused tasks based on the texts students have read. Students analyze the language with a primary focus on form.

3.2. Language PracticeStudents consolidate their mastery of the language form through some activities. Practice activities include memory challenge games and sentence completion.

64

2.2.9. Task-based Language Teaching and SLA Theories

TBLT is founded on a series of major SLA theories and informed by a number of

research agenda. The researcher has elected a selective coverage of these theories

here. For more information regarding these theories, interested readers can see Ellis,

1994, 2008, Mitchell and Myles, 1998; 2004).

2.2.9.1. Monitor Model (Krashen, 1981, 1982)

This model consisted of four hypotheses-i.e. acquisition-learning, input, monitor,

and affective filter Hypothesis. TBLT informed by this hypothesis emphasized

subconscious acquisition rather than conscious learning. In other words based on this

hypothesis no time or opportunities were given to form-focused grammar instruction.

Instead the whole class time was devoted to meaning-focused communicative tasks

(Nunan, 2004, p. 77). This stance is associated with the strong version of TBLT.

Nunan (2004) contrarily believes that there should be form-focused instruction along

with meaning-focused ones. Also based on Monitor Model, teachers/students should

not spend time monitoring the output. Krashen believes that learners should be

exposed to abundant amount of written or spoken language for acquisition to take

place. (For a comprehensive review of this model see: McLaughlin, 1978)

2.2.9.2. Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2000, 2005)

Swain (1985, 1995, 2000, 2005) in her immersion and content-based program in

Canada proposed her eloquent ‘Output Hypothesis’ as a complement to ‘Input

Hypothesis’. Swain believed that, while input was necessary, it was not sufficient for

language acquisition. She further stressed that in order for language acquisition to take

place, learners should be allowed to produce language. She believes that output serves

to help learners notice gaps and deficiencies in their linguistic knowledge and try to

reformulate this knowledge. In addition based on output hypothesis learners will be

capable of testing their linguistic knowledge through production- i.e. hypothesis

testing.

65

2.2.9.3. Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1985 and 1996)

Long (1985) argued that language acquisition benefits largely from interaction,

communication and negotiation of meaning. He further argued that ‘conversational

adjustments’ promoted acquisition (Cited in Nunan, 2004; p. 80). Based on this

hypothesis, TBLT gives prominence to input especially the kind of input which is

accompanied by negotiation of meaning. In its later form, Long (1996) added that the

feedback learners receive in their production which results in the modified output and

being pushed to produce language enhances language learning (see Baleghizadeh,

2007 for a comprehensive review).

2.2.9.4. Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory

This approach views language learning as socially constructed through interaction

of one kind or another. Scaffolding, collaborative Dialog, and Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD) were the revolutionary concept in learning theories first proposed

by Vygotsky. Quite in line with Vygotsky's theory, Task-based language teaching

borrowed some brainstorms from Vygotsky's negligently-dusted words. Scaffolding is

the dialogic process by which one speaker assists another in performing a function that

he or she cannot perform alone. In more recent publications, however, scaffolding has

fallen out of favor and the preferred term now is 'collaborative dialog, i.e. the talk that

enables learners to produce spoken or written texts collaboratively while performing a

task (Ellis, 2003). ZPD on the other hand refers to the learners' potential as opposed to

actual level of development. According to the socio-cultural theory learning arises not

through interaction but in interaction (Ellis, 2000). Ellis (2000) also asserts that unlike

psycholinguistic theories which ‘emphasize the inherent role of the inherent task

properties on performance…socio-cultural researchers have focused on how tasks are

accomplished by learners and teachers’. For a more comprehensive source of

information, interested readers can also see Lantolf and Poehner (2008), Lantolf

(2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2007), Lantolf and Thorne (2005), Lantolf & Appel (1994),

Lantolf (1993, 1994), Lantolf and Aljaafreh (1995), for a comprehensive review.

66

2.2.9.5. Skehan’s Cognitive Approach to TBLT (1998)

Skehan distinguishes between two types of processing that learners are liable to

engage in namely ‘lexical processing’ and ‘rule-based processing’. Ellis (2000) says

that:

Skehan distinguishes three aspects of production: (1) fluency (i.e. the capacity of the learner to mobilize his/her system to communicate in real time); (2) accuracy (i.e. the ability of the learner to perform in accordance with target language norms); and (3) complexity (i.e. the utilization of interlanguage structures that are ‘cutting edge’, elaborate and structured). Skehan suggests that language users vary in the extent to which they emphasize fluency, accuracy or complexity, with some tasks predisposing them to focus on fluency, others on accuracy and yet others on complexity. These different aspects of production draw on different systems of language. Fluency requires learners to draw on their memory-based system, accessing and deploying ready-made chunks of language, and, when problems arise, using communication strategies to get by. In contrast, accuracy and, in particular complexity are achieved by learners drawing on their rule-based system and thus require syntactic processing. Skehan argues that it may be possible to influence different aspects of language acquisition (i.e. fluency, accuracy and complexity) by providing opportunities for learners to engage in different types of production.

See also Skehan (1996a, 1996b, 1998a, 1998b) for further information regarding

Skehan’s approach to task-based language teaching.

2.2.9.6. Experiential Learning

Nunan (2004) refers to the experiential learning as a conceptual basis for TBLT. He

defines the experiential learning and its relation to tasks in this way: This approach

takes the learner's immediate personal experience as the point of departure for the

learning experience. Intellectual growth occurs when learners engage in and reflect on

sequences of tasks. The active involvement of the learner is therefore central to the

approach, and a rubric that conveniently captures the active, experiential nature of the

process is "learning by doing". In this, it contrasts with a "transmission" approach to

education in which the learner acquires knowledge passively from the teacher (p. 12).

67

2.1.10. Grammar Instruction in Practice: A Review of Major Studies

There is a large body of experimental research on task-based grammar instruction.

Fotos and Ellis (1991) investigated the effect of task-based grammar instruction

among Japanese EFL college students at a women’s junior college. Their study

indicated that grammar tasks encouraged communicating about grammar and enabled

EFL learners to increase their knowledge of dative alternations. However, they argued

that grammar tasks did not result in the same level of longer term learning as did the

traditional approach. The main reasons they mentioned for this lack of long term

durability were ‘the absence of teacher feedback and the learners’ unfamiliarity and

lack of experience in performing group/pair work’.

Fotos (1994), in a similar vein, as a continuation of her study with Ellis,

demonstrated that CR tasks dealing with word order promoted both proficiency gains

and L2 negotiated interaction in learners. In addition, Fotos (1994) clarified that the

gains achieved through such tasks were durable even after two weeks had passed.

Chen and Li (2002) conducted a study on the effect of CR approach to remedial

instruction using explicit form-focused negative feedback. Their study indicated that

such an approach has great potential for helping learners notice morpho-syntactically

well-defined errors in their L2 and progressively approximate target language.

Similarly, Garcia Mayo (2002) confirmed how two form-focused tasks, dictogloss and

text reconstruction, were effective for high-intermediate/advanced EFL learners in

producing language and reflecting on its form in a major Spanish university. The

results of her study indicated that text-reconstruction tasks were more suitable form-

focused tasks in comparison to the dictogloss.

Another study on CR tasks by Mohamed (2004) at a New Zealand tertiary

institution indicated that learners viewed the two types of the tasks implemented, i.e.

deductive and inductive tasks, as to be helpful in learning English. In the deductive

tasks, a grammar structure was explicitly explained whereas in inductive tasks learners

discovered the rules by themselves. The questionnaire administered at the end of her

study also revealed that the students showed positive attitudes towards both types of

tasks regardless of their language proficiency.

68

Schneider (2005) investigated the effectiveness of teaching grammar explicitly by

linking it to local issues and concerns. Schneider (2005) taught passive voice in this

way and reported that such an approach to grammar instruction is very motivating and

effective.

In the bargain, Loumpourdi (2005) adopted Willis’s framework to investigate the

effect of task-based approach in grammar instruction in an intermediate level class at a

private language institute in Greece. In order to achieve his objective, i.e. an

alternative approach to PPP approach for grammar instruction in Greece, he ‘made a

smooth shift to teaching grammar through task-based learning’ by incorporating a

number of tasks in his syllabus. The results revealed promising advantages over the

PPP approach including:

Students engaged whole-heartedly with the task.

They were focusing on meanings and on putting their ideas into words while

performing the task.

They were much excited even those who felt intimidated by rules and

recalling them.

(Loumpourdi, 2005; p. 39)

In an interesting study, Williams (2006) reported how maths descriptions can be

used as a class tool and how it can be incorporated into our grammar classes.

Haight, Herron, and Cole (2007) investigated the effectiveness of deductive and guided

inductive approaches for teaching grammar in college French classrooms. Forty seven

second semester French students participated in this study. They were taught eight

grammatical structures namely, adverbial pronoun en [some, any], adverbial pronoun y

[there], indirect object pronouns, imperative + pronouns, verb with d + indirect object

plaire [to please/ be pleasing to], relative pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, partitive

articles. Four of these grammatical pints were taught based on deductive approach and

four others were taught based on inductive approach. Long-term and short term effects of

the instructional approaches were assessed. The results revealed that the inductive

approach was significantly more effective than the deductive approach for the target

structures in this study.

69

Cullen (2008) in an innovative study taught grammar as a liberating force. For this

purpose he introduced four types of tasks fulfilling the liberating force. They included:

grammatization tasks, synthesis tasks, dictogloss and picture description tasks. He finally

concluded that such types of tasks are very facilitative for gaining the liberating force.

Within the Iranian context, there are a number of studies investigating different

aspects of grammar instruction. Zargar Vafa (1994) investigated the effect of

grammatical consciousness-raising activities on learning English question formation.

He concluded that this type of approach to grammar instruction is indeed facilitative

for question formation in English.

Moradi (2006) in an extension to Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993) investigated the

effect of focused vs. unfocused tasks on the accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. The

participants also received different types of feedback including clarification request

and metalanguage. The results indicated that the focused group outperformed the

unfocused and control group. The learners’ reflection on the questionnaire also

revealed that they considered task-based language teaching as motivating but

challenging as well.

Also, Mohammad Hossein Pour (2006) explored learners’ attitude to learning

grammar through the use of two types of consciousness-raising tasks. He also

investigated the effect of the learners’ cognitive style (FD/FI), proficiency level (i.e.,

upper-intermediate, intermediate, and low-intermediate level), and gender on their task

preference. The results of his study indicated that learners preferred deductive CR

tasks over inductive ones and viewed it to be more useful. On the hand, the results

indicated that learners’ cognitive style (i.e., FD/FI), proficiency level, and gender did

not appear to affect their preference or attitudes to the tasks.

Haghnevis (2007) investigated the effect of two perspectives to the teaching of verb

tenses on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’. The instructional approaches included

structural practice approach as opposed to grammar task performance through the

application of awareness-raising approach. The results of this study indicated that both

approaches were effective. However, the approach of awareness-raising was more

beneficial. Finally, the researcher argued that both of these approaches should be

included in foreign language programs.

70

Morovvati (2008) also investigated the effect of focus on form upon noticing. In

fact, he enquired to see if any focus on form could enhance noticing opportunities.

Similarly, the result of this study was in line with previous ones, i.e. focus on form

enhanced noticing of passive structure and conditionals.

Rezaei (2009) also in an action research investigated the application of task-based

language teaching in grammar instruction in a private language institute. They

reported that the grammatical knowledge gained through task-based language teaching

was significantly higher than that of the control group which was given traditional

teacher-fronted deductive approach. In addition, the results of their study revealed that

the durability of knowledge gained through task-based language teaching was more

than that of the control group based on the delayed post-test administered with a two-

week interval after the administration of the first post-test.

71

Chapter III

Methodology

72

3.1. Overview

This chapter is exclusively allocated to the methodology of current study. Hence,

detailed information regarding the participants, instruments, target structures, tasks,

procedures, data analysis, and design is provided.

3.2. Research Questions and Hypotheses

The current study explored the following research questions:

1. Does Task-based grammar instruction have any significant effect on Iranian

intermediate EFL learners’ performance on a specific set of linguistic

features (conditionals and wish statements in this study)?

2. Is Task-based grammar instruction more effective with feedback (i.e. recast

vs. metalinguistic feedback) than without any feedback?

3. Which type of feedback is more effective in task-based grammar instruction,

recast or metalinguistic feedback?

Based on the above-mentioned research questions, the following null hypotheses

were made:

1. Task-based grammar instruction has no significant effect on Iranian

intermediate EFL learners’ development of grammatical knowledge.

2. Recast and Metalinguistic feedback have no significant effect on

grammatical knowledge of Iranian intermediate EFL learners achieved

through task-based grammar instruction.

73

3.3. Research Site

This study was conducted at the Iran Language Institute (ILI), Sadeqieh Branch in

the west side of Tehran. The ILI English department provides English classes for three

age-groups including kids, young adults, and adults. The adult section which is the

concern of this study consists of the following levels:

Table 3.1. The ILI Levels of Language ProficiencyLevels Sub-levelsBasic Basic 1

Basic 2Basic 3

Elementary EL 1EL 2EL 3

Pre-intermediate

Pre 1Pre 2Pre 3

Intermediate Inter 1Inter 2Inter 3

High-intermediate

High 1High 2High 3

Advanced Advanced 1Advanced 2Advanced 3

Each term starts at the beginning of each season (quarter) and lasts for eleven

weeks. Classes meet twice a week on Saturday-Wednesday, Sunday-Tuesday, or

Monday-Thursday. Each session is 105 minutes long. The learners are put in different

levels based on their placement exams which consist of a proficiency test and an

interview. The ILI employs an eclectic methodology and the textbooks for adult levels

are mostly developed and its content localized by the Research and Planning

Department of the ILI.

74

3.4. Participants

The participants of the current research were from four intact classes at the Iran

Language Institute (ILI), Sadeqieh Branch in the summer of 2009. Each of these four

classes consisted of twenty to thirty male students and their age ranged from 15 to 25.

The researcher received approval and formal admission from the ILI Research and

Planning Department for conducting this study (see appendix A). Since the treatment

was provided after the usual class time, the researcher also received the participants’

consent.

There were two main reasons that motivated the researcher to conduct this study in

these four classes. First of all, the students had classes with the researcher for three

terms and second of all, the researcher who was also the teacher of these classes knew

that the students were not familiar with the target grammar structures, i.e. conditionals

and wish statements. However, most of the participants of these classes were sharp

students who eagerly cooperated with the researcher.

Of the whole 92 participants, 7 were excluded due to their inadequate English

proficiency for the purpose of this study which employed task-based language

instruction for conditionals and wish statements and 5 others were excluded since they

missed some of the treatment sessions. Finally 80 participants remained, each group

comprising of 20 male participants and hence fulfilling the purpose of balanced design

in research. According to Hatch and Farhady (1982) and Hatch and Lazaraton (1991),

balanced designs or orthogonal designs have equal N sizes for all the groups and

subgroups to be compared.

Table 3.2. Number of Participants in Each GroupGroup Name Number of Participants

Group 1 (Recast Group) 20

Group 2 (Metalinguistic Group) 20

Group 3 (No Feedback Group) 20

Group 4 (Control Group) 20

75

3.5. Sampling

The participants of this study were from four intact classes at the ILI. The

researcher employed accidental or convenience sampling in intact classes. Accidental,

haphazard, or convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that

simply uses conveniently available subjects (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996; Dörnyei,

2007; Mackey & Gass, 2005; Riazi, 1999). However, the participants were randomly

assigned to four groups, i.e. group assignment occurred randomly.

3.6. Instrumentation

3.6.1. Proficiency Test

At the outset of the study, Nelson English language test 200 A, adapted from

Fowler and Coe (1976) devised for intermediate level was used as a proficiency test in

order to assure the homogeneity of the groups (see Appendix B).

Table 3.3. Features of the administered Nelson test

SECTION NUMBER OF ITEMS

Structure 36Cloze Test 14

Total 50

As you can see in the table above, the Nelson test of proficiency for the intermediate

comprised of fifty items. Of these fifty items, fourteen items were cloze test and thirty six

others were structure tests.

3.6.2. Pre-test

After establishing the homogeneity of the learners in terms of grammatical

knowledge through the proficiency test, i.e. the Nelson Test, another test comprising

of items testing the conditionals and wish statements was administered (See Appendix

C). The purpose of this test was to make certain that the learners did not have prior

knowledge of conditionals and wish statements. It is important to note that since there

76

was no valid and reliable ready-made test in the market fulfilling the purpose of this

research, this pre-test was developed by the researcher.

At first, a test of 100 items was developed and after pilot testing it, i.e. trying out

the newly written test before final administration, items analysis was done on this test.

Through item analysis, poor items were either discarded or modified. Also the

researcher had colleagues to reflect on each item and hence check the appropriateness

of each item with the alternatives. Since the same pre-test was used for the post-test, a

counterbalanced test design was employed by the researcher. According to Mousavi

(2009) a counterbalanced design is:

A design in which half of the individuals take one form of the test first and the other half take the other form first…[hence test-retest effect, practice effect and ordering effect will be minimized] (Mousavi, 2009; p. 163).

It is needed to add here that the items were made based on different types of

conditional structures and wish sentences, i.e. it was developed based on a pool of

these target structures.

3.6.3. Post-test

At the end of the study, i.e. after a two-week treatment, a post-test was

administered in order to measure the participants’ grammatical knowledge gained and

also investigate the effectiveness of corrective feedback techniques in the four groups.

The counter-balanced design pre-test was again used as the post-test. It is important to

note here that test-retest effect was considered to be diminished after two weeks.

3.7. Target Grammar Structure

The researcher selected conditionals and wish statements for this study due to their

frequency and communicative value. In addition, they seem to be more easily

applicable in task-based language teaching. Moreover, as far as the researcher is

concerned, no study has investigated these grammar structures in corrective feedback

and task-based language teaching.

77

3.7.1. Conditionals

A conditional sentence contains two clauses: a dependent clause beginning with if

(or another conjunction performing the same general function and approximately

synonymous with it, such as provided that, as long as, so long as, on condition that,

etc.) and a main clause answering the condition of the if-clause. They reflect the

dependence of one circumstance on another as shown below:

▪ If you treat her kindly, she’ll do anything for you.

Conditional type I, also called real conditionals, is used for future possible

situations which may or may not take place. It leaves unresolved the question of the

fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the condition, and hence also the truth of the

proposition expressed by the main clause. In such conditionals the present tense of the

verb is used in the if-clause, and the future tense in the main clause, which may follow

or precede the if-clause.

▪ I will give her your message if I see her.

Conditional type II and III, also called unreal conditionals, suggest that a situation

is imaginary or untrue. In such conditionals, to talk about present situations, we use a

past tense (either simple or continuous) in the if-clause and would + bare infinitive in

the result clause (type II). An example is:

▪ If your grandfather were still alive, he would be a hundred today.

Conditionals type III indicating past time reveal an unreal and unfulfilled situation.

The past perfect tense is used in the if-clause, and would have + past participle in the

main or answer clause. In unreal conditionals, we can also use could, might, and

should instead of would.

▪ If she had been awake, she could have heard the noise.

78

3.7.2. Wish

According to Swan (1995), wish has different usages in English.

wish + infinitive

In this sense, wish means want which has a formal meaning. And note that

progressive forms are not used in this sense.

I wish to leave this city.

Also, Wish + Object + infinitive

I wish our children to respect us.

I wish you…

It is used in some fixed expressions. An example is:

I wish you a prosperous year.

wish + that clause

In this structure, wish is used for unreal situations when you desire different things.

An example is:

I wish that I was walking on the moon now.

In this structure, past tense is used in that-clause to convey present or future

meanings. We use were instead of was in this structure especially in very formal

contexts. An example is:

I wish I were in my hometown now.

Past perfect tenses are used for wishes about the past.

She wishes she hadn’t gone abroad.

3.8. Tasks

In this study, focused tasks were employed. These tasks were given to the learners to

complete after the treatment. In other words, first the participants in G1, G2, and G3 were

taught the grammatical features and then in order to establish what they have been taught,

they were given the tasks to complete in pairs. In order to familiarize them with the tasks,

the researcher provided the students with a model prior to completing the tasks.

79

3.9. Procedure

This study was conducted at the Iran Language Institute in Tehran in summer 2009.

Four intact English classes from this institute which were taught by the researcher

were selected for the purpose of this study. These four classes met twice a week, each

session 105 of language instruction. Since the methodology of this study was partly

incongruent with the ILI methodology, the researcher implemented this study in the

15-min breaks between the classes. That is after the 1.45 hr of usual class time; the

researcher had the students stay and conducted this study. The selection of the

conditionals and wish clauses was made on the basis of a number of reasons including:

Students had many problems with these two target structures.

These two target structures are very salient and useful.

Focused tasks addressing the use of these two target structures are more easily

made.

Based on the design of this study, four equal classes whose homogeneity was

established through Nelson English Language Test were randomly assigned to three

experimental and one comparison group. These four groups were:

G1) Task-based grammar instruction with recasts

G2) Task-based grammar instruction with metalinguistic feedback

G3) Task-based grammar instruction without feedback on form

G4) Traditional deductive teacher-fronted approach to grammar instruction

For implementing task-based grammar instruction in the experimental groups, the

researcher adopted Willis’s framework (1996) as shown in table 2.4 in Chapter 2.

In all the experimental groups in this study, the researcher taught the target

grammatical features, i.e. conditionals and wish statements through focused tasks

following Willis’s framework. The only difference between the experimental groups

in this study was that the researcher, who was also the instructor of all the groups,

adopted different corrective feedbacks to the learners’ errors. In G1 the researcher used

recast as an implicit corrective feedback, in G2 the researcher used metalinguistic

explanation as an explicit feedback. And finally in G3 the researcher focused only on

80

meaning. Let it be noted here that corrective feedbacks were given wherever erroneous

utterances were made by the learners.

With regard to G4, the researcher taught grammar through traditional deductive

teacher-fronted approach. In this group which is considered as the comparison group

in this study, the researcher explained grammatical rules explicitly using both L1 and

L2. After the researcher explained the target grammatical features, the learners were

given some written exercises in line with the target structures (conditionals and wish

statements). Task-based language teaching and corrective feedback i.e. recast or

metalinguistic feedback, were not employed in this group and learners spent most of

the time looking for rules.

3.10. Data analysis

After the administration of the post-test at the end of the study and the computation

of the participants’ scores on the post-test, appropriate statistical tests were employed

in order to answer the research questions. In order to answer the first research

question, G4 mean score on the post-test was compared with the mean score of the

experimental group, i.e. G3 mean score. In order to do so, a t-test was run. In order to

answer the second research question, the mean score of G1 and G2 were compared with

the mean score of G3. In order to do so a one-way ANOVA was run. It indicated

whether there was any significant difference between the groups receiving feedback

(G1 and G2) and the group (G3) not receiving recast or metalinguistic feedback as

provided to G1 and G2. In order to answer the third research question, the mean score

of G1 was compared with that of G2. In order to do so another t-test was run. The result

of the t-test intended to indicate the differential effects of recast vs. metalinguistic

feedback.

3.11. Design

In the current research, there was one comparison group and three experimental

groups. The participants were from four equal intact classes. A pre-test-treatment-

posttest design was employed to identify the effect of recast vs. metalinguistic

81

feedback in task-based grammar instruction. The schematic representation of the

design of this study is as follows:

G1: T1 X T2

G2: T1 X T2

G3: T1 X T2

G4: T1 O T2

3.12. Summary of the Chapter

This study investigated the effect of two types of corrective feedback in task-based

grammar instruction. Furthermore, it investigated the differential effect of

methodology in grammar instruction, i.e. task-based vs. traditional approach to

grammar instruction. For so doing as above-mentioned, 80 intermediate students from

four intact classes at the ILI participated in this study based on convenience sampling.

In order to establish their homogeneity, a proficiency test was given to them. After

that another test developed by the researcher inquiring the conditionals and wish

statements was given to them to ensure that the participants did not have prior

knowledge of the target grammar structures. Finally, out of 92 participants 80 were

selected in four groups of each group comprising 20 participants. After giving the

treatment to the groups, the researcher administered a post-test to compute the gains.

Employing a counter-balanced design in order to diminish any possible test effect, the

researcher used the same pre-test as the post-test. After gathering the relevant data

through a post-test from the four groups, appropriate statistical tests were employed to

find the answers to the research questions.

82

Chapter IV

Results

&

Discussions

83

4.1. Overview This chapter reports the results of this study and the data analyses required for

answering the research questions. In brief, it gives the results of the proficiency test,

pre-test, and post-test accompanied with discussions.

4.2. Results of the Proficiency Test

In this section the results of the Nelson proficiency test administered at the outset

of the study is reported. The main purpose of this proficiency test was to homogenize

the participants in terms of language proficiency. The test was given to all the

participants in all the four classes which were selected for the purpose of this study at

the ILI. The results of this proficiency test are given in the table below and graphically

represented in the figure 4.1.

Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics: Proficiency test

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

G1 20 28 46 37 5.92

G2 20 26 46 37.1 6.42

G3 20 30 46 37.2 5.03

G4 20 28 48 37.5 5.78

Valid N (list wise) 20

Figure 4.1. Proficiency Test Bar Graph

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

G 1 G 2 G 3 G4

G4

G3

G2

G1

84

4.3. Results of the Pre-test

After homogenizing the students in terms of language proficiency, another test

developed by the researcher was given to the participants in order to assure that the

participants did not have prior knowledge of the conditionals and wish statements

prior to the commencement of this study. As abovementioned in the methodology

section, this test was developed and piloted by the researcher due to the unavailability

of any standardized ready test in the market fulfilling the purpose of this study. The

results of this pre-test are reported in the table below and graphically shown in the

figure 4.2.

Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistics: Pretest

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

G1 20 8.00 40.00 16.9000 6.85872

G2 20 8.00 32.00 15.4000 5.68840

G3 20 8.00 33.00 15.3000 5.92142

G4 20 10.00 31.00 16.8500 4.89118

Valid N (list wise) 20

Figure 4.2. Pre-test Bar Graph

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4

G 4

G 3

G 2

G 1

85

4.4. Results of the Post-test

After giving the specified treatments to each group, a post-test developed by the

researcher was given to the participants in order to measure their gains. The results of

this post-test are presented in the table and figure below.

Figure 4.3. Post-test Graph

Table 4.3. Descriptive statistics for the four groups: post-test

Groups

N MeanStd.

DeviationStd.

Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Min MaxLower Bound

Upper Bound

Recast Group 20 39.55 5.90 1.32 36.78 42.31 25.00 48.00

Metalinguistic Group20 42.90 3.47 .77 41.27 44.52 35.00 49.00

No Feedback20 34.20 4.56 1.01 32.06 36.33 28.00 41.00

Control Group20 28.40 7.35 1.64 24.95 31.84 18.00 45.00

Total80 36.26 7.74 .86 34.53 37.98 18.00 49.00

86

4.5. Pre-test Post-test Comparisons

Before answering the research questions, the researchers used four matched t-tests

in order to see if the groups had gained any improvements over the different

instructional approaches in the four groups. In order to do so, each group’s pre-test

mean was compared with its post-test mean. In the following section each group’s

improvement from pre-instruction to post-instruction is shown.

4.5.1. Recast Group (G1) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons

In this section, the recast group’s pre-test is compared with its post-test in order to

see if any possible improvement has occurred due to the particular instruction given to

this group. For so doing, the pre-test mean and the post-test mean are compared in this

group. Matched t-test is the appropriate statistical test for this purpose. The descriptive

statistics of pre-test and post-test along with the results of the matched t-test are shown

below.

Table 4.4. Descriptive Statistics for Recast Group (G1)

Mean NStd.

Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 pretest 16.90 20 6.85 1.53

posttest 39.55 20 5.90 1.32

Table 4.5. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G1: Matched t-test

Paired Differences

t dfSig.(2-tailed)Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

G1 pretest -posttest

-2.26 8.53 1.90 -26.64 -18.65 -11.86 19 .000

87

Based on the table 4.5, since the observed value for t far exceeds the critical value

t, i.e. t(19)< tObs = 11.86, we can conclude that the difference is significant and the

task-based approach with recast has been significantly helpful in improving the

learners’ knowledge of conditionals and wish statements.

4.5.2. Metalinguistic Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons

In this section, the metalinguistic group’s pre-test is compared with its post-test in

order to see if any possible improvement has occurred due to the particular instruction

given to this group. Similar to recast group pre-test post-test comparisons, the pre-test

mean and the post-test mean are compared in this group. The descriptive statistics of

pre-test and post-test along with the results of the matched t-test are shown below.

Table 4.6. Descriptive Statistics for Metalinguistic Group (G2)

Mean NStd.

DeviationStd. Error

Mean

Pair 1 pretest 15.4000 20 5.68840 1.27196

posttest 42.9000 20 3.47775 .77765

Table 4.7. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G2: Matched t-test

Paired Differences

t dfSig.(2-tailed)Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

G1 pretest -posttest -2.750 6.06 1.35 -30.33 -24.66 -20.27 19 .000

Based on the table 4.7, since the observed value for t exceeds the critical value t,

i.e. t(19)< tObs = 20.27, we can conclude that the difference is significant and the task-

based approach with metalinguistic feedback has been significantly helpful in

improving the learners’ knowledge of conditionals and wish statements.

88

4.5.3. No Feedback Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons

In this section, the no-feedback group’s pre-test is compared with its post-test in order

to see if any possible improvement has occurred due to the particular instruction given

to this group. Similar to the previous comparisons, the pre-test mean and the post-test

mean are compared in this group. The descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test

along with the results of the matched t-test are shown below.

Table 4.8. Descriptive Statistics for No-Feedback Group (G3)

Mean N Std. DeviationStd. Error

Mean

G3 pretest 15.30 20 5.92 1.32

posttest 34.20 20 4.56 1.01

Table 4.9. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G3: Matched t-test

Paired Differences

t dfSig.(2-tailed)Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

G3 pretest -posttest

-1.89 5.83 1.30 -21.62 -16.17 -14.49 19 .000

Based on the table 4.9., since the observed value for t exceeds the critical value t,

i.e. t(19)< tObs = 14.49, we can conclude that the difference is significant and the

instructional approach has been significantly helpful in improving the learners’

knowledge of conditionals and wish statements.

4.5.4. Traditional Group (G2) Pre-test Post-test Comparisons

Similar to the previous sections, in this section the traditional group’s pre-test is

compared with its post-test in order to see if any possible improvement has occurred

due to the particular instruction given to this group. Not unlike the previous

comparisons, the pre-test mean and the post-test mean are compared in this group. The

89

descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test along with the results of the matched t-

test are shown below.

Table 4.10. Descriptive Statistics for the Traditional Group (G4)

Mean NStd.

DeviationStd. Error

Mean

G4 pretest 16.55 20 4.99 1.11

posttest 28.40 20 7.35 1.64

Table 4.11. Pre-test and Post-test Comparisons for G4: Matched t-test

Paired Differences

t dfSig.(2-tailed)Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

G4 pretest -posttest

-1.18 9.25 2.06 -16.18 -7.51 -5.72 19 .000

Based on the table 4.11, since the observed value for t exceeds the critical value t,

i.e. t(19)< tObs = 5.72 , we can conclude that the difference is significant and even the

instructional approach has been significantly helpful in improving the learners’

knowledge of conditionals and wish statements.

4.6. Investigating the First Research Question

The first research question in this study was:

Does Task-based grammar instruction have any significant effect on Iranian

intermediate EFL learners’ development of a specific set of linguistic features

(conditionals and wish statements in this study)?

The first research question investigated the effect of methodology in grammar

instruction. In other words, the researcher intended to explore which of the

methodologies would be more effective in grammar instruction. For so doing, two

groups were compared, i.e. the traditional approach (G4) with the task-based approach

90

(G3). The descriptive statistics for group G3 and G4 are presented in the table 4.12

below. The mean score for group 3 is higher than the mean score for group 4.

Table 4.12. Descriptive Statistics for G3 and G4

Control Group N MeanStd.

DeviationStd. Error

Mean

Posttest Scores No Feedback Group 20 34.20 4.56 1.01

Control Group 20 28.40 7.35 1.64

However, in order to make sure that the difference between these two groups is

statistically significant a t-test was run. The results of this t-test are shown in the table

4.13 below.

As shown in the table 4.13. t-test observed exceeds t critical and hence the first

hypothesis is rejected and we can conclude that task-based approach is significantly

better than the traditional approach in grammar instruction.

This result corroborates previous studies including Loumpourdi (2005),

Mohammed (2004), Chen and Li (2002), Garcia Mayo (2002), Fotos (1994), Fotos

Table 4.13 Independent t–test for G3 and G4 performance on the posttest (Q1)

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Post-test Equal variances assumed 4.20 .047 2.99 38 .05 5.80 1.93 1.88 9.71

Equal variances not assumed 2.99 3.17 .05 5.80 1.93 1.85 9.74

91

and Ellis (1991). It confirms the effectiveness of task-based language teaching for

grammar instruction especially for the conditionals and wish statements. It can be a

good alternative to traditional approach to grammar instruction. This result establishes

the place of tasks in grammar instruction. As above-mentioned studies have also

recommended, task-based grammar instruction is more helpful than the traditional

approach.

4.7. Investigating the Second Research question

The second research question in the current study was:

Is Task-based grammar instruction more effective with feedback (i.e. recast vs.

metalinguistic feedback) than without any feedback?

This question centered on the effect of corrective feedback in task-based grammar

instruction. It intended to investigate if corrective feedback has any significant effect

on the Iranian EFL learners’ grammar achieved through task-based approach. The

mean of G1, G2, and G3 are displayed in the figure 4.4 below.

Figure 4.4. Means of G1, G2, and G3

92

In order to answer this question the mean of G1, G2, and G3 were compared. The

best statistical test for this purpose is one-way ANOVA. The results of the one-way

ANOVA are presented in the table 4.14 below.

Table 4.14. One-way ANOVA for Q2

Posttest Scores Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups

770.23 2 385.11 17.04 .000

Within Groups 1287.95 57 22.59

Total 2058.18 59

As the table 4.14. shows F observed exceeds F critical for df=2 and hence our

second null hypothesis is also rejected and we can conclude that the feedbacks in this

study did have a significant effect in the task-based grammar instruction.

This result confirms previous studies including Lyster & Izquierdo (2009), Nassaji

(2009), Ammar (2008), Egi (2007a), Nassaji (2007), Russell and Spada (2006),

Loewen and Philp (2006), Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006), McDonough and Mackey

(2006).

Corrective feedback can weed out the erroneous structures from the learners’

utterances and hence approximate the learners’ production to the native-like accurate

language productions. Lack of corrective feedback might lead to the fossilizations of

the errors. Currently as the present study confirms, researchers strongly recommend

that language teachers should employ appropriate corrective feedback techniques in

order to minimize the inaccurate structures in the learners’ interlanguage.

4.8. Investigating the Third Research Question

The third research question in this study was: Which type of feedback is more effective in task-based grammar instruction, recast or

metalinguistic feedback?

The third research question intended to unravel any possible differential effect of

different corrective feedbacks in task-based grammar instruction. In other words, the

93

sole purpose of this research question was to answer the dubious stand currently held

by the researchers concerning the effect of different types of corrective feedback.

The descriptive statistics for the group G1 and G2 are presented in the table 4.15

below. The mean score for the group 2 is higher than the mean score for group 1 and

this shows the prominence of the metalinguistic group over the recast group.

Table 4.15. Descriptive Statistics for G3 and G4

Groups N Mean

Std. Deviatio

nStd. Error

Mean

Posttest Scores Recast Group 20 39.55 5.90 1.32

Metalinguistic Group

20 42.90 3.47 .77

However, to assure this significance statistically a t-test was run. The results of this

t-test are presented in the table 4.16 below.

As shown in the table above t observed exceeds t critical and hence we can

conclude that metalinguistic feedback is significantly more advantageous over recast

as a corrective feedback in task-based grammar instruction.

Table 4.16. Independent t–test for G1 and G2 performance on the posttest (Q3)

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean Differen

ce

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Post-test Equal variances assumed

2.30 .137 -2.18 38 .035 -3.35 1.53 -6.45 -.24

Equal variances not assumed

-2.18 30.75 .037 -3.35 1.53 -6.47 -.22

94

This result supports previous research investigating the differential effects of

explicit feedback (i.e. metalinguistic feedback) and implicit feedback (i.e. recast)

including Dabaghi (2008), Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam (2006).

This result might be due to the explicit nature of the metalinguistic feedback in

comparison to the recast. As aforementioned, recasts are not usually noticed by the

learners and hence their corrective nature is not recognized by them whereas

metalinguistic feedbacks are more explicit and their occurrence raises the learners’

consciousness toward their errors.

4.9. Summary of the Chapter

This chapter was exclusively allocated to data analysis and results. In this chapter, the

research questions were answered based on the data collected. The results of the data

collected and the statistical tests run indicated that:

1. Task-based instruction is more effective in grammar instruction than the traditional

teacher-fronted approach.

2. Corrective feedback is significantly better than no feedback in task-based grammar

instruction.

3. Between the two types of corrective feedbacks in this study, the results showed that

metalinguistic feedback is better than recasts in task-based grammar instruction.

95

Chapter V

Conclusions,

Implications

&

Suggestions

for

Further Research

96

5.1. Introduction

This study was an attempt to investigate two areas of research in English language

teaching. First, it investigated how methodology might be effective in grammar

instruction. Furthermore, it explored the potential effect of corrective feedbacks

provided after erroneous structures in the learners’ language. The results of this study

as comprehensively explained in chapter four indicated that task-based language

teaching is an effective methodology in grammar instruction. Furthermore, the results

confirmed that corrective feedbacks are effective in removing erroneous structures

from the learners’ language and metalinguistic feedback especially is more effective in

comparison to recasts. This chapter summarizes and synthesizes the findings of this

study and possible pedagogical implications for this study are also given. Finally,

some suggestions for further research are provided to interested readers and

researchers for exploring related issues to this study.

5.2. Discussion and Conclusions

Based on the data gathered and analyzed, briefly we can conclude that:

1. Task-based instruction is an effective teaching method to grammar instruction

especially conditionals and wish statements in this study.

2. Corrective feedback is effective in task-based grammar instruction of conditionals

and wish statements.

3. Between the two types of corrective feedbacks in this study, metalinguistic

feedback appeared to be more effective than recasts.

The researcher believes that task-based instruction was effective in comparison to

the traditional deductive approach due to the meaningful, purposeful, communicative

and authentic nature of the task-based approach. As other studies have also confirmed

(e.g. Loumpourdi, 2005; Nobuyoshi and Ellis, 1993, Moradi, 2006; Haghnevis, 2007;

Rezaei, 2009), task-based instruction is an innovative and motivating approach where

learners are highly motivated and it is devoid of boring mere grammar explanations.

Learners in such an approach are more engaged in the process of learning and

heuristic principles and leaner-centeredness is vividly observed in such an approach.

97

Furthermore in response to the second research question, the researcher believes

that in line with the previous studies corrective feedbacks are considered to be

effective in eliminating possible erroneous structures in the learners’ interlanguage. In

other words, in response to the question whether to correct or not we can say that

leaving the errors unnoticed might result in the fossilization of these erroneous

structures. Hence, the researcher stands against too much error negligence and

subsequently believes that errors should be corrected either on the spot as in this study

or with delay.

Moreover, as shown in the third research question the researcher concluded that

metalinguistic feedback was more effective than recasts. The reason for such a result

might be partially or wholly due to the explicit nature of metalinguistic feedback. In

other words, between the two camps in corrective feedback studies where either

implicit or explicit feedback is favored, the current researcher takes side with more

explicit type of error correction. Such a claim can be especially considered in settings

like Iran where learners are after explicit rather than implicit corrective feedback. In

other words, research has revealed that implicit corrective feedbacks are usually left

unnoticed (e.g. recasts) and hence their corrective effect are less effective when

compared with more explicit types of feedbacks like metalinguistic feedback. In

addition, usually in implicit types of corrective feedback such as recast usually the

teachers’ intent and the learners’ interpretation do not match, i.e. the learners usually

do not recognize the corrective nature of recasts and might consider recasts as mere

teachers’ repetition of their utterances.

5.3. Pedagogical Implications

Acknowledging that one has to be very cautious in drawing implications from a

single study and the limitations exerted upon this study, there are pedagogical

implications which bring forth fruitful results for language teaching regarding

different issues in ELT including, language teaching methodology, syllabus design

and materials development, and teacher training courses, and pre-service or in-service

teachers.

98

5.3.1. Language Teaching Methodology in Iran and Elsewhere

The results of this and other studies cited in line with the current study confirm that

task-based language teaching is a practically effective method for grammar

instruction. The present study extends empirical support for task-based language

teaching especially in the area of grammar instruction and ergo corroborated the fact

that integrating task-based teaching approach into grammar instruction is a good

alternative to traditional teacher-fronted deductive approach to grammar instruction.

Hence, based on the findings of this study, language teachers and instructors at schools

and universities can sweeten the bitter pill of traditional grammar classes by engaging

learners in tasks. Furthermore, integrating task-based teaching approach into grammar

instruction brings language instruction more closely to its main goal, i.e. the

development of communicative competence and enabling learners to use language for

communicative purposes.

In addition, this study confirms and corroborates that providing feedback to

learners’ erroneous utterances have significant effects on the elimination of such

erroneous structure from the learners’ interlanguage. Among the corrective feedback

types, the current researcher similar to other researchers takes side with the explicit

type of corrective feedback like metalinguistic feedback. This stance is due to the

result of this study and similar studies where the effects of more explicit types of

feedback are recognized as more salient than implicit ones. Currently language

teachers in Iran have mostly a blur image of new corrective feedback techniques and

what they practice is based on what they are prescribed to practice in classes by either

the institutes or policy makers. Keeping them abreast of current theoretical and

practical issues related to error correction can be illuminating for language teachers

and our language educational system. However, teachers should be alert not to direct

the class to over-error-corrections. In such situations, classes might lead to a

haphazard amalgamation of the excess use of error correction and hence the main

purpose of language learning, i.e. communication, might go to the periphery. Hence,

sophisticated use of corrective feedback techniques are recommended in language

classes.

99

5.3.2. Syllabus Design and Materials Development

The results of this study can also be helpful and informative for syllabus designers

and materials developers. Syllabus designers can incorporate different kinds of tasks

in their syllabus. In order to make the syllabus more flexible, different types of tasks

for different skills and sub-skills can be included. Focused tasks or consciousness-

raising tasks are good alternatives to traditional exercises. The syllabus can be totally

or partly designed based on tasks, i.e. task-based or task-supported syllabus.

Materials developers are also suggested to develop specific tasks for grammar

instruction. As the current study confirms, focused tasks are more advantageous than

the traditional exercises. It is also more motivating and interesting to the learners.

Hence, textbook writers can incorporate such tasks in their textbooks.

5.3.3. Teacher Training Courses

The results of this study can also be illuminating for teacher training courses.

Teacher trainers inculcate certain types of language teaching ideologies and

perceptions to their trainees. With regard to the following issues, teacher trainers

should be alert to instruct appropriate practices:

a) Error correction techniques and corrective feedback types

b) When to correct errors

c) How to correct errors

d) Which types of errors to correct

As Baleghizadeh and Rezaei (2010) observed, teachers’ pre-service cognition

partly if not completely is shaped by teacher training courses. Hence, teacher trainers

should be aware of current theories and ideas about language teaching, so that they

will not communicate wrong or outdated teaching techniques to their trainees. The

results of this study and the effectiveness of corrective feedback techniques can

enlighten the teacher trainers about the effectiveness of such feedback types.

Consequently, some space should be allocated to error correction techniques in such

teacher training courses.

100

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research

Based on the current study and what the researcher has already covered for the

review section of this thesis, he offers the following lines of research for the expansion

and development of what has already been covered or is currently being done.

A fertile line of research currently investigated by SLA researchers is the effect of

different types of written corrective feedbacks. Researchers interested in investigating

the potential effects of written corrective feedback can consult Sheen, Wright,

Moldawa (2009), Sheen (2010), Sheen, & Lyster (Eds.) (2011), Bitchener and Knoch

(2009a, 2009b), Lee (2009); Bitchener (2008).

As researchers contend (e.g. Han, 2002) some linguistic features might be less

effective to recasts than other types of feedbacks. As previous studies indicate (e.g.,

Havranek and Cesnik, 2001; Leeman, 2003; Iwashita, 2003; Ishida, 2004), the

effectiveness of recasts is partially dependent upon the target structure under study.

Hence, further studies investigating other grammatical structures are required to add

credence to the findings obtained in this study and the previous ones and cast away all

the doubts regarding the potential effect of different types of corrective feedbacks for

different target structures.

This study investigated the differential effects of recasts and metalinguistic

feedback. As Ellis & Sheen (2006) offer, interested researchers can investigate the

facilitative impact of learner factors and corrective feedbacks. Such learner factors

include developmental readiness, language aptitude, personality factors, motivation,

and attitude toward correction. See for instance Sheen (2008) on language anxiety and

the effectiveness of recasts, Sheen (2007b) for language proficiency and corrective

feedback, and for the role of attention, memory and analytical ability see Trofimovich,

Ammar, and Gatbonton (2007), for interlocutor impact (i.e., native vs. non-native

interactions, non-native vs. non-native interactions) and the nature of classroom

interactions see Sato and Lyster (2007).

Recent studies have addressed the importance of alphabetic literacy level in

processing oral L2 input and corrective feedback recall (e.g. Bigelow, Delmas,

Hansen, and Tarone, 2006; Tarone and Bigelow, 2007). This area seems to have been

left not explored comprehensively. Further research is required in this area.

101

Another area of research for exploration is corrective feedback in CALL settings.

For studies done in this area, interested readers can see Sauro (2009), Heift & Rimrott

(2008), Neri, Cucchiarini, Strik (2008), Sachs and Suh (2007), Sagarra (2007), Heift

(2004), Pujolà (2001), Nagata (1993, 1996, 1997),

Teachers and learners’ perceptions and interpretations is another line of research

for interested researchers. Interested researchers can explore Iranian language

teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and cognition regarding corrective feedback. Studies in

this area include Brown (2009), Loewen, Li, Fei, and Thompson (2009), Lee (2008),

Yoshida (2008), Gass and Lewis (2007), Egi (2007b), Kim and Han (2007),

Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005), Mackey, Al-Kalil, Atanassova, Hama, Logan-Terry,

and Nakatsukasa (2007), Kartchava (2006), Mori (2002), Schulz (1996).

This study was exclusively directed toward corrective feedback in grammar

instruction. Other researchers can investigate the effect of corrective feedback in other

areas of language learning like interlanguage pragmatics development (e.g. Koike and

Pearson, 2005).

This study investigated the effects of corrective feedback for adult EFL learners.

Similar studies can be done for young language learners in EFL/ESL settings (See

Mackey, Kanganas, and Oliver (2007), Mackey and Polio (2009), Mackey and Silver

(2005), Mackey, Oliver, and Leeman (2003), Oliver and Mackey (2003), Mackey and

Oliver (2002), Oliver (2002, 2000).

Gender is another influential factor in the process of interactional feedback.

Therefore, researchers can pursue the impact of gender on interactional moves in

classroom interactions. For this line of research you can consult Ross-Feldman,

(2007).

102

References

Allen, Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69–84.

Allwright, R.L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of

learner errors. In M.K. Burt, & H.C. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second

language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp.96-109). Selected papers

from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention, Los Angeles.

Allwright, D., & Baily, K.M. (1992). Focus on the classroom: an introduction to

classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Ammar, A. (2003). Corrective feedback and L2 learning: Elicitation and recasts.

Unpublished doctoral thesis, McGill University, Montreal.

Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language

morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12 (2), 183–210.

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning.

Studies Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th

Ed.). TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Ashwell, T. (2000). ‘Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft

composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best

method?’ Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–57.

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.

Ayoun, D. (2004). The effectiveness of written recasts in the second language

acquisition of aspectual distinctions in French: a follow-up study. Modern

Language Journal, 88(I), 31-55.

Bailey, K. & Celce-Murcia, M. (1979). Classroom skills for ESL teachers. In M.

Celce-Murcia & L. McIntosh (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign

Language (pp. 315-330). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

103

Baker, N., & Nelson, K. (1984). Recasting and related conversational techniques for

triggering syntactic advances by young children. First Language, 5, 3–22.

Baleghizadeh, S. (2007). Key concepts in ELT: Interaction hypothesis. ILI Language

Teaching Journal, 3 (2), 121-132.

Baleghizadeh, S., Rezaei, S. (2010). Pre-service Teacher Cognition on Corrective

Feedback: A Case Study. Journal of Technology of Education. 4 (4), 321-327.

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., Ellis, R., 2002. Metalanguage in focus on form in the

communicative classroom. Language Awareness 11 (1), 1–13.

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about

incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2),

243–272.

Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and

output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language

Teaching Research, 5, 95–127.

Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K., and Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the

processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665-689.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback

to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation. Applied Linguistics, 1-22.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written

corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-212.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for

migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of

correctivefeedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,

14, 191-205.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.

Bohannon, J. N., Padgett, R. J., Nelson, K. E., & Mark, M. (1996). Useful evidence on

negative evidence. Developmental Psychology, 32, 551–555.

Bohannon, J. N., Ill, & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult

responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684-689.

104

Bourke, J. (2004). Towards the design of a problem-solving programme of instruction

for teaching English grammar to secondary-level ESL students. Journal of

Applied Research in Education, 8(1), 104–122.

Braidi, S. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/non-native speaker

interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1-42.

Branden, K. V. D. (2006). Task-based language education. UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language learning: Theory and practice. New

York: Harcourt, Brace.

Brown, A.V. (2009). Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Effective Foreign

Language Teaching: A Comparison of Ideals. The Modern language Journal,

93(1), 46-60.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New

York: Pearson Education.

Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in

child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language

(pp.11–53). New York: Wiley.

Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An

investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–

193.

Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Recasts and repetitions:

Learners' interpretations of native speaker responses. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 28, 209-236.

Carroll, D.W. (2008). Psychology of language (5th Ed.). CA: Thomson & Wadswoth.

Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., & Swain, M. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second

language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 13, 173-198.

Carroll, S. (2000). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language

acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

105

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical

study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 15, 357-386.

Carter, R., Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (2000). Exploring grammar in context.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1985). Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in

language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 297-301.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language

teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-480.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and

through discourse. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar

teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 119–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2

instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL

Quarterly, 31, 141–152.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching

grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL

teacher’s course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement

in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 12, 267-296.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of

learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.

Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners'

processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1-14.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and

learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, A.Y.W., & Li, D.S.C. (2002). Form-focused remedial instruction: an empirical

study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 24-53.

106

Cazden, C. B. (1965). Environmental assistance to the child's acquisition of grammar.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of

learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.

Cook, V.J., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction.

(3rd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Corder. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL, 5, 161-70.

Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. London: Oxford University

Press.

Crookes, G. (1986). Task-classification: a cross-disciplinary review. Technical report

No.4. Honolulu: Center for second language Classroom Research, Social science

research Institute, University of Hawaii.

Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (5th ed.). Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing.

Cullen, R., & Kuo, I.C. (2007). Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: a missing

link. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 361-386.

Dabaghi, A. (2008). A comparison of the effects of implicit and explicit corrective

feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests. Journal of Applied

Sciences, 8 (1), 1-13.

DeCarrico, J., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Grammar. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An

introduction to applied linguistics (pp.19-34). Arnold.

DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. An experiment

with aminiature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17,

379-401.

DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. (2001). The differential role of comprehension and

production practice. Language Learning, 51, 81–112.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence

from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 13, 431–496.

107

Doughty, C. (2001). The cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson

(Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Doughty, C. (2001).Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In

C. Doughty and M. Long, (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition

(pp.256 310). New York: Blackwell.

Doughty, C, & Pica, T. (1986). Information-gap tasks: Do they facilitate second

language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325.

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, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second

language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Edwards, C., & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in ELT. Oxford:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Egi, T. (2007a). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic

target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29,

511-537.

Egi, T. (2007b). Recasts, interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed),

Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of

empirical studies (pp.249-267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language

learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.

Ellis, R. (1992). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. New York:

Multilingual Matters.

Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: interactions of

explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3),

289-318.

108

Ellis, R. (1993). Talking shop: second language acquisition research: how does it help

teachers? An interview with Rod Ellis. ELT Journal, 47 (1), 3-11.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL

Quarterly, 32, 39-60.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching

Research, 4 (3): 193-220.

Ellis, R. (2000). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit

knowledge?: A review of research. Studies in second language acquisition, 24,

223–236.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language

Learning, 51, Supplement, 1-46.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005a). Planning and task performance in a second language.

Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.

Ellis, R. (2005b). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel

(Ed), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.713-

728). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ellis, R. (2006a). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 19-

45.

Ellis, R. (2006b). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.

TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Leaner uptake in communicative ESL

lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001b). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL

classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (3), 281-318.

109

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System 30, 419–

432.

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.

Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language

acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused

and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language

context. System, 36, 353–371.

Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition

of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language

Journal, 87, 242-60.

Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10,

583-593.

Farrar, M. J. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal

of Child Language, 77,607-624.

Farrokhi, F. & Gholami, J. (2007). Reactive and Preemptive Language Related

Episodes and Uptake in an EFL Class. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 58-92.

Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition.

Developmental Psychology, 28, 90-98.

Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A

response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.

Ferris, D. R. (2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M.

Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp.

298-314).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring second

language writing (pp. 119–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

110

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "grammar correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we,

and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime ... ?).

Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.

Ferris, D.R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the

short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland

(Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, (pp. 81-104).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit

does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.

Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar

task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.

Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use

through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323–351.

Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT

Journal, 52, 301–307.

Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia

(Ed.), Teaching English as a Second and Foreign Language (3rd Ed.). Boston:

Heinle & Heinle.

Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E.

Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second

language classrooms (pp. 135–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach.

TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.

Fotos, S., & Nassaji, H. (2006). Form-focused instruction and teacher education:

Studies in honor of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fowler, W.S., and Coe, N. (1976). Nelson English language tests. Thomas Nelson

Ltd.

Garcia Mayo, M.P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced

EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156-175.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

111

Gass, S. M., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perceptions about interactional feedback: differences

between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. In A.

Mackey (Ed), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a

series of empirical studies (pp.249-267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gass, S.M., Mackey, A., Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interaction in

classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575-611.

Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., and Thornbury, S. (2007). Teaching Grammar Creatively.

Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Green, P. & Hetch, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: an empirical study.

Applied Linguistics, 13, 168-184.

Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in

studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.

Haghnevis, M. (2007). Teaching verb tenses from two perspectives: formal instruction

through structural practice approach vs. grammar tense performance through

awareness-raising approach. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Allameh Tabataba’i

University, Tehran, Iran.

Haight C. E., Herron, C., and Cole, S.P. (2007). The Effects of Deductive and Guided

Inductive Instructional Approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary

foreign language college classrooms. Foreign language Annals, 40 (2), 288-310.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward

Arnold.

Hammond, R. (1988). Accuracy vs. communicative competency: The acquisition of grammar

in the L2 classroom. Hispania, 71, 408-417.

Han, Z-H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 582-

599.

Han, Z-H. (2002a). Rethinking of corrective feedback in communicative language

teaching. RELC Journal, 33, 1-33.

Han, Z-H. (2002b). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output.

TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543-572.

Han, Z-H. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

112

Han, Z-H. (2007a). On the role of meaning in focus on form. In Z-H, Han (Ed.),

Understanding Second Language Process (pp. 45-79). Clevedon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Han, Z-H. (2007b). Pedagogical implications: Genuine or pretentious. TESOL

Quarterly, 41, 387-393.

Han, Z-H., & Kim, J.H. (2008). Recasts: What teachers might want to know?

Language Learning Journal, 36(1), 35-44.

Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom

experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359.

Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition.

In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition (pp. 156–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In J. Richards (Ed.),

Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 34–70). Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1981). Research design and statistics for applied

linguistics. Tehran: Rahnama Publications

Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991).The research manual: Design and statistics for

applied linguistics. Newbury House Publication.

Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?

International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-70.

Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective

feedback. In S. H. Foster-Cohen & A. Nizegorodcew (Eds.), EUROSLA

yearbook, 1, (pp. 99–122). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL 15 (2),

416–431.

Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling

errors in CALL. System, 36, 196-213.

Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory,

research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.

113

Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. The Modern

Language Journal, 64, 216-221.

Hinkel, E. (2002a). Grammar teaching in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In E.

Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second

language classrooms (pp.181–198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hinkel, E. (2002b). Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn). In E. Hinkel

& S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second

language classrooms (pp. 233–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching of the four skills. TESOL

Quarterly, 40(1), 109-131.

Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (Eds.) (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in

second language classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,

Publishers.

Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (1998). From sentence to discourse: Discourse grammar

and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 263–287.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written

feedback. Journal of Second language Writing, 10, 185–212.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on second language students’ writing.

Language Teaching 39, 83–101.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Feedback in Second Language Writing.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ishida, M. (2004). Effect 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.

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.

Izumi, S. (1998). Negative feedback in NS-NNS task-based conversations. Paper

presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of Applied

Linguistics, Seattle, WA.

114

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An

experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 24, 541-577.

Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. (Eds.), (1998). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied

linguistics: A handbook for language teachers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers

Ltd.

Kartchava, E. (2006). Corrective feedback: Novice ESL teachers’ beliefs and

practices. An Unpublished Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec,

Canada.

Kim, J.H. (2007). Learner recognition of recasts: A study of the interaction of Korean

learners of English with native interlocutors. KOTESOL, 9(1), 1-26.

Kim, J.H., & Han, Z-H. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher

intent and learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational

interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 269-

297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koike, D.A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the

development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481–501.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and language learning. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1981). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.

Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S.D., & Terrel, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language

acquisition in the classroom. New York: Pergamon Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, Challenging trends.

TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.

Lantolf, J.P. (Ed), (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning [Special

issue], Modern Language Journal, 78 (4).

Lantolf, J.P. (1996). Second language acquisition theory building: Letting all the

flowers bloom! Language Learning, 46, 713 749.

115

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2002). Sociocultural theory and SLA. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook

of applied linguistics (pp. 109–119). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J.P. (2005). Sociocultural and second language learning research: an exegesis.

In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and

learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2005). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second

language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J.P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 28, 67-109.

Lantolf, J. P. (2007). Sociocultural theory and English language teaching. In J.

Cummins (Ed.), International handbook of English language education. New

York: Springer.

Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian Approaches to Second

Language Research. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M.E. (Eds.), (2008). Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching

of Second Languages. London: Equinox.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principals in language teaching. (2nd ed.).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Grammar. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The

Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2005). Error correction: Students' versus teachers'

perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 112–127.

Leaver, B. L. & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language

education: Practices and programs. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University

Press.

Lee, I. (2008a). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong

secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (2), 69–85.

116

Lee, I. (2008b). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback

practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22.

Lee, I. (2009). Feedback revolution: what gets in the way? ELT Journal, 1-12.

Lee, N. (1990). Notions of error and appropriate corrective treatment. Hong Kong

Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 13, 55-69.

Leech, G. (2000). Grammars of spoken English: new outcomes of corpus-oriented

research. Language Learning, 50, 4, 675-724.

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Beyond negative

evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63.

Leow, R. (2001). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language

Learning, 51, 113–155.

Liu, Y. (2008). The Effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona

Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79.

Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second

language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–462.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in

communicative language teaching: Effect on second language learning. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Lochana, M. and Deb, G. (2006). Task Based Teaching: Learning English without

Tears. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 140-64.

Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How

it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal

of Educational Research, 37, 271-283.

Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL

lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153-188.

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361-386.

Loewen, S. (2007). Error correction in second language acquisition. Clear News, 11

(2), 1-7.

117

Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A. (2009). Second Language Learners' Beliefs

about Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. The Modern language Journal,

93(1), 91-104.

Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom:

Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90,

536-556.

Long, M.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based

language training. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and

assessing second language acquisition (pp.77-99).Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in

second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology.

In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in

cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language

acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Long, M. H. (2006). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In Long, M. H. (Ed.), Problems

in SLA (pp. 75-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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, 52,357-371.

Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.

TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.

Long, M. H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In

C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second

language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

118

Loumpourdi, L. (2005). Developing from PPP to TBL: A focused grammar task. In

C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language

teaching (33-39). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse,

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.

Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to

error type and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48,

183-218.

Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to

error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51

(Suppl. 1), 265-301.

Lyster, R. (2004a). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused

instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.

Lyster, R. (2004b). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms:

Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 14,

321-341.

Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction.

Language Learning, 59(2), 453-498.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 321-341.

Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2008). Instructional Counterbalance in Immersion Pedagogy.

In T. Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving

Perspectives on Immersion Education (133-151). Multilingual Matters.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation

form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,

37-66.

Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners' perceptions about interactional

processes. International journal of educational research, 37, 379- 394.Mackey,

A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 27, 405-430.

119

Mackey, A. (Ed). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition:

a series of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Ham, M., Logan-Terry, A., &

Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about

corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and

Teaching, 1,129-152.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000), How do learners perceive

interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.

Mackey, A., Kanganas, A.P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task Familiarity and Interactional

Feedback in Child ESL Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 285-312.

Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A, & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners'

reports about the L2 classroom. IRAL, 39, 285-308.

Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children's L2

development. System, 30, 459-477.

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(1), 35-66.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language

development: Recast responses, and red herring? Modern Language Journal, 82,

338-356.

Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.).(2009). Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second

Language Research in Honor of Susan M. Gass. New York and London:

Routledge.

Mackey, A., & Silver, R.E. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by

immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239-260.

Macaro, E. & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction

make all the difference? Language Teaching Research, 10, 297-327

McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1998). What is spoken grammar and how should we teach

it? ELT Journal, 49(3), 207-217.

120

McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’

responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 27, 79–103.

McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetition, primed

production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693-720.

McLaughlin, B. (1978). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward

Arnold.

Mitchell, R. (2000). Anniversary article: Applied linguistics and evidence-based

classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied

Linguistics, 21(3), 281–303.

Mitchell, R. ,& Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories (2nd Ed.). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, R. ,& Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd Ed.). London:

Hodder Arnold.

Mitchell, J. & Redmond, M. (1993). Rethinking grammar and communication. Foreign

Language Annals, 26, 13-19.

Mohammad Hossein Pour, R. (2006). On the role of C.R tasks in learning grammar: a

learner perspective. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Tehran University: Tehran.

Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising tasks: a learner perspective.ELT Journal,

58 (3), 228-37.

Moradi, S. (2006). On the effect of focused vs. unfocused tasks on the development of

linguistic competence. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Tehran University, Tehran,

Iran.

Morovvati, A.R. (2008). On the effect of Focus on Form upon Noticing. Unpublished

M.A. Thesis, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

Morgan, J. L., Bonamo, K. M., & Travis, L. L. (1995). Negative evidence on negative

evidence. Developmental Psychology, 31, 180–197.

Morgan, J. l., & Travis, L. (1989). Limits on negative information in language input.

Journal of Child Language, 16, 531–552.

Mori, R. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and corrective feedback. JALT Journal, 24, 1.

121

Morris, F. A. (2002). Negotiation and recasts in relation to error types and learner

repair. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 395-404.

Morris, F., & Tarone, E. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of

recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53, 325–368.

Rezaei, S. (2009). Integrating Task-based Teaching Approach into Grammar

Instruction: An Action Research. Paper presented at the 2nd Regional Conference

on English Literature & Teaching (December 2009), Islamic Azad University,

Bushehr, Iran.

Mousavi, S.A. (2009). An encyclopedic dictionary of language testing (4rd Ed). Iran:

Rahnama Press.

Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating

formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language

Learning, 50, 617-673.

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.

Naeini, J. (2008). Error correction: an indication of consciousness-raising. Novitas-

ROYAL, 2 (2), 120-137.

Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction.

Modern Language Journal, 77(iii), 330–339.

Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition.

CALICO Journal, 14(1), 53–75.

Nagata, N. (1997) An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback

generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515–534.

Nassaji, H. (1999). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative

interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities.

The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 385–402.

Nassaji, H. (2000). A reply to Sheen. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56,

507–513.

Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of Recasts and Elicitations in Dyadic Interaction and the

Role of Feedback Explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452.

122

Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of

grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback:

The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles.

Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.

Nelson, K. E., Carskaddon, G., & Bonvillian, J. D. (1973). Syntax acquisition: Impact

of experimental variation in adult verbal interaction with the child. Child

Development, 44, 497-504.

Nelson, K. E., Denninger, M., Bonvillian, J. D., Kaplan, B., & Baker, N. (1983).

Maternal input adjustments and non-adjustments as related to children's

advances and to language acquisition theories. In A. D. Pellegrini & T. D.

Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oral and written language in social contexts

(pp. 31-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H. (2008). The effectiveness of computer-based

speech corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2 Dutch.

ReCALL 20(2), 225-243.

Newmeyer, F.J. (1986). Linguistic theory in America (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic

Press.

Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language

learners. Language Learning, 51, 719-758.

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language

acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-210.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A Research synthesis

and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle &

Heinle.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching: A comprehensively revised edition

of designing tasks for communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

123

Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective

feedback in the Japanese classroom. In J.K. Hall & L. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second

and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction (47-71).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning

Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 18, 459-481.

Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and

pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119-151.

Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The

Modern Language Journal, 86 (i), 97-111.

Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL

classrooms. The Modern language Journal, 87(4), 519-33.

Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition

of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied

Linguistics, 1(1), 65-86.

Oxford, R. (2006). Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning: an overview.

Asian EFL Journal, 8 (3), 94-121.

Pujolà, J. T. (2001). Did CALL feedback feed back? Researching learners' use of

feedback. ReCALL, 13(1), 79–98.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult

ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.

Park, E.S., & Han, Z-H. (2007). Learner spontaneous attention in L2 input processing:

An exploratory study. In Z-H, Han (Ed.), Understanding Second Language

Process (pp. 106-132). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on 'noticing the gap': Normative speakers' noticing of

recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-

126.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language

learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.

124

Prahbu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University.

Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective feedback in SLA: Classroom

practice and future directions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1),

21-29.

Richards, J. C. (1985). The context of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching

(2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and

applied linguistics (3rd Ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Riazi, A. M. (1999). A dictionary of research methods: Quantitative and qualitative.

Tehran: Rahnama Publications.

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under

implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.

Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence

learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed), Conversational interaction in second

language acquisition: a series of empirical studies (pp. 53-77). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and

Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language

Teaching, 6(1), 21-31.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second

language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega

(Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.

Rutherford, W.E, (1987). Second language grammar: learning and teaching. London:

Longman.

125

Sachs, R., and C. Polio. (2007). Learners’ use of two types of written feedback on an

L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 67–100.

Sachs, R., & Suh, B., (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2

outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In. A. Mackey (Ed.),

Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of

empirical studies (pp. 197-227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: the effect of computer-

delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In. A. Mackey (Ed.),

Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of

empirical studies (pp. 229-248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Salaberry, M. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language

acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422–451.

Sampson, G. (1980). Schools of linguistics. London: Hutchinson.

Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: variable

effects of interlocutor versus feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.),

Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of

empirical studies (pp.123-142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sauro, Sh. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2

grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13 (1), 96-120.

Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language,

24, 139-161.

Saxton, M. (2005). 'Recast' in a new light: Insights for practice from typical language

studies. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21, 23-38.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt., R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G.

Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.). Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt., R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for

applied linguistics. In J. Hulstijin & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Consciousness in second

language learning (pp. 11-26): AILA Review, Vol. 11.

126

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 (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of

Hawaii Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language

Acquisition (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, J. (2005). Teaching grammar through community issues. ELT Journal, 59

(4), 298-305.

Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students' and

teachers' views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language

Annals, 29, 343-364.

Shak, J. (2006). Children using dictogloss to focus on form. Reflections on English

Language Teaching 5(2), 47–62.

Shak, J., & Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form

tasks. Language Teaching Research 12 (3), 387–408.

Sharwood-Smith, M. (1992). Second language learning: Theoretical foundations. New

York: Longman Press.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–179.

Sheen, R. (2002). Focus on form and focus on forms. ELT Journal, 56(3), 303-305.

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative

classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-

300.

Sheen, Y, (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and

learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.

Sheen, Y. (2007a). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language

aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41,255-

283.

Sheen, Y. (2007b). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner

attitude on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed),

127

Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of empirical

studies (pp.301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning.

Language Learning, 58(4), 835-874.

Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the

ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203-234.

Sheen, Y. & Lyster, R. (Eds.) (2010). Special Issue: The role of oral and written

corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford

University Press.

Sheen, Y. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in L2 teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II).

New York and London: Routledge

Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and

unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult

ESL learners. System 37 (4), 556-569.

Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal,

23, 103-110.

Shin, S-K. (2008). Fire your proofreader!: Grammar correction in the writing

classroom. ELT Journal, 62(4), 358-65.

Skehan, P. (1996a). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In

D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching.

Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.

Skehan, P. (1996b). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.

Applied Linguistic, 17, 38-62.

Skehan, P. (1998a). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,

268-286.

Skehan, P. (1998b). 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, 29, 1–15.

128

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in

L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–24.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input

and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden

(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G, Cook,

& B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in

honor of KG. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through

collaborative dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second

language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative

tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44–63.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1989). Canada immersion and adult second language

teaching: What's the connection? Modern Language Journal, 73, 150-159.

Tanaka, Y. (1996). The comprehension and acquisition of relative clauses by

Japanese high school students through formal instruction. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Temple University Japan, Tokyo.

Terrell, T. (1991) . The role of grammar in a communicative approach. Modern Language

Journal, 75, 52-63.

Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2007). Alphabetic print literacy and oral language

processing in SLA. In A. Mackey (Ed), Conversational interaction in second

language acquisition: a series of empirical studies (pp.101-121). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. London: Longman.

Thornbury, S. (2001). Uncovering grammar. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.

129

Timmis, I. (2005). Towards a framework for teaching spoken grammar. ELT Journal,

59(2), 117-125.

Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: inducing and correcting

overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 9, 237-46.

Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in second language

classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204.

Trofimovich, R., Ammar, A., and 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.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.

Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for "the case for grammar correction in L2 writing

classes": A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-122.

Truscott, J. (2004). Dialogue: Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A

response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 337–4.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write

accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.

Tsang, W. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: an analysis of

18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Regional Language

Centre Journal. 35, 187-209.

Ur, P. (1988).Grammar practice activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ur, P. (1994). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign

Language Annals, 26, 435–450.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language

acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52,

755–803.

130

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–244.

VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing

instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.

VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and

communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R.

Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and practice (pp. 169–185).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vigil, N., & Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: a tentative model. Language Learning,

26, 281-295.

White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement

study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second

language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of

positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research.

7(2), 133-61.

White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2

question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416–432.

Widdowson, H. (1998). Skills, abilities, and contexts of reality. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics. 18, 323-33.

Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of

research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 671–692). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Williams, H. (2006). Maths in the grammar classroom. ELT Journal, 60(1), 23-33.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.

Willis, J. & Willis, D. (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford:

Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996a). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In D.

Willis, J. Willis (Eds.), Challenges and change in language teaching, (pp.52-62).

Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.

131

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996b). Consciousness-raising activities in the language

classroom. In D. Willis, J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language

teaching, (pp.63-76). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language

Teaching.

Willis, J. & Willis, D. (2001). Task-based language leaning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan

(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages

(pp.173-179). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, J. & Willis, D. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.

Wong, J., Waring, H.Z. (2009). ‘Very good' as a teacher response. ELT Journal, 63(3),

195-203.

Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign

Language Annals, 41 (3), 525-541.

Zargar Vafa, M. (1994). The Effect of Grammatical Consciousness-raising Activities

on Learning English Question Formation. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Tarbiat

Modares University. Tehran, Iran.

Zhao, S.Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and

learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431-47.

132

Appendix A

ILI Research and Planning Department Consent

133

Appendix B

Nelson Proficiency Test for the Intermediate

134

135

136

137

Appendix C

Test of Conditionals and Wish StatementsForm A

1. If I win the lottery, I ....... buy you a very big car as a present.a. should b. will c. couldd. would

2. I’ll call the police, ………you give my car back.a. howeverb. unlessc. sod. even

3. I wish that I………never…….my wife.a. was-metb. were-metc. have-metd. had-met

4. ....... I bought you a new car, would you be very happy?a. When b. If c. Asd. Although

5. She wishes she ……..a bid whenever she sees a bird in the sky.a. isb. wasc. wered. has

6. He will not pass the exam, unless you……….harder.a. studyb. studiesc. have studiedd. had studied

138

7. If you ....... got that job, would you have been able to move to a new house?a. have b. had c. will haved. were

8. We can walk to the cinema,………it is raining.a. unlessb. whetherc. whereasd. for

9. I would want very much to move to a new house if I ....... that job.a. haveb. have hadc. hadd. am having

10. If the weather………good now, I would go to the seaside.a. wasb. werec. isd. be

11. She would have worked less, if she…….enough money.a. has hadb. had hadc. hadd. has

12. The party was awful and we all wished we …………….to it.a. have not comeb. would have comec. could comed. had not come

139

13. Will you come to dinner with us if we ....... a babysitter for you?a. had found b. will find c. findd. would find

14. They would have been successful, if they………….more.a. would tryb. had triedc. would have triedd. have tried

15. If he…………a millionaire, no body……….care about him.a. wasn’t-shouldb. weren’t-couldc. weren’t-wouldd. wasn’t-might

16. I will try very hard to come and have dinner at your house if I ....... able to.a. am b. wasc. wered. had been

17. We don’t have any money but we wish that we ……. buy an apartment.a. canb. couldc. willd. should

18. If I ....... you, I should work very hard so that I could earn more money.a. am b. were c. ared. had been

140

19. Had we known about this sooner, we………..you.a. would helpb. would have helpedc. had helpedd. have helped

20. ....... you able to lend me some money if I promise you that you will get it back very soon?a. Areb. Wasc. Wered. Have been

21. She is living in New York now. However, she wishes she……. abroad.a. didn’t gob. hadn’t gonec. haven’t goned. couldn’t go

22. The Johnsons are very poor but they wish that they……….a villa near the beach. a. haveb. have hadc. hadd. had had

23. Had I enough time, I……….my relatives.a. would have visitedb. had visitedc. visitedd. would visit

24. Will it play the video if I……….this button.a. pressb. pressedc. will pressd. had pressed

141

25. If you really want to be helpful, then you ....... to tell me the truth.a. have b. had c. will haved. had had

26. What……..you do if you were the president of your country?a. willb. wouldc. shalld. should

27. Were I in your place, I………….that car.a. should buyb. would buyc. would have boughtd. had bought

28. If I ....... very hard, I would have been able to stop smoking.a. try b. would have tried c. had triedd. have tried

29. If I ....... you, I wouldn't risk it.a. had been b. am c. would be d. were

30. Where would you go if you……..a two-week leave?a. were givenb. have been givenc. are givend. had been given

142

31. If they had waited another month, they could probably....a better price for their housea. would getb. had gotc. have gotd. could get

32. I…………see the doctor please. a. wishb. want toc. like tod. need

33. If you………..to your parents last year, you………..in trouble now.a. have listened-weren’tb. listened-wouldn’t bec. listened-aren’td. had listened-wouldn’t be

34. I am very worried about the exam. I wish I……….more relaxed.a. can beb. should bec. could bed. am

35. It's quite simple really. When it's cold, water ........a. frozeb. has frozenc. freezesd. had frozen

36. If he decides to accept that job, he ....... it for the rest of his life.a. has regrettedb. had regrettedc. is regrettingd. will regret

143

37. I can’t speak English. I wish I……..speak English fluently. a. canb. couldc. willd. should

38. If you ....... of applying for that job, my advice is: forget it.a. are thinkingb. will thinkc. will be thinkingd. would think

39. If he hadn't been driving so fast, he ....... have hit the motorcyclist.a. didn'tb. hadn'tc. wouldn'td. hasn't

40. She always talks too much. I wish she…….less.a. is talking b. can talkc. talkedd. had talked

41. ....... he been more careful, he would have spotted the mistake.a. Wereb. Hadc. Hasd. Is

42. If she goes on passing her exams, ....... soon be qualified to practise as a lawyer.a. she'sb. she hadc. she hasd. she'll

144

43. If I pay you twice as much, will you ....... to finish by Tuesday?a. are ableb. is ablec. be abled. can be able

44. She is talking now. I wish she…….stop talking. a. canb. doesc. wouldd. will

45. If only I'd invested in that company, I'd ....... a millionaire by now.a. becameb. have becomec. had becomed. would become

46. Sometimes I wish I ....... what the future is like.a. knowb. knownc. knewd. knows

47. I wish I………turn the clock back and tell my wife how wrong I was.a. canb. willc. couldd. should

48. What would you do, if you……….a lot of money?a. had wonb. should winc. would wind. won

145

49. John……………at Oxford University now if he……….for this university.a. would be studying-had appliedb. would study-applyc. would have studied-appliedd. has studied-had applied

50. I will be very angry if you………on me.a. would cheatb. had cheatedc. cheatedd. cheat

Finished

146

Test of Conditionals and Wish StatementsForm B

1. If I win the football match, I ....... buy you a present.a. should b. couldc. wouldd. will

2. I’ll tell my dad………you give my money back.a. Howeverb. Soc. Evend. Unless

3. I wish that I………never…….Jack.a. had-seenb. was-metc. were-metd. have-met

4. ....... I bought you a motorcycle, would you be very happy?a. When b. If c. Asd. Although

5. He wishes he ……..on a place whenever he sees a plane in the sky.a. Wasb. Isc. Wered. Has

6. He will not pass the test, unless he……….harder.a. Workb. Workc. has d. had worked

147

7. If you ....bought that job, would you have been able to drive me to school every day?a. had b. have c. will haved. were

8. We can walk to the park,………it is raining.a. Whetherb. Whereasc. Ford. Unless

9. I would want very much to move to a new city if I ....... that job.a. Hadb. Havec. have hadd. am having

10. If the car………here now, I would go to the seaside.a. Wasb. Isc. Bed. Were

11. She would have bought that house, if she…….enough money.a. has hadb. hadc. hasd. had had

12. The trip was awful and we all wished we …………….on such a boring trip. a. have not goneb. had not gonec. would have goned. could go

148

13. Will you come to party with us if we .......your parents?a. had asked b. will askc. askd. would ask

14. They would have won the match, if they………….more.a. would tryb. would have triedc. have triedd. had tried

15. If he…………the boss, no body……….care about him.a. wasn’t-shouldb. weren’t-couldc. weren’t-wouldd. wasn’t-might

16. I will try very hard to help you if I ....... able to.a. Wasb. Werec. had beend. am

17. We don’t have any money but we wish that we ……. buy a Mercedes. a. Couldb. Canc. Willd. Should

18. If I ....... you, I should work very hard so that I could pass the exam. a. am b. were c. ared. had been

149

19. Had we known about this sooner, we………..you.a. would stopb. would have stoppedc. had stoppedd. have stopped

20. ....... you able to lend me you car if I promise to return it safe. a. Wasb. Werec. Have beend. Are

21. She is living in Sydney now. However, she wishes she……. abroad.a. didn’t gob. haven’t gonec. couldn’t god. hadn’t gone

22. The Johnsons are very rich but they wish that they……….more. a. Haveb. Hadc. have hadd. had had

23. Had I enough time, I……….my old friends. a. had visitedb. visitedc. would visitd. would have visited

24. Will it start the car if I……….this button.a. Pressb. Pressedc. will pressd. had pressed

150

25. If you really want to help, then you ....... to give us true information. a. had b. have c. will haved. had had

26. What……..you do if you were the Nobel Prize winner?a. Willb. Shallc. Shouldd. Would

27. Were I in your place, I………….that girl. a. Should marryb. would marryc. would have marriedd. had married

28. If I ....... very hard, I would have been able to stop getting up late.a. try b. would have tried c. had triedd. have tried

29. If I ....... you, I wouldn't tell my friends. a. had been b. am c. wered. would be

30. Where would you go if you……..to go on a vacation.a. Wantedb. have wantedc. wantd. had wanted

151

31. If he had waited another month, he could....... their house more. a. Sellb. had soldc. have soldd. sells

32. I…………see the manager of this office please. a. Wishb. want toc. like tod. need

33. If you………..to your dad last year, you………..in trouble now.a. had listened-wouldn’t beb. have listened-weren’tc. listened-wouldn’t bed. listened-aren’t

34. I am very worried about the results of my tests. I wish I……….more relaxed.a. could beb. can bec. should bed. am

35. It's quite simple really. When it's hot, ice........a. Meltsb. Meltedc. has meltedd. had melted

36. If he doesn’t study now, he ....... it for the rest of his life.a. has regrettedb. had regrettedc. is regrettingd. will regret

152

37. I can’t read in English. I wish I……..read English fast. a. Couldb. Canc. Willd. Should

38. If you ....... of going to that university, I think you are wrong. a. will thinkb. will be thinkingc. would thinkd. are thinking

39. If he hadn't been absent for five sessions, he ....... have fail this course. a. didn'tb. wouldn'tc. hadn'td. hasn't

40. Her mom speaks too much. I wish she…….less.a. Talkedb. is talking c. can talkd. had talked

41. ....... he been more careful, he wouldn’t have had an accident. a. Hadb. Werec. Hasd. Is

42. If she goes on passing her exams,....... soon be sent to U.S. for higher education. a. she'sb. she hadc. she hasd. she'll

153

43. If you work more, will you ....... to finish by Tuesday?a. be ableb. are ablec. is abled. can be able

44. She is speaking loudly now. I wish she…….stop doing that. a. Canb. Doesc. Wouldd. Will

45. I'd ....... a millionaire by now, if only I'd worked with him on that project. a. have becomeb. becamec. had becomed. would become

46. Sometimes I wish I ....... the answer to all the questions in the world. a. knewb. knowc. knownd. knows

47. I wish I………help my family get a better place to live in. a. Canb. Willc. Shouldd. Could

48. What would you do, if you……….a lot of money?a. Wonb. had wonc. should wind. would win

154

49. John……………at Microsoft Company now if he……….hardera. would study-applyb. would be working-had workedc. would have studied-appliedd. has studied-had applied

50. I will be very happy if you…….me.a. would helpb. had helpedc. helpedd. help

Finished