Jaemyung Goo

Corrective Feedback and Working Memory Capacity in Interaction-Driven L2 Learning.

The present study explores the relative efficacy of recasts over metalinguistic feedback on the learning of the English that -trace filter and how working memory capacity (WMC) is related to the extent to which learners can benefit from recasts and metalinguistic feedback. Fifty-four Korean English as a foreign language (EFL) learners from six intact classes at a university formed two experimental groups (recasts and metalinguistic feedback) and one control group and carried out two first language (L1) working memory (WM) span tasks (reading span and operation span tasks). The two experimental groups participated in two information gap activities over two treatment sessions, during which they were required to ask questions involving the that -trace filter and received corrective feedback (either recasts or metalinguistic feedback) on their erroneous utterances. Two dependent variable measures (a written production test and a grammaticality judgment test) were administered in each test session (pretest and immediate posttest). Results showed that recasts were as effective as metalinguistic feedback in facilitating the acquisition of the target construction. This may, to some extent, be attributable to the blocking of modified output opportunities specifically designed in this study to prevent modified output from playing a potential role as a confound. Also, individual differences in WMC significantly predicted, and thus mediated the effects of, recasts but not metalinguistic feedback, on the acquisition of the that -trace filter. This suggests that executive attention or attention control (considered as a critical component of WMC) is involved in the noticing of recasts, but not in the noticing of metalinguistic feedback.

THE CASE AGAINST THE CASE AGAINST RECASTS

In the previous 20 years, more than 60 studies have been carried out within the input and interaction approach to SLA (Long, 2007; Mackey 2012), many of which have found positive associations between different types of recasts and the learning of a range of linguistic forms for a number of different second languages (L2s), in different learning contexts, with adults and with children. However, the following claims also appear: (a) recasts are not effective, (b) recasts are effective only in laboratories and not in classrooms, and (c) other types of feedback are more effective when compared with recasts. We demonstrate important methodological and interpretative problems in the small number of studies on which these negative claims are based, including issues with (a) modified output opportunities, (b) single-versus-multiple comparisons, (c) form-focused instruction, (d) prior knowledge, and (e) out-of-experiment exposure. We conclude by suggesting that making a case against recasts is neither convincing nor useful for advancing the field and that more triangulated approaches to research on all types of corrective feedback, employing varied and rigorous methodological designs, are necessary to further our understanding of the role of corrective feedback in L2 learning.

Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated

More than a decade has passed since Norris and Ortega’s (2000) seminal meta-analysis on the effectiveness of instruction in L2 learning. This line of research has matured for another research synthesis, which led to the present meta-analytic review. Thirty-four unique sample studies, in each of which explicit and implicit instructional treatments were compared, were retrieved and included in the present meta-analysis: 11 studies from Norris and Ortega’s meta-analysis and 23 new studies published between 1999 and 2011. Overall, explicit instruction was found to have been more effective than implicit instruction. The effectiveness of implicit and explicit instruction in L2 development was also meta-analyzed in terms of several moderator variables. We discuss our results in comparison with Norris and Ortega’s findings.