Yucel Yilmaz

Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts : A first exposure study

This article reports on a study that investigated whether the extent to which learners benefit from recasts on two Turkish morphemes differ depending on communication mode — i.e. Face-to-Face Communication (F2FC) and text-based Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) — and/or the salience of the target structure (i.e. salient and non-salient). In this first exposure study, 24 native speakers of English with no Turkish background studied 51 Turkish words by completing a series of vocabulary learning tasks. Participants who scored at or above a criterion level of 60% on a screening test met with the researcher and carried out two communicative tasks. In each task, learners received recasts on one of the target structures through one of the communication modes. The order of the tasks was counterbalanced across four subgroups of learners. Two oral production tasks were used as a posttest in order to measure learners’ performance on the two target structures. Results revealed that learners scored statistically significantly higher on receiving recasts through text-based SCMC than recasts through F2FC. However, results showed no difference between the salient and the non-salient morpheme in benefiting from recasts.

The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication

This study examines the potential of learner-learner interaction through Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) to focus learners’ attention on form. Focus on form is operationalized through Language-Related Episodes (LREs), instances where learners turn their attention to formal aspects of language by questioning the accuracy of their own or each other’s language use. The study also compares two task types, jigsaw and dictogloss, with respect to the number and characteristics of LREs. Ten adult intermediate ESL learners from an intensive English language program in the US worked together in dyads to carry out one jigsaw and one dictogloss task in an SCMC environment. Tasks were controlled for content and were presented in two alternative orders. The dictogloss in this study generated more LREs than the jigsaw. LREs were also qualitatively different across task types. Jigsaw LREs were implicit and did not result in incorrectly solved outcomes, whereas dictogloss LREs were explicit and resulted in correctly solved, incorrectly solved, and unresolved outcomes.

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.

The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback

This study investigated the extent to which cognitive abilities that involve explicit cognitive processes (i.e., explicit language aptitude) are related to second language (L2) learning outcomes under two corrective feedback conditions. The study followed a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest experimental design. Forty-eight L2 learners of English carried out three oral production tasks, in which their errors on the indefinite article were treated according to their group assignment (i.e., explicit, implicit, and no-feedback). A set of controlled oral production tests was administered as pretest and posttest. Explicit language aptitude was measured using three subtests from the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test battery (Meara, 2005). Results showed that explicit language aptitude predicted immediate posttest performance only under the explicit feedback condition, suggesting that this type of feedback requires mental processes that are facilitated by explicit cognitive abilities and that its short-term effectiveness is not the same for learners with different aptitude levels.

The interaction between feedback exposure condition and phonetic coding ability

This chapter reports on an empirical study that investigated feedback-cognitive ability interactions in three oral negative feedback exposure conditions. In the first condition, learners (i.e. receivers) received feedback on their own errors. In the second condition, learners (i.e. nonreceivers) did not receive feedback on their own errors, but they were allowed to hear the feedback that was provided to the receivers. In the control condition, learners were not exposed to feedback. The cognitive ability investigated was a sub-component of Carroll’s (1962) aptitude model, phonetic coding ability (PCA), or the capacity to recognize and remember previously encountered phonetic material. Results revealed that PCA played a role only in the receivers’ immediate posttest performance, suggesting that the receivers and the nonreceivers might have processed the feedback differently and that higher PCA ability may increase the benefits of receiving feedback directly on one’s own errors but have no effect on feedback that one is merely exposed to.

The role of explicit language aptitude in implicit, explicit, and mixed feedback conditions

This study examined whether there is any relationship between second language (L2) learning outcomes under different negative feedback conditions and cognitive abilities for language learning that involve explicit cognitive processes (i.e. explicit language aptitude). The study followed a pretest, immediate posttest, delayed posttest design, and used a set of controlled oral production tests as outcome measures. Between the pretest and the immediate posttest, 80 L2 learners of English carried out three oral production tasks, in which their errors on the indefinite article were treated according to the group they had been assigned to (i.e. explicit, implicit, mixed, reduced explicit or no-feedback). Three subtests from the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test battery (Meara 2005) were used to test the learners’ explicit language aptitude. Results showed that only on the immediate posttest and only under the explicit feedback condition was explicit language aptitude predictive of L2 performance.