Açık Biçimlendirme ve Sadece Çıktıya Dayalı Yönlendiricilerin İkinci Dil Yapısının Öğrenimindeki Etkisi

Abstract

Bu yarı deneysel çalışma, iki düzeltici dönütün- açık biçimlendirme ve sadece çıktıya dayalı yönlendiricilerin- İngilizce üçüncü tekil şahıs ‘-s’ ekinin edinimi üzerindeki potansiyel etkisini araştırmaktadır. İstanbul'daki bir üniversitede üç sınıfta bulunan otuz altı dil öğrencisinden iki deney grubu ve bir kontrol grubu oluşturulmuş ve hedef dilin kullanımını gerekli kılan iletişimsel çalışmalar uygulanmıştır. Açık biçimlendirme, önce hatalı cümleyi tekrarlayıp ardından vurgu ve tonlama gibi parçaüstü özellikleri kullanarak biçimlendirmenin düzeltici etkisini ortaya çıkaracak bir şekilde uygulanmıştır. Sadece çıktıya dayalı yönlendiriciler tekrarlama ve çıkarım olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin analizi, açık biçimlendirme grubunda yer alan katılımcıların birinci sözel testte belirgin bir farklılık, gecikmiş ikinci testte ise daha az düzeyde bir farklılık sağladığını ortaya koymuştur. Bulgular, biçimlendirmenin belirgin bir şekilde uygulanmasının, dil yapılarının edinim süreci üzerinde olumlu bir etki yaratabileceğini ve bunların en azından bazı İngilizcenin yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği bağlamlarda sadece çıktıya dayalı yönlendiricilerden daha yararlı olabileceğini göstermiştir.

Keywords

• Düzeltici dönüt,açık biçimlendirme,düzeltici biçimlendirme,sadece çıktıya dayalı yönlendirici,İngilizce üçüncü tekil şahıs ‘-s’

The Effects of Explicit Recasts and Output-only Prompts on Learning L2 Grammar

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study investigates the potential benefits of two types of corrective feedback strategies, explicit recasts and output-only prompts, on the acquisition of English third person ‘-s’. Thirty-six language learners in three intact classes from a university in Istanbul were assigned into two experimental groups and a control group and completed communicative tasks that made the use of the target language necessary. The explicit recast was operationalized as repetition of erroneous utterances followed by supra-segmental manipulation where stress and intonation were employed to make the corrective force of recasts salient. Output-only prompts were operationalized as repetition and elicitation. Acquisition was measured through untimed grammaticality judgment tests (UGJT) and oral narration tasks that were administered prior to the instructions, immediately after the instructions and 10 days later. The analysis of data revealed a clear advantage of explicit recast on the oral measures of the immediate posttest, and to lesser extent, the delayed posttest. The findings suggested that, at least in some EFL contexts, explicit recasts might have a more positive impact on the acquisition process than output-only prompts.

Keywords

• corrective feedback,explicit recasts,corrective recasts,output-only prompts,English third person ‘-s’

References

1. Akiyama, Y. (2017). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation. System, 64, 58-73.
2. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all: Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 544-548.
3. Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
4. 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(3), 357-386.
5. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46.
6. Chen, H. J. H. (1996). A study of the effect of corrective feedback on foreign language learning: American students learning Chinese classifiers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
7. Chen. Z, (2010). Explicit recast, implicit recast and the acquisition of English noun plural: A comparative study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(6), 55-70. de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46(3), 529-555.
8. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp.42-63). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

9. DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(1), 1-25.
10. 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: Cambridge University Press.
11. Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The role of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 511-537.
12. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 41-72.
13. Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 339-360). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
14. Ellis, R. (2010). A Framework for Investigating Oral and Written Corrective Feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349.
15. Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600.
16. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and learning of L2 Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 339-368.
17. Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(4), 877-905.
18. Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A metaanalysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-50.
19. Guchte, M.V.D., & Braaksma, M. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 246-262.
20. Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014a). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428-452.
21. Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014b). Learners' beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86-109.
22. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Li, H. (2018). Recasts and output-only prompts, individual learner factors and short-term EFL learning. System. 76, 103-115.
24. Long, M. H. (1998). Focus on form in task-based language teaching, University of Hawai’Working Papers in ESL, 16(2), 35-49.
25. Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 339-360). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
26. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA, Academic Press.
27. Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51-80.
29. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.
30. Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453-498.
31. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
32. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
33. Mackey, A., Gass S., & McDonough K. (2000). How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4) 471-497.
34. Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330-339.
35. Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452.
36. Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535-562.
37. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskyan perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
38. Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: non-native speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1) 99-126.
39. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second-language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 65, 65-79.
42. Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R.P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 269-292.
43. Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 245–59). Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
44. Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variables effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507-545.
45. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.
46. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392.
47. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2009). Interaction research in second/foreign language classrooms. In A. Mackey, & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp.157–175). New York, Routledge.
48. Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235-263.
49. Yongbin Z. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit recasts on the acquisition of two grammatical structures and the mediating role of working memory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Auckland, Auckland.