Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
International Conference on Current Trends in ELT: Putting the Learner in the Spotlight
Urmia, Iran May, 20-22, 2013
Manoochehr Jafarigohar Abdullah Gharbavi
Payame Noor University
Recast or Prompt: Which One Does the Trick?
The purpose of the present study is to explore how providing recast and prompt would promote the acquisition of grammatical development in EFL context. To be more precise, how these two types of feedback can influence the acquisition of relative clauses in Iranian learners of English.
1. The aim of the paper
2.1 Do recast and prompt have different effects on the grammatical development of Iranian learners of English?
2.2 In multiple comparisons of the recast, prompt and control group, which groups are significantly different from one another?
3.3 Which one is more facilitative to L2 grammar development, recast or prompt in the form of elicitation?
2. Research questions
The teacher supplies the correct form and clearly indicates that what the student said was incorrect, the example below is from Brown (2007, p. 278).
Student: when I have 12 years oldTeacher: no not have. That's wrong. You
mean, "When I was 12 years old…"
Explicit correction
utterance that rephrases an utterance 'by changing one or more of its sentence components (subject, verb, or object) while still referring to its central meaning'(Long, 1996, p. 436).
S: I go to cinema last weekend.T: You went to cinema. What did you see?S: 'Gladiators'. It was great.
Recast
The teacher uses a variety of signals rather than explicit correction or reformulating the student's sentence. These signals or cues prompt the student to self- repair or self-correction (Lyster, 2002; 2004)
Prompt
Table 1 Types of Prompt (Lyster & Mori, 2006, p. 272) Types of prompt Speaker Student utterance + teacher prompt (a) Elicitation Student (to another student) What color you
like? Teacher Uh, Reza, how do we say that in What color do…? Student What color do you like? (b) Metalinguistic cues Student I see Ali last week Teacher Good, but remember you are talking About past event
(c) Clarification request Student I want go today, today Teacher Pardon, I didn't get exactly what
you said. (d) Repetition Student I wanted see him. Teacher I wanted to see him
Research on feedback rests on interaction hypothesis. The interaction approach accounts for learning through input (exposure to language), production of language (output), and feedback that comes as a result of interaction
3.Theoretical framework
Lyster & Ranta, 1997Lyster, 1998aLyster, 1998bLyster, 2002Lyster, 2004Lyster & Mori, 2006Long & Inagaki, 1998
4. Previous research on corrective feedback
Long, 2007Mackey, Gass &McDonough, 2000MacDonough, 2005Mackey & Oliver, 2002Ellis, Basturkmem & Loewen, 2001Ellis,Tanaka & Yamazaki, 1994Nassaji, 2007Sheen, 2004
45 volunteer intermediate students -Ahwaz.
Their native language Farsi or ArabicTo ensure homogeneity betweenProficiency test was administered – population of 60
And then 45 –assigned into 3 groups: recast, prompt and control
5. Participants
Research design is experimentalWanted to test the effectiveness of
recast and promptIn treatment (I), we used promptIn treatment (II), we used recastIn control group no treatmentAt the end of the sixth- a post test-all
of the groups
6. Research design
The subjects in the treatment groups were asked to perform various picture description tasks which were of focused type (Ellis, 2003). The tasks purposefully elicited the relative clauses.
The subjects- imagine-they were on phone Also- imagine- in lost and found office of an
airport In prompt group, - prompting signals and cues In recast group- provided the subjects with recast
7. Procedure
In addition to treatment tasks, testing instruments were also utilized. Two pen-and-paper tests were constructed for the pretest and posttest. One was a grammatical judgment test and the other was a metalinguistic knowledge test.
8. Instrumentation
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of prompt, recast and control group
present posttest Group N M SD M SD Prompt 15 12.47 3.159 18.87 1.125 Recast 15 12.53 2.825 14.93 1.907 Control 15 11.93 2.549 14.20 2.651
Mean scores improve from pretest to the posttests
For both recast and prompt group
9. Results
Table 2. ANOVA for test scores on posttest
Sum of squares
Df Mean square
F Sig
Between groups
188.933 2 94.4 23.749 .000
Within groups
167.067
42
3.978
Total 356.000 44
As can be seen from Table 2, the ANOVA performed on the posttest scores of the groups revealed significant differences among groups, F (2, 42) = 23.749, p < .05. This result suggests that there is a significant difference somewhere among the groups
Table3 test (multiple comparisons)MEAN DIFFERENT
STD.ERROR Sig
Prompt PromptControl
3.993*4.667*
.728
.728.000.000
Recast Recast Control
-3.933*.733
.728
.728.000.577
Control Recast Prompt
-4.667* -733*
.728
.728 .000.577
Looking at Table 3, you can clearly see that the pair groups that are significantly different from one another at the p<.05 level.
Research question 1 'Do recast and prompt have different effects on
the grammatical development of Iranian learners of English?'
As can be seen from Table 2 in the previous section, the ANOVA performed on the posttest scores of the groups revealed significant differences among groups, F (2, 42) = 23.749, p < .05. Therefore, the answer to the first question was affirmative.
10. Discussion
Research question 2 'In multiple comparisons of the recast, prompt and
control group, which groups are significantly different from one another?'
As can be seen from Table 3, recast and prompt groups differ significantly in terms of their grammatical gains(P<.05). Also, prompt and control groups differ significantly at the p<.05 level. In contrast, there were no differences between the recast and control groups. This suggests that the treatment in prompt group was more effective than those of recast and control groups. This could be ascribed to the different corrective force of prompt and recast.
'Which one is more facilitative to L2 grammar development, recast or prompt in the form of elicitation?'
Since the outcome of Tukey test (see Table 3) revealed that recast and control groups are significantly different and recast and control groups are not significantly different. Therefore, we can conclude that prompt is more effective than recast at the .05 level of significance. In addition to Tukey results, the results of Table 1 shows that the improvement of prompt group from pretest to posttest is substantially far more than that of recast group.
Research question 3
prompt was more effective than recast -grammar development.
Thus, empirical support for the interaction hypothesis
The superiority of prompt over recat- implies a beneficial role for negative evidence
and implies that pedagogically, prompt is a better choice for L2 teachers than recast in an L2 classroom
11. Conclusion
