Tasks – with and without corrective feedback.

1. Tasks – with and without corrective feedback. Rosemary Erlam The University of Auckland r.erlam@auckland.ac.nz Shawn Loewen Michigan State University

2. acknowledging my co-researcher • Shawn Loewen • Michigan State University

3. The night/date of your dreams • Who did you go out with? • Where did you go? • What did you do? • What time did you come home? Etc etc

4. S: then we fall in love T: we fell in love? S: we fell in love [implicit feedback] S: I go out with Clive Owen T: I go out? I went out S: I went out with Clive Owen [explicit feedback] feedback

5. vs no feedback What do you predict?

6. What does the research literature say? • Three recent meta-analyses • 1. Russell & Spada (2006) • 15 studies investigating the effectiveness of oral and written feedback • effect sizes large, although smaller for oral than written feedback • 2/ Li (in press) • 33 studies examining the effectiveness of corrective feedback (following errors in oral production) in second language learning • medium effect for corrective feedback maintained over time • lab-based studies show a greater effect than classroom-based ones • shorter treatments generated a greater effect than longer

7. 3. Mackey & Goo (2007) • meta analysis of research on interaction • 16 examined effectiveness of corrective feedback given to learners during oral interaction • large effect sizes on all post tests • need studies with delayed post tests • interaction with feedback may not be more effective than interaction alone

8. More research needed . . . • effectiveness of feedback needs to be investigated in relation to different target structures (Ellis, 2007) • range of measures of learning need to be used– measures of implicit as well as explicit knowledge (Ellis, 2007) • studies that include delayed post tests (Mackey & Goo, 2007)

9. Research questions • Do learners completing tasks make gains in implicit language knowledge when they are given feedback targeting specific language errors? • Do they make greater gains than students who complete the same tasks but get no feedback?

10. Research questions • Do learners completing tasks make gains in explicit language knowledge when they are given feedback targeting specific language errors? • Do they make greater gains than students who complete the same tasks but get no feedback?

11. Participants • 50 students of L2 French from an American university • 32 in Year 2, 18 in Year 3 • average age 20 • 40 female, 10 male!! • all but one had English as L1 • 60% of Year 2 & 80% of Year 3 had spent time in a French speaking country – average 5 months

12. Research design • Pre-test • Participants completed 8 tasks designed to elicit the target structures • 2 sessions – half an hour targeting each target structure – 2 hours in total • 40 students in feedback group, 10 in no feedback • Posttest 1 – 1 day later • Posttest 2 – 3 weeks later

13. noun adjective agreement • Un arbre (masculine) • Un arbre vert • Une voiture (feminine) • Une voiture verte • low perceptual salience & low communicative value • unacquired by classroom learners despite frequency in the input (Harley, 1989)

14. Use of être with intransitive verbs in the passé composé • passé composé – auxiliary + verb • for most verbs auxiliary is avoir • for reflexive verbs & small no of intransitive verbs auxiliary is être • J’ai fait du cheval • Je suis monté sur l’échelle • differs in non obvious ways from L1 • does not carry a heavy communicative load

15. Year 2 students (n = 22) Worked at tasks eliciting noun/adj agreement and use of être in passé composé (2 hours) Year 3 students ( n = 18) Worked at tasks eliciting noun/adj agreement (1 hour) Both received feedback No feedback – Yr 2 students (n = 10) Worked at tasks designed to elicit noun/adjective agreement and use of être in passé composé (2 hours) Received no feedback Research design cont.

16. Tasks . . . • Les personnages de tele • Comment est-elle/il? • âge • taille • physique • caractère • La soirée de vos rêves? • sortis avec qui? • ou allé? • fait quoi? • rentré à quelle heure etc?

17. Implicit S: je pense elle n’est pas intelligent parce qu’elle R: elle n’est pas intelligente? S: elle n’est pas intelligente S: je ne sais à quelle heure nous avons rentrés R: noussommes rentrés? S: nous sommes rentrés parce que Espagne est un autre continent Explicit S: elle est heureux R: elle est heureux? Elle est heureuse S: heureuse S: ils ont allé R: ils ont allé? Ils sont allés S: ils sont allés, oui, ils sont allés au café Feedback

18. Feedback . . . • directed at individual students but tasks designed to optimize likelihood that all students attend to corrective episodes • Groups received average of 19 instances of feedback for noun/adj agreement (range 8 – 32) 10 instances of feedback for être in passé composé (range 3 – 16)

19. Implicit language knowledge Elicited imitation test (Erlam, 2006; Ellis, 2005) Les petites filles rêvent de se marier en robe blanche. Spontaneous production test Décrivez la Princesse Diana et la Mère Thérèse. Vous avez la possibilité de passer une soirée avec l’une d’elles. Laquelle choisissez-vous? Pourquoi? Explicit language knowledge Untimed grammaticality judgment test Ungrammatical sentences only (Ellis, 2004; 2005) C’est une idée faux. instruments

20. Research questions • Do learners completing tasks make gains in implicit language knowledge when they are given feedback targeting specific language errors? • Do they make greater gains than students who complete the same tasks but get no feedback?

21. Elicited imitation test

22. Elicited imitation test

23. Spontaneous production test

24. Spontaneous production test

25. Research questions • Do learners completing tasks make gains in explicit language knowledge when they are given feedback targeting specific language errors? • Do they make greater gains than students who complete the same tasks but get no feedback?

26. Grammaticality judgment test

27. Grammaticality judgment test

28. Research questions • Do learners completing tasks make gains in implicit language knowledge when they are given feedback targeting specific language errors? Yes/No • Do they make greater gains than students who complete the same tasks but get no feedback? No

29. Research questions cont • Do learners completing tasks make gains in explicit language knowledge when they are given feedback targeting specific language errors? Yes • Do they make greater gains than students who complete the same tasks but get no feedback? Yes – for noun/adjective agreement, No for être

30. Conclusions . . .explanations • feedback facilitated learning • But tasks (designed to elicit target structures) also resulted in learning Why? • may have focused learner’s attention briefly on form whilst engaged in communication of meaning • may have noticed gaps between their own interlanguage resources & language they needed

31. Vocabulary prompt • sortir • aller • rentrer • Etc • [use of verb être in the passé composé is a rule that is easy to apply • allows for item learning rather than system learning]

32. Reasons cont. • No Feedback group reported high awareness of target structures • opportunity to engage in a different type of instruction may have motivated them more to attend to the content of the activities (Lyster & Mori, 2006; Yang & Lyster, forthcoming)

33. Awareness of target structure . . .

34. What is missing? • A control group that completed the tests only • [no tasks]

35. Control group – EI test

36. Control group – GJT test

37. references • Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 464-491. • Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339-361). Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-359. • Li, S. (in press). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning. • Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300. • Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407-453). Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164 ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.