Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:07:20.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK AND INSTRUCTIONAL COUNTERBALANCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2006

Roy Lyster  and
Hirohide Mori
Roy Lyster
Affiliation:
McGill University
Hirohide Mori
Affiliation:
Nihon University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This comparative analysis of teacher-student interaction in two different instructional settings at the elementary-school level (18.3 hr in French immersion and 14.8 hr Japanese immersion) investigates the immediate effects of explicit correction, recasts, and prompts on learner uptake and repair. The results clearly show a predominant provision of recasts over prompts and explicit correction, regardless of instructional setting, but distinctively varied student uptake and repair patterns in relation to feedback type, with the largest proportion of repair resulting from prompts in French immersion and from recasts in Japanese immersion. Based on these findings and supported by an analysis of each instructional setting's overall communicative orientation, we introduce the counterbalance hypothesis, which states that instructional activities and interactional feedback that act as a counterbalance to a classroom's predominant communicative orientation are likely to prove more effective than instructional activities and interactional feedback that are congruent with its predominant communicative orientation.This research was supported by Standard Research Grants (410-98-0175 and 410-2002-0988) awarded to the first author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and by a Nihon University Individual Research Grant for 2005 awarded to the second author. A version of this study was presented at the Second Language Research Forum held at Columbia University in October 2005. We are especially grateful to the participating teachers and their students and also to Yingli Yang for her role as research assistant in aggregating the datasets. We thank Sue Gass, Alison Mackey, Iliana Panova, Leila Ranta, and two SSLA reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 269 - 300
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, P. (1983). A three-level curriculum model for second-language education. Canadian Modern Language Review, 40, 23–43.Google Scholar
Allen, P., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of second language teaching: An observation scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem, & B. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp. 231–252). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ammar, A. (2003). Corrective feedback and L2 learning: Elicitation and recasts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
Aston, G. (1988). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128–143.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., & Logie, R. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 28–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Braidi, S. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–555.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1994). Finetuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J. Alatis (Ed.), GURT 1993: Strategic interaction (pp. 96–108). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 129–154). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.Google Scholar
Fazio, L., & Lyster, R. (1998). Immersion and submersion classrooms: A comparison of instructional practices in language arts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19, 303–317.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). Classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27–57.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1998). The role of form-focused tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156–174). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255–270.Google Scholar
Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 99–122.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45–77). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (1996). Vocabulary teaching in a grade 8 French immersion class: A descriptive case study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 242–256.Google Scholar
Laplante, B. (1993). Stratégies pédagogiques et enseignement des sciences en immersion française: Le cas d'une enseignante [Pedagogical strategies and science teaching in French immersion: The case of one teacher]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 49, 567–588.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1991). What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 197–212). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271–283.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153–188.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77 (pp. 278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468), San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students' sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998a). Immersion pedagogy and implications for language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 64–95). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998c). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237–253.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004a). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004b). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 321–341.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. Healy & L. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mori, H. (2000). Error treatment at different grade levels in Japanese immersion classroom interaction. Studies in Language Sciences, 1, 171–180.Google Scholar
Mori, H. (2002). Error treatment sequences in Japanese immersion classroom interactions at different grade levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 82, 372–386.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–533.Google Scholar
Oshima-Takane, Y., MacWhinney, B., Sirai, H., Miyata, S., & Naka, N. (Eds.). (1998). CHILDES for Japanese ( 2nd ed.). The JCHAT Project, Nagoya: Chukyo University.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners' language analytic ability in the communicative classroom. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 159–180). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R., (in press). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students' oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing for second language use: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, M. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 162–182). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory in SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1–15.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in the L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–221.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. (1990). Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 93–109). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching (P. Allen & B. Harley, Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68–83.Google Scholar
Thornton, I., & Pienemann, M. (1994). COALA: Computer-aided linguistic analysis. Sydney: Language Acquisition Research Centre.
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237–246.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385–395.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437–456.Google Scholar
Tsang, W. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Regional Language Centre Journal, 35, 187–209.Google Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. (1999). Second language teaching. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 656–658). Oxford: Pergamon.