Recasts in the ESL classroom:
Comparing the effectiveness
of different types of corrective feedback
Jenefer Philp & Shawn Loewen
University of Auckland,
New Zealand
Recasts
Target-like reformulations following a
learner’s non-TL utterance.
Maintains the central meaning, while
changing elements of the form (lexical,
morphological, syntactic, phonological
components). (Long, 1996)
Example 1 (Loewen 2002)
Kao: his crime was uh when he was uh seventeen uh he
over drunk he drank too much and get fight with some
boy and the boy uh get got into unconscious
T: became unconscious
Kao: became unconscious and permanently damaged
his brain
Example 2 (Philp, 1998)
NNS why why is the why is he why is the son read
read the table?
NS why is he ah setting the table?
NNS uh huh
Features of recasts
Provides implicit negative feedback
Juxtaposes the learners’ incorrect
utterance with the target-like version
Contingent on the learner’s production
Incidental
Corrective feedback in the L2
classroom
Elicitation moves : repetition, clarification
requests, prompts
Informs: explicit correction
Recasts
Recasts in the classroom
Impact of context (Morris & Tarone, 2003;
Seedhouse, 1997; van Lier, 1988)
Range in explicitness and salience
(Nicholas, Lightbown & Spada, 2001; Ellis,
to appear)
Salience and response moves
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Ph
driver
T
a driver did you say?
Ph
screw screw driver
T
what’s a school driver? Screwdriver
Ph
screwdriver
T
a screwdriver
Ph
screwdriver
T
yeah I think I’d call that a tool that’s
that’s not an appliance it’s not powered by
electricity
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
T: you have to tell this story to Jack
okay not your story you’re telling the
story “girl had bullet in her scalp”.
S: the title of the story is girl had
blood in her scalp
T: blood?
S: bloot
T: bullet bullet=
S: =bullet bullet in her scalp is
about is about
Prosodic emphasis (stress)
1.
2.
3.
H:
T:
H:
some people have racism
some people ARE racist
are racist
Segmentation
1.
Thom:
yeah and uh when they went to
the ban the gateway and they stu- stu- in
2.
T: got stuck
3.
Thom:
got stuck on the rova, ro:
Intonation
Declarative recast
Interrogative recast
(Lyster 1998; Sheen 2004)
Are recasts beneficial?
Juxtaposition of the correct with the
incorrect
Congruent with the learner’s production
Maps meaning to form
Incidental & transitory
(Doughty, 2001; Long, to appear; Philp, 1998)
If noticed…
Noticing is crucial (Gass, 1997; Mackey, in
press; Philp, 1998; Schmidt, 1993, 2001)
Recasts may help learners ‘notice the gap’
Potential limitations of recasts
Ambiguous
Learners are not pushed in their output
Differentially beneficial depending on form
Other forms of feedback may be more beneficial
(Ellis, to appear; Lyster, 1998, 2004; Lyster & Ranta, 1997;
Panova & Lyster, 2002)
Research Questions
Description of recasts in the L2 classroom
Effectiveness of recasts (post tests /
successful uptake)
Differences between recasts and effects
on test performance / successful uptake
Data (Loewen, 2002)
17 hours of classroom interaction
12 ESL classrooms
118 adult intermediate-level learners
Tailor-made tests 1-3 days and 2 weeks
later
TEST: Correction Example
The following sentences are incorrect or
inappropriate. Please listen and tell me how you
could make the sentences better.
1. I used to wear the balaclava for protection to wind
and cold.
S: when I was soldier I used to wear the balaclava
T: and why did you wear it S for protection from the cold or
for another reason
S: just wind uh protection to wind and cold
T: protection from
S: uh from wind and cold
T: right, okay not for a disguise
Test: Pronunciation
Learners were asked to first read aloud a
sentence containing the targeted
word/phrase and then to read aloud the
target word/phrase in isolation.
Coding of data
Type of feedback move
Recasts: segmentation, stress, length,
number of changes, complexity and
intonation
Uptake: successful uptake, no uptake, no
chance
Test performance: correct, incorrect
1. Response moves
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Recast
Inform
Elicitation
%
2. What is the nature of recasts
in the L2 classroom?
Linguistic focus
35
30
Lexical
25
Morphosyntactic
Phonological
20
15
10
Multiple
5
0
%
Length of recast
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Short
Long
Stress
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Unstressed
Stressed
%
Intonation
90
80
70
60
50
40
Declarative
Interrogative
30
20
10
0
%
Response moves
70
60
50
40
1 recast
30
>1 response
move
20
10
0
%
Segmentation
70
60
50
40
Segmented
Whole
30
20
10
0
%
Recall on Post Test
Learners were able to recall at least 50% of
test items
No significant differences in learners’ ability to
recall correctly on the tests and they type of
feedback they had received.
– Post test: Chi square (2, 180) p =.114
– Delayed post test: Chi square (2, 188) p = .577
Successful Uptake
Recasts resulted in high levels of
successful uptake (72.6%)
Elicitation moves associated with
significantly higher numbers of successful
uptake (88.3%)
Informs associated with significantly higher
levels of Unsuccessful uptake
– Chi square (2, 363) = 16.63, p<.001
Successful uptake
and test performance
(Logistic regression)
Successful uptake predicted by :
Stress
13.235
Complexity
5.052
Intonation
.351
Number of changes .519
.000
.000
.014
.068
Recasts and test performance
(Logistic regression)
Correct and partially correct test scores
predicted by :
Morpheme Length .509
Intonation
2.206
Number of changes .519
.149
.084
.068
Summary
50% of corrective feedback moves are recasts.
High levels of successful uptake, with 88% for
elicitation moves.
No significant difference between teachers’
response moves and performance on tests.
Recasts were associated with 50% success rate.
The majority of recasts in these ESL
classrooms were:
Short
Stressed
Declarative
Segmented
More
Explicit
Recasts and Successful Uptake
Stress
>1 response move
successful
uptake
One change
Falling intonation
Recasts and Post Test Recall
Rising intonation
Shorter recasts
One change
recall on
post tests
Discussion
References
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the
corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning,
27(1), 29-46.
Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent
speakers to language learners. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown
University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 96108). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In
P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction
(pp. 206-257). Cambridge: 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. 114-138). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998a). Issues and terminology. In
C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition (pp. 1-11). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998b). Focus on Form in
Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation.
In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language acquisition in the second/foreign
language classroom (pp. 179-114). Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction.
Language Learning, 51(Supplement 1), 1-46.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake
in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281318.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language
learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second
language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
16, 283-302.
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the
aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign
language. Language Learning, 54(2), 311-394.
Iwashita, N. (1999). Tasks and Learners' Output in NonnativeNonnative Interaction. In K. Kanno (Ed.), The Acquisition of
Japanese as a Second Langauge (pp. 31-52). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative Feedback and Positive Evidence
in Task-Based Interaction: Differential Effects on L2
Development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1),
1-36.
Leeman, J. (2003) Recasts and second langauge development:
Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 25, 37-63.
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). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Loewen, S. (2002). The occurrence and effectiveness of
incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in
meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153187.
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:
Academic Press.
Long, M. (to appear). Recasts in SLA: The story so
far.Unpublished manuscript.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit
negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and
Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357-371.
Lyster, R. (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in
form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 26, 399-432.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit
correction in relation to error types and learner repair in
immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2
classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
20, 51-81.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner
uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (In press). Interaction and second language
development: Perspectives from SLA research. In R. DeKyser
(Ed.), Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from
linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and
second language development: Recasts, responses and red
herrings. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as
feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719758.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: a learner-centered
examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language
classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaeste (Eds.), Second and
foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 4771). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS
conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459481.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in
classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119-151.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and Focus on Form in L2 Oral
Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 109-148.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and
uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
Philp, J. (1998). Interaction, noticing and second language acquistition.
Unpublished PhD, University of Tasmania, Launceston.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on 'noticing the gap': Nonnative speakers'
noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on Negotiation: What Does It Reveal about
Second-Language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes?
Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language
acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing 'no': The
relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language
Learning, 47, 547-583.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in
communicative classrooms across instructional settings.
Language Teaching Research 8, 263-300.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language
learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and
practice in applied linguistics; Studesi in honour of H. G.
Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating
acquistiion through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the language learner:
Ethnography and second-language classroom research.
London: Longman.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention
to form. System, 29, 325-340.