The purpose of this exploratory longitudinal study was to evaluate the efficacy of two new forms of recasts (i.e. elaborated and paraphrased recasts), each of which was designed to be more in accordance with contested views of input processing. The effectiveness of the two new forms of recasts was compared to that of conventional standard recasts. To this end, an experienced language teacher engaged four intermediate-level learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in weekly, one-on-one, English conversation sessions under four instructional conditions (elaborated recast, paraphrased recast, standard recast, and no recast), one learner under each condition. A diachronic, time-series research design was used to assess the effects of recasts on each learner’s performance of past tense over a nine-week, instructional period. The results showed that all three types of recasts proved effective in assisting the learners to improve their accuracy on English past tense; all things considered, elaborated and especially paraphrased recasts proved to have a distinct advantage over standard recasts. The results suggest that recasts, in general, and more specifically paraphrased and elaborated recasts, are effective when employed in less controlled, spoken conversational practice, where there is free turn-taking, topic shifts, and the conversational content is related to the learner’s personal experiences and background knowledge.
AmmarA. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax . Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.
2.
AmmarA.SpadaN. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
3.
De BotK. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 166–178.
4.
De BotK.LowieW.VerspoorM. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.
5.
De ZeeuwM.SchreuderR. (2013). Processing of regular and irregular past-tense verb forms in first and second language reading acquisition. Language Learning, 63, 740–765.
6.
DoughtyC.VarelaE. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (1998). Pedagogical Choices in focus on form. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 196–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
EgiT. (2010). Uptake, Modified Output, and Learner Perceptions of Recasts: Learner Responses as Language Awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.
9.
EllisR. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.
10.
EllisR. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
11.
EllisR. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
EllisR. (2011). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107.
13.
EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
14.
EllisR.LoewenS.ElderC.ErlamR.PhilpJ.ReindersH. (Eds.). (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
15.
ErlamR. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464–491.
16.
DoughtyC.J.VarelaE. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GarmaevaO. (2015). Simultaneous attention to meaning and form during aural second language input processing. Journal of the Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences, Ochanomizu University, 17, 11–21.
18.
GassS. (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19.
GassS.SelinkerL. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, Third Edition. New York: Routledge.
20.
GooJ. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
21.
GooJ.MackeyA. (2013). The cast against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
22.
HanZ.-H. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.
23.
HanZ.-H.ChenC.L. (2010). Repeated-reading-based instructional strategy and vocabulary acquisition: A case study of a heritage speaker of Chinese. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 242–262.
24.
IshidaM. (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, 311–394.
25.
KromreyJ.D.Foster-JohnsonL. (1996). Determining the efficacy of intervention: The use of effect sizes for data analysis in single-subject research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 73–93.
26.
LasagabasterD.SierraJ.M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14, 112–127.
27.
LeeJ.VanPattenB. (2003). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. Boston, MD: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
28.
LeemanJ. (2003). Recasts and second language development: beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.
29.
LeeserM.J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270.
30.
LeowR. (1998). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2 development in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 49–68.
31.
LiR.PuX.W. (2010). An Empirical Study of Chinese EFL Learners’ Attention to Meaning and Form in the Course of Listening. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33, 110–123.
32.
LiuY.-T. (2011). Focus on Form as a pedagogical framework for fostering a native-like tonal identification system. Language and Linguistics, 12, 627–667.
33.
LiuY.-T. (2015). Enhancing L2 digital reading for EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 39, 33–64.
34.
LoewenS.NabeiT. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
LongM.InagakiS.OrtegaL. (1998). The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in SLA: Models and Recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.
36.
LongM.RobinsonP. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
LysterR. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
38.
LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
39.
LysterR.IzquierdoJ. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.
40.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.
41.
LysterR.YangY. (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, 235–263.
42.
MackeyA. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
43.
MackeyA.PhilpJ. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings?Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
44.
MackeyA.PhilpJ.EgiT.FujiiA.TatsumiT. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
45.
McDonoughK. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
McDonoughK.MackeyA. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.
47.
MuranoiH. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.
48.
NabeiT.SwainM. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 43–63.
49.
NassajiH. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
50.
NicholasH.LightbownP.M.SpadaN. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–58.
51.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In DoughtyC.LongM.H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 716–761). London: Blackwell.
52.
OliverR. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481.
53.
PappS. (2000). Stable and developmental optionality in native and non-native Hungarian grammars. Second Language Research, 16, 173–200.
54.
PulidoD. (2007). The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental vocabulary acquisition: A matter of topic familiarity?Language Learning, 57, 155–199.
55.
RévészA. (2002). Task-induced content-familiarity, task-driven attention to form, and learner uptake of recasts: A preliminary inquiry. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2, 1–21.
56.
RévészA. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
57.
SaitoK.LysterR. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.
58.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
59.
SheenY. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
SoraceA. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In CornipsL.CorriganK. (Eds.), Syntax and Variation (pp. 55–80). John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
61.
Van DijkM. (2003). Child language cuts capers: Variability ad ambiguity in early child development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
62.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
63.
VanPattenB. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
64.
VanPattenB. (2008). Processing matters in input enhancement. In PiskeT.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), Input matters (pp. 47–61). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
65.
VerspoorM.LowieW.Van DijkM. (2008). Variability in Second Language Development From a Dynamic Systems Perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 214–231.
66.
WachaR. (2014). Enhancing the cognitive efficacy of recasts: An exploration into the comparative effectiveness of two new forms of recasts. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
67.
WindA.M. (2013). Second language writing development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In Olmos-LopezB.HuangJ.AlmeidaJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching (pp. 90–123). Lancaster: University of Lancaster.
68.
WongW. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.
