Although most second language learning studies involve high-educated participants, addressing low-educated participants seems important as research suggests that education background impacts second language (L2) learning efficiency. A controversial point in the L2 learning literature is the role of corrective feedback (CF). Research on CF in relation to individual differences, including education background, requires controlled experimental environments. This article presents a study in such a controlled environment: a computer assisted language learning (CALL) system with logging capabilities and automatic speech processing to provide CF on spoken grammar practice. In the experiment, 68 Dutch L2 learners were randomly assigned to either an automatic grammaticality CF condition or a NOCF (no corrective feedback) condition. We analysed learning outcome, evaluative measures, and practice behaviour logged by the CALL system. Practice behaviour differed with education background, which in turn related to learning outcome. Learners with high and medium education levels benefitted from speaking practice in both conditions, while low-educated learners did not benefit from practice, in neither condition. For medium and high educated learners there was a trend for CF to increase practice effectiveness. Education level therefore is an important individual difference in L2 learning research that influences the effectiveness of CF.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.
2.
BeckerADittmarNGutmannMKleinWRieckB-OSenftGSenftIStecknerWThielickeE (1977) Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt ‘Pidgin–Deutsch spanischer und italienischer Arbeiter in der Bundesrepublik’: Die ungesteurerte Erlernung des Deutschen durch spanische und italienischer Arbeiter: Eine soziolinguistische Untersuchung [Heidelberg research project ‘The pidgin German of Spanish and Italian workers in West Germany’: The uninstructed acquisition of German by Spanish and Italian workers: A sociolinguistic study]. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie (OBST). Beihefte 2. Osnabrück.
3.
BigelowM.DelmasR.HansenK.TaroneE. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 665–689.
4.
BodnarS.CucchiariniC.PenningdeVriesB.StrikH.Van HoutR. (2017). Learner affect in computerised L2 oral grammar practice with corrective feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 223–246.
5.
ChapelleC. (2009a). Computer-assisted teaching and testing. In LongM.DoughtyC. (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 628–644). Blackwell.
6.
ChapelleC. (2009b). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753.
7.
ClahsenH.MeiselJ.PienemannM. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter [German as second language. Language acquisition of foreign workers]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
8.
De BotK. (1996). Review article: The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–555.
9.
De GraaffR.HousenA. (2009). Investigating the Effects and Effectiveness of L2 Instruction. In LongM.H.DoughtyC.J. (Eds.), The handbook of language Teaching (pp. 726–755). Oxford: Blackwell.
10.
DeKeyserR. (Ed). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
EllisN. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.
12.
EllisR. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
13.
EllisR. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18–41.
14.
EllisR. (2008). Explicit knowledge and second language learning and pedagogy. In CenozJ.HornbergerN.H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Volume 6 (pp. 143–153). 2nd edition.Berlin: Springer.
15.
EllisR. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
16.
EllisR. (2010). Epilogue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
17.
GooJ.MackeyA. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
18.
HackerD.J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA.C. (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. New York: Routledge.
19.
HawkinsR (2001) Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
20.
HegelheimerV.ChapelleC. (2000). Methodological issues in research on learner–computer interactions in CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 41–59. Available at: http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/hegchap/default.html (accessed November 2018).
21.
HeiftT. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16, 416–431.
22.
HulstijnJ. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Possibilities and Limitations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 131–143.
23.
JordensP. (1988). The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2. Second Language Research, 4, 41–65.
24.
JuffsA. (2006). Working memory, second language acquisition, and low-educated second language and literacy learners. In van de CraatsI.KurversJ.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), Low educated adult second language learners and literacy acquisition: LOT Occasional Papers (pp. 89–105). Utrecht: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
25.
KartchavaE. (2012). Noticeability of corrective feedback, L2 development and learner beliefs. Unpublished dissertation, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
26.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
27.
LongM. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649–666.
28.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.
29.
LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
30.
LysterR. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content. Language Learning & Language Teaching, volume 18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
32.
MackeyA.GassS. (2006). Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178.
33.
MackeyA.GooJ.2007. Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: MackeyA. (ed.) Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
MackeyA.PhilpJ.EgiT.FujiA.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.
35.
NicholasH.LightbownP.SpadaN. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.
36.
ParisiJ.GeorgeM.RebokW., et al. (2012). The role of education and intellectual activity on cognition. Journal of Aging Research, 2012, article ID 416132.
37.
Penning de VriesB. (2015). Computerised speaking practice: The role of automatic corrective feedback in learning L2 grammar. Published dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
38.
PenningdeVriesB.CucchiariniC.BodnarS.StrikH.Van HoutR. (2015). Spoken grammar practice and feedback in an ASR-based CALL system. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 550–576.
39.
Penning de VriesB.CucchiariniC.BodnarS.StrikH.Van HoutR. (2016). Effect of corrective feedback for learning verb second. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54, 347–386.
40.
PhilpJ. (2003). Constraints on ‘noticing the gap’: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
41.
PutJ.PeekelJ. (2001) Nieuwe buren [New neighbours]. Den Bosch: Malmberg.
42.
RobinsonP. (1995). Attention, memory, and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.
43.
RussellJ.SpadaN. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In: NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
44.
SagarraN.AbbuhlR. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216.
45.
SagarraN. (2007) From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
SchmidtR. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on attention and awareness in learning. In SchmidtR. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
47.
SchmidtR.W.FrotaS.N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In DayR.R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
48.
ShuteV. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
49.
StrubeS. (2015). Bridging the gap in the LESLLA classroom: A look at scaffolding. In RijckaertH.Van de CraatsI.CurversJ.van HoutR. (Eds.), Adult literacy, second language and cognition: Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of Low-Educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition (pp. 149–164). Nijmegen: Centre for Language Studies.
50.
SwansonH. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314.
51.
TaroneE.BigelowM. (2012). A research agenda for second language acquisition of pre-literate and low-literate adult and adolescent learners. In: VinogradovP.BigelowM. (Eds.), Proceedings from the 7th annual LESLLA symposium (pp. 5–26). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
52.
Van DoremalenJ.CucchiariniC.StrikH. (2009). Optimizing automatic speech recognition for low-proficient non-native speakers. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing. Electronic publication. Published online: 1 November 2009 (doi: 10.1155/2010/973954).
53.
VanPattenB. (Ed.) (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
Young-ScholtenM. (2013). Low-educated immigrants and the social relevance of second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 29, 441–454.
