Negative evidence through classroom interactional feedback in SLA Chitra Jayathilake Department of English University of Sri Jayewardenepura Sri Lanka ( 2010)

Overview of the presentation Definition: Negative Evidence Classroom Interactional Feedback (CIF) Research Studies and Hypotheses Methodology Findings and Discussion Implications : Clines of CIF Suggestions and future Research Conclusion

Negative Evidence Language Input Types: Positive Evidence Negative Evidence Learners need to be exposed not only to positive evidence but also to negative evidence for better acquisition of a TL- ( Gass,2002:Mitchell and Miles,2004 etc.) Learners can be exposed Negative evidence through verbal/oral and written media.

Classroom Interactional Feedback (CIF) Verbal negative evidence learners receive ( implicitly or explicitly) through modification and negotiation strategies ( defined operationally)

Modification / Negotiation Strategies NNS: I think some this girl have birthday and big celebrate NS: big celebration NNS: oh (Mackey and Philip,1998) Learner A: The sun is top of page. Learner B: Is at the top? Learner A: Yes. Is at the top. (Mackey et al., 2007, p. 286) T: Please put the lampshade on the desk. S: What is a lampshade? T: A lampshade is placed round or over a lamp. (Ellis and He, 1999, p. 286) )

Research Studies Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991 Mackey, 1999 Ellis and He, 1999 Ellis, 2006 Song and Suh, 2008 Lyster and Ranta, 1997 Lyster, 1998 Gass,2002 Panova and Lyster, 2002 Nabei and Swain, 2002 Bigelow et al., 2006 Davies,2006 Mackey et al., 2007 Nassaji,2007

Hypotheses The Interaction Hypothesis (Long,1995 ,1996) The Output Hypothesis( Swain, 1995)

Methodology: Broad Research Question Does Classroom Interactional Feedback facilitate Second Language Learning - in immediate learning contexts and long-term learning contexts?

Methodology: Specific Research Questions Is there any correlation between: the type of CIF and the immediate acquisition of language? the frequency of CIF and the immediate acquisition of language? modified CIF and the acquisition of language (for long-term learning)? Does CIF facilitate in delayed language contexts (in retention) as well?

Methodology: Research Design A case study approach: an action research A two-fold design (after piloting) a Pretest-Posttests design classroom observation

Methodology: Participants Six female university undergraduates in Sri Lanka( 08 addressing learner morality) One male teacher with 15 years of teaching experience in English as a Second Language

Methodology: Research Question of this Paper Is there any correlation between the type of CIF and the immediate acquisition of language?

Methodology: Research Design A second language classroom was closely observed while its learners were exposed to classroom interaction: then the effects of the intervention were systematically examined. During the study, 10 teaching sessions which were conducted for one and a half hours each were observed and audio and video-recorded.

Methodology: Null Hypothesis There is no correlation between the type of CIF and the immediate acquisition of language, as evidenced at 3 levels: (a) Percentage of uptake (b) Percentage of modified output (c) Actual numbers of CIF, uptake and modified output

Methodology: Data collection Data collection for the specific question addressed in this paper: The observed teaching sessions Direct observation Audio and video recording (This article focuses only on the classroom observation transcribed verbatim).

Methodology :The Research Instruments Classroom observation sheets: Direct classroom observation sheets Audio and video recordings

Data Analysis: Coding CIF episodes Description based on types of CIF Description based on learner responses

1.Types of CIF delineated 1 Recasts 2.Clarification Requests 3.Confirmation Checks 4.Metalinguistic Feedback 5.Paralinguistic Feedback 6.Elicitations 7.Use of the L1 8.Repetitions 9.Explicit Corrections

2. Learner responses to CIF No Uptake Uptake Non-modified Output Modified Output

1.Recasts S1: He is clever boy. T: He is a clever boy. S1: ( no response) (Any CIF that rephrases part or all learners’ non-target like utterance into a target-like form, in an implicit manner)

2.Clarification Requests L: I want cross T: Sorry? L: I want to cross… (Any request to indicate that s/he needed clarification, due to genuine incomprehension or to push the learner’s output.))

3.Confirmation Checks S2: We have a photograph your house. S6: You have a photograph of my house? S2: Yeah…we have a photograph of your house. (Questions to get the meaning confirmed: due to genuine incomprehension or to push the learner’s output.)

4.Metalinguistic Feedback L3: The student hasn’t got nothing to wear for the batch party. T: Hasn’t is already in the negative form. L3: (Silence) (Giving some language clues intending to elicit the correct form)

5.Paralinguistic Feedback S6: They were very selfish man. T: (Indicating 4 using his fingers) S6: Men...men Body language expressing some information of the non-target like utterance ( eye movements, facial expressions etc.)

6.Elicitations S1: You must keep…(hesitation) T: You must keep...keep what? (Teacher pushes the learner to reformulate the non-target like utterance, without providing the correct form)

7. Use of the L1 L6: My essay…I want to you correct T: /konde kappa ganna yanavanam kohomada kiyanne?/ (How do you say that you have to get your hair cut?) L6: (No response. Looks at another student) (L1 is used in interaction - as a response, a question ,an explanation etc.)

8. Repetitions L: She is open the room. T: She is opening. ..is opening L: She is opening the room ( repetition functioning as feedback)

9. Explicit Corrections S3: It is no necessary. T: It is NOT necessary. (emphasizing the word not) S3: It is not necessary. (Teacher explicitly corrects the error).

Modified Output Learner: I always memorize my mother. Teacher: Oh... do you always remember your mother ? Learner: Yes, when I am alone, I remember my mother ( This is an observation protocol recorded by the researcher, prior to this study, in an L2 context at a Sri Lankan university )

Technique of Data analysis Comparison of CIF in relation to: types frequency uptake non-modified output modified output

Findings: Distribution of CIF

Findings:Percentage of Uptake and No Uptake Following different Types of CIF Episodes

Findings: Percentage of Non-modified Output and Modified Output Following Uptake

Findings: Absolute Numbers of No Uptake, Non-modified Output and Modified Output Following Different Types of CIF Episodes No Uptake

Cline of CIF Preference In ascending order of preference Use of the L1 Repetitions Paralinguistic Feedback , Explicit corrections Metalinguistic Feedback Confirmation Checks Recasts Elicitations Clarification Requests

Cline of CIF facilitating short-term learning In ascending order Use of the L1 Repetition Paralinguistic Feedback Metalinguistic Feedback Explicit Corrections Recasts Clarification Requests Confirmation Checks Elicitations

Suggestions & Future Research To incorporate CIF frequently in SL classroom contexts To select CIF types such as elicitation and clarification requests which push learners to reformulate their non-target like sentences Future Research The pattern of development of structures that were up-taken but resulted in non-modified output can be explored: given time do these structures turn to modified output faster than items that are not subject to uptake?

Conclusion This presentation revealed only one section of a broad research: the true facilitative role of CIF can be further examined by discussing all the data collected through the two-fold design employed. Follow-up presentations will be based on the rest of the data collected. THANK YOU

Bibliography II Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible Output. System 26, 175-182 (online). (Retrieved November18, 2007, from file//G: /Comprehensible Output.htm. Larsen– Freeman, D., & Long, M.H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman. Long, M. H. (1991 as cited in Davies,2006). 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 perspective (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. 413-68). New York: New York Academic Press. Lyster, R. (1998). 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. (1999). Input, Interaction, and Second Language Development: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-87. Mackey A., & Philip, J. (1998).Conversational Interaction ND Second Language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356. Mackey, A., Kanganas, A. P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task Familiarity and Interactional Feedback in Child ESL Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 285-312. Mitchell R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (2nd ed.). Great Britain: Hodder Arnold. Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner Awareness of Recasts in Classroom Interaction: A Case Study of an Adult EFL Student’s Second Language Learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43-63. Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and Reformulation and Their Relationship with Learner Repair in Dyadic Interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511-548. Oxford Brookes University (2003 as cited in Walliman, 2005). Ethical Standards for Research Involving Human Participants: Code of Practice. http://www.brookes.ac.uk/research/ethics/ethicscode/html Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly ,36 (4), 573-94. Perdoma, B. (2008). Effectiveness of Recasts in the Teaching of EFL. Asian EFL Journal: The EFL Professional’s Written Forum, 10(2). (online). (Retrieved October 20, 2008 from Asian EFL Journal June 2008 edition Bexiperdomo.htm. Song, M., & Suh, B. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295-312. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.W. Widdowson (pp. 125-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wajnryb. R. (1992). Classroom Observation Tasks: A resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walliman, N. (2005). Your Research Project: A step-by-step guide for the first-time researcher (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Vistaar Publications. Williams, M. & Burden R.L. (2002). Psychology for Language Teachers: a Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography 1 Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bigelow, M., R., Delmas, R.., Hansen, K., & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the Processing of Oral Recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (4), 665-83. Brown, J.D. (1988). Understanding Research in Second Language Learning: A teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen. L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Davies, M. (2006). Paralinguistic Focus on Form. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (4), 841-55. Ellis,R. (1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 83-107. Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The Roles of Modified Input and Output in the Incidental Acquisition of word Meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301. Gass, S. (2002). An Interactionist Perspective on Second Language Acquisition. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. (pp. 170-181). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gass, S., & Schachter, J. (1989). Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the Output Hypothesis: Effects of Output on Noticing and Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-449. Krashen, S. D. (1983 as cited in Mitchell & Miles, 2004). Newmark’s Ignorance hypothesis and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 135-53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. U.S.A: Longman. Krashen, S.D. (1994).The Input Hypothesis and Its Rivals. In N.C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages ( pp. 45-77). London: Academic Press.