Oral Production and Error Correction Amongst Arab Learners of English Haifaa Faqeih, PhD Student & Dr Emma Marsden, Lecturer in Second Language Education University of York Contact: hif500@york.ac.uk & em502@york.ac.uk

Summary of study Experiment comparing effectiveness of different corrective feedback techniques: Recasts v metalinguistic information v oral-tasks-only group Arabic L1 Learning English modals: must, can, will Pre Intermediate learners Phase 1: ESL in UK language institute Phase 2: EFL in Saudi university

Previous studies: recasts effective Definition: “reformulation of a learner’s utterance by altering one or more incorrect forms therein while retaining semantic content” (Révész 2009) Supporting effectiveness: Leeman 2003; Doughty 2001; Doughty & Varela 1998; Leeman 2003; Long 1996; Ohta 2000; Oliver 1995; Egi 2007; McDonough & Mackey 2006; Sheen 2006; Ellis et al 2006. But effectiveness depends on range of factors: e.g.: proficiency, length of recast, number of changes, target form, prior experience of participants to error correction, attitudes to error correction, working memory Theoretical support & accounts: Interaction hypothesis (negotiation of meaning, timely intervention) Noticing the gap Priming Implicit learning from positive evidence Induction of explicit knowledge e.g. helps in explicit hypothesis formulation and testing?

Gaps we aim to address Tasks done by control group Different contexts Ellis et al 2006; Sheen 2006 did not have a task+test control group Different contexts UK ESL (oral interaction + error correction normal) versus Saudi EFL (little oral interaction + proactive metalinguistic info.) Sheen 2004 investigated contexts, but learning not measured Most CF studies done in contexts where oral interaction fairly normal. Metalinguistic information only Ellis repeated error + information; Sheen recast + information though prosody not controlled

Gaps we aim to address New linguistic feature: English modals *cans go, *can goes, *can going, *will can go NNS teacher with group ecological validity Measures not always used in previous studies: Uptake during interaction + achievement + attitudes Delayed post tests (7 weeks) Time & communicative pressures Oral production test Timed grammaticality judgement test

The Study Phase 1: Saudis learning English in York, ESL Recast (10); Metalinguistic (8); Control (6) Randomly assigned (not matched) Phase 2: Saudis learning English in Saudi, EFL Recast (20); Metalinguistic (20); Control (20)

Intervention 3 hours Oral interaction tasks over 4 sessions, over 2 weeks Oral interaction tasks Eliciting English modals: can, must, will Task design: outcome clear meaning focussed Pair & group & teacher/student

Eliciting modals in intervention Session 1 Can Session 2 Will Session 3 Must Session 4 Mix Declarative, negative & interrogative

Example of intervention, eliciting “can” and “can’t” Have a conversation with your friend about whether you can do the activities shown on your cards & find out what s/he can do. You then have to talk to the group about what your friend can and can’t do. Flip forwards Basketball Tractor Tennis

Error correction during oral production Recast group Student: He cans go on holiday Teacher: He can go on holiday Metalinguistic group Teacher: You must not change the modal – modals do not agree with the subject Control group Teacher: and your next picture?

Outcome measures Pre, post and delayed post test (7 weeks) ALL back to same instructor between post & delayed post Timed grammaticality judgement test Timings from natives + 20% Participants corrected incorrect items 3 warm-up, 9 correct, 9 incorrect, 9 correct fillers, 9 incorrect fillers Separate analyses for grammatical & ungrammatical items (Ellis, 2005) Written Gap fill 11 items, 6 fillers Oral production 7 tasks Pictures eliciting advice, explanations, suggestions e.g. Use the picture prompts to tell John what the rules are if he wants to go to the Mosque [for must] Not same as format as intervention Suppliance in Obligatory Context Interlanguage scoring

Results: Gap fill test

Gap fill results Table: P values in paired Wilcoxon tests pre – post pre – delayed post – delayed Metalinguistic <.05 . <.05 .798 Recast .324 Control ANOVA not significant so no paired tests

Results: Grammaticality Judgement test Overall (grammatical + ungrammatical target items): No differences between conditions though paired tests do look significant… Correct items: no differences between conditions So, incorrect items…

Results: Grammaticality Judgement test Incorrect items

Incorrect items in GJT pre – post pre – delayed post – delayed Metalinguistic (8) <.05 .236 Recast (10) .214 .091 Control (6) Friedman ANOVA not significant so no paired tests

Results: Oral production Pre-post Mean raw oblig contexts pre post Metalinguistic <.05 31 42 Recast .086 33 38 Control .686 27 35

Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) pre - post pre – delay post Gapfill M 1.72 1.35 R 0.95 C 0.21 0.27 GJT incorrect items 0.70 1.11 0.44 1.08 0.26 0.18 Oral production 1.01 0.51 -0.39

Overall Patterns: Explicit knowledge??? Yes, both R & M made gains on gapfill & incorrect items on GJT Ellis, 2005 But, after GJT and gapfill all participants were asked whether they knew what the test was testing Nobody thought modals had been tested!

Overall patterns: Implicit knowledge?? No, neither made gains on correct items on GJT But yes, M, and R to lesser extent, made gains in oral production M accessed explicit knowledge during oral production? It had become automatised? R needed more consolidation to induce knowledge sufficiently to access it during oral production? Delayed tests will tell… Ellis et al found gains only at delayed post test on implicit measures

Implications to date Demonstrates importance of … Tentatively: Need for control group + task group: gains, but no sig. self-induced attention to form or incidental or implicit learning Need for different measures: explicit v implicit knowledge Need for delayed post tests: recasts lead to raised awareness for processing future exemplars? Tentatively: Noticing at level of understanding more reliably beneficial, in short term at least Recast group may have induced explicit knowledge

Next steps Analyse uptake & delayed post test oral production & attitudinal data Phase 2 in Saudi Arabia All conditions innovative in that context: M group: Normally, metalinguistic info provided proactively R group: Normally, very few oral recasts Control task-only group: Normally, little oral task work Sheen 2004 found uptake greater in FonF type contexts We could find learners interpret recasts as CF and benefit from metalinguistic because FonF normal All, including control, groups benefit equally because the effect of the oral interaction is so marked OR no group benefits because oral interaction, recasts and reactive metalinguistic info are ‘not normal’

Thank you for listening Thank you for listening. Study funded by a Saudi post-graduate scholarship

References Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A Psychometric Study, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172 Ellis, R., Loewen, Sh., and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339- 368. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classroom instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263. Sheen, Y.(2006) Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences, and the acquisition of English Articles by Second Language Learners. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Nottingham.