Adaptive Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning
2. CF in Second Language Learning
Nativist theories of L2 acquisition claim that language learning requires only language input, and that L2 acquisition is similar to first language (L1) acquisition (e.g. (Krashen 1985). The main arguments that CF cannot be effective according to these theories are (a) that language acquisition is an unconscious process, where CF requires conscious processing, and (b) that CF is negative evidence, whereas language acquisition is based on positive evidence, i.e. language input. Theories in favor of CF call either of these arguments into question. Though L1 acquisition can be assumed to be largely an unconscious process as infants lack the cognitive development required (Hulstijn 2005), it is not conclusively shown that CF (which is consciously processed) is irrelevant for L1 acquisition (e.g., Saxton 1997).
Moreover, even if conscious learning does not benefit L1 acquisition, the further developed cognitive abilities of adults may still enable consciously processed CF to benefit L2 acquisition. Even more importantly, empirical evidence abundantly shows that adult L2 learners often do not reach a high level of L2 proficiency. That means that there are essential differences in acquiring a L1 and a L2. Even if CF is not effective at all in L1 acquisition, it may be effective in L2 acquisition.
2.1. Types of corrective feedback
Lyster and Ranta (1997) distinguish six types of feedback in their often-cited classroom observation study:
Explicit feedback: teacher provides the correct form and clearly indicates
that what the student said was incorrect.
Recasts: teacher reformulates all or part of a student’s utterance, minus the
Clarification request: teacher formulates a question indicating that the
utterance has been unclear or ill-formed and that a repetition or reformulation is required.
Metalinguistic feedback: the teacher response contains either comments,
information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the student’s utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form.
Elicitation: teachers try to elicit the correct form by asking for completion
of a sentence, or asking questions, or asking for a reformulation.
Repetition: teacher repeats the erroneous utterance in isolation.
Types (2) and (6) provide implicit feedback: it is up to the learner to notice that an error was made. The other types are explicit in indicating that an error occurred. The categories are not as clear cut as may seem, since there may be degrees of
explicitness or implicitness. Additionally, CF may be accompanied by visual cues or intonation. Moreover, the interpretation of the distinction relates to the setting of the feedback, e.g., implicit recasts may be argued to be explicit in formal classroom settings (Lochtman 2002). The exact definition of what CF type is studied is often lacking in studies (see Nicholas, Lightbown & Spada (2001) for a discussion), which complicates comparing and synthesizing results Norris & Ortega (2000).
2.2. Explicit and implicit knowledge and learning
Two types of language knowledge are distinguished in the literature: explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge refers to knowing rules, while implicit knowledge involves using a rule without being aware of the rule. Explicit knowledge is open to conscious inspection, whereas implicit knowledge is not. The distinction is related to the one between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge in cognitive psychology (Anderson & Fincham 1994). The acquisition of cognitive skills has a declarative and a procedural stage. Processing in the declarative stage is slow and controlled, whereas processing in the procedural stage is fast and beyond active control. Through frequent use, the facts and rules acquired in the declarative stage become automatic procedures.As explained by DeKeyser (2007) “automatized knowledge is not exactly the same as implicit knowledge. While implicit knowledge or implicit memory is always defined with reference to lack of consciousness or awareness … absence of awareness is not a requirement for automaticity”. He further explains how it is possible to have knowledge that is implicit but not automatic, for instance when learners make many errors and fluency is low, and to have knowledge that is automatic but not implicit, in the case of fluent learners that make few errors but are still conscious of rules, for instance language teachers or linguists. Although declarative and procedural knowledge are not exactly the same as explicit and implicit knowledge, they are highly similar and in this paper they will be treated as such for practical purposes.
Closely related, but also clearly different, is the distinction between explicit and implicit learning. Where explicit learning involves conscious intention to find
out whether the input information contains regularities or specific elements, implicit learning is input processing on an unconscious level without such an intention (Hulstijn 2005). Krashen (1985) argues that language proficiency is based on implicit knowledge of the language, and that only implicit learning can increase the learner’s proficiency. Implicit learning takes place, he writes, when a learner is exposed to comprehensible language input. Since CF appeals to explicit learning, it is assumed to have no effect on L2 development.
Though there is agreement among SLA researchers that language proficiency is based on implicit knowledge, there is disagreement on whether and how explicit knowledge can contribute to language proficiency. The core issue is whether explicit knowledge stays separate from implicit knowledge, or whether there is an interface and some kind of exchange.
2.3. Interface
Krashen (1985) argues that there is no interface between implicit and explicit knowledge. Proponents of the weak interface position (N.Ellis 2005) argue that conscious learning can, under specific conditions, further the acquisition of implicit knowledge. If the learner’s attention is explicitly directed to features of the L2, this knowledge will first be stored as explicit knowledge, but it may under specific circumstances become implicit, for instance by (repetitively) applying explicit knowledge in production (De Bot 1996). Proponents of the strong interface position argue that implicit knowledge can gradually be formed from explicit knowledge, without any further constraints (DeKeyser 2003).
2.4. Noticing
Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt 1990) claims that, for learning to take place, a learner must be consciously aware of the difference between his/her
rendering of the L2 and the target L2. However, some features of the target language may be difficult to perceive in native speech (e.g. phonetically reduced, or
semantically redundant morphology) (N.Ellis 2002), causing learners not to hear and notice them in their input. In interaction, for example, the conversation partner may only break the flow of conversation to correct an error if the meaning of the speaker is not understood. While the level of conscious attention for noticing is debated (e.g. N. Ellis 2005), the assumption that noticing a feature in the input is a first step in language acquisition is shared by several researchers (see Cross 2010) for an overview). This suggests a potentially important role for CF to facilitate noticing and focusing learner attention on errors and correct L2 forms. Since exposure to L2 will not automatically guarantee this kind of noticing, CF must come into play to draw the learner’s attention to language-specific and individual problems and (indirectly) stimulate them to attempt self-improvement (Long 1996; Havranek 2002).
2.5. Learner differences
The outcome of L2 learning may vary among learners and can result both in high proficiency and low proficiency speakers. Other than L1 acquisition that leads to uniform success, it seems that contextual factors and individual differences have a greater influence in L2 learning (R. Ellis 2010) than in L1 learning.
In an overview of individual differences in L2 acquisition, (Dörnyei 2005) identifies five main concepts that predict L2 learning success: motivation, personality, aptitude, learning style, and language learning strategies. Additional variables such as anxiety, creativity, learner beliefs, self-esteem, and willingness to communicate are mentioned but are said to fall under the aspects of personality (anxiety and creativity under motivation or personality), or are in need of more research to determine their exact role and nature. On another level, age, gender are also found to influence L2 learning (Lyster & Saito 2010). Though clearly age and gender are learner differences, they are separate because they interact with each of the five psychological factors. Learner differences are good predictors of L2 success according to (Dörnyei 2005), but at the same time the characteristics are difficult to pin down in an exact definition. This complicates the theoretical discussion of these variables, but in (educational) practice these factors have been found to influence learning. The importance of individual differences is currently widely recognized in educational contexts and “a great deal of research has been conducted in educational psychology on how to adapt instruction to the strengths weaknesses and preferences of the learners” (Dörnyei 2005 ). In light of the influence of learner differences on L2 learning, CF, and the type and manner in which CF is provided, is likely to affect each learner differently (see for a discussion of CF types, Section 3.3.). Therefore, it seems that L2 learning could be improved if the learner received optimal CF; in other words, CF adapted to the learner’s characteristics (Cronbach & Snow 1977).
What should be noted, however, is that since many learner characteristics have an influence on language learning, it also becomes necessary to take into account the context of language learning. The setting and situation of language learning will interact with learner characteristics (Dörnyei 2005; Lochtman 2002) and should be considered.