1. 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: &

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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

12. Results: Gap fill test

13. 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

14. 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…

15. Results: Grammaticality Judgement test
Incorrect items

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. 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!

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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’

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

24. 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,
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.