Vocabulary development through corrective feedback

Comparative Study of Post-Marriage Nationality Of Women in Legal Systems of Different Countries

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

http://ijmmu.com editor@ijmmu.com ISSN 2364-5369 Volume 2, Issue 6 December, 2015 Pages: 13-25

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback S. Saber Alavi1*; Thomas Chow Voon Foo1, Mansour Amini 1

School of Languages, Literacies, and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia Email: s.alavi85@gmail.com

Abstract This study examined the efficacy of oral corrective feedback (CF), prompts and recasts, on second language (L2) vocabulary learning. The intermediate adult learners of English as a second language (ESL) studying in a private college in Malaysia were chosen. The quasi-experimental study used a pretest-post-test- and delayed post-test design. The participants (n = 27) were conveniently selected and designated to three groups: prompts, recasts, and control. The treatment consisted of a four-step vocabulary activity during which prompts, recasts or no feedback was provided, respectively. The treatment outcomes were tested in terms of measures based on an adaptation of a three-dimensional second language vocabulary development model. Data includes treatment session transcriptions, a revised and combined 2000/University Word Level Test, pretest, post-test, delayed post-test, and long-delayed post-test. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RM ANOVA), Repeated Measures Multivariate Analysis of Variance (RM MANOVA), correlations, plus pair-samples t-tests and multiple and linear regressions were conducted to analyze the results. The proves that the prompts were equally beneficial in short-term and slightly more advantageous in a longer term than recasts in facilitating L2 vocabulary development for adult ESL learners.

KeyWords: Input, Output, Corrective Feedback, Recast, Prompts, L2

Introduction Leading interactionist researchers of SLA have lately argued that there is enough empirical support to claim that corrective or interactional feedback (i.e. oral, instructional, error-and-form-focused, negative or contrastive linguistic evidence about mainly deficient, but also successful L2 production) facilitates shortterm second language (L2) learning and that researchers should embark on investigating how interaction facilitates L2 development in more testable ways (Mackey & Gass, 2006; Mackey, 2007). One such approach would be to compare differential outcomes produced by the feedback types such as recasts and prompts that are most commonly found in different L2 pedagogical contexts by employing more finegrained research methodologies (e.g. scale or dimensional analysis of L2 development, Mackey, 1999).

Comparative studies of feedback effectiveness have usually chosen a morphosyntactic target, and, consequently, there are few studies looking at CF effects on vocabulary development. Moreover, examining differential effects of oral CF on L2 vocabulary development could provide additional insights

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

13

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

on the role of input and output, negative and positive evidence, and learner proficiency as factors mediating the relationship between form focused conversational interaction and L2 development.

This paper examines how adults learn L2 vocabulary when affected by different types of oral CF during a controlled classroom interaction. In addition, this dissertation study does not only focus on comparing the effectiveness of a particular type of corrective feedback versus another type, but also presents a penetrating examination of CF effects on L2 development in a multi-dimensional way. Simply put, the study aims to make a contribution to second language education by developing a detailed examination of how two oral CF types (prompts and recasts) generate differential outcomes of L2 vocabulary development.

Review of Literature Gass, Mackey and Pica (1998) provide a summary of the theoretical basis for the interactionist approach in SLA which is challenged with examining “the precise role of interaction in actual development and internalization of L2 knowledge” (p.299). They describe the interactionist approach as having evolved from the research done on conversational interaction between L2 learners and their interlocutors in the 1980s (Krashen, 1985; Long, 1983). The outcomes of their research were subsequently analyzed in terms of “comprehension of input, access to feedback and production of modified input” (Gass et al., 1998, p.

299). As a result of his studies, Krashen (1985) developed and proposed the Input Hypothesis (I + 1, where i is the L2 learner‟s current linguistic competence, and i + 1 is the next level of that achieved with comprehensible input). Krashen viewed SLA as a result of the provision of comprehensible input, and conversely, L2 acquisition as evidence that comprehensible input was provided. However, his theorizing was generally criticized for the lack of empirical support and testability (Mitchell & Miles, 2004). Long‟s (1983, 1996) research showed that besides providing comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), discourse structure and oral, real-time conversational modifications were thought to provide increased opportunities for noticing (Schmidt, 2001) leading to emerging windows of opportunity in terms of either L2 comprehension or possible acquisition (Mackey & Gass, 2006; Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000).

Pica et al. (1987) demonstrated that if L2 learners are given the opportunity to interact through teacherprompted clarification requests and confirmation checks which subsequently leads to additional learner repetitions and rephrasing (i.e. output) as a response, it both increases learner participation and comprehension. In order to evaluate whether opportunities to interact lead to better second language acquisition, Mackey (1999) looked at the relationship between various types of conversational interaction and SLA. Mackey‟s (1999) findings lent empirical support to Long‟s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis by showing that “interactional modifications led to SL development [as seen in two different posttests] and more active involvement in negotiated interaction led to greater development” (p. 583). In other words, the interactors who engaged in directed negotiation were able to develop their L2 knowledge (question formation) faster than less-engaged non-interactors as measured by their progress along the 6-stage question formation continuum over the treatment period of five weeks (Mackey, 1999, p. 570).

Input and Output The notion of input in SLA research is defined as “the language to which a learner is exposed either orally or visually (i.e. signed languages or printed matter)” (Gass, 1997, p. 28) or, simply, “the language to which learners are exposed” (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 304). According to Gass (1997), the construct of input is considered “the single most important concept of second language acquisition” (p. 1). There are varying theoretical debates on how positive or negative evidence affects language acquisition. Leeman (2003) notes that UG approaches to SLA emphasize the role of positive evidence while diminishing the role of negative evidence, since, within that research tradition, the innate knowledge is regarded as more important than input for grammar construction. In her study, however, Leeman (2003) examined the Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

14

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

benefits of recasts by trying to isolate positive and negative evidence as two parts of recasts (i.e. she tested outcomes on four separate conditions: recasts in the form of negative evidence and enhanced salience, negative evidence, enhanced salience of positive evidence, and unenhanced positive evidence).

The results suggested that recasts become effective not due to negative evidence per se, but due to enhanced salience (of positive evidence) achieved through a composite effect of positive and negative evidence which is defined by the researcher as contrastive evidence. Long (2007), however, while acknowledging that recasts contain both positive and negative evidence in relation to “ensuing opportunity for cognitive comparison” (p. 104), still argues that while trying to artificially isolate the effects of positive evidence, Leeman has produced an (operationalized and controlled) construct that somewhat changes the processing dynamics characteristic to naturally occurring recasts. The concept of input appears to be a key factor to account for L2 development. However, there is still much to be explored in terms of how input, in all its modified, interaction-driven manifestations (such as feedback), affects both learning processes and outcomes.

Another crucial second language learning component besides input is output. Gass and Selinker (2008) define the output as L2 production (p. 326). As a result, L2 learners transition from semantic to syntactic processing (i.e. from processing the meaning of an utterance to processing the morphosyntactic elements of word order possibilities in the target language (TL); Swain, 1995). Swain and Lapkin (1998) define the output as “the students‟ use of language that mediates their learning – for example, the use of language to generate and test hypotheses” (p. 321). Essentially,the Output Hypothesis, emphasizes the interactive aspect of the language learning process,because learners are meant to be stimulated and encouraged (or „pushed‟), so they can initiate,construct, and re-construct more accurate target language utterances by responding to their interlocutors‟ feedback in a comprehensible way. While output or language production may be important in terms of hypothesis testing, Gass (2003) points out that the output can also help with internalizing language routines and advancing fluency since learners often want to talk in order to test whether their language forms are accurate.

Gass and Selinker (2008, pp. 327-328) propose the four following possibilities of output in order to delineate key functions output may perform in L2 learning: (1) feedback reception to verify hypotheses; (2) opportunity to test hypotheses about linguistic properties of TL; (3) enhanced automatization of IL production (i.e. retrieval and fluency); and (4) a transfer from meaning negotiation (communicative, not purely semantic in this case) to a more syntactic mode of language processing (i.e. moving from processing the meaning of an utterance to processing the elements of morphosyntactic variation in target language (TL); Swain, 1995). This may lead to diversified learning processes moving learners from semantic to grammatical processing as, at least hypothetically, evidenced by their own output (Swain, 1995).

Oral CF and L2 Development Oral corrective (or interactional) feedback is defined as the learner-oriented provision of information “about the success (or, more likely, lack of success) of their [learners‟] utterances and gives additional opportunities to focus on production and comprehension” (Gass & Selinker, 2008, pp. 329-330). In addition, feedback may be either explicit (i.e. overt “stating that there is a problem”) or implicit (i.e. “provided during the course of interaction”) (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 330; see also Alavi et al., 2015).

There is an ongoing discussion among SLA researchers about the differential effects of conversational interaction in the form of various CF types on L2 learning outcomes (Ammar & Spada, 2006; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Lyster & Izquerdo, 2009; Alavi et al., 2015). Apparently, all these elements should be viewed together for a particular construct to be analyzed accurately and kept within a sensible theoretical perspective.

According to Mackey and Goo (2007), the prevailing type of feedback studied is recasts, which Nicholas, Lightbown and Spada (2001) define as “the teacher‟s correct restatement of a learner‟s Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

15

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

incorrectly formed utterance” (p. 720). Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000) define recasts as occurring “when an interlocutor produces a more target-like version of a learner‟s utterance while preserving the semantic content of” that utterance (p. 477). Long (2007) and Alavi et al. (2015) points out that recasts as a feedback technique may be more efficient in providing negative feedback due to their implicitness (i.e. in reformulating erroneous forms in a way that maintains communication). He also argues that recasts perform similar functions in child L1 and adult L2 acquisition by making learners, under both circumstances, notice the negative feedback they contain. However, Lyster (2004) claims that recasts (e.g. in immersion classrooms) often may be perceived as a mere content repetition (and not language correction), while they may also diminish the flow of communication by triggering an obligatory sequential admission response from students. Lyster (2004) defines prompts (i.e. clarification requests, repetitions, metalinguistic clues, and elicitation) as corrective feedback moves that are conducive to fostering production of modified or „pushed‟ output (Swain, 1985) through enhanced student self-repair (or selfcorrection; Ammar & Spada, 2006) opportunities this type of feedback generates. The elements Lyster defines as prompts have been used separately in comparative studies of feedback effects on L2 development (e.g. metalinguistic feedback compared to recasts in Loewen & Nabei, 2007, Sauro, 2009; Alavi et al. 2015).

Finally, in their meta-analysis of interaction research in SLA, Mackey and Goo (2007) point out that despite a trend suggesting that recasts may be more beneficial in facilitating L2 learning than no feedback, more studies are needed to examine longer-term sustained effects before “clear conclusions can be drawn regarding the effects of recasts” (p. 440). They also point to the shortage of studies examining negotiation (i.e. involving such prompts as clarification requests and elicitation) and argue for “greater theoretical specificity or practical motivations in making claims about the superiority of one feedback type over another” (p. 440). Essentially, they indicate the need for studies - examining the effects of different feedback types – that would relate such comparisons to clear and coherent theoretical arguments relating to L2 development. In this study, L2 vocabulary, i.e. the linguistic target is discussed. Research and theoretical insights that suggest that vocabulary development should be analyzed dimensionally and a review of relevant vocabulary acquisition research is described.

Objectives and Research Questions This study attempted a direct integration of L2 vocabulary acquisition theory with relevant interactiondriven SLA research by operationalizing test measures in terms of vocabulary development dimensions adapted from Henriksen (2008). Consequently, the researcher hypothesized that such a research approach may show effects of conversational interaction in the form of corrective feedback on the factor of L2 vocabulary development as truly differential. This means that three different treatments (prompts, recasts, and no feedback) were tested on a selective vocabulary-knowledge measure (Read, 2000, p. 9) that included three different dimensional learning outcomes of the same construct (i.e. L2 vocabulary development). Having described the background in terms of interaction-driven research in SLA the following questions are formed to be investigated in the study: 1. Which one of the corrective feedback strategies, prompts or recast, tend to assist adult ESL learners to achieve a greater increase in L2 vocabulary development?

2. Is there a correlation between the three dimensions of L2 vocabulary development for the prompts group, the recasts group, and the control group?

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

16

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

Methodology This quasi-experimental study examined the effects of two oral corrective feedback types, prompts (Ammar & Spada, 2006; Lyster & Izquerdo, 2009; Alavi et al., 2015) and recasts (Sauro, 2007; Alavi et al., 2015) – on L2 vocabulary learning. Henriksen‟s (2008) multi-dimensional model of L2 vocabulary development was adopted as the basis for designing instruments that measure different sub-types of vocabulary knowledge.

Design and Variables The study employed a pretest-post-test-delayed post-test design (Mackey & Gass, 2005) in order to compare the two oral CF techniques in relation to L2 vocabulary development. One group of students was treated with recasts, and the second group was exposed to prompts (i.e. elicitation and repetition). The control group was instructed not to interact with the teacher and received no feedback. There were two independent variables (oral CF type and time), and six dependent variables (i.e. six sub-types of vocabulary knowledge that were operationalized into six, different 10-item tests; the dependent variables were assigned to the six vocabulary knowledge sub-types covering three dimensions: partial vocabulary knowledge, precise vocabulary knowledge, paradigmatic (synonymic) vocabulary knowledge, syntagmatic (collocational) vocabulary knowledge, receptive vocabulary knowledge, and productive vocabulary knowledge. The dependent variables were analyzed separately, dimensionally (i.e. the six subtype levels were combined into three two-component levels to cover the partial-precise, the depth, and the receptive-productive dimensions), and globally (i.e. when all six test parts were combined into a single global score).

Participants and Sampling Subjects were recruited by the researcher from adult ESL students studying at a private college in Penang, Malaysia. The course met twice a week and was focused on developing students‟ ability to deal with more advanced texts and ultimately produce more sophisticated writing papers. Consequently, one of the objectives of the course was to develop students‟ vocabulary. Of the 34 students enrolled in the course, 32 agreed to take part, and of those who agreed to participate, 27 completed all components of the study (i.e. word selection pretest, pretest, treatment, three post-tests). The intermediate proficiency adult ESL learners who took part in all procedures of the study were 15 females and 12 males. They were L1 speakers of Malay, Mandarin, and Tamil and their age ranged from 20 to 24.

The convenience sample was determined based on the availability of adult ESL students enrolled in same-proficiency-level course in two, regularly scheduled classes. Based on institutional (i.e. internal) proficiency tests, the available students were assigned to three intermediate-level groups for the period of treatment (two CF groups, and one control group). Two teachers who agreed to take part in the study were experienced ESL teachers and native speakers of English. The researcher provided baseline instruction to the control group with no feedback opportunities, and further provided training for the teachers on how to engage in CF in the prompts and in the recasts groups.

Material Selection The researcher chose nouns because they are most frequently used and basic vocabulary, plus they are more suitable in measuring associative relationships without making tests too difficult to construct and interpret. In order to test the six sub-types of knowledge covering the three dimensions of L2 vocabulary development, 54 concrete nouns similar conceptual difficulty were selected for the study in consultation Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

17

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

with the participating teachers. Out of 54 items, 10 nouns not known at least by 88% of the students were chosen for treatment and subsequent testing. The words were selected from the planned semester ESL curriculum materials and were not taught apart from the study treatment sessions.

Treatment One 20-minute treatment session in the form of a four-step activity covering 10 vocabulary items was administered to each group in order to elicit data (Gass & Mackey, 2007). One type of oral CF was provided for each feedback group separately. The control group was exposed to the same activity at a slower speed with some repetition to cover the same treatment time as the other two groups, and students were asked not to interact with the teacher. However, the students in the control group were allowed to interact with each other, which led to a number of instances of self and peer correction. All abovementioned treatment sessions were audio recorded and transcribed for the analysis. The four-step data elicitation (controlled-practice) indicates that: (a) learners should be provided with definitional and contextual information about lexical items, and that (b) they should be encouraged to process lexical information at a deeper, qualitative level. Subsequently, the treatment activity included the following four steps: reading word definitions, provision of contextual questions or statements for the studied words, production of hypothetical sentences involving one word of choice, and a picture-labeling task.

Instrumentation The study used multiple instruments for the following reasons: to diagnose the vocabulary proficiency level (the 2000 Word Level/University Word Level Test, Beglar & Hunt, 1999), to determine unknown vocabulary items (the Diagnostic Test of Unknown Items described in Ellis et al., 1994), to test L2 vocabulary dimensionally (the Three-dimensional Vocabulary Knowledge Test). Two diagnostic pre-tests were administered during the preparatory stage of the study.

Data Analysis The data analyzed in this present study consists of the pretest (PRT), the post-test (PT1), the delayed post-test (PT2), and the longer-delayed post-test (PT3) for the recasts group, the prompts group, and the control group that were administered respectively on four occasions (the pretest on week 1, and the posttests on week 1, week 3, and week 5 after the treatment). The pretest, the posttest, the delayed posttest, and the longer-delayed posttest data has been coded for the following measures: (a) overall (global) group performance, (b) group performance on the three vocabulary development dimensions, e.g. the partialprecise dimension that consists of two separate measures is coded both jointly and separately (the same applies for other two dimensions), and (c) in-group proficiency level (determined from the pretest results/cut-off above and below 50% of the total score; see Ammar & Spada, 2006). In addition, three 20minute treatment sessions were transcribed and coded by the researcher for each treatment group to illustrate the discourse distribution of the sessions (see Table 3.1 below). Specifically, in order to ensure fidelity of treatment and, additionally, control for prompts as a self or peer correction-generating type of feedback, and also explore the discursive distribution for recasts, the transcriptions were coded using the model of analysis developed by Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (2004).

Test responses were scored by the researcher. The Diagnostic Test of Unknown Items, was coded on the basis of how many items the students knew (they were asked to underline those items). The items that were not underlined were counted and the percentage calculated. The minimum percentage (88%) for the unknown items was based on Ellis et al. (1994). One point was given for correct choices and zero points

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

18

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

for incorrect responses for the Revised 2000 Word Level and University Word Level Tests was awarded.

The same scoring procedure was applied to evaluate the 3D-VKT at times 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Analysis All test data were analyzed using SPSS 17 statistical software package. Data input and processing was performed with the same software. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RM ANOVA) was administered to measure feedback effects on the groups for the post-test (PT1), the delayed post-test (PT2), and the long-delayed post-test (PT3) in terms of the operationalized L2 vocabulary development measures described in the Instruments section. To assess group differences (i.e. the effects of prompts, recasts, and no feedback) on the post-tests (PT1, PT2, and PT3) in terms of learner proficiency level (more advanced, less advanced), RM MANOVA tests were conducted (Field, 2009).

Tukey‟s post-hoc analysis was carried out for all above-mentioned ANOVA tests. In order to evaluate associative links between the six sub-types of the three dimensions of vocabulary development in terms of corrective feedback type (or no feedback), correlations were run for each group separately on the posttests. Additional multiple regression analyses of the three-dimensional five vocabulary knowledge subtypes on productive vocabulary knowledge were conducted. This was done to see how these vocabulary knowledge sub-types predict production when affected by two different techniques of oral corrective feedback. For a summary of all statistical tests by research question. Finally, to describe discourse distribution and especially to control for input-output generation by the two types of corrective feedback, the treatment session transcriptions (transcribed with Microsoft Word processor and Olympus transcription toolkit) were used and analyzed in terms of total production, teacher input, student output, errors, CF instances, corrections, and uptake.

Results During the preparatory stage of the study, two diagnostic tests were conducted: the 2000 Word Level (2000), University Word Level (UWL) Test and the Diagnostic Test of Unknown Items. The former was administered to see if all participants who were intermediate adult ESL learners had more or less the same level of vocabulary proficiency as well. Table 1.1 shows descriptive statistics and Table 1.2 shows the results of ANOVA and Levene‟s test of homogeneity of variances for the 2000 Word Level/University Word Level Test‟s all four parts and its total score.

Table 1.1 Descriptive statistics for the revised and combined 2000 Word Level/University Word Level Test

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

19

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

Table 1.2 ANOVA results and Levene‟s test of homogeneity of variances for the 2000 Word Level/University Word Level Test

As can be seen in Table 1.1, there were no substantial differences on how the groups performed on the four parts of the combined word level proficiency test. Overall, it appears that the prompts group showed a slightly better general and academic word knowledge (except on UWL/B where the recasts group performed better). Table 1.1 also shows the control group performing better than the recasts on general word level parts (2000/A and 2000/B). In addition, in order to test the differences among the treatment groups, one-way analysis of variance test (ANOVA) was conducted for each of the parts of the test and the combined total. The results showed no statistically significant differences among the groups on all parts of the test (2000/A, 2000/B, UWL/A, UWL/B) and its total score (Table 1.2). In sum, the ANOVA results and Levene‟s tests indicate that the groups were generally well suited to be compared because they had approximately the same level of vocabulary proficiency.

Oral CF and Multidimensional L2 Vocabulary Proficiency The results tried to answer the research questions 1 and. One statistical test was conducted to address the first research question: Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RM ANOVA). The test measured global and dimensional differences and Group by Test interaction among the three treatment groups in terms of the increase in L2 vocabulary knowledge over time as that increase was operationalized in the 3D-VKT administered three times (i.e. in week 1, week 3, and week 5) after the treatment.

In addition to exploratory one-way ANOVAs, a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RM ANOVA) test (Field, 2009) was run to measure the cumulative over-time group differences on the pretest, the post-test, the delayed post-test, and the longer-delayed post-test in terms of the operationalized L2 vocabulary development. In this case, separate global test measures that included all three dimensions representing L2 vocabulary development were tested on the group variable at four different times. Table 1.3 provides descriptive statistics for global (i.e. total) and global dimensional (i.e. involving three dimensions of L2 vocabulary development each consisting of two knowledge sub-types: partial precise/pp, depth/d(p/s - paradigmatic (synonyms) and syntagmatic (verb-noun collacations) types of depth vocabulary knowledge), and receptive-productive/r-p) on the pretest (PRT), the post-test (PT1), the delayed post-test (PT2), and the longer-delayed post-test (PT3). Table 1.4 shows the results for the exploratory ANOVAs and Levene‟s tests on global and dimensional scores for the post-test, the delayed post-test, and the longer-delayed post-test.

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

20

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

Table 1.3 Global and dimensional descriptive statistics for PRT, PT1, PT2, and PT3 of the 3DVKT

Table 1.4 Results of exploratory ANOVAs and Leveneâ€&#x;s test of homogeneity of variances for global (PRT, PT1, PT2, and PT3) and dimensional measures of the 3D-VKT

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

21

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

Relationships between the Three Dimensions of L2 Vocabulary Development The last research question addressed if there would be a correlation between the three dimensions of L2 vocabulary development in six sub-types of vocabulary knowledge for the prompts group, the recasts group, and the control group. To measure how CF effects relationships among dimensional vocabulary knowledge, Pearson correlation tests were run for the three dimensional vocabulary tests that followed the treatment (i.e. the post-test, the delayed post-test, and the longer-delayed post-test) for each of the groups.

Table 1.5 shows the results for the post-test indicating that there were the following positive, strong and statistically significant correlations for the prompts group: between partial vocabulary knowledge and depth (syntagmatic) vocabulary knowledge, r(9) = .670, p < .05, between depth (paradigmatic) vocabulary knowledge and depth (syntagmatic) vocabulary knowledge, r(9) = .673, p < .05, and between productive vocabulary knowledge and depth (syntagmatic) vocabulary knowledge, r(9) = .680, p < .05.

The recasts group had the following positive, strong and significant correlations for the post-test: between partial vocabulary knowledge and depth (paradigmatic) vocabulary knowledge, r(9) = .722, p < .05, between depth (paradigmatic) vocabulary knowledge and depth (syntagmatic) vocabulary knowledge, r(9) = .705, p < .05, between precise vocabulary knowledge and productive vocabulary knowledge, r(9) = .850, p < .001, between depth (paradigmatic and syntagmatic) vocabulary knowledge and productive vocabulary knowledge, r(9) = .850, p < .001, r(9) = .718, p < .05, respectively. Table 1.5 also shows positively strong and highly significant correlations between receptive vocabulary knowledge and all other knowledge sub-types (except syntagmatic knowledge) for the recasts group which was completely opposite of what the measures indicated for the prompts group.

Table 1.5 Pearson correlation matrix for six vocabulary knowledge sub-types for the post-test, PT1/week 1 (n = 26) showing the results of all groups

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

22

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

The results detailed above form the basis for the following answer to the research question 2: There was a correlation between the three dimensions of L2 vocabulary development in terms of six sub-types of vocabulary knowledge for the prompts group, the recasts group, and the control group.

Conclusion The findings suggest that the prompts were equally beneficial in short-term and (nonsignificantly) more advantageous in a longer term than recasts in facilitating L2 vocabulary development for the adult ESL learners. However, the prompt group was the only group that demonstrated significant increases on all three dimensions of L2 vocabulary development (partial-precise, depth, and receptive-productive) as they were adopted and operationalized for this study from Henriksen (1999, 2008). As predicted, prompts had a significantly stronger effect on the depth vocabulary acquisition dimension than recasts possibly due to their pushed output-generating orientation. Similar to Izumi‟s (2002) claim that output facilitates better item and the rest of the sentence structural integration, output-oriented prompts appear to have triggered paradigmatic and, especially syntagmatic (collocational) depth extensions of the vocabulary items learned in this study more effectively.

The results also showed that while more advanced learners benefited equally from CF (Alavi et al., 2015) and no feedback, less advanced learners benefited significantly better from both types of CF than no feedback in longer term with the learners in the prompts group performing somewhat better than in the recasts group. These findings only partially mirror results obtained in Ammar and Spada (2006) – who studied how a grammatical, linguistic target was being learned – showing that less advanced learners in the prompts group performed significantly better than less advanced in the recasts group with more advanced learners performing more or less on the same level in both CF groups.

In addition, both CF groups displayed a diverging pattern of effects on L2 vocabulary knowledge in development. While the prompt – through significant associations with other knowledge sub-types – consistently tended to activate the syntagmatic component of depth vocabulary knowledge (verb-noun collocations), recasts appeared to do the same with the paradigmatic component of depth vocabulary knowledge (synonyms). The reasons for this difference could be explained by the activation of long-term memory that appeared to facilitate production of collocations for the prompts group while the associative activation of paradigmatic knowledge was triggered by the increased provision of input (that included synonyms) by the teacher who administered treatment for the recasts group.

References Alavi, s., &, Thomas Chow Voon Foo, Amini, M. (2015). L2 Learners‟ Proficiency Development through Noticing Feedback. Ijmmu, 2(5), pp. 25-41.

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.

Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (1999). Revising and validating the 2000 Word Level and University Word Level vocabulary tests. Language Testing, 16(2), 131-162.

Ellis, R. (1994). Factors in the incidental acquisition of second language vocabulary from oral input: A review essay. Applied Language Learning, 5(1), 1-32.

Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd edition). London: Sage.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahvah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

23

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 82, 299-307.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd Edition).

New York: Routledge.

Henriksen, B. (2008). Declarative lexical knowledge. In D. Albrechtsen, K. Haastrup, & B. Henriksen (Eds.), Vocabulary and writing in a first and second language: Processes and development (pp. 2266). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1) 37-63.

Loewen, S. &, Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361-377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic.

Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-426.

Lyster, R. & Izquerdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453-498.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.

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, 557-587.

Mackey, A. (2007). Introduction: The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169-178.

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

24

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Vol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.

Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-446). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004) Second language learning theories. 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold.

Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719-758.

Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sauro, S. (2007). A comparative study of recasts and metalinguistic feedback through computer mediated communication on the development of L2 knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2007). UMI, 3271810.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.

Copyrights Copyright for this article is retained by the author (s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Vocabulary Development through Corrective Feedback

25