Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Input, Evidence, and Exposure in Language Acquisition: Studies in honour of Susanne E. Carroll
Edited by Lindsay Hracs
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 69] 2024
► pp. 162–190

Chapter 7
Isolated and combined effects of models and corrective feedback in the acquisition of the Turkish locative morpheme

| Indiana University
| Chonnam National University
| The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
This study investigated the relative effects of models, corrective feedback, and a mixed treatment including both models and corrective feedback in the development of the Turkish locative morpheme. Native speakers of English were assigned to one of four conditions: models, corrective feedback, mixed, or control. Participants performed one input-based and one output-based task with a native Turkish speaker and received treatment according to their group assignments. Learners’ performance was measured through a multiple-choice task and an oral picture description test once immediately after the treatment and once two weeks after the treatment. Results showed that the mixed treatment in which learners received models first and then corrective feedback was the most effective treatment.
Keywords: corrective feedback, negative evidence, positive evidence, explicit correction, models
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Models versus corrective feedback in the context of L2 interaction
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Design
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Target structure
    • 3.4Procedure
    • 3.5Treatment tasks
      • 3.5.1Models group
      • 3.5.2Corrective feedback group
      • 3.5.3Mixed group
      • 3.5.4Control group
    • 3.6Outcome measures
    • 3.7Scoring
    • 3.8Analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Descriptive statistics for the multiple-choice test
    • 4.2Descriptive statistics for the oral picture description test
    • 4.3Inferential statistics
    • 4.4Summary of results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (40)
References
Carroll, S. E. 2001. Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cedrus. 2003. SuperLab [Computer software]. Cedrus Corporation. <[URL]>
Ellis, R. 1991. Grammar teaching practice or consciousness-raising? In Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy, R. Ellis (ed.), 232–241. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2): 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Form-focused instruction and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, P. Rebuschat (ed.), 417–441. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. 2006. Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review 19: 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y. & Novella, M. 2015. Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, P. Rebuschat (ed.), 443–482. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis [6th edn]. New York NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. 1988. Learning grammatical structures in a foreign language: Modelling versus feedback. French Review 61(6): 910–923.Google Scholar
Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. 2005. Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. 2005. Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2): 129–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. New York NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. 2003. Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25(1): 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S. 2010. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2): 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. 1980. Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
1981. Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy Sciences 379(1): 259–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds), 413–468. Cambridge MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2015. Second Language Acquisition and Task-based Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S. & Ortega, L. 1998. The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal 82(3): 357–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. 2010. Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2): 265–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, L. & Witzel, J. 2002. Recasts, Salience, and Morpheme Acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawaii.
Phakiti, A. 2014. Experimental Research Methods in Language Learning. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pica, T. 1983. Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(1): 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. Interlanguage adjustments as outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning 38(1): 45–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. 2007. A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In Practice in a Second language: Perspectives From Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology, R. DeKeyser (ed.), 141–160. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2): 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Attention. In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, P. Robinson (ed.), 3–32. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. 1986. Developing basic conversation ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner. In Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, R. Day (ed.), 237–326. New York NY: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. 1993. On explicit and negative evidence effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2): 147–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research 8(3): 263–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. 1999. Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 83(1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. 1999. What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review 55(4): 437–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. 2013. Mental representation and skill in instructed SLA. In Innovations in SLA, Bilingualism and Cognition: Research and Practice, J. Schwieter (ed.), 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. 2012. The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning 62(4): 1134–1169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 344–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. The effectiveness of explicit correction under two different feedback exposure conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(1): 65–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar