纠错式反馈对中国中学生一般现在时第三人称单数学习的有效性研究
|
摘要
本文对国内中低水平的中学生英语学习者做了一项关于纠错式反馈的实证性研究,目的在于探讨在任务型交互活动中,两种最具代表性的内隐纠错式反馈即重铸性反馈与引导性反馈对学习者一般现在时第三人称单数学习的影响。此外,本文也检测了经重铸性和引导性反馈后,学习者修正性语言与目标语学习的关系,及学习者对反馈的注意与目标语学习的关系。
本实验持续七周,共进行了一次预先测试,四轮任务型诊断,一次即时后测,一次延时后测和一次注意访谈。本实验以30名中国南方某中学初二学生为研究对象,其中男女生各15名。所有受试随机分为三组,接受不同实验条件的处理。重铸组10人,男女生各5人,针对受试目标语错误提供二字重铸性反馈;引导组10人,男女生各5人,针对受试目标语错误提供引导性反馈;对照组10人,男女生各5人,针对受试目标语错误不提供任何形式的反馈。延时后测结束后,实验组受试接受了注意访谈,调查他们实验处理中对测试员反馈的注意程度。访谈结束后,所有访谈录音文件转成文本,作为本研究的参照数据。
本文采用社科统计软件包(SPSS, 13.0版本)对实验数据进行定性和定量分析,主要采用的统计方法为描述性统计分析,单因素方差分析,配对样本T检验,独立样本T检验和皮尔森相关系数分析。通过对实证数据的分析,本文得出以下结论:
1)预先测试中,三组受试对一般现在时第三人称单数的掌握不甚理想,各组没有出现显著差异。经过四轮任务型交互活动诊断后,各组受试进步显著,在即时后测中各组成绩差异显著,重铸组受试成绩最高,然后是引导组,最后是对照组。在延时后测中,虽重铸组与引导组受试成绩所有下滑,但反馈效果仍得到保持,仅对照组受试对一般现在时第三人称单数的掌握没有显著进步。
2)接受引导性反馈后受试产出的修正性语言与受试一般现在时第三人称单数的学习紧密相关。而多数情况下,接受重铸性反馈后受试产出的修正性语言及受试自发产出的修正性语言与目标语学习没有紧密联系。
3)通过与受试一对一的注意访谈,接受重铸性反馈或引导性反馈后,受试对目标语言问题的注意与他们一般现在时第三人称单数的学习紧密相关。基于以上研究发现,本文对课堂中英语教学和学习提出了一些建设性建议。针对学习者的语言错误,英语教师应即时提供系统一致的纠错式反馈,且应考虑到学习者的认知能力,采用清晰明确的纠错式反馈。在教学过程中,教师需容忍学习者暂时的语言错误,为学习者提供更多的时间和机会进行语言的对比和修正。此外,教师也应尝试采用更多有效的方法帮助学生注意到自己的语言问题,最大限度地减少教师与学习者之间的反馈认识差距。
This empirical study is designed to investigate the effects of corrective feedback on Chinese low-intermediate middle school students, with an attempt to research into the role of two typical implicit corrective feedback (recasts and elicitations) on middle school students’learning the third person singular form of simple present tense verbs in task-based interactional activities. Meanwhile, it examines the correlation between the learners’modified output in response to two different corrective feedback techniques and their target language learning and the correlation between the learners’noticing of two corrective feedback techniques and their target language learning respectively.
This study lasts about seven weeks, and employs a pre-test, four treatment sessions, an immediate post-test, a delayed post-test and a noticing recall interview. The subjects in the present study are 30 students from Junior Grade 2, a middle school in South China, including 15 boys and 15 girls. There are three treatment conditions. Therefore, the 30 subjects are randomly assigned into 3 groups: the recast group (n=10, 5 boys and 5 girls): only two-word recast moves are provided; the elicitation group (n=10, 5 boys and 5 girls): only open-ended elicitation moves are provided; the control group (n=10, 5 boys and 5 girls): no feedback is provided. The subjects in two experimental Groups are interviewed after all post-tests and measured their noticing of the interviewer’s feedback.
The SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 13.0) is used as a statistical analytical instrument. The statistical techniques employed for analysis are Descriptive Statistics, One-Way ANOVA Analysis, Paired-Samples T test, Independent-Samples T test and Pearson Correlation Co-efficient Analysis.
Through the quantitative and qualitative analysis, three conclusions are generated:
(1) In the pre-test, the subjects’mastery of the third person singular form of simple present tense verbs in three groups is not satisfactory, but there is no significant difference. After the four treatment sessions, all of them make significant improvement. Among them, the subjects in the recast and elicitation groups benefit more than those who are in the control group. Furthermore, recasts are more effective than elicitations. The effects are still sustained in the delayed post-test. However, the subjects in the control group do not make any significant improvement in the delayed post-test.
(2) The subjects’modified output in response to elicitations is closely related with their third person singular form of simple present tense verbs learning. However, in most cases, the subjects’modified output in response to recasts and subjects’self-generated modified output can not contribute to their target language learning.
(3) By use of the noticing recall interview with the subjects individually, the subjects’noticing of either recasts or elicitations is significantly correlated with their third person singular form of simple present tense verbs learning. Based on the above conclusions, the pedagogical implications of the present study for second language teaching and learning are explored. Teachers need to be systematic and consistent in their provision of feedback, and the corrective feedback should be clear enough to be perceived. In addition, in the teaching process, the techniques employed should allow for time and opportunity for learners to compare and modify their output. Finally, teachers should adopt more effective ways to close a match among their intents, the targeted errors, and the learners’perception of the given feedback.
本实验持续七周,共进行了一次预先测试,四轮任务型诊断,一次即时后测,一次延时后测和一次注意访谈。本实验以30名中国南方某中学初二学生为研究对象,其中男女生各15名。所有受试随机分为三组,接受不同实验条件的处理。重铸组10人,男女生各5人,针对受试目标语错误提供二字重铸性反馈;引导组10人,男女生各5人,针对受试目标语错误提供引导性反馈;对照组10人,男女生各5人,针对受试目标语错误不提供任何形式的反馈。延时后测结束后,实验组受试接受了注意访谈,调查他们实验处理中对测试员反馈的注意程度。访谈结束后,所有访谈录音文件转成文本,作为本研究的参照数据。
本文采用社科统计软件包(SPSS, 13.0版本)对实验数据进行定性和定量分析,主要采用的统计方法为描述性统计分析,单因素方差分析,配对样本T检验,独立样本T检验和皮尔森相关系数分析。通过对实证数据的分析,本文得出以下结论:
1)预先测试中,三组受试对一般现在时第三人称单数的掌握不甚理想,各组没有出现显著差异。经过四轮任务型交互活动诊断后,各组受试进步显著,在即时后测中各组成绩差异显著,重铸组受试成绩最高,然后是引导组,最后是对照组。在延时后测中,虽重铸组与引导组受试成绩所有下滑,但反馈效果仍得到保持,仅对照组受试对一般现在时第三人称单数的掌握没有显著进步。
2)接受引导性反馈后受试产出的修正性语言与受试一般现在时第三人称单数的学习紧密相关。而多数情况下,接受重铸性反馈后受试产出的修正性语言及受试自发产出的修正性语言与目标语学习没有紧密联系。
3)通过与受试一对一的注意访谈,接受重铸性反馈或引导性反馈后,受试对目标语言问题的注意与他们一般现在时第三人称单数的学习紧密相关。基于以上研究发现,本文对课堂中英语教学和学习提出了一些建设性建议。针对学习者的语言错误,英语教师应即时提供系统一致的纠错式反馈,且应考虑到学习者的认知能力,采用清晰明确的纠错式反馈。在教学过程中,教师需容忍学习者暂时的语言错误,为学习者提供更多的时间和机会进行语言的对比和修正。此外,教师也应尝试采用更多有效的方法帮助学生注意到自己的语言问题,最大限度地减少教师与学习者之间的反馈认识差距。
This empirical study is designed to investigate the effects of corrective feedback on Chinese low-intermediate middle school students, with an attempt to research into the role of two typical implicit corrective feedback (recasts and elicitations) on middle school students’learning the third person singular form of simple present tense verbs in task-based interactional activities. Meanwhile, it examines the correlation between the learners’modified output in response to two different corrective feedback techniques and their target language learning and the correlation between the learners’noticing of two corrective feedback techniques and their target language learning respectively.
This study lasts about seven weeks, and employs a pre-test, four treatment sessions, an immediate post-test, a delayed post-test and a noticing recall interview. The subjects in the present study are 30 students from Junior Grade 2, a middle school in South China, including 15 boys and 15 girls. There are three treatment conditions. Therefore, the 30 subjects are randomly assigned into 3 groups: the recast group (n=10, 5 boys and 5 girls): only two-word recast moves are provided; the elicitation group (n=10, 5 boys and 5 girls): only open-ended elicitation moves are provided; the control group (n=10, 5 boys and 5 girls): no feedback is provided. The subjects in two experimental Groups are interviewed after all post-tests and measured their noticing of the interviewer’s feedback.
The SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 13.0) is used as a statistical analytical instrument. The statistical techniques employed for analysis are Descriptive Statistics, One-Way ANOVA Analysis, Paired-Samples T test, Independent-Samples T test and Pearson Correlation Co-efficient Analysis.
Through the quantitative and qualitative analysis, three conclusions are generated:
(1) In the pre-test, the subjects’mastery of the third person singular form of simple present tense verbs in three groups is not satisfactory, but there is no significant difference. After the four treatment sessions, all of them make significant improvement. Among them, the subjects in the recast and elicitation groups benefit more than those who are in the control group. Furthermore, recasts are more effective than elicitations. The effects are still sustained in the delayed post-test. However, the subjects in the control group do not make any significant improvement in the delayed post-test.
(2) The subjects’modified output in response to elicitations is closely related with their third person singular form of simple present tense verbs learning. However, in most cases, the subjects’modified output in response to recasts and subjects’self-generated modified output can not contribute to their target language learning.
(3) By use of the noticing recall interview with the subjects individually, the subjects’noticing of either recasts or elicitations is significantly correlated with their third person singular form of simple present tense verbs learning. Based on the above conclusions, the pedagogical implications of the present study for second language teaching and learning are explored. Teachers need to be systematic and consistent in their provision of feedback, and the corrective feedback should be clear enough to be perceived. In addition, in the teaching process, the techniques employed should allow for time and opportunity for learners to compare and modify their output. Finally, teachers should adopt more effective ways to close a match among their intents, the targeted errors, and the learners’perception of the given feedback.
引文
[1] Alanen, R. Input Enhancement and Rule Presentation in Second Language Acquisition [A]. In R. Schimidt (Eds.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning [C].Honolulu: University of Hawai’I Press, 1995. 47.
[2] Ammar, A. & N. Spada. One size fits all? Recasts, Prompts and L2 Learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 543-574.
[3] Ammar, A. Corrective Feedback and L2 Learning: Elicitation and Recasts [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. McGill University, Montreal. 2003. 1-287
[4] Ayoun, D. The Effective of Written Recasts in the Second Language Acquisition of Aspectual Distinctions in French: A Follow-up Study [J]. Modern Language Journal, 2004. 88: 31-55.
[5] Ayoun, D. 2001. The Role of Negative and Positive Feedback in the Second Language Acquisition of Passé compose and Imparfait [J]. Modern Language Journal, 5: 226-243.
[6] Bell-corrales, M. The Role of Negative Feedback in Second Language Instruction [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida. 2001. 1-310
[7] Benati, A. The Effects of Processing Instruction, Traditional Instruction and Meaning-output Instruction on the Acquisition of the English Past Tense [J]. Language Teaching Research, 2005. 9(1): 67-93.
[8] Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K., & E. Tarone. Literacy and the Processing of Oral Recasts in SLA [J]. TESOL, 2006. 40: 665-689.
[9] Bradi, S. Reexaming the Role of Rrecasts in Native-Speaker/Nonnative Speaker Interactions [J]. Language Learning, 2002. 52:1-42.
[10] Branden, K. Effects of Negotiation on Language Learners’ Output [J]. Language Learning, 1997. 51: 589-636.
[11] Carpenter, H., Seon Jeon, K., MacGregor, D., & A. Mackey. Learners’ Interpretations of Recasts [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 209-236.
[12] Carroll, S. Putting “Input” in its Proper Place [J]. Second Language Research, 1999. 15: 337-388.
[13] Chaudron, C. Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning [M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 150.
[14] Corder, S. P. The Significance of Learners’ Errors [J]. International Reviewof Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1967. 5: 161-170.
[15] Doughty, C., & Varela, E. Communicative Focus on Form [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 129-154.
[16] Doughty, C. J. Cognitive Underpinnings of Focus on Form [A]. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 206-257.
[17] Ellis, R. Investigating Form-Focused Instruction [J]. Language Learning, 2001. 51:1-46.
[18] Ellis, R. Grammar Teaching Practice or Consciousness-raising? [A].In Ellis, R. (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy [C]. Clevedon, UK, 1991. 232-241.
[19] Ellis, R., & Y. Sheen. Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 575-600.
[20] Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & S. Loewen. Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 2001. 51: 281-318.
[21] Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & R. Erlam. Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 339-368.
[22] Faerch, C., & G. Kasper. ‘Procedural Knowledge as a Component of Foreign Language Learners’ Communicative Competence’ [A]. In Boete, H. and Herrliz, W. (Eds.), Kommunikation in (Sprach-) Unterrricht [C].Utrecht, 1983. 31-32.
[23] Gass, S. M. Grammar Instruction, Selective Attention, and Learning [A]. In Phillipson, R. Kellerman, E. Selinker, L. Sharwood Smith, M. & Swain, M. (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research Clevedon [C]. UK: Multilingual Matters, 1991. 124-141.
[24] Gass, S. M. Input and Interaction [A]. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second Language Acquisition [C]. Oxford: Blackwell. 2003. 224-255.
[25] Gass, S. M. Second and Foreign Language Learning: Same, Different or None of the Above? [A]. In B. VanPatten & J. Lee (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition Clevedon [C]. UK: Multilingual Matters, 1990. 33-44.
[26] Gass, S. M. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1988. 9: 92-106.
[27] Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. Input, Interaction, and Second LanguageProduction [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1994. 16: 283-302.
[28] Gass, S. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum, 1997. 16: 283-302.
[29] Han, Z. A Study of the Impact of Recasts on Tense Consistency in L2 Output [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 2002. 36: 543-572.
[30] Havranek, G. When Is Corrective Feedback Most Likely to Succeed? [J]. International Journal of Educational Research, 2002. 37: 255-270.
[31] Havranek, G., & H. Cesnik. Factors Affecting the Success of Corrective Feedback [M]. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2001. 1: 99-122.
[32] Hong Enqi. Pi De Man Hua NanJing [M]. Yi Lin Press. 2000.
[33] Ishida, M. Effects of Recasts on the Acquisition of the Aspectual Form –te i-(ru) by Learners of Japanese as a Foreign Language [J]. Language Learning, 2004. 54: 311-394.
[34] Iwashita, N. Negative Feedback and Positive Evidence in Task-based Interaction [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2003. 25: 1-36.
[35] Iwashita, N. The Effect of Learner Proficiency on Interactional Moves and Modified Output in Non-Native-Non-Native Interaction in Japanese as a Foreign Language [J]. System, 2001. 29: 267-287.
[36] Izumi, S. Comprehension and Production Processes in Second Language Learning: In Search of the Psycholinguistic Rationale of the Output Hypothesis [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2003. 24: 168-196.
[37] Kormos, J. The Effect of Speaker Vvariables on the Self-correction Behavior of L2 Learners [J]. System, 1999. 27: 207-221.
[38] Krashen, S. D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M]. New York: Pergamon Institute of English, 1982. 74.
[39] Krashen, S. D. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications [M]. New York: Longman, 1985. 150.
[40] Leeman, J. Recasts and Second Language Development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2003. 25: 37-63.
[41] Lightbown, P. Anniversary Article: Classroom SLA research and Second Language Teaching [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2000. 21: 431-462.
[42] Lightbown, P. M., & N. Spada. How languages are learned [M].Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999. 171-172.
[43] Lin Kui. A Study of the Effects of Recasts on Learners’ L2 Output [D]. Unpublished M. A. Dissertation. Guangdong University of foreign studies. 2006.
[44] Lochtman, K. Oral Corrective Feedback in the Foreign Language Classroom: How it Affects Interaction in Analytic Foreign Language Teaching [J]. International Journal of Educational Research, 2002. 37: 271–283.
[45] Loew, R. Attention, Awareness, and Foreign Language Behaviour [J]. Language Learning, 1997, 47: 467-506.
[46] Loewen, S. Incidental Focus on Form and Second Language Learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2005. 27: 361-386.
[47] Loewen, S. Uptake in Incidental Focus on Form in Meaning-focused ESL Lessons [J]. Language Learning, 2004. 54: 153-188.
[48] Long, M. The Role of Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition [A]. In W. C. Ritchie & B. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition [C]. New York: Academic Press, 1996. 413-468.
[49] Long, M. H. Recasts: The Theory So Far [A]. In M. H. Long (Eds). Problems in SLA [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2006. 1-11.
[50] Long, M. H., & P. Robinson. ‘Focus on Form Theory, Research, Process’ [A]. in C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.): Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Process, 1998. 15-41.
[51] Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & L. Ortega. The Role of Implicit Negative Evidence in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish [J]. The Modern Language Journal, 1998. 98: 557-371.
[52] Lowen, S., & J. Philp. An Indepth Analysis of Recasts in the Adult L2 Classroom [J]. Modern language Journal, 2007. 27: 361-386.
[53] Lyster, R. Negotiation of Form, Recasts, and Explicit Correction in Relation to Eerror Types and Learner Repair in Immersion Classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 1998. 48: 183–218.
[54] Lyster, R. Negotiation in Immersion Teacher–student Interaction [J]. International Journal of Educational Research, 2002. 37: 237-253.
[55] Lyster, R. Differential Effects of Prompts and Recasts in Form-focused Instruction [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2004. 26: 399-432.
[56] Lyster, R., & H. Mori. Interaction Feedback and Instructional Counterbalance [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 269-300.
[57] Lyster, R., & L. Ranta. Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1997. 19: 37-66.
[58] Lyster, R. Recasts, Repetition, and Ambiguity in L2 Classroom Discourse [J].Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1998. 20: 53-82..
[59] Lyster, R., & I. Panova. Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom [J]. TESOL, 2002. 573-595.
[60] Mackey, A. Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second Language Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2006. 27(3): 405-430.
[61] Mackey, A. Input, Interaction and Second Language Development: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1999. 21: 557-587.
[62] Mackey, A., & Philp, J. Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development: Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings? [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1998. 82: 338-356.
[63] Mackey, A., Gass, S., & K. McDonough. How do Learners Perceive Implicit Negative Feedback? [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22: 471–497.
[64] Mackey, A., Kanganas, A. P., & R. Oliver. 2007. Task Familiarity and Interactional Feedback in Child ESL Classrooms [J]. TESOL, 2000. 41(2): 285-311.
[65] Mackey, A., Leeman, J., & R. Oliver. Interactional Input and the Incorporation of Feedback: an Exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS Adult and Child Dyads [J]. Language Learning, 2003. 53: 35-66.
[66] Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & T. Tatsumi. Individual Differences in Working Memory, Noticing of Interactional Feedback in L2 Development [A]. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002. 35-47.
[67] McDonough, K. Identifying the Impact of Negative Feedback and Learners’ Responses on ESL Question Development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2005. 27: 79-103.
[68] Mennim, P. Long-term Effects of Noticing on Oral Output. Language Teaching Research [J]. 2007. 11(3): 265-280
[69] Mori, H. Error Treatment Sequences in Japanese Immersion Classroom Interactions at Different Grade Levels [D]. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 2002.
[70] Morris, F. Child-to-Child Interaction and Corrective Feedback in a Computer Mediated L2 class [J]. Language Learning and Technology, 2005. 9(1): 29-45.
[71] Morris, F., & E. Tarone. Impact of Classroom Dynamics on the Effectiveness of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition [J]. Language Learning, 2003. 53(2): 325-368.
[72] Muranoi, H. Focus on Form Through Interaction Enhancement: Integrating Formal Instruction into a Communicative Task in EFL classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 2000. 50: 617-673.
[73] Nabei, T., & M. Swain. Learner Awareness of Recasts in Classroom Interaction: A Case Study of an Adult EFL Student’s Second Language Learning [J]. Language Awareness, 2002. 11(1): 43-63.
[74] Nassaji, H. Elicitation and Reformulation and their Relationship with Learner Repair in Dyadic Interaction [J]. Language Learning, 2007. 27: 511-548.
[75] Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & N. Spada. Recasts as Feedback to Language Learners [J]. Language Learning, 2001. 51: 719-785.
[76] Nobuyoshi, J., & R. Ellis. Focused Communication Tasks and Second Language Acquisition [J]. ELT Journal, 1993. 47: 203-210.
[77] Ohta, A. Rethinking Recasts: A Learner-centered Examination of Corrective Feedback in the Japanese Classroom [A]. In Hall, L.K. & Verplaeste, L. (Eds.), The Construction of Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction [C]. Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum, 2000. 47-71.
[78] Oliver, R. Age Differences in Negotiation and Feedback in Classroom and Pair Work [J]. Language Learning, 2000. 50: 119-151.
[79] Oliver, R. Negative Feedback in Child NS-NNS Conversation [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1995. 17(4): 459-481.
[80] Ortega, L., & M. Long. The Effects of Models and Recasts on the Acquisition of Object Topicalization and Adverb Placement in L2 Spanish [J]. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1997. 1: 65-86.
[81] Philp, J. Constraints on “Noticing the gap” [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2003. 25: 99-126.
[82] Piennemann, M. Psychological Constraints in the Teachability of Languages [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1984. 6: 186-214.
[83] Polio, C., Gass, S., & L. Chapin. Using Stimulated Recall to Investigate Native Speaker Perceptions in Native-nonnative Speaker Interaction [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 209-236.
[84] Robert, M. Awareness and the Efficacy of Error Correction [A]. In R. Schimidt (Eds.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning [C]. Honolulu: University of Hawai’I Press, 1995. 3-19.
[85] Robinson, P. Learning Simple and Complex Second Language Rules under Implicit, Incidental, Rule-research, and Instructed Conditions [J]. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 1996. 18: 27-67.
[86] Rosa, E. M., & R. P. Leow. Awareness, Different Learning Condition, and Second Language Development [J]. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2003. 25: 269-292.
[87] Russell, J., & N. Spada. The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback for Second Language Acquisition: A Meta-analysis of the Research [A]. In: Norris. J., Ortega, L (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, 2006. 113-164.
[88] Sachs, R., & S. Polio. Learners’ Uses of Two Types of Written Feedback on a L2 Writing Revision Task [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2007. 29: 67-100.
[89] Sanz, C. Computer Delivered Implicit vs. Explicit Feedback in Processing Instruction [A]. In Vanpattern, B. (Eds.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003. 34-51.
[90] Saxton, M. The Contrast Theory of Negative Input [J]. Journal of Child Language, 1997. 24: 139-161.
[91] Schachter, J. Corrective Feedback in Historical Perspective [J]. Second Language Research, 1991. 7: 89-102.
[92] Schmidt, R. Deconstructing Consciousness in Search of Useful Definitions for Applied Linguistics [A]. In Hulstijin, J. and Schimidt, R. (Eds.), Consciousness in Second Language Learning [C]. AILA Review 1993. 11, 43-56.
[93] Schmidt, R., & S. Frota. Developing Basic Conversation Ability in a Second Language: A Case Study of an Adult Learner of Portuguese [J].TESOL, 1993. 4(2): 1-24.
[94] Schmidt, R. W. Implicit Learning and the Cognitive Unconscious: Of Artificial Grammars and SLA [A]. In Ellis, N. (Eds.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages [C]. London: Academic Press, 1994.165-210.
[95] Schmidt, R. W. The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1990. 11: 128-158.
[96] Sheen, Y. Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms across Instructional Settings [J]. Language Teaching Research, 2004. 8(3): 263-300.
[97] Sheen, Y. Exploring the Relationship between Characteristics of Recasts and Learner Uptake [J]. Language Teaching Research, 2006. 10(3): 361-392
[98] Sheen, Y. Interactional Feedback and the Emergence of Simple Past ActivityVerbs in L2 English [A]. In Mackey, A. (Eds.). Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006. 155-178.
[99] Smith, B. The Relationship between Negotiated Interaction, Learner Uptake, and Lexical Acquisition in Task-based Computer-mediated Communication [J]. TESOL, 2005. 39: 33-58.
[100]Swain, M. Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development [A]. In Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. 235-253.
[101]Tang, Jie-yi. The Effect of Teacher’s Error Treatment on Learners’ Uptake in the EFL Classroom Setting [D]. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Huanan Normal University. 2003.
[102]Truscott, J. Noticing in Second Language Acquisition: A critical review [J]. Second Language Research, 1998. 16: 183-203.
[103]Van den Branden, K. Effects of Negotiation on Language Learners’ Output [J]. Language Learning, 1997. 47: 589-636.
[104]VanPatten, B. Attending to Form and Content in the Input: An Experiment in Consciousness [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1990. 12: 287-301
[105]Xu Lin. Recasts on Chinese College Student’s Learning Effects of Subjunctive Mood. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation. BeiJing Foreign Language and Culture University. 2007.
[2] Ammar, A. & N. Spada. One size fits all? Recasts, Prompts and L2 Learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 543-574.
[3] Ammar, A. Corrective Feedback and L2 Learning: Elicitation and Recasts [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. McGill University, Montreal. 2003. 1-287
[4] Ayoun, D. The Effective of Written Recasts in the Second Language Acquisition of Aspectual Distinctions in French: A Follow-up Study [J]. Modern Language Journal, 2004. 88: 31-55.
[5] Ayoun, D. 2001. The Role of Negative and Positive Feedback in the Second Language Acquisition of Passé compose and Imparfait [J]. Modern Language Journal, 5: 226-243.
[6] Bell-corrales, M. The Role of Negative Feedback in Second Language Instruction [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida. 2001. 1-310
[7] Benati, A. The Effects of Processing Instruction, Traditional Instruction and Meaning-output Instruction on the Acquisition of the English Past Tense [J]. Language Teaching Research, 2005. 9(1): 67-93.
[8] Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K., & E. Tarone. Literacy and the Processing of Oral Recasts in SLA [J]. TESOL, 2006. 40: 665-689.
[9] Bradi, S. Reexaming the Role of Rrecasts in Native-Speaker/Nonnative Speaker Interactions [J]. Language Learning, 2002. 52:1-42.
[10] Branden, K. Effects of Negotiation on Language Learners’ Output [J]. Language Learning, 1997. 51: 589-636.
[11] Carpenter, H., Seon Jeon, K., MacGregor, D., & A. Mackey. Learners’ Interpretations of Recasts [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 209-236.
[12] Carroll, S. Putting “Input” in its Proper Place [J]. Second Language Research, 1999. 15: 337-388.
[13] Chaudron, C. Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning [M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 150.
[14] Corder, S. P. The Significance of Learners’ Errors [J]. International Reviewof Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1967. 5: 161-170.
[15] Doughty, C., & Varela, E. Communicative Focus on Form [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 129-154.
[16] Doughty, C. J. Cognitive Underpinnings of Focus on Form [A]. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 206-257.
[17] Ellis, R. Investigating Form-Focused Instruction [J]. Language Learning, 2001. 51:1-46.
[18] Ellis, R. Grammar Teaching Practice or Consciousness-raising? [A].In Ellis, R. (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy [C]. Clevedon, UK, 1991. 232-241.
[19] Ellis, R., & Y. Sheen. Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 575-600.
[20] Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & S. Loewen. Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 2001. 51: 281-318.
[21] Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & R. Erlam. Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 339-368.
[22] Faerch, C., & G. Kasper. ‘Procedural Knowledge as a Component of Foreign Language Learners’ Communicative Competence’ [A]. In Boete, H. and Herrliz, W. (Eds.), Kommunikation in (Sprach-) Unterrricht [C].Utrecht, 1983. 31-32.
[23] Gass, S. M. Grammar Instruction, Selective Attention, and Learning [A]. In Phillipson, R. Kellerman, E. Selinker, L. Sharwood Smith, M. & Swain, M. (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research Clevedon [C]. UK: Multilingual Matters, 1991. 124-141.
[24] Gass, S. M. Input and Interaction [A]. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second Language Acquisition [C]. Oxford: Blackwell. 2003. 224-255.
[25] Gass, S. M. Second and Foreign Language Learning: Same, Different or None of the Above? [A]. In B. VanPatten & J. Lee (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition Clevedon [C]. UK: Multilingual Matters, 1990. 33-44.
[26] Gass, S. M. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1988. 9: 92-106.
[27] Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. Input, Interaction, and Second LanguageProduction [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1994. 16: 283-302.
[28] Gass, S. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum, 1997. 16: 283-302.
[29] Han, Z. A Study of the Impact of Recasts on Tense Consistency in L2 Output [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 2002. 36: 543-572.
[30] Havranek, G. When Is Corrective Feedback Most Likely to Succeed? [J]. International Journal of Educational Research, 2002. 37: 255-270.
[31] Havranek, G., & H. Cesnik. Factors Affecting the Success of Corrective Feedback [M]. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2001. 1: 99-122.
[32] Hong Enqi. Pi De Man Hua NanJing [M]. Yi Lin Press. 2000.
[33] Ishida, M. Effects of Recasts on the Acquisition of the Aspectual Form –te i-(ru) by Learners of Japanese as a Foreign Language [J]. Language Learning, 2004. 54: 311-394.
[34] Iwashita, N. Negative Feedback and Positive Evidence in Task-based Interaction [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2003. 25: 1-36.
[35] Iwashita, N. The Effect of Learner Proficiency on Interactional Moves and Modified Output in Non-Native-Non-Native Interaction in Japanese as a Foreign Language [J]. System, 2001. 29: 267-287.
[36] Izumi, S. Comprehension and Production Processes in Second Language Learning: In Search of the Psycholinguistic Rationale of the Output Hypothesis [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2003. 24: 168-196.
[37] Kormos, J. The Effect of Speaker Vvariables on the Self-correction Behavior of L2 Learners [J]. System, 1999. 27: 207-221.
[38] Krashen, S. D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M]. New York: Pergamon Institute of English, 1982. 74.
[39] Krashen, S. D. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications [M]. New York: Longman, 1985. 150.
[40] Leeman, J. Recasts and Second Language Development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2003. 25: 37-63.
[41] Lightbown, P. Anniversary Article: Classroom SLA research and Second Language Teaching [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2000. 21: 431-462.
[42] Lightbown, P. M., & N. Spada. How languages are learned [M].Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999. 171-172.
[43] Lin Kui. A Study of the Effects of Recasts on Learners’ L2 Output [D]. Unpublished M. A. Dissertation. Guangdong University of foreign studies. 2006.
[44] Lochtman, K. Oral Corrective Feedback in the Foreign Language Classroom: How it Affects Interaction in Analytic Foreign Language Teaching [J]. International Journal of Educational Research, 2002. 37: 271–283.
[45] Loew, R. Attention, Awareness, and Foreign Language Behaviour [J]. Language Learning, 1997, 47: 467-506.
[46] Loewen, S. Incidental Focus on Form and Second Language Learning [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2005. 27: 361-386.
[47] Loewen, S. Uptake in Incidental Focus on Form in Meaning-focused ESL Lessons [J]. Language Learning, 2004. 54: 153-188.
[48] Long, M. The Role of Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition [A]. In W. C. Ritchie & B. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition [C]. New York: Academic Press, 1996. 413-468.
[49] Long, M. H. Recasts: The Theory So Far [A]. In M. H. Long (Eds). Problems in SLA [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2006. 1-11.
[50] Long, M. H., & P. Robinson. ‘Focus on Form Theory, Research, Process’ [A]. in C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.): Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Process, 1998. 15-41.
[51] Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & L. Ortega. The Role of Implicit Negative Evidence in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish [J]. The Modern Language Journal, 1998. 98: 557-371.
[52] Lowen, S., & J. Philp. An Indepth Analysis of Recasts in the Adult L2 Classroom [J]. Modern language Journal, 2007. 27: 361-386.
[53] Lyster, R. Negotiation of Form, Recasts, and Explicit Correction in Relation to Eerror Types and Learner Repair in Immersion Classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 1998. 48: 183–218.
[54] Lyster, R. Negotiation in Immersion Teacher–student Interaction [J]. International Journal of Educational Research, 2002. 37: 237-253.
[55] Lyster, R. Differential Effects of Prompts and Recasts in Form-focused Instruction [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2004. 26: 399-432.
[56] Lyster, R., & H. Mori. Interaction Feedback and Instructional Counterbalance [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 269-300.
[57] Lyster, R., & L. Ranta. Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1997. 19: 37-66.
[58] Lyster, R. Recasts, Repetition, and Ambiguity in L2 Classroom Discourse [J].Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1998. 20: 53-82..
[59] Lyster, R., & I. Panova. Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom [J]. TESOL, 2002. 573-595.
[60] Mackey, A. Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second Language Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2006. 27(3): 405-430.
[61] Mackey, A. Input, Interaction and Second Language Development: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1999. 21: 557-587.
[62] Mackey, A., & Philp, J. Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development: Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings? [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1998. 82: 338-356.
[63] Mackey, A., Gass, S., & K. McDonough. How do Learners Perceive Implicit Negative Feedback? [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22: 471–497.
[64] Mackey, A., Kanganas, A. P., & R. Oliver. 2007. Task Familiarity and Interactional Feedback in Child ESL Classrooms [J]. TESOL, 2000. 41(2): 285-311.
[65] Mackey, A., Leeman, J., & R. Oliver. Interactional Input and the Incorporation of Feedback: an Exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS Adult and Child Dyads [J]. Language Learning, 2003. 53: 35-66.
[66] Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & T. Tatsumi. Individual Differences in Working Memory, Noticing of Interactional Feedback in L2 Development [A]. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002. 35-47.
[67] McDonough, K. Identifying the Impact of Negative Feedback and Learners’ Responses on ESL Question Development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2005. 27: 79-103.
[68] Mennim, P. Long-term Effects of Noticing on Oral Output. Language Teaching Research [J]. 2007. 11(3): 265-280
[69] Mori, H. Error Treatment Sequences in Japanese Immersion Classroom Interactions at Different Grade Levels [D]. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 2002.
[70] Morris, F. Child-to-Child Interaction and Corrective Feedback in a Computer Mediated L2 class [J]. Language Learning and Technology, 2005. 9(1): 29-45.
[71] Morris, F., & E. Tarone. Impact of Classroom Dynamics on the Effectiveness of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition [J]. Language Learning, 2003. 53(2): 325-368.
[72] Muranoi, H. Focus on Form Through Interaction Enhancement: Integrating Formal Instruction into a Communicative Task in EFL classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 2000. 50: 617-673.
[73] Nabei, T., & M. Swain. Learner Awareness of Recasts in Classroom Interaction: A Case Study of an Adult EFL Student’s Second Language Learning [J]. Language Awareness, 2002. 11(1): 43-63.
[74] Nassaji, H. Elicitation and Reformulation and their Relationship with Learner Repair in Dyadic Interaction [J]. Language Learning, 2007. 27: 511-548.
[75] Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & N. Spada. Recasts as Feedback to Language Learners [J]. Language Learning, 2001. 51: 719-785.
[76] Nobuyoshi, J., & R. Ellis. Focused Communication Tasks and Second Language Acquisition [J]. ELT Journal, 1993. 47: 203-210.
[77] Ohta, A. Rethinking Recasts: A Learner-centered Examination of Corrective Feedback in the Japanese Classroom [A]. In Hall, L.K. & Verplaeste, L. (Eds.), The Construction of Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction [C]. Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum, 2000. 47-71.
[78] Oliver, R. Age Differences in Negotiation and Feedback in Classroom and Pair Work [J]. Language Learning, 2000. 50: 119-151.
[79] Oliver, R. Negative Feedback in Child NS-NNS Conversation [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1995. 17(4): 459-481.
[80] Ortega, L., & M. Long. The Effects of Models and Recasts on the Acquisition of Object Topicalization and Adverb Placement in L2 Spanish [J]. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1997. 1: 65-86.
[81] Philp, J. Constraints on “Noticing the gap” [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2003. 25: 99-126.
[82] Piennemann, M. Psychological Constraints in the Teachability of Languages [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1984. 6: 186-214.
[83] Polio, C., Gass, S., & L. Chapin. Using Stimulated Recall to Investigate Native Speaker Perceptions in Native-nonnative Speaker Interaction [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006. 28: 209-236.
[84] Robert, M. Awareness and the Efficacy of Error Correction [A]. In R. Schimidt (Eds.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning [C]. Honolulu: University of Hawai’I Press, 1995. 3-19.
[85] Robinson, P. Learning Simple and Complex Second Language Rules under Implicit, Incidental, Rule-research, and Instructed Conditions [J]. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 1996. 18: 27-67.
[86] Rosa, E. M., & R. P. Leow. Awareness, Different Learning Condition, and Second Language Development [J]. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2003. 25: 269-292.
[87] Russell, J., & N. Spada. The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback for Second Language Acquisition: A Meta-analysis of the Research [A]. In: Norris. J., Ortega, L (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, 2006. 113-164.
[88] Sachs, R., & S. Polio. Learners’ Uses of Two Types of Written Feedback on a L2 Writing Revision Task [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2007. 29: 67-100.
[89] Sanz, C. Computer Delivered Implicit vs. Explicit Feedback in Processing Instruction [A]. In Vanpattern, B. (Eds.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003. 34-51.
[90] Saxton, M. The Contrast Theory of Negative Input [J]. Journal of Child Language, 1997. 24: 139-161.
[91] Schachter, J. Corrective Feedback in Historical Perspective [J]. Second Language Research, 1991. 7: 89-102.
[92] Schmidt, R. Deconstructing Consciousness in Search of Useful Definitions for Applied Linguistics [A]. In Hulstijin, J. and Schimidt, R. (Eds.), Consciousness in Second Language Learning [C]. AILA Review 1993. 11, 43-56.
[93] Schmidt, R., & S. Frota. Developing Basic Conversation Ability in a Second Language: A Case Study of an Adult Learner of Portuguese [J].TESOL, 1993. 4(2): 1-24.
[94] Schmidt, R. W. Implicit Learning and the Cognitive Unconscious: Of Artificial Grammars and SLA [A]. In Ellis, N. (Eds.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages [C]. London: Academic Press, 1994.165-210.
[95] Schmidt, R. W. The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1990. 11: 128-158.
[96] Sheen, Y. Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms across Instructional Settings [J]. Language Teaching Research, 2004. 8(3): 263-300.
[97] Sheen, Y. Exploring the Relationship between Characteristics of Recasts and Learner Uptake [J]. Language Teaching Research, 2006. 10(3): 361-392
[98] Sheen, Y. Interactional Feedback and the Emergence of Simple Past ActivityVerbs in L2 English [A]. In Mackey, A. (Eds.). Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006. 155-178.
[99] Smith, B. The Relationship between Negotiated Interaction, Learner Uptake, and Lexical Acquisition in Task-based Computer-mediated Communication [J]. TESOL, 2005. 39: 33-58.
[100]Swain, M. Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development [A]. In Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. 235-253.
[101]Tang, Jie-yi. The Effect of Teacher’s Error Treatment on Learners’ Uptake in the EFL Classroom Setting [D]. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Huanan Normal University. 2003.
[102]Truscott, J. Noticing in Second Language Acquisition: A critical review [J]. Second Language Research, 1998. 16: 183-203.
[103]Van den Branden, K. Effects of Negotiation on Language Learners’ Output [J]. Language Learning, 1997. 47: 589-636.
[104]VanPatten, B. Attending to Form and Content in the Input: An Experiment in Consciousness [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1990. 12: 287-301
[105]Xu Lin. Recasts on Chinese College Student’s Learning Effects of Subjunctive Mood. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation. BeiJing Foreign Language and Culture University. 2007.