The Comparative Effects of Comprehensible Input, Output and Corrective Feedback on the Receptive Acquisition of L2 Vocabulary Items

Mohammad Nowbakht, Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari

Abstract


In the present study, the comparative effects of comprehensible input, output and corrective feedback on the receptive acquisition of L2 vocabulary items were investigated. Two groups of beginning EFL learners participated in the study. The control group received comprehensible input only, while the experimental group received input and was required to produce written output. They also received corrective feedback on their lexical errors if any. This could result in the production of modified output. The results of the study indicated that (a) the group which produced output and received feedback (if necessary) outperformed the group which only received input in the post-test, (b) within the experimental group, feedback played a greater role in learners’ better performance than output, (c) also a positive correlation between the amount of feedback an individual learner received, and his overall performance in the post-test; and also between the amount of feedback given for a specific word and the correct responses given to its related item in the post-test was found.  The findings of this study provide evidence for the role of output production along with receiving corrective feedback in enhancing L2 processing by drawing further L2 learners’ attention to their output which in turn may result in improving their receptive acquisition of L2 words. Furthermore, as the results suggested, feedback made a more contribution to L2 development than output.

Keywords: comprehensible input, output, interaction, corrective feedback, modified output, receptive vocabulary acquisition


Full Text:

PDF

References


Aljaafreh, A. L. I; & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson Education.

Cook, V. (1991). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. System, 19, 342-347.

de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555.

de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: toe roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.

de la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263-295.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis , R., & He, X. (1999). The role of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.

Ellis, R. (2013). Corrective feedback in teacher guides and SLA. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 1-18.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamakazi, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Han, Z, (2002). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching, RELC Journal, 33 (1) 1-34.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19, 255-271.

Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gas, & C. Madden, Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia, Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.

Mackey, A., & Philip, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-56.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive international feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.

Mackey, A. & Silver, R. E. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239-60.

McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135-158.

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in secong language classrooms: integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Philip, J. (2003). Constraints on noticing the gap: Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the "noticing" hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.

Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 368-92.

Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty and M. Long (eds): Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 631-78.

Russell, V. (2014). A closer look at the output hypothesis: The effect of pushed output on noticing and inductive learning of the Spanish future tense. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 25-47.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shahraki, S; & Kassaian, Z. (2011). Effects of learner interaction, receptive and productive learning tasks on vocabulary acquisition: An Iranian case. Procedia,15, 2165-2171.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 72, 118-132.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.

Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36-62.

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

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer, Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.): Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 471_83.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.

Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.