The Impact of Full and Partial Recast on Noticing of Iranian Basic EFL Learners

As many studies show, different corrective feedbacks have different effect on second language learning, hence this study is focused on the impact of different types of recast which are full and partial recast on noticing of the learners, in other word, the researcher intended to see which kind of recast resulted in better noticing on the part of learners. In doing so, it aims to help teachers to better understand the effectiveness of full recast and partial recast on noticing of learners. 32 EFL learners at the elementary level participated in the current research. They were divided in two different groups, one included 18 and the other 14 learners. Regarding data analysis, Paired-Samples t-test was run to analyze the data. The hypothesis of this study was retained, thereby showing there is no difference between full and partial recast in improving the learners’ noticing ability. Keywords: Corrective Feedback, Recast, Noticing Introduction Receiving feedback from teachers is an evitable part of class interactions. An important contribution of feedback is noticing. Receiving feedback from the teachers or a peer helps a learner to draw his/her attention to linguistic problems and notice gaps between what they have produced (ill form) and what they should produce (correct form) (Mackey, 2012). Studies on recast and its function are received a lot of attention in recent years. Corrective feedback can be categorized into different types, and the improvement of the output of learners in every type of corrective feedback may be different. Two important different types of corrective feedbacks are implicit and explicit corrective feedback, by which we can categorize all types of feedback (Ellis, 2011). He further argues that with regard to the implicit one, there is no overt indicator that an error has been committed, whereas in the explicit one there is an overt indicator. Implicit feedback often takes the form of recasts. Lightbown and Spada (1999) define corrective feedback as: Any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect. This includes various responses that the learners receive. When a language learner says, ‘He go to school everyday’, corrective feedback can be explicit, for example, ‘no, you should say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes he goes to school every day’, and may or may not include metalinguistic information, for example, ‘Don’t forget to make the verb agree with the subject’. (p. 171-172) Recast has been regarded as one of the most effective feedbacks over the recent decade. Researchers and scholars have studied various kinds of recasts, especially full and partial recast, and their effects on second language learning development. Recast can be classified into different types. As Gass and Selinker (2008) point out, recasts are complex, because of different types. The teacher may respond to an error by using one type or more. THE IMPACT OF FULL AND PARTIAL RECAST ON NOTICING International Conference on Language, Innovation, Culture and Education 29 & 30AUGUST, 2015 Susan M. Gass and Larry Selinker (2008) argue that “a recast is a reformulation of an incorrect utterance that maintains the original meaning of utterance” (p. 334). Recasts has some types, some types a learner in a sentence has an error that just by reformulating that single error, he or she can produce the correct form of sentence, so it is not necessary to repeat whole sentence for just a single error, but sometime it can make an ambiguity for learners, so full recast can be helpful. Susan M. Gass and Larry Selinker (2010) argue that” recasts are complex, for example, it is a partial recast? A full recast? A response to a single error or to multiple errors” (p.334). Robinson (2002, cited in Mackey, 2012, p. 20) considers “noticing to involve awareness and the rehearsal processes and suggests that the only input that receives attention and is encoded in working memory may be transferred to long-term memory”. In the present study, the noticing of the grammatical structures was operationally defined in a test where learners were supposed to identify the incorrect forms and write the correct ones. Objectives In this study the researcher is going to prove which type of recast (Full or Partial) has a superior impact on noticing of EFL basic level learners. Research Question The research question of the present study is: Do full recast and partial recast make a statistically significant difference in noticing sensed by the learners? Literature Review Learners receive well-formed and incorrect form while interacting. Doughty & Long (2003) elaborate on positive and negative evidence foster acquisition in the environment. Accordingly, they argue that learners are exposed to positive evidence in the form of wellformed sentences or models, while negative evidence is the type of information that is directly or indirectly given to the learners when they make an incorrect form of utterance in their interactional exchanges. Gough & Hatch (1975, cited in Doughty & Long, 2003) were among the pioneers who proposed the idea that language acquisition is fostered by the conversation. Earlier in this field, it was assumed that language acquisition is fostered by the modified input in the environment; i.e., when the NS or proficient speakers adjust their language to the level of low-level learners to make it more comprehensible. Interaction hypothesis Interaction hypothesis, proposed by Long (1981), is an extension of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (Mitchell and Myles 2004). He differs from Krashen on how input is made comprehensible. In Krashen’s view input becomes comprehensible as a result of simplification, while Long stresses the role of the international modification that occurs in negotiation of meaning when a communication problem arises. He believes that interactive input is more important than non-interactive input (Ellis, 1994). Interactional input plays an important role in L2 acquisition. Mitchell and Myles (2004) argue that the research into the role of international input in L2 acquisition has produced mixed results. For example, in a number of studies like the one by Loschky’s (1994) which involved the administration of listening comprehension to learners of Japanese as a foreign language, the results indicated that while interactional modification led to increase comprehension, they failed to show any link between increased comprehension and THE IMPACT OF FULL AND PARTIAL RECAST ON NOTICING International Conference on Language, Innovation, Culture and Education 29 & 30AUGUST, 2015 acquisition. Similar results were found in another study by Gass and Varonis (1994). The mixed results convinced Long to reformulate his interaction hypothesis recognizing the role of negative evidence in drawing learners’ attention to the structure of target language. Various views of Interaction There are different views and perspectives which consider language acquisition as social process. In the perspective of Piaget, different stages in the child development are hierarchically related to each other, so that moral reasoning presupposes role-taking skills which presupposes, in turn, logico-mathematical reasoning. In Vygotsky’s perspective, context-dependent and social interaction is primary in language acquisition. He claims that meaning is socially constructed and emerges out of the learner interactions with his/her environment (Vygotsky 1978, cited in Kaufman 2004). Vygotsky (1981, cited in De Vries, 2000) refers to the key construct of socio-cultural theory as mediation. He believes that learning occurs when biologically determined mental functions evolve into higher-order functions through social interaction. To him, mediation is social interaction that is brought about by creating tools. According to socio-cultural theory, functions are performed in collaboration with others. As Vygotsky puts it, any function in the child’s development appears on two planes of social and psychological one, it moves from inter-psychological to intra-psychological category. Interactionists agree with Krashen’s comprehensible input, but focus on the question of how input could be made comprehensible. In interactionist view, there is more than speaker modification or modified input in the form of simplification if one looks at the interactional structure in general. They claim that modified interaction is necessary for making language comprehensible. Simplification is not sufficient, but rather providing an opportunity to interact with other speakers makes input comprehensible. Modified interaction works better than simplification or pre-modification. During modified interaction, learners make use of the following strategies to remove the problematic areas in their interaction: comprehension checks, clarification requests or confirmation, self-repetition. So, the term interaction is different from input modifications that are the signs of foreigner talk which the adult provides some changes in the formal properties of utterances to learners. According to Doughty & Long (2003), interaction is not a forum for practice, but it forms a basis for development. Corrective Feedback The value of providing corrective feedback has been recognized by many researchers. Many scholars believe that for successful L2 learning (unlike L1learning) both positive evidence (examples showing what is correct) and negative evidence (showing learners what is not correct) are required (Ellis, 2005). According to White (1991) negative evidence is essential since the positive evidence in L2 acquisition setting is inadequate. The theoretical support for negative evidence comes from Schmidt’s (1990) how argues the importance of noticing and noticing-the-gap in L2 acquisition. According to this view, L2 acquisition is facilitated when the L2 learner notices the differences between what he says and what the native speakers