1887
image of The interaction between inhibitory control and corrective feedback timing
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article reports a study investigating the role of inhibitory control in the acquisition of Spanish noun-adjective gender agreement under different feedback timing conditions. Forty-three Spanish learners completed a communicative task through synchronous computer-mediated communication. The immediate group received reformulations immediately after their errors, whereas the delayed group received reformulations at the end of the task. The control group did not receive any feedback. Learners’ knowledge of the target form was assessed using oral production and grammaticality judgment tests at three different times: once before the treatment, once immediately after the treatment, and once ten days after the treatment. Inhibitory control was measured with the Flanker test. Results did not show a statistically significant interaction between inhibitory control and feedback timing group on either outcome measure even though the correlations between learners’ gains and inhibitory control were different across groups.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19010.yil
2019-09-04
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arroyo, D., & Yilmaz, Y.
    (2018) An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning. Advance online publication. 10.1111/lang.12300
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12300 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baddeley, A. D.
    (1986) Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baralt, M.
    (2013) The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. 10.1017/S0272263113000429
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000429 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartolotti, J., Marian, V., Schroeder, S. R., & Shook, A.
    (2011) Bilingualism and inhibitory control influence statistical learning of novel word forms. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–10. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00324
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00324 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S.
    (2011) Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language, Learning & Technology, 15. 41–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bialystok, E., Martin, M. M., & Viswanathan, M.
    (2005) Bilingualism across the lifespan: The rise and fall of inhibitory control. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 103–119. 10.1177/13670069050090010701
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090010701 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blake, R. J.
    (2000) Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V.
    (2011) Bilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension. Cognition, 118, 245–257. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  9. Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
    (2008) Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59–86. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Darcy, I., Mora, J. C., & Daidone, D.
    (2016) The role of inhibitory control in second language phonological processing. Language Learning, 66, 741–773. 10.1111/lang.12161
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12161 [Google Scholar]
  11. DeKeyser, R.
    (2012) Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00712.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00712.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Doughty, C.
    (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.206–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010 [Google Scholar]
  13. Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H.
    (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R.
    (2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. 10.1017/S0272263106060141
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141 [Google Scholar]
  15. Eriksen, B. A.; Eriksen, C. W.
    (1974) Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non- search task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149. 10.3758/BF03203267
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gass, S., & Mackey, A.
    (2006) Input, interaction and output: An overview. InK. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dörnyei (Eds.), AILA Review, (pp.3–17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gass, S., & Lee, J.
    (2011) Working memory capacity, inhibitory control, and proficiency in a second language. InM. Schmid & W. Lowie (Eds.), Modeling bilingualism: From structure to chaos (pp.59–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.43.06gas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.43.06gas [Google Scholar]
  18. Gass, S., Behney, J. N., & Uzum, B.
    (2013) Inhibitory control, working memory and L2 interaction. Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7, 91–114. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑23547‑4_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23547-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M.
    (2015) Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. InRebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.48.18goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.18goo [Google Scholar]
  20. Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y.
    (2018) Corrective feedback and the role of implicit sequence learning ability in L2 online performance. Language Learning, 69, 127–156. 10.1111/lang.12319
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12319 [Google Scholar]
  21. Green, D.
    (1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81. 10.1017/S1366728998000133
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M.
    (2014) Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37. 10.1017/S0272263113000363
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000363 [Google Scholar]
  23. Henderson, C.
    (2019) The effect of feedback timing on L2 Spanish vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Advance online publication. Language Teaching Research. doi:  10.1177/1362168819832907
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819832907 [Google Scholar]
  24. Iwasaki, J., & Oliver, R.
    (2003) Chat-line interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 60–73. 10.1075/aralss.17.05iwa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aralss.17.05iwa [Google Scholar]
  25. Jiang, N.
    (2012) Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kane, M. J. & Engle, R. W.
    (2003) Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70. 10.1037/0096‑3445.132.1.47
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, S.
    (2010) The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00561.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R.
    (2016) The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295. 10.1111/modl.12315
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12315 [Google Scholar]
  29. Linck, J. A., & Weiss, D. J.
    (2015) Can working memory and inhibitory control predict second language learning in the classroom?SAGE Open, October-December, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Loewen, S., & Erlam, R.
    (2006) Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14. 10.1080/09588220600803311
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220600803311 [Google Scholar]
  31. Long, M. H.
    (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Second language acquisition (pp.413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2007) Recasts in SLA: The story so far. InM. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp.75–116). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Long, M. H. & Robinson, P.
    (1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mackey, A., & Goo, J.
    (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Mackey, InA. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp.408–452). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Nassaji, H.
    (2016) Researching corrective feedback in interaction and instruction. Language Teaching Research, 20, 433–435. 10.1177/1362168816651018
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816651018 [Google Scholar]
  36. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T.
    (1986) Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. InR. Davidson, G. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro, (Eds.), Consciousness and self regulation: Advances in research and theory: Vol. 4 (pp.1–18). New York: Plenum. 10.1007/978‑1‑4757‑0629‑1_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0629-1_1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Quinn, P.
    (2014) Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto.
  38. Ranta, L. & R. Lyster
    (2007) A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness–practice–feedback sequence. InR. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp.141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667275.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.009 [Google Scholar]
  39. Révész, A., & Han, Z.
    (2006) Task content familiarity, task type and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15, 160–179. 10.2167/la401.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/la401.0 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sachs, R., & Suh, B.-R.
    (2007) Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. InA. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.199–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Schmidt, R. W.
    (2001) Attention. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S.
    (2016) The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 16, 296–319. 10.1111/modl.12317
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317 [Google Scholar]
  43. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Smith, B.
    (2003) The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29–53. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(02)00072‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00072-6 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sotillo, S. M.
    (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Warschauer, M.
    (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 470–481. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1997.tb05514.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Yilmaz, Y.
    (2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2010.01143.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01143.x [Google Scholar]
  48. (2012) The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00726.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00726.x [Google Scholar]
  49. (2016) The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 45–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D.
    (2011) Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477. 10.1177/1362168811412873
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412873 [Google Scholar]
  51. Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G.
    (2016) The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 147–161. 10.1017/S136672891400090X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891400090X [Google Scholar]
  52. Ziegler, N.
    (2015) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 558–586.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19010.yil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19010.yil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error