Prompts And Recasts With Second Language Development In Dyadic Interaction

The relative effectiveness of different types of feedback continues to attract attention in the field of SLA inat least past two decades. A great number of studies，which always take the Interaction Hypothesis (Long,1996)and Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt,1990) as its theoretical framework, have recently investigated the effects ofdifferent types of feedback on L2development in both laboratory and classroom settings but outcomes are variedwith these different settings. Classroom intervention studies have led the way in comparing recasts with othertypes of feedback while the studies which focused on the effects of explicit and implicit forms of each feedbackon learners’ repair of the targeted form are not enough.According to the Interaction Hypothesis (Long,1996), native speakers of the target language or with morecompetent interlocutors makes it possible for second language learner to notice the discrepancies between theirinterlanguage form and the target-like form, because during interaction learners receive feedbacks which eithercontains modified input or pushes them to draw on their own resources for modified output. This studyinvestigated the differential effects of two major types of interactional feedback (prompts and recasts), in thecontext of dyadic interaction, on the acquisition of second language. The study takes the Interaction Hypothesisand Noticing Hypothesis as its theoretical framework. The study focused on the different ways in which eachfeedback is provided and their relationship with leaner repair of the linguistic forms and further explores how theexplicitness influences the effect of the recasts and prompts.The study entailed three testing stages: pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests1week after theimmediate posttests. Subjects in this study are a total of25junior secondary students (14females and11males)selected from of No.10Middle school of Lanzhou. In addition to the oral dyadic interaction, the research designincludes three other components: a written preinteraction scenario description component, an immediatepostinteraction error correction component, and a delayed error identification/correction component. During theoral dyadic interaction, the teachers have the option to use whichever feedback they feel appropriate and needed;the preinteraction picture description is intended to provide a measure of the learner’s prior use of the formstargeted in the course of interaction; the immediate postinteraction is used to ask the students to identify theerrors and then correct them; and the postinteraction error correction is intended to provide a measure of thelearners’ ability to successfully correct those forms after interaction.The findings of the study concerning the research questions are as follows： Firstly, the results of thepresent study showed that both prompts and recasts are effective on learning the targeted forms. However, learner seemed more likely to learn the target form if the corrections had been provided by prompts. Secondly,although both recasts and prompts had some effects on learning the targeted forms, in both conditions the moreexplicit resulted in higher rates of immediate and delayed postinteraction repair than its implicit forms.The present study explores the relationship between the type of feedback and the L2development withinthe theoretical framework of Interaction Hypothesis and further explores how the explicitness influences theeffect of the recasts and prompts. In doing so; it extends our knowledge of the relationship among correctivefeedback, noticing and second language acquisition. One suggestion is that both prompts and recasts areeffective on learning the targeted forms, however, learner seemed more likely to learn the target form if thecorrections had been provided by prompts; the other suggestion is that explicit forms of each feedback typeshould be provided as much as possible by the teacher.