Exploring The Relationship Between Characteristics Of Recasts And Learner Noticing Of Error Correction

Recast is a frequently used type of corrective feedback in language classrooms. Nevertheless it is criticized for being indistinguishable from non-corrective repetition and reported to lead to the least uptake/repair. For the aforementioned reasons, it has generated considerable interest among second language researchers. However, how to assess the effectiveness of recasts is not resolved to date. Most descriptive classroom studies examined its impact from analyzing immediate reactions to recasts on the part of the individuals who were corrected, neglecting how recasts work to the rest of the class. Thereby, this study, as an empirical one, aims to tap how the peers/auditors in the classroom, instead of the originators of errors, perceive the recasts, and what characteristics of recasts affect its potential for being noticed as corrective rather than as confirmation of meaning.The researcher extracted 66 recast episodes and some other recast-free episodes (as distractors) from naturalistic English classrooms and involved 42 subjects at intermediate English language level. Subjects were required to view the videos of the episodes with or without recast and were informed beforehand that if a corrective behavior was discovered, they should pause the video and verbalize their thoughts.This study exploits in part a taxonomy of recast characteristics presented by Sheen (2006), namely, the number of moves, the length of recast, the use of reduction, the number of changes, the linguistic focus and the use of supra-segmental features. Pearson’s chi-square (x2) tests were computed to examine whether there were significant correlations between characteristics of recasts and learner noticing of recast as correction.Findings show that characteristics that were significantly related to the noticing were the number of moves (single vs. multiple moves), the use of reduction (partial vs. full recast), the number of changes (one vs. multiple changes), and the use of supra-segmental features (with vs. without). These results were discussed in terms of students’ allocation of attentional resources, their limitation of working memory, their developmental readiness for the acquisition of certain linguistic items and a general distinction between implicit and explicit recasts.The study suggests recasts should be made more explicit and salient to learners by adopting devices mentioned above (e.g. more moves, emphatic stress), so that they can lead to more accurate perception of recasts as "corrective" and as a result enhance the potential for learning.