University of Zawia

College of Arts
Department of English

Name : Safa Elmbrouk

Elseed
Assignment 3
Group :A

2016 2015

Teacher Recast in Second Language Classroom

Research question
What are the benefits of teacher recast in L2 classroom? and
? how the students perceive the teacher`s recast
During the process of teaching teachers need to give the students oral
feedback whether it is positive feedback or negative feedback and this might
affect on student`s learning . The learners require feedback on their error in
order to increase their ability to use a second language .Some teachers use
the recast in second language classroom to let their students attention about
something .
Definitions of recast :
Some of second language researchers have defined recasts as utterances
that repeat a learners incorrect utterance, making only the changes
necessary to produce a correct utterance without changing the meaning .
(Nicholas, Lightbown, and Spada). Lyster and Rantas (1997) defines the
recast as the teachers reformulation of all or part of a students utterance,
minus the error.
Types of feedback :
In classrooms the feedback differs from class to another for example in
some classrooms the primary focus is on form ,while the other classrooms
focus more on meaning rather than meaning .It is depending on the context
and the content of the classroom .

Focus on form is one of the feedback`s types which defined by (Long ,1998)
as interactional moves directed at raising learners awareness of forms . The
other type is focus on content feedback as they arise incidentally in lesson
whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication .
Ellis describes form-focused instruction as any planned or incidental
instructional activity that
is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic
form(Ellis 2001) .
Learner`s perspective about recast :
The teachers recast in second language classroom play a role in second
language acquisition as Long and Robinson ,1998 argued that recasts are
affective in showing learners how their current interlanguage differs from
the target . Although Doughty and Varelas pointed out that learners who
received corrective recast improved their second language acquisition
rather than learners who received no systematic corrective feedback .
Long and Robinson (1998) suggested that recast are an effective way of
providing learners with information about how their current inter language
differs from the target language .
(Truscott, 1999) believed that feedback lead to only superficial or
temporary changes in learners language performance and is not worth the
risk of negative affective reactions .
Doughty (1999) discusses cognitive explanations for the effectiveness of
recasts as examples of focus on form (Long, 1991) in L2 learning .
In a classroom in which the focus is usually on meaning rather than form or
in conversations outside the classroom, such responses to learner

utterances are even more likely to be interpreted as reactions to meaning

(Carroll, 1997; Lyster, 1998a).
In L2 research, the most often cited explanations of the benefits of recasts
are based on Schmidts (1990) noticing hypothesis, which suggests that in
order to acquire new linguistic features, learners must first notice these
features in the input .
Schachter (1981) pointed out that a recast could be interpreted by the
students as a conversational reply confirming the content of the learner`s
utterance rather than as a correction of its form. However ,teacher`s recast
might not be perceived by the learners as feedback on the form of
utterance . For example when the teachers gives students negative feedback
.
Negative feedback has long history in both first language acquisition and
second language acquisition (Sokolov and Snow,1994) .
Long (1996) and Robinson(1998) explored the learners perceptions about
conversational interaction involving recasts, which occur when an
interlocutor produces a more target like version of a learners utterance
while preserving the semantic content of the learners utterance.
Lyster (1998 ) argued that recasts are ambiguous and may be perceived by
the learner as confirmation of meaning rather than feedback on form .
In much of the L2 literature , assumed that recasts provide negative
evidence (Doughty and Varela, 1998; Long & Robinson, 1998; Oliver, 1995),
but this assumption is somewhat problematic.

Chaudron (1977) suggests that learners may better recognize repetition

with change and emphasis as feedback on form rather than feedback on
meaning .
Philp (1999) presented evidence that learners do notice feedback provided
in the context of conversational interaction .
The interpretations of why feedback might be expected to affect in learning
language positively are derived from several theoretical frame works
.Saxton (1997) in first language acquisition research proposed the direct
contrast hypothesis which he suggested that the provision of feedback
immediately following an erroneous child utterance was conducive to the
child`s perception of a contrast between the original utterance and the
adult form and its replacement by the correct one . In second language
research explanations of the benefits of recast are based on Schmidt (1990)
who suggests that in order to acquire new linguistic features learners must
first notice these features in the input .
In some interpretations of a Universal Grammar model of language
acquisition, it might be hypothesized that any effectiveness of recasts is not
due to their role as negative evidence(i.e., information about what is not
acceptable in the target language) rather they simply provide positive
evidence (i.e., examples of acceptable target language sentences). From
this perspective, learners have no conscious awareness that the recast is
intended as corrective, and the benefit of the recast would be that the
appropriate positive evidence was present in an accessible way in the input
the learner was exposed to .If the learners explains the feedback as
corrective the impact on their inter language would be superficial affecting

performance but ,not leading to the change in the underlying inter

language competence (Schwartz ,1993) .
The assumptions of the connection between interaction and learning .
Firstly ,through the interaction some aspect of learner`s may become focus
on the parts of their language that deviate from target language morns or
that through interaction attention may be focused on forms not yet in the
learners current repertoire . A second assumption is that this attention or
noticing of the gap between learner language forms and target language
forms, is a step toward change (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) .
Philp suggested that three factors may constrain noticing of recasts .The
first factor , the limited capacity of short-term memory, the second factor ,
the learners prior familiarity with the input, and the third factor ,
processing constraints that may bias the learners apperception of the
recast (Gass, 1988, 1997) .
Gass and Varonis (1994) explained negotiated interaction can crucially
focus the learners
attention on the parts of the discourse that are problematic, either from a
productive or a receptive point of view .
Mackey (1999) pointed out the direct exploration of the relationship
between conversational interaction and second language development. In
her suggestion she found a positive relationship between interaction and
development in that learners who were actively involved in the interaction
produced more developmentally advanced structures than learners who did
not take part in any interaction or who were less actively involved in the
interaction .

Some teachers use the recast in second language classroom to let their
students attention about something .
Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1995) argued that attention is necessary for learning.
Robinson (1996) examined the effects of four task conditions that aimed to
differentially manipulate the focus of learner attention during exposure to
targeted Second language structures differing in complexity .
Attention allows learners to notice a gap between what they produce/know
and what is produced by the speakers of the second language . The
perception of a gap or mismatch may lead to grammar restructuring (Gass
and Varonis 1994: 299).
Gass and Mackey note that the interaction itself may also direct learners
attention to something new, such as a new lexical item or grammatical
construction, thus promoting
the development of the L2.
These explanations about the attention and noticing are important for
second language acquisition .

The references :
Gass, S. and E. Varonis. 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 283302.
Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah. NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Lyster, R. 1998a. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse, Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 20: 5181.
Mackey, A. 1999. Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical
study of
question formation in ESL, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 55787.
Schmidt, R. and S. Frota. 1986. Developing basic conversational ability in a second
language :A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese in R. Day (ed.): Talking to learn:
Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 237326 .
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning, Applied
Linguistics11: 12958.
Spada, N. and P. M. Lightbown. 1993. Instruction and the development of questions in
L2
classrooms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 20524.
Philp, J. (1999). Interaction, noticing, and second language acquisition: An examination
of learners noticing . of recasts in task-based interaction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Tasmania, Australia.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit,
incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
18, 2767.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence
and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147165.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second
Language Research, 14, 103135.

Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in Second

Language Acquisi-tion, 17, 459-481.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form (pp. 15-41). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24,
139161.
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language
Research, 7, 89-102.
Doughty, C. (1999). The cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. University of Hawaii
Working Papers in ESL, 18, 169.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of
learners errors. Language Learning, 27, 2946.
Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of
form in communicative classrooms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 3766.
Sokolov, J. L., & Snow, C. E. (1994). The changing role of negative evidence in theories
of language development. In C. Galloway & B. J. Richards (Eds.), Input and interaction in
language acquisition (pp. 38-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 2001. Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction, Language Learning
51/Supplement 1: 146.
Doughty,C.,&Varela, E. (1998).Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114138). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.