Evaluation of Ellis and Sheen (2006) by Kevin

Ellis and Sheen (2006) Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition. SSLA, 28, 575-600

This article assesses the current state of research concerning recasts. The authors identify and suggest solutions for several types of problems that have occurred in many studies to date. Specifically, they are argue that there are a variety of recast forms and functions and these are often not taken into account; the type of corrective strategy being studied, that is (implicit or explicit/negative or positive) is often unclear; social and sociocognitive perspectives are often not considered or factored into results; the significance of learner repair following recasts has not been examined in enough detail; developmental readiness should be investigated more thoroughly as a factor in acquisition by recast; other corrective strategies (such as elicitation, clarification requests, translation, metalinguistic feedback) have not received as much attention as recasts in the research literature.

One important issue that the article brings up is the question of classifying recasts. I think many of us tend to use the word recast to cover a huge group of varied corrective feedback. Should we classify types of recasts and treat them as separate types of one phenomenon for research purposes? The authors mention several types of recasts including repetition, reformulation, corrective and non-corrective, full or partial, single or multiple, simple complex and context-dependant. Clearly, the types of recasts listed above are not all equally effective and researchers should be aware of these distinctions when planning research. In addition to types of recasts, other factors also complicate the definition of a recast. Feedback can be in the form of addition, deletion, substitution or reordering. The student/teacher orientation must be taken into account in terms of whether the language is being treated as an object or for message conveyance; Is the recast didactically or communicatively motivated? The authors suggest the possibility of classifying in relation to effects recasts have on acquisition or successful uptake.

Another question that has been addressed, but not adequately, according to the researchers, is whether or not recasts are implicit or explicit forms of feedback. The authors state that it often depends on the linguistic or discourse context and that researchers should be more aware of this fact. Another interesting and related question is whether or not recasts result in metalinguistic awareness or an internalization of rules without being consciously aware of a rule or pattern. The research up to this point does not give a clear picture. Are implicit recasts noticed as being corrections or something else? The larger question posed here concerns the relationship between noticing and recasts. To what degree are the different types of recasts noticed? Is noticing a factor in acquisition by recasts? Added to this are the roles of positive and negative evidence and the further complicating effect that they have on the type of recast being used. The authors state tentatively that positive evidence arises naturally and may or may not be noticed and acquired and negative evidence is explicit feedback. The recast itself could be both, depending on the learner interpretation and the discourse context.

Having established that recasts come in many sizes shapes and forms, the authors address the most important question of all; Do recasts facilitate acquisition? That is, should we even bother?
The research to date shows that there is certainly potential, especially if the recast focuses on a single feature or is emphasized in some way. The research is inconclusive. A numbers of factors seem to contribute to the effectiveness of recasts for facilitating acquisition. The literacy or proficiency as well as the learner’s orientation may also affect recast effectiveness and should be taken into account when deciding on a recast strategy. Individual learner differences, type of recast, target of the recast, developmental readiness of the learner also appear to be part of the picture, but to what extent is not know at this point. Several questions remain; Is uptake and repair dependant on instructional and social context? . Is noticing present only if uptake and repair is present? Does subsequent usage of correct forms contribute to acquisition?

A lot of ideas are covered in this article, each one worthy of a long discussion. It may help to summarize some of the main ideas. This is done below:

1. Recasts come in a variety of forms and should not be treated as homogeneous
2. Recasts can be functionally different and this may affect acquisition.
3. Recast can be considered explicit as well as implicit feedback
4. Learner orientation is a factor in deciding if recasts can be considered positive or negative feedback.
5. Learners may not recognize corrective force of recasts
6. Socio-psychological factors, individual learner differences, target language and developmental readiness may determine receptiveness
7. The role of uptake is uncertain
8. Research tends to focus on focused recasts. These results cannot be applied to classroom situations where recasts are extensive.
9. No clear evidence that recasts work better for acquisition than other forms of interaction.

In terms of our previous discussion about effectiveness, the authors define an effective recast as one that facilitates acquisition. I recommend this article for inclusion in the reading packet.