Evaluation of Sheen (2006) by Sang-Ki

Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.


The study design and the main findings of Sheen (2006) are on the extension of other pioneering research on the descriptions of classroom interactions, where a special emphasis is laid on the role of recasts in learner uptake (e.g., Lyster 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mori, 2002). The most conspicuous point that would make this classroom observation study unique is that the researcher investigates the differential effects of types of recasts on learner uptake (and also on learner repair), by introducing the variable of “explicitness” to the extant literature on recasts in SLA. She argues that the previous understanding that recasts are implicit in nature should be reevaluated (see Long & Robinson’s (1998) definition), because recasts could exist on an implicit-explicit continuum. She argues further that explicit recasts, which are supposedly related to the psycholinguistic construct of “saliency,” would also be more beneficial for learner uptake and therefore have a potential benefit for subsequent acquisition. In this study a combination of such features as the length of recasts, the linguistic focus, the type of change, and others are thought to contribute to the extent to which recasts are explicit.

This study may be useful for our discussion in that it provides an extensive list of coding categories that would be employed in our future work. The coding schemes may leave room for scrutiny, however, and the examination into the schemes to find some necessary modifications would be a meaningful classroom exercise. Another merit of this study is its high readability. It is written in relatively simple language, having a logical thought flow in it.

Some issues remain open for further inquiry. One of the fundamental messages from the researcher is that the previous definitions of recasts, which tend to place an undue emphasis on the implicit nature of recasts, are questionable and should be reconsidered. However, I do not completely agree that the previous definitions (and actual research practices to date) do not recognize the potential for recasts to be more explicit. Rather, previous researchers have already suggested a possibility that there could be the explicit-implicit dimension of recasts (see Doughty & Varela, 1998). Additionally, the degree of explicitness is relative, and however explicit the recasts are, they will be relatively less explicit than other types of feedback, such as explicit correction with metalinguistic information. Another point that should be mentioned here is that the explicitness/implicitness of recasts was not a variable to be directly investigated by design, but was a corollary from in-depth analyses into the descriptive data obtained.

All in all, this article is very easy to read, interesting, and resourceful for further thinking as well as future research. If I have rating scales such as “highly recommended,” “recommended,” and “not recommended,” I would put my mark on the “recommended” option.