Recasts in the Adult English L2

Classroom: Characteristics,
Explicitness, and Effectiveness
SHAWN LOEWEN JENEFER PHILP
Department of Applied Language Studies and Department of Applied Language Studies and
Linguistics Linguistics
University of Auckland University of Auckland
PB 90219 PB 90219
Auckland Auckland
New Zealand New Zealand
Email: s.loewen@auckland.ac.nz Email: j.philp@auckland.ac.nz

A number of descriptive studies of language classrooms have identified recasts as a frequent

form of feedback used by teachers following learners’ nontarget-like oral production. Some
classroom-based researchers (e.g., Lyster, 1998) have suggested that recasts are less effective
than other forms of feedback because of the ambiguity of their potentially corrective pur-
pose. The present study focused on both the provision and the effectiveness of recasts in 12
adult English second language classrooms throughout 17 hours of meaning-based interaction.
There were 12 teachers and 118 learners who participated, with class sizes ranging from 6
to 14 students. Comparisons involving the incidence of recasts, elicitation, and metalinguis-
tic feedback, together with learner responses (e.g., successful uptake) following these types
of feedback, revealed that recasts were widely used and, similar to other types of corrective
feedback, were beneficial at least 50% of the time, as measured by posttests. The recasts dif-
fered according to characteristics that emphasized their corrective purpose. Logistic regression
analysis revealed certain characteristics that were associated with successful uptake and with
accuracy on posttests. Stress, declarative intonation, one change, and multiple feedback moves
were predictive of successful uptake, whereas interrogative intonation, shortened length, and
one change were predictive of the accuracy of the test scores. This study suggests that recasts
vary in implicitness and that these differences may have an impact on their effectiveness, both
in terms of learners’ successful uptake and subsequent use. Moreover, the ambiguity of recasts
is greatly reduced by the phrasal, prosodic, and discoursal cues that teachers provide. The
effectiveness of recasts is likely to be affected by these cues and other factors, such as degree of
difference between the recast and the nontarget-like utterance.

THEORETICAL ARTICLES AND RECENT RE-
views of empirical research involving instructed
second language acquisition (SLA) have provided
strong support for the assertion that learners ben-
efit from some kind of focus on linguistic form
in classrooms, in addition to meaning-focused
communication (Doughty & Williams, 1998b; El-
lis, 2001; Long, 1991, 1996; Long & Robinson,
1998; Morris & Tarone, 2003; Norris & Ortega,
2000; Spada, 1997). Long (1991) defined focus
The Modern Language Journal, 90, iv, (2006)
0026-7902/06/536–556 $1.50/0


C 2006 The Modern Language Journal
on form as “overtly draw[ing] student’s attention
to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in
lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning and
communication” (pp. 45–46). He emphasized the
importance of attention to form in the context
of a primary focus on meaning (see also Long
& Robinson, 1998). Such a focus on form is of-
ten identified with the incidental feedback that
teachers provide students during communicative
language use (Ellis, 2001; Ellis, Basturkmen, &
Loewen, 2001; Long, 1991, 1996).
In instructional settings, corrective feedback
provided as learners attempt to use the target
language (TL) verbally1 ranges in explicitness
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp
and serves to identify problems of either appro-
priateness or accuracy in communication (Ellis,
2001; Seedhouse, 1997; van Lier, 1988). At one
end of a continuum, explicit feedback is overtly
corrective, marking the learner’s production as
nontarget-like. Such feedback may include pro-
vision of the target-like form in addition to met-
alinguistic “comments, information or questions
related to the well-formedness of the learner’s
utterance” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 47). The
provision of explicit information about the prob-
lematic linguistic form (termed inform by El-
lis et al., 2001; Loewen, 2004) is apparent in
Example 1.2 (See Appendix A for transcription
conventions.)
Such explicit feedback switches the focus of in-
teraction from meaning to form. In contrast, im-
plicit feedback retains the focus on meaning by
implying rather than overtly stating the existence
of an error (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006). This
use of implication can involve eliciting the correc-
tion from the student(s) themselves, for example,
via full or partial repetition of the learner’s ut-
terance (S: “yesterday she go,” T: “she?”; see Lyster,
1998). Implicit feedback can also take the form
of recasts, in which the target-like form is pro-
vided, not elicited. Recasts are TL reformulations
by the interlocutor of a learner’s nontarget-like
utterances that retain the central meaning while
changing the form of the utterance (Long, 1996),
as shown in Example 2. The recast functions both
to confirm the meaning of the student’s utterance
and to correct the form.
Recasts may draw the learners’ attention to the
inconsistency between their utterances and the
TL forms (Long & Robinson, 1998). In instruc-
tional contexts, recasts are usually incidental to
the discourse; that is, they are not preplanned by
the teacher, but arise in response to the language
the student produces. In many meaning-oriented
language classrooms, recasts comprise a large per-
centage of the types of corrective feedback of-
fered by teachers (Donato, 1994; Doughty, 1994;
Ellis et al., 2001; Loewen, 2002, 2004; Lyster &
Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 2000; Panova & Lyster, 2002;
Seedhouse, 1997).3 Although numerous experi-
mental studies have shown beneficial effects of re-
casts in interactional contexts (Han, 2002; Ishida,
Example 1
Student (S): uh didn’t work well (·) it must be rip=ded rip=ded
Teacher (T): so you need a noun now
S: it must be rip=ded
T: it must be a rip off
537
2004; Iwashita, 2003; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Philp,
2003), few have gone beyond description to con-
sider the effectiveness of recasts in instructional
settings (exceptions include Doughty & Varela,
1998; Lyster, 2004; Mackey, in press; Nabei, 2002).
Furthermore, the majority of these studies have in-
vestigated what Ellis (2001) referred to as planned,
rather than incidental , focus on form.4
DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS
The characteristics and contexts of second lan-
guage (L2) recasts have been defined in different
ways in prior scholarly literature (Nicholas, Light-
bown, & Spada, 2001). In the present study, we fo-
cus on the incidence and effectiveness of recasts
in the adult L2 classroom. In instructional con-
texts, recasts represent a form of feedback that is
pedagogically expeditious: A recast is time-saving,
less threatening to student confidence, and less
disruptive of the flow of interaction than, for
example, elicitation of self-repair. Unlike explicit
correction, recasts maintain the focus on mean-
ing. Recasts also allow the teacher to maintain
control. It is perhaps for these reasons that re-
casts are so frequent in many language classrooms
(Long, in press).
In defining recasts, we take as central, first,
that recasts are generally provided incidentally
in the course of meaning-focused interaction
in response to nontarget-like learner utterances.
Second, recasts retain the central meaning of the
learner’s utterance while changing lexical, mor-
phosyntactic, or phonological form (Long, 1996).
Finally, recasts provide both positive evidence (ex-
emplifying what is possible in the TL) and neg-
ative feedback (implying what is not possible)
rather than providing overt correction (stating
what is not possible; see Long & Robinson, 1998;
Nicholas et al., 2001).5
POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS
OF RECASTS
In both first language (L1) and L2 acquisition
research, two characteristics common to all re-
casts, juxtaposition and contingency, ostensibly
more explicit feedback
538
Example 2
S: to her is good thing (·) to her is good thing
T: yeah for her it’s a good thing
S: because she got a lot of money there
facilitate noticing problematic forms in the
learner’s production (Long, 1996; Nicholas et
al., 2001; Philp, 2003; Saxton, 1997). First, re-
casts serve to juxtapose the incorrect forms with
the correct forms, which provides both a model
and a contrast with the learner’s nontarget-like
utterance because they immediately follow the
learner’s ill-formed utterance (Saxton, 1997). Re-
casts are contingent on what the learner pro-
duces and, for this reason, are congruent with the
learner’s production and are not just the teacher’s
own pedagogic focus.6 The timing of recasts is im-
portant because it is while focused on meaning
and use that the learner receives feedback on how
to communicate that meaning (Doughty, 2001;
Gass & Varonis, 1994; Long, 1996). Thus, the po-
tential of interaction to facilitate acquisition lies
both in timing and context. Interactional modifi-
cations, such as those in Example 3, draw learn-
ers’ attention to problems in their interlanguage
at the very point when the learners’ production
or representation of the L2 is at odds with the TL
form (Ellis, 1991; Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Gass &
Varonis, 1994; Long, 1996; Mackey, 1999, in press;
Pica, 1994).
It has been hypothesized that such feedback al-
lows the learner to map form to meaning, rather
than focusing on form as a discrete element
(Doughty, 2001). Doughty observed that, because
explicit correction breaks into the learner’s en-
coding of an utterance, it is intrusive to learning,
whereas implicit correction allows the learner to
integrate new linguistic information as he or she
continues to speak.
It is important to point out that recasts may
be of benefit only if they are noticed by the
learner (Philp, 2003; Schmidt, 1990, 1993, 2001).
Long (1996) noted that the selective attention
of the learner is of fundamental importance in
the connection between conversational interac-
tion and acquisition (Ellis, 1991; Gass, 1991; Gass
& Varonis, 1994; Long, 1996; Schmidt, 1990,
Example 3
S: yeah and uh when they went to the bank (·) the gateway and they stu- stu- in
T: got stuck recast
S: got stuck on the rova (·) ro: (revolving door)
The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
recast
1994, 2001; Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Schmidt
(2001) described noticing as a “first step in lan-
guage building” (p. 31) that is, in integrating
new language within the interlanguage system.
He claimed that it is only what the learner no-
tices about the input that holds potential for learn-
ing. In particular, learners need to notice the gap
between their interlanguage forms and the TL
form (Doughty, 2001; Ellis, 1991; Gass & Varonis,
1994; Philp, 2003). Thus, in exploring the ben-
efits of recasts, it is important to consider what
aspects of recasts highlight the changes made to
nontarget-like production. Certain elements may
increase the salience of the recast, that is, help to
draw the learner’s attention to the recast form.
We will discuss these characteristics in a later
section.
Although according to some researchers,
recasts facilitate noticing linguistic items in pro-
ductive ways, other researchers take a more pes-
simistic view of their effectiveness (e.g., Lyster,
1998; Panova & Lyster, 2002). In instructional set-
tings, the transience of recasts may mean that they
pass unnoticed. In addition, as other learners take
the subsequent turn or as the teacher moves on
to the content at hand, the opportunity to notice
or incorporate the recast verbally disappears. In
light of research in an immersion context, with rel-
atively large numbers of young learners (in classes
of 24–30 students), Lyster (1998) suggested that
feedback options more explicit than recasts are
preferable. He discovered that teachers left many
errors uncorrected and also repeated correct ut-
terances as often as they recast incorrect utter-
ances. Given these similar response patterns for
both correct and incorrect utterances, Lyster and
Ranta (1997) concluded that recasts, because they
are implicit, are unlikely to benefit learners, who
may experience difficulty in differentiating posi-
tive and negative feedback.
The ambiguity of recasts in instructional con-
texts has been noted often (B. Allwright, 1984;
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp
R. Allwright, 1975; Calvé, 1992; Chaudron, 1977;
Doughty & Williams, 1998a; Fanselow, 1977; Long,
in press; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Morris & Tarone,
2003; Nicholas et al., 2001). Lyster (2004) assessed
the effectiveness of recasts over prompts, that is,
elicitation of self-repair, following a 5-week period
of classroom-based instruction in eight fifth-grade
classes. On written tasks, the group receiving
form-focused instruction (FFI) with prompts out-
performed the group receiving FFI with recasts.
On oral tasks, these groups performed similarly,
and all FFI groups outperformed the control
group. The superiority of explicit instruction may
be particularly characteristic of immersion classes
with young learners, in which there is little or no
attention to form and all focus is on content. In
this case, it seems, young learners are unlikely to
attend to form. Yet, in language classrooms, there
is an underlying, pervasive understanding that
the main purpose is to learn the TL rather than
any academic content. In principle, this under-
standing orients the attention of all participants
to form, even in communicatively oriented class-
rooms (Batstone, 2002). In summary, although
recasts can be ambiguous as corrective feedback,
the likelihood of their effectiveness depends on
various factors: the classroom context (including
both the age of participants and the extent to
which language is a focus of study), the context of
the recast within the discourse, and variable ele-
ments of the recast itself, which we will discuss in
the next section of this article.
A second limitation of recasts, which Lyster and
colleagues (Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997;
Panova & Lyster, 2002) pointed out, concerns
learner repair. According to these researchers,
recasts are less beneficial than elicitation moves
because, with recasts, the teacher solves the prob-
lem for the learners and the learners are under no
compulsion to modify their own utterance or to
produce “pushed output” (Swain, 1985, p. 249).
Given Swain’s (1985, 1995, 2000) output hypoth-
esis, opportunity for self-repair is an important
consideration. However, although elicitation pro-
vides greater opportunity for either self-repair or
other-repair, this opportunity is not always real-
ized because self-repair requires at least latent
knowledge of the targeted linguistic form (Long,
in press). In such cases, recasts may follow unsuc-
cessful self-repair, and the teacher’s recast resolves
the knowledge gap (Loewen, 2002).
Many researchers have used the learner’s imme-
diate response to feedback, or uptake, as a measure
of effectiveness (e.g., Chaudron, 1977; Loewen,
2004; Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Recasts
are generally less effective than other forms of
539
feedback in promoting uptake, although the ef-
fects are by no means negligible (usually reported
at about 30% despite occasional/frequent lack
of opportunity for uptake, see Oliver, 2000). Al-
though uptake following an elicitation generally
demonstrates whether a learner has grasped the
problem or not, this result is not necessarily true
of uptake following recasts. Indeed, Mackey and
Philp (1998) suggested that responses to recasts
are not indicative of the effects of recasts on L2
acquisition. In experimental research involving
dyadic task-based interaction with intensive re-
casts, these investigators uncovered no difference
in spontaneous production of targeted forms for
immediate or delayed posttests between L2 learn-
ers who responded to recasts and those who did
not. Although pushed output and, by implication,
other types of moves that promote pushed output
may be useful in acquisition (Swain, 1995), the
utility of these methods does not negate the effec-
tiveness of recasts (Long, in press).
When considering the limitations of recasts,
one should also note that, depending on the tar-
geted form, they may be differentially beneficial
(Ellis & Sheen, in press; Long, 1996; Mackey, Per-
due, & McDonough, 2000). In the few experimen-
tal studies that have included pre- and posttest
measures, recasts have proved to be beneficial for
some particular forms but not for other forms7
(Iwashita, 1999; Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998;
Mackey & Philp, 1998; Mackey, Philp, Egi, Fu-
jii, & Tatsumi, 2002; Ono & Witzel, 2003; Ortega,
1999). There is some indication that recasts may
be of greater benefit for salient, meaning-bearing
forms than for nonsalient forms (Ortega & Long,
1997; Long, in press). Studies that have examined
learners’ perceptions of recasts as corrective feed-
back indicate differences attributable to linguistic
focus (Mackey et al., 2000).
CHARACTERISTICS OF RECASTS THAT MAY
INFLUENCE BENEFITS
This section considers various characteristics
of recasts that may influence their effectiveness
in the classroom. The instructional context af-
fects both the provision and recognition of re-
casts as feedback (Morris & Tarone, 2003; Oliver
& Mackey, 2003; Seedhouse, 1997; van Lier, 1988).
Although recasts are incidental and provide im-
plicit negative feedback, they may range in de-
gree of explicitness and salience. The number of
feedback moves, prosodic cues, repetition, length
of recast, number of changes, and segmentation
are all features that can affect the degree of
540
implicitness in a recast. We will discuss these char-
acteristics in turn.
Number of Feedback Moves
One way that recasts become more salient is
through the number of feedback moves (also re-
ferred to as “response moves,” Loewen, 2002, p.
119). Following a learner’s nontarget-like utter-
ance, a teacher may provide more than one kind
of feedback move, for example, an elicitation fol-
lowed by a recast, as shown in Example 4.
In this case, the student first heard the correct
word bullet in the preceding turn (l. 2), yet pro-
duces blood (l. 3). The teacher elicits self-repair
from the student (l. 4), who unsuccessfully mod-
ifies his original pronunciation (l. 5). After the
student fails to self-repair, the student’s attempt is
recast by the teacher; the student then repeats it
in the following turn (l. 7). Clearly, the student is
led through a series of moves to notice the recast
bullet, and he successfully uptakes or incorporates
into his production the correct linguistic form.
It can be argued that the recast in Example 4 is
more explicit as corrective feedback than are iso-
lated recasts.
As Seedhouse (1997) and van Lier (1988) re-
minded us, recasts arise within an entire body of
discourse, and it is important, therefore, to con-
sider them within the interactional organization
of the classroom. When a recast is part of a length-
ened “focus on form episode” (FFE; Ellis et al.,
2001, p. 294) with more than three turns, as in
Example 4, the FFE may have added value; that
is, there is potentially increased learner engage-
ment with the targeted form (Fortune & Thorp,
2001). Implicit negative feedback may give rise to
an extended sequence of turns, in which the fo-
cus is no longer on the task but on form itself, in
other words, negotiation of form (Swain & Lap-
kin, 2001), as is apparent in Example 4.
Recasts may also be given increased value within
the same turn. Doughty and Varela (1998), in a
quasi-experimental study involving two intact ju-
Example 4
1 T: you have to tell this story to S okay (·) not your story (·) you’re
2 telling the story “girl had bullet in her scalp”
3 S: the title of the story is girl had blood in her scalp
4 T: blood? elicitation
5 S: bloot
6 T: bullet bullet= recast
7 S: =bullet bullet in her scalp is about is about
The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
nior high school science classes with a total of 34
students, employed corrective recasts, in which the
recasts were first preceded by the repetition of the
error. In their view, prior repetition of the error
reduces the ambiguity of the recast as corrective
feedback and draws the learner’s attention to the
problematic form. Their study revealed a clear ef-
fect for corrective recasts on both oral and written
production, which was sustained over time. The
findings suggest a beneficial effect in the combi-
nation of drawing learners’ attention to the error
and then recasting; they also demonstrate the pos-
sibility of focusing on both content and form.
Prosodic Emphasis
Another way in which the recaster may cue the
learner to the particular problem is by means of
prosodic emphasis, whereby a particular word or
morpheme is stressed, as in Example 5. This tech-
nique is used particularly for phonological prob-
lems, but as this example shows, it can also be used
for morphosyntactic items.
Although a number of studies have noted the
presence of prosodic stress (Chaudron, 1977;
Sheen, 2004), with the exception of Chaudron’s
early research, this feature has not been examined
as a variable in classroom studies of recasts.
Intonation
Recasts provided in the context of conversa-
tion are often part of negotiation sequences and
function as confirmation checks, with interroga-
tive intonation (i.e., “Is this what you mean?”), as
in Example 6. In such cases, it may be unclear
whether the interlocutor fails to understand the
speaker or is simply correcting the form of the
utterance. An interrogative recast is ambiguous
as corrective feedback because the learner may
interpret it either as corrective or as a request
to confirm the intended meaning. In Example
6, perhaps it was the latter because the learner
simply repeats rather than modifies his initial ut-
terance.
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp
Example 5
S: some people have racism
T: some people ARE racist stressed recast
S: are racist
In instructional contexts, a recast is more fre-
quently delivered as a declarative (authoritative)
statement, as shown in Example 5, than as a ques-
tion, with rising intonation (Lyster, 1998; Sheen,
in press), as shown in Example 6. The didactic
force of a recast is, thus, signaled by intonation,
with declarative recasts being arguably more ex-
plicit as corrective feedback than interrogative re-
casts because they do not suggest a choice for the
learner to accept or refute. Alternatively, declara-
tive recasts may be interpreted in the same way as
a teacher’s repetition of learners’ TL forms (see
Lyster, 1998) and, thus, may function just as im-
plicitly for the learner.
Segmentation
Another feature of recasts in classrooms is seg-
mentation. Previously identified as partial recasts
(Roberts, 1995) and recasts with reduction (Lyster,
1998; Sheen, in press), segmentation may also re-
duce the ambiguity of a recast, as in Example 7, in
which the teacher segments the problematic form
(racist) and recasts it in isolation (racism).
In previous studies, segmentation varied ac-
cording to the type of classroom, representing
from 22%–24% (Chaudron, 1977; Lyster, 1998)
to 50% (Roberts, 1995) to 84% (Sheen, 2004) of
recasts provided.
Number of Changes and Length of Recast
Other factors that appear to affect learners’
noticing and responses to recasts center on the
relationship of the recast to the original utter-
ance, including such factors as number of changes
(i.e., the degree of difference between the recast
and the original utterance) and length of the
recast. Previous experimental research has sug-
gested that the fewer the changes and the shorter
Example 6
T: okay, S do you know this story?
S: finish
T: finished? interrogative recast
S: finish
541
Example 7
S1: yeah
S2: no racist not like uh racist
T: racism segmented recast
S1: racis this country
the recast, the more likely one is to notice it
(Egi, 2004; Philp, 2003). The distinction between
length of recast and segmentation is an important
one because segmentation potentially pinpoints
the problem for the learner. Although segmented
recasts are always short, not all short recasts are
necessarily segmented.
It appears, then, that in the classroom, the am-
biguity of recasts can be greatly reduced by the
phrasal, prosodic, and discoursal cues that teach-
ers provide. Nicholas et al. (2001), in their review
of the literature on recasts, recognized the degree
to which recasts may vary:
Recasts are distinguished from other kinds of focus-
on-form procedures because they are not explicit, do
not isolate the features of language form that are the
focus of the feedback, and do not interrupt—even
briefly—the flow of meaningful interaction. The ex-
ception may be recasts that are accompanied by some
sort of overt signal. (pp. 234–235)
The effectiveness of recasts is likely to be affected
by the features described above and other factors,
such as degree of difference between the recast
and the nontarget-like utterance.
MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
RECASTS
To date, the effectiveness of recasts in class-
room contexts has been measured in various ways
(Nicholas et al., 2001), including (a) the learner’s
immediate response to the recast, that is, uptake
(e.g., Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova &
Lyster, 2002); (b) the use of uptake charts follow-
ing a lesson (Nabei, 2002); (c) spontaneous pro-
duction of the recast form elicited in task-based
interaction (e.g., Egi, 2004; Lyster, 2004; Mackey
& Philp, 1998); (d) elicited production of the
targeted form in tailor-made individualized tests
(Egi, 2004; Loewen, 2002, 2005; Nabei & Swain,
2001); and (e) use of indirect tests, such as gram-
maticality judgment tests that seek to access learn-
ers’ underlying knowledge of a form (Ellis et al.,
2006; Long et al., 1998; Lyster, 2004; Nabei, 2002).
Although each of these methods has disadvan-
tages, the use of successful uptake as a measure
of effectiveness is particularly problematic in the
case of recasts. Uptake does not indicate the status
542
of the learner’s knowledge: whether it reflects the
acquisition of new knowledge or the activation of
latent knowledge (Long, in press). In addition,
the noticing of recasts is not contingent on up-
take (Mackey & Philp, 1998). In interaction, re-
casts require neither a response nor a self-repair
from the learner; rates of repair following re-
casts vary considerably, with low rates reported in
some school settings (Havranek, 2002; Lyster &
Ranta, 1997) and higher rates reported among
adults and young children (Braidi, 2002; Ellis
et al., 2001; Oliver, 1995). Nevertheless, the pro-
duction of successful uptake provides an indica-
tion that the learner has noticed the recast (Ellis
et al., 2001; Lightbown, 1998; Loewen, 2004).
The term uptake has also been used to refer
to uptake charts in which learners register after
a lesson the linguistic forms noticed during the
lesson (B. Allwright, 1984; Ellis, 1994; Slimani,
1989); however, such charts do not measure use
per se and require the learner to articulate what
was noticed. Spontaneous production of the re-
cast item in pre- and posttests has the advantage of
reflecting acquisition, yet it is best suited to the use
of preselected forms because incidental focus on
form is unpredictable (Swain, 2001). Similarly, in-
direct tests, such as grammaticality judgment tests,
in which learners evaluate the correct or incorrect
use of pretargeted forms, necessitate preselection
of the linguistic items.
The use of tailor-made tests, in which individ-
ual test items are made for each student depend-
ing on the forms arising in FFEs specific to each
student, allows for the testing of incidental focus
on form (Egi, 2004; Loewen, 2002, 2005; Nabei
& Swain, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2001).
These tests tend to require the learner to cor-
rect the nontarget-like utterances on which they
had previously received corrective feedback. Such
tests assess the effectiveness of incidental focus
on form in terms of learners’ ability to recall
the linguistic information provided in the recasts
(Loewen, 2002, 2005). However, in the absence
of pretests, such measures cannot provide infor-
mation about learners’ previous knowledge of the
forms and, thus, cannot differentiate between the
acquisition of new knowledge and the consolida-
tion of latent knowledge. As Loewen (2002) ar-
gued, for individual testing, “the FFE itself has
to serve as a type of pre-test, indicating students’
lack of prior knowledge or ability regarding the
targeted linguistic item” (p. 83). Although these
tests may not capture acquisition of new linguis-
tic knowledge (Long, in press), they can inform
us about learners’ ability to use demonstrably
The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
problematic forms subsequent to the provision of
feedback.
RESEARCH NEEDED
The distinctions discussed in the preceding sec-
tion suggest greater variety among recasts in in-
structional settings than has been acknowledged
in research (Ellis & Sheen, in press; Sheen, in
press), although earlier research recognized that
there are such distinctions. Chaudron (1977), for
example, distinguished among recasts with dif-
ferent features, such as emphasis (stress) and re-
duction (segmentation). Recasts may become less
implicit as a consequence of the turns that pre-
cede or follow them and by either prosodic or
segmental cues the teacher provides within them.
Therefore, when considering the effectiveness of
recasts, it is important to investigate the impact
of their different characteristics (Nicholas et al.,
2001).
Conflicting findings across classroom-based
and experimental studies on the benefits of re-
casts for L2 acquisition call for further, more de-
tailed research, particularly in classroom contexts
(Nicholas et al., 2001). More work is needed that
examines not only the differences between recasts
and other types of feedback, but also the differ-
ences within recasts, including the range of im-
plicitness of the recast. This research should be
coupled with investigations of the effectiveness of
recasts in terms of learners’ subsequent use of
the linguistic items rather than through uptake
alone. The purpose of the present research was
to examine (a) the nature of recasts provided
in an instructional context and (b) the effect
of different aspects of recasts on L2 short-term
learning.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study addressed three sets of research ques-
tions. The first two research questions were de-
scriptive:
1. What is the incidence of recasts, informs,
and elicitations in adult L2 classrooms?
2. What are the characteristics of recasts in
these adult L2 classrooms?
The next pair of research questions addressed
the effectiveness of recasts as compared to other
response moves in terms of posttest performance
and successful uptake:
3. Are recasts associated with higher accuracy
scores on posttests than are other types of correc-
tive feedback?
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp
4. Are recasts associated with higher levels of
successful uptake than are other types of correc-
tive feedback?
The final research questions concerned the
characteristics of recasts that may potentially af-
fect learning outcomes:
5. Are particular characteristics of recasts asso-
ciated with successful uptake?
6. Are particular characteristics of recasts asso-
ciated with accurate posttest scores?
METHOD
The data for the present study were part of a
larger study (Loewen, 2002, 2004) involving the
observation of meaning-focused classroom activi-
ties, the identification of FFEs in teacher–student
interaction, and the testing of learners’ ability to
recall the targeted linguistic items. Of the 1,373
FFEs identified in Loewen’s study (2002, 2004), a
subset of 465 FFEs, which were used for testing,
were selected for the current analysis.
Participants
The research was conducted at a private lan-
guage school in Auckland, New Zealand. A total
of 12 classes with 12 different teachers and 118
learners participated. The teachers, 8 males and 4
females, were all native speakers of English, with
varying levels of teaching experience. The major-
ity of the learners (over 75%) were from Korea,
China, Japan, and Taiwan. Of the learners, 56%
were female, and 44% were male. The learners in
the 12 classes ranged in English language profi-
ciency, as assessed by the school’s 1-hour, in-house
placement test, which had writing, grammar, and
oral interview components. Of the 12 classes,
2 classes were labeled Intermediate 1, 1 class was
Intermediate 2, 5 classes were Intermediate 3, one
class was Intermediate 4, and 3 classes were Upper
Intermediate. Although more specific informa-
tion about the learners’ L2 proficiency might have
been desirable (Thomas, 1994), no further data
Example 8
1 S: when I was soldier I used to wear the balaclava
2 T: and why did you wear it S for protection from the cold or for another reason
3 S: just wind uh protection to wind and cold
4 T: protection from
5 S: uh from wind and cold
6 T: right (·) okay not for a disguise
543
were collected because the study’s research ques-
tions did not directly address proficiency level.
Observations
The first researcher was present during all
observations as a nonparticipant observer (van
Lier, 1988). The teachers and learners were in-
formed that the purpose of the research was to
examine classroom interaction during meaning-
focused lessons; however, they were not made
aware of the precise focus. For the purposes of
the study, meaning-focused activities were those
in which the primary goal of the activity was to
exchange information rather than to learn about
or practice specific linguistic forms (Pica, Kanagy,
& Falodun, 1993). The types of activities observed
included information and opinion gap tasks, story
narration tasks, and discussions relating to top-
ics such as travel, smoking, and life experiences.
Any activities that were not meaning focused were
excluded from the analysis. A total of 32 hours
(1,917 minutes) of classroom interaction was ob-
served and recorded, with 17 hours (1,022 min-
utes) providing the data for testing and, thus, the
data for the present study. For recording, a wire-
less cassette recorder with a clip-on microphone
attached to the teacher was used.
Identification of Corrective Feedback
Corrective feedback occurring in the lessons
was identified by the first author. In order to in-
clude all the discourse relating to the corrective
feedback, the first author transcribed the FFEs,
consisting of “the discourse from the point where
the attention to linguistic form starts to the point
where it ends, due to a change in topic back to
message or sometimes another focus on form”
(Ellis et al., 2001, p. 294). In Example 8, the
FFE, in lines 3–5, occurs within the context of
a meaning-focused activity, a class discussion, in
which one student was relating his experiences as
a soldier. Within this discussion, the participants
focused briefly on a linguistic item, when the
teacher responded to the learner’s incorrect use
of the preposition to by saying protection from and
the learner repeated the correct form. In Line
FFE
544
6, the discussion turned back to the student’s
experiences.
In order to determine reliability in the identi-
fication of FFEs, a sample of 10.3% of the data
(three lessons totaling 199 minutes) was coded by
a research assistant, who was trained in the iden-
tification of FFEs. The resulting agreement rate
was 89.9%.8
Coding of Corrective Feedback
In Loewen’s (2002, 2004) larger study, correc-
tive feedback was coded according to several dif-
ferent categories (e.g., inform, recast, and clari-
fication request); however, these categories were
combined into two overarching categories, provi-
sion and elicitation, depending on whether the
teacher provided linguistic information or at-
tempted to draw out the information from the
learner. In order to address the research questions
for the current study, the following categories of
corrective feedback, based on Loewen (2002) and
Ellis et al. (2001), were used: (a) elicit, an attempt
to get the learner to provide the correct linguistic
form; (b) inform, the provision of explicit infor-
mation about the problematic linguistic form; (c)
recast, reformulation of all or part of the erro-
neous utterance.
Following the identification of recasts in the
data, both authors independently coded all the
recasts for a variety of characteristics, as de-
scribed in Appendix B. Any differences in cod-
ing were resolved through negotiation. The cod-
ing categories were based, in part, on research
by Lyster (1998), Lyster and Ranta (1997), Ellis
et al. (2001), and Philp (2003). Finally, the first
author coded instances of uptake using the fol-
lowing categories, again based on work by Loewen
(2002, 2004) and Ellis et al.: (a) successful uptake,
the learner incorporates the linguistic informa-
tion provided in the feedback into his or her own
production; (b) unsuccessful uptake, the learner
responds to the feedback but does not incorpo-
rate the linguistic information into his or her own
production; (c) no uptake, the learner does not re-
spond to the feedback; (d) no chance, the learner
does not have the opportunity to respond to the
feedback.
Reliability of Coding
To estimate the reliability of coding, 25% of
the data was randomly selected and coded by
a third person, the research assistant. Interrater
reliability scores were calculated using Kappa.
(The coefficients appear in Table 1.) However,
The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
TABLE 1
Reliability of Coding
Category Kappa
Linguistic focus .955
Length of recast 1.000
Segmentation .965
Number of changes .966
Number of feedback moves .747
Successful uptake .899
because intonation and prosodic emphasis were
high-inference categories with lower reliability
scores (κ = .46 and .55, respectively), both
researchers coded all the data for these cate-
gories and negotiated any discrepancies by lis-
tening to the tapes together until consensus was
reached.
Testing
Four observation sessions were conducted for
each of the 12 classes, but only two of them were
used for testing purposes. The first author con-
structed individualized test items relating to the
linguistic forms arising in the FFEs. Learners who
were involved in the FFEs were tested on those
items. Every effort was made to test all FFEs that
occurred in the observations designated for test-
ing. The first author administered tests on two
different occasions: immediate (1 to 3 days after
the FFEs and testing the linguistics items targeted
in the second observation) and delayed (13 to 15
days after the FFEs and testing the linguistic items
targeted in the third observation). He conducted
the tests individually with each student, and au-
diorecorded each testing session. A total of 73
of the 118 learners participated in FFEs with re-
casts and subsequently were tested on the linguis-
tic items in the FFEs. The number of test items for
each learner ranged from 0 to 7 items for the im-
mediate test and from 0 to 9 items for the delayed
test, with an average of roughly 1.5 items for each
test.9
Between the occurrence of the FFE and the test-
ing, learners continued their normal classroom
activities; however, it was not possible to docu-
ment the foci of the intervening lessons. Test
items were constructed directly from the tran-
scribed FFEs and were based on a template, in-
volving correction or pronunciation. For correc-
tion test items, the researcher read aloud an in-
correct sentence to the student with instructions
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp
to correct the sentence. To validate the test items,
three SLA and testing experts compared the test
items with the original FFEs. (See Loewen, 2002,
for further description of the testing.) The fol-
lowing is an example of a correction test item:
“The following sentence is incorrect or inappro-
priate. Please listen and tell me how you could
make the sentence better: I used to wear the bala-
clava for protection to wind and cold.” The student’s
production of the incorrect preposition to, de-
scribed in Example 6, is precisely the subject of the
test.
For pronunciation items, a learner first read
aloud a sentence containing the targeted word
or phrase and then the targeted word or phrase
in isolation. The provision of the written form
of the word may have provided the learner with
clues to pronunciation that were not present in
the original oral FFE; however, this limitation was
unavoidable, in light of the difficulty of eliciting
test items without some type of cue. Again, the test
items were based as closely as possible on the cor-
responding FFEs. Thus, in Table 2, the student’s
mispronunciation of scalp was tested by asking
him to read his original utterance.
The learners’ ability to produce correct re-
sponses was assessed according to the following
coding categories: (a) correct, the student pro-
duced a response that correctly matches the tar-
geted linguistic item in the FFE; (b) incorrect, the
student did not correctly produce the linguistic
item targeted in the FFE; (c) partially correct, the
student produced a response that improved on
the targeted linguistic error in some way but was
still not entirely accurate.
A random sample of 21% of the test items was
scored by the research assistant, with a reliability
coefficient of κ = .850, which fell above the sug-
gested .80 level for acceptability (Davies, Brown,
Elder, Hill, Lumley, & McNamara, 1999).
TABLE 2
Pronunciation Example
Test Item FFE Being Tested
Please read aloud the S1: the title of the story is
following sentence and girl has bullet in her
word. scamp
T: scalp
1. The title of the story S1: scalp
is girl has bullet in S2: scalp
her scalp. T: scalp (·) this bit
2. Scalp S2: scalp yep
545
Inferential Statistics
Raw frequencies and percentages were calcu-
lated for the feedback and test response cate-
gories, and the results for the 12 classes were com-
bined. Because the data consisted of frequency
counts of categorical data, Pearson’s chi-square
analysis was employed. An alpha level of p < .05
was set for all tests. Because the analyses involved
variables with more than two coding categories
(i.e., the chi-square table was larger than 2 × 2),
adjusted standardized residuals of greater than
2.0 or less than −2.0 were used to identify sig-
nificant differences. All inferential statistics were
performed using the Statistical Package for the So-
cial Sciences (SPSS) 10.0.
In order to investigate the possibility of causal-
ity, a binary logistic regression analysis was
performed (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991; Hos-
mer & Lemeshow, 2000; Saito, 1999). The two
dependent variables were successful uptake and
accurate test scores,10 whereas the independent
variables consisted of the various characteristics
of recasts described in Appendix B. In addition,
successful uptake was included as an independent
variable in the regression analysis for accurate test
scores. The method of entry for each independent
variable in the regression equation was forward
stepwise, which involves adding variables one at
a time, in an attempt to produce the best and
most succinct model. Forward stepwise regression
analysis was chosen over hierarchical analysis, in
which the researcher stipulates the order of en-
try, because there was no preexisting rationale for
ranking the independent variables. An alpha level
of .15 was used to determine which variables to in-
clude in the model, as recommended by Hosmer
and Lemeshow (2000). Finally, one assumption
of logistic regression analysis is that the indepen-
dent variables are not highly intercorrelated. To
test this assumption, a correlation matrix was pro-
duced for the independent variables in the var-
ious analyses. The coefficients ranged from .029
(for intonation and segmentation) to .583 (for
segmentation and prosodic emphasis), with eight
correlations being significant at the .001 level, two
at the .05 level, and five not significant. Thus, al-
though some multicollinearity existed, suggesting
caution in interpreting the results, the R 2 values
were well below the critical .80 level proposed by
Menard (1995).11
RESULTS
The first research question concerned the na-
ture of corrective feedback in adult English as a
546 The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
TABLE 3 morphosyntactic errors each received roughly
Type of Feedback equal levels of feedback, at around 25%. In ad-
dition, about 15% of the recasts targeted a combi-
N Percent nation of linguistic features. As for the length of
the recasts, the majority (87%) had fewer than
Recast 228 49.03 five morphemes, and most recasts (69%) were
Inform 172 36.98 also segmented. Almost three fourths of all re-
Elicitation 65 13.98 casts involved only one change to the original tar-
Total 465 100.00 get utterance, and nearly two thirds of the recasts
were a single recast, while one third were com-
bined with other feedback moves. The majority of
second language (ESL) classes. Table 3 shows that recasts (85%) contained additional stress on the
there were 465 tested FFEs in the data. Nearly 50% targeted linguistic form, and most recasts (83%)
of feedback consisted of recasts, with 37% provid- contained declarative, rather than interrogative,
ing information (inform), and 14% eliciting a re- intonation.
sponse from the learners.
Effectiveness of Recasts

The third and fourth research questions ad-

Description of Recasts in the L2 Classrooms
dressed whether the effectiveness of recasts, as
The second research question focused on measured by both posttests and successful up-
the nature of recasts in the 12 classrooms.12 take, differed from that of other corrective feed-
Table 4 shows the results for all the coding cate- back. Table 5 shows that for the immediate test
gories and reveals that lexical, phonological, and items, learners’ accuracy rates fell between 53%
(for recasts) and 75% (for elicitations). A chi-
square analysis revealed no significant differences
in learners’ accuracy for the three feedback types
TABLE 4
on the immediate test, χ 2 (2, 180) = 4.343, p =
Characteristics of Recasts
.114. The delayed posttest results revealed even
Characteristic n Percent fewer differences in the accuracy rates for the
three feedback types. Again, there were no signifi-
Linguistic Focus cant differences in accuracy scores on the delayed
Lexical 58 25.4 test attributable to the type of corrective feedback,
Morphological/syntactic 70 30.7 χ 2 (2, 188) = 1.099, p = .577.
Phonological 64 28.1
Combination 36 15.8 Uptake Following Feedback
Length of Recast Uptake refers to a learner’s response to feed-
Fewer than five morphemes 198 86.8 back. Table 6 shows that elicitation moves were
Five or more morphemes 30 13.2 associated with considerably more successful up-
Prosodic Emphasis take than were recasts (83% vs. 60%, respectively),
Unstressed 34 14.9 whereas informs exhibited relatively high levels of
Stressed 194 85.1 unsuccessful uptake (30%) when compared to the
Segmentation other two types. A chi-square analysis revealed that
Segmented 158 69.3
Whole 70 30.7
Number of Changes TABLE 5
One change 168 73.7 Posttest Accuracy Scores
Two or more changes 60 26.3
Number of Feedback Moves Immediate Delayed
One 149 65.4 N Percent N Percent
More than one 79 34.6
Intonation Recast 44 53 44 50
Declarative 190 83.3 Inform 50 64.9 33 48.5
Interrogative 38 16.7 Elicit 15 75 19 59.4
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp 547
TABLE 6
Uptake by Type of Response Move

Successful Unsuccessful None No Chance

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent

Recast 136 59.6 44 19.3 26 11.4 22b 9.6

Inform 79a 45.9 53a 30.8 28 16.3 12 7.0
Elicit 54a 83.1 7a 10.8 4 6.2 0a 0
a
Adjusted standardized residual > 2.0 or < −2.0.
b
Adjusted standardized residual = 1.9.

elicitation responses were associated with signifi-
cantly higher levels of successful uptake and sig-
nificantly lower levels of unsuccessful uptake and
no chance for uptake, whereas inform responses
were associated with significantly lower levels of
successful uptake and significantly higher levels
of unsuccessful uptake, χ 2 (6, 465) = 32.629, p <
.001.
Successful Uptake
Assessing the ability of recasts to predict suc-
cessful uptake and correct test scores entailed the
use of logistic regression analysis. The analysis
for successful uptake, shown in Table 7, had an
overall percentage accuracy of 71.5% and indi-
cated that the best model for predicting success-
ful uptake included prosodic emphasis, number
of feedback moves, intonation, and number of
changes. Recasts in which the corrected error re-
ceived prosodic stress were 13 times more likely
to result in successful uptake than unstressed re-
casts. Extended FFEs were five times more likely
to result in successful uptake than were simple
FFEs. In addition, recasts with more than one
change were half as likely to result in successful
uptake as those with only one change, and recasts
ending in high-rising intonation were a third as
likely to be followed by successful uptake as those
with declarative intonation. The variables of mor-
pheme length and segmentation were not signifi-
cant predictors of successful uptake.
Test Scores
The logistic regression analysis for the test
scores, as summarized in Table 8, showed an over-
all percentage accuracy of 60.9% and indicated
that the best model for predicting correct test
scores included intonation, morpheme length,
and number of changes. Recasts with rising in-
tonation were over two times more likely to result
in correct test scores than were those with declara-
tive intonation. Additionally, longer recasts of five
or more morphemes were half as likely to result
in correct test scores compared to shorter recasts,
with fewer than five morphemes. Similarly, recasts
with more than one change were half as likely
to result in correct test scores as those with only
one change. The variables of successful uptake,
prosodic emphasis, number of feedback moves,
and segmentation were not significant predictors
of correct test scores.
Summary
The present study provides evidence that teach-
ers make use of different kinds of negative
feedback in ESL adult classrooms, with half of all

TABLE 8
TABLE 7
Logistic Regression Results for Test Scores
Logistic Regression Results for Successful
Uptake
95% Confidence
95% Confidence Intervals
Odds Odds
Step 4 Ratio Lower Upper Sig. Step 3 Ratio Lower Upper Sig.

Stress 13.235 4.136 42.355 .000 Intonation 2.206 .899 5.409 .084
Intonation .351 .153 .807 .012 Morpheme
Changes .519 .257 1.049 .067 length .509 .204 1.272 .149
Number of feed- Number of
back moves 5.052 2.494 10.234 .000 changes .518 .265 1.013 .054
548
feedback moves taking the form of recasts. In addi-
tion, recasts in this context tended to be short and
delivered with declarative intonation. The prob-
lematic form tended to be stressed and presented
as a segment of the original utterance. There
were roughly equivalent proportions of recasts of
phonological, morphological/syntactic, and lexi-
cal forms.
Second, although elicitation moves may result
in greater amounts of successful uptake, in this
study, there were high rates of successful uptake
following elicitations and recasts (83% and 60%,
respectively); however, this rate was significantly
lower following informs (46%). In terms of recall
of forms eliciting feedback, in posttest conditions,
recasts were associated with a 50% success rate.
There were no significant differences in accuracy
among the feedback moves.
Third, certain characteristics of recasts signifi-
cantly predicted successful uptake and test scores:
recasts with stress, recasts with declarative into-
nation, recasts within extended FFEs, and recasts
with only one change were predictive of successful
uptake; interrogative recasts, shorter recasts, and
recasts with only one change were predictive of
accuracy in posttest performance.
DISCUSSION
Negative Feedback in the Classroom
The first two research questions addressed the
nature of corrective feedback in the L2 classroom
and the nature of recasts in particular. Recasts
were high in frequency, which was not unexpected
in view of the high rates of recasting in other class-
rooms (Ellis et al., 2001; Havranek, 2002; Lyster
& Ranta, 1997). As noted by others (Doughty,
1994; Ellis et al., 2001; Long, in press), recasts
may be favored in the discourse because they are a
nonthreatening, unobtrusive means of supplying
correction and do not interrupt the flow of the
interaction. Recasts allow a teacher to maintain
focus on the task and to control the discourse. In
contrast, elicitation moves, which can be lengthy,
depend on learners’ prior knowledge and may ul-
timately be unresolved in the L2.
The Nature of Recasts
The nature of recasts in the 12 participating L2
classrooms was explored in depth. In the class-
room interaction of the 12 classes studied, the
teachers signaled to the learners the corrective
nature of the recast and cued their attention to
the particular problem. This signaling occurred
The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
in a variety of ways. One way in which the teach-
ers made the function of the recast more explicit
was by using intonation. It was far more common
for them to provide recasts with declarative in-
tonation (83%) than with interrogative intona-
tion, a technique relying on the authority of the
teacher.
In 85% of cases, the targeted form in the recast
received prosodic emphasis. This prosodic em-
phasis was often used for phonological changes
(e.g., CONtent, COMpany), but not exclusively, as
apparent in Example 9, which involves a lexical
change. In this example, the teacher did not ini-
tially understand but then provided a recast af-
ter the student repeated the nontarget-like utter-
ance. In this case, successful uptake followed the
recast.
As for the length of recasts, the majority (86%)
were fewer than five morphemes in length. In
an experimental study involving native-speaker–
nonnative-speaker dyadic task-based interaction,
Philp (1998) reported significant differences in
length of recast according to the level of the
learner; however, in the present study, it seems
more likely that length related to segmentation. In
this data, over two thirds of all recasts segmented
the learner’s utterance, in other words, the re-
casts provided focus on the problem by isolating
the main form, as seen in Example 10.
By isolating the verb, the teacher highlights
in initial position the insertion of be in the pas-
sive construction. This recast may represent a
difference with those in dyadic task-based inter-
action that tended to involve the entire utter-
ance (Mackey, 1999; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Oliver,
1995; Philp, 2003).13 It also differs from Lyster and
Ranta’s (1997) findings involving young learners,
in which only 24% of recasts were segmented. A
higher incidence of segmentation in these ESL
classrooms may reflect an underlying orientation
to form by the teacher, as well as the language-
related goals of the adult learners.
Another means by which recasts were made
more overt in the present study was through ex-
tended episodes, as shown in Example 9; one third
of recasts appeared as part of longer FFEs, that
is, more than three turns. As noted earlier, some
Example 9
S: much fun than before
T: huh?
S: much fun than before
T: much (·) much MORE fun
S: well much more fun
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp
Example 10
S: why he why should he release<d>?
T: be released
recasts followed elicitation moves, such as clari-
fication requests (see Example 9), or were fol-
lowed by extended sequences of response moves.
Extended sequences may accord greater value to
the recast (Fortune & Thorp, 2001) by making
the form more salient through greater time and
focus in the class.
In summary, recasts in these adult ESL class-
rooms tended to be segmented, short, and involve
only one change. They were more likely to be de-
livered as a declarative statement than as a con-
firmation check with rising intonation, and were
likely to receive stress on the changed element.
These factors suggest that recasts in these class-
rooms tended to constitute a less, rather than
more, implicit type of feedback. We discuss the
implications of this finding in terms of uptake in
the next section. Recasts were also likely to occur
in isolation from other kinds of corrective feed-
back. Finally, the linguistic focus of the recasts was
evenly distributed across morphosyntax, vocabu-
lary, and pronunciation.
Comparison of Corrective Feedback and Posttest
Performance
The third research question asked whether re-
casts are associated with higher levels of accuracy
on posttests than are other types of corrective
feedback. There were no significant differences
among recasts, elicitations, and informs, even
though successful performance ranged from 50%
to 75%. Given that the recasts were incidental and
varied, these results are encouraging, suggesting
that at least half of the recasts provided to learn-
ers were noticed and useable. Remember, the test
items were based on the discourse that occurred
during the FFEs. However, in the absence of a
pretest, it is somewhat difficult to interpret these
scores. Because recasts were provided incidentally,
pretesting of items was not possible (Swain, 2001).
Therefore, acquisition of new knowledge (Long,
in press) as a result of recasts could not be clearly
established by these data. Learners’ incorrect use
of a linguistic form in spontaneous production
may be a result of their not having implicit linguis-
tic knowledge of that item (Ellis, 2004). However,
when given time, through an elicitation move,
learners are able to draw on their explicit knowl-
edge to help them produce the correct form.
549
The tests administered in this study essen-
tially isolated forms from the discourse, presented
them as individual items, and then focused the
learner on identifying and correcting the un-
grammatical forms. This process contrasted with
the classroom discourse, in which the focus was
on communication, there were numerous inter-
actors, and the learner initiated as well as re-
sponded. The testing, because of its unspeeded
and focused nature, allowed learners to draw on
their explicit knowledge. For that reason, the tests
may not provide the best indication of the benefits
of feedback for implicit, spontaneous language
use and need to be interpreted with caution.
Learners’ Uptake of Corrective Feedback
The fourth research question centered on
learner uptake of feedback. Of interest were the
high rates of learner uptake overall, which re-
flected highly interactive adult language class-
rooms. Similar results surfaced in the study by
Ellis et al. (2001), which was conducted in a
very similar context. However, these results dif-
fer from Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) findings, with
younger learners and in immersion content-based
school classrooms, in which uptake rates were
much lower following recasts (31% uptake, 18%
repair). Panova and Lyster (2002), in a descrip-
tion of an adult ESL14 class of 25 learners in Que-
bec, Canada, similarly reported that only 40% of
recasts were followed by uptake, and 13% of these
included repair. What this finding suggests is that
the rate of learners’ responses to recasts differs
according to context (Oliver & Mackey, 2003).
Regarding successful uptake, that is, whether
learners successfully repaired their original utter-
ances following recasts, the results of this study dif-
fered from those of some other classroom studies.
As is consistent with uptake in general, elicitation
moves were associated with significantly higher
levels of successful uptake (88.3%) than were re-
casts or informs. Nevertheless, two thirds of re-
casts were followed by successful uptake (72.6%).
It is interesting that informs were associated with
unsuccessful uptake (40.3%); that is, learners re-
sponded with verbal acknowledgments or made
no repair to their original utterances. It appears
that the more explicit nature of the recasts in
this study, in other words, the fact that they
tended to be segmented, stressed, and declara-
tive, led learners to understand them as corrective
and, therefore, to repeat them. The instructional
context, adult private language schools, may fur-
ther (implicitly) reinforce the focus on language
form. What successful uptake tells us about the
550
effectiveness of recasts will be discussed in rela-
tion to test performance.
The Effectiveness of Recasts
The fifth and sixth research questions focused
on associations between particular characteristics
of recasts and (a) successful uptake and (b) sub-
sequent accuracy on posttests. In terms of suc-
cessful uptake, regression analysis indicated that
stress and number of feedback moves were the
best predictors, but the number of changes and
intonation also entered the model. The fact that
the number of feedback moves contributes to suc-
cessful uptake is interesting, in that only one third
of recasts were part of longer FFEs; in other words,
they included other types of moves. If one takes
into account the nature of the discourse, this
finding may not be surprising because more in-
teraction/negotiation occurs in the longer FFEs
and may increase the likelihood of learner pro-
duction. The fact that declarative intonation and
stress were predictive of successful uptake suggests
that the learners responded to such recasts as cor-
rective and repeated the recast as they might ex-
plicit corrections.
The regression analysis result for successful up-
take suggests that the high percentage of recasts
that included only one change contributed to a
high rate of successful uptake overall. Previous
studies, both experimental and classroom based,
have shown that native speakers are more likely to
offer a recast when the interlanguage utterance
contains only one error (Doughty, 1994; Oliver,
1995) and that L2 learners are more likely to
notice (Egi, 2004; Philp, 2003) and to respond
to recasts when there are fewer changes (Oliver,
1995). The result of our study adds support to the
claim that recasts are unlikely to be successfully
repeated by learners if they differ considerably
from the learner’s original utterance (Gass, 1991;
Long, 1996; Philp, 2003).
Lyster (1998) reported segmentation as ac-
counting for three fourths of all repairs following
recasts in his immersion classes. This result was
similarly the case in these adult L2 classrooms.
Teachers may segment recasts when they perceive
a specific problem and when they perceive that
Example 11
S: somebody steal my paper (·) stolen
T: someone stole your paper? Interrogative recast
The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
the learners are unable to correct the problem
themselves, in other words, when learners have in-
sufficient prior knowledge. This teacher behavior
may explain why segmentation was not associated
with successful uptake in these data; although seg-
menting the recast may make the correction more
overt, if it represents new knowledge to learners,
they may be unable to repeat it or they may find
it difficult to incorporate in their production.
Turning to the results of the regression analysis
for the relationship between specific characteris-
tics of recasts and performance on posttests, the
only significant predictors of correct test scores
were intonation, morpheme length, and num-
ber of changes. Surprisingly, interrogative recasts
were associated with correct test scores, whereas
declarative recasts were associated with successful
uptake. An example of the former appears below.
Rising intonation invites the learner to consider
whether the teacher’s response is in fact what the
learner had intended to say. It may elicit greater
cognitive comparison (Ellis, 1994) than would
declarative recasts. Although declarative recasts
are more explicit indicators of a non-TL utter-
ance, the results of this study suggest that they
may simply encourage the learner to repeat with
little real engagement with form.
As noted previously, morpheme length has sur-
faced as a factor in learners’ noticing of recasts
(Egi, 2004; Philp, 2003), as has the number of
changes. The fact that both of these factors related
to successful test performance suggests that notic-
ing is important. The greater the difference be-
tween the learner’s utterance and the recast, and
the longer the recast, the less likely the learner
is to recall the correct form on the posttests
(Boulouffe, 1986; Gass, 1991; Philp, 2003). In ef-
fect, the learner, faced with too many changes, or
too long a recast, is unlikely to benefit from the
feedback.
Finally, the relationship between successful up-
take and performance on test scores is worth con-
sidering, given that a contrast was found between
recasts and other types of corrective feedback.
Although Loewen (2005), reporting on all cor-
rective feedback in the data, found that success-
ful uptake predicted accuracy of recall on test
scores, in this study, in which recasts were analyzed
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp
separately, this was not the case. This finding may
indicate that successful uptake predicts test per-
formance for elicitation moves and informs, but
not for recasts. The finding adds further sup-
port to Mackey and Philp’s (1998) claim that,
for recasts, responses are of little consequence;
that is, the presence or absence of uptake, even
successful uptake, is not an indication of the
extent to which the learner notices the recast
or benefits from it. Some studies suggest that
successful uptake may be facilitative of acquisi-
tion (Ellis et al., 2001; Lightbown, 1998; Loewen,
2004; Lyster & Ranta, 1997), but they also acknowl-
edge that successful uptake is not a measure of
acquisition.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The present study examined three aspects of
recasts in 12 adult ESL classrooms: the provision
of recasts as one of three types of corrective feed-
back to learners; the nature of recasts; and the ef-
fectiveness of recasts. The results were compared
with results of other studies examining recasts in
a range of contexts.
The findings indicated that recasts were widely
used and that they were beneficial at least 50% of
the time. Given that recasts in the classrooms tar-
geted a wide variety of items arising incidentally
from the discourse, the 50% success rate on tests
should be encouraging for classroom teachers. In
conjunction with the results of other studies re-
viewed earlier that point to the effectiveness of
recasts, this study suggests that this kind of feed-
back is likely to be productive for learners. Al-
though other forms of feedback have their bene-
fits (see Lyster, 1998, 2004), recasts represent a
form of feedback that is pedagogically expedi-
tious: A recast is time-saving, less threatening to
student confidence, and less intrusive to the flow
of interaction than, for example, elicitation of self-
repair. In addition, unlike explicit correction, re-
casts maintain the focus on meaning. In this study,
recasts did not differ greatly from other types of
corrective feedback in terms of benefit, as mea-
sured by recall on posttests. They did differ, how-
ever, in the connection between learner response
and test performance. Whereas a relationship ex-
isted for other types of feedback between success-
ful uptake and subsequent successful recall, for
recasts, successful uptake was not a significant fac-
tor. This finding has implications for classroom-
based research on corrective feedback that seeks
to determine effectiveness through measures of
uptake alone. It suggests that in the classroom,
551
learner repetition of recasts may not be a good
indication of learning. Rather, for recasts, intona-
tion, morpheme length, and number of changes
apparently have a greater impact on the learners’
accuracy of recall in posttests than does uptake.
Short recasts with few changes and with interrog-
ative rather than declarative intonation are likely
to be beneficial.
Further research that continues to take account
of the specific classroom context in which recasts
are provided should be fruitful. To investigate the
relationship between implicit feedback and acqui-
sition, future researchers should consider ways of
pretesting at least a subset of structures in or-
der to enable tracking the effects of incidental
recasts. The use of classroom tasks that elicit spe-
cific structures or vocabulary items could help re-
veal the likelihood of recasts of certain forms (see
Doughty & Varela, 1998; Mackey, in press). Fur-
thermore, pre- and posttest measures should elicit
not only explicit, but also implicit knowledge of
forms.
Recasts are clearly commonplace in commu-
nicative language classrooms and appear to be a
primary means by which teachers provide correc-
tive feedback to learners. However, as this study
indicates, recasts differ widely in terms of empha-
sis, focus, segmentation, intonation, prosodic em-
phasis, and degree of explicitness (Ellis & Sheen,
in press) and accordingly, as suggested by the find-
ings, in their effectiveness. What kinds of recasts
are beneficial to learners, and in what contexts?
Some researchers have suggested that recasts are
likely to be more effective when accompanied by
“clues” that identify them as corrective feedback
to learners than as a response to the meaning of
their utterance (Doughty, 2001; Nicholas et al.,
2001). The explicit and refined descriptions of
recasts in the classroom data in this study have
provided some evidence that the greatest benefit
of recasts for learners lies in their comparability
with the learner’s initial utterance, not necessarily
in relation to their explicitness.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported, in part, by a scholarship
from the Foundation for Science, Research and Tech-
nology, New Zealand. An earlier version of this article
was presented at the 2005 Task-Based Language Teach-
ing conference in Leuven, Belgium. We are indebted
to research assistants Susan McKenna and Ute Knoch
for their invaluable assistance in coding data and edit-
ing the article. We would also like to thank Rod Ellis,
552
Alison Mackey, and the anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments.
NOTES
1 Teachers’ provision of corrective feedback on learn-
ers’ written production (e.g., Ayoun, 2001) was not in-
vestigated in this study and is therefore not dealt with in
this review.
2 All data are from the current study.
3 Nabei (2002), however, described a foreign lan-
guage class in Japan in which the focus of the teacher was
on learners’ communication rather than on feedback,
and reported infrequent use of recasts.
4 Although recasts may be provided intensively for
specific forms, particularly in task-based interaction
(Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ishida, 2004; Mackey, in press;
Mackey & Philp, 1998; Philp, 2003), such repeated fo-
cus differs considerably from the incidental and wide-
ranging recasts reported in other classrooms (Havranek,
2002; Loewen, 2002; Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
5 Because of limitations of space, we do not discuss
here the issue of negative versus positive evidence (Lee-
man, 2003; Nicholas et al., 2001).
6 A teacher may, however, elect to focus on a partic-
ular form and deliberately provide (intensive) recasts
on these forms (see Doughty & Varela, 1998; Mackey, in
press).
7 For similar findings in first language acquisition, see
Nicholas et al., 2001.
8 Lombard, Snyder-Duch, and Campanella Bracken
(2005) recommended 10% as a minimal, acceptable
subsample to use for interrater reliability coding.
9 Not all learners participated in FFEs with recasts
in both the immediate and delayed testing conditions;
therefore, some learners had zero test items on the im-
mediate test and one or more items on the delayed test
or vice versa.
10 The correction and pronunciation test items were
combined for the logistic regression in order to provide
a large enough sample size; nevertheless, it is acknowl-
edged that the differences in format could warrant in-
vestigation of the two test types separately.
11 For further discussion regarding the use of logistic
regression, see Loewen (2002, 2004).
12 The number of recasts in each of the 12 classes
ranged from 5 to 48, with an average of 20 (SD = 13.5);
however, because the characteristics of the recasts were
analysed per FFE, the results of the 12 classes were com-
bined. Further information about the variation of feed-
back in the data can be found in Loewen’s (2003) study.
13 Although segmentation was not coded in these
studies, A. Mackey and J. Philp (personal communica-
tion, April 10, 2005) noted that, in their data, recasts
tended to involve the entire utterance, as per the in-
structions given to facilitators.
14 Panova and Lyster (2002) noted that because many
of the learners shared French as a common first lan-
guage, this was more typical of an English as a foreign
language context.
The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
REFERENCES
Allwright, B. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what
teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In D.
Singleton & D. Little (Eds.), Language learning in
formal and informal contexts (pp. 3–18). Dublin,
Ireland: IRAAL.
Allwright, R. (1975). Problems in the study of the lan-
guage teacher’s treatment of learner error. In M.
Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ’75: New direc-
tions in language learning, teaching, and bilingual
education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feed-
back in the second language acquisition of the
passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language
Journal , 85, 226–243.
Batstone, R. (2002). Making sense of new language: A
discourse perspective. Language Awareness, 11, 14–
29.
Boulouffe, J. (1986). Intake as a locus of equilibration
in language learning. Language Learning , 36 , 245–
274.
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts
in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions.
Language Learning , 52, 1–42.
Calvé, P. (1992). Corriger ou ne pas corriger, là n’est pas
la question. Canadian Modern Language Review,
48, 458–471.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse
in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors.
Language Learning , 27 , 29–46.
Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & Mc-
Namara, T. (1999). Dictionary of language testing .
Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge Lo-
cal Examinations Syndicate.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second lan-
guage learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research
(pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by com-
petent speakers to language learners. In J. E.
Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University roundtable on
languages and linguistics (pp. 96–108). Washing-
ton, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of fo-
cus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and
second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus
on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Fo-
cus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998a). Issues and terminol-
ogy. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on
form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
1–11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998b). Focus on
form in classroom second language acquisition. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp
Egi, T. (2004). Recasts, perceptions and L2 development.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown
University, Washington, DC.
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical
evaluation. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language acquisi-
tion in the second/foreign language classroom (pp.
179–211). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Lan-
guage Centre.
Ellis, R. (1994). Uptake as language awareness. Language
Awareness, 4, 147–160.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction.
Language Learning , 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2
explicit knowledge. Language Learning , 54, 227–
275.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner
uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language
Learning , 51, 281–318.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and
explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of
L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 28, 339–368.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (in press). Re-examining the role
of recasts in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlan-
guage communication. London: Longman.
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work.
Foreign Language Annals, 10, 583–593.
Fortune, A. J., & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and entan-
gled: New light on the identification, classification
and value of language related episodes in collab-
orative output tasks. Language Awareness, 10, 2–
3.
Gass, S. M. (1991). Grammar instruction, selective atten-
tion and learning processes. In R. Phillipson, E.
Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M.
Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy re-
search (pp. 134–141). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction
and second language production. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16 , 283–302.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense
consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36 ,
543–572.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual:
Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York:
Newbury House.
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most
likely to succeed? International Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 37 , 255–270.
Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic re-
gression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition
of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of
Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learn-
ing , 54, 311–394.
Iwashita, N. (1999). Tasks and learners’ output in
nonnative–nonnative interaction. In K. Kanno
553
(Ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second lan-
guage (pp. 31–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive ev-
idence in task-based interaction: Differential ef-
fects on L2 development. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition, 25, 1–36.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language
development: Beyond negative evidence. Stud-
ies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–
63.
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus
on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Fo-
cus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp. 177–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Loewen, S. (2002). The occurrence and effectiveness of inci-
dental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University
of Auckland, New Zealand.
Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the frequency and char-
acteristics of incidental focus on form. Language
Teaching Research, 7 , 315–345.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form
in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learn-
ing , 54, 153–187.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and sec-
ond language learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 27 , 361–386.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Campanella Bracken,
C. (2005). Practical resources for assessing and re-
porting intercoder reliability in content analysis re-
search projects. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from
http://www.temple.edu/mmc/reliability/
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature
in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot,
R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language
research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Am-
sterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environ-
ment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie
& T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language ac-
quisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Long, M. H. (in press). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role
of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and
recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language
Journal , 82, 357–371.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory,
research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language ac-
quisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in
L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and re-
casts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26 , 399–432.
554
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and
learner uptake: Negotiation of form in commu-
nicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Ac-
quisition, 19 , 37–66.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second lan-
guage development: An empirical study of ques-
tion formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
Mackey, A. (in press). Feedback, noticing and instructed
second language learning. Applied Linguistics.
Mackey, A., Perdue, S., & McDonough, K. (2000).
How do learners perceive interactional feedback?
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–
497.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interac-
tion and second language development: Recasts,
responses and red herrings. Modern Language Jour-
nal , 82, 338–356.
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T.
(2002). Individual differences in working mem-
ory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 de-
velopment. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual dif-
ferences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–
210). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morris, F., & Tarone, E. (2003). Impact of classroom
dynamics on the effectiveness of recasts in second
language acquisition. Language Learning , 53, 325–
368.
Nabei, T. (2002). Recasts in classroom interaction: A
teacher’s intention, learner’s attention, and second lan-
guage learning . Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Toronto, Canada.
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2001). Learner awareness of
recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of
an adult EFL student’s second language learning.
Language Awareness, 11, 43–63.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Re-
casts as feedback to language learners. Language
Learning , 51, 719–758.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2
instruction: A research synthesis and quantita-
tive meta-analysis. Language Learning , 50, 417–
528.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS
conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 17 , 459–481.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and
feedback in classroom and pair work. Language
Learning , 50, 119–151.
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context
and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern
Language Journal , 87 , 519–533.
Ono, L., & Witzel, J. (2003, October). Recasts, salience
and morpheme acquisition. Paper presented at the
Second Language Research Forum, Tucson, AZ.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2
oral performance. Studies in Second Language Ac-
quisition, 21, 109–148.
The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of mod-
els and recasts on object topicalization and adverb
placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguis-
tics, 1, 65–86.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective
feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 36 , 573–595.
Philp, J. (1998). Interaction, noticing and second language
acquisition. Unpublished PhD, University of Tas-
mania, Launceston, Australia.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Non-
native speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS in-
teraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
25, 99–126.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it
reveal about second-language learning conditions,
processes, and outcomes? Language Learning , 44,
493–527.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and
using communication tasks for second language
instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. M.
Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrat-
ing theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Roberts, M. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of er-
ror correction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention
and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech.
Rep. No. 9, pp. 162–182). Honolulu: University of
Hawai`i Press.
Saito, H. (1999). Dependence and interaction in fre-
quency data analysis in SLA esearch. Studies in Sec-
ond Language Acquisition, 21, 453–475.
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of nega-
tive input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139–
161.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–
158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language ac-
quisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13,
206–226.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in
search of useful definitions for applied linguistics.
AILA Review, 11, 11–26.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–
32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conver-
sational 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 (pp. 237–322). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: The
relationship between pedagogy and interaction.
Language Learning , 47 , 547–583.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner up-
take in communicative classrooms across instruc-
tional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–
300.
Shawn Loewen and Jenefer Philp
Sheen, Y. (in press). Exploring the relationship between
characteristics of recasts and learner uptake, de-
constructing recasts: Do they constitute an implicit
or explicit corrective feedback strategy? Language
Teaching Research.
Slimani, A. (1989). The role of topicalization in class-
room language learning. System, 7 , 223–234.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second
language acquisition: A review of classroom and
laboratory research. Language Teaching , 30, 73–
87.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some
roles of comprehensible input and comprehen-
sible output in its development. In S. Gass &
C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language ac-
quisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second
language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics:
Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond:
555
Mediating acquisition through collaborative dia-
logue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and
second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another ap-
proach to content specification and to validating
inferences drawn from test scores. Language Test-
ing , 18, 275–302.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second
language learning: Two adolescent French immer-
sion students working together. Modern Language
Journal , 82, 320–337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through
collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In
M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Research-
ing pedagogical tasks (pp. 99–118). London: Long-
man.
Thomas, M. (1994). Assessment of L2 proficiency in
second language acquisition research. Language
Learning , 44, 307–336.
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language
learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom
research. London: Longman.

APPENDIX A
Transcription Key

Symbol Meaning

S Student
T Teacher
CAPITALS Emphasis
(laugh) Extra information
<> Inaudible
(·) Micropause
= Linked speech
? Rising intonation
- Interrupted speech
: Lengthening
[] Phonetic representation
[ Overlapping speech
556 The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)

APPENDIX B
Recast Characteristics

Rubric Description Example

Linguistic Focus
Lexical The recast provides a new or modified
lexical item or phrase (open class
items, e.g., nouns, verbs, adverbs,
adjectives), including recasts of
incorrect prefixes and suffixes
Phonological Recast modifies learners
pronunciation of an item/items
Morphological/ Recast modifies both the morphology
syntactic and the syntax of learner’s
utterance
Combination Recast includes multiple changes,
including either phonology or
lexical changes (can also include
morphology, syntax)
Length of Recast
S: I tried to (·) tried to hiking
T: you tried to go hiking
S: yeah I will receive more salary
here
T: a higher salary (·) a high salary
S: sightseeing tour [tor]
T: tour [tur]
S: so the Japanese language can use
it (·) it’s no <but> to study
T: can be used
S: and Japanese student some are
<> area too uh eh touris tourisity
T: it’s very touristy

Fewer than five Length of the entire recast utterance S: Your children would be my
morphemes contains fewer than five neephees [nifiz]
morphemes T: nephews
Five or more Length of the entire recast utterance S: my brain will s- I seem will seem
morphemes contains five or more morphemes to be explode
T: my my brain seems to be exploding
Prosodic Emphasis
Unstressed Linguistic item that is recast is not
given atypical stress
Stressed Linguistic item that is recast is given S: when I I can laugh ha ha the
atypical stress, through pitch, emotional the emotional (·)
additional pausing and emphasis conTENT the emotional
conTENT
T: the emoti- the emotional CONtent
Segmentation
Segmented The recast provides a partial recast of S: why he why should he release<d>?
the learner’s utterance T: be released
Whole The recast is an entire recast of the S: but I I crashed my [ga]rage
whole trigger utterance T: you what? You crashed into your
[gæ]rage
Number of Changes
One change Recast includes one change to the S: yes I usually use the <r/l>ast one
learner’s trigger utterance T: the last one
Two or more Recast includes two or more changes S: damag-ed (·) wall damag-ed
changes to the learner’s trigger utterance T: the hotel wall was damaged
Intonation
Declarative The recast is provided with falling S: why he why should he
intonation as a declarative release<d>?
statement T: be released
Interrogative The recast is provided with rising S: somebody steal my paper (·)stolen
intonation as a question T: someone stole your paper?
(confirmation check)