This chapter outlines the rationale for the volume as well as its scope and structure. The theoretical and empirical bases for the study of corrective feedback as well as ways to employ corrective feedback in second language instruction are presented first followed by the aims of the book, its target audience, and a description of the book’s structure and content.

Affect has been one of the most neglected areas in L2 research with the possible exception of language anxiety. This overall lack of scholarly attention to affect appears to be even more evident in corrective feedback (CF) research. This chapter discusses this relatively under-explored area, describing empirical research conducted so far in relation to the role of affective variables in CF-driven L2 learning. Given the scarcity of relevant research and a space limit, the chapter focuses mainly on language anxiety, learner beliefs/attitudes, emotions, and other related issues (e.g., motivation, self-efficacy). The brief overview of research illustrated in this chapter suggests that affect mediates L2 learning processes involving CF, and that learners’ affective states are often influenced by teacher feedback. Findings also indicate that L2 learners experience changes in affective domains, which in turn lead to varying degrees of intra-individual variability in their perceptions of CF. Nevertheless, the current state of affairs does not offer more than a potential link between CF and affective variables, and, of course, is inconclusive in terms of the extent to which these seemingly important affective variables influence the way CF contributes to L2 learning process and overall development.

This chapter describes tools that have been used to measure the effectiveness of corrective feedback ranging from classic instruments such as interactive tasks, to innovative methods recently adopted from related fields like psychology and educational measurement. As part of describing these measurement tools, we also discuss how factors in their use, such as the instructions, the participants, and their roles, need to be considered when assessing the efficacy of feedback. We describe tools used in classrooms and laboratory settings, including introspective methods such as think-alouds, immediate recalls, stimulated recall, interviews, journals, blogs, and uptake sheets, as well as external measurements. We outline the use of tasks in both face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. We conclude our chapter with a discussion of future directions in measuring the effectiveness of corrective feedback on linguistic development and pedagogical implications.

The chapter focuses on the role of developmental readiness and proficiency as two variables that, on the one hand, mediate the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF), and, on the other, can serve as outcome measures in order to determine these effects. In the first part, the two constructs are defined and their relationship to explicit and implicit, or highly automatized, knowledge of the target language is illuminated. This is followed by a succinct overview of empirical studies that have investigated the ways in which developmental readiness and proficiency mediate the effects of different types of CF as well as a critical evaluation of the available body of research with respect to its foci and methodology. Subsequently, emphasis is shifted to the value of the two constructs for everyday teaching practice and an argument is made that it is proficiency rather than developmental readiness that has far more pedagogical relevance and can therefore better inform decisions concerning the provision of CF in the classroom.

Increasingly, large numbers of adult immigrants and refugees who are not alphabetically literate are engaging in SLA and becoming orally multilingual. However, there is good reason to suspect that many theoretical claims about the role of corrective feedback in second language acquisition do not hold for such learners. In particular, the research reviewed in this chapter shows that adult L2 learners who have low levels of alphabetic print literacy do not appear to benefit from oral corrective feedback on form as much as their alphabetically literate counterparts do. These findings suggest that it is alphabetic print literacy that provides learners with language processing tools required for noticing of form-focused corrective feedback. Theoretical claims implying the universal efficacy of oral corrective feedback in SLA must be fine-tuned to reflect the actual learning processes of this growing population of successful L2 learners.

This chapter explores various aspects of lab-based research and considers its merits and limitations. We begin with a discussion and definition of lab-based research, considering not only the research venue, the instructor, and the instructional tasks, distinguishing amongst three types of research contexts: lab, classroom with intervention, and classroom without intervention. This differentiation is important in understanding the continuous nature of corrective feedback studies, ranging from lab-based to classroom-based. We further differentiate studies based on the amount of manipulation that is involved, with lab study and classroom intervention studies being characterized by manipulation and nonintervention classroom studies characterized by not having manipulation. We discuss a variety of lab-based studies where there are different degrees of researcher control, illustrating a wide range of research types. Finally, in this chapter we present results from meta-analyses that compare lab-based corrective feedback studies with classroom studies showing greater evidence of the effectiveness of corrective feedback in lab-based studies. Future directions for research in corrective feedback in classroom- versus lab-based studies are outlined.

A question that is of central significance but has been largely ignored in the literature is whether learners of different age groups benefit from corrective feedback in different ways. This chapter seeks to discuss the theory, research, and pedagogy pertaining to the role of age in mediating the incidence and effects of corrective feedback. The chapter begins with a theoretical explanation of the relationship between age and corrective feedback. It then zeroes in on descriptive research investigating feedback provided to children by their parents or caregivers while acquiring their first language. It proceeds to discuss feedback in second language learning, summarizing descriptive research conducted in the language classroom and laboratory contexts. The effects of input-providing and output-prompting feedback from descriptive and experimental research were analyzed through the lens of participants’ ages. One pattern that emerged from the research is that output-prompting feedback leads to greater linguistic gains than input-providing feedback among child learners. The chapter concludes with implications for researchers and teachers, proposing ways to carry out research to examine the various issues surrounding the role of age through research and ways to maximize the effects of feedback for learners of different ages in the second language classroom.

This chapter reviews themes in research into the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback, typically provided by language teachers, on L2 grammatical development. It synthesizes research evidence for the effects of oral corrective feedback on learners’ development of grammar and the relative efficacy of different corrective feedback strategies, such as output-prompting and input-providing. Further themes concern the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback on salient and non-salient grammatical features and in relation to learners’ varying levels of knowledge of the targeted features. Even though most research in this area concerns the development of accuracy, the chapter includes a review of the considerably smaller body of literature that offers insights into the potential value of oral corrective feedback on the development of fluency. The chapter reviews the different kinds of oral and written tests that have been used in research to gauge grammar learning, some of which teachers may wish to consider adopting to assess their learners. Based on the cumulative evidence from research, we make suggestions for classroom teachers, although we recognize that teachers’ decisions about the provision of oral corrective feedback are often based on multiple factors, including affective factors and teaching objectives.

The chapter outlines the interactionist approach to corrective feedback in second language (L2) acquisition. Input-providing and output-prompting feedback types are addressed, including their potential role in facilitating L2 development. Historical and contemporary interactionist research is overviewed, and suggestions are made for future work in this area. The chapter closes with pedagogical recommendations for the use of corrective feedback in L2 classrooms.

The nature of the linguistic knowledge that ensues is the sine qua non of theoretical controversies surrounding corrective feedback. This chapter effectively brings that to light through an in-depth discussion of two polarized theoretical perspectives: the behaviorist and the innatist. The chapter provides a pathway to understanding the epistemological differences underlying the ebbs and flows of interest in corrective feedback that the field of applied linguistics has witnessed over the past five decades, arguing that heeding the eclectic insights from both perspectives would greatly benefit future research and practice.

This chapter summarizes research on the timing of written and oral corrective feedback (CF) on L2 grammatical errors. A careful analysis of a comprehensive array of CF timing studies indicates that there are learning benefits from both immediate and delayed CF. The analysis also demonstrates the need for more uniform construct definitions and more rigidly designed studies in the area of CF timing research. The chapter then explains several theoretical proposals about how immediate and delayed CF facilitate L2 development. These proposed explanations include sociocultural theory, Transfer Appropriate Processing, skill acquisition theory, and cognitive comparison via reactivation and reconsolidation. In addition, this chapter discusses the potential implications that research and theory might have for L2 pedagogy, concluding that at this juncture, the literature provides teachers with justifications for using both immediate and delayed CF. Finally, the chapter ends with recommendations about what future research might best be conducted in the area of CF timing.

We provide an overview of research that explains what oral corrective feedback is, how it can be expressed by teachers and peers, and how it may impact the language development process. We define oral corrective feedback as a negative evidence provided in response to learner error in an oral mode. A theoretical rationale for the role of feedback is described, drawing on research from both cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural explanations of second language learning through oral communication. Examples from numerous studies are incorporated to exemplify the range of ways feedback is provided on different types of linguistic errors. Research on the relative effectiveness of different types of feedback is reviewed, as well as empirical inquiry into the role of individual and social factors that can enhance or limit the effectiveness or oral feedback, concluding that oral corrective feedback is an important factor for language learning in instructed settings. We close with recommendations for research-driven teaching practice with respect to oral corrective feedback, cautioning that teachers need to consider learner experiences and expectations of feedback, their pedagogical objectives and approach, as well as learners developmental needs, self-monitoring skills, and ability to provide feedback to one another.

Given that the pedagogical potential of corrective feedback (CF) for second language (L2) pronunciation development has received rapidly increasing interest in recent years (e.g., Saito & Lyster, 2012 in Language Learning), it is timely and prudent to provide a piece of scholarly work which focuses on synthesizing and presenting the current state of affairs. According to existing descriptive studies, both teachers and learners equally consider the provision of CF to be a crucial component of L2 pronunciation development, especially when the errors in question hinder successful communication. More recently, a growing number of scholars have investigated the acquisitional value of pronunciation-focused CF by conducting quasi-experimental studies with a pre-test/post-test design in both classroom and laboratory settings. Whereas the results have generally shown that pronunciation-focused CF facilitates the development of both segmental and suprasegmental accuracy, the effectiveness of such CF techniques appears to be subject to a great deal of individual variability. Specifically, the potentials of pronunciation-focused CF can be maximized (a) when L2 learners have enough phonetic knowledge, conversational experience, and perceptual awareness of target sounds; (b) when CF provides model pronunciation forms (e.g., recasts rather than prompts); and (c) when the target of instruction concerns communicatively important and salient features.