This chapter introduces the methodological tools of research synthesis in the context of corrective feedback (CF) research and highlights findings in this area generated by synthetic approaches. Meta-analysis, the most common approach to research synthesis in applied linguistics, has quickly gained much popularity in CF research, with at least twenty meta-analyses conducted on CF by the time of this publication (more than in any other area of applied linguistics research). The chapter describes the value of research synthesis to CF research and how meta-analyses have helped consolidate findings in this domain and provided insight into the range of moderating variables that may influence the effectiveness of CF. Methodological synthesis, a type of research synthesis used for taking inventory of methodological approaches, has also provided guidance for future advancements in designing research methodology in this domain, which are explored. The chapter concludes by summarizing the contributions of research synthesis within CF research and provides cautious guidance in the interpretation of findings in synthetic research.

A question that received considerable interest from language teachers and researchers alike is what corrective feedback (CF) should look like to be maximally beneficial to learners’ second language development. This chapter zooms in on two feedback types that have been distinguished in the CF literature: focused and unfocused CF. After a careful characterization of these two feedback options, theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical arguments are discussed for both of them. The chapter furthermore provides a synthesis of oral and written feedback studies into the (relative) value of focused and unfocused CF. It concludes with suggestions for further research and implications for L2 classrooms.

This chapter investigates oral corrective feedback (CF) in content-based contexts. Specifically, it examines how CF can play a unique and necessary role in these contexts as a means of integrating language into content instruction. However, based on studies showing teachers’ reluctance to use CF, this chapter also outlines how CF may come into direct conflict with other content-based pedagogical objectives. Owing to the great amount of diversity found among content-based contexts, this chapter considers both cross-context, CF-related issues that can inform all content-based programs as well as issues regarding CF’s use and effectiveness in specific contexts.

This chapter addresses the topic of training in corrective feedback. The chapter discusses the role and importance of training and also how feedback training can assist feedback provision and processing. To this end, empirical studies on both teacher and student training of feedback and their implications are discussed. This discussion is limited to oral corrective feedback, since much of the research on feedback training concerns oral feedback. Pedagogical implications as well as directions for future investigations are also discussed.

The role of corrective feedback (CF) in the L2 learning process has for decades remained a dominant issue in the (I)SLA strands of research, albeit some overlapping between these two contexts. Indeed, there are several cognitive theoretical underpinnings cited by empirical CF studies to account for the role or lack thereof of CF in the L2 learning process, for example, the Monitor Model (Krashen, 1982), the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990), the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 2005), Skill Acquisition Theory (DeKeyser, 2015), and the Model of the L2 learning process in ISLA (Leow, 2015), be it oral, written, or computerized or digital. This chapter (1) traces the early roots of CF, (2) presents a coarse-grained theoretical feedback processing framework to discuss the cognitive theoretical underpinnings postulated to account for the role of CF in L2 development, (3) provides a list of cognitive processes assumed to play a role during CF appropriation, and (4) reports on each theoretical underpinning followed by a commentary on their ability to account for the role of CF in L2 development.

This chapter reviews corrective feedback studies that focused on the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback on specific morphosyntactic targets in English as a second language. Specifically, this chapter addressed the question of whether the grammatical complexity of the target structure investigated affects the effectiveness of corrective feedback as an instructional intervention. Not only was complexity defined on the basis of formal criteria, but it also incorporated a semantic component from the perspective of the redundancy and transparency of the form–meaning mapping. Eleven studies published between 2006 and 2018 qualified for the research synthesis. The overall findings indicated that, in general, corrective feedback is more effective for simpler grammatical features. The chapter concludes that type of language feature is a relevant dimension to consider in the effectiveness of corrective feedback. The chapter calls for future research on the role of grammatical complexity using categorization methods that consider both formal and semantic complexity features.

The current chapter focuses on two main stakeholders of corrective feedback: teachers and learners, and it discusses whether and how teachers’ and learners’ beliefs or attitudes toward corrective feedback impact the effectiveness of corrective feedback. Previous research on both oral and written corrective feedback is reviewed. In terms of teachers’ beliefs of corrective feedback and their feedback practices, some research findings showed that teachers’ beliefs are not always in line with their actual classroom practices related to the use of different types of oral corrective feedback. Learners’ beliefs about the effectiveness of corrective feedback, particularly written corrective feedback, were found to be an important factor of learner engagement with corrective feedback. Recent corrective feedback research claims that teacher and learner beliefs are not static. Accordingly, the current literature review shows methodological changes over time, capturing the situational and dynamic patterns of learners’ and teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. The overall findings suggest that teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about CF are multifaceted and could be impacted by various contextual factors.

Aptitude and language experience (i.e., multilingualism) are two individual differences that have attracted increasing interest in the field of second language acquisition. This chapter looks at the role that aptitude and multilingualism play on language learning under different pedagogical conditions, and specifically with different forms of feedback. Questions that we try to answer are: Do learners with high cognitive aptitudes and language experience benefit more from corrective feedback than those with low cognitive aptitudes and language experience? What cognitive aptitudes benefit learning when receiving implicit vs. explicit feedback? What type of feedback is effective regardless of learners’ cognitive aptitudes and language experience? Results from laboratory and classroom research with adult learners suggest that the effects of feedback on language development are constrained by a number of cognitive aptitudes such as linguistic analytic ability and rote memory. Multilingualism seems to provide young adults with an advantage under conditions that do not include metalinguistic information during provision of feedback. For learners over 65, however, learning appears to be negatively affected by what they perceive as an excess of information during practice, i.e., when feedback includes information about how the language works, but not when that information is presented prior to practice.

This chapter has two broad aims: to explore the potential for a role for corrective feedback in instructional pragmatics; and to review studies of instructional pragmatics that have investigated the effectiveness of corrective feedback. The chapter starts with the observation that there has been a disinclination to correct learners’ pragmatic errors. In fact, studies of instructional pragmatics rarely refer to “errors,” which is a construct integral to feedback studies. Allowing for this difference in orientation, the chapter discusses potential issues related to correcting pragmatic errors, such as challenges in identifying errors, the feasibility of correcting pragmalinguistic versus sociopragmatic errors, and the lack of firm norms to use in correction. Next, the chapter summarizes the findings of nine studies published between 2005 and 2017 and assesses their methodological strengths and weaknesses. The review revealed that although most of the studies reported positive effects for corrective feedback, many of the studies reviewed suffered from major methodological limitations. Owing to the nature of the available evidence, the chapter advocates neither for nor against the implementation of corrective feedback in instructional pragmatics. The chapter concludes by providing guidelines for future principled investigations into the role of corrective feedback in instructional pragmatics.

Three decades of research have established that simultaneous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) can impact L2 development processes, including corrective feedback, and their products, in new and exciting ways. However, the high variability of the evidence calls for more theoretical and methodological rigor, and the proliferation of hybrid and online learning curricula makes it imperative to assess SCMC’s contributions on the basis of sound comparisons with mirror FTF conditions. Against this backdrop, this chapter critically synthesizes forty-one studies comparing the effects of written SCMC versus FTF interaction on L2 development, filtering contradictory findings through the sieve of methodological validity and the often-neglected notion of modality. Results suggest that written SCMC amplifies feedback effectiveness in tutor–learner interactions but not so clearly in peer interactions; that it promotes lower output rates but more equal participation; that it elicits shorter utterances, but maybe more accurate and complex grammar and vocabulary; that it promotes less negotiation for meaning but maybe denser and more explicit negotiation of form; that it is more likely to subvert the negotiate-over-lexis-first principle; and that it yields less successful uptake and maybe less modified output but more self-corrections. The chapter concludes with future research recommendations based on the three dimensions of modality.

Classroom-based research concerned with corrective feedback plays a critical role in our understanding of how contextual factors shape teaching and learning, as well as our understanding of research. This chapter draws on descriptive and experimental studies investigating corrective feedback in the classroom to examine the role of context and the ways in which contextual factors have been considered, and at times neglected, in research. It highlights how both macro and micro dimensions of classroom contexts have had an impact on the ways in which researchers design, carry out, and interpret their work and teachers might draw on findings for classroom practice. Discussion explores how classrooms have and will continue to change, making a consideration of context imperative beyond a variable to be accounted for in research. The chapter suggests that the diversity of classroom contexts be leveraged to enrich the research

This chapter presents an overview of the research on peer feedback in L2 oral interaction. The chapter starts with types and characteristics of peer feedback, followed by the discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of peer feedback to explain the benefits of peer interaction in L2 development. The next section presents a review of the studies on peer feedback focusing on the effect of peer feedback on L2 development and factors affecting this type of feedback. The chapter concludes with some pedagogical implications and suggestions for future research on peer feedback in L2 oral interaction.

This chapter discusses the role of corrective feedback in mobile technology-mediated contexts. It begins by briefly discussing the role of technology in second language learning and teaching, focusing on mobile technology and explaining its affordances. It then examines the role that mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) can play in providing and monitoring corrective feedback in language learning. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the pedagogical implications as well as directions for future research on MALL-supported corrective feedback.

This chapter identifies the paucity of overlap between the role of task in corrective feedback (CF) studies, and the role of CF in task-based studies. It goes on to argue, however, that classroom task design and implementation conditions can act effectively as facilitating conduits for CF without compromising the essentially implicit and incidental nature of task-based learning. The affordances of new pedagogies that use computer-mediated interaction are particularly useful in this regard, as are task implementation sequences in which CF is deployed at a post-task or pre-task stage.

This chapter provides an overview of technology-mediated corrective feedback by focusing on spelling, grammar and writing, and pronunciation. Our overview of the technologies along with the research that has been conducted shows that significant progress has been made over the past decades in assisting students with their L2 language studies. Nevertheless, there is room for further research which we identify in each respective section. Most importantly, however, we conclude that studies need to investigate the long-term efficacy of technology-mediated feedback when students use these tools in the language learning classroom or outside independently. In addition, technology-mediated corrective feedback is by no means 100% accurate and learners need guidance from language instructors, especially with regards to learning not to overly rely on the technology.

This chapter considers the role corrective feedback plays in second language vocabulary acquisition. The first half of the chapter considers the effects of oral corrective feedback. We first provide a classification of oral corrective feedback, and then discuss findings from existing descriptive and experimental studies, followed by pedagogical implications of the findings. Past studies have suggested that vocabulary tends to benefit more from oral corrective feedback than grammar or morphosyntax, possibly due to the high degree of noticeability and less complex abstract nature of vocabulary. The latter half of the chapter discusses the effects of written corrective feedback. After providing a classification of written corrective feedback, we present two major research frameworks: feedback-for-accuracy and feedback-for-acquisition. The chapter then presents results of experimental studies, followed by pedagogical implications of the findings. Existing studies have suggested that written corrective feedback may lead to more appropriate use of vocabulary in subsequent revisions; however, it is not yet clear whether these positive effects can be carried over to a new piece of writing. The chapter concludes with suggestions for further research and calls for more research comparing the effects of different types of corrective feedback, both oral and written, on vocabulary learning.

This chapter discusses noticing of corrective feedback (CF) and factors that affect noticing in different contexts in previous studies. Laboratory studies found that the type of error, the length and salience of the CF, the proficiency level of the learner, and their working memory capacity, attention control, and analytical ability affected noticeability of CF. In classroom studies, the explicitness of the CF and learners' anxiety in language classrooms additionally influenced their noticing of CF. A further finding of studies is that there are discrepancies between teachers' intentions in giving CF and learners' interpretations of that CF. In peer work, the relationship between learners were closely related to the noticng of CF. Computer-based text chats have certain strengths in terms of contributing to learners' noticing of CF, such as the slow pace of the communication and the re-readibility of the text messages. However, delayed CF, and less social and affective engagement due to characteristics of text chats seemed to contribute to less noticeability of CF. In future studies, it will be necessary to examine how and when noticing leads to understanding to explore the process of deeper learning.