Focused versus Unfocused Corrective Feedback

doi:10.1017/9781108589789.015

14 - Focused versus Unfocused Corrective Feedback

from Part IV - Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2021

Catherine van Beuningen

Edited by

Hossein Nassaji and

Eva Kartchava

Show author details

Hossein Nassaji: Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava: Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa

Book contents

Get access

Summary

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.

Keywords

Focused corrective feedback unfocused corrective feedback selective corrective feedback comprehensive corrective feedback intensive corrective feedback extensive corrective feedback oral corrective feedback written corrective feedback second language acquisition second language teaching

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 300 - 321

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–258.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 129–140). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal 93(1), 46–60.Google Scholar

Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.Google Scholar

Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 136–140.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514.Google Scholar

Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System 33(2), 209–224.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.Google Scholar

Evans, N., Hartshorn, K., McCollum, R. & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463.Google Scholar

Fathman, A. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In Kroll, B. (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here…? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13(1), 49–62.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184.Google Scholar

Frear, D. & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.Google Scholar

Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.Google Scholar

Hartshorn, K., Evans, N., Merrill, P., Sudweeks, R., Strong‐Krause, D. & Anderson, N. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109.Google Scholar

Hawkes, L. & Nassaji, H. (2016). The role of extensive recasts in error detection and correction by adult ESL students. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 19–41.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jean, G. & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465–492.Google Scholar

Kang, E. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

Karim, K. & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In Breen, M. (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 141–158). London: Longman.Google Scholar

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar

Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for class second language acquisition. In Han, Z. (ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167–184.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. (2009). Broadening the perspective of L2 writing scholarship: The contribution of research on foreign language writing. In Manchón, R. M. (ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43–63.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2012). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Language Learning, 63(4), 835–869.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2017a). Oral negotiation in response to written errors. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 114–128). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2017b). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51.Google Scholar

Polio, C., Fleck, C. & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68.Google Scholar

Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal 98(1), 417–431.Google Scholar

Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review 11, 11–26.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. (1997). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In Riggenbach, H. (ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 361–392.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2010). Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 169–179.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37(4), 556–569.Google Scholar

Shintani, N., Ellis, R. & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.Google Scholar

Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.Google Scholar

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C. (2016). Waarom werkt de rode pen (niet altijd)? Een onderzoek naar denkprocessen en strategiegebruik van leerlingen tijdens de verwerking van correctieve feedback. [Why does(n’t) the red pen (always) work? A study into thought processes and strategy use of students during the processing of corrective feedback.] Tijdschrift Les, 34(199), 14–16.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340.CrossRef Google Scholar

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331.Google Scholar

Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270–275.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.