Corrective Feedback in Second versus Foreign Language Contexts

doi:10.1017/9781108589789.023

22 - Corrective Feedback in Second versus Foreign Language Contexts

from Part VI - Contexts of Corrective Feedback and Their Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2021

Maria del Pilar García Mayo and

Ruth Milla

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

This chapter summarizes the main findings regarding the effect of the variable instructional context on oral corrective feedback (CF) provision and learner uptake in second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) settings. Although there are other intervening variables in CF provision, such as learners’ individual variables, CF type, and task-related factors, instructional context seems to play an important role in the way teachers provide CF to oral errors, as well as in learners’ reaction to those errors. Lesson orientation appears to be a key factor and, thus, in those contexts that teachers, learners, and activities focus on language forms, such as FL settings, CF seems to be more effective, especially recasts. In classrooms that are more meaning- or content-oriented, such as SL, immersion or secondary school content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms, the rates of uptake are lower and more explicit CF types (such as metalinguistic information or elicitation) are needed. This review of the impact of context on CF provision and uptake leads to some pedagogical implications.

Keywords

corrective feedback foreign language second language Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)learning context

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 473 - 493

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.023 [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

Alcón Soler, E. & García Mayo, M. P. (2008). Incidental focus on form and learning outcomes with young foreign language classroom learners. In Philp, J., Oliver &, R. Mackey, A. (eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play? (pp. 173–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Amrhein, H. R. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do learners and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95–127.Google Scholar

Choi, S. & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), 331–351.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dabaghi, A. & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82–98.Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, C. & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning (guest editorial). The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117–122.Google Scholar

De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.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

Enever, J. (2018). Policy and politics in global primary English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fujii, A., Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven SL learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Révész, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62(3), 851–879.Google Scholar

Havranek, G. & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In Foster-Cohen, S. & Nizegorodzew, A. (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook Volume 1 (pp.99–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jafarigohara, M. & Gharbavib, A. (2014). Recast or prompt: Which one does the trick? Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 695–703.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428–452.Google Scholar

Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 376–395.Google Scholar

Lee, E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL learners. System, 41(2), 217–230.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 143–157). New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Llinares, A. & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–194.Google Scholar

Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 271–283.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lochtman, K. (2007). Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 119–138). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–442.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–80.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.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

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 (pp. 407–472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.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

Mifka-Profozic, N. (2014). Effectiveness of implicit negative feedback in a foreign language classroom. EUROSLA Yearbook, 14, 111–142.Google Scholar

Milla, R. (2017). Corrective feedback episodes in CLIL and EFL classrooms: Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and classroom behaviour. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria, Spain.Google Scholar

Milla, R. & García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 1–20.Google Scholar

Mori, R. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and corrective feedback. JALT Journal, 24(1), 48–69.Google Scholar

Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39(4), 451–467.Google Scholar

Muñoz, C. (2007). CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (Models and practice in CLIL) Vol. Extra 1, 17–26.Google Scholar

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

Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511–548.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effect of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.CrossRef 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. (2019). The effects of recasts versus prompts on learning a complex target structure. In DeKeyser, R. & Botana, G. P. (eds.), (Doing) SLA research with implications for the classroom (reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability) (pp. 107–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.). (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Oliver, R. & Grote, E. (2010). The provision and uptake of different types of recasts in child and adult ESL learners: What is the role of age and context? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 26.1–26.22.Google Scholar

Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.Google Scholar

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on noticing the gap: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126.Google Scholar

Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

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

Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of / ɹ / by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633.Google Scholar

Samar, G. R. & Shayestefar, P. (2009). Corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Learner negotiation strategies and uptake. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 212, 107–134.Google Scholar

Sato, M. (2017). Oral peer corrective feedback. Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising learner awareness in peer interaction. A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1–2), 157–179.Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (2019). Towards evidence-based second language pedagogy: Research proposals and pedagogical recommendations. In Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 1–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.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, 10(4), 361–392.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.Google Scholar

Spada, N. & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar

Tedick, D. J. & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language integration in K-12 contexts: Learner outcomes, teacher practices and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 28–53.Google Scholar

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

Yang, Y. & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134–1169.Google Scholar

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.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.