Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? Replication of Li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Yilmaz (2018)

  • Shaofeng Li (a1)

Abstract

This article calls for replication of two studies (Li, Zhu & Ellis 2016; Arroyo & Yilmaz 2018) that examine the timing of corrective feedback, which refers to whether errors should be corrected during a communicative task (immediate feedback) or after the task is completed (delayed feedback). The article starts with a rationale for replicating the two studies: they address a topic of significance to theorists, researchers, and practitioners; they are conducted with rigorous methods; they represent classroom and laboratory research respectively; they both show an advantage for immediate feedback. It proceeds to contextualize the subsequent discussion of replication strategies by (1) elaborating the theoretical claims and pedagogical positions on the influence of the timing of corrective feedback on learning outcomes and task performance, and (2) summarizing the findings of the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback. After some background information is provided, a detailed discussion is given for each of the two studies, including a summary of the methods and findings, followed by recommendations about how to replicate.

Copyright

References

Hide All
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, 465483.
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 543574.
Arroyo, D. C. & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning 68.4, 131.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 20.4, 436458.
Choi, S. & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. The RELC Journal 43, 331–251.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 94112.
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), 249–267.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 141172.
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 151165.
Ellis, R., Li, S. & Zhu, Y. (2019). The effects of pre-task explicit instruction on the performance of a focused task. System 80, 3847.
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 127165.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kim, Y., Payant, C. & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37, 549581.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60, 309365.
Li, S. (2014). Recasts, working memory, and the choice of target structure. In Han, Z. (ed.), Second language acquisition of Chinese: A series of empirical studies. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, 103125.
Li, S. (2015). The differential roles of working memory and language analytic ability in mediating the effects of recasts as a function of learner proficiency. In Wen, Z., Mota, M. & MacNeil, A. (eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary. Bristol: Multilingual Matters 87, 139159.
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 801842.
Li, S. (2017a). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction: A synthetic review. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach. John Benjamins, 4170.
Li, S. (2017b). Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. New York: Routledge, 143157.
Li, S. (2018a). Corrective feedback. In Liontas, J. et al. (eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Blackwell, 110.
Li, S. (2018b). Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback: A synthetic and critical review. In Gudmestad, A. & Edmonds, A. (eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition. John Benjamins, 3361.
Li, S., Zhu, Y. & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal 100, 276295.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Lyster, R. (2004). Different effects of prompts and effects in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 399432.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 3766.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 167184.
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 265302.
Mackey, A. (ed.). Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), 408–452.
Marsden, E., Mackey, A. & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In Mackey, A. & Marsden, E. (eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages. Routledge, 121.
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory. London: Bloomsbury.
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.) (in press). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417528.
Philip, J. (2003). Constraints on ‘noticing the gap’: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 99126.
Porte, G. (2012). Introduction. In Porte, G. (ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1‒18.
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 437470.
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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 131164.
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly 42, 181207.
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W. & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research 18, 453473.
van de Guchte, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M. & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. Modern Language Journal 99, 246262.
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning 62, 11341169.
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics 34, 344368.
Yilmaz, Y. & Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19, 147161.
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 553586.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language Teaching
  • ISSN: 0261-4448
  • EISSN: 1475-3049
  • URL: /core/journals/language-teaching
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed