Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:54:26.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Interactionist Approach to Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition

from Part I - Theoretical Perspectives on Corrective Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Rebekha Abbuhl
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

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.

Keywords

corrective feedbackinteractionist approachnoticing hypothesisoutput hypothesissecond language learning
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 44 - 64
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.)

References

Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.Google Scholar
Azkarai, A. & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 844–870.Google Scholar
Batstone, R. (2010). Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bigelow, M., delMas, B., Hansen, K. & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 1–25.Google Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357–386.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015). The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in NNS discourse. In Eisenstein, M. (ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum.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
Gooch, R., Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 60, 117–127.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. (2009). Universal grammar approaches to language acquisition. In Foster-Cohen, S. (ed.), Language acquisition (pp. 87–108). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1393–1420.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. & Norrby, C. (2010). Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 60(3), 628–650.Google Scholar
Hanel, P. & Vione, K. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public? PLoD One, 11. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0168354.Google Scholar
Hu, X., Ackerman, H., Martin, J., Erb, M., Winkler, S. & Reiterer, S. (2013). Language aptitude for pronunciation in advanced second language (L2) learners: Behavioural predictors and neural substrates. Brain & Language, 127(3), 366–376.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Young, R., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N., Lantolf, J., Mackey, A. & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 361–421.CrossRefGoogle 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
Kasper, G. & Burch, A. (2016). Focus on form in the wild. In van Compernolle, R. & McGregor, J. (eds.), Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts (pp. 198–232). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2017). Cognitive-interactionist approaches to L2 instruction. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 126–145). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
King, K. & Mackey, A. (2016). Research methodology in second language studies: Trends, concerns, and new directions. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 209–227.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Kunitz, S. (2018). Collaborative attention work on gender agreement in Italian as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 102(S1), 64–81.Google Scholar
Kuriscak, L. (2010). The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance. In Martínez-Flor, A. & Usó-Juan, E. (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 23–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larson-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals. DOI:10.1111/flan.12314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A. & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of different types of corrective feedback on receptive skills in a second language: A speech perception training study. Language Learning, 66(4), 809–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.Google Scholar
Leow, R. & Donatelli, L. (2017). The role of (un)awareness in SLA. Language Teaching, 50(2), 189–211.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373–396.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1998). SLA: Breaking the siege. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 17, 79–129.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M., Inagaki, S. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–426.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.CrossRefGoogle 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. (2006). Epilogue: From introspections, brain scans, and memory tests to the role of social context: Advancing research on interaction and learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 369–379.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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 series of empirical studies (pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62(3), 704–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. & Silver, R. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239–260.Google Scholar
Major, R. (2001). Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Masuda, T. (2017). Culture and attention: Recent empirical findings and new directions in cultural psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(12). DOI:10.1111/spc3.12363.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720.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. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.Google Scholar
Nguyen, M., Pham, H. & Pham, T. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 45–67.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M., Huan, D., Kärtner, J. & Legare, C. (2017). The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 31–38.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 467–473.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory and the zone of proximal development. In. Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 648–669). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand. In Atkinson, D. (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 167–180). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epistemological diversity and moral ends of research in instructed SLA. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 206–226.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. & Tomczyk, E. (2013). Differential effects of input-providing and output-inducing corrective feedback on the acquisition of English passive voice. In Piechurska-Kucial, E. & Szymanska-Czaplak, E. (eds.), Language in cognition and affect (pp. 133–149). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. & Merunka, S. (2014). Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 1035–1041.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing or recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126.Google Scholar
Philp, J. & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J. & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Testing, 47(3–4) 245–266.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2017). Peer interaction and second language learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1996). Do second language learners need negotiation? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737–758.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331.Google Scholar
Sakaluk, J. (2016). Exploring small, confirming big: An alternative system to the new statistics for advancing cumulative and replicable psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 47–54.Google Scholar
Sarandi, H. (2017). Mixed corrective feedback and the acquisition of third person “-s.” The Language Learning Journal. DOI:10.1080/09571736.2017.1400579.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: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–209). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learners’ uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar
Sherris, A. & Burns, M. S. (2015). New border crossings for the interaction hypothesis: The effects of feedback on Gonja speakers learning English in a rural school in Ghana. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(3), 238–255.Google Scholar
Solon, M. (2017). Interaction and phonetic form in task completion: An examination of interlocutor effects in learner-learner and learner-heritage speaker interaction. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 121–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp.125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (2010). Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: An under-studied population. Language Teaching, 43(1), 75–83.Google Scholar
Theodórsdóttir, G. (2018). L2 teaching in the wild: A closer look at correction and explanation practices in everyday L2 interaction. Modern Language Journal, 201(S1), 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437–456.Google Scholar
van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 246–262.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 95–110.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133–161.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. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41, 691–705.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×