Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-t4qhp Total loading time: 0.978 Render date: 2022-08-18T06:24:28.743Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

16 - Explicit and Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

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

Summary

This chapter begin with a general definition of implicit and explicit CF and the classification of common CF strategies accordingly. However, emphasis is placed on the fact the individual strategies can vary in their degree of implicitness and explicitness and also in terms of whether they are input-providing or output-prompting. The significance of both cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural theories for predicting the effectiveness of implicit and explicit CF is considered next. The bulk of the chapter reviews the results of research, starting with meta-analyses of CF studies and then moving on to consider descriptive classroom-based studies and comparative experimental studies. Recasts (which can vary markedly in how implicit or explicit they are) have been found to be the most popular type of teacher feedback strategy but not in every context. Explicit CF results in higher levels of repair of errors. However, because of the numerous factors that affect the impact that CF has on acquisition (for example, whether or not noticing occurs, the grammatical target of the correction, and the intensity of the correction), it is not surprising that the results of the research are quite mixed and it is not possible to say which type of feedback is overall the more effective. The chapter concludes with some tentative generalizations and a plea for longitudinal studies of implicit/ explicit CF.

Type
Chapter
Information
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

Adams, R., Nuevo, A. & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output and SLA: Does implicit and explicit feedback promote learning and learner–learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95(Suppl.), 4263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of error. In Burt, M. K. & Dulay, H. D. (eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education (pp. 96109). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 28(4), 543574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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), 357386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 2946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 4263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. & Varela, E. 1998. Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 511537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3368). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79114). San Diego: Academic 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. 339360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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), 339368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575600.Google Scholar
Erlam, R., Ellis, R. & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. 2002. A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havranek, G. & Cesnik, H. (2003). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In Foster- Cohen, S. & Nizegorodzew, A. (eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol. I, pp. 99122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 112127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 1 8(4), 428452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal, 4(1), 115.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 3763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytical ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. B. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In Brown, B. D., Yorio, C. A. & Crymes, R. H. (eds.), Qn TESOL ’77 Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.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. 469506). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 5181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 3766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (Special issue 2), 265302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. M. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp. 379452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of requests and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 771799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for L2 learning of grammar. Modern Language Review, 101(2), 353368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poehner, M. & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3547). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 417431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C. (2003). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. and Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning(2nd ed., pp. 593610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simard, D. & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teacher’s use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varnosfadrani, A. & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 8298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. & Loewen, S. (2016). Non-verbal behaviour and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 459478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37(3), 308328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013b). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344368.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 6596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

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
×