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-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:14:29.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

34 - Corrective Feedback, Developmental Readiness, and Language Proficiency

from Part VIII - Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Miroslaw Pawlak
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 focuses on the role of developmental readiness and proficiency as two variables that, on the one hand, mediate the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF), and, on the other, can serve as outcome measures in order to determine these effects. In the first part, the two constructs are defined and their relationship to explicit and implicit, or highly automatized, knowledge of the target language is illuminated. This is followed by a succinct overview of empirical studies that have investigated the ways in which developmental readiness and proficiency mediate the effects of different types of CF as well as a critical evaluation of the available body of research with respect to its foci and methodology. Subsequently, emphasis is shifted to the value of the two constructs for everyday teaching practice and an argument is made that it is proficiency rather than developmental readiness that has far more pedagogical relevance and can therefore better inform decisions concerning the provision of CF in the classroom.

Keywords

developmental readinessproficiencyexplicit knowledgeimplicit knowledgeoutcome measuresindividual differences
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 733 - 753
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

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
Allen, D. & Mills, A. (2014). The impact of proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498–513.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 183–210.Google Scholar
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
Andersen, R. W. & Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin–creole connection. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 527–570). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl. 1), 1–25.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). The future of practice. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 287–304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 117–138). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in SLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. & Juffs, A. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 437–454). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(4), 431–469.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M. K. & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language two. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223–236.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Modeling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009a). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R. M., Philp, J. & Reinders, H. (eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–25). Bristol; Buffalo; Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.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. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. & 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
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form “-te i-(ru)” by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 5(2), 311–394.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative–nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29(2), 267–287.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1995). The acquisition of English. In Dietrich, R., Klein, W. & Noyau, C. (eds.), The acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 31–68). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26(1), 125–134.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.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
Li, S. Ellis, R. & Shu, D. (2016). The differential effects of immediate and delayed feedback on learners of different proficiency levels. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Research, 286, 1–15.Google Scholar
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(1), 276–295.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Can language acquisition be altered by instruction? In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 101–112). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lin, J. H. & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46(4), 567–611.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 24–40). New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2015). Instructed second language acquisition. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Reinders, H. (2011). Key concepts in second language acquisition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357–371.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. & Ortega, L. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement by adult learners of Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 65–86.Google Scholar
López, M. B., Van Steendam, E. & Buyse, K. (2019). Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers: Examining attitudes and preferences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 91–128.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Lightbown, M. P. & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s “What’s wrong with oral grammar correction?” Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457–467.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C. & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60(3), 501–533.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
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 181–209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martoccio, A. (2018). How does prior explicit knowledge affect the efficacy of explicit instruction and feedback? The case of the personal a in L2 Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 22(4), 379–397. DOI:10.1177/1362168816689802.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetition, primed production, and language development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2013). Development in second language acquisition. In Robinson, P. (ed.). The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 165–173). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mellow, J. D. (1987). On the primacy of theory in applied studies: A critique of Pienemann and Johnson. Second Language Research, 12(3), 304–318.Google Scholar
Michel, M. (2017). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). London; New York: Routledge.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. (2017a). Grammar acquisition. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 205–223). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017b). Negotiated oral feedback 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). London; New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Conclusions, reflections, and final remarks. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 174–182). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Poznań–Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Heidelberg; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2017a). Individual difference variables as mediating influences on success or failure in form-focused instruction. In Piechurska-Kuciel, E., Szymańska-Czaplak, E. & Szyszka, M. (eds.), At the crossroads: Challenges of foreign language learning (pp. 75–92). Heidelberg: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2017b). Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects on the process and outcome of interaction. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 19–40). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2019). Tapping the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge: Methodological issues. In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.), Contacts and contrasts in educational contexts and translation. Heidelberg: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1986). An acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 92–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 159–179). London: Routledge.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.Google Scholar
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H. & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. & DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67(4), 747–790.CrossRefGoogle 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
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A. & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Varnosfadrani, A. D. & Basturkmen, , H. 2009. The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82–98.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, A. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142.Google Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2005). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. & Liceras, J. (1994). Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning, 44(1), 159–180.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
×