Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2021
  • Online publication date: February 2021

Introduction - Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning


This chapter outlines the rationale for the volume as well as its scope and structure. The theoretical and empirical bases for the study of corrective feedback as well as ways to employ corrective feedback in second language instruction are presented first followed by the aims of the book, its target audience, and a description of the book’s structure and content.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543574.
Amrhein, H. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95127.
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.
Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K. & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665689.
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 1153). New York: Wiley.
Demetras, M., Post, K. & Snow, C. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language, 13(2), 275292.
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 121. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 318.
Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575600.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353371.
Felix, U. (2005a). Analyzing recent CALL effectiveness research: Towards a common agenda. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(1–2), 132.
Felix, U. (2005b). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17(12), 269288.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 81104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flynn, S. (1988). Nature of development in L2 acquisition and implications for theories of language acquisition in general. In Flynn, S. & O’Neill, W. (eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 277294). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Flynn, S. (1996). A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 121158). San Diego: Academic Press.
Fu, T. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a Chinese as a foreign language class: Do perceptions and the reality match? Unpublished MA thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575611.
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283302.
Kamiya, N. (2015). The effectiveness of intensive and extensive recasts on L2 acquisition for implicit and explicit knowledge. Linguistics and Education, 29, 5972.
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 118.
Karim, K. & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519539.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309365.
Lira Gonzales, M., & Nassaji, H. (2018). Teachers’ written corrective feedback and students’ revision in the ESL classroom. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 4–27 March, Chicago, USA.
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L. & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research in computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of literature from 1990–2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 250273.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In DeBot, K., Ginsberge, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3952). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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. 413468). San Diego: Academic Press.
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(3), 357371.
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265302.
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2012). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 140. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365.
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 collection of empirical studies (pp. 407452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338356.
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 4363.
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
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), 535562.
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353368.
Nassaji, H. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching Research, 53(1), 328.
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.). (2017). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications. New York; London: Routledge.
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (2019). Technology-mediated feedback and instruction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 151153.
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(1), 157213.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493527.
Pica, T. (1998). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. In Regan, V. (ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition in social context (pp. 931). Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93132. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00690.x.
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 5377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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 (pp. 131164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147163.
Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556569. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002.
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, 135145.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Widdowson, H. G., Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133161.
Yousefi, M. & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated instruction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 277308.
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553586.