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-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:40:19.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Tools to Measure the Effectiveness of Feedback

from Part II - Methodological Approaches in the Study of Corrective Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Alison Mackey ,
Lara Bryfonski ,
Özgür Parlak ,
Ashleigh Pipes ,
Ayşenur Sağdıç  and
Bo-Ram Suh
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

This chapter describes tools that have been used to measure the effectiveness of corrective feedback ranging from classic instruments such as interactive tasks, to innovative methods recently adopted from related fields like psychology and educational measurement. As part of describing these measurement tools, we also discuss how factors in their use, such as the instructions, the participants, and their roles, need to be considered when assessing the efficacy of feedback. We describe tools used in classrooms and laboratory settings, including introspective methods such as think-alouds, immediate recalls, stimulated recall, interviews, journals, blogs, and uptake sheets, as well as external measurements. We outline the use of tasks in both face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. We conclude our chapter with a discussion of future directions in measuring the effectiveness of corrective feedback on linguistic development and pedagogical implications.

Keywords

Corrective feedbackclassroom-basedlaboratory-basedface-to-face taskscomputer-mediated tasksintrospective toolsobservationsresearch toolstasks
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 111 - 129
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

Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwright, D. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In Singleton, D. & Little, D. (eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3–18). Dublin: IRAAL.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. (1987). Classroom observation: Problems and possibilities. In Das, B. K. (ed.), Patterns of classroom interaction in Southeast Asia (pp. 88–102). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.Google Scholar
Bailey, E. G. & Marsden, E. (2017). Teachers’ views on recognizing and using home languages in predominantly monolingual primary schools. Language and Education, 31(4), 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K. & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665–689.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.Google Scholar
Bryfonski, L. & Sanz, C. (2018). Opportunities for corrective feedback during study abroad: A mixed methods approach. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 1–32.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34.Google Scholar
Cobb, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in foreign and second language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Delgado, O. & McDougald, J. S. (2013). Developing writing through blogs and peer feedback. Íkala, 18(3), 45–61.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2004). Verbal reports, noticing, and SLA research. Language Awareness, 13(4), 243–264.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 249–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1–22.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 L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275.Google 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. & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 285–301.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), 339–368.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1982). From theory to practice. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, W. (eds.), On TESOL ’81 (pp. 129–139). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A. & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(2), 165–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilloteaux, M. & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. & Rist, R. (1999). Integrating multiple qualitative research methods (or avoiding the precariousness of a one-legged stool). Psychology and Marketing, 16(4), 291–304.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Jones, F. (1992). A language-teaching machine: Input, uptake, and output in the communicative classroom. System, 20(2), 133–150.Google Scholar
Kitade, K. (2006). The negotiation model in asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC): Negotiation in task-based email exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(2), 319.Google Scholar
Lai, C. & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47(3), 467–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., Grey, S., Marijuan, S. & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30(2), 111–127.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163–184). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453–498.CrossRefGoogle 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. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R. & Gass, S. M. (2013). Interactionist Approach. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A. & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 129–152.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle 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 collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners’ reports about the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39(4), 285–308.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459–477.CrossRefGoogle 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.), Individual differences and instructional language learning (pp. 181–209). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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
McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 179–207.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 31–47.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. (2013). Learner uptake reports on an EFL reading class in Japan. Gaikokugo Kyouiku Fouramu (Foreign Language Education Forum), 12, 47–62.Google Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of recasts and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 771–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
Palmeira, W. K. (1995). A study of uptake by learners of Hawaiian. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 127–161). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Parlak, Ö. & Ziegler, N. (2017). The impact of recasts on the development of primary stress in a synchronous computer-mediated environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 257–285.Google Scholar
Payant, C. & Kim, Y. (2015). Language mediation in an L3 classroom: The role of task modalities and task types. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 706–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL–SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17–37.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. & Williams, J. N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(4), 829–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96–120.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 554–577.Google Scholar
Slimani, A. (1989). The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slimani, A. (1992). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In Alderson, J. C. & Beretta, A. (eds.), Evaluating Second Language Education (pp. 197–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85–103.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2010) Employing eye-tracking technology in researching the effectiveness of recasts in CMC. In Hult, F. M. (ed.), Directions and prospects for educational linguistics (pp. 79–97). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanou, C. & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Winke, P. M., Godfroid, A. & Gass, S. M. (2013). Introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 205–212.Google Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72–93.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer‐mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115–132.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Sağdıç, A. (2019). The interaction between inhibitory control and corrective feedback timing. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 205–228.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525–541.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163.CrossRefGoogle 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
×