Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-gf4tf Total loading time: 0.194 Render date: 2021-08-01T12:08:03.496Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? Replication of Li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Yilmaz (2018)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 December 2018

Shaofeng Li
Affiliation:
Florida State University, USAsli9@fsu.edu
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This article calls for replication of two studies (Li, Zhu & Ellis 2016; Arroyo & Yilmaz 2018) that examine the timing of corrective feedback, which refers to whether errors should be corrected during a communicative task (immediate feedback) or after the task is completed (delayed feedback). The article starts with a rationale for replicating the two studies: they address a topic of significance to theorists, researchers, and practitioners; they are conducted with rigorous methods; they represent classroom and laboratory research respectively; they both show an advantage for immediate feedback. It proceeds to contextualize the subsequent discussion of replication strategies by (1) elaborating the theoretical claims and pedagogical positions on the influence of the timing of corrective feedback on learning outcomes and task performance, and (2) summarizing the findings of the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback. After some background information is provided, a detailed discussion is given for each of the two studies, including a summary of the methods and findings, followed by recommendations about how to replicate.

Type
Replication Research
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

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, 465483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 543574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arroyo, D. C. & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning 68.4, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Choi, S. & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. The RELC Journal 43, 331–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 94112.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), 249–267.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 141172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 151165.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Li, S. & Zhu, Y. (2019). The effects of pre-task explicit instruction on the performance of a focused task. System 80, 3847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 127165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Payant, C. & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37, 549581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60, 309365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2014). Recasts, working memory, and the choice of target structure. In Han, Z. (ed.), Second language acquisition of Chinese: A series of empirical studies. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, 103125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2015). The differential roles of working memory and language analytic ability in mediating the effects of recasts as a function of learner proficiency. In Wen, Z., Mota, M. & MacNeil, A. (eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary. Bristol: Multilingual Matters 87, 139159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 801842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2017a). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction: A synthetic review. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach. John Benjamins, 4170.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017b). Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. New York: Routledge, 143157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2018a). Corrective feedback. In Liontas, J. et al. (eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Blackwell, 110.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2018b). Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback: A synthetic and critical review. In Gudmestad, A. & Edmonds, A. (eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition. John Benjamins, 3361.CrossRefGoogle 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, 276295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Different effects of prompts and effects in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 399432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 3766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 167184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 265302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (ed.). Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), 408–452.Google Scholar
Marsden, E., Mackey, A. & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In Mackey, A. & Marsden, E. (eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages. Routledge, 121.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.) (in press). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philip, J. (2003). Constraints on ‘noticing the gap’: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 99126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, G. (2012). Introduction. In Porte, G. (ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1‒18.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 437470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 131164.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly 42, 181207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W. & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research 18, 453473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Guchte, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M. & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. Modern Language Journal 99, 246262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning 62, 11341169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics 34, 344368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. & Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19, 147161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 553586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? Replication of Li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Yilmaz (2018)
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? Replication of Li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Yilmaz (2018)
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? Replication of Li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Yilmaz (2018)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *