Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-2wqtr Total loading time: 0.371 Render date: 2021-09-17T11:53:02.323Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

THE EFFECTS OF IMMEDIATE AND DELAYED CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON L2 DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2020

Mengxia Fu*
Affiliation:
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and The University of Auckland
Shaofeng Li*
Affiliation:
Florida State University
*Corresponding
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shaofeng Li. E-mail: sli9@fsu.edu

Abstract

This article reports on a study exploring the differential effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback (CF) on the acquisition of the English past tense. One hundred and forty-five seventh-grade EFL learners were assigned to four groups: Immediate CF, Delayed CF, Task Only, and Control. Each experimental group performed six focused communicative tasks, two each in three treatment sessions, eliciting the use of the English past tense. The Immediate CF group received feedback on their erroneous use of the target structure in the first session, the Delayed CF group received feedback in the final session, and the Task Only group performed the communicative tasks without receiving any feedback. The Control group only took the achievement tests. The effects of the feedback treatments were measured through an untimed grammaticality judgment test and an elicited imitation test. Mixed-effects analyses examining the influence of both fixed and random factors demonstrated that immediate CF was more facilitative of L2 development than delayed CF. The results suggest the importance of addressing linguistic errors before they are proceduralized in the interlanguage.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

The study was supported by the Chinese Scholarship Council and the Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. We would like to thank Rosemary Erlam and Yalu Wen for their assistance with various aspects of the study and Shuirong Deng and Zhuangwei Tang for their support with data collection and participant recruitment. We are solely responsible for any errors.

References

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, 942972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D. (2010). lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. Springer.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. (2007). Teaching by principles: Interactive language teaching methodology (3rd ed.) Person Education.Google Scholar
Butler, A., Karpicke, J., & Roediger, H. (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 273281.Google ScholarPubMed
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. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 94112). Routledge.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114138). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 249267). Oxford University Press.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. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Multilingual Matters.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, 339368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2006). Elirefd imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 887916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445474.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. Pearson.Google Scholar
Kim, J., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 269297). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 835.CrossRefGoogle 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
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kulhavey, R., & Anderson, R. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 505512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58, 7997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2014). The differential roles of two aptitude components in mediating the effects of two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. AAUSC 2013 Volume-Issues in Language Program Direction, 32–52.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 143157). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2020). What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? Replication of Li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Yilmaz (2018). Language Teaching, 53, 96108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Kim, J. (2020). The influence of pre-task grammar instruction on L2 learning: An experimental study. Studies in English Education, 23, 831857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2016a). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 693722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016b). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 276295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts 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
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive international feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development: Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classroom: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12, 1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullet, H., Butler, A., Verdin, B., Von Borries, R., & Marsh, E. (2014). Delaying feedback promotes transfer of knowledge despite student preferences to receive feedback immediately. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 222229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakata, T., & Suzuki, Y. (2019). Effects of massing and spacing on the learning of semantically related and unrelated words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 287311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Philp, 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
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, 267278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English [Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto].Google 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). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, J. (2017). The spacing effect and its relevance to second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 38, 906911.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2013a). Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development: The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. (2013b). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the perception and production of English r to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63, 499529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /r/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97, 611633.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, 507545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality? Contextualized practice in the classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. The Free Press.Google Scholar
Smith, T., & Kimball, D. (2010). Learning from feedback: Spacing and the delay-retention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 8095.Google ScholarPubMed
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isoltaed and integrated form-vosued instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 18, 453473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elirefd imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65, 860895.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
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 531). Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winter, B. (2013). Linear models and linear mixed effects models in R with linguistic applications. https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5499Google Scholar
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235263.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
Zhao, Y. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit recasts on the acquisition of two grammatical structures and the mediating role of working memory [Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Auckland, New Zealand].Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Linked content

Please note a has been issued for this article.

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.

THE EFFECTS OF IMMEDIATE AND DELAYED CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON L2 DEVELOPMENT
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.

THE EFFECTS OF IMMEDIATE AND DELAYED CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON L2 DEVELOPMENT
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.

THE EFFECTS OF IMMEDIATE AND DELAYED CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON L2 DEVELOPMENT
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? *