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-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:23:03.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Methodological Approaches in the Study of Corrective Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 109 - 184
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

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.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. & 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google 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), 291–304.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.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.), 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google 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.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(1), 99–126.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar

References

Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2009). Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42(1), 109–130.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
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2020). In VanPatten, W., Keating, G., & Wulff, S. Theories of second language acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed.) (pp. 192–222). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2020). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed., pp. 192‒222). 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
Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 61(S1), 189–220.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Plough, I. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In Gass, S. & Crookes, G. (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hartwick, P. (2018). Investigating research approaches: Classroom-based interaction studies in physical and virtual contexts. ReCALL, 30(2), 161–176.Google Scholar
Lee, A. H. & Lyster, R. (2017). Can corrective feedback on second language speech perception errors affect production accuracy? Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(2), 371–393.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Nabei, T. (2007). The effect of oral corrective feedback on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 361–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2012). Instructed second language acquisition. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 53–73). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-art article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.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 in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2017). Classroom-based research. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 541–561). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Fujii, A., Biesenbach-Lucas, S., Weger, H., Jacobsen, N., Fogle, L., Lake, J., Sondermann, K., Tagarelli, K., Tsujita, M., Watanabe, A., Abbuhl, R. & Kim, K. (2013). Tasks and traditional practice activities in a foreign language context. In McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 71–87). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google 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. 407–449). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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(2), 267–278.Google Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google 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. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12283.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). Classroom research. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 541–554). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

References

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar
Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In Burt, and Dulay, (eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A. & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639.Google Scholar
Bastone, R. (2002). Contexts of engagement: A discourse perspective on “intake” and “pushed output.” System, 30, 1–14.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 12(3), 409–431.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(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514.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
Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2009) Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446–459.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response to L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141–163.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the laboratory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 131–143.Google Scholar
Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217–230.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article. Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431–462.Google Scholar
Llinares, A. & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–194.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 271–283.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Monteiro, K. (2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video-conferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 56–79.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51.Google Scholar
Nicholas, N., Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL contexts. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519–532.Google Scholar
Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.Google Scholar
Park, E. S., Song, S. & Shin, Y. K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 678–699.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86(i), 1–19.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 30(1–2), 133–148.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1), 96–120.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.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.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (2005). Conditions and challenges in developing school-based SLA research programs. Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 328–338.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 205–224.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46.Google 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
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Tsang, W. K. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. RELC Journal, 35(2), 187–209.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. (2017). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71(3), 317–328.Google Scholar

References

Biber, D., Nekrasova, T. & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. TOEFL iBT Re-search Report No. TOEFLiBT-14. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.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(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38, 491–498. DOI:10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.Google Scholar
Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365–397.Google Scholar
Chen, T. & Lin, H. (2012, March). Effects of peer feedback on EFL/ESL writing improvement: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Linguistics and Languages (GURT), Georgetown University, Washington, DC.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
Cooper, H. (2010). Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach (4th edn.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V. & Valentine, J. C. (eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.), New York: Russell Sage Foundations.Google Scholar
Derrick, D. J. (2016). Instrument reporting practices in second language research. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 132–153. DOI:10.1002/tesq.217.Google Scholar
Duppenthale, P. (2002). Feedback and Japanese high school English language journal writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “Grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49–62.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. M. (1977). The effects of error correction treatments upon adequate and accurate communication in the written compositions of adult learners of English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Kang, E. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Kao, C. W. & Wible, D. (2011). The distinction between focused and unfocused grammar feedback matters: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Ames, IA, October.Google Scholar
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N. & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris and L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J. & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–366.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Liu, Q. & Brown, D. (2015). A methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990520.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey, (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–451). New York: Oxford University Press,Google Scholar
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S. & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews, and recommendations for the field. Language Learning. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1111/lang.12286.Google Scholar
Marsden, E., Thompson, S. & Plonsky, L. (2018). A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000036.Google Scholar
Miller, P. C. (2003). The effectiveness of corrective feedback: A meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Miller, P. C. and Pan, W. (2012). Recasts in the L2 classroom: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.07.002.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google 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(4), 535–562.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.). (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2007). The future of research synthesis in applied linguistics: Beyond art or science. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 805–815.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2015). Research synthesis. In Paltridge, B. & Phakiti, A. (eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 225–244). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L. & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.Google Scholar
Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A. & Wong, R. (2009). Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: Consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 27, 114–122. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2012). Replication, meta-analysis, and generalizability. In Porte, G. (ed.), Replication Research in Applied Linguistics (pp. 116–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470.Google 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(2), 267–278.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61(2), 325–366.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Gonulal, T. (2015). Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning, 65(Suppl. 1), 9–36.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (2012). How to do a meta-analysis. In A. Mackey, , Gass, S. M., Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 275–295). Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912.Google Scholar
Poltavtchenko, E. & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Feedback and second language writing: A meta-analysis. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of TESOL, Denver, CO, March.Google Scholar
Porte, G. (ed.). (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Riazi, M., Shi, L. & Haggerty, J. (2018). Analysis of the empirical research in the journal of second language writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 41–54.Google Scholar
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J. & Borenstein, M. (eds.). (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris, and L. Ortega, (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.Google Scholar
Sok, S., Kang, E. Y. & Han, Z. (2018). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A methodological synthesis. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1177/1362168818776673.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. DOI:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181.Google Scholar
Thirakunkovit, S. P. & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: Implications for writing instructions and research. Asian EFL Journal, 21(1), 140–170.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003.Google Scholar
Yousefi, M. & Nassaji, H. (2018). The effect of computer-mediated vs. face-to-face instruction on L2 pragmatics: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Cognitive and Language Sciences, 12(7), 620–624.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2013). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×