Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives on Corrective Feedback
- Part II Methodological Approaches in the Study of Corrective Feedback
- 5 Tools to Measure the Effectiveness of Feedback
- 6 Laboratory-Based Oral Corrective Feedback
- 7 Classroom-Based Research in Corrective Feedback
- 8 Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis
- Part III Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback
- Part IV Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing
- Part V Corrective Feedback and Language Skills
- Part VI Contexts of Corrective Feedback and Their Effects
- Part VII Learners’ and Teachers’ Feedback Perspectives, Perceptions, and Preferences
- Part VIII Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors
- Index
- References
7 - Classroom-Based Research in Corrective Feedback
from Part II - Methodological Approaches in the Study of Corrective Feedback
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives on Corrective Feedback
- Part II Methodological Approaches in the Study of Corrective Feedback
- 5 Tools to Measure the Effectiveness of Feedback
- 6 Laboratory-Based Oral Corrective Feedback
- 7 Classroom-Based Research in Corrective Feedback
- 8 Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis
- Part III Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback
- Part IV Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing
- Part V Corrective Feedback and Language Skills
- Part VI Contexts of Corrective Feedback and Their Effects
- Part VII Learners’ and Teachers’ Feedback Perspectives, Perceptions, and Preferences
- Part VIII Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors
- Index
- References
Summary
Classroom-based research concerned with corrective feedback plays a critical role in our understanding of how contextual factors shape teaching and learning, as well as our understanding of research. This chapter draws on descriptive and experimental studies investigating corrective feedback in the classroom to examine the role of context and the ways in which contextual factors have been considered, and at times neglected, in research. It highlights how both macro and micro dimensions of classroom contexts have had an impact on the ways in which researchers design, carry out, and interpret their work and teachers might draw on findings for classroom practice. Discussion explores how classrooms have and will continue to change, making a consideration of context imperative beyond a variable to be accounted for in research. The chapter suggests that the diversity of classroom contexts be leveraged to enrich the research
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 147 - 163Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article. Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431–462.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 1
- Cited by