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-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:58:52.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

35 - Corrective Feedback and Grammatical Complexity: A Research Synthesis

from Part VIII - Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Gisela Granena  and
Yucel Yilmaz
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 reviews corrective feedback studies that focused on the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback on specific morphosyntactic targets in English as a second language. Specifically, this chapter addressed the question of whether the grammatical complexity of the target structure investigated affects the effectiveness of corrective feedback as an instructional intervention. Not only was complexity defined on the basis of formal criteria, but it also incorporated a semantic component from the perspective of the redundancy and transparency of the form–meaning mapping. Eleven studies published between 2006 and 2018 qualified for the research synthesis. The overall findings indicated that, in general, corrective feedback is more effective for simpler grammatical features. The chapter concludes that type of language feature is a relevant dimension to consider in the effectiveness of corrective feedback. The chapter calls for future research on the role of grammatical complexity using categorization methods that consider both formal and semantic complexity features.

Keywords

Grammatical complexitysemantic complexitytarget structurelinguistic targetform-meaning mapping
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 754 - 776
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

*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
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2014). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 3.3) [computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.Google Scholar
Bulté, B. & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in second language acquisition, 15(3), 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. (ed.), Second languages (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 249–297.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl. 1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. *(2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
Goldschneider, J. M. & DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55(Suppl. 1), 27–77.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2016). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity. In G. Granena, D. O. Jackson, & Y. Yilmaz (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition, 3, (pp. 279–302). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y. & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
*Guo, X. & Yang, Y. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(4), 841–858.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. & De Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.Google Scholar
*Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45–77). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Li, S. & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109.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. & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (ed.). (2006). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6(11), 456–463.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(3), 219–235.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27–67.Google Scholar
*Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.Google Scholar
Williams, J. & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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(2), 235–263.Google Scholar
*Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691–705.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 48–86.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
×