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-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:36:45.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Corrective Feedback in Second versus Foreign Language Contexts

from Part VI - Contexts of Corrective Feedback and Their Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Maria del Pilar García Mayo  and
Ruth Milla
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 summarizes the main findings regarding the effect of the variable instructional context on oral corrective feedback (CF) provision and learner uptake in second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) settings. Although there are other intervening variables in CF provision, such as learners’ individual variables, CF type, and task-related factors, instructional context seems to play an important role in the way teachers provide CF to oral errors, as well as in learners’ reaction to those errors. Lesson orientation appears to be a key factor and, thus, in those contexts that teachers, learners, and activities focus on language forms, such as FL settings, CF seems to be more effective, especially recasts. In classrooms that are more meaning- or content-oriented, such as SL, immersion or secondary school content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms, the rates of uptake are lower and more explicit CF types (such as metalinguistic information or elicitation) are needed. This review of the impact of context on CF provision and uptake leads to some pedagogical implications.

Keywords

corrective feedbackforeign languagesecond languageContent and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)learning context
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 473 - 493
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

Alcón Soler, E. & García Mayo, M. P. (2008). Incidental focus on form and learning outcomes with young foreign language classroom learners. In Philp, J., Oliver &, R. Mackey, A. (eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play? (pp. 173–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Amrhein, H. R. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do learners and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95–127.Google Scholar
Choi, S. & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabaghi, A. & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82–98.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning (guest editorial). The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117–122.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.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
Enever, J. (2018). Policy and politics in global primary English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven SL learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Révész, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62(3), 851–879.Google Scholar
Havranek, G. & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In Foster-Cohen, S. & Nizegorodzew, A. (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook Volume 1 (pp.99–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jafarigohara, M. & Gharbavib, A. (2014). Recast or prompt: Which one does the trick? Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 695–703.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 376–395.Google Scholar
Lee, E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL learners. System, 41(2), 217–230.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 (pp. 143–157). New York; London: Routledge.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), 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2007). Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 119–138). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–442.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–80.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. 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. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.Google Scholar
Mifka-Profozic, N. (2014). Effectiveness of implicit negative feedback in a foreign language classroom. EUROSLA Yearbook, 14, 111–142.Google Scholar
Milla, R. (2017). Corrective feedback episodes in CLIL and EFL classrooms: Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and classroom behaviour. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria, Spain.Google Scholar
Milla, R. & García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Mori, R. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and corrective feedback. JALT Journal, 24(1), 48–69.Google Scholar
Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39(4), 451–467.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2007). CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (Models and practice in CLIL) Vol. Extra 1, 17–26.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL learner’s second language learning. Language Awareness. 11(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511–548.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effect of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Language Learning, 63(4), 835–869.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
Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of recasts versus prompts on learning a complex target structure. In DeKeyser, R. & Botana, G. P. (eds.), (Doing) SLA research with implications for the classroom (reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability) (pp. 107–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.). (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. & Grote, E. (2010). The provision and uptake of different types of recasts in child and adult ESL learners: What is the role of age and context? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 26.1–26.22.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
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
Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rassaei, S. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 417–431.Google Scholar
Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of / ɹ / by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633.Google Scholar
Samar, G. R. & Shayestefar, P. (2009). Corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Learner negotiation strategies and uptake. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 212, 107–134.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Oral peer corrective feedback. Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising learner awareness in peer interaction. A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1–2), 157–179.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (2019). Towards evidence-based second language pedagogy: Research proposals and pedagogical recommendations. In Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 1–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.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. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J. & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language integration in K-12 contexts: Learner outcomes, teacher practices and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 28–53.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 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. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134–1169.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.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
×