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-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:50:21.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Oral Corrective Feedback

from Part III - Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Rhonda Oliver  and
Rebecca Adams
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

We provide an overview of research that explains what oral corrective feedback is, how it can be expressed by teachers and peers, and how it may impact the language development process. We define oral corrective feedback as a negative evidence provided in response to learner error in an oral mode. A theoretical rationale for the role of feedback is described, drawing on research from both cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural explanations of second language learning through oral communication. Examples from numerous studies are incorporated to exemplify the range of ways feedback is provided on different types of linguistic errors. Research on the relative effectiveness of different types of feedback is reviewed, as well as empirical inquiry into the role of individual and social factors that can enhance or limit the effectiveness or oral feedback, concluding that oral corrective feedback is an important factor for language learning in instructed settings. We close with recommendations for research-driven teaching practice with respect to oral corrective feedback, cautioning that teachers need to consider learner experiences and expectations of feedback, their pedagogical objectives and approach, as well as learners developmental needs, self-monitoring skills, and ability to provide feedback to one another.

Keywords

oral corrective feedbackrecastspromptsinteractionist approachsociocultural approachesindividual differencessocial factors
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 187 - 206
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

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Nuevo, A. M. & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner–learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 11(Suppl. issue), 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R. & Oliver, R. (2019). Teaching through peer interaction. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R. & Ross–Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In Belcher, D. & Hirvela, A. (eds.), The oral–literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243–265). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Aljaafeh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2),183–210.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D. & Mackey, A. (2006). Learner’s interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. C. (ed.), Implicit and explicit language learning (pp. 79–114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.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
Ellis, R. and Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(5), 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (2013). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross–Feldman, L. (2011). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 61(S1), 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.). (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. & Kim, J. (2008). Corrective recasts: What teachers might want to know. Language Learning Journal, 36(1), 35–44.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamiya, N. (2015). The effectiveness of intensive and extensive recasts on L2 acquisition for implicit and explicit knowledge. Linguistics and Education, 29, 59–72.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 112–127.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2014). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 68(2), 196–198.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361–386.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: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M., Inagaki, S. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357–371.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. & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(4), 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. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2013). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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. & 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. & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459–477.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R. & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66.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
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 79–103.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2009). A Vygotskyan perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 459–481.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning, 50(1), 119–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. & Grote, E. (2010). The provision and uptake of different types of recasts in child and adult ESL learners. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 21.1–26.22.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519–533.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., Philp., J. & Mackey, A. (2008). Age, teacher guidance and the linguistic outcomes of task-based interaction. In Philp, J., Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Child’s play? Second language acquisition and the younger learner (pp. 131–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(4), 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Mills, S. V. (2006). An exploratory study of differing perceptions of error correction between a teacher and students: Bridging the gap. Applied Language Learning, 16(1), 55–74.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Norris., J. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2013). Re-examining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development: The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1–2), 157–179.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development, monitoring, practice and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 593–610). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simard, D. & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 205–244.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2010). Talking it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
×