Oral Corrective Feedback

Abstract

Oral corrective feedback refers to comments a teacher or an interlocutor makes on errors that occur in second language learners’ speech production. In traditional pedagogy, corrective feedback is restricted to explicit correction of errors and there is no distinction between different types of feedback. In current approaches such as task-based instruction, the concept of feedback is extended to any response that is intended and/or recognized as being corrective.

Appendices

The Research Questions

• 1. How do teachers provide feedback in the classroom?

• 2. Do learners recognize the corrective force of feedback?

• 3. Is feedback effective?

• 4. Are certain feedback types more effective than others?

• 5. What factors may affect the effects of feedback?

• 6. Should errors receive immediate correction or after some delay?

• 7. Should feedback be provided before, during, or after a communicative task?

• 8. How do learners think feedback should be provided?

• 9. Is hybrid feedback such as the kind that consists of a prompt followed by a recast more effective than single feedback moves?

• 10. Do child and adult learners benefit from feedback differently?

Suggested Resources

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.

This is a meta-analysis that aggregated all the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of corrective feedback. The study is characterized by comprehensive coverage and methodological rigor, and it is one of the most frequently cited feedback studies. The meta-analysis showed an overall medium effect for feedback. The moderator analysis revealed that lab studies yielded larger effects than classroom studies; explicit feedback demonstrated larger immediate effects than implicit feedback but the effects of implicit feedback were more sustainable; studies conducted in foreign language settings generated larger effects than those conducted in second language settings. The findings were interpreted primarily by drawing on the methodological features of the synthesized studies.

Li, S. (2018). Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback: A synthetic and critical review. In A. Gudmestad & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp. 33–61). John Benjamins.

This study provides an evidence-based review and critique of the methods of the research on the effects of corrective feedback in second language learning. It aims to inform this substantive domain by showing how the research has been conducted, identifying issues and limitations, and proposing solutions. The researcher extracted the methodological details of 34 representative studies selected based on transparent, justified criteria. The data were coded in terms of feedback treatment, feedback elicitation task, and the measurement of treatment effects. The coded features were evaluated in terms of internal validity, external validity, and construct validity. The study is the first that provides a thorough description and discussion of the methods of experimental feedback research.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.

This meta-analysis reported that in classroom settings, prompts were more effective than recasts and that younger learners benefited more from feedback than older learners. This meta-analysis was published in the same year as Li’s (2010) meta-analysis. However, they were based on different selection criteria and their analyses were considerably different. Lyster and Saito’s meta-analysis only included classroom studies, most of which compared the effects of recasts and prompts—a topic on which Lyster and his colleagues have conducted a large amount of research. Li’s meta-analysis included both lab and classroom studies. Their meta-analysis used confidence intervals to detect significant group differences, a practice that is criticized by experts in meta-analysis (e.g. Li et al., 2012) on the grounds that while the lack of overlap between confidence intervals suggests a significant difference, the existence of an overlap does not necessarily mean there is no significant difference. In Li’s meta-analysis, Q tests were performed for group comparisons. Despite the caveats, Lyster and Saito’s meta-analysis generated some valuable findings, some of which may inspire the reader to carry out further research. For example, the finding that feedback was more effective for younger learners than older learners is based on synthesized results, that is, age was a coded moderator. Therefore, age needs to be examined as an independent variable in the primary research.

Mackey, A. (Ed.) (2017). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

This volume concerns the role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition, but a large percentage of the articles concern feedback—a critical feature of interaction that contributes to learning gains. In fact, a major theoretical basis for the importance of corrective feedback is the Interaction Hypothesis, which claims that interaction affords opportunities for learning by making available interactionally modified input, corrective feedback, and pushed output. The Interaction Hypothesis is the guiding theory for the studies included in the book. The theory also favours recasts, which probably explains why most of the feedback studies included in the book concern recasts. The topics examined in the feedback studies include constraining factors for the effects of recasts such as language analytic ability, working memory, and the linguistic target; peer oral feedback; learners’ perceptions of recasts; and measures of the effects of feedback. The book concludes with a meta-analysis of the research on second language interaction, and feedback was examined as an important variable that contributes to the effects of interaction.

Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.) (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. NY: Routledge.

This is the first edited volume that deals exclusively with the theory, research, and practice of corrective feedback. The book includes a collection of chapters authored by leading researchers in this substantive domain and provides a comprehensive description and an in-depth, authoritarian discussion of the knowledge that has been accumulated on each topic. The book covers nearly all aspects of the topic of feedback such as oral feedback, written feedback, computerized feedback, and beliefs about feedback. It not only has a wide coverage but also addresses original topics such as the timing of feedback, peer written feedback, oral feedback to written errors, and non-verbal feedback.