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
- Part III Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback
- Part IV Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing
- 13 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction
- 14 Focused versus Unfocused Corrective Feedback
- 15 Corrective Feedback Timing and Second Language Grammatical Development: Research, Theory, and Practice
- 16 Explicit and Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback
- 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
15 - Corrective Feedback Timing and Second Language Grammatical Development: Research, Theory, and Practice
from Part IV - Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing
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
- Part III Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback
- Part IV Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing
- 13 Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction
- 14 Focused versus Unfocused Corrective Feedback
- 15 Corrective Feedback Timing and Second Language Grammatical Development: Research, Theory, and Practice
- 16 Explicit and Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback
- 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
This chapter summarizes research on the timing of written and oral corrective feedback (CF) on L2 grammatical errors. A careful analysis of a comprehensive array of CF timing studies indicates that there are learning benefits from both immediate and delayed CF. The analysis also demonstrates the need for more uniform construct definitions and more rigidly designed studies in the area of CF timing research. The chapter then explains several theoretical proposals about how immediate and delayed CF facilitate L2 development. These proposed explanations include sociocultural theory, Transfer Appropriate Processing, skill acquisition theory, and cognitive comparison via reactivation and reconsolidation. In addition, this chapter discusses the potential implications that research and theory might have for L2 pedagogy, concluding that at this juncture, the literature provides teachers with justifications for using both immediate and delayed CF. Finally, the chapter ends with recommendations about what future research might best be conducted in the area of CF timing.
Keywords
corrective feedback timingimmediate corrective feedbackdelayed corrective feedbackoral corrective feedbackwritten corrective feedbackcognitive processes in corrective feedbacktheoretical perspectives on corrective feedbackcorrective feedback research methodologyinstructed second language acquisition
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 322 - 340Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Aljaafreh, A. L. I. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arroyo, D. C. & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12300.Google Scholar
Azad, M. H. C, Farrokhi, F. & Zohrabi, M. (2018). Corrective feedback, spoken accuracy and fluency, and the Trade-off Hypothesis. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). The cognitive perspective on written CF for L2 development. In Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (eds.), Written corrective feedback for L2 development (pp. 10–33). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edn.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.Google 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.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google 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
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J. & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229–239.Google Scholar
Farmani, R., Akbari, O. & Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The impact of immediate and delayed error correction on Iranian EFL learner’s motivation. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 2(3), 76–86.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D. & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henshaw, F. (2011). Effects of feedback timing in SLA: A computer assisted study on the Spanish subjunctive. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. (eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 85–99). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.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
Hupbach, A., Gomez, R., Hardt, O. & Nadel, L. (2007). Reconsolidation of episodic memories: A subtle reminder triggers integration of new information. Learning & Memory, 14(1–2), 47–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, E. Y. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavolette, E., Polio, C. & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language, Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.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., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (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
Long, M. H. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. A. & Crymes, R. H. (eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.CrossRefGoogle 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: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, D. D., Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533.Google Scholar
Nader, K. & Einarsson, E. O. (2010). Memory reconsolidation: An update. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nassaji, H. (2017). Oral negotiation in response to written errors. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 114–128). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 35–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rahimi, A. & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2012). Impact of immediate and delayed error correction on EFL learners’ oral production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 45–54.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. M. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 183–206.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
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319.Google Scholar
Siyyari, M. (2005). A comparative study of the effect of implicit and delayed, explicit focus on form on Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy of oral production. Unpublished MA thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
Varnosfadrani, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effects of implicit / explicit and immediate /delayed corrective feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Walker, M. P., Brakefield, T., Hobson, J. A. & Stickgold, R. (2003). Dissociable stages of human memory consolidation and reconsolidation. Nature, 425(6598), 616–620.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of oral production practice and feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past-tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by