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: 2024-11-22T16:39:48.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction - Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
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 outlines the rationale for the volume as well as its scope and structure. The theoretical and empirical bases for the study of corrective feedback as well as ways to employ corrective feedback in second language instruction are presented first followed by the aims of the book, its target audience, and a description of the book’s structure and content.

Keywords

Corrective feedbacktheoretical perspectivesmethodological approachessecond language acquisitionlanguage skillsperceptions/beliefsindividual differencestaskcontextsecond language teachingsecond language learning
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 1 - 20
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
Amrhein, H. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95–127.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K. & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665–689.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 11–53). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Demetras, M., Post, K. & Snow, C. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language, 13(2), 275–292.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, U. (2005a). Analyzing recent CALL effectiveness research: Towards a common agenda. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(1–2), 1–32.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2005b). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17(12), 269–288.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. (1988). Nature of development in L2 acquisition and implications for theories of language acquisition in general. In Flynn, S. & O’Neill, W. (eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S. (1996). A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 121–158). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fu, T. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a Chinese as a foreign language class: Do perceptions and the reality match? Unpublished MA thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283–302.Google 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
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Karim, K. & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Lira Gonzales, M., & Nassaji, H. (2018). Teachers’ written corrective feedback and students’ revision in the ESL classroom. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 4–27 March, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L. & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research in computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of literature from 1990–2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 250–273.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In DeBot, K., Ginsberge, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: 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. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2012). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365.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. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43–63.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.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. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching Research, 53(1), 3–28.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
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (2019). Technology-mediated feedback and instruction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 151–153.Google Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(1), 157–213.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1998). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. In Regan, V. (ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition in social context (pp. 9–31). Dublin: University College Dublin Press.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93–132. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00690.x.Google Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147–163.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002.Google Scholar
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H. & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Widdowson, H. G., Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133–161.Google Scholar
Yousefi, M. & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated instruction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 277–308.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586.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
×