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-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:33:41.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

28 - The Role of Training in Feedback Provision and Effectiveness

from Part VII - Learners’ and Teachers’ Feedback Perspectives, Perceptions, and Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
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 addresses the topic of training in corrective feedback. The chapter discusses the role and importance of training and also how feedback training can assist feedback provision and processing. To this end, empirical studies on both teacher and student training of feedback and their implications are discussed. This discussion is limited to oral corrective feedback, since much of the research on feedback training concerns oral feedback. Pedagogical implications as well as directions for future investigations are also discussed.

Keywords

trainingcorrective feedbackoral corrective feedbackcorrective feedback trainingsecond language teacher trainingsecond language learner trainingexpertise
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 598 - 619
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. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.Google Scholar
Amrhein, H. R. & 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
Arnett, K. & Turnbull, M. (2008). Teacher beliefs in second and foreign language teaching: A state-of-the-art review. In Sisken, H. J. (ed.), From thought to action: Exploring beliefs and outcomes in the foreign language program (pp. 9–29). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282–295.Google Scholar
Bell, T. (2005). Behaviours and attitudes of effective foreign language teachers: Results of a questionnaire study. Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39(3), 370–380.Google Scholar
Bouffard, L. A. & Sarkar, M. (2008). Training 8-year-old French immersion students in metalinguistic analysis: An innovation in form-focused pedagogy. Language Awareness, 17(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. (2001). Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Busch, D. (2010). Pre-service teacher beliefs and language learning: The second language acquisition as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 318–337.Google Scholar
Cathcart, R. & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In Fanselow, J. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL’ 76 (pp. 41–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Clark, G. & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers thought processes. In Wittrock, C. M. (ed.), Handbook on Research on Teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing 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. M. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dilāns, G. (2016). Corrective feedback in L2 Latvian classrooms: Teacher perceptions versus the observed actualities of practice. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 479–497.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 249–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.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
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In Ericsson, K. A. (ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 79(10), S70–S81.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (2006a). An introduction to the Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance: Its development, organization, and content. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N. & Feltovich, P. J. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 3–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (2006b). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N. & Feltovich, P. J. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683–703). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35(1), 1–13.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.Google Scholar
Han, Z. & Nassaji, H. (2019). Introduction: A snapshot of thirty-five years of instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 393–402. DOI: 10.1177/1362168818776992.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333–340.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283–294.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (1990). Attending to the affective domain in the foreign language classroom. In Magnan, S. (ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner (pp. 15–33). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: a review of BALLI studies. System, 27(4), 557–576.Google Scholar
Jean, G. & Simard., D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465–492.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. E. & Golombek, P. R. (2002). Inquiry into practice: Teachers’ personal and professional growth. In Johnson, K. E. & Golombek, P. R. (eds.), Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional development (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Junqueira, L. & Kim, Y. (2013). Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers’ corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 181–206.Google Scholar
Kamiya, N. (2014). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 206–219.Google Scholar
Kamiya, N. (2016). What effect does reading academic articles on oral corrective feedback have on ESL teachers? TESOL Journal, 7, 328–349.Google Scholar
Kamiya, N. & Loewen, S. (2014). The influence of academic articles on an ESL teacher’s stated beliefs. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 205–218.Google Scholar
Kang, E. Y., Sok, S. & Han, Z. (2019). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 428–453. DOI:10.1177/1362168818776671.Google Scholar
Karim, K. & Nassaji, H. (2015). ESL students’ perceptions towards written corrective feedback: What type of feedback do they prefer and why? The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 4(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E. (2016). Learner beliefs about corrective feedback in the language classroom: Perspectives from two international contexts. TESL Canada Journal, 33(2), 19–45.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E. (2019). Training learners to notice corrective feedback. In Noticing oral corrective feedback in the second language classroom: Background and evidence (pp. 81–115). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014a). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428–452.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014b). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 86–109.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E., Gatbonton, E., Ammar, A. & Trofimovich, P. (2020). Corrective feedback: Novice ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 220–249. DOI: 10.1177/1362168818787546.Google Scholar
Larson-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students` versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 112–127.Google Scholar
Lee, E. J. E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217–230.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 111–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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. (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: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 143–157). New York: Routledge.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.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. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.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
Mackey, A., Polio, C. & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 301–327.Google Scholar
Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49(3), 377–415.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms. System, 39, 17–29.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2012). The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 337–365.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., & Kartchava, E. (eds.). (2017a). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017b). Conclusion, reflections, and final remarks. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 174–182). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in programme implementation. In Johnson, R. (ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 176–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oladejo, J. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71–89.Google Scholar
Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29(2), 177–195.Google Scholar
Rahimi, M. & Zhang, L. (2015). Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers’ cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication. System, 55, 111–122.Google Scholar
Rankin, J. & Becker, F. (2006). Does reading the research make a difference? A case study of teacher growth in FL German. Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 353–372.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
Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 256–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46(1), 65–79.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: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. & Abbuhl, R. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 196–216.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom interaction. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633.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: Routledge.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
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
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
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343–364.Google Scholar
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA – Columbia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244–258.Google Scholar
Sepehrinia, S. & Mehdizadeh, M. (2018). Oral corrective feedback: Teachers’ concerns and researchers’ orientation. Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 483–500.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. (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: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, K. (2004). Changes in Japanese students’ beliefs about language learning and English language proficiency in a study-abroad context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Tigchelaar, M. & Polio, C. (2017). Language-focused peer corrective feedback in second language writing. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 97–113). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. (2005). Expertise in teaching: Perspectives and issues. In Johnson, K. (ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 167–189). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vásquez, C. & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421–443.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference for 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
×