Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-08T17:28:11.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The timing of corrective feedback in second language learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2025

Shaofeng Li ,
Ling Ou  and
Icy Lee
Shaofeng Li
Affiliation:
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Ling Ou*
Affiliation:
Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
Icy Lee
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The timing of corrective feedback (CF), alternatively called feedback timing, refers to the choice of a timepoint for providing corrections on second language (L2) errors or making comments on the appropriacy of L2 learners' verbal or nonverbal behaviors. A typical distinction related to the notion of feedback timing is between immediate and delayed feedback, but what constitutes immediate or delayed has been interpreted and defined in different ways. In one stream of research, immediate feedback is operationalized as feedback provided during a learning task and delayed feedback as feedback provided after a task is completed (Arroyo & Yilmaz, 2018*; Li Zhu & Ellis, 2016a*; Quinn, 2014*). One methodological variation in this distinction is interim feedback, which is provided after the first task is completed and before the second task is started (Li, Li, & Qian, under review). Interim feedback is relevant or possible when multiple tasks are performed. It refers to feedback provided during the interval(s) between tasks. Interim feedback is different from delayed feedback in that the latter refers to feedback provided after the task (if there is only one task) or all tasks (if there are multiple tasks) are completed and there is no further task performance following the feedback session. This way of conceptualizing feedback timing is based on the positioning of feedback during a task cycle, instead of the proximity to errors. Another way to examine feedback timing is to distinguish feedback provided immediately after an error is made and feedback delayed until a later time in the instructional cycle, such as one week later (Lavolette, Polio, & Kahng, 2015*). In this case, both immediate and delayed feedback can occur either during or after the completion of a learning task. A third way is to define feedback timing options in terms of their relation to instruction, namely whether feedback is provided immediately after explicit instruction or at a later stage after learners complete some practice activities (Fu & Li, 2022*). It should be clarified that this way of operationalizing feedback timing is markedly different from that in other studies in that it focuses on feedback's relation to instruction instead of errors. To conclude this section, it is necessary to point out that the conceptualization and operationalization of feedback timing should be reconsidered in L2 research. Feedback timing is not merely a matter of the length of interval or the distance between errors and feedback, and other parameters of the instructional system where errors occur are also involved or relevant, such as the distance between feedback and instruction, the positioning of feedback in a task cycle (such as within, after, or between tasks), and so on. These parameters are important because they contribute to the effectiveness of different timing options. Despite the variation in the operationalization of feedback timing, we argue that it is a unified construct that is theoretically justifiable, empirically examinable, and pedagogically valuable.

Type
Research Timeline
Information
Language Teaching , First View , pp. 1 - 17
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Aljaafreh, 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. doi:10.2307/328585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463. doi:10.1177/1362168810375367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J., & Evans, N. W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(2), 6–34.Google Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P., Sudweeks, R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109. doi:10.5054/tq.2010.213781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartchava, E., Gatbonton, E., Ammar, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2020). Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 220–249. doi:10.1177/1362168818787546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzer, K. (2018). Dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental ESL writing classes. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 5–33. doi:10.1002/tesq.366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2018). Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback: A synthetic and critical review. In Gudmestad, A. & Edmonds, A. (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp. 33–61). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2022a). Quantitative research methods in instructed second language acquisition. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Kim, Y. (Eds.), Instructed second language acquisition research methods (pp. 31–53). John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/rmal.3.02liCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2022b). Explicit and implicit language aptitudes. In Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and individual differences (pp. 37–53). Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2022c). Working memory and second language learning: A critical and synthetic review. In Godfroid, A. & Hopp, H. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and psycholinguistics (pp. 348–360). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003018872-32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2024). Individual differences and task-based language teaching: Theory, research, and practice. In Li, S. (Ed.), Individual differences and task-based language teaching (pp. 10–51). John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tblt.16.01lisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109. doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (2022). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Theory, research, and practice. In Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 3–34). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching. First view. doi:10.1017/S0261444823000393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer-assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.993400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., Granena, G., Canals, L., & Malicka, A. (2024). The effects of feedback type and explicit associative memory on the effectiveness of delayed corrective feedback in computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 28(1), 1–26. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73588Google Scholar