Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T22:35:57.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA

A Meta-Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2010

Roy Lyster  and
Kazuya Saito
Roy Lyster*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Kazuya Saito*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
*Address correspondence to: Roy Lyster, Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish St., Montreal, QC H3A 1Y2, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]; or Kazuya Saito, Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish St., Montreal, QC H3A 1Y2, Canada; e-mail: [email protected].
*Address correspondence to: Roy Lyster, Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish St., Montreal, QC H3A 1Y2, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]; or Kazuya Saito, Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish St., Montreal, QC H3A 1Y2, Canada; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To investigate the pedagogical effectiveness of oral corrective feedback (CF) on target language development, we conducted a meta-analysis that focused exclusively on 15 classroom-based studies (N = 827). The analysis was designed to investigate whether CF was effective in classroom settings and, if so, whether its effectiveness varied according to (a) types of CF, (b) types and timing of outcome measures, (c) instructional setting (second vs. foreign language classroom), (d) treatment length, and (e) learners’ age. Results revealed that CF had significant and durable effects on target language development. The effects were larger for prompts than recasts and most apparent in measures that elicit free constructed responses. Whereas instructional setting was not identified as a contributing factor to CF effectiveness, effects of long treatments were larger than those of short-to-medium treatments but not distinguishable from those of brief treatments. A simple regression analysis revealed effects for age, with younger learners benefiting from CF more than older learners.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 32 , Special Issue 2: The Role of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA , June 2010 , pp. 265 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

REFERENCES10

**Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berns, M. (1990). ‘Second’ and ‘foreign’ in second language acquisition/foreign language learning: A sociolinguistic perspective. In VanPatten, B. & Lee, J. F. (Eds.), Second language acquisition/foreign language learning (pp. 3–11). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning, 56, 9–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.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, 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Carroll, S., Swain, M., & Roberge, Y. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
**DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Larson-Hall, J. (2005). What does the critical period really mean? In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 89–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 257–310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on forms in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
**Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle 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, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
**Ellis, R., Rosszell, H., & Takashima, H. (1994). Down the garden path: Another look at negative feedback. JALT Journal, 16, 9–24.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrar, M. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 17, 607–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrar, M. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
*Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
**Herron, C. (1991). The garden path correction strategy in the foreign language classroom. The French Review, 64, 966–977.Google Scholar
**Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1988). Learning grammatical structures in a foreign language: Modeling versus feedback. The French Review, 61, 910–922.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539–588). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
*Inagaki, S., & Long, M. H. (1999). Implicit negative feedback. In Kanno, K. (Ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language (pp. 9–30). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form - te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Iwashita, N. (2003). Positive and negative input in task-based interaction: Differential affects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Kim, H., & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korean TESOL Journal, 4, 57–72.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
*Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for class second language acquisition. In Han, Z. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google ScholarPubMed
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
**Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
*Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
**Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
**Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and second language development: An empirical study of L2 classroom interaction. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30, 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinova-Todd, S., Marshall, B., & Snow, C. (2000). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ response on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 19, 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
**Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*O’Relly, L. V., Flaitz, J., & Kromrey, J. D. (2001). Two modes of correcting communicative tasks: Recent findings. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2008). Child’s play? Second language acquisition and the younger learner in context. In Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play? (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. 133–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
*Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96–120.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (1997). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In Riggenbach, H. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.CrossRefGoogle 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
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2009). Interaction in second/foreign language classrooms. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 157–174). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (in press). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
**Takashima, H., & Ellis, R. (1999). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 173–188). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
**Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar