Explicit and Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback

doi:10.1017/9781108589789.017

16 - Explicit and Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback

from Part IV - Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2021

Rod Ellis

Edited by

Hossein Nassaji and

Eva Kartchava

Show author details

Hossein Nassaji: Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava: Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter begin with a general definition of implicit and explicit CF and the classification of common CF strategies accordingly. However, emphasis is placed on the fact the individual strategies can vary in their degree of implicitness and explicitness and also in terms of whether they are input-providing or output-prompting. The significance of both cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural theories for predicting the effectiveness of implicit and explicit CF is considered next. The bulk of the chapter reviews the results of research, starting with meta-analyses of CF studies and then moving on to consider descriptive classroom-based studies and comparative experimental studies. Recasts (which can vary markedly in how implicit or explicit they are) have been found to be the most popular type of teacher feedback strategy but not in every context. Explicit CF results in higher levels of repair of errors. However, because of the numerous factors that affect the impact that CF has on acquisition (for example, whether or not noticing occurs, the grammatical target of the correction, and the intensity of the correction), it is not surprising that the results of the research are quite mixed and it is not possible to say which type of feedback is overall the more effective. The chapter concludes with some tentative generalizations and a plea for longitudinal studies of implicit/ explicit CF.

Keywords

definition of implicit/ explicit CF variation in individual strategies cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural theory meta-analysis classroom-based studies experimental studies effect on noticing effect on acquisition

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 341 - 364

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.017 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, R., Nuevo, A. & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output and SLA: Does implicit and explicit feedback promote learning and learner–learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95(Suppl.), 42–63.Google Scholar

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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of error. In Burt, M. K. & Dulay, H. D. (eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.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

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.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

Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. J. & 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

Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 511–537.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79–114). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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

Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.Google Scholar

Erlam, R., Ellis, R. & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257–268.Google Scholar

Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.Google Scholar

Han, Z. 2002. A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543–572.Google Scholar

Havranek, G. & Cesnik, H. (2003). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In Foster- Cohen, S. & Nizegorodzew, A. (eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol. I, pp. 99–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 112–127.Google Scholar

Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 1 8(4), 428–452.Google Scholar

Kim, H. & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal, 4(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.CrossRef Google Scholar

Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytical ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361–386.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.Google Scholar

Long, M. B. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In Brown, B. D., Yorio, C. A. & Crymes, R. H. (eds.), Qn TESOL ’77 Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.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. 469–506). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81.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. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167–184.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (Special issue 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Goo, J. M. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp. 379–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617–673.Google Scholar

Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of requests and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 771–799.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for L2 learning of grammar. Modern Language Review, 101(2), 353–368.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267–278.Google Scholar

Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Poehner, M. & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265.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). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 417–431.Google Scholar

Sanz, C. (2003). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef 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. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392.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. and Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning(2nd ed., pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Simard, D. & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teacher’s use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759–785.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and 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

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Varnosfadrani, A. & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82–98.Google Scholar

Wang, W. & Loewen, S. (2016). Non-verbal behaviour and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 459–478.Google Scholar

Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37(3), 308–328.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691–705.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2013b). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344–368.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 65–96.Google Scholar

Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.