Introduction
The Department of Linguistics at University of Victoria (UVic) in Canada has a long-standing tradition of empirical approaches to the study of theoretical and applied linguistics. As part of the Faculty of Humanities, the department caters to students with a wide range of backgrounds and interests, and provides crucial language teaching support in collaboration with other teaching units at UVic. Accordingly, some applied linguistics studies concern language teaching and learning, some of which are conducted in classroom settings. In this article, we provide a brief overview of recent corrective feedback research conducted by UVic Applied Linguistics Research Group.
Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning
The role of corrective feedback in second language (L2) teaching has received considerable research attention in recent years. How to deal with learner errors is a central issue in the L2 classroom with significant theoretical and pedagogical implications. As found in previous research, the effectiveness of corrective feedback can be influenced by a wide range of factors, such as the degree of feedback explicitness, the nature of the target structure, interactional context, and the various individual learner differences (Nassaji Reference Nassaji2015a, Reference Nassaji2016).
The complexity underlying corrective feedback activities has driven recent research attention toward exploring the various mechanisms and processes whereby feedback is used and contributes to language learning. At UVic Applied Linguistics, our research has focused on different types of corrective feedback including written, oral, and computer-assisted and has tackled various questions related to teacher and learner preferences and perspectives. The studies have used both descriptive and experimental research designs and have been conducted with different learners in different contexts. They have been presented in various conferences including BC TEAL (Teaching English as an Additional Language) Annual Conference, American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, and Second Language Research Forum (SLRF) and also published in major academic journals such as Language Teaching Research, Language Learning, and Modern Language Journal.
Some of the studies have focused on the provision and usefulness of feedback while others have examined the different factors affecting the role of the feedback. For example, one recent research project involving intermediate and advanced English as a foreign language (EFL) students in Mainland China (Chen, Nassaji & Liu Reference Chen, Nassaji and Liu2016) explored how these EFL learners perceived written corrective feedback (WCF) offered by their instructors. The impetus for this project came from concerns about the role of contextual variables in teacher-student interactions during EFL writing classes. The aim of the project was to validate findings from previous WCF research in the context of Mainland China where EFL classes tend to be more form-focused and larger than those in English-speaking countries. Through written questionnaire, the project surveyed a total of 64 EFL learners in a major provincial university of Mainland China. The results suggested that although many participants held neutral or even negative opinions on explicit grammar instruction, they remained positive regarding the role of error correction in learning English composition. Yet, such enthusiasm was somewhat hindered by the fact that the participants rarely received opportunities to take more initiative in the revision process of their writing. To this end, the project further confirmed the importance of learner motivation in corrective feedback activities. It was also able to illustrate some of the cultural challenges faced by Chinese EFL learners when their established norms regarding classroom dynamics were confronted by intercultural experiences. Karim & Nassaji (Reference Karim and Nassaji2015) used a simulated recall strategy to investigate adult intermediate English as a second language (ESL) students’ perception of different types of written feedback. Their research suggested that learners also appreciated indirect feedback so far as it offered sufficient metalinguistic clues for self-correction. A similar project was conducted by Amrhein & Nassaji (Reference Amrhein and Nassaji2010) in which they discussed the complex dynamics of WCF activities shown in the mismatch between students’ expectations and teachers’ beliefs in WCF.
Our research group has also examined interactional feedback, defined as ‘feedback generated implicitly or explicitly through negotiation and modification processes that occur during interaction to deal with communication or linguistic problems’ (Nassaji Reference Nassaji2016: 536). Using a descriptive research design, Fu & Nassaji (Reference Fu and Nassaji2016) examined teacher's interactional feedback with a focus on learner uptake, and their perceptions of feedback in the context of an adult Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Motivated by the fact that most studies on interactional feedback to date have been conducted in English-teaching settings, the project also examined the connection between learner and teacher perceptions of feedback and the actual feedback activities. Through classroom observations and semi-structured interviews, the project identified 12 types of feedback strategies used by the teacher in this instructional setting, with the three most frequent strategies being recasts, metalinguistic feedback, and explicit error correction. In terms of learner uptake, the study revealed that successful uptake correlated with different degrees of feedback explicitness. As such, the study concluded that language instructors may consider more explicit techniques when they seek to improve learner attention and raise the level of classroom participation. Nassaji (Reference Nassaji2011a) investigated the relationship between immediate learner repair in response to interactional feedback and learning the targeted forms. The study showed that, although teacher-generated repair and self-repair led to similar degrees of immediate post-interaction correction, the effects of self-repair were better maintained than those of teacher-generated repair, since self-repair encourages more incorporation than repetition. The importance of incorporation was also shown in Nassaji's (Reference Nassaji2011b) comparative analysis between negotiated and non-negotiated feedback.
As shown in some of our studies and previous studies, recasts are feedback strategies preferred by language instructors since they can be conveniently conducted without interrupting communication flow. To further explore the role of interactional feedback strategies, including recasts, our research group has conducted experimental research (Bell Reference Bell2005; Hawkes & Nassaji Reference Hawkes and Nassaji2016; Nassaji Reference Nassaji, Nassaji and Kartchava2017a, Reference Nassajib) to determine which type of feedback is more effective. Bell (Reference Bell2005), for example, examined the effects of three types of interactional feedback: recasts, elicitation, and recasts + elicitation, on the development of question formation by ESL learners in classroom settings. The design of the study combined features of both experimental and observational studies, controlling specific types of feedback in a relatively natural language learning setting. Results found some short-term effects for recasts, but delayed effects for recasts in combination with elicitation. Hawkes & Nassaji (Reference Hawkes and Nassaji2016) examined the extent to which extensive and spontaneous recasts could help adult ESL learners to detect their own errors. The project showed that the provision of recasts immediately following an error significantly improved ESL learners’ awareness of grammatical errors. Interestingly, participants who received the spontaneous recasts also demonstrated a slightly quicker reaction time in error detection, which shows how recasts may affect learners’ response to feedback.
Our studies have also addressed the question of how feedback should be implemented. As noted earlier, although there is evidence for the utility of recasts, the effects of recasts are complex and can be mediated by various factors. Among the factors, an important one is how recasts are provided. Nassaji (Reference Nassaji2017b) explored the effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts through a comparative experiment with intermediate ESL learners. Extensive recasts were defined as recasts provided on a wide range of errors and intensive recasts were those provided on a single error. The results suggested that contrary to our intuition, students receiving extensive recasts on a variety of errors outperformed those receiving intensive recasts on a single error. Nassaji (Reference Nassaji2009) compared the effects of recasts and elicitations and found that both assisted learning the targeted forms but their effects deepened on their degree of explicitness (see also Nassaji Reference Nassaji2007). Another recent study (Nassaji Reference Nassaji, DeKeyser and Botanaforthcoming) compared the effectiveness of recasts and prompts provided on a complex target structure (i.e., English relative clauses) and revealed an advantage for recasts over prompts.
The issue of feedback complexity has also been explored by graduate students such as Jennifer Brown and Tara-Shankar Sinha, who have shared their research in regional and national conferences such as BC TEAL Annual Conference. Sinha (Reference Sinha2017) examined the effectiveness of different types of written feedback and its relationship with learners’ perspectives and preferences. The study focused on two types of feedback (direct versus indirect) on ESL learners’ grammatical accuracy in both revision of an old text as well as in writing a new text. Thirty-six intermediate level learners participated in the study. The results revealed a significant effect for both direct and indirect feedback. It also showed that most of the learners favored direct WCF over indirect WCF. However, no significant relationship was found between learners’ perception and their grammatical accuracy. Al-Rubai'ey & Nassaji (Reference Al-Rubai'ey, Nassaji, Mahmoud and Al Mahrooqi2013) examined and compared the effectiveness of direct and indirect metalinguistic feedback in an EFL context. The grammatical target was accuracy in the use of English articles. The result showed no significant difference between the two groups, overall. However, the analysis of the specific functions of articles revealed an advantage for the direct feedback over the indirect feedback. Thus, this study suggested that direct feedback may be more effective than indirect feedback with respect to certain functions of the English articles. Brown's research is on the role of the mobile phone in the provision and effectiveness of corrective feedback; the project is in progress. The study examines how learners process feedback received via mobile phone and how it contributes to their learning. It also addresses the effect of feedback mode on learners’ attitude and motivation toward feedback. Ross's (Reference Ross2014) study suggested that even incidental, colloquial interaction within online games could benefit intermediate ESL learners. A more recent study, (Kim & Nassaji Reference Kim and Nassaji2017) examined the role of a particular learner variable (i.e., learner extroversion). The study aimed to determine: (a) whether more extraverted learners engage in a greater number of focus on form episodes in class, and (b) whether this involvement could lead to improvement in accuracy of a target structure. The results showed that compared with introverted learners, extraverted ones were more likely to produce more successful uptake during focus on form activities.
Moving forward: Some directions for future research
Our research findings have so far lent an important contribution to our understanding of how feedback is provided and also how it contributes to language learning. From what we have found, it can be argued that corrective feedback is an essential aspect of L2 teaching, but its use should be considered as a matter of suitability rather than superiority (Al-Rubai'ey & Nassaji Reference Al-Rubai'ey, Nassaji, Mahmoud and Al Mahrooqi2013). For example, although research results seem to favor explicit feedback, the efficacy of any kind of feedback may also depend on the type of learner and the context in which it is used. Therefore, how feedback should be used needs to consider the variety of factors that might affect its effectiveness.
Reflecting upon our research findings, we anticipate a number of directions for our future research. First, given the complexity of corrective feedback, we expect to continue to explore the wide range of variables which can impact the provision and success of feedback, including the various contextual, learner- and feedback-related variables. We expect to carry on researching various types and subtypes of feedback and also conduct more longitudinal research examining developmental effects of feedback. We also consider it worthwhile to examine the effects of feedback not only on linguistic features but also on various rhetorical, pragmatic, and discoursal features (see Nassaji & Well Reference Nassaji and Wells2000; Nassaji Reference Nassaji2015b).
Within oral feedback, we would like to pay more attention not only to verbal but also various nonverbal features such as hand movement, gesture, facial expressions, and even pauses that can sometimes carry important information. We would like to continue researching learner and teacher perspectives and in particular their relationship with learning (Amrhein & Nassaji Reference Amrhein and Nassaji2010; Karim & Nassaji Reference Karim and Nassaji2015; Chen et al. Reference Chen, Nassaji and Liu2016; Fu & Nassaji Reference Fu and Nassaji2016; Sinha Reference Sinha2017). Although many studies have investigated students’ feedback perceptions, attitudes, and preferences, much fewer studies have examined how these factors affect students’ learning.
There is also a need for more research on the dynamics of corrective feedback beyond the ESL/EFL instructional setting, not only in other foreign language classrooms but also in more writing-intensive disciplines where language skills have become increasingly crucial due to the dramatic increase of international students. Accordingly, more research attention needs to be paid to micro-contextual variables such as the type of class organization, the nature of group work, as well as various task characteristics. In addition, the prevalence of online L2 courses requires us to further explore the role of technology-mediated feedback and, particularly, the differences and similarities between face-to-face and computer-mediated feedback.
Finally, most research has so far been product-oriented in which the effect of feedback has been examined on the product of learning. Thus, there is a need to investigate what mental processes are involved in learning from feedback or how learners process feedback in various contexts and on various target forms. We also believe research should emphasize not only the cognitive but also the social dimensions of feedback including the various ways in which the dynamics of the social interaction serves to enhance the success of feedback (see Nassaji & Swain Reference Nassaji and Swain2000; Nassaji Reference Nassaji2013; Rahimi, Kushki & Nassaji Reference Rahimi, Kushki and Nassaji2015; Nassaji Reference Nassaji, Nassaji and Kartchava2017a). For example, Nassaji (Reference Nassaji2013) examined the role of classroom participation structure and its effects on the provision and effectiveness of reactive and preemptive incidental focus on form. The study found that such focus on form strategies occurred frequently but its occurrence and effectiveness varied depending on the type of student-teacher participation structure. Nassaji (Reference Nassaji2015b) examined the nature of classroom discourse and found an important role for discoursal features, such as episode activity orientation and episode exchange type, in the effectiveness of incidental focus on form. More research of this kind is needed as it helps understand how classroom social dynamics shape learner engagement and how it affects L2 learning.
