Implicit and explict corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar

Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Impact Factor: 1.11). 05/2006; 28(02):339 - 368. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263106060141


This article reviews previous studies of the effects of implicit and
explicit corrective feedback on SLA, pointing out a number of
methodological problems. It then reports on a new study of the effects of
these two types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of past tense
-ed. In an experimental design (two experimental groups and a
control group), low-intermediate learners of second language English
completed two communicative tasks during which they received either
recasts (implicit feedback) or metalinguistic explanation (explicit
feedback) in response to any utterance that contained an error in the
target structure. Acquisition was measured by means of an oral imitation
test (designed to measure implicit knowledge) and both an untimed
grammaticality judgment test and a metalinguistic knowledge test (both
designed to measure explicit knowledge). The tests were administered prior
to the instruction, 1 day after the instruction, and again 2 weeks later.
Statistical comparisons of the learners' performance on the posttests
showed a clear advantage for explicit feedback over implicit feedback for
both the delayed imitation and grammaticality judgment posttests. Thus,
the results indicate that metalinguistic explanation benefited implicit as
well as explicit knowledge and point to the importance of including
measures of both types of knowledge in experimental studies. a

  • Source
    • "In a practical book addressed to language teachers, Harmer (2006: p.108) recommends reformulations of students' utterances during fluency work, as a form of " gentle correction " which " hardly interrupts their speech " . However, seeing recasts as a monolithic concept is problematic, as partial recasts or recasts in which the correction is stressed by the teacher are much more explicit than recasts in which the entire utterance is reformulated (Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Loewen & Philp, 2006). To sum up, notwithstanding the many questions and often contradictory results of the research on corrective feedback, there is a general consensus that corrective feedback is helpful to learners. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although many experimental and classroom studies show the benefits of oral corrective feedback for second language acquisition, fairly little is known about the actual practice of oral feedback in classrooms and to what extent this practice reflects teachers' beliefs. The present study presents a comparison between the observation of ten adult EFL teachers and their stated beliefs about oral feedback. It appeared that most of the teachers were not fully aware of the amount of feedback they tended to provide, nor of the different types of correction they used. Even though all the teachers believed feedback to be important, they expressed concerns about interrupting students and provoking negative affective responses. This may explain why recasts, a more implicit type of feedback, were by far the most frequent method of correction in our data. Informing teachers of the results of corrective feedback research can encourage them to use a wider variety of techniques and possibly make their teaching more effective. On the other hand, empirical studies are needed that include the factors of student personality and affective responses and which compare the effects of immediate feedback to delayed error correction.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2014 · System
  • Source
    • "According to Borg (2012), what teachers do is important, but if we want to understand what teachers do, if we want to promote change, we also need to look at their beliefs. In order to change teachers, they should be helped first by making their beliefs explicit in talk and action, then challenged in the light of theory (raise to consciousness the nature of personalised theories which inform their practice, Burns, 1992) and research (to address the research difficulty under the circumstance where teachers limit their feedback to a single type in a real classroom, Ellis, 2009) through critical reflection (Richards & Farrell, 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the teachers’ beliefs and practices about form-focused instruction - a grammar instruction approach. It deals with EFL/ESL teachers regarding their relationship between beliefs and practices as well as factors shaping their beliefs. This study is presumed to give an understanding of the voices of classroom teachers who come across such problems during their daily interactions and develop working solutions for the recipients. In this study, my argument is that teachers’ beliefs are both intrapersonal and interpersonal, they partly originate from the public theories, and partly from their life experiences, and are modified through their practical environments. Actually beliefs are context-bound and situated, so the choice of a case study strategy presumed to be appropriate for the actual study to investigate the beliefs about grammar teaching, the individual teacher hold. This study is proposed to harvest certain approaches for grammar teaching strategies. It is also expected that such a study will have some contributions in adding to an understanding of teachers’ beliefs in terms of research methodology and theoretical understanding with reference to teacher cognition and professional development in the specific educational context where English is undertaken by non-native-English-speaking teachers. The preliminary study claims that expert theories of practice have little impact on teachers’ beliefs and practices and there is an indication that communicative language teaching (CLT) did influence teachers’ beliefs to some extent as articulated in the interview.
    Full-text · Article · May 2014 · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Source
    • "This research increasingly suggests that CF plays a pivotal role in the kind of scaffolding that teachers need to provide to individual learners to promote continuing L2 growth. Indicative of the growing interest in CF, four meta-analyses of CF research were published between 2006 and 2010 (Russell & Spada 2006; Mackey & Goo 2007; Li 2010; Lyster & Saito 2010), which together provide strong support for the overall effectiveness of CF. Two of these meta-analyses included a comparison of the effect sizes yielded by classroom studies (involving interaction between a teacher and an intact class of students) and those yielded by laboratory studies (involving interaction between two individuals, usually a researcher and a learner). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article reviews research on oral corrective feedback (CF) in second language (L2) classrooms. Various types of oral CF are first identified, and the results of research revealing CF frequency across instructional contexts are presented. Research on CF preferences is then reviewed, revealing a tendency for learners to prefer receiving CF more than teachers feel they should provide it. Next, theoretical perspectives in support of CF are presented and some contentious issues addressed related to the role of learner uptake, the role of instruction, and the overall purpose of CF: to initiate the acquisition of new knowledge or to consolidate already acquired knowledge. A brief review of laboratory studies assessing the effects of recasts is then presented before we focus on classroom studies assessing the effects of different types of CF. Many variables mediate CF effectiveness: of these, we discuss linguistic targets and learners' age in terms of both previous and prospective research. Finally, CF provided by learners and the potential benefits of strategy training for strengthening the role of CF during peer interaction are highlighted.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2013 · Language Teaching
Show more