A Review of the Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback

Xin Sun

doi:10.54097/mg9dcz72

Authors

Xin Sun

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/mg9dcz72

Keywords:

Corrective Feedback, External Pedagogical Differences, Learners’ Individual Differences

Abstract

Corrective feedback, as one of the most important research topics in recent years, has attracted much attention in the field of second language acquisition. This paper will outline the factors affecting the effectiveness of corrective feedback based on nearly 20 pieces of high-quality literature in recent years. The results of the analysis show that the effectiveness of corrective feedback is mainly influenced by external pedagogical differences, which can be categorized into the different types of corrective feedback and the different targets of corrective feedback, and learners’ individual differences, which can be categorized into the learners’ language proficiency and learners’ emotions. In a number of studies, scholars have also expressed that corrective feedback will still occupy a significant position in teaching in the future, and more scholars still need to pay attention to its significance and conduct exploratory research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200.

Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4),575-600. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/ S0272 26310606027X

Fu, M., & Li, S. (2022). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 2–34.

Fu,M., & Li, S. (2023). The associations between foreign language anxiety and the effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 1-28. DOI: 10.1111/flan.12708.

Frisby A.W. (1957). Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Notes and Comments. Overseas, London: Longman.

Geçkin, V. (2020). Do gender differences affect foreign language anxiety and preferences for oral corrective feedback? Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 13 (3), 591-608. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.30831/ akukeg.647447.

Geçkin, V. (2020). Investigating foreign language anxiety and learner beliefs in spoken corrective feedback with a focus on language proficiency. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20 (2), 1178-1193. https://dx. doi.org/ 10.17240/aibuefd.2020..-654340.

Hussain., A., Saqlain,. N. & Khadim,. H. (2023). The effectiveness of teachers' corrective feedback (CF) and speaking practice on undergraduate language learners' speaking anxiety (SA). PJER, 6 (2), 429-446. https://www. researchgate. net/publication/372769626.

Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (1), 276–295.

Lyster R. Ranta L. (2013). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2013, 35, 167– 184. doi:10.1017/S027226311200071X.

Luquin., M. & Roothooft., H. (2019). The effects of oral corrective feedback and language anxiety on pronunciation development. ELIA, 19, 41-70. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10. 12795/elia.2019.i19.03.

Martin, S., Alvarez, I. M., & Espasa, A. (2022). Video feedback and foreign language anxiety in online pronunciation tasks: Revista de universidad y sociedad del conocimiento. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19 (1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00324-y.

Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.). (2021). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20 (4), 535–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816644940.

Patra, I., Alazemi, A., Al-Jamal, D., & Gheisari, A. (2022). The effectiveness of teachers’ written and verbal corrective feedback (CF) during formative assessment (FA) on male language learners’ academic anxiety (AA), academic performance (AP), and attitude toward learning (ATL). Language Testing in Asia, 12 (1). doi:https:// doi.org/ 10. 1186/ s40468-022-00169-2.

Schachter J, (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, The online version of this article can be found at: http://slr.sagepub. com/ content/ 7/ 2/ 89.

Shao, J., Wu, Y., Zeng, S., & Huang, R. (2023). The role of feedback type and language anxiety in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback for L2 learning. The Language Learning Journal. DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2023.2166976.

Tedick, D. and Gortari, B. (1998). Research on Error Correction and Implications for Classroom Teaching. The Bridge, ACIE Newsletter. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota, v1. [Online] http:// www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol1/May1998.pdf.

Wiboolyasarin W., Tiranant P., Khumsat T., Ngamnikorn T., Wiboolyasarin K., Korbuakaew S., & Jinowat N. (2023). Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback: Are Language Proficiency, First Language, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety, and Enjoyment Involved? Journal of Language and Education, 9 (1), 153-165. https://doi. org/10.17323/ jle. 2023.16141.

Li, H., Liu, R. D., & Liu, Y. (2013). The mediating effect of college students' foreign language writing self-efficacy in the influence of writing anxiety on writing performance. Psychological Development and Education, 29 (4), 385-390.

Liang, Z., S., Gao, Y., Xie, B., & He, W.J. (2020). A study of peer mutual assessment anxiety in English writing and its effect on mutual assessment. Foreign language e-learning, 3, 41-67.