Abstract
This study adopted a synthetic approach to review empirical studies on oral corrective feedback (OCF) for lexical errors. It examined OCF types, lexical target types, interlocutors’ attention to lexical errors, and OCF effectiveness in promoting vocabulary development. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria on studies retrieved from a search of six databases, 31 primary studies were available for coding and analysis. Findings revealed that interlocutors showed a greater preference for recast than prompt and explicit correction. However, recast resulted in the lowest rate of lexical repairs, whereas prompt was found the most effective. Lexical errors received OCF at a higher rate than grammatical errors and phonological errors, indicating that interlocutors paid greater attention to vocabulary problems. OCF was most often provided for the inappropriate choice of lexical items, or inaccurate use of word derivation, involving a wide range of word classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs). Only a few studies looked into OCF targeting a single lexical feature. Findings suggest it may be more effective for teachers to employ prompts to elicit repairs of lexical errors from learners. There is a need for future researchers to conduct empirical OCF studies on a single lexical target.
Funding source: University of Macau
Award Identifier / Grant number: MYRG2019-00030-FED
-
Research funding: This work was funded by University of Macau (MYRG2019-00030-FED).
-
*Studies included in this synthesis are marked with an asterisk.
References
*Adams, Rebecca, Ana María Nuevo & Takako Egi. 2011. Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? The Modern Language Journal 95. 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01242.x.Search in Google Scholar
Alkhammash, Reem & Fahmeedah Gulnaz. 2019. Oral corrective feedback techniques: An investigation of the EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices at Taif University. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) 10(2). 40–54. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no2.4.Search in Google Scholar
*Aranguiz, María Fernanda & Angie Quintanilla Espinoza. 2016. Oral corrective feedback strategies in EFL. A pilot study in Chilean classrooms. Elia 16. 103–131. https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2016.i16.05.Search in Google Scholar
*Bao, Rui. 2019. Oral corrective feedback in L2 Chinese classes: Teachers’ beliefs versus their practices. System 82. 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.004.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Dan. 2016. The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 20(4). 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200.Search in Google Scholar
Bryfonski, Lara & Xue Ma. 2020. Effects of implicit versus explicit corrective feedback on Mandarin tone acquisition in a SCMC learning environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42(1). 61–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263119000317.Search in Google Scholar
*Choi, Seung-Yi & Shaofeng Li. 2012. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal 43(3). 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212463274.Search in Google Scholar
Cooper, Harris. 2015. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach, vol. 2. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Cooper, Harris & Larry V. Hedges. 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd edn., 3–16. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.10.7758/9781610448864.4Search in Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2020. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Couper, Graeme. 2019. Teachers’ cognitions of corrective feedback on pronunciation: Their beliefs, perceptions and practices. System 84. 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.003.Search in Google Scholar
*Demir, Yusuf & Kemal Sinan Özmen. 2017. Exploring native and non-native EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback practices: An observational study. Brock Education Journal 26(2). 111–129. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v26i2.609.Search in Google Scholar
*Dilans, Gatis. 2010. Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 66(6). 787–816. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.787.Search in Google Scholar
Ding, Chen & Barry Lee Reynolds. 2019. The effects of L1 congruency, L2 proficiency, and the collocate-node relationship on the processing of L2 English collocations by L1-Chinese EFL learners. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17(2). 331–357. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00038.din.Search in Google Scholar
Doughty, Catherine & Eliezabeth Varela. 1998. Communicative focus on form. In Catherine Doughty & Jessica Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 114–138. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Doughty, Catherine & Jessica Williams. 1998. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Catherine Doughty & Jessica Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 197–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2007. The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Alison Mackey (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, 339–360. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. & Alison Mackey. 2012. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203808184Search in Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. & Alison Mackey. 2014. Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In Bill VanPatten & Jessica Williams (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, 180–206. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahawah, NJ: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar
*Gitsaki, Christina & Naif Althobaiti. 2010. ESL teachers’ use of corrective feedback and its effect on learners’ uptake. Journal of Asia TEFL 7(1). 197–219.Search in Google Scholar
Ha, Xuan Van. 2021. Oral corrective feedback in Vietnamese EFL classrooms: Effects of awareness-raising activities on teachers’ beliefs and practices. New South Wales, Australia: Macquarie University PhD Thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Ha, Xuan Van. 2022a. High school EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback beliefs and practices, and the effects of lesson focus. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0213.Search in Google Scholar
Ha, Xuan Van. 2022b. Effects of a professional development program on teachers’ oral corrective feedback practices. System. 102917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102917.Search in Google Scholar
*Ha, Xuan Van & Jill C. Murray. 2020. Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820931897.Search in Google Scholar
Ha, Xuan Van & Jill C. Murray. 2021. The impact of a professional development program on EFL teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. System 96. 102405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102405.Search in Google Scholar
Ha, Xuan Van, Jill C. Murray & A. Mehdi Riazi. 2021a. High school EFL students’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: The role of gender, motivation and extraversion. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 11(2). 235–264. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.4.Search in Google Scholar
Ha, Xuan Van & Loc Tan Nguyen. 2021. Targets and sources of oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: Are students’ and teachers’ beliefs aligned? Frontiers in Psychology 12. 697160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697160.Search in Google Scholar
Ha, Xuan Van, Loc Tan Nguyen & Bui Phu Hung. 2021b. Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon 7(7). e07550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, Xiao Yu & Xiao Ou Jia. 2016. Corrective feedback on pronunciation: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of English Linguistics 6(6). 245–254. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n6p245.Search in Google Scholar
*Hussein, Bashir Abuelnour Elbashir & Holi Ibrahim Holi Ali. 2014. Rationalizing oral corrective feedback in Sudanese EFL classrooms. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 3(3). 217–231.10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.217Search in Google Scholar
*Jabbari, Ali Akbar & Ali Mohammad Fazilatfar. 2012. The role of error types and feedback in Iranian EFL classrooms. International Journal of English Linguistics 2(1). 135–148. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n1p135.Search in Google Scholar
Kamiya, Nobuhiro & Tatsuya Nakata. 2021. Corrective feedback and the development of second language vocabulary. In Hossein Nassaji & Eva Kartchava (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language Learning and teaching(Cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics), 387–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108589789.019Search in Google Scholar
Kartchava, Eva & Ahlem Ammar. 2014. The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research 18(4). 428–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813519373.Search in Google Scholar
*Kubota, Mikio. 1991. Corrective feedback by experienced Japanese EFL teachers. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin 5. 1–25.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Eun Jeong. 2016. Advanced ESL students’ prior EFL education and their perceptions of oral corrective feedback. Journal of International Students 6(3). 798–816. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i3.357.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Eun Jeong Esther. 2013. Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System 41(2). 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Shaofeng. 2010. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60. 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x.Search in Google Scholar
*Li, Shaofeng. 2013. The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal 97(3). 634–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Shaofeng. 2018. Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback: A synthetic and critical review. In Aarnes Gudmestad & Amanda Edmonds (eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition, 33–62. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/lllt.51.03liSearch in Google Scholar
*Loewen, Shawn & Jenefer Philp. 2006. Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal 90(4). 536–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00465.x.Search in Google Scholar
Long, Mike. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Kees de Bot, Ralph B. Ginsberg & Claire Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 39–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.2.07lonSearch in Google Scholar
Long, Michael. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In William, C. & Tej, K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 413–468. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3Search in Google Scholar
Long, Michael. 2007. Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
*Lyster, Roy. 1998. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 48(2). 183–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00039.Search in Google Scholar
Lyster, Roy. 2004. Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(3). 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263104263021.Search in Google Scholar
Lyster, Roy. 2011. Content-based second language teaching. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 629–648. New York, London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203836507.ch37Search in Google Scholar
Lyster, Roy & Leila Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19. 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197001034.Search in Google Scholar
Lyster, Roy & Kazuya Saito. 2010. Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32. 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990520.Search in Google Scholar
Lyster, Roy, Kazuya Saito & Masatoshi Sato. 2013. Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching 46. 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000365.Search in Google Scholar
Mackey, Alison & Jaemyung Goo. 2007. Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Alison Mackey (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 407–452. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
*Mackey, Alison, Susan Gass & Kim McDonough. 2000. How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(4). 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100004010.Search in Google Scholar
*Margolis, Douglas Paul. 2007. Impacts of oral error feedback in Korean university EFL classrooms (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3288121).Search in Google Scholar
*Matsidi, Panagiota. 2019. Corrective feedback, error types, and learner uptake: The role of individual differences (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 28052845).Search in Google Scholar
*Morris, Frank A. 2002. Negotiation moves and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 35(4). 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb01879.x.Search in Google Scholar
Nakata, Tatsuya. 2015. Effects of feedback timing on second language vocabulary learning: Does delaying feedback increase learning? Language Teaching Research 19(4). 416–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541721.Search in Google Scholar
*Nikoopour, Jahanbakhsh & Abdolsaleh Zoghi. 2014. Analyzing EFL learners’ errors: The plausibility of teachers’ feedbacks and students’ uptakes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 5(1). 226–233. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.1.226-233.Search in Google Scholar
Norris, John & Lourdes Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50. 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136.Search in Google Scholar
Rahman, Mohammad Mosiur & Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh. 2020. A synthesis of oral corrective feedback literature: Theoretical underpinning, types, linguistics focus and timing. Journal of Asia TEFL 17(3). 1093–1101. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.3.26.1093.Search in Google Scholar
Ranta, Leila & Roy Lyster. 2007. A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In Robert DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 141–160. Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.10.1017/CBO9780511667275.009Search in Google Scholar
Rassaei, Ehsan. 2017. Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30(1-2). 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1275702.Search in Google Scholar
*Razali, Sulia Masturina Che, Nurul Amilin Razawi, Chittra Muthusamy & Siti Norliana Ghazali. 2011. Peer-to-peer corrective feedback in a group interaction. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1(7). 832–836. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.7.832-836.Search in Google Scholar
Reynolds, Barry Lee & Feng Teng. 2022. Involving native speakers in oral corrective focused grammar feedback while conversing: An Activity Theory perspective. Language Learning Journal 50(5). 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1845225.Search in Google Scholar
Roothooft, Hanne. 2014. The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System 46. 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.012.Search in Google Scholar
Russell, Jane & Nina Spada. 2006. The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In John M. Norris & Lourdes Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 133–164. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/lllt.13.09valSearch in Google Scholar
Saito, Kazuya. 2015. Variables affecting the effects of recasts on L2 pronunciation development. Language Teaching Research 19(3). 276–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541753.Search in Google Scholar
Saito, Kazuya & Roy Lyster. 2012. Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /(sic)/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning 62(2). 595–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.x.Search in Google Scholar
*Saito, Kazuya & Yuka Akiyama. 2017. Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning 67(1). 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12184.Search in Google Scholar
*Sato, Rintaro. 2009. Considering the effectiveness of recasts on Japanese high school learners’ learning. Journal of Asia TEFL 6(4). 193–216.Search in Google Scholar
Schenck, Andrew. 2020. Using meta-analysis of technique and timing to optimize corrective feedback for specific grammatical features. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 5(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00097-9.Search in Google Scholar
Schmidt, Richard W. 1995. Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sepasdar, Mansoure & Reza Kafipour. 2019. The immediate and delayed effects of explicit and implicit corrective feedback types on EFL learners’ phonological errors. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities 27(3). 1493–1506.Search in Google Scholar
Sheen, Younghee. 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research 8(3). 263–300. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa.Search in Google Scholar
Sheen, Younghee. 2008. Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning 58(4). 835–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x.Search in Google Scholar
Sheen, Younghee. 2010. Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2). 203–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990507.Search in Google Scholar
Sheen, Younghee. 2011. Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-0548-7Search in Google Scholar
Sheen, Younghee & Rod Ellis. 2011. Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching, 593–610. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203836507.ch36Search in Google Scholar
Shin, Dongkwang & Paul Nation. 2008. Beyond single words: The most frequent collocations in spoken English. ELT Journal 62(4). 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm091.Search in Google Scholar
*Sippel, Lieselotte. 2019. The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals 52(3). 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12416.Search in Google Scholar
Sippel, Lieselotte & Carrie N. Jackson. 2015. Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 48(4). 688–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12164.Search in Google Scholar
*Sotillo, Susana. 2005. Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal 22(3). 467–496. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.467-496.Search in Google Scholar
Soto, Erik Manuel. 2020. Children of immigrants. Master of Arts thesis. Rohnert Park: Sonoma State University.Search in Google Scholar
Swain, Merrill. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In Guy Cook & Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson, 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
*Wang, Weiqing & Shaofeng Li. 2021. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in American ESL and Chinese EFL classrooms: A comparative study. Language Culture and Curriculum 34(1). 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1767124.Search in Google Scholar
*Wu, Yu. 2016. Effects of form-focused instruction, corrective feedback, and individual differences on the acquisition of Chinese wh-questions and classifiers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 10194652).Search in Google Scholar
*Xu, Jinfen, Yumei Fan & Qingting Xu. 2019. EFL learners’ corrective feedback decision-making in task-based peer interaction. Language Awareness 28(4). 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1668003.Search in Google Scholar
*Xu, Qi & Hongying Peng. 2017. Investigating mobile-assisted oral feedback in teaching Chinese as a second language. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30(3-4). 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1297836.Search in Google Scholar
*Xu, Shanshan. 2012. An investigation into teachers’ corrective feedback in Chinese EFL classrooms. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 35(4). 480–505. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2012-0035.Search in Google Scholar
van Beuningen, Catherine. 2021. Focused versus unfocused corrective feedback. In Hossein Nassaji & Eva Kartchava (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching, 300–321. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108589789.015Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Yingli & Roy Lyster. 2010. Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2). 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990519.Search in Google Scholar
*Yang, Yingli, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Ling Chen. 2019. Effects of recasts and form-focused instruction on the acquisition of novel vocabulary. Applied Linguistics Review 10(4). 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0084.Search in Google Scholar
*Yoshida, Reiko. 2008. Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness 17(1). 78–93. https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0.Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0053).
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
