Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning

Nassaji, Hossein; Kartchava, Eva

doi:10.1017/9781108589789.001

Cited by 29 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…And to whom, and at which stage of development? While these questions are amply addressed in the remainder of this volume and elsewhere (e.g., Kang & Han, 2015;Kang, Sok & Han, 2019;Li, 2010;Lyster & Sato, 2010;Mackey & Goo, 2007;Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017;Russell & Spada, 2006), future research on corrective feedback should benefit greatly from heeding the eclectic insights from behaviorism and innatism, which I highlight below:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corrective Feedback from Behaviorist and Innatist Perspectives

Han¹

2021

The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corrective feedback has consistently ranked among the most resilient topics in second language acquisition (SLA) research over its five decades of existence, garnering attention transcending theoretical boundaries (and research and practice divide, for that matter). Yet theoretical perspectives on corrective feedback did not always coexist; rather, they superseded their predecessors, mirroring paradigmatic shifts writ large. Therefore, a look at corrective feedback through a theoretical lens may yield insights into the epistemological differences underlying the seemingly common denominating construct or phenomenon and provide a useful pathway to understanding the waxing and waning of the general perception of corrective feedback that the field has witnessed to date. The focus of this chapter is on two polarized theoretical perspectives on corrective feedback, the behaviorist and the innatist.* This chapter has benefited from the thoughtful suggestions and comments of the editors and anonymous reviewers.Any errors are exclusively my own. at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These questions reflect the general research interest, in that era, in what teachers do, not what learners do. And they still appear to drive much of current research on corrective feedback (see, e.g., Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017).…”

Section: The Behaviorist Perspective On Corrective Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrective Feedback from Behaviorist and Innatist Perspectives

Han¹

2021

The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Grammar instruction in foreign/second language teaching has undergone great fluctuations over the past few decades in many parts of the world ( Nassaji and Fotos, 2011 ; Nassaji, 2018 ; Cheng and Zhang, 2021 ; Nassaji and Kartchava, 2021 ; Zhang and Cheng, 2021 ). It was prioritized in typical traditional language teaching classrooms through the use of a grammar-translation method in the field of language teaching.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing and Validating the English Teachers’ Cognitions About Grammar Teaching Questionnaire (TCAGTQ) to Uncover Teacher Thinking

Zhang

Qiang

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well-acknowledged that teachers play a significant role in enhancing student learning and that investigating teachers’ cognitions about teaching is a first and important step to understanding the phenomenon. Although much research into teachers’ cognitions about grammar teaching has been conducted in various socio-cultural contexts, little has been reported on cognitions of Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) so far. Such understanding is of primary importance to student success in language learning given the sociocultural context where grammar takes a lion’s share in high-stakes examinations. In order to address this research gap, we developed and validated the Chinese EFL Teachers’ Cognitions about Grammar Teaching Questionnaire (TCAGTQ). Two subsamples (n1 = 314, n2 = 215) were randomly invited to respond to the TCAGTQ and the data were then subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the validity and reliability of the instrument. The EFA excluded eight items from the TCAGTQ and generated six factors with 27 items. The CFA result from the other subsample supported a six-factor model with a good model fit. Moderate correlations between the six factors also supported the predictive validity of the questionnaire, showing that the TCAGTQ is a valid and reliable inventory for measuring Chinese university EFL teachers’ cognitions about grammar teaching. Our findings suggest that the TCAGTQ can be used as a useful tool for teachers to self-assess their professional practice for improving teaching.

show abstract

“…Learner error and error correction have received substantial attention in second language acquisition (SLA) and pedagogy and have been the object of theoretical inquires, empirical studies, and meta‐analyses (e.g., Li & Vuono, 2019; Li, 2018; Lyster et al, 2013; Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017; Plonsky & Brown, 2015). There is a view that, while second language (L2) pedagogy should be primarily meaning‐oriented, learners benefit from occasional focus on form (FonF; Ellis, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidental reactive focus on form in language classes: Learners' formulaic versus nonformulaic errors, their treatment, and effectiveness in communicative interactions

Gholami

2021

Foreign Language Annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on incidental focus on form (FonF) has established associations among the nature of learner error, corrective feedback (CF), and effectiveness of CF measured through uptake. In this line of research, the analysis of learner error has been limited to errors with grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, and spelling (nonformulaic). Consequently, learners' errors with formulaic sequences (FSs) comprising collocations, lexical bundles, idioms, and compounds (formulaic) have not yet been investigated in FonF studies. This study examined the extent to which learners made errors with formulaic versus nonformulaic forms, and the degree to which teachers treated learners' errors with formulaic versus nonformulaic foci in communicatively oriented teacher‐learner interactions. Learners' production of uptake and successful uptake after receiving CF was also investigated. The data consisted of 36 h of audio‐recordings from primarily communicative activities in three English as a foreign language classrooms. The findings demonstrated, while learners' formulaic‐oriented errors outnumbered nonformulaic ones, the teachers provided CF significantly more often for nonformulaic errors. However, learners produced significantly more uptake and successful uptake when CF was provided for formulaic‐oriented errors compared to nonformulaic ones. The learners' higher successful uptake following formulaic‐oriented errors could be attributed to the relatively higher saliency, noticeability, and significance of FSs in meaning making.

show abstract

Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning

Cited by 29 publications

References 68 publications

Corrective Feedback from Behaviorist and Innatist Perspectives

Corrective Feedback from Behaviorist and Innatist Perspectives

Developing and Validating the English Teachers’ Cognitions About Grammar Teaching Questionnaire (TCAGTQ) to Uncover Teacher Thinking

Incidental reactive focus on form in language classes: Learners' formulaic versus nonformulaic errors, their treatment, and effectiveness in communicative interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About