Oral Feedback in Classroom Sla

Abstract

To investigate the pedagogical effectiveness of oral corrective feedback (CF) on target language development, we conducted a meta-analysis that focused exclusively on 15 classroom-based studies (N = 827). The analysis was designed to investigate whether CF was effective in classroom settings and, if so, whether its effectiveness varied according to (a) types of CF, (b) types and timing of outcome measures, (c) instructional setting (second vs. foreign language classroom), (d) treatment length, and (e) learners’ age. Results revealed that CF had significant and durable effects on target language development. The effects were larger for prompts than recasts and most apparent in measures that elicit free constructed responses. Whereas instructional setting was not identified as a contributing factor to CF effectiveness, effects of long treatments were larger than those of short-to-medium treatments but not distinguishable from those of brief treatments. A simple regression analysis revealed effects for age, with younger learners benefiting from CF more than older learners.

Counterpoint Piece: The Case for Variety in Corrective Feedback Research

“…In contrast, Lyster and Ranta ( 1997 ) concluded simply that "teachers might want to consider the whole range of techniques they have at their disposal rather than relying so extensively on recasts" (p. 56). Lyster and colleagues have followed suit throughout the years and have encouraged teachers to use a variety of CF types (Lyster, 2002(Lyster, , 2004(Lyster, , 2007Lyster & Mori, 2006 ;Lyster & Saito, 2010 ;Lyster et al, 2013 ;Panova & Lyster, 2002 ). This recommendation is based on the premise that recasting what students already know is unlikely to be the most effective strategy to ensure continued L2 development and that prompting learners to draw on what they have not yet acquired is equally ineffective.…”

Corrective Feedback in SLA: Theoretical Relevance and Empirical Research

“…In consideration of the criticisms aimed at the previous research on CF, several recent studies (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008;Lyster & Saito, 2010;Sheen, 2007;Sheen, 2010) are well-designed and methodologically rigorous enough to address the issue on effects of CF. Each of these studies adopted a non-CF control group for comparison and a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design with new pieces of writing.…”

Comparing the Effects of two Types of Output-Pushing Feedback on Adult EFL Students’ Oral Accuracy

“…In classroom settings, observational studies almost invariably conclude that teachers predominantly use recasts to deal with their students' spoken language errors (e.g., Sheen, 2004). However, evidence from classroom studies indicates that students may benefit more from being pushed to self-correct by means of prompts or output-pushing CF (Lyster & Saito, 2010). While several studies have compared the impact of recasts to that of a group of prompts (e.g., Ammar & Spada, 2006;Dilans, 2010;Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009;Lyster & Saito, 2010;Nassaji, 2007), very few studies have attempted to compare separate prompts to each other, even though prompts comprise a range of CF-types which may well affect language development differently.…”

“…However, evidence from classroom studies indicates that students may benefit more from being pushed to self-correct by means of prompts or output-pushing CF (Lyster & Saito, 2010). While several studies have compared the impact of recasts to that of a group of prompts (e.g., Ammar & Spada, 2006;Dilans, 2010;Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009;Lyster & Saito, 2010;Nassaji, 2007), very few studies have attempted to compare separate prompts to each other, even though prompts comprise a range of CF-types which may well affect language development differently. To fill this gap in the literature, the present study aims to compare the effects of two types of prompts or output-pushing CF, elicitation and metalinguistic feedback, on EFL students' ability to use the English past simple tense in oral production.…”