Corrective feedback

Linguistic input comes in two forms: positive evidence and negative evidence. Long (1996) notes that positive evidence is “models of what is grammatical and acceptable (not necessarily the same)” (p. 413). In other words, positive evidence refers to exemplars of the target language produced by native or proficient non-native speakers that non-proficient L2 speakers hear or read. Negative evidence, on the other hand, is information about what is not grammatical or acceptable in the target

language. In many interactionist SLA studies, negative evidence is operationalized as feedback on learner errors. However, since the word feedback is a neutral term in essence and because it can be provided as a validation of target-like production as well, SLA researchers use the term corrective feedback to distinguish feedback that is provided on learner errors from positive feedback that functions as a validation of problem-free production. Furthermore, what many interactionist researchers particularly focus on is “reactive feedback — that is, feedback that occurs as a reaction to some linguistic problem” (Gass & Mackey, 2006, p.7). In the case of L1 acquisition, children may receive corrective feedback from their parents when their language production is non-target-like. Similarly, adult learners of a second language may receive corrective feedback as part of classroom instruction or during everyday interaction with native speakers or other non-native speakers. Researchers of child language acquisition have been skeptical about the usefulness of negative evidence, and hence corrective feedback, and argued that there is no proof or data to suggest that negative evidence is a necessary condition for children to learn their L1 (e.g., Marcus 1993; Pinker 1989). However, the general view in the SLA field is that L1 acquisition

is different from L2 acquisition because in the case of L2 acquisition learners sometimes make incorrect generalizations based on their L1, which necessitates the provision of corrective feedback to indicate what is structurally possible in their L1 may not be possible in their L2 (L. White, 1991). Therefore, SLA scholars view corrective feedback as a facilitative component in L2 acquisition (for a recent review, see Yilmaz, 2016). Moreover, SLA studies have shown that corrective feedback is a commonly occurring phenomenon in classroom settings (Loewen, 2009; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 2000; Yoshida, 2008) and during interactions between children or adult speaker dyads as well as between a native speaker and a non-native or between two non-native speakers (Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003; Oliver, 2009). It may be provided by teachers or more competent students in classroom contexts, and by native-speakers or more competent L2 speakers during laboratory research or in naturalistic contexts. SLA scholars have argued that corrective feedback that draws learners’ attention to their non-target-like production is necessary for successful L2 acquisition (Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998; Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Long, 1990, 1996; Schachter, 1986, 1991; Schmidt & Frota, 1986). The rationale behind this

Figure 2.1 Model of interaction and learning (Reprinted from Gass & Mackey, 2006)

argument is that attention and noticing are two key elements that bridge the gap between learner-internal and learner-external factors to facilitate L2 development (Schmidt, 2001) and corrective feedback that signals a problem in the learner’s output has the potential to trigger these two fundamental cognitive functions (see Figure 2.1). In fact, research studies have highlighted the role of attention as an agent that may allow learners to notice the illocutionary force of corrective feedback (Goo & Mackey, 2013; Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Li, 2010; Mackey, 2006).

The interactionist literature has placed different types of corrective feedback into two main categories called implicit and explicit feedback (R. Ellis, 2007, 2008; Leeman, 2007; Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; Mackey, 2012). Implicit feedback does not directly or openly point at the erroneous output by the learner but rather signals it covertly. On the other hand, explicit feedback is an attempt to directly and overtly draw the learner’s attention to the error. Mackey (2012) explains that although the main function of both types of feedback is to signal a problem with learners’ non- target-like production, “explicit feedback (i.e. indicating a problem with the utterance with a focus on the form) can interrupt the flow of the interaction, whereas implicit feedback (i.e. indicating there is a problem with primary focus on meaning) usually allows for the interaction to continue uninterrupted” (p. 116). Beyond these two main categories, corrective feedback can be categorized depending on the specific function that each feedback type serves. Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) seminal work identified six main types of corrective feedback moves that fall under the implicit-explicit

continuum. These feedback moves are explicit correction, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, clarification requests, repetition, and recasts. The first three of these six types of feedback moves are considered explicit feedback and the last three implicit feedback.

Explicit correction provides the correct form with an overt indication that the learner’s production was incorrect:

S: One upon a time T: No we say once

S: Once (Oliver & Mackey, 2003, p.524)

Metalinguistic feedback provides comments on what is wrong in the learner’s production without providing the correct form:

Learner: He kiss her

Researcher: Kiss—you need past tense Learner: He kissed (Ellis et al., 2006, p. 353)

Elicitation is a form of corrective feedback that aims to push the learner to provide the correct form by using a question or by pausing before the target form and allowing the learner to fill in the blanks:

Student: …on the street there was a policeman, and she was skipping running. Teacher: I am sorry, she was…?

Student: Skipping running, the thief (Nassaji, 2009, p.429)

Clarification requests are a type of feedback that indicates that the learner’s production was ill-formed or the interlocutor did not understand the message:

Learner: Why does he taking the flowers? Researcher: Pardon?

Learner: Why does he take flowers? (Loewen & Nabei, 2007, p.367)

Repetition is a type of feedback that repeats the learner’s error without any changes but highlights the error using stress and intonation:

Student: La chocolat . . . “(F) Chocolate.” Teacher: La chocolat? “(F) Chocolate?”

Student: Le chocolat. “(M) Chocolate.” (Lyster, 2004, p.405)

Last but not least, recasts are a type of feedback that provides a target-like reformulation of the learner’s non-target-like production:

Learner: And I saw a boy next to the bar. I think he was with his girlfriend. They talking to each other.

Researcher: They were talking to each other. (Révész, 2012, p. 94)

These six corrective feedback moves can also be grouped based on whether they provide the correction to the learner or request self-repair by pushing the learner to correct their own error. Lyster (2004) defined the latter as prompts and explained that “they withhold correct forms (and other signs of approval) and instead offer learners an opportunity to self-repair by generating their own modified response” (p. 405). In subsequent publications, the first type of feedback has been also been referred to as input-providing and the latter output-prompting (R. Ellis, 2008; Sheen & Ellis,

2011). Loewen and Nabei (2007) offered a categorization of the six types of corrective feedback moves based on whether they are input-providing or output- prompting mapped on an implicit-explicit continuum. According to their

categorization, explicit correction and recasts are both input-providing feedback moves with explicit correction being the explicit type and recasts being the implicit type; metalinguistic feedback, elicitations, repetitions, and clarification requests are the output-prompting moves, with metalinguistic feedback on the explicit end of the continuum and clarification requests on the implicit end.

Meta-analyses so far have indicated a positive effect of corrective feedback on language development (Goo, Granena, Yilmaz, & Novella, 2015; Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Russell & Spada, 2006). A great amount of SLA research has attempted to tease apart the overall effectiveness of different corrective feedback moves and answer the question of whether implicit feedback is better than explicit feedback or vice versa. While some researchers have argued that explicit feedback may be more beneficial than implicit feedback (Ellis et al., 2006; Lyster, 1998a; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Sheen, 2007), others have argued that implicit feedback, particularly recasts, are more effective (e.g., Long, Inegaki, & Ortega, 1998; Long, 2007). There have been also studies that found no significant difference between explicit and implicit feedback in terms of their level of

effectiveness (Goo, 2012; Loewen & Nabei, 2007; Sauro, 2009). However, it is difficult to argue that one type of feedback has overall advantage compared to the other because the effectiveness of a particular type of corrective feedback depends on various factors such as target language feature (Mackey et al., 2000; Saito & Lyster, 2012a); outcome measures (Révész, 2012); task complexity (Baralt, 2013; Révész et al., 2014); and learner factors such as proficiency level (Ammar & Spada, 2006),

developmental readiness (Mackey & Philp, 1998), working memory capacity or language analytic ability (Yilmaz, 2013). As such, due to the amount of

methodological variability among corrective feedback studies, caution should be exercised when coming to conclusions about which type of feedback is better than the other. It is also important to note that meta-analysis studies have shown that the effect of explicit feedback can be observed immediately, while the effect of implicit

feedback is usually delayed (e.g., Li, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007). Therefore, these meta-analyses warned against hasty conclusions and comparisons between implicit and explicit feedback. Due to the existence of a multitude of factors that mediate the effectiveness of corrective feedback making the interpretation of comparative studies difficult, Goo and Mackey (2013) suggested that it would be more fruitful to direct research efforts toward investigating how various types of corrective feedback impact different target-language features in different contexts.