Cover not available
Part of
Second Language Acquisition Theory: The legacy of Professor Michael H. Long
Edited by Alessandro G. Benati and John W. Schwieter
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 14] 2022
► pp. 127–142

Chapter 7
Immediate versus delayed oral negative feedback

A comparison of psycholinguistic advantages

| Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
| Indiana University

Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1981, 1983) provides a theoretical framework for understanding how interaction can contribute to second language (L2) acquisition. Specifically, negative feedback provided during interaction is viewed as a feature that can facilitate L2 development by drawing learners’ attention to problematic forms (Long, 1996). Long’s influential hypotheses were originally formulated in the context of face-to-face conversational interaction and, therefore, negative feedback was understood as feedback that is provided immediately to the learner in oral conversation. However, negative feedback cannot always be provided immediately to L2 learners. In distance language learning settings where the L2 is learned online and where communication between learner and instructor may take place asynchronously, feedback cannot be provided during a communicative task and it is provided at a later time, for example, at the end of a teaching unit.

Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The interaction hypothesis
  • Factors moderating the effectiveness of negative feedback
  • Arguments for the utility of delayed feedback
  • Future research directions
    • Type of cognitive processing
    • Source of error attribution
    • Relative effectiveness of delayed feedback
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 11 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.14.07gra
References
Arroyo, D. C., & Yilmaz, Y.
(2018) An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, 68, 942–972. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canals, L., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Malicka, A.
(2020) Second language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of delayed immediate corrective feedback in an asynchronous online setting: An exploratory study. TESL Canada Journal, 37, 181–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) The relative effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback in video-based computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research. Advanced online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M.
(2003) Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J.
(2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H.
(2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language, Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R.
(2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsey, J. W. B., Van Ast, V. A., & Kindt, M.
(2018) Human memory reconsolidation: A guiding framework and critical review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 797–848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J.
(2016) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity: A replication. In G. Granena, D. O. Jackson, & Y. Yilmaz (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 279–302). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granena, G.
(2013) Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–129). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Cognitive aptitudes and L2 speaking proficiency: Links between LLAMA and Hi-LAB. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 313–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harmer, J.
(2007) The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M.
(1978) Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Newbury House.Google Scholar
Heift, T., Nguyen, P., & Hegelheimer, V.
(2021) Technology-mediated corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 226–250). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C.
(2020) Perfect timing? Exploring the effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback, communication mode, and working memory on the acquisition of Spanish as a foreign language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University.
Lee, J. L. C., Nader, K., & Schiller, D.
(2017) An update on memory reconsolidation updating. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 531–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 276–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1981) Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983a) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983b) Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988) Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1991) Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 2, 39–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.Google Scholar
to appear). The psycholinguistics of L2 interaction. In A. Godfroid & H. Hopp Eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and psycholinguistics Routledge
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P.
(1998) Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15–41). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M.
(2005) Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Brown, D.
(2015) Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31, 267–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P.
(2014) Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
(2021) The timing of corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 322–340). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Révész, A., & Han, Z.
(2006) Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15, 160–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y.
(2007) The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S.
(2016) The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 296–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R.
(2015) Does elicited imitation measure implicit knowledge? Evidence from the word-monitoring task. Language Learning, 65, 860–895. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I.
(2017) Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 59–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y.
(2012) The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 65–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D.
(2011) Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G.
(2021) Implicitness and explicitness in cognitive abilities and corrective feedback. A double dissociation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(3), 523–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Murphy, Bridget, Jessica Mackay & Elsa Tragant
2023. ‘Ok I think I was totally wrong:) new try!’: language learning in WhatsApp through the provision of delayed corrective feedback provided during and after task performance. The Language Learning Journal 51:4 ► pp. 491 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.