Article published in:

EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 1 (2001)
Edited by Susan H. Foster-Cohen and Anna Nizegorodcew
[EUROSLA Yearbook 1] 2001
► pp. 99–122

Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback

Gertraud Havranek | University of Klagenfurt

Hermann Cesnik | University of Klagenfurt

The findings from a comprehensive study on oral corrective feedback show that the success of such feedback as measured in a subsequent test is affected by its format, the type of error corrected, and certain learner characteristics. The most successful format of correction, both for the learners receiving the feedback and for their peers, is feedback successfully eliciting self-correction in practice situations. Among the least successful formats for both groups are recasts without further comments or repetition by the corrected learner. The type of error corrected most successfully differs for the two groups. Those corrected learn most from the correction of their grammatical errors and least from correction of pronunciation errors. Peers score best on pronunciation items and gain least from correction of lexical errors. Of the learner characteristics taken into consideration, verbal intelligence, relative proficiency (within levels at school or university), and the learners’ attitude towards correction proved to be most influential.

Published online: 31 August 2001
https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.1.10hav

Cited by

Cited by 23 other publications

Ajabshir, Zahra Fakher

2014. The Effect of Implicit and Explicit Types of Feedback on Learners’ Pragmatic Development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 ► pp. 463 ff.

Cornillie, Frederik, Geraldine Clarebout & Piet Desmet

2012. Between learning and playing? Exploring learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback in an immersive game for English pragmatics. ReCALL 24:3 ► pp. 257 ff.

Dabaghi, Azizollah

2007. A Comparison of the Effects of Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback on Learners’ Performance in Tailor-Made Tests. Journal of Applied Sciences 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Ergül, Hilal

2021. Mitigating oral corrective feedback through linguistic strategies and smiling. Journal of Pragmatics 183 ► pp. 142 ff.

Heift, Trude

2019. A longitudinal observation of technology-mediated feedback for L2 learners of German. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 170:2 ► pp. 154 ff.

Lyster, Roy & Jesús Izquierdo

2009. Prompts Versus Recasts in Dyadic Interaction. Language Learning 59:2 ► pp. 453 ff.

Lyster, Roy & Hirohide Mori

2006. INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK AND INSTRUCTIONAL COUNTERBALANCE. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28:02

Lyster, Roy & Kazuya Saito

2010. ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32:2 ► pp. 265 ff.

McDonough, Kim & Alison Mackey

2006. Responses to Recasts: Repetitions, Primed Production, and Linguistic Development. Language Learning 56:4 ► pp. 693 ff.

Mifka-Profozic, Nadia

2014. Effectiveness of implicit negative feedback in a foreign language classroom. EUROSLA Yearbook 14 ► pp. 111 ff.

Moghaddam, Seyyed Reza Mousavi & Fatemeh Behjat

2014. Overt-correction vs. Recasts and Grammar Performance of Iranian Male Learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 5:4

Netz, Hadar & Orna Fogel

2019. Input-providing vs. output-pushing corrective feedback in dyadic tutoring sessions. System 87 ► pp. 102159 ff.

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

Rast, Rebekah & Edith Taïeb

2008. Présentation. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère :27 ► pp. 3 ff.

Sagarra, Nuria & Rebekha Abbuhl

2013. Optimizing the Noticing of Recasts via Computer-Delivered Feedback: Evidence That Oral Input Enhancement and Working Memory Help Second Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal 97:1 ► pp. 196 ff.

SHEEN, YOUNGHEE

2007. The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners' Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly 41:2 ► pp. 255 ff.

Sungsoo Jang

2011. Corrective Feedback and Language Anxiety in L2 Processing and Achievement. English Teaching 66:2 ► pp. 73 ff.

Trofimovich, Pavel, Kim McDonough, Phung Dao & Dato Abashidze

2022. Attitudinal bias, individual differences, and second language speakers’ interactional performance . Applied Linguistics Review 13:1 ► pp. 99 ff.

Tsao, Jui-Jung, Wen-Ta Tseng, Tsung-Yuan Hsiao, Chaochang Wang & Andy Xuesong Gao

2021. Toward a Motivation-Regulated Learner Engagement WCF Model of L2 Writing Performance. SAGE Open 11:2 ► pp. 215824402110231 ff.

Varnosfadrani, Azizollah Dabaghi & Helen Basturkmen

2009. The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System 37:1 ► pp. 82 ff.

Yang, Juan

2016. Learners' oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error. System 61 ► pp. 75 ff.

박휴용 & 노석준

2012. A Discussion on Pedagogic Strategies for Multicultural Classrooms: Principles and Approaches of the CEMP Model. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies 24:2 ► pp. 379 ff.

설수연 & 김영규

2013. A Study on Differences in Students' and Teachers' Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Teacher Feedback in Korean as a Second Language. Journal of Korean Language Education 24:3 ► pp. 109 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 april 2022. 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.