Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback
A synthetic and critical review
Shaofeng Li | Florida State University | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
This chapter seeks to provide a comprehensive and in-depth synthesis of the methods of data collection used in studies investigating the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF). A total of 34 studies published between 2006 and 2017 in five top journals in second language acquisition were selected for the review. The methods of data collection reported in the studies were coded in terms of CF treatment, CF elicitation task, and the measurement of CF effects. CF treatment was further coded as CF operationalization, the context of CF treatment, pre-treatment instruction, and CF amount. CF elicitation task is discussed with regard to task type and task validation. Task type concerns whether communicative tasks or mechanical drills were used to elicit the target structure, and task validation pertains to whether and how the primary researchers provided evidence for task complexity and for the contexts of obligatory use of the target structure. The measurement of CF effects is examined in terms of whether treatment effects are measured via tests of explicit or implicit knowledge and whether treatment effects are operationalized as mastery of the target structure, use of a more advanced variant of a structure (staged development), automatization of existing knowledge, or learners’ overall task performance indexed by the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of their speech production. For each coded methodological feature, current practices are reported, limitations and challenges are identified, and solutions are recommended.
*Adams, R., Nuevo, A., & Egi, T. (2011) Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interaction?Modern Language Journal, 95, 42–63.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J.
(1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
*Ammar, A. (2008) Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.
*Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
*Baralt, M. (2013) The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.
Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A.
(2006) Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.
Choi, S., & Li, S.
(2012) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. The RELC Journal, 43, 331–251.
(2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
(2015) Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.94–112). New York, NY: Routledge.
(2007) Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.249–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
(2010) Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp.151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*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.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y.
(2006) Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
(2001) The Chinese pear stories: Narratives across seven dialects. Available at [URL]
(1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Goo, J. (2012) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
Goo, J., & Mackey, A.
(2013) The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
*Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014) The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18, 428–452.
*Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015) The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581.
(1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
*Lee, A., & Lyster, R. (2016) The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 35–64.
(2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
*Li, S. (2013) The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.
*Li, S. (2014) The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396.
(2015) The differential roles of working memory and language analytic ability in mediating the effects of recasts as a function of learner proficiency. In Z. Wen, M. Mota, & A. MacNeil (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary (pp.139–159). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
(2017a) Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp.143–157). New York, NY: Routledge.
(2018) Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp.1–9). Oxford: Blackwell.
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y.
(2016a) Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205–229.
*Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016b) The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295.
*Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006) Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.
(2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
(2016) In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
(2004) Different effects of prompts and effects in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
*Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009) Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 59, 453–498.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H.
(2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.
(1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.
(2013) Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K.
(2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
(2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K.
(2000) How do learners perceive international feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J.
(1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses, and red herrings?The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
Marsden, E., Mackey A., & Plonsky, L.
(2016) The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp.1–21). New York, NY: Routledge.
*Nakatsukasa, K. (2016) Efficacy of recasts and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 771–800.
*Nassaji, H. (2009) Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
(2016) Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
(2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
(2013) Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687.
(2014) Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 450–470.
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.
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S.
(2011) Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.
*Rassaei, E. (2014) Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 417–431.
*Rassaei, E. (2015a) Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.
*Rassaei, E. (2015b) Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 499–518.
*Révész, A. (2009) Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.
*Révész, A. (2012) Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
(2014) Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistic, 35, 87–92.
*Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014) The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–650.
*Saito, K. (2013) Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development: The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 1–29.
*Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012) Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /r/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.
*Saito, K., & Wu, X. (2014) Communicative focus on form and second language suprasegmental learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 647–680.
*Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012) Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.
(2004) Corrective feedback and leaner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
(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: Oxford University Press.
*Sheen, Y. (2008) Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
*Sheen, Y. (2010) Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
*van de Guchte, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., & Bimmel, P. (2015) Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 246–262.
*Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010) Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
*Yilmaz, Y. (2012) The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
*Yilmaz, Y. (2013) Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.
*Yilmaz, Y. (2014) The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41, 691–705.
*Yilmaz, Y. (2016) The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 65–96.
(2015) The effects of explicit and implicit recasts on the acquisition of two grammatical structures and the mediating role of working memory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Cited by 5 other publications
2021. Interactionist Approach to Corrective Feedback. In Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics [Springer Texts in Education, ], ► pp. 103 ff.
Fu, Mengxia & Shaofeng Li
2021. THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND THE EFFECTS OF THE TIMING OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43:3 ► pp. 498 ff.
2021. Incidental reactive focus on form in language classes: Learners' formulaic versus nonformulaic errors, their treatment, and effectiveness in communicative interactions. Foreign Language Annals 54:4 ► pp. 897 ff.
2022. Incidental corrective feedback provision for formulaic vs. Non-formulaic errors: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Awareness 31:1 ► pp. 21 ff.
2020. What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? Replication of Li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Yilmaz (2018). Language Teaching 53:1 ► pp. 96 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 may 2023. 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.