Chapter published in:
Critical Reflections on Data in Second Language Acquisition
Edited by Aarnes Gudmestad and Amanda Edmonds
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 51] 2018
► pp. 33–62

Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback

A synthetic and critical review

| 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.
Keywords: corrective feedback, corrective feedback treatment, data elicitation tasks, task validation, measurement of treatment effects
Published online: 10 September 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.51.03li
References

References

* Retrieved studies included in the corpus

*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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Ammar, A. (2008) Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A.
(2006) Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Choi, S., & Li, S.
(2012) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. The RELC Journal, 43, 331–251.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, H.
(2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2015) Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.94–112). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Egi, T.
(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.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y.
(2006) Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erbaugh, M.
(2001) The Chinese pear stories: Narratives across seven dialects. Available at http://​www​.pearstories​.org/Google Scholar
Gass, S.
(1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
*Goo, J. (2012) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A.
(2013) The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014) The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18, 428–452.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S.
(1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
*Lee, A., & Lyster, R. (2016) The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 35–64.Google Scholar
Li, S.
(2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Li, S. (2014) The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(2017b) The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction: A synthetic review. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp.41–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2018) Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp.1–9). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
*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.Google Scholar
*Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006) Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, M.
(2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2016) In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.Google Scholar
Lyster, R.
(2004) Different effects of prompts and effects in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009) Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 59, 453–498.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H.
(2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.
(1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K.
(2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K.
(2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K.
(2000) How do learners perceive international feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J.
(1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
*Nakatsukasa, K. (2016) Efficacy of recasts and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 771–800.Google Scholar
*Nassaji, H. (2009) Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
(2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L.
(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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 450–470.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S.
(2011) Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Rassaei, E. (2014) Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 417–431.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Rassaei, E. (2015a) Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Rassaei, E. (2015b) Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 499–518.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Révész, A. (2009) Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Révész, A. (2012) Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistic, 35, 87–92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2011) Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Saito, K., & Wu, X. (2014) Communicative focus on form and second language suprasegmental learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 647–680.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012) Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y.
(2004) Corrective feedback and leaner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
*Sheen, Y. (2008) Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Sheen, Y. (2010) Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(Ed.) (2014) Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Yilmaz, Y. (2013) Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Yilmaz, Y. (2014) The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41, 691–705.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
*Yilmaz, Y. (2016) The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 65–96.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y.
(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.Google Scholar