Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:17:21.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTRODUCTION

The Role of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2010

Younghee Sheen
Younghee Sheen*
Affiliation:
American University, Washington DC
*
*Address correspondence to: Younghee Sheen, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC, 20016; e-mail: sheen@american.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 32 , Special Issue 2: The Role of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA , June 2010 , pp. 169 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

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
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12, 409–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.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., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we and where do we go from here? Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 82, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51–70.Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition error: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leki, I. (2000). Writing, literacy, and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2009, March). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, 2009, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Benjamin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.CrossRefGoogle 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
Mackey, A. (2007). The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text-based studies. In Silva, T. & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Polio, C., Fleck, N., & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007a). The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007b). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 91–103). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Thinking and speaking. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar