Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:39:29.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Cognitive Theoretical Perspectives of Corrective Feedback

from Part I - Theoretical Perspectives on Corrective Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Ronald P. Leow  and
Meagan Driver
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

The role of corrective feedback (CF) in the L2 learning process has for decades remained a dominant issue in the (I)SLA strands of research, albeit some overlapping between these two contexts. Indeed, there are several cognitive theoretical underpinnings cited by empirical CF studies to account for the role or lack thereof of CF in the L2 learning process, for example, the Monitor Model (Krashen, 1982), the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990), the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 2005), Skill Acquisition Theory (DeKeyser, 2015), and the Model of the L2 learning process in ISLA (Leow, 2015), be it oral, written, or computerized or digital. This chapter (1) traces the early roots of CF, (2) presents a coarse-grained theoretical feedback processing framework to discuss the cognitive theoretical underpinnings postulated to account for the role of CF in L2 development, (3) provides a list of cognitive processes assumed to play a role during CF appropriation, and (4) reports on each theoretical underpinning followed by a commentary on their ability to account for the role of CF in L2 development.

Keywords

corrective feedbackcognitive processesCF theoretical underpinningsimplicit or explicit learningdepth of processinglevel of awareness
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 65 - 84
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can a human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2016). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development? ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 111–131.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 511–537.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Paper presented at the Regional Language Center Seminar, Singapore, April 22–28, 1991. (ERIC document no. ED338037).Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–200). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Al Khalil, M., Baralt, M. & Leow, R. P (2016). Levels of awareness in relation to type of recast and type of linguistic item in computer-mediated communication: A concurrent investigation. In Leow, R. P., Cerezo, L. & Baralt, M. (eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 151–170). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 111–137). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 113–155.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2019). ISLA: How implicit or how explicit should it be? Theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical/curricular issues. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 476–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2020). L2 writing-to-learn: Theory, research, and a curricular approach. In Manchón, Rosa M. (ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 95–117). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. & Cerezo, L. (2016). Deconstructing the “I” and “SLA” in ISLA: One curricular approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 43–63.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(3), 361–386.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8 2), 1–26.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–467). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. In Schwieter, J. W. & Benati, A. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 341–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330–339.Google Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Norris, J. M. (ed.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–162). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–209). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center Technical Report No. 9 (pp. 1–64). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in second language. In Day, R. (ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 219–231.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183–203.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×