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-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:57:23.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - Perceptions and Noticing of Corrective Feedback

from Part VII - Learners’ and Teachers’ Feedback Perspectives, Perceptions, and Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Reiko Yoshida
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses noticing of corrective feedback (CF) and factors that affect noticing in different contexts in previous studies. Laboratory studies found that the type of error, the length and salience of the CF, the proficiency level of the learner, and their working memory capacity, attention control, and analytical ability affected noticeability of CF. In classroom studies, the explicitness of the CF and learners' anxiety in language classrooms additionally influenced their noticing of CF. A further finding of studies is that there are discrepancies between teachers' intentions in giving CF and learners' interpretations of that CF. In peer work, the relationship between learners were closely related to the noticng of CF. Computer-based text chats have certain strengths in terms of contributing to learners' noticing of CF, such as the slow pace of the communication and the re-readibility of the text messages. However, delayed CF, and less social and affective engagement due to characteristics of text chats seemed to contribute to less noticeability of CF. In future studies, it will be necessary to examine how and when noticing leads to understanding to explore the process of deeper learning.

Keywords

learners' perception of corrective feedbackteachers' perception of corrective feedbacknoticeability of corrective feedbacklaboratory studiesclassroom studiespeer interactionscomputer-mediated interactions
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 620 - 642
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

Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 183–210.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In Sato, M. & Bellinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potentials and research agenda (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2005). Bimodal CMC: The glue of language learning at a distance. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 497–511.Google Scholar
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52(1), 1–42.Google Scholar
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60.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
Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In Alatis, J. (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table (GURT) 1993 (pp. 96–108). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 249–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.Google Scholar
Frederickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.Google Scholar
Frederickson, B. L. & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.Google Scholar
Frederickson, B. L. & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13(2), 172–175.Google Scholar
Fu, T. & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 159–181.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F. & Masgoret, A.-M. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 344–362.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Baralt, M. (2014a). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Baralt, M. (2014b). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420.Google Scholar
Han, Z. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 582–599.Google Scholar
Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2), 416–431.Google Scholar
Heift, T. & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36(2), 196–213.Google Scholar
Hewitt, E. & Stephenson, J. (2011). Foreign language anxiety and oral exam performance: A replication of Phillips’s MLJ study. Modern Language Journal, 1–20.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132.Google Scholar
Kim, J. H. & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 269–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lai, C. & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 102–120.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development, beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.Google Scholar
Lin, Y. H. & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46(4), 567–611.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153–188.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.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. 413–468). San Diego: 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. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake, negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 36–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback iin second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D. & Legatto, J. J. (2010). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 149–171.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A. & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 129–152.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R. & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning. (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moroishi, M. (2002). Recasts, noticing and error types: Japanese learners’ perception of corrective feedback. Daini Gengo to shite no Nihongo no Shuutoku Kenkyuu (Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language), 5, 24–41.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43–62.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teachig and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433–466.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition process in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions.Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97–111.Google Scholar
Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In Warshauer, M. & Kern, R. (eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on noticing the gap, nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In Dekeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. A. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 163–182). Manoa: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Rookers, P. & Wilson, J. (2000). Perception: Theory, development and organisation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosa, E. & O’Neil, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 511–556.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2016). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive model. Language Learning, 67(2), 249–283.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-methodology examination. Language Awareness, 21(1–2), 157–179.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor versus feedback types. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (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 (pp. 1–64). Manoa: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In Chan, W. M., Chi, S., Cin, K. N., Istanto, J., Nagami, M., Sew, J. W., Suthiwan, T. & Walker, I. (eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 204 (pp. 721–737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.Google Scholar
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343–364.Google Scholar
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244–258.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Dordecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 433–457.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2015). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 365–398.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2009). The relationship between scrolling, negotiation, and self-initiated self-repair in an SCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 231–245.Google Scholar
Smith, B. & Gorsuch, G. J. (2004). Synchronous computer mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553–575.Google Scholar
Smith, B. & Renaud, C. (2013). Using eye tracking as a measure of foreign language learners’ noticing of recasts during computer-mediated writing conferences. In McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 147–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sotillo, S. (2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS–NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 467–496.Google Scholar
Sotillo, S.(2009). Learner noticing, negative feedback, and uptake in synchronous computer-mediated environments. In Abraham, L. B. & Williams, L. (eds.), Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching (pp. 87–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(4), 183–204.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A. & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103–135.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2009). Learners in Japanese language classrooms: Overt and covert participation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.Google Scholar
Yuksel, D. & Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3), 333–354.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×