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-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:32:43.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

36 - The Role of Task in the Efficacy of Corrective Feedback

from Part VIII - Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Pauline Foster  and
Martyn McGettigan
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 identifies the paucity of overlap between the role of task in corrective feedback (CF) studies, and the role of CF in task-based studies. It goes on to argue, however, that classroom task design and implementation conditions can act effectively as facilitating conduits for CF without compromising the essentially implicit and incidental nature of task-based learning. The affordances of new pedagogies that use computer-mediated interaction are particularly useful in this regard, as are task implementation sequences in which CF is deployed at a post-task or pre-task stage.

Keywords

Corrective feedbackimplicit language learningtheoretical perspectivesclassroom interactioncomputer-assisted language learning (CALL)
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 777 - 795
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

Adams, R., Alwi, N. A. N. M. & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Nuevo, A. M. & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95(Suppl.), 42–63.Google Scholar
Ammar, A., (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 185–210.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language: In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Pica, T. (1986). Information-gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305–326.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. and Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to task. In Day, R. (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. (pp. 147–181) Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2009). Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42(2), 109–130.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkman, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Hunter, A. (2016). When it’s not what you do but the way that you do it: How research into second language acquisition can help teachers make the most of their classroom materials. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.), SLA and materials development for language teaching (pp. 280-293). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in classroom language tasks. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (2013) The effects of post-task activities on the accuracy of language during task performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(3), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and non-native/non native negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. G. (eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 149–162). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E. & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 325–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R., Baron, J. & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 367–395.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 79–100.Google Scholar
Hawkes, M. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66(3), 327–336.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428–452.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E. & Gatbonton, E. (2014). ACCESS-TBLT and adult ESL learners’ noticing of corrective feedback. CONTACT: Refereed Proceedings of TESL Ontario Research Symposium, 40, 32–50.Google Scholar
Kim, H. Y. (2017). Effect of modality and task type on interlanguage variation. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 29(2), 219–236.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Li, S., Zhu, Y. & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276–295.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clark, M. & Handscombe, J. (eds.), On TESOL ’82: Pacific perspectives on language learning (pp. 207–225). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hylstenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. (pp. 115–141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–446). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 221–250.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), 37–66.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. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 21(4), 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–498.CrossRefGoogle 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. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.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
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafie, Z. F., Rahmany, R. & Sadeqi, B. (2015). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the accuracy of L2 oral production. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1297–1304.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp 287–318). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouhshad, A. (2014). The nature of negotiations in computer-mediated and face-to-face modes with/without writing modality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2015). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 514–534.Google Scholar
Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 119–140). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Applied Linguistics, 12(3), 287–301.Google Scholar
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.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
×