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-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T15:36:09.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

30 - Age and 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
Alyssa Vuono  and
Shaofeng Li
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

A question that is of central significance but has been largely ignored in the literature is whether learners of different age groups benefit from corrective feedback in different ways. This chapter seeks to discuss the theory, research, and pedagogy pertaining to the role of age in mediating the incidence and effects of corrective feedback. The chapter begins with a theoretical explanation of the relationship between age and corrective feedback. It then zeroes in on descriptive research investigating feedback provided to children by their parents or caregivers while acquiring their first language. It proceeds to discuss feedback in second language learning, summarizing descriptive research conducted in the language classroom and laboratory contexts. The effects of input-providing and output-prompting feedback from descriptive and experimental research were analyzed through the lens of participants’ ages. One pattern that emerged from the research is that output-prompting feedback leads to greater linguistic gains than input-providing feedback among child learners. The chapter concludes with implications for researchers and teachers, proposing ways to carry out research to examine the various issues surrounding the role of age through research and ways to maximize the effects of feedback for learners of different ages in the second language classroom.

Keywords

Agecorrective feedbackchildrenrecastsprompts
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 645 - 667
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

Alcón-Soler, E. (2009). Focus on form, learner uptake and subsequent lexical gains in learners’ oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 347–365.Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. (2003). Corrective feedback and L2 learning: Elicitation and recasts. Doctoral thesis, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20(1–2), 3–63.Google Scholar
Choi, S. & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chouinard, M. M. & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 637–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R. (2016). Anniversary article focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.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
Farrar, M. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 17(3), 607–624.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google 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(3), 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.Google Scholar
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 255–270.Google Scholar
Illmann, C. (1995). Contextual influences on parental declarative speech style. Doctoral dissertation, University of Windsor, Canada.Google Scholar
Kamiya, N. (2016). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2007). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in English immersion classrooms at the primary level in Korea. English Teaching, 62(4), 311–334.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S.(2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtman, K. (2016). Age and learning environment: Are children implicit second language learners. Journal of Child Language, 43(3), 1–24.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 271–283.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361–386.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. (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: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.CrossRefGoogle 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
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: an empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459–477.CrossRefGoogle 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
Mori, H. (2002). Error treatment sequences in Japanese immersion classroom interactions at different grade levels. Doctoral dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Moulton, J. & Robinson, G. (1981). The organization of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 907–933.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 459–481.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1996, January). Input and feedback to adult and child ESL learners. Paper presented at Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119–151.Google Scholar
Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.CrossRefGoogle 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
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Age related characteristics and peer interaction. In Babb-Rosenfeld, L. (ed.), Peer interaction and second language learning (pp. 103–119). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.Google Scholar
Shak, J. & Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar
Simard, D. & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759–785.Google Scholar
Strapp, C. M. (1996). Language development in the family setting: Comparing sources of linguistic input. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nevada.Google Scholar
Van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 246–262.Google Scholar
Vicente-Rasoamalala, L. (2009). Teachers’ reactions to foreign language learner output. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. (2009). Feedback and uptake in Chinese EFL classrooms: In search of instructional variables. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 6(1), 1–22.Google 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(2), 235–263.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
×