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-76c49bb84f-lvxqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-13T14:36:30.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2010

Robert DeKeyser
By
Jennifer Leeman
Robert DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Jennifer Leeman
Affiliation:
George Mason University, USA
Get access

Summary

Introduction

It is fitting that a volume on practice in second language learning should include a chapter on feedback, as the notion that practice can promote L2 development seems to imply that learners do not yet produce error-free output. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of practice must involve consideration of the ways in which interlocutors respond to learner error, and the implementation of a practice-based pedagogy requires instructors to make decisions about whether to provide feedback, and if so, what type(s) to provide. Indeed, the issue of feedback is intricately linked to other practice-related constructs such as the effects of input, output, and interaction, and thus it has been briefly touched upon in previous chapters. The present chapter, while mentioning these constructs, aims to give readers a fuller appreciation of feedback per se, as well as its role in L2 practice. Because most L2 feedback research has not been conducted within a practice framework, a thorough understanding of feedback and of the empirical research in this area requires a consideration of the different perspectives from which such research has been carried out. Therefore, after defining the relevant terminology, this chapter will examine the role of feedback within different theoretical perspectives on SLA. This will lead to a fine-grained analysis of the characteristics of feedback and will facilitate the interpretation of empirical feedback studies reviewed in a subsequent section. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the implications of such research for SLA theory and L2 pedagogy.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Practice in a Second Language
Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
 , pp. 111 - 138
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J., & Fincham, J. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skill from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1322–40.Google Scholar
Beck, M., & Eubank, L. (1991). Acquisition theory and experimental design: A critique of Tomasello and Herron. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 73–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, M., Schwartz, B. D., & Eubank, L. (1995). Data, evidence and rules. In Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Smith, M. S. (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 177–95). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In Rutherford, W., & Sharwood, M. Smith (Ed.), Grammar and second language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20(3), 3–49.Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. N., MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1990). No negative evidence revisited: Beyond learnability or who has to prove what to whom. Developmental Psychology, 26, 221–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, C., Crookes, G., Day, R. R., & Long, M. H. (1986). The differential effects of corrective feedback in native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation. In Day, R. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 229–36). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Broeder, P., & Plunkett, K. (1994). Connectionism and second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 421–53). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Brown, R. (Ed.), Psycholinguistics (pp. 155–207). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (1995). The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning. In Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Smith, M. S. (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 73–88). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Day, E. M., & Shapson, S. M. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graaff, R. (1997). The Experanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 125–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's “Update.” Language Learning, 52 (4) 805–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demetras, M. J., Post, K. N., & Snow, C. E. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language, 13, 275–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrar, M. J. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 17, 607–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2002). Frequency effects in and second language acquisition: A complex picture? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. R. (1996). The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–81). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halstijn, J., & Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.Google Scholar
Han, Z. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34 (6), 582–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 543–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156–74). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1988). Learning grammatical structures in a foreign language: Modeling versus feedback. The French Review, 61(6), 910–22.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown & Hanlon revisited: mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language, 11, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Lakshmanan, U. (1998). Learnability, negative evidence and the L2 acquisition of the English passive. Second Language Research, 14(1), 62–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Doughty, C., & Fridman, B. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on Form in Spanish content-based instruction. In Schmidt, R. W. (Ed.), Attention & awareness in foreign language learning (Technical report #9) (pp. 217–58). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In Bot, K., Ginsburg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in a crosscultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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 (Vol. 26), pp. 413–68). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: an empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–97.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) 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context and the brain. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 69–90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L., Bonamo, K. M., & Travis, L. L. (1995). Negative evidence on negative evidence. Developmental Psychology, 31, 180–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Non-native speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of the linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plunkett, K. (1995). Connectionist approaches to language acquisition. In Fletcher, P. & MacWhinney, B. (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 36–72). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ramirez, A. G. & Stromquist, N. P. (1979). ESL methodology and student language learning in bilingual elementary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 13(2), 145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M. A. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In Schmidt, R. W. (Ed.), Attention & awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report #9) (pp. 163–82). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Consciousness, rules and instructed second language acquisition. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, M. (1997). The Contrast Theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7(2), 89–102.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Gubala-Ryzak, M. (1992). Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research, 8, 1–38.Google Scholar
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–24.CrossRefGoogle 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 honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–44). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), 385–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1991). Experiments in the real world: A reply to Beck and Eubank. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 513–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, (45–57).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., Mileham, J., & Weber, R. (Eds.), Second language theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–86). Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The Input Hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–61.Google Scholar
White, L., Lightbown, P. M., Ranta, L., & Spada, N. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 416–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–55). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

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
×