Is Corrective Feedback in the ESL Classroom Really Effective? A Background Study

Gaston Bacquet

doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.3p.147

Abstract

The use, range and efficacy of different types of corrective feedback in the ESL classroom have been widely researched, especially over the past 30 years. This paper attempts to dissect such research and to provide language teachers with an understanding of the background literature and theoretical views surrounding the subject. By summarizing different, often contrasting views on what corrective feedback is, how it works and how effective it is (or not), I strive to provide ESL teachers with a deeper understanding of the available literature and different perspectives that can hopefully better inform and shape our practice. The paper first provides definition of key terms related to corrective feedback, it proceeds to explore a range of theories and views and to look into the core studies regarding both written and spoken feedback and it ends with a short discussion on how these finding are relevant for ESL teachers.

Highlights

The role and effectiveness of corrective feedback has been an area of keen interest for ESL/EFL specialists, teachers and researchers, which can be ascertained by the large amount of literature on the subject, especially since 1997, date in which the number of studies increased by 15% compared to the previous decade (Li, 2010)
This study, which aimed at investigating the effectiveness of oral and written feedback in the ESL classroom according to existing literature, began with the question “Is feedback in the classroom effective? And if so, which type of feedback seems to yield the most improved linguistic output?”
As to the type of feedback being used and its effectiveness, studies have shown that recasts are the most widely used of error correction, but not necessarily the most effective (Lightbown&Spada, 1993)

Summary

Introduction

The role and effectiveness of corrective feedback has been an area of keen interest for ESL/EFL specialists, teachers and researchers, which can be ascertained by the large amount of literature on the subject, especially since 1997, date in which the number of studies increased by 15% compared to the previous decade (Li, 2010).Previous studies have covered areas as diverse as the classification of feedback in the classroom (Sarandi, 2016), its effectiveness in SLA (Li, 2010) and the types of corrective feedback that yield best results in terms of corrected output (Norris and Ortega, 2000).oral and written feedback have been explored, researched and documented separately; this paper will attempt to dissect the literature in both areas, explore the question “Is feedback in the ESL classroom effective”? and if so, which type of feedback seems to yield the most improved linguistic output both in spoken and written form.This essay will draw on that previous research, review the existing narrative on the subject of oral and written corrective feedback and draw its own conclusions as to how effective such feedback is, as well as the type of feedback that according to accurate measurements produces evidence that learning has occurred if that is the case.DEFINITION OF TERMSLightbown & Spada (1991) define corrective feedback as “any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect” (p.171).According to Lyster & Ranta (1997), and using terms that have come to be generally accepted in SLA terminology, there are six generally accepted types of feedback: a. As I pointed out earlier, the instructional model in Canada provided plenty of opportunity for meaning-based, communicative-type tasks as instructed by the Canadian Ministry of Education, with teachers providing very limited correction to students’ output (if at all), and Lightbown and Spada suggested that the inclusion of form-focused instruction may be useful in improving the development and accuracy of such output.

Results

Conclusion