Abstract
Grammar varies in semantic, morphosyntactic, and phonological complexity, which may influence what type of Corrective Feedback (CF) is effective. The present study was designed to investigate the best form of CF for each grammatical feature, in conjunction with associated variables such as learner proficiency level and L1 influence. Fifteen studies, all of which had English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners with a Korean L1 and productive measures of speech or writing, were selected for study. Results suggest that grammatical features which are very similar to the L1 may benefit more from implicit reformulations (recasts). Explicit CF (direct and metalinguistic feedback) appears more useful for semantically and syntactically complex features such as the English article and past hypothetical conditional. Finally, research of proficiency level suggests that timely emphasis of specific grammatical features is needed in order for CF to be effective.
Highlights
Commenting “on the appropriateness or correctness of learners’ production or comprehension of a second language” (Li & Vuono, 2019, p. 94), otherwise known as Corrective Feedback (CF), has been hotly debated among scholars of second language acquisition
To obtain relevant studies using Korean participants, publications from some of the most prominent organizations associated with English education in Korea were systematically searched: the Korean Association of Teachers of English (KATE), Applied Linguistics Association of Korea (ALAK), the Society for Teaching English through Media (STEM), the Korean Association of Foreign Language Education (KAFLE), the Korea English Education Society (KEES), the English Teachers Association of Korea (ETAK), and the Global English Teachers Association of Korea (GETA)
Indirect written feedback and oral metalinguistic feedback provide the least amount of scaffolding in information provided or time given for a response, respectively, explaining why these techniques may not be as effective in promoting accuracy
Summary
Commenting “on the appropriateness or correctness of learners’ production or comprehension of a second language” (Li & Vuono, 2019, p. 94), otherwise known as Corrective Feedback (CF), has been hotly debated among scholars of second language acquisition. Some scholars contend that oral recasts are very useful (Banaruee, Khatin-Zadeh, & Ruegg, 2018; Goo & Mackey, 2013; Sakai, 2011), while others argue that their utility is overstated (Ellis & Sheen, 2006). In reality, it is this lack of consensus about CF which reveals a fundamental gap in our understanding. While the study suggests that foreign language setting is not a significant factor, duration was significant, with longer treatments having larger effects
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
