Interactional Feedback

644940
research-article2016
LTR0010.1177/1362168816644940Language Teaching ResearchNassaji
LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH
Language Teaching Research
Anniversary article
2016, Vol. 20(4) 535–562
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Interactional feedback in sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1362168816644940
second language teaching ltr.sagepub.com
and learning: A synthesis and

analysis of current research
Hossein Nassaji
University of Victoria, Canada
Abstract
The role of interactional feedback has long been of interest to both second language acquisition
researchers and teachers and has continued to be the object of intensive empirical and
theoretical inquiry. In this article, I provide a synthesis and analysis of recent research and
developments in this area and their contributions to second language acquisition (SLA). I begin
by discussing the theoretical underpinnings of interactional feedback and then review studies
that have investigated the provision and effectiveness of feedback for language learning in various
settings. I also examine research in a number of other key areas that have been the focus of
current research including feedback timing, feedback training, learner–learner interaction, and
computer-assisted feedback. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the
issues examined with regard to classroom instruction.
Keywords
Corrective feedback, interaction, interactional feedback, language teaching, recasts, SLA
I Introduction
How to deal with learner errors is an issue of central importance in second language
teaching and learning, and thus has long been of interest to both second language (L2)
teachers and researchers. Schachter (1991) described corrective feedback as an area in
which the interests of L2 researchers and teachers coincide. Teachers are interested in the
Corresponding author:
Hossein Nassaji, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada.
Email: nassaji@uvic.ca
536 Language Teaching Research 20(4)
role of corrective feedback because they consider error correction as a means of improv-
ing learner accuracy while researchers are interested in error correction because they
view it as a means of investigating the role of negative and positive evidence in SLA.
Interactional feedback is a kind of corrective feedback that occurs in the context of
communicative interaction. More specifically, it refers to feedback generated implicitly
or explicitly through negotiation and modification processes that occur during interac-
tion to deal with communication or linguistic problems (Nassaji, 2015). It includes a
variety of strategies that can be generally grouped into three main categories: reformula-
tions, prompts, and metalinguistic feedback. Reformulations are feedback types that
rephrase the learner’s erroneous utterance into a correct form, such as recasts and direct
corrections. These feedback strategies have also been called input-providing because
they provide the learner with the target-like input (Ellis, 2009). Prompts are strategies
that do not provide the correct form but rather provide learners with an opportunity to
self repair. They include feedback types such as clarification requests, elicitations, rep-
etition of the errors with rising intonation, and metalinguistic cues (Lyster, 2004). Most
research on interactional feedback has used the term metalinguistic cues and metalin-
guistic feedback interchangeably. However, Nassaji (2007a) made a distinction between
the two, by defining metalinguistic cue as feedback that provides a metalinguistic hint
with no correction and metalinguistic feedback as feedback that includes metalinguistic
information with correction or explanation.
Interactional feedback can occur in single or multiple feedback moves and, in the case
of reformulations, can fully or partially correct the error. It can occur verbally and also
nonverbally in the form of body movements, gestures, or other nonlinguistic or paralin-
guistic actions that signal to the learner that he or she has made an error (see Wang and
Loewen, this issue). The aim of interactional feedback can be either conversational
or pedagogical. Conversational feedback is used during conversational discourse to
repair communication breakdowns, which could be due to comprehension problems.
Pedagogical feedback has a more deliberate instructional purpose. It may be trigged by a
communication or a language problem. But it also has the aim of correcting an error or
drawing the learner’s attention to form.
In the past few decades an extensive body of research has been conducted in various
contexts to determine how interactional feedback is used, processed, and contributes to
language development. In the following sections, I provide an overview of this research.
I begin with the theoretical underpinnings of interactional feedback, followed by an
examination of both descriptive and experimental studies that have examined and com-
pared the provision and impact of feedback and its different types and subtypes in both
classroom and non-classroom settings.
II Theoretical underpinnings

Much of the theoretical support for interactional feedback comes from an interactionist
perspective. Inspired by first language (L1) child interaction research, this perspective
focuses on the nature of conversational interaction. It is based on the assumption
that interaction provides opportunities for negotiation, and that negotiation assists
language acquisition. ‘Negotiation’ refers to interactional modifications that occur in
Nassaji 537
conversational discourse to repair communication breakdowns (Gass, 1997, 2003; Long,

1996; Pica, 1996a). More specifically, it is a:
process in which, in an effort to communicate, learners and competent speakers provide and
interpret signals of their own and their interlocutor’s perceived comprehension, thus provoking
adjustments to linguistic form, conversational structure, message content, or all three, until an
acceptable level of understanding is achieved. (Long, 1996, p. 418)
It has been suggested that negotiation assists L2 development in a number of ways: by

making input more comprehensible, by highlighting linguistic problems, and by provid-
ing opportunities for negative evidence (Gass, 1997, 2003; Long, 1996; Pica, 1996a).
When learners receive feedback on their non-target utterances in the course of interac-
tion, it is claimed to be beneficial because the feedback provides learners with important
information about the grammaticality of their utterance. Furthermore, since the feedback
is received at the time learners are communicating their meaning, it is provided at the
point where meaning and form are being processed, thus providing learners with oppor-
tunities to develop the form–meaning mapping required for L2 development (Gass,
1997, 2003; Long, 1996; Pica, 1994, 1996b).
Of importance here is also the role of output and, in particular, pushed and modified
output (Swain, 1985, 1993, 1995). Swain has argued that learners:
need to be pushed to make use of their resources; they need to have their linguistic abilities
stretched to their fullest; they need to reflect on their output and consider ways of modifying it
to enhance comprehensibility, appropriateness, and accuracy. (Swain, 1993, p. 160)
Pushed output assists language acquisition in a number of ways: by promoting the

retrieval of the target language form, by helping learners notice the difference between
their own non-target output and the correct input, and by engaging learners in syntactic
rather than semantic processing (Swain, 1993, 1995). Interactional feedback provides
learners with opportunities for pushed and modified output, particularly when it takes
place in the form of negotiation and elicitation (e.g. Gass & Varonis, 1994; McDonough,
2001; McDonough & Mackey, 2000; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993). During interaction,
pushed output occurs when learners produce an erroneous utterance and are then pushed
to revise it in response to feedback. Modified output then occurs when learners change
their original output to be more target-like in response to the feedback. Such modifica-
tion of output facilitates the internalization of new forms if it occurs in response to feed-
back that provides the correct form such as recasts. It can promote the automatization
of already known forms if they occur as self-repair in response to elicitation moves
(McDonough, 2005; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Swain, 1995).
Theoretical support for interactional feedback also comes from the importance attributed
to the notion of ‘focus on form’ (FonF) (e.g. Doughty & Williams, 1998; Long, 1991; Long
& Robinson, 1998; Nassaji, 2000; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004). Ample theories and research in
L2 acquisition suggest that communicative interaction is fundamental for successful second
language learning. However, SLA research also suggests that teaching approaches that are
purely communicative in nature and focus only on message are not adequate for language
development. Thus, in addition to opportunities for meaning-focused communication,
learners also need opportunities for attention to form. Since interactional feedback is in
response to learner errors during meaning-focused interaction, it integrates attention to form
and attention to meaning in a communicative context.
Another source of support for interactional feedback comes from the sociocultural
perspective (Vygotsky, 1986). Like the interaction hypothesis, the socio-cultural the-
ory emphasizes the importance of interaction. However, it differs from an interaction-
ist approach in how it conceptualizes the role of interaction. The interaction hypothesis
views the role of interaction mainly as facilitative, helping a number of other mental
processes deemed to be essential for L2 acquisition, such as comprehensible input,
output, noticing, intake and negative evidence. From a socio-cultural perspective,
however, language learning is essentially a social process, and interaction is an inte-
gral and inherent part of learning (e.g. Appel & Lantolf, 1994; Nassaji & Cumming,
2000; Nassaji & Swain, 2000). Thus, interaction does not simply facilitate other pro-
cesses. Rather, learning cannot be achieved isolated from interaction. In other words,
in the sociocultural perspective learning is viewed as a process that ‘occurs in rather
than as a result of interaction’ (Ellis, 2009, p. 12). With respect to feedback, a central
concept in the socio-cultural perspective is the notion of scaffolding, which refers to
a gradual and step-by-step assistance offered by the teacher as needed. Thus, in this
view, the value of interactional feedback lies in the opportunities it provides for scaf-
folding (Nassaji, 2015).
III Researching interactional feedback

Given the range of theoretical arguments for interactional feedback, an extensive body of
research has empirically examined its effectiveness for L2 development. This research
has been both descriptive (focusing on documenting the instances of feedback), and
experimental (examining the extent to which such feedback affects language learning).
Within interaction research, researchers have examined not only the role of different
feedback types but also the mechanisms that underlie their effectiveness.
Many of the early interactional feedback studies focused on the role of negotiation of
meaning. These studies, which were conducted mainly in the early 1980s, used different
types of data ranging from samples of naturalistic learner production to interaction elic-
ited through various tasks designed for research purposes (Ellis, 2008). The main focus of
these studies was to identify various negotiation of meaning strategies, such as confirma-
tion checks, clarification requests, comprehension checks, etc., and the extent to which
they assist comprehension (for a review, see Gass, 2003; Gass & Mackey, 2006; Gass &
Varonis, 1994; Long, 1996; Pica, 1994). The assumption was that since comprehension
assists acquisition, if negotiation enhances comprehension, then negotiation assists
acquisition (Pica, 1994).
While earlier research focused mainly on negotiation of meaning and its link with
comprehension, subsequent research went beyond this initial question and began to
examine, more specifically, the various types and subtypes of interactional strategies that
occur during negotiation and the extent to which they assist language learning (Mackey
& Gass, 2006). The research in this area investigated not only negotiation of meaning
strategies (such as recasts, clarification requests, and confirmation checks), but also what
Nassaji 539
have been called negotiation of form strategies, which have a more explicit focus and
intention to draw learners’ attention to form, such as direct correction, metalinguistic
feedback, and repetition of learner error. More recent research has even expanded the
scope of this research by examining the various characteristics of each feedback type and
the mechanisms that underlie their effectiveness in more detail.
Studies of interactional feedback have used various measures to assess the effec-
tiveness of feedback, ranging from uptake in descriptive research to different pretest–
posttest measures in experimental research. The findings of this research, which have
been reported in many individual studies and in a number of reviews and meta-analy-
ses (e.g. Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Goo & Mackey, 2013; Li, 2010; Lyster & Ranta, 2013;
Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2012; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Nassaji,
2015, 2016; Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001; Russell & Spada, 2006) have pro-
vided evidence that interactional feedback facilitates L2 acquisition in general.
However, they have also led to a number of issues that need to be considered when
interpreting their results, including those related to the way feedback is provided, how
its effectiveness is measured, and under what context and condition the feedback is
provided. In what follows, I review current research in this area, with a focus on the
issues raised. I begin with uptake studies, followed by pretest–posttest, and then other
recent studies.
IV Uptake studies

As noted earlier, much of the interactional feedback research has been descriptive. A
main goal of this research has been to identify whether and how interactional feed-
back is provided during interaction, what types of feedback occur, and how learners
react to such feedback. To determine the effectiveness of feedback, these studies have
used what has been called ‘uptake’, which has been typically defined as immediate
learner responses that occur after feedback. Chaudron (1977) was one of the first
scholars who emphasized the importance of learner responses following feedback.
Lyster and Ranta (1997) then used the term uptake to refer to such responses. They
defined uptake as any response following feedback, ranging from those that modified
the learner’s original output in some way to utterances which simply acknowledged
the receipt of the feedback such as yes, OK, etc. They then categorized uptake in terms
of learner repair and argued that uptake, defined in this way, shows that students try
to do something with the feedback. Since then, the notion of uptake has been used in
many studies of interactional feedback.
Of course, there are differences among studies with regard to what kind of learner
responses should be indeed considered as uptake. Some researchers have viewed uptake
not simply as a learner response but as attempts that involve some degree of repair or
modifications of the original output following feedback (e.g. Mackey & Philp, 1998;
Nassaji, 2011a). This latter conception of uptake seems to make more sense since the
term uptake usually denotes that learners have somewhat benefitted from the feedback,
whereas responses of acknowledgement do not necessarily do so.
Descriptive studies using uptake have shown that uptake in the form of learner
repair and modification of output occurs following interactional feedback. However,
the occurrence of uptake has differed across studies. For example, while some descrip-
tive classroom studies have found a low rate of repair following recasts (e.g. Lyster &
Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002), others have reported a considerably higher rate
of successful repair (e.g. Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001; Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Fu
& Nassaji, 2016; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Sheen, 2004). Variations in uptake have also
been observed in non-classroom contexts. For example, Oliver (1995) examined
learner responses following feedback in native-speaker/non-native-speaker interaction
(NS–NNS interaction) and found that more than one third of the exchanges that
involved recasts led to repair when the learners had the opportunity to respond. In
another study, Oliver (2000) compared the use and provision of interactional feedback
(i.e. recasts and negotiations) among ESL children and adults in both classroom and
dyadic interactions and found that learners repaired between 21% and 33% of their
erroneous output following feedback with no difference between adults and children.
However, in her laboratory study, Braidi (2002) found a low level of uptake, with
repair occurring only 9.5% of the time following recasts.
Such differences have sometimes been interpreted as conflicting or contradictory
results. However, they indicate that the relationship between feedback and uptake is
complex and may vary depending on a number of factors. One such factor is the interac-
tional context. Evidence for the influence of context has been shown in a number of both
individual and meta-analytic studies (e.g. Li, 2010; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Sheen, 2004;
Brown this issue). Sheen (2004), for instance, compared the frequency of both uptake
and repair in a Korean EFL context with three other instructional contexts: Lyster and
Ranta’s French immersion context, Panova and Lyster’s Canadian ESL context, and Ellis
et al.’s New Zealand ESL context, and found a greater rate of uptake and repair following
recasts in the New Zealand ESL and the Korean EFL contexts than in the Canadian ESL
and the French immersion contexts. Other studies, such as Lyster and Mori (2006), Alcón
Soler and García Mayo (2008) and Campillo (2005) have also found an effect for instruc-
tional context. Lyster and Mori (2006) found different rates of uptake following recasts
and prompts in Japanese versus French immersion contexts, with prompts resulting in
higher levels of repair in the French setting and recasts producing the most repair in the
Japanese setting. Alcón Soler and García Mayo (2008) found an increased effect in terms
of learner uptake, particularly when learners initiated the feedback episodes.
Other factors that may influence the amount of uptake are opportunities for uptake,
the degree of feedback explicitness, and the nature of feedback itself. Oliver (1995)
found an overall low level of uptake following recasts, but her further analysis showed
that in most cases either the learners were not given a chance to provide uptake or uptake
was not appropriate (e.g. the recasts were provided in the form of yes/no questions).
Nassaji (2007a, 2007b, 2011b) found that the rate of uptake increased considerably fol-
lowing both recasts and elicitations when the feedback was used in conjunction with
more explicit intonational and verbal prompts. Shorter recasts with fewer changes have
been found to lead to a greater amount of uptake than longer recasts or recasts with mul-
tiple changes (e.g. Loewen & Philp, 2006; Philp, 2003; Sheen, 2006). Sheen (2006)
found that reduced length of the recast was one of the characteristics more closely con-
nected to uptake. Loewen and Philp (2006) reported that recasts that were interrogative,
short in length, and involved one change were significant predictors of the accuracy of
Nassaji 541
the learners’ posttest scores. In short, the results of uptake studies suggest that uptake
does occur following interactional feedback, but its occurrence varies depending on the
nature and context of feedback.
1 Covert uptake
In classroom settings, uptake may occur not only in the form of overt learner responses
but also in the form of covet or private responses (or private speech). Private speech
is a concept that comes from the Vygotskian sociocultural perspective, from which
language has both a social interpersonal function whereby learners use the language
to communicate with each other, and also a private intrapersonal function, in which
learners interact with selves. As far as language acquisition is concerned, from
Vygotsky’s perspective private speech is likely an indicator of developmental pro-
cesses. Thus, it is possible that the production of private speech may be a predictor of
language learning.
Using a socio-cultural perspective, Ohta (2000) examined the use of uptake in the
form of private speech in response to recasts in L2 Japanese classrooms. Her data
consisted of transcripts of audio-recorded interaction collected by means of individual
microphones attached to learners in the classroom. Ohta found that learners produced
private uptake in response to recasts, and this was done by the same learners receiving
feedback and also by those who were not directly addressed by the feedback. The
characteristic of such uptake included reduced volume, and examples included repeti-
tion of recasts, individual responses within a choral context, and subsequent modifi-
cation based on the teachers’ succeeding utterance. The following provides an example
of such a covert uptake.
In this example, the student (K) has made an error (Line 2) in negating the adjectival
noun hima (‘having free time’) in response to the teacher’s query (Line 1). The teacher
reformulates the error by recasting it (Line 3) and the student responds by repeating the
recast in Line 4. A second student, C, also repeats the recasts silently in Line 5 (covert or
private uptake).
1. T: Kon shuumatsu hima desu ka? Kim san

This weekend are you free? Kim
2. K: Um (..) iie (.) um (.) uh:: (.) hima- (.) hima: (.) hima nai
Um (…) no (.) um (.) uh:: (.) not (.) not (.) not free ((ERROR—‘hima nai’))
3. T: Hima ja ^ arimasen
‘you’re not free’ ((corrects form to ‘hima ja arimasen’))
4. K: Oh ja arim [asen
Oh cop neg
5. C: [hima ja^ arimasen not free ((correct form))
(Ohta, 2000, p. 60)
The results presented by Ohta are significant in a number of ways. First they show
that uptake can occur in response to interactional feedback in the form private speech,
which suggests that learners are able to privately engage in classroom events and benefit
from feedback. Second, other learners who are not directly addressed by the teacher can
also produce uptake, which then suggests that learners are able to benefit from feedback
directed at others.
2 Issues with uptake and its relationship with learning

One reason for using uptake has been that uptake indicates that the learner has noticed
the feedback (e.g. Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Also, uptake that involves repair has been
assumed to provide evidence of modified output. However, despite such assumptions,
as many researchers have argued, immediate uptake and repair do not provide any direct
evidence for language acquisition (e.g. Ellis et al., 2001; Loewen & Philp, 2006;
Mackey & Philp, 1998; Nassaji, 2011b). Even successful repair does not indicate that
the learner has internalized the correct form. It is quite possible that repair following
feedback may simply be the result of a mechanical repetition of the feedback (Nassaji,
2011b). In such cases, repair may indicate that the learner has noticed the feedback, but
it does not indicate that he or she has learned from or even processed the feedback. The
reverse might be true too. That is, the absence of repair cannot be taken as evidence that
no language acquisition has occurred. It is likely that students have noticed and even
learned from the feedback, but have chosen not to respond to it. Mackey and Philp
(1998), for example, found that L2 learners developed their knowledge of L2 question
formation as a result of feedback, even in cases where they did not show any evidence
of immediate uptake. Yoshida (2010) found many instances where the learners in her
study responded to the teacher’s feedback but reported that they had not noticed the
feedback.
However, although issues can be raised with regard to uptake, the extent to which
uptake contributes to learning is an empirical question. Therefore, a number of studies
have investigated more directly the relationship between uptake and learning. One of the
first studies is Nobuyoshi and Ellis’s (1993) small scale study with six Japanese learners
of English, three of whom received clarification requests in response to their errors and
the other three served as a control group receiving no feedback. The results showed that
two of the learners who successfully repaired their errors following clarification requests
also showed greater accuracy in the use of the past tense in subsequent tasks. McDonough
(2005) also examined L2 learners’ responses following clarification requests and found
that learner repair following these requests was the only significant predictor of the
development of question formation among these learners. In their study of learner per-
ception of feedback, Mackey et al. (2000) found that learners accurately perceived the
purpose of the majority of the feedback with immediate uptake.
These results may be taken to provide evidence that uptake in response to feedback
contributes to language learning. However, in the above studies, uptake has occurred
mostly after output-prompting strategies, such as clarification requests, elicitations, or
repetitions, and therefore, has involved self-repair. Finding a relationship between self-
repair and learning is not surprising as self-repair occurs when learners already know the
correct form or at least have some declarative knowledge of that form. Therefore, the
question arises as to whether a similar relationship can also be found when the feedback
provides the correct form such as in recasts or direct correction. Indeed, when feedback
Nassaji 543
Table 1. Types of uptake following recasts.
Type of repair Example

1. Repetition of feedback S: Skipping, running, the thief.
T: She was running away.
S: Yeah running away.
2. Incorporation of feedback S: There was a boy witness see the whole thing.
T: A boy that saw the whole thing?
S: Yeah the boy saw the whole thing and he
pointed to the girl before it was too late.
has been input providing (e.g. recasts), such a relationship has not been always observed.
As noted earlier, Mackey and Philp (1998) found that learners developed their knowl-
edge of question formation despite producing little amount of modified output following
recasts (5%). Loewen (2005) reported no relationship between repair following recasts
and the accuracy of learners’ scores in subsequent posttests. Nassaji (2011b) found that
repairs following both recasts and elicitations led to similar degrees of immediate post-
interaction correction. However, he also found that repair following recasts occurred in
the form of both repetition and incorporation of feedback into a new utterance (see Table 1)
and that the latter led to higher subsequent test scores than the former. This then suggests
that the relationship between uptake and learning depends on the nature of uptake, with
uptake involving incorporation being more successful than uptake involving repetition.
V Experimental pretest–posttest studies

As noted above, uptake studies cannot provide direct evidence for the efficacy of feed-
back for L2 development, nor are they able to show what aspects of feedback (if any) are
responsible for acquisition or how various factors and processes interact and impact
learning. To address these issues, researchers have used pretest–posttest experimental
research designs. By manipulating the variables considered to affect feedback and testing
the various hypotheses about their effects, experimental research has allowed researchers
to examine how interactional feedback works and under what conditions it may or may
not contribute to language acquisition.
There are currently a growing number of experimental studies in both classroom and
laboratory settings. Within these studies, quite a number have examined the role of recasts,
many of which have provided evidence for the effectiveness of such feedback (e.g.
Doughty & Varela, 1998; Goo, 2012; Han, 2002; Ishida, 2004; Iwashita, 2003; Mackey &
Philp, 1998; Philp, 2003; Saito, 2012, 2013; Yang & Lyster, 2010). There are, however,
others that have reported small or even no effects for recasts (e.g. Ellis, 2007; Ellis,
Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; Erlam & Loewen, 2010; Loewen & Nabei, 2007; Lyster, 2004).
Studies that have reported an effect for recasts are mainly those that compared feedback
with no feedback. Studies that have compared recasts with other types of feedback have
produced mixed results. Ellis et al. (2006), for example, compared recasts with metalin-
guistic feedback and found no effect for recasts but a significant effect for metalinguistic
feedback (see also Ellis, 2007). Lyster (2004) and Ammar and Spada (2006) compared the
effects of recasts and prompts in combination with form-focused instruction (FFI) and
found that the group who received prompts outperformed those receiving recasts, although
in Lyster it was mainly on written tests. Lyster and Izquierdo (2009) compared the effects
of recasts and prompts among intermediate-level learners of French and found similar
effects for the two types of feedback. Dilans (2010) also found comparable effects for
recasts and prompts when investigating the role of these two types of feedback in learning
L2 vocabulary (see also Yang & Lyster, 2010; McDonough 2007; Loewen & Nabei, 2007).
The variation in research results could be due to a number of reasons, some of which
could be methodological and other could relate to the complexity of feedback and its
relationship with learning as well as the various factors mediating this relationship. For
example, one of the experimental classroom studies often cited as providing support for
recasts is Doughty and Valera’s (1998) study. This study, however, did not indeed use
recasts but recasts in combination with repetition. As for Lyster’s and Ammar and
Spada’s studies, which reported advantages for prompts over recasts, there are a few
issues that should be considered. First, prompts included multiple feedback types, which
differed considerably in terms of their explicitness, ranging from implicit clarification
requests to fairly salient metalinguistic cues that clearly indicated to the learner that there
was a problem with their utterance. Recasts, on the other hand, involved an implicit form
of recast. Lyster and Ranta (2013) argued that using different types of prompts ‘may be
considered more pedagogically sound and also methodologically valid in comparative
studies’ (p. 175). However, as they stated, recasts can also occur in different forms.
Thus, it would have been more revealing to compare a variety of prompts with a variety
of implicit and more explicit forms of recasts. Second, neither studies reported the fre-
quency of either recasts or prompts. It is possible that the prompt group, which received
a variety of feedback types, received a greater amount of feedback than the recast group.
If so, the effectiveness of prompts could have been due to the greater frequency of the
feedback. Finally, in both studies feedback was used in conjunction with form-focused
instruction. Therefore, the effect could also have been partly due to the combination of
feedback and instruction and not feedback alone. There might be pedagogical justifica-
tions for using feedback in conjunction with instruction. However, for important theo-
retical and methodological reasons, it is essential not to mix feedback and instruction,
particularly if the aim is to examine the relative effects of different feedback types as
different feedback types may interact differently with instruction.
Within experimental studies, those conducted in laboratory settings have often
reported more success for feedback such as recasts than experimental classroom studies
(e.g. Han, 2002; Ishida, 2004; Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009; Mackey, 2007; Mackey &
Philp, 1998; McDonough & Mackey, 2006). Part of the reason for this could be that in
laboratory contexts feedback is provided in dyadic interaction where learners receive
individualized attention and is also provided intensively and repeatedly on a single target
structure (Nicholas et al., 2001), whereas in classroom contexts feedback is usually pro-
vided during whole class interaction and often on a variety of forms.
The effectiveness of feedback has also been shown to vary depending on factors such
as the type of target structure (e.g. Egi, 2007; Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000; see
also Brown in this issue), the type of tasks (e.g. Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman, 2005),
Nassaji 545
learners’ gender (e.g. Ross-Feldman, 2007), working memory (e.g. Goo, 2012; Mackey,
Philp, Fujii, Egi, & Tatsumi, 2002), as well as other individual learner differences,
such as language anxiety (e.g. Sheen, 2008), attention control, analytic ability (e.g.
Trofimovich, Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007), and learners’ developmental readiness (e.g.
Mackey & Philp, 1998). Mackey and Philp (1998), for example, found that learners who
were developmentally more advanced benefited more from recasts than those who were
developmentally less advanced. Ammar and Spada (2006) found that learners with a
higher level of language proficiency benefited more from recasts than lower proficiency
learners. Mackey et al. (2000) found that learners perceived more effectively the correc-
tive nature of recasts when the feedback targeted phonological or lexical errors than
morphosyntactic errors (see also Carpenter, Jeon, MacGregor, & Mackey, 2006; Egi,
2007). Types of outcome measure can also be a factor. Although the findings in this area
are not yet clear-cut, recasts have sometimes been reported to show more positive results
on oral measures than written measures (Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007).
These findings have often been explained in terms of the resemblance of the context of
oral feedback with that of oral task used to measure the effect of feedback and transfer of
learning from one context to another similar context (Ellis, 2008; Lightbown, 2008) (see
Nassaji, 2015, for a detailed discussion and review of research regarding factors influ-
encing the effectiveness of interactional feedback).
VI Individualized posttest studies

Although experimental pretest–posttest studies have allowed researchers to study the
effects of feedback on learning, these studies have mostly dealt with planned feedback,
that is, feedback provided intensively and repeatedly on certain predetermined target
structures rather than unplanned feedback that is provided on any form. Thus, as noted
above, the positive effects shown for feedback in experimental studies could be partly
due to the intensity of the feedback on specific target forms. For that reason experimental
studies can be problematic in terms of their ecological validity and their implications for
classroom contexts, in which feedback often occurs incidentally on a variety of language
forms. As Ellis and Sheen (2006) pointed out, although intensive feedback may be
viewed to be more effective than incidental feedback, such claims are ‘of little practical
significance for teachers because they are not in a position to know whether their learners
are developmentally ready or whether the targeted feature is one amenable to treatment
through recasts’ (p. 597). This suggests a need for studies that include measures to exam-
ine the efficacy of incidental feedback for L2 learning.
To accomplish this objective, some studies have used what are called ‘individualized
posttests’ (e.g. Hawkes & Nassaji, 2016; Loewen, 2005; Nabei & Swain, 2002; Nassaji,
2010, 2013; Williams, 2001). These tests are learner-specific, and are designed based on
any non-targetlike form that the learner receives feedback on during interaction and are
then administered to the same learner after the interaction.
Findings from individual posttest studies suggest that incidental feedback may have a
positive effect on L2 learning. Williams (2001), for example, investigated the effective-
ness of incidental feedback among adult ESL learners doing collaborative group work.
Using individualized posttests, she found that such feedback contributed significantly to
the learners’ accuracy of posttest scores. Using such tests, Loewen (2005) found a strong
relationship between incidental feedback and the correction of the targeted forms (with
learners being able to recall the targeted form, about 60% of the time one day after the
interaction and 50% of the time two weeks after interaction). Nassaji (2010) examined
the occurrence and effectiveness of incidental feedback in seven adult ESL classrooms at
three levels of language proficiency: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. Analysing 54
hours of classroom interaction across the three levels, the study found that learners who
received incidental feedback were able to respond correctly to more than half of the
focus on form episodes tested (see also Nassaji, 2013). It also found that the amount,
type, and effectiveness of feedback were strongly related to the learners’ level of lan-
guage proficiency (e.g. beginner and intermediate learners benefited more from preemp-
tive than reactive feedback but advanced learners benefited equally from both feedback
types). Finally, in a recent study, Hawkes and Nassaji (2016) used a type of individuated
posttest that used a video-based stimulated error detention-correction component. They
found that students detected and corrected more errors in utterances that received inci-
dental recasts than those that did not. Altogether, these studies suggest that incidental
feedback has positive effects on L2 learning.
VII Individualized pretest–posttest research

The advantage of individualized tailor-made tests is that they allow researchers to meas-
ure the effectiveness of incidental feedback on any form that occurs during interaction.
However, a few concerns still remain with findings derived from such tests. One limita-
tion of individualized tests is that they have often been used as posttests only (Loewen,
2005; Nassaji, 2009) without measuring the learners’ prior knowledge with respect to the
targeted forms (Loewen & Philp, 2006). This makes it hard to attribute the effect to feed-
back only. Since individual posttests are made based on learner errors, it can be assumed
that the tests target linguistics forms that the learners did not know. However, the type
and degree of knowledge that has resulted in errors may differ from learner to learner.
Another limitation regards the fact that these tests are often created based on errors made
in spontaneous oral discourse. Although the occurrence of such errors may be because
the learner has not acquired the form, spontaneous errors may also be due to random
mistakes (or slips of the tongue) in the production of known forms (Nassaji, 2009). Thus,
relying on spontaneous oral errors to measure L2 acquisition can be problematic.
To address the above issues, Nassaji (2009) used an innovative research design that
allowed pretesting of the forms that arose incidentally while also minimizing the chances
that the errors were random oral production mistakes. The main focus of the study was
to compare the effects of two major categories of feedback: recasts and elicitations. In
this study, in addition to a main oral dyadic interaction designed for the purpose of elicit-
ing feedback, the research included three other components: a written pre-interaction
scenario description component, an immediate post-interaction error identification/cor-
rection component, and a delayed error identification/correction component. The preinter-
action scenario description was designed and used in ways that allowed for an examination
of learners’ prior use of the targeted forms.
The postinteraction error identification/correction measured the effect of feedback on
learners’ accuracy of those forms after interaction (for the procedure, see Nassaji, 2009).
Nassaji 547
Thus, the design was analogous to a pretest–posttest design. The analysis involved five
steps:
1. an examination of the learners’ preinteraction descriptions to identify errors made

before interaction;
2. an examination of the interaction data to identify errors made during
interaction;
3. a comparison of pre-interaction and during interaction errors to identify errors in
common (that is, the same errors made both before and during interaction);
4. an examination of the oral interaction to determine which of the errors in com-
mon received feedback; and
5. an analysis of the postinteraction error identification/correction tasks (immediate
and delayed) to determine which of the errors learners corrected in these tasks.
The results showed an important effect for both recasts and elicitations on students’ accu-
racy. They also showed that learners were more likely on the immediate posttest to cor-
rect errors that had received recasts than those that had received elicitations. On the
delayed testing, they still corrected a slightly higher percentage of recast errors, but the
difference between the effects of recasts and elicitations was, to a great extent, dimin-
ished. The more explicit forms of both elicitation and recasts led to higher rates of imme-
diate and delayed postinteraction correction than the implicit forms, but this was more
true for recasts than elicitations. Altogether, the findings of this study provided evidence
for the advantageous role of recasts for L2 learning as compared to elicitations. The find-
ings also suggest that the beneficial effects of recasts and elicitations might be mediated
differentially by their degree of explicitness. That is, while explicitness may make recasts
more effective, it may not necessarily make elicitations more effective.
VIII Interactional feedback in learner–learner interactions

So far, I have examined research on interactional feedback in student–teacher or NS–
NNS interactions. In classrooms or other informal contexts, there are also occasions
where learners interact with each other. An important question here is whether learners
receive interactional feedback from their peers, and if so, whether they learn from such
feedback. Although most studies have focused on teacher or NS–NNS interaction, there
is also evidence that interactional feedback exists in learner–learner interactions and that
students benefit from such feedback, although the nature of the feedback and the degree
to which it occurs differ from those in NS–learner or teacher–learner interaction.
An early study reporting evidence for interactional feedback in peer interaction is
Gass and Varonis (1989), which examined NS–NNS interaction and found many
instances of recasts in such interactions. The study also found that such feedback often
led to learners’ modification of output although the modifications occurred mostly much
later in the discourse. There are also a number of more recent studies that have examined
learner–learner feedback in different contexts and found evidence of beneficial effects
(e.g. Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003; Sato & Lyster, 2007; Sato & Lyster, 2012; Zhao
& Bitchener, 2007). But some of these studies have also found more instances of
feedback during NS–learner interaction than peer interaction. Comparing learner–learner

interaction with learner–NS interaction, Mackey et al. (2003), for example, reported that
interactional feedback was significantly more frequent in NS–learner than in learner–
learner interaction. However, there were more opportunities for negotiation as well as
modified output in learner–learner interaction. Sato and Lyster (2007) also found greater
instances of interactional feedback such as elicitations in learner–learner interaction than
in NS–learner interaction and also a greater amount of output modification following
feedback in the former than the latter condition. In a classroom study, Zhao and Bitchener
(2007) compared the frequency of interactional feedback such as recasts, direct correc-
tion, repetition, and elicitations (i.e. prompts and clarification requests) in learner–learner
and teacher–learner interaction and found that recasts and prompts occurred in both con-
texts, but they occurred more frequently in teacher–learner interaction than learner–
learner interaction. Uptake opportunities also existed in both groups but they were more
frequent in learner–learner (72%) than in teacher–learner interaction (54%). If modified
output can be considered to be facilitative of L2 learning, then the results of the above
studies can be taken to indicate that situations in which learners interact with one another
can provide opportunities that can assist L2 development.
The learning benefits of feedback in learner–learner interaction have also been shown
in some other studies using pretest–posttest or modified output to measure feedback
effectiveness. But there is also evidence that the effect may differ from learner to learner
or context to context. Adams (2007), for example, carried out a study among adult ESL
learners and found moderate to high rates of learning for all structures included in the
posttests (see also Sato & Lyster, 2012). Fujii & Mackey (2009) examined an intact EFL
classroom in Japan and found a low amount of peer feedback during interaction, which
was attributed to a Japanese cultural tendency to save interlocutors’ face. However, when
they did receive feedback, learners modified their output in response to it more than half
of the time. McDonough (2004), by contrast, found few instances of modified output in
response to feedback in learner–learner interaction in pair work and small group work
activities in an EFL classroom, although the learners resorted to a number of interac-
tional feedback strategies, such as clarification requests, recasts and explicit correction.
According to the researcher, this could have been partly due to learners not trusting the
feedback they received from their peers. Based on this finding, it was then suggested that
although learners may ‘consider their peers to be useful resources for language learning’
they may still ‘prefer to rely upon their teachers for L2 knowledge’ (p. 221). Such con-
clusions corroborate Yoshida’s ( 2008) findings, which showed that the degree to which
learners benefit from other learners’ feedback depended on how satisfied they were with
their peers’ linguistic ability.
Altogether, studies of peer interaction suggest that interactional feedback occurs in
learner–learner interaction, although not as frequently as in teacher–learner interac-
tion. They also suggest that when learners participate in peer feedback, they can
become aware of their own linguistic problems and may benefit from feedback pro-
vided by their peers.
However, the extent to which learners may benefit from each other’s feedback may
also depend on learners’ perception, attitudes, and judgment about peers as well as vari-
ous cultural factors.
Nassaji 549
IX Feedback training and experience

While interactional feedback may occur during communicative interaction, it is clear
that it differs across teachers, classrooms, and programs. One question raised here is
whether students can be trained to provide feedback and whether feedback training
makes a difference in the effectiveness of the feedback. Only a limited number of studies
have examined the issue of feedback training on the quality and quantity of feedback and
its effects among peers. One study is Sato and Lyster (2012), which explored whether
teaching learners to provide feedback during peer interaction had any effects on L2
development. The study was conducted with Japanese EFL learners divided into four
groups, two of whom were taught how to provide interactional feedback, either prompts
or recasts. The third group was only engaged in peer interaction without feedback and the
fourth group served as the control group. The results demonstrated that the groups who
were trained to provide feedback showed improvement in both accuracy and fluency and
the peer-interaction-only group performed better than the control group. Thus, from this
study, it appears that learners can be taught how to process and benefit from feedback.
Other studies have also examined the effect of feedback training, but they have
focused more on changing teachers’ or learners’ attitudes and beliefs about correction
than the effectiveness of feedback. Sato (2013) investigated whether training had any
effects on learners’ attitudes and belief about corrective feedback. Using questionnaire
and interview data, the study showed that while learners had positive beliefs about peer
interaction at the start of the study, learners who received training showed an increase in
willingness and confidence to provide peer feedback. Using a case study approach,
Vasquez and Harvey (2010) also addressed the question of feedback training on partici-
pants’ beliefs by examining the effect of a second language acquisition course taken by
graduate students. The students were also asked to do a replication of Lyster and Ranta’s
(1997) study in some of their ESL classes. The study found an important effect of partici-
pation in the course and the research replication on their ideas and beliefs about correc-
tive feedback. In particular, it revealed that the students developed a more sophisticated
understanding of the role and effect of corrective feedback and lowered their expectation
of its effectiveness. While these two study provide evidence for the effect of feedback
training on teacher or learner attitudes, they do not show that such changes in views
would bring about changes in teachers’ or peers’ actual corrective feedback strategies.
This is an area that needs to be explored further in future research.
Teachers’ prior education and experiences are also relevant to feedback training.
Studies that have addressed this issue have shown that teacher experience may be a factor
influencing the use and effectiveness of feedback (e.g. Junqueira & Kim, 2013; Mackey,
Polio, & McDonough, 2004; Polio, Gass, & Chapin, 2006). However, its effect may be
mediated by other factors such as the teachers’ overall approach to instruction, the teach-
ers’ perception about feedback and students’ errors (see Dilans this issue) and the teachers’
overall goals and objectives. Mackey et al. (2004), for example, investigated the use of
interactional feedback in meaning-focused classrooms by experienced and less experi-
enced instructors and found that less experienced teachers did not use feedback as much
as experienced teachers. Polio et al. (2006), on the other hand, which examined the effect
of experience on enhancing the usefulness of recasts outside classroom settings, did not
reveal a significant difference between the two groups of the teachers in the quantity of
feedback used. Junqueira and Kim (2013) examined the effect of teachers’ previous train-
ing and teaching experience on their practices and beliefs regarding corrective feedback.
Their findings did not reveal any difference in terms of feedback provision between a
novice and an experienced ESL teacher despite the fact that there were more teacher–
learner interactions in the experienced teacher’s class. Both the novice and the experi-
enced teachers in Junqueira and Kim (2013) reported that they did not believe in the
effectiveness of corrective feedback during meaning-focused interaction. Altogether,
these findings suggest that feedback provision in language classrooms could also be
affected by teachers’ overall teaching style and how they view effective teaching.
X Feedback timing
Interactional feedback is often immediate as it usually follows an erroneous utterance in
the course of interaction. However, such feedback can also occur in the form of delayed
feedback. For example, the teacher may listen to students while doing an activity such as
an oral presentation and then address their errors interactionally after the activity (Nassaji,
2007c, 2011a). Theoretically, there are arguments both for and against delayed and
immediate feedback. Such arguments exist in the field of education and cognitive psy-
chology as well as second language learning. As discussed by Butler, Karpicke, and
Roediger III (2007), based on a behaviorist perspective, one position argues for the effi-
cacy of immediate feedback because immediate feedback helps ‘eliminate incorrect
responses and reinforce correct responses’, and thus it ‘predicts that the efficacy of feed-
back will decrease substantially as the delay before the presentation of feedback
increases’ (p. 274). Another position argues that delayed feedback is more effective as it
helps the influence of incorrect responses fade away, which may otherwise negatively
affect the learning of the correct response. As pointed out by Butler et al. (2007, p. 274),
the latter position also considers delayed feedback helpful ‘because of spaced presenta-
tion’, which argues that retention is stronger when information is ‘learned through
repeated presentations that are spaced (or distributed) as opposed to massed’.
Arguments for and against immediate versus delayed feedback also exist in the field
of L2 acquisition. Doughty (2001), for example, argued that immediate feedback is
more effective than delayed feedback. Since immediate feedback takes place soon
after the error while the learner’s attention is on meaning, it provides a better opportu-
nity for form–meaning mapping. Some researchers, however, have questioned the role
of immediate feedback on the grounds that such feedback may disrupt communication.
Murphy (1986), for example, argued ‘we find no evidence to show that correction has
to be given in the instant following the error, so there is no value in interrupting an
activity to correct mistakes when they can be corrected afterwards’ (p. 146). Therefore,
he suggested that teachers should not disrupt conversation and should provide feed-
back after the conversation is ended.
As far as research is concerned, while many studies have examined the effect of feed-
back timing in the field of cognitive psychology (Butler et al., 2007; Kulik & Kulik,
1988; Metcalfe, Kornell, & Finn, 2009; see Nakata, 2014 for a review), not many studies
have directly compared immediate and delayed feedback and their differential effects on
Nassaji 551
L2 learning, and those few that have, have not shown a clear difference between the two
timings of feedback.
Varnosfadrani (2006), for example, investigated the effects of immediate and delayed
oral feedback among EFL learners and found no difference between the two. Data were
collected from 56 intermediate level EFL university students in a private school in Iran.
Each participant was asked to read a written text and then retell it in his or her own
words during an oral interview with the researcher. The participants received feedback
either during or after the interview using either recasts or metalinguistic information.
Individualized tests were constructed and then administered to the students. The results
showed no significant differences between the immediate and delayed feedback but they
showed an effect for the type of feedback. Those who received explicit metalinguistic
correction outperformed those who received recasts.
No effect for feedback timing was found by Nakata (2014), who examined the effects
of immediate versus delayed feedback on learning L2 vocabulary among 98 Japanese
college students. Nakata also controlled for two important factors shown to influence the
effect of timing: lag to test (which is the interval between the last encounter of the feed-
back and the posttest) and the frequency of the errors. The results showed no difference
between the two feedback types.
In a classroom study Nassaji (2007c, 2011a) examined the effectiveness of delayed
feedback. He documented the instances of such feedback in the context of a routine class-
room activity in an adult ESL classroom and then examined their effects using pretest
posttest measures. The results showed an important effect for delayed feedback by dem-
onstrating that students who received such feedback were able to correct their errors most
of the time. Furthermore, the effect of feedback was shown to depend on the amount of
negotiation. Feedback with extended negotiation was found to be more effective than
feedback with limited or no negotiation. However, this study did not compare delayed
feedback with immediate feedback. Therefore, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion
from this study about which timing is more effective. In a recent observational study of a
Chinese as a second language classroom, Fu and Nassaji (2016) found that in addition to
immediate recasts, the teacher also used delayed recasts, that is, the teacher reformulated
the learner error a few turns after the learner’s initial erroneous utterance. The results
showed a higher rate of uptake for delayed recasts (60%) than immediate recasts (45%).
Altogether, the results of the studies of feedback timing have not shown a consistent
effect for either immediate or delayed timing. It is possible that both delayed and imme-
diate feedback types can be potentially useful depending on the learner, context, and type
of feedback. Given the paucity of research in this area, more research is needed to inves-
tigate the effects of delayed versus immediate feedback in L2 learning and the possible
variables that may affect their differential efficacy, if any.
XI Computer-assisted feedback

In recent years, the use of technology such as the computer has become increasingly
popular in second language classrooms. As a result, studies of learning opportunities
provided through computer-mediated environments have attracted much attention. Quite
a number of studies have examined the provision and effects of computer-assisted
feedback (e.g. Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011; de la Fuente, 2003; Heift, 2004; Lee, 2011;
Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Loewen & Reissner, 2009; Nagata, 1997; Sagarra & Abbuhl,
2013; Sauro, 2009; Ware & O’Dowd, 2008; Yilmaz, 2012; Yilmaz & Yuksel, 2011; see
also Rouhshad, Wigglesworth & Storch in this issue). The results of these studies con-
firm that interactional feedback occurs in computer-mediated settings and that such feed-
back can be beneficial for L2 learners, particularly when provided in ways that the
feedback draws learners’ attention to form (e.g. Ayoun, 2001; Nagata, 1997; Sachs &
Suh, 2007; Sagarra & Abbuhl, 2013). However, they also suggest that the nature, type,
and the degree of the feedback as well as its facilitative effects are different in such situ-
ations from those in face-to-face interaction.
It has been suggested that the effects of computer-mediated feedback are more pro-
nounced than feedback during face-to-face interaction and that this is because computer-
mediated interaction ‘allows the learner sufficient time to process input, and monitor and
edit output through a self-paced learning environment’ (Lee, 2002, p. 17). Several studies
have provided some support for such an argument. Heift (2004), for example, examined
how CALL (computer-assisted language learning) affects uptake using three types of
corrective feedback and found that all three feedback types produced uptake levels of
over 80% and differences among the three types of feedback were not statistically sig-
nificant. Such results might be because online interactions may make feedback more
explicit and also provide learners with more time to process the feedback than during
face-to-face interaction.
However, for such a possibility we need studies to directly examine and compare
face-to-face classroom interaction with computer-mediated interaction. Studies that
have done so have not found a clear difference between the two modes of interaction.
De la Fuente (2003) is one of the studies that made such a comparison and found that
computer-mediated interaction was as effective as face-to-face interaction. Investigating
the effects of explicit correction vs. recasts in face-to-face vs. computer-mediated
communication, Yilmaz (2012) found that the latter provided useful conditions for the
provision of effective feedback. By measuring the effects through oral production and
recognition tests, the study found that feedback was more effective when delivered
through computer-mediated than face-to-face interaction and this was true regardless of
feedback type. Loewen and Reissner (2009) compared incidental focus on form in the
classroom and online chatroom and found that focus on form was most frequent in the
face-to-face setting. This study suggests that context may have an effect on the fre-
quency of the feedback but the study did not examine its effect.
Rouhshad, Wigglesworth and Storch (this issue) compared face-to-face and written
synchronous computer-mediated negotiations among pairs of learners. They found sig-
nificantly more instances of negotiation of meaning in face-to-face communication than
computer-mediated commutation. However, although it was expected that computer-
mediated communication would enhance attention to form, this did not happen as there
were not significantly more instances of negotiation of form strategies such as recasts,
explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback in computer-mediated communication.
As for uptake, computer mediated-communication led to fewer instances of successful
uptake than face-to-face communication.
In short, studies of computer-mediated feedback seem to suggest that computer-
assisted interactions may provide useful opportunities for feedback. However, there is
Nassaji 553
not yet conclusive evidence supporting the idea that computer-based interaction provides
greater opportunities for feedback than face-to-face communication. This highlights the
need for further research in this area. Furthermore, we still know little about the exact
similarities and differences between the two situations and also whether the same varia-
bles affecting face-to-face interaction would also affect computer-mediated interaction.
Thus, future research should address the effects of factors that may differentially or
uniquely affect the use feedback in the two contexts. Issues such as mode of interaction
(oral vs. written or audio vs. text-based) and types of interlocutor (learner–learner, NS–
NNS, or teacher–learner interaction) are also relevant factors whose differential effects
need to be addressed. In addition, computer-mediated interaction, particularly when it
involves reading and text messaging, often involves more time than face-to-face interac-
tion. Therefore, future research should consider and address the issue of time on task.
XII Conclusions and implications for teaching

As reviewed, there are currently numerous research studies that have investigated the
role of interactional feedback in various contexts. The question now is what we can gain
from this research and how it can inform classroom practices. As Stern (1992) pointed
out, in any discussion of instructional strategies and its implications for teaching, we
must be careful not to over-simplify the issue, and note that there is no single answer to
how or what teachers should do in L2 classrooms. We also need to keep in mind the
complexity of the relationship between feedback and learning. As Ellis (1997) pointed
out, if research has found that something is effective for language teaching, it does not
necessarily mean that L2 teachers can apply it in their teaching. With these observations
in mind, I will consider some of ideas and insights from research that teachers may want
to consider when providing feedback in their classrooms.
According to Lyster et al. (2012) the assertion by Lyster and Ranta in 1997 that
‘Teachers might want to consider the whole range of techniques they have at their dis-
posal rather than relying … on recasts’ still holds true. They thus suggested that effective
teachers are those that use ‘a wide range of CF [corrective feedback] types that fit the
instructional context’ (p. 56). It is quite clear that no one instructional method or feed-
back strategy can address all problems learners have. However, this should not imply
that teachers should choose feedback strategies in a random manner. To be effective, any
combination of feedback types needs to be chosen in a principled way. It might be diffi-
cult to know exactly which combination is most effective for a given context, due to the
complexity of any teaching context. Nevertheless, there may be preferred ways of cor-
recting errors depending on teachers’ goals and objectives as well as learner needs and
characteristics. Furthermore, although the treatment of different errors by different learn-
ers requires different instructional strategies, the success of these strategies also depends
heavily on a number of other mediating variables.
As reviewed, research has shown that depending on the kind of target structure,
learners may or may not notice the corrective force of the feedback especially in cases
where the feedback is provided implicitly such as in recasts. For instance, learners may
have less difficulty noticing target structures that are more salient in the input such as
lexical items (Mackey et al., 2000) or those that are more frequent or physically more
noticeable due to other formal or positional properties. Therefore, implicit feedback

such as recasts may be effective in such cases. However, if the target form is non-
salient and the feedback is also implicit, chances are that the feedback may not be
noticed. In such cases, teachers may need to provide feedback in ways that are explicit
enough to be noticed as feedback.
It should be noted, however, that it is not simply enough for feedback to be explicit.
As Carroll (2001, p. 348) stated ‘an utterance can count as feedback or correction only
if a learner is willing to construe some bit of language as expressing a corrective
intention on the part of some speaker.’ Thus, when providing feedback, teachers
should not only make sure that the learner interprets the feedback as corrective but
that the learners should also be able to recognize what the feedback is about and what
to do with the feedback.
As reviewed earlier, it has been shown that interactional feedback occurs in various
forms and contexts and that learners may respond to or learn differently from different
types of feedback depending on the situation in which the feedback occurs. This then
suggests that teachers should be aware of contextual differences and adjust their feed-
back strategies in ways that are appropriate for their own specific instructional contexts.
However, we should also keep in mind that although context plays a role, context is
multifaceted and cannot be simply taken to refer to macro-level differences between set-
tings such as ESL versus EFL. As Nassaji (2013) found, even differences in the organiza-
tion of a classroom lesson such as student–teacher participation structure may influence
the effectiveness of feedback. Other variables such as lesson formats, activity and task
type and lesson topics are all important aspects of classroom context that can influence
the effectiveness of feedback and instruction (e.g. Batstone, 2007; Slimani, 1992; Van
Lier, 1988). Thus, teachers should be aware of these various dimensions of context and
the different conditions in which feedback takes place even in the same classroom.
Feedback has been shown to be beneficial if it targets language forms for which learn-
ers are developmentally ready or have a sufficient level of language proficiency. This
suggests that teachers should provide feedback in ways that match learners’ developmen-
tal readiness. However, we should bear in mind that every class includes learners that
may have different developmental needs and capacities. If individual learners have their
own linguistic needs and if this varies across learners, feedback strategies that can
accommodate learner variability are required. It is not always easy to determine develop-
mental readiness of individual learners. Thus, the question arises as to what advice to
give teachers.
As noted earlier, one possibility is to make use of different feedback types. Certainly,
by using a variety of feedback strategies, teachers can address a wider group of learn-
ers with more varied linguistic abilities, feedback preferences, and feedback needs.
Another possibility is to use what Nassaji and Swain (2000) and Nassaji (2007c, 2011a)
have called ‘negotiated feedback’. One characteristic of negotiated feedback is that it
involves feedback moves that are determined based on the learners’ ongoing needs and
the capacity to learn from the feedback given. Another one is that the feedback begins
with indirect feedback and then moves progressively and in a scaffolding manner
towards more direct feedback moves as needed. This would help learners receive
feedback appropriate to their linguistic level and characteristics of their response.
Of course, although negotiated feedback may be more effective than non-negotiated
Nassaji 555
feedback, the use of such strategies may not be always feasible as it may sometimes be
time-consuming or may disrupt the flow of communication too much.
As reviewed earlier, interactional feedback that encourages modification of learner
output may be more beneficial than feedback that does not. A major implication of this
is that teachers should use feedback moves in ways that provide opportunities for modi-
fied output. Feedback moves such as elicitations, clarification requests or repetitions
would promote opportunities for modified output as these feedback moves do not pro-
vide the target form but instead push the learner to provide the correction. Thus, they
can encourage self-repair. It should be noted, however, that elicitation moves could lead
to self-repair only if learners have already some declarative knowledge of the target
form and use that knowledge to repair their errors in response to feedback. In other
words, elicitations ‘can only assist deployment, not acquisition’ (Long, 2007, p. 102). If
learners are not able to self correct their errors, they are likely to benefit more from
feedback that provides the correct form such as recasts.
As noted earlier, one issue with recasts is that they can be ambiguous and learners may
interpret them as feedback on content rather than form, particularly if they are provided in the
form of unstressed confirmation checks in a highly meaning-focused contexts. Therefore,
teachers may want to consider ways in which the recast becomes more noticeable as feedback.
One way of doing so would be by enhancing the saliency of recasts. This enhancement can be
achieved in a number of ways, by shortening the recasts, by targeting single errors versus mul-
tiple errors, or by using them in conjunction with other interactional features such as added
stress, rising intonation, or other types of explicit moves or signals.
It should be noted, however, that as the explicitness of feedback increases, it can also
become more corrective. As some researchers have pointed out, being corrective during
negotiation can be face-threatening for some learners (e.g. Foster, 1998), which can then
negatively affect learners’ responsiveness to feedback. The face-threatening nature of
feedback can increase when the teacher overtly corrects the learner’s errors in front of
others. It can also increase when the teacher tries to push the learner to self-correct par-
ticularly when the learner does not know the correct form (Long, 2007). These concerns
show the delicate balancing act between the provision of appropriate feedback and
learners’ responses and also highlight the importance of teachers’ skills to adapt their
interactional strategies to fit learners’ characteristics, perception, and context.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In: A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of
empirical studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alcón Soler, E., & García Mayo, M.P. (2008). Incidental focus on form and learning outcomes
with young foreign language classroom learners. In: J. Philp, R. Oliver, & A. Mackey (Eds.),
Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play?: Volume 23 (pp. 173–192).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and l2 learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
Appel, G., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of
the passe compose and the imparfait. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.
Batstone, R. (2007). Recontextualizing focus on form. In: S. Fotos, & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form
focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 87–99).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/
English etandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15, 41–71.
Braidi, S.M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interac-
tions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.
Butler, A.C., Karpicke, J.D., & Roediger, III, H.L. (2007). The effect of type and timing of feed-
back on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
13, 273–281.
Campillo, P. (2005). An analysis of uptake following teacher’s feedback in the ESL classroom.
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada / Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics (RESLA),
17–18, 209–222.
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition: Volume
25. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’
errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.
de la Fuente, M.J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects
of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 16, 47–81.
Dilans, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in
the adult ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 787–816.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 69–92.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In: P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In: C. Doughty, & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The role of linguistic target, length, and
degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In:
A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.
Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
Nassaji 557
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acqui-
sition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–369.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral french interaction.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 877–905.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics,
19, 1–23.
Fu, T., & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in
a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 6, 161–183.
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner–learner interactions in a task-
based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
47, 267–301.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In: C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford:: Blackwell.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.),
Variation and second language acquisition (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and labo-
ratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learn-
ing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL
Quarterly, 36, 543–572.
Hawkes, L., & Nassaji, H. (2016). The role of extensive recasts in error detection and correction by
adult ESL students. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 19–41.
Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL: The Journal of
EUROCALL, 16, 416–431.
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners
of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311–394.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential
effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.
Junqueira, L., & Kim, Y. (2013). Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teach-
ers’ corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 181–206.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of
Educational Research, 58, 79–97.
Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners ‘ communication skills through synchronous electronic interac-
tion and task-based instruction. Foreign Languaeg Annlas, 35, 16–24.
Lee, L. (2011). Focus-on-form through peer feedback in a Spanish–american telecollaborative
exchange. Language Awareness, 20, 343–357.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta analysis. Language
Learning, 60, 309–365.
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language
acquisition. In: Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14.
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowl-
edge. In: A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A
series of empirical studies (pp. 361–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in adults English L2 classrooms: Characteristics, explicit-
ness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.
Loewen, S., & Reissner, S. (2009). A comparison of incidental focus on form in the second lan-
guage classroom and chatroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 101–114.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In: K.
DeBot, R. Ginsberge, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural
perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: W.
Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In: C. Doughty, &
J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language
Learning, 59, 453–498.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback
research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2012). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms.
Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
Mackey, A. (2007). The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In: A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction
research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
28, 169–178.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research syn-
thesis. In: A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A
collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development:
Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
Nassaji 559
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feed-
back? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feed-
back: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning,
53, 35–66.
Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education
and teachersí use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8,
301–327.
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Fujii, A., Egi, T., et al. (2002). Individual differences in working memory,
noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In: P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual dif-
ferences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
McDonough, K. (2001). Exploring the relationship between modified output and L2 learning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a thai
EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on
ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in
L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition:
A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2000). Communicative tasks, conversational interaction and lin-
guistic form: An empirical study of thai. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 82–92.
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and
linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.
Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Finn, B. (2009). Delayed versus immediate feedback in children’s and
adults’ vocabulary learning. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1077–1087.
Murphy, D.F. (1986). Communication and correction in the classmom. ELT Journal, 40, 146–151.
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interac-
tion: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language
Awareness, 11, 43–63.
Nagata, N. (1997). The effectiveness of computer-assisted metalinguistic instruction: A case study
in Japanese. Foreign Language Annals, 2, 187–200.
Nakata, T. (2014). Effects of feedback timing on second language vocabulary learning: Does
delaying feedback increase learning? Language Teaching Research, 19, 416–434.
Nassaji, H. (2000). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction
in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language
Journal, 84, 241–250.
Nassaji, H. (2007a). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in
dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511–548.
Nassaji, H. (2007b). Focus on form through recasts in dyadic student–teacher interaction: A case
for recast enhancement. In: C. Gascoigne (Ed.), Assessing the impact of input enhancement in
second language education. (pp. 53–69). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Nassaji, H. (2007c). Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners’ written errors. In:
S. Fotos, & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in
honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 117–129). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback
explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
Nassaji, H. (2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL
classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 907–933.
Nassaji, H. (2011a). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated ver-
sus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 315–334.
Nassaji, H. (2011b). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in
dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17–29.
Nassaji, H. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms.
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning:
Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition.
Language Teaching Research, 49, 35–62.
Nassaji, H., & Cumming, A. (2000). What’s in a zpd? A case study of a young ESL student and
teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4, 95–121.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect
of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness,
9, 34–51.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acqusition.
ELT Journal, 47, 113–128.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the
Japanese language classroom in the Japanese classroom. In: J.K. Hall, & L. Verplaeste (Eds.),
The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction.
(pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 17, 459–481.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL class-
room. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on ‘noticing the gap’: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in
NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning
conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
Pica, T. (1996a). Do second language learners need negotiation? IRAL: International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34, 1–21.
Pica, T. (1996b). Do second language learners need negotiation? International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34, 1–21.
Polio, C., Gass, S., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate speaker perceptions in
native–nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 237–267.
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning oppor-
tunities? In: A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A
collection of empirical studies (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language
acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In: J. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing
research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sachs, R., & Suh, B.-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes
in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In: A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interac-
Nassaji 561
tion in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 199–227). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered
feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language
learning. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216.
Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasi-
experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 842–854.
Saito, K. (2013). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning:
Teaching the perception and production of English/ɹ/to adult Japanese learners. Language
Learning, 63, 499–529.
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of class-
room intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of
interlocutor versus feedback types. In: A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in sec-
ond language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar.
Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96–120.
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research,
7, 89–102.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across
instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake.
Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language
Learning, 58, 835–874.
Slimani, A. (1992). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In: C. Anderson, & A. Beretta (Eds.),
Evaluating second language education (pp. 197–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and com-
prehensible output in its development. In: S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In: H.G. Widdowson, G.
Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour
of h. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of
attention, memory, and analytical ability. In: A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction
in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Varnosfadrani, A. (2006). A comparison of the effects of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed
corrective feedback on learners ‘ performance in tailor-made tests. Unpublished PhD disserta-
tion, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Vasquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through
research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14, 421–443.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language
Learning & Technology, 12, 43–63.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL
learnersíacquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures
via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first
exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types.
Language Awareness, 17, 78–93.
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese
language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 293–314.
Zhao, S., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner
interactions. System, 35, 431–447.

Interactional Feedback

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interactional Feedback

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

644940

Language Teaching Research

and learning: A synthesis and

II Theoretical underpinnings

conversational discourse to repair communication breakdowns (Gass, 1997, 2003; Long,

It has been suggested that negotiation assists L2 development in a number of ways: by

Pushed output assists language acquisition in a number of ways: by promoting the

III Researching interactional feedback

IV Uptake studies

1. T: Kon shuumatsu hima desu ka? Kim san

2 Issues with uptake and its relationship with learning

Table 1. Types of uptake following recasts.

Type of repair Example

V Experimental pretest–posttest studies

VI Individualized posttest studies

VII Individualized pretest–posttest research

1. an examination of the learners’ preinteraction descriptions to identify errors made

VIII Interactional feedback in learner–learner interactions

feedback during NS–learner interaction than peer interaction. Comparing learner–learner

IX Feedback training and experience

XI Computer-assisted feedback

XII Conclusions and implications for teaching

noticeable due to other formal or positional properties. Therefore, implicit feedback

You might also like