Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Corrective Feedback
Stella Lequerica
EDU 540 assignment 2
Professor Dr. Mary Ann Christinson
October 14, 2012
Introduction
Correcting student’s error in the EFL classroom has long been an issue of concern
for EFL and ESL teachers because error treatment is an inherent part of the
research being conducted in the field over the past years, there are no conclusive
answers. The same questions that were raised by Hendrickson, (1978), (as quoted
in Victoria Russell, 2009) haunt researchers mind today; nonetheless, still remain
be corrected? 5) Who should do the correcting? Lyster and Moris’ Counter Balance
Hypothesis, 2006 (as quoted in Victoria Russell, 2009) sheds some light over
question four, “how should errors be corrected?” This hypothesis states that the
instructional setting and discourse context will define the type of error treatment
that works best. They encourage the use of feedback that is contrary to the
focused it is advised to use recast. On the other hand, if the class is more meaning
is needed in order to validate their findings, Victoria Russell, (2009). The point
being made with this illustration rests on the fact that this hypothesis assumes that
a particular change in the main orientation of the classroom will prompt language
consider as essential for SLA. This paper will focus on the importance of noticing
Noticing is the part of the attention system that includes the detection and
Tomlin & Villa, 1994 as quoted in Ji Hyun Kim). My interest on this feature arises
because it involves the availability of the ‘noticed elements’ put forth by Schmidt
conclude that there is very little a person can learn without noticing, therefore its
importance for language learning and acquisition. A noticed mistake or error has
higher chances of being repaired than one that is unnoticed. This paper will
explore what has been said so far about errors that have been noticed and the
most appropriate and effective type of corrective feedback to deal with noticed
errors and mistakes. There are important investigations reported in the literature,
which show the significance of noticing as an indispensable cognitive act for SLA.
This is the reason for its worthiness as the subject matter to be examined in this
Thus, in this paper I will start with a recount about the field of corrective feedback
that involves noticing, to then narrow down to what has been said about noticing
of errors and mistakes including the best type of corrective feedback to deal with
topic, to finally conclude with my views about the topic looked at from the eyes of
Literature Review
implicit. Explicit feedback refers to feedback that is clearly and openly expressed,
meaning that it clearly comments on the error or mistake, and what learners
should do about it. Implicit is neither direct nor so open. It is done in the form of
through questions or prompting. The debate about which is more effective is open.
error and mistake treatment. The following literature serves to highlight the
acquisition and error and mistake treatment. This literature review will start with
a view that does not support feedback with the purpose of portraying a balanced
negative feedback is not significant for SLA because learners are embedded with a
this view what makes acquisition possible is this UG and humans innate linguistic
mechanisms available for all. Consequently, feedback has little impact since it will
only temporarily change the language and not the IL grammar (Carroll, 1996;Cook,
According to Krashen (1982, 1985), (as quoted in Mounira el Tatawy, 2002) SLA is
only acts as a motor that edits output. Consequently negative evidence, explicit or
implicit, only affects learning but not acquisition of the TL. Furthermore, he states
According to this view, learners are limited to what they are able to notice; thus,
the most important aspect for this is attention because “attention controls access
place.
Further claims on noticing are put forth by Gass (1988,1990,1991) (as quoted in
Mounira El Tatawy, 2002), which points out the noticing of the mismatch between
5
the input and their own IL system. For her, “nothing in the target language is
In addition to this, Gass and Varonis, 1994 (as quoted in Mounira El Tatawy, 2002)
highlights that “the awareness of the mismatch triggers a change in the existing L2
Finally, Ellis, 1991(as quoted in Mounira El Tatawy) shares the view that the
In order for learners to benefit from feedback they must be aware of the
“noticed” in order for error treatment to occur. Simply, people learn what they pay
attention and become aware of, and do not learn those things they do not attend to
(Schmidt, 2010). In other words, unnoticed features are not learned. This is
supported by a study done by Schmidt and Frota (1981), (as quoted in Schmidt,
2010) of a Portuguese learner of English. They concluded that forms that were
frequent in input were not learned nor acquired until they were consciously
noticed in the input. I would add that an important means to notice and
consequently learn and acquire any given language feature is through corrective
awareness of the mistake (made evident through feedback) no treatment can take
6
place, therefore repair does not occur simply because the learner does not know
about the mistake until he/she notices it. “Learners must attend to and notice
linguistic features of the input that they are exposed to if those forms are to
Therefore, in order for learners to take control of the input received it must be
prompt learners’ attention to the mistake or error so that the noticing of it occurs
and consequently the error or mistake can then be treated. According to Ellis,
important element in language learning and acquisition. Leow (1999, 2000), (as
quoted in Schmidt, 2010) found that those who exhibited a higher of awareness
learned the most. Mackey (2006), (as quoted in Schmidt, 2010) used various
between learners report on noticing and learners outcome. The results showed
that learners documented more noticing when feedback was provided and that
learners who exhibited more noticing developed more than those who exhibited
1990s that affirmed that explicit grammar instruction, error correction, and or
focus on form could promote SLA (Russell, 2009). This, to my view, is important
7
because feedback that is more explicit has more chances of being noticed than
implicit feedback, thus suggesting once more the important role of explicit
feedback in noticing and the subsequent positive effects it could have in error
repair. These studies are: Aljaafreh & Lantof, 1994; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis,
1993, 1994; Fotos;, 1994; Long, 1996; Sharwood Smith, 1993 (as quoted in
Russell,2009).
On the other hand, there are views that question the validity of noticing as a crucial
element for learning and acquisition. Carrroll, (2006a, 2006b) (as quoted in
Schmidt, 2010) objects to the noticing view by saying that in reality the elements
of acquisition are not objective and observable in the environment and according
verbs, cases etc.) are mental constructs that exist in the mind and not in the
environment. That if they are not present in the external environment there is no
p.17), (as quoted in Scmidt, (2010). Similarly, Truscott (1998) (as quoted in
syllabuses, phonemes etc., even though, they are not in the environment, must be
noticed in order for them to be stored in memory and subsequently used for
learning and acquisition. This points out once more to the important role that
8
noticing, explicit learning and explicit feedback plays in second language learning
and acquisition.
With respect to which type of feedback triggers more noticing and is more
explicit feedback which helps the most, and this is supported to a great extent in
the literature. As pointed out by Ellis, (1991) (as quoted Falhasiri, Fatemeh,
notice, compare and integrate the feedback. Due to limitations of space I will just
mention two recent studies to support this claim. One is the study of Falhasiri,
analysis that “explicit explanation and feedback may not only have helped the
learners notice the target structure, but also may have led them to compare the
into their interlanguage”. Another study, conducted by Chen, (2010) about explicit
and implicit recast in the acquisition of English noun plural, also concluded that
explicit recast was more effective than implicit and that “the less facilitative role of
implicit recast compared with explicit recast provided empirical evidence to the
noticing hypothesis and other ones which claim a beneficial role for learners’
attention in language learning”. These are just two out of a handful of studies that
suggest that explicit feedback, which involves a clear noticing of the features to be
treated, is indeed more effective for error treatment and repair and consequently
Pedagogical implications
written discourse and not enough in other aspects of language learning such as
order to make judgment as to what is best, implicit or explicit. Since most studies
have been done over grammatical aspects of oral and written discourse, and the
results so far have given enough weight to the benefits o explicit feedback and the
important role it has on noticing and conscious learning, it is safe to assert that at
least when dealing with grammatical aspects of language, explicit feedback is more
beneficial. My bias in favor of explicit feedback and the important role that it has
in promoting noticing as a key element for learning and acquisition is evident and
1993; Muranoi,2001, Kim and Mathes, 2001, Rosa and Leow,2004; Ellis et al.,2006,
(as quoted in Dabag,2008) among others, which support the claim that explicit
order to apply the most appropriate corrective feedback. For the most part,
preferred since it has demonstrated its effectiveness in error and mistake repair
for the following reasons: 1) It creates more attention, thus the noticing of the
mistake occurs 2) The explicit correction of their error marks a visible contrast
with their interlanguage form that helps with the correction 3) implicit correction
10
may not be so beneficial because it is less clear 4) learners tend to perceive more
Conclusion
At this point it is necessary to look back at the central question of this paper:
We can conclude that it is an important element, but the limitations of the scope of
the studies carried out in the field so far, make it difficult to make any
learning and acquisition. However, what seems to be essential is the fact that in
order to learn and acquire any kind of knowledge one must notice it (Noticing
there is enough research done in the field of grammatical explicit and implicit
feedback in oral and written discourse, to assert that in fact, explicit feedback
prompts noticing, which in turn plays an important role for effective error and
mistake treatment. This makes explicit feedback and its noticing feature an
important choice for L2 teachers to help students on their way to the learning and
References
Chen, Z.2010. Explicit recast, implicit recast and the acquisition of English noun
plural: A comparative study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33 (6). Retrieved
from: http://www.celea.org.cn/teic/94/4.pdf
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Falharsiri, M., Tovakoli M., Hasiri, F., Reza,Ali., 2011. The effectiveness of explicit
and implicit corrective feedback in interlingual and intralingual errors: A case of
error analysis, English Language Learning, 4. Retrieved from :
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/
Russel,V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and
Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 6(1), 21-31. Retrieved from: http://e-
flt.nus.edu.sg/v6n12009/russell.htm