Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development

By R. Ellis. 2009

651 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This article examines a number of controversies relating to how corrective feedback (CF) has been viewed in SLA and language pedagogy. These controversies address (1) whether CF contributes to L2 acquisition, (2) which errors should be corrected, (3) who should do the correcting (the teacher or the learner him/herself), (4) which type of CF is the most effective, and (5) what is the best timing for CF (immediate or delayed). In discussing these controversies, both the pedagogic and SLA literature will be drawn on. The article will conclude with some general guidelines for conducting CF in language classrooms based on a sociocultural view of L2 acquisition and will suggest how these guidelines might be used for teacher development.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8159707fb61862f1db622b274542416a024b2f3a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

COUNTERPOINT PIECE: THE CASE FOR VARIETY IN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK RESEARCH (2013, background): “In our own pre- and in-service teacher-education courses and professional development workshops, we emphasize the need for the use of a variety of CF moves (Lyster, 2007 ; Ranta, in press), as do Ellis ( 2009 ) and Goo and Mackey (this issue, p. 132).”
PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2012, background): “This is because accessing procedural knowledge (or implicit knowledge; see R. Ellis, 2009 b; Ortega, 2009 , for discussion concerning procedural and implicit knowledge) requires fast retrieval from memory (DeKeyser, 2003 ; N. Ellis, 2002 ; R. Ellis, 2005 ; Hulstijn, 2005 ), which can be accounted…”
Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers' cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication (2015, background): “…differences between experienced and novice teachers' cognitions about three fundamental aspects of CF, namely necessity, types, and timing of CF (Ellis, 2009) to contribute to our understanding of subtleties of teacher cognition trans(formation) about CF in order to provide potential insights…”
The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives (2012, background): “Researchers such as Block and Klein have expressed stronger concerns. Block (2000) pointed out that ‘much of what is done under the rubric of SLA is not particularly relevant to language teachers and is not really applicable to the day-to-day language teaching and learning which goes in the classroo”
Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions (2010, background): “Ellis (2009) argued, for example, that the dichotomy between errors and mistakes is not as strict as Corder (1967) presented it to be, and stated that “the gravity of an error is to a very considerable extent a matter of personal opinion” (Ellis, 2009, p. 6).”
Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research (2016, background): “These feedback strategies have also been called input-providing because they provide the learner with the target-like input (Ellis, 2009).”
The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis (2016, methodology): “‘Negotiation of Form’ (Lyster, 1998) ‘Input-providing’ (Ellis, 2009)”