1

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

teacher’s profession, therefore, central to teaching. However, despite extensive

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

unanswered. Such questions are: 1) Should errors be corrected? , 2) When should

errors be corrected? 3) Which errors should be corrected? 4) How should errors

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

communicative orientation of the classroom. To illustrate: if the class is form-

focused it is advised to use recast. On the other hand, if the class is more meaning

oriented it is recommended to use a more explicit type of feedback such as

prompts. As such, the instructional setting and the interactional feedback

 2

counterbalance the classroom’s main orientation. However, much more research

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

awareness, the occurrence of inter-language, and noticing which many researchers

consider as essential for SLA. This paper will focus on the importance of noticing

the feedback and its impact on language learning and acquisition.

Noticing is the part of the attention system that includes the detection and

consequent registration of stimuli in memory (Robinson, 1995, Schmidt, 2001;

Tomlin & Villa, 1994 as quoted in Ji Hyun Kim). My interest on this feature arises

from my recognition of it as an essential element for second language acquisition,

because it involves the availability of the ‘noticed elements’ put forth by Schmidt

(2010) in his Noticing Hypothesis. My own empirical experience has led me to

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

paper where I will address the following question:

Is noticed feedback an effective element for error and mistake treatment?

 3

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

them. This will be followed by an analysis of the pedagogical implications on the

topic, to finally conclude with my views about the topic looked at from the eyes of

my experience as a teacher as well as from the research I will be drawing from.

Literature Review

Corrective feedback is a term used to signify repair of errors and mistakes. It is

also known as ‘negative feedback’ or ‘negative evidence´. It can be explicit or

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

recast, which is the modeling of correct language, or by asking for clarification

through questions or prompting. The debate about which is more effective is open.

However, what is pertinent to this paper is whether noticed feedback is effective in

error and mistake treatment. The following literature serves to highlight the

importance given to noticing by researchers as a significant element for learning,

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

view over the subject matter.

 4

According to nativists like Chomsky, 1995(as quoted in Mounira El Tatawy, 2002),

negative feedback is not significant for SLA because learners are embedded with a

Universal Grammar (UG) system of principles, rules and conditions. According to

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,

1991; Schwartz, 1993,) (as quoted in Mounira el Tatawy, 2002).

According to Krashen (1982, 1985), (as quoted in Mounira el Tatawy, 2002) SLA is

an implicit process that works with comprehensible input. Conscious learning

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

that learning cannot become acquisition because it is subconscious gaining the

responsible element in acquisition. For Krashen, adults can subconsciously

acquire languages and consciously learn languages.

Conversely, for Schmidt, 1990 (as quoted in Mounira El Tatawy) “subliminal

language is impossible, and that intake is what learners consciously notice”.

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

to conscious experience” (p.176) which in turn contributes for acquisition to take

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

available for intake into a language learner´s existing system unless it is

consciously noticed (1991, p. 136)

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

knowledge, which sometime later shows up” (p.266).

Finally, Ellis, 1991(as quoted in Mounira El Tatawy) shares the view that the

acquisition process includes the steps, of noticing, comparing and integrating.

Implications of noticing and corrective feedback in L2 acquisition

In order for learners to benefit from feedback they must be aware of the

committed error or mistake. In other words this error or mistake must be

“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

feedback that is explicit enough so as to make the mistake evident. Without an

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

become intake for learning”(Schmidt, 2010).

Therefore, in order for learners to take control of the input received it must be

noticed. So in the case o error treatment, feedback must be explicit enough to

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,

(1994), noticing is of considerable theoretical importance because it accounts for

whatever input is attended to and as such becomes intake.

There are a handful of studies that have supported noticed feedback as an

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

measures of noticing and development to investigate whether feedback promotes

noticing of L2 forms in a classroom setting. This study also established a relation

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

less noticing (Schmidt, 2010).

This is further supported by an important handful of studies carried out in the

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

to her, the real elements of acquisition (phonemes, syllabuses, morphemes, nouns,

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

possibility of noticing them, implying that acquisition is not facilitated by

conscious awareness, explicit instruction, feedback, or correction (Caroll, 2006a

p.17), (as quoted in Scmidt, (2010). Similarly, Truscott (1998) (as quoted in

Schmidt, 2010) suggests that noticing is related to metalinguistic knowledge but

not to linguistic knowledge (competence), to “learning” but not to “acquisition” in

Krashen’s sense (1981), (as quoted in Schmidt, 2010). However, as suggested by

Schmidt (2010), any knowledge, including mental constructs such as morphemes,

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

effective, explicit or implicit, it is being suggested so far in this paper that it is

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,

Mohammadzadeh, 2011), in order for acquisition to take place, learners must

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,

Fatemeh, Mohammadzadeh,( 2011) which concluded in their case about error

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

target feature with their interlanguage rules and consequently to incorporate it

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

for learning and acquisition, than implicit feedback.

 9

Pedagogical implications

The preponderance of research has focused on grammatical errors in oral and

written discourse and not enough in other aspects of language learning such as

phonetics. This points to a limitation with respect to making generalizations. As a

result, we have to consider the type of error or mistake under consideration in

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

is supported by an important body of researchers such as Nagata,1993; Dekeyser,

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

correction is more beneficial.

So it is important to highlight that type of error to be dealt with is necessary in

order to apply the most appropriate corrective feedback. For the most part,

especially when dealing with grammatical aspects of language, explicit feedback is

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

explicit feedback as a necessary correction to be made than implicit feedback, and

this creates a requirement for correcting it in its interlanguage.

Conclusion

At this point it is necessary to look back at the central question of this paper:

Is noticed feedback an essential element for error and mistake treatment?

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

generalizations. A lot more research is needed in other dimensions of language

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

Hypothesis, Schmidt, 2010). With respect to language learning and acquisition,

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

acquisitions of the target language.

11
 12

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.

El Tatawy,M. 2002. Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working

Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2. Retrieved from: http://journals.tc-
library.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/160/158

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/

Kim,J.K., 2004, Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition,

Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics,4,12. Retrieved from:
http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/viewArticle/60

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

Schmidt,R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language

learning. Proceedings of classic 2010, 731-737. Retrieved from:
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Attention,%20awareness,%20and%2
0individual%20differences.pdf