All Journals

Language Teaching Research Quarterly

European Journal of Studies in Management and Business

International Journal of Behavior Studies in Organizations

Studies in Educational Management

New Challenges in Accounting and Finance

Language Testing in Focus: An International Journal

Marketing and Branding Research

Individual Differences in Language Education: An International Journal 

Feedback Research in Second Language 

Management Issues in Healthcare System

Language Teacher Education Research

Artificial Intelligence Knowledge Development

<p style="text-align:justify;">Researchers and&nbsp;educators in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) have long been&nbsp;interested in the role of corrective feedback (CF) in language teaching and&nbsp;learning (Cohen, 1975, 2018; Ellis, Loewen, &amp; Erlam, 2006). The main goal&nbsp;is to explore how to provide CF, the kind of feedback to provide, when, and by&nbsp;whom in order to facilitate learner’s uptake and second language (L2)&nbsp;development (e.g., Carroll &amp; Swain, 1993; Han, 2002; Lyster &amp; Ranta,&nbsp;1997). As Cohen (2018) states, aligned with more learner-centered approaches to&nbsp;language teaching, not only should teachers know how to deal with providing CF&nbsp;but they also need to promote learners’ awareness as informed consumers of CF&nbsp;to optimize its effect in their L2 development journey with the highest level&nbsp;of efficiency (Cohen &amp; White, 2008). CF is defined as comments on accuracy&nbsp;or suitability of students’ comprehension or production of a foreign/second&nbsp;language. The extent of CF and the ways in which learners can strategically&nbsp;embark on such CF is still open to debate due to the fact that there are many&nbsp;mediating factors influencing the efficacy of CF. Consequently, being able to&nbsp;propose advantageous ways of providing CF by teachers and effective use of CF&nbsp;by learners in L2 education settings remains a desideratum which requires a&nbsp;systematic review of various aspects of CF and factors contributing to its&nbsp;effectiveness. To this end, the current paper opens by providing a definition of CF and delineating how it is operationalized in different theoretical&nbsp;schemes. Categories of CF are described as are technology-based means for CF,&nbsp;and key dilemmas regarding CF and its effectiveness are noted. The conclusion&nbsp;reached is that CF must be viewed as highly complex – especially as it concerns&nbsp;learners’ autonomy in L2 development and in effectively strategic use of CF.&nbsp;The article ends with some recommendations regarding advantageous ways of&nbsp;promoting CF practice in L2 classrooms.</p>

Promoting Advantageous Ways for Teachers and Learners to Deal with Corrective Feedback

Original Research 

ltrq.2020.19.04.xml

Guest-editors: 
Christine Coombe, PhD, Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai, UAE
Hassan Mohebbi, PhD, Independent Researcher, Turkey


Special Issue: Pathways to the Successful Teaching and Learning of an L2: In Honour of Andrew D. Cohen

<p style="text-align:justify;">This study explores the differences between face-to-face (FTF) interaction and text-synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) regarding corrective feedback (CF). Eight native speakers (NSs) and eight second language learners were paired up and divided into two groups: instructed and uninstructed. Native speakers in the instructed group were asked to provide corrective feedback to help improve their partner’s English skills and given a short training on providing corrective feedback. Adapting a counterbalanced design, the NS-learner dyads completed a jigsaw task in each communication mode. We analyzed the corrective feedback episodes in each mode to see which mode provided more opportunity for corrective feedback negotiation. Furthermore, participants’ attitudes toward using each mode for corrective feedback negotiations was examined qualitatively. The findings revealed that the instructed group produced more CF episodes than the uninstructed group. Additionally, participants focused more on negotiation of meaning during FTF interactions, but they paid more attention to form during text-SCMC interactions. NSs’ and learners’ attitudes toward corrective feedback varied depending on the mode they used for interaction. The findings indicate that both FTF and text-SCMC interactions are beneficial for learners’ second language development aligned with each communication mode affordances.</p>

Corrective Feedback in Second Language Face-to-face Versus Computer-mediated Interactions

ltrq.2019.10.02.xml