Juli Sarris, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Giving feedback to students is one of the most important tasks teachers have and serves as an important type of ongoing formative classroom assessment. Feedback is also a highly effective teaching strategy. Research shows clearly that feedback is an important contributor to second language acquisition (Ellis, 2017). Furthermore, students want to be praised when they speak well and corrected when they make a mistake (Lyster et al., 2013). Feedback provides praise and correction, both of which support students in acquiring English.

However, teachers sometimes struggle with choosing the most effective and productive strategies for providing feedback. Teachers tend to reach for their go-to feedback strategies, the ones they know best and are most comfortable with, often without considering other feedback strategies. Sometimes they don’t even know there are other feedback strategies (Kartchava et al., 2020).

What Is Feedback?

Feedback gives students information about their speaking and can be positive or negative. Positive feedback is specific praise when the student has spoken correctly, and there are theories to suggest the importance of positive feedback in second language acquisition (Ellis, 2017). Teachers applaud students’ successes and improvement in their speaking and tell them explicitly what they have done well. Unfortunately, positive feedback has not been well studied in second language acquisition research. Teachers know instinctively that positive feedback supports students’ self-efficacy and motivation and reduces their affective filters, but there is little research to provide specific strategies to use to best support students.

Negative feedback, on the other hand, has been widely studied for many decades. Negative feedback, often referred to as “corrective feedback” or CF, calls attention to an error the student has made. Although some argue that only positive feedback is necessary for second language acquisition, more current research shows that CF is important as well. Indeed, CF “helps the learner notice the gap between his/her nontargetlike [second language] production and the target form and make subsequent modifications” (Li, 2010, p. 311). Lyster et al. (2013) review multiple studies showing the importance of CF in second language acquisition.

What Are Some Strategies for CF?

Because the research provides specific strategies for effective and productive CF, this section will focus on CF. Although different writers use different terms to discuss CF, here we will focus on four specific strategies that are most common and most effective in enhancing second language acquisition.

Recasts

Recasts are the most widely used form of CF (Kartchava et al., 2020). With recasts, teachers repeat what the student said, but with a correction of the error. Teachers will probably recognize this as one that they themselves frequently use. Here is an example of a recast:

Student: I goed to a movie last night.

Teacher: Oh! You went to a movie last night! (recast)

The theory behind recasts is that the student will notice the correction and repeat the recast. Unfortunately, in practice the student often either does not notice the correction in the recast or does not recognize that they should repeat the recast (Lyster et al, 2013). Here is an example of what frequently happens in a recast situation:

Student: I goed to a movie last night!

Teacher: You went to a movie last night! (recast)

Student: Yes, I goed to a movie last night! (no correction)

Without a correction following the recast, teachers don’t know whether the student even noticed they have been corrected.

Metacognitive feedback

Metacognitive CF strategies clearly point out to the student that they have made an error. As a result, the student is more likely to notice the error and self-correct; they provide the correction themselves rather than simply repeating what the teacher has said. There are three types of metacognitive feedback: metalinguistic, cueing, and elicitation.

Metalinguistic. Metalinguistic CF explicitly points out to the student that they have made an error, communicates the language component of the error, and encourages self-correction. The following is an example:

Student: I goed to a movie last night.

Teacher: How do we use the past tense of go? (metalinguistic CF)

Student: Oh, yes, I should say went. I went to a movie last night. (self-correction)

In this situation, the teacher has explicitly pointed out the error in using the past tense. However, the teacher does not provide the correction as they would in a recast. Instead, the teacher asks the student to self-correct. The student is therefore more likely to notice their error and self-correct.

Cueing. Cueing CF strategy is similar to metalinguistic in that the teacher explicitly points out the error; however, the teacher does not point out the specific language component in error. The teacher instead tells the student where the information had been taught, so the student can put themselves into that context, reflect on the content, and produce the correct form. The context is important here. The following is an example of cueing:

Student: I goed to a movie last night.

Teacher: Do you remember yesterday’s class? (cue)

Student: Oh, yes, in class we learned went. I went to a movie last night. (self-correction)

As in metalinguistic CF, the teacher does not provide the correction; rather, the teacher encourages the student to self-correct.

Elicitation. Elicitation also clearly articulates that the student has made an error and asks the student to self-correct; however, neither the language form nor the context is provided. The following is an example:

Student: I goed to a movie last night.

Teacher: You…what? …to a movie last night? (elicitation)

Student: Oh, yes, I, um…um, oh, I went to a movie last night. (self-correction)

As in metalinguistic and cueing CF strategies, the teacher does not provide the correction; rather, the teacher encourages the student to self-correct.

What Is the Effectiveness of Different CF Strategies?

Teachers always want to know the most effective and productive strategy to use in classrooms. Teachers know that positive feedback is effective and should continue to use this as often as possible. Teachers also need to know which CF strategies are most effective. Like most teaching strategies, the answer is: “It depends.” The research on the effectiveness of different CF strategies varies depending on the school setting, the age group of the students, their level of English, and so on. The research also suggests that compared to recasts, metacognitive CF strategies result in more student uptake: a self-correction immediately following the CF. Because student uptake in turn supports language acquisition (Ellis, 2017; Lyster et al., 2013), metacognitive CF strategies can often be more effective than recasts.

It is also important to understand classroom context. In a communicative class, such as a speaking class, metacognitive CF may be more effective, while in a prescriptive, form-focused class, such as a grammar class, recasts may be more effective (Ellis, 2017). This suggests that in offering CF, teachers should reflect on their class objectives in choosing the CF strategies to offer students.

Teachers also should consider whether to stop the flow of a conversation to correct students. There are times when it is more important that students continue talking without being overly stressed about speaking perfectly. Teachers should also be careful not to raise students’ affective filters, which can happen with overcorrection. In these cases, CF may be detrimental, and it may be better to take a mental note of some errors and reteach them later in a mini-lesson.

What Should Be Corrected: Grammar, Word Choice, or Pronunciation?

Although grammar appears to be the focus of most CF, word choice and pronunciation are vital as well (Lyster et al., 2013). Indeed, errors in word choice and pronunciation have the greater potential to obscure meaning and almost require CF. In the following examples from my own practice, notice that the grammar error in Example 1 does not obscure meaning, while the others do.

Example 1: grammar error

Student: I deciding to play football yesterday.

Me: How do we use the past tense of a regular verb?

Student: Oh, I decided to play football yesterday!

Example 2: word choice error

Student: My baby is so durable!

Me: We don’t usually use durable to describe babies. Can you think of a different word?

Student: Ummm, oh, yes, my baby is so adorable!

Example 3: pronunciation error

Student: My country has a lot of POlitical problems.

Me: POlitical? Remember in class last week we talked about syllable stress? Can you think of which syllable to stress in that word?

Student: Oh, poLItical problems! My country has a lot of poLItical problems!

In Example 1, I could have decided not to offer CF at all because the meaning was not obscured. I understood what the student was saying. However, because the error happened in a grammar class where precision was important, I offered metalinguistic CF. In Examples 2 and 3, the meaning was obscured. I could not understand what the student was saying. In these two cases, CF was imperative for moving the conversation forward. I used an elicitation in Example 2 and a cue in Example 3.

Conclusion

For many years, I relied solely on recasts for my CF strategy. When I first learned about metacognitive CF strategies, I saw the greater effectiveness in many situations, but I had to practice using them. With continued practice, it didn’t take long for me to break the recast habit, and these metacognitive strategies became more natural. I still use recasts, and I definitely use positive feedback more often than negative CF strategies. But now I have more tools in my teaching toolbox and can better choose the CF strategy most appropriate for the situation. I also feel that my students have benefited as a result.

References

Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in language teaching: A historical perspective. Avances en Educación y Humanidades, 2(2), 7–22.

Kartchava, E., Gatbonton, E., Ammar, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2020). Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 220–249.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language teaching, 46(1), 1–40.