--- title: 'Is Corrective Feedback Effective?' url: 'https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/is-corrective-feedback-effective' markdown: 'https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/is-corrective-feedback-effective.md' date: '2016-12-23' description: 'Anthomy Schmidt 2016-12-23 During the past decade or so, error correction has become a more prominent subject in language education and second language acquisition. In particular, there has been a great emphasis on oral corrective feedback (correcting spoken production through oral feedback, usuall…' --- # Is Corrective Feedback Effective? ### *Anthomy Schmidt* *2016-12-23* During the past decade or so, error correction has become a more prominent subject in language education and second language acquisition. In particular, there has been a great emphasis on *oral corrective feedback* (correcting spoken production through oral feedback, usually in real-time). Both qualitative and quantitative studies have looked at corrective feedback. In some ways, the amount of research and the various conclusions that have been drawn can be overwhelming. Luckily, a meta-analysis (a combined analysis of the individual analyses) was completed by [Shaofeng Li](http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/sli161) in 2010. This meta-analysis examined 22 articles and 11 dissertations on oral corrective feedback. **Among many findings, Li found that corrective feedback is overall effective, and that both explicit correct and recasts are effective in different situations.** This article will focus on the most relevant and interesting information Li found. **Article** Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. *Language Learning* (60) 2, 309-365. Retrieved from [here](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shaofeng_Li2/publication/229940242_The_Effectiveness_of_Corrective_Feedback_in_SLA_A_Meta-Analysis/links/563d21bb08aec6f17dd7edad.pdf). **Terminology** The corrective feedback terminology used in this article is taken from several different articles that include as one of the authors Roy Lyster, one of the major researchers in corrective feedback. The following chart, taken from a different Lyster article than the ones included in the meta analysis, nicely summarizes the different types of feedback: ![Corrective Feedback Types](https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/user/pages/is-corrective-feedback-effective/cftypes.jpg) From Lyster, Saito and Sato (2012). [Click here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4U2AANCLqo) to see a video demonstration of various corrective feedback strategies. **Major Findings** - Corrective feedback has a “**medium effect**” on language acquisition for both the short- and long-term. - A medium effect size (here, Fixed Effects: 0.61; Random Effects: 0.64) represents the magnitude of the effect on the included populations. - The **most commonly researched types** of corrective feedback include metalinguistic feedback, recasts, explicit correction, and clarification. Of these, recasts are the most investigated. - **Explicit correction** had a larger *immediate* effect than metalinguistic feedback and recasts. However, the effect of recasts *may* be retained for a longer amount of time. - In the studies that examined explicit correction, the tests used to examine the treatments were extremely similar to the treatments themselves and therefore may have contributed to the overall positive effect. In other words, the tests were like the practice itself, and therefore students could score higher on them more easily. - **Explicit correction** seemed *stronger in the short-term*, with implicit correction stronger in the long-term (i.e. on delayed posttests). - Li writes that implicit feedback may be “more enduring.” He speculates that implicit feedback may lead to implicit knowledge, and thus perhaps automaticity. However, this needs more study. - Despite larger effect sizes, further tests showed there was **no statistical difference** in effect sizes for any corrective feedback type or at any specific time point. - Nevertheless, according to Li, "the patterns that emerged seem interesting and deserve further discussion, especially given that some of the patterns were also obtained by previous meta-analyses." - **Lab-based studies** had significantly larger effect sizes than classroom-based studies. - **Computer-based and face-to-face feedback** had no significant difference in terms of effect. - **Shorter treatments** (50 mins or less) had a larger effect than longer treatments. - These short treatments were mostly laboratory-based. - **Age of learner** did not have a significant influence on effect sizes. - Most studies, however, included participants 15 or older. - Feedback from **native-speakers or computers** was more effective than teacher feedback. - All studies with native-speakers and computers were done in a lab, as opposed to the classroom, and lab studies tended to have higher effects in general. This variable also needs more study. **Discussion** This meta-analyses used complicated mathematics to ascertain the effectiveness of corrective feedback. In spite of its quantitative nature, the results can be interpreted in different ways. This is because some findings were significant with one set of tests but had no significance with another. Which test is more correct, and especially, which test is more correct in the context of the classroom, is unclear. However, the general findings (and patterns) from this article are worthy of note. Corrective feedback has an overall medium effect. What does this mean? It means that the average person receiving corrective feedback [would score higher than 73% of the people in a group receiving no corrective feedback](http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm). That is quite an effect. In addition to overall findings, a major aspect of this research was in investigating the different correction types. It was found that explicit feedback may be more effective in the short-term, and implicit feedback (recasts) may be more effective in the long-term. There are several caveats mentioned above, but another may be [the definition of "implicit" feedback itself](https://web.archive.org/web/20200218004841/http://www.anthonyteacher.com/blog/researchbites/research-bites-rethinking-implicit-explicit-feedback). Implicit feedback, to an advanced learner who can immediately recognize what is salient in an implicit correction, may actually be explicit feedback. Clearly, there are more variables, some of which are hidden, that complicate these findings. **The overall takeaway**, however, is that oral corrective feedback works and is worth pursuing in the classroom. There are various types of feedback that can be given, and, while research can help inform your choices, there is value across the board. The needs of the students, the experience of the teacher, and the learning context are really the only factors that can help determine which to use. **References** Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. *Language Teaching,* 46, pp 1­-40. *(Note: this article originally appeared [in a different form on anthonyteacher.com](https://web.archive.org/web/20200609094538/http://www.anthonyteacher.com/blog/researchbites/research-bites-the-mother-of-all-corrective-feedback-studies))* --- ## Navigation - Previous: [Introducing a New General Service List](https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/introducing-a-new-general-service-list.md) - Next: [Is Flipped Learning Really Worth the Trouble? Or, Flipped Learning and Learning Gains in the ESL/EFL Context](https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/is-flipped-learning-really-worth-the-trouble-or-flipped-learning-and-learning-gains-in-the-eslefl-context.md)