1  

Ronald Salmond Jr_ SLA(LK4SLA UK) (SPR 13-14)  

 Guidelines  for  Enhancing  Instructor  Issued  Corrective  Feedback  and  Methods  for  Training  Students  to  Deliver  Beneficial  Corrective  Feedback  during  Collaborative  Language  Tasks.    Abstract    Research  conducted  within  multiple  English  and  non-­‐English   face-­‐to-­‐face   language  learning  environments  concludes  that  instructors  are  predominately  inclined  to  use  recasts   as   corrective   feedback   (hereafter   CF)   when   compared   to   other   forms.  (Lyster  and  Ranta,  1997)  Additional  studies  comparing  the  effectiveness  of  various  CF   types   found   that   recasts   comprise  70%  off   all   instructor  provided  CF  although  this   form  has  been   found   to  be   the  most   ineffective   in   triggering   learner  noticing,  uptake  and  repair.  (Lightbown  and  Spada,  1990;  Ajideh  and  FareedAghdam,  2012)  This  article  aspires  to  encourage  language  teachers  to  avoid  defaulting  to  recasts  as  the   primary   form   of   CF   deployed  within   communicative   language   and   task   based  learning  environments  by  providing  a  tool  for  aligning  alternate  explicit  and  implicit  CF   types   with   the   targeted   language   form   and   task   type   in   a   range   of   scenarios.  Furthermore,   to   maximize   the   time   learners   spend   engaged   in   collaborative  activities  and  enhance  the  quality  of  learner  interaction,  this  article  seeks  to  assist  in  reducing  the  amount  of  lesson  time  instructors  allocate  for  issuing  CF  by  providing  a  tool   for  aligning  CF  type  with  the  targeted   language   form  and  task  type  while  also  suggesting  methods   for   training   learners   to   provide   quality   CF  when  working   on  collaborative  tasks  in  a  communicative  and  task  based  learning  environment.      Rationale  for  Igniting  Question    

For  some  time  now,  perhaps  decades,  there  has  been  a  strong  push  towards  

the  implementation  of  constructivist  principals  and  pedagogy  within  the  classroom.  

At  the  start  of  the  2009  academic  year  the  Abu  Dhabi  government  rolled  out  its  10  

year  strategic  plan  for  education  reform  in  the  United  Arab  Emirates.  Aside  from  the  

usual  rhetoric  referencing  the  construction  of  state  of  the  art  schools  equipped  with  

the   latest   high   tech   facilities   and   affordable   education   for   all   lay   the   central  

component  of  the  reform  plan,  student  attainment  of  21st  century  skills  gained  from  

working  collaboratively  in  student  centered  learning  environments.  Naturally,  as  is  

routine  with  most  proposals,  these  lofty  aspirations  presented  in  such  matter  of  fact  

  2  

form  with  assured  certainty  of  success  have  proven  to  be  much  harder  to  achieve  in  

real   life   and  substantial   challenges  arose  when   it   came   time   to  enact  processes   to  

achieve  set  objectives.    

Accordingly,   this  work   is   of   the   opinion   that   the  most   prominent   issues   in  

need  of  modification   are   instructors’   lack   of   diversity  when   selecting  CF   type   and  

students   inability   to   deliver   coherent,   beneficial   CF   in   peer   activities.   For   many  

educators,   providing   useful   corrective   feedback   that   prompts   a   learner’s  

psycholinguistic   ability   to   identify   their   error   and   attempt   to   correctly   rephrase  

their  construction  may  be  one  of  the  more  difficult  processes  to  activate  within  the  

communicative   language   classroom.     Interacting   with   novice   language   learners  

possessing  less  than  rudimentary  skills  often  times  results  in  the  issuance  of  explicit  

and   implicit   corrective   feedback   that   falls   far   outside   of   their   language   capacity,  

rendering   the   feedback   unintelligible   and   effectively   useless.   (Lyster   and   Ranta,  

1997)  In  spite  of  these  challenges,  there  are  numerous  benefits  to  using  implicit  and  

explicit   CF   in   the   language   classroom.   Prompts   push   learners   to   correct   their  

utterances,   leading   to   increased   potential   of   uptake   and   repairs   that   are   student  

generated,  while  with   intermediate   to   higher   level   learners  metalinguistic   CF   has  

the  effect  of   serving  as  a   catalyst   for   triggering  noticing  so   that   learners  are  more  

aware  of   the  gap  between  what  was  said  and   the   target  norm,   thereby   facilitating  

the   acquisition   of   implicit   knowledge   (Ammar   and   Spada,   2006;   Ellis   et   al.   2006;  

Lyster,   1998).   Furthermore,   metalinguistic   CF   does   not   impede   the   pace   and  

structural  integrity  of  content  during  discourse.  Rather,  it  creates  a  moment  where  

the   learner   is  able  to  pause  to   focus  on  the  targeted  form  and  as  a  result,   learners  

  3  

develop  the  awareness  needed  to  spur  the  process  of  noticing  so  that  in  the  event  of  

repair,   knowledge   of   form   is   embedded   and   students   become   more   proficient   at  

using  this  form  in  communicative  contexts.  (Ellis  et  al.  2006)  

In   light   of   these   positives,   studies   indicate   that   the   majority   of   language  

teachers   default   to   issuing   recasts   more   than   any   other   form   of   negative   CF   and  

though  research  concludes  that  unmarked  recasts  rank  among  the  most  ineffective  

forms  of  CF  for  inducing  repair,  teachers  unaware  of  this  fact  are  likely  to  continue  

deploying   marked   and   unmarked   recasts   for   a   variety   of   erroneous   learner  

constructions.  (Lyster  and  Ranta,  1997;  Ellis  et  al.  2006;  Ajideh  and  FareedAghdam,  

2012)  Spada  and  Lyster  posit  that  implicit  feedback  such  as  unmarked  recasts  have  

the   potential   of   being   ambiguous   as   they   are   easily   misinterpreted   as   either  

confirmation  or  disconfirmation  of  the  correctness  of  a  learner’s  construction  due  to  

their  inability  to  notice  errors  and  fill  the  gaps  in  their  construction.  (Lyster,  1998;  

Ammar   and   Spada,   2006;   Carpenter   et   al.   2006)   The   effects   of   indecipherable  

feedback  are  far  reaching  and  can  overtime  increase  learner  anxiety  and  frustration,  

creating   a   learning   environment   where   morale,   motivation   and   achievement   are  

low.    

Surprisingly,   overuse   of   unmarked   recasts   can   also   bear   consequences   for  

intermediate   and   higher   ability   language   learners   as   a   lack   of   varied   CF   form  

diminishes   the   benefits   of   explicitness   and   possibly   hinders   the   triggering   of  

noticing   which   catalyzes   the   psycholinguistic   processes   that   lead   to   uptake   and  

repair.   The   sole   issuance   of   unmarked   recasts   to   intermediate   and   higher   level  

learners   deprives   them   the   opportunity   to   condition   and   hone   cognitive   and  

  4  

metacognitive   strategies   for   language   acquisition   as   the   benefits   of   more  

challenging,  repetitive  and  thorough  CF  may  initialize  triggering  for  complex  higher  

level   tasks   and   afford   learners   the   opportunity   to   develop,   concretize,   and   embed  

their   experiences   with   receiving   a   range   of   CF   as   input.   (Swain,   1985;   Sato   and  

Lyster,  2012)  In  instances  where  CF  is  comprehensible,  learners  interpret  this  input  

and  negotiate   internally  or  with  an   interlocutor  using  cognitive  and  metacognitive  

strategies   to   produce   modified   output.   (Swain,   1985)   In   agreement   with   Swain’s  

output   hypothesis   (1985),   constructivist   theory   (Bruner,   1960),   socio-­‐cultural  

theory   (Vygotsky,   1978)   and   Krashen’s   comprehensible   input   theory  

(Krashen,1985),   repeated   interaction  with   implicit   and   explicit   CF   offers   learners  

limitless   opportunities   to   experiment  with   language  by   trialing  new  constructions  

and  attempts  at  repairs  then  internalizing  these  experiences  by  shifting  previously  

distal  and  proximal  content  to  their  present  knowledge  within  the  zone  of  proximal  

development.     (Vygotsky,  1978)  Perhaps   the  greatest  possible  benefit  provided  by  

implicit   and   explicit   CF   aligned   to   target   language   tasks   is   the   eventual  

strengthening   of   learners’   cognitive   skills,   swifter   psycholinguistic   processing   and  

the   development   of   implicit   knowledge.   As   a   result   of   this   hypothesis,   this   work  

serves   to   provide   methods   and   a   tool   to   assist   educators   and   learners   in   the  

provision   of   implicit   and   explicit   corrective   feedback   forms  matched   to   the   target  

language   foci  and   learner  abilities  most   likely   to  be  represented  within  a  meaning  

focused   language   classroom   utilizing   collaborative   and   task   based   instructional  

approaches.  (Tedick  and  de  Gortari,  1998)  

 

  5  

 

ZPD  and  Differentiated  Corrective  Feedback  

While  recasts  and  other  forms  of  CF  tend  to  have  increased  effect  as  learners  

transition   from   the   stages  of   beginner,   intermediate   and  highly   skilled,  within   the  

context   of   a   language   classroom   comprised   of   mixed   ability   learners,   it   is   vitally  

necessary  that  CF  is  calibrated  to  fall  within  or  at  greatest  length,  a  half  step  outside  

a   learner’s   zone  of  proximal  development.   (Vygotsky,  1978)  According   to  Schmidt  

(1990),   noticing   is   paramount   to   knowledge   acquisition   and   in   order   to   trigger  

noticing   CF   must   be   sufficiently   explicit.   (Russell   and   Spada,   2006)   In  

teacher/learner   and   learner-­‐to-­‐learner   interaction,   applying   Krashen’s   input  

hypothesis  model  to  the  process  of  issuing  CF  exposes  the  necessity  that  instructors  

and   learners   provide   CF   (input)   that   is   comprehensible   enough   for   learners   to  

recognize   their   error   and   construct   modified   metalinguistic   output   that  

demonstrates  an  attempt  at  repair.  Model  1  suggests  that  CF  is  calibrated  to  match  a  

learner’s   ability   in   order   to   fall  within   at   least   one   of   the   categories   of   van   Lier’s  

expanded   model   of   ZPD   (van   Lier,   1996;   Walqui,   2006)   (model   1).   Basic,  

intermediate   and   higher   ability   learners   in   meaning   focused   social   learning  

environments   are   exposed   to   the   frequent   emotional,   social   and   cognitive  

interchanges  occurring  in  conversation  and  are  likely  to  engage  with  language  tasks  

similar  to  those  featured  in  model  1.  Referring  to  this  model  when  planning,  issuing  

teacher  provided  CF  and   training  students   to   select  and  provide  varying  CF   forms  

serves  to  enhance  the  efficacy  of  collaborative  interaction  between  learners  as  these  

activities  produce  metalinguistic  reflection  (Vygotsky  ,1978;  Tudge,  1992).  In  fact,  it  

  6  

is  in  the  midst  of  these  collaborative  scenarios  that  learners  become  aware  of  their  

inability  to  source  the  words  or  apply  the  methods  required  to  transform  thoughts  

into  words  using  the  target  language.  (Swain,  1985)  In  similar  fashion,  the  rigors  of  

psycholinguistic   processing   and   repeated   practice   repairing   utterances   enables  

learners  to  develop  self  monitoring  and  produce  output  demonstrative  of  language  

acquisition.  (Swain,  1985)  As  consequence  of  the  aforementioned  factors,  language  

teachers   should   refer   to   this   model   in   planning   and   instruction   to   assist   in   the  

selection  and  application  of  the  most  effective  CF  forms  for  each  task  type.      

As   delineated   by   model   2a,   in   communicative   tasks   requiring   learner  

interaction   with   similar   level   peers,   marked   recasts,   negotiated   feedback   and  

elicitation   are   CF   types   that   may   prove   effective   in   helping   learners   to   produce  

repaired  content.  (Lyster  and  Ranta,  1997;  Tedick  and  de  Gortari,  1998;  Ajideh  and  

FareedAghdam,  2012)  Tasks  and  activities  located  within  this  sector  are  likely  to  be  

carried   out   between   two   or  more   non-­‐native   speakers   and   research   suggests   this  

grouping  prompts   learners   to  produce  utterances  at  a  higher   rate  as   they  are   less  

anxious  and  more  willing  to  experiment  with  new  language  forms  and  the  issuance  

of  CF  more  when  working  in  groups  composed  of  non-­‐native  speakers  as  opposed  to  

non-­‐native   learner   /native   speaker   or   non-­‐native   learner   /   instructor   groupings.  

(Vygotsky   1978;   Tudge,   1992;   Ajideh   and   FareedAghdam,   2012;   Sato   and   Lyster,  

2012)   Learners   also  have   a   higher   tendency   to   self   correct  when   interacting  with  

other   learners   in   contrast   to   native   speakers.   (Sato   and   Lyster,   2012)   For   this  

reason,   eliciting   learner   CF   preference   during   collaborative   activities   and   training  

students  on  when  and  how  to  deliver  quality  marked  recasts,  negotiated  feedback,  

  7  

and  elicitation  could  be  beneficial  in  improving  the  quality  and  quantity  of  modified  

output  produced  during  communicative  learning  tasks.    

Examining   the   same   sector   (interaction   with   equal   peers)   of   model   2b  

suggests  the  use  of  clarification  requests,  metalinguistic  feedback  and  repetition  in  

place  of  the  oft  issued  marked  and  unmarked  recast  when  focusing  on  collaborative  

tasks   identical   to   those   discussed   in   model   1   for   lower   ability   learners.  

Acknowledging   an   error   and   summoning   the   vocabulary,   phonological   awareness,  

grammatical   and   lexical   knowledge   to   repair   an   incorrect   construction   can   prove  

quite   challenging,   if   not   impossible   for   some   basic   language   learners   not   yet  

developed  enough   to   clearly  understand   the  meaning  of   a   recast  or  even  pinpoint  

the   error   in   a   longer  marked   recast.   At   this   ability   level   (model   2b),   clarification  

requests   and   repetition   are   more   appropriate   in   collaborative   activities   as   they  

press  both  learners  to  compile  their  shared  knowledge  in  the  form  of  experimental  

constructions  where  new  vocabulary  and  rephrasing  of  lexical  segments  are  trialed.  

(Swain,   1985;   Sato   and   Lyster,   2012)   At   the   occurrence   of   a   lexical   error,   a  

clarification   request   combined   with   body   language   signaling   a   misunderstanding  

may  be  enough  to  trigger  noticing  and  prompt  a  speaker  to  rephrase  by  substituting  

an   alternate   word.   If   the   error   is   phonological,   repetition   serves   as   a   prodding  

mechanism   for   engaging   noticing   and   encouraging   speakers   to   clarify   their  

constructions   by   either   re-­‐pronouncing   a   mispronounced   word   or   rephrasing  

incomprehensible   utterances   with   clarity   and   greater   precision.     Further  

examination   of   both   corrective   feedback   scaffolds   for   higher   and   lower   ability  

language   learners   should   provide   assistance   for   teachers   desiring   to   utilize  more  

  8  

effective  implicit  and  explicit  CF  forms  in  response  to  learners  phonological,  lexical,  

and  grammatical  errors.  Furthermore,  teachers  could  moderate  a  workshop  focused  

on   improving   student   understanding   of   the   purpose   and   use   of   CF.   Working  

together,   students   and   the   instructor   could   model   and   trial   delivering   varied   CF  

types  within  a  range  of  form  focused  tasks  and  use  each  scaffold  as  a  guide.    

While  some  may  argue  that  basic  learners  will  gain  minimal  formative  skills  

from   the   experience   of   receiving   training   and   practice   generating   CF   due   to   their  

lack   of   meta-­‐language,   vocabulary,   phonological   awareness   and   knowledge   of  

grammar,   lexicon   and   syntax.   In   meaning   based   communicative   learning  

environments  the  focus  is  more  on  comprehension  than  correctness  of  form  so  the  

experiences   of   interpreting   CF,   and   developing   familiarity   with   the   reception   of  

varied  types  of  CF  and  some  notion  of  how  to  respond  serve  as  valuable  exercises  

that   kick   start   noticing   and   activate   the   processes   involved   in   repairing  

metalinguistic   output   and   constructing   coherent   phrases   in   the   target   language.  

Similar  to  an  athlete  developing  muscle  memory  from  repeated  sets  of  a  particular  

exercise,   repetition   of   these   metacognitive   processes   provide   language   learners  

with  a  set  of  communicative  and  cognitive  skills  while  also  producing  memories  of  

communicative   scenarios   and   language   learning   experiences   that   are   eventually  

stored  within  the  resourcefulness  and  self-­‐access  sector  of  van  Lier’s  modified  ZPD  

model.   (Swain,   1985;   van   Lier,   1996;   Walqui,   2006;   Sato   and   Lyster,   2012)  

Essentially,   for   lower   and   higher   ability   language   learners,   the   rigors   of   enduring  

beneficial   and   slightly   incomprehensible   (too   challenging)   implicit   and   explicit  

negative   CF   serve   to   finesse   and   expand   a   learners   ZPD   by   bringing   difficult  

  9  

language   tasks   and   incomprehensible   feedback   within   their   cognitive   reach.  

Certainly   the   total   sum   of   these   benefits   outweigh   any   doubts   that   a   learners  

language  inexperience  and  knowledge  deficiencies  in  the  areas  of  grammar,  lexicon,  

vocabulary   and   phonological   awareness   will   cripple   their   ability   to   effectively  

deliver   varied   CF   forms   as   peer   and   group   evaluative   criticism   in   communicative  

language  tasks.  Nor  should  it  hinder  the  ability  of  learners  to  comprehend  varied  CF  

forms  issued  by  the  instructor.    

Delivering  Differentiated  CF  within  the  Context  of  Instructional  Practice  in  the  

United  Arab  Emirates  and  other  Gulf  States    

A   key   component   of   Abu   Dhabi’s   strategic   education   reform   promotes   the  

development   of   student   centered   collaborative   learning   environments,   which   is   a  

positive,  especially  since  as  an  ethnic  group,  Arabs  are  innately  social  and  display  a  

strong  preference   for  oral  communication  and  collaborative  activities.  Unarguably,  

the  Arabs  of   the  Gulf  States  are  culturally  attuned  to  working   in  closely  knit  social  

units  and  display  a  strong  preference  against  working  individually.  Despite  the  fact  

that   Arab   students   prefer   and   are   accustomed   to   functioning   in   highly   social  

contexts,  rote  memorization  and  lecturer  dominated  instruction  have  long  been  the  

practices   for   disseminating   and   absorbing   educational   content.   What   can   be  

observed   in   educational   environments   as   a   result   of   this   occurrence,   are   students  

who  work  cohesively   in  collaborative  groups  but   find   it  nearly   impossible   to   issue  

constructively  critical  observations  and  provide  useful  feedback  for  peer  generated  

content.   Clearly,   this   is   an   area   requiring   improvement   and   given   the  

aforementioned   factors,   there   is   vast   potential   for   the   implementation   of   both  

  10  

differentiated   CF   scaffolds.   Continuous   professional   development   training   Arabic  

and   English   language   instructors   on   the   use   of   CF   scaffolding   would   assist   in  

improving  their  ability  to  select  and  deliver  CF  types  most  appropriate  for  triggering  

noticing   and   prompting   uptake   for   language   learners.   Utilizing   these   scaffolds   as  

instructional  tools  purposed  with  imparting  a  language  acquisition  strategy  for  use  

by  struggling  language  learners  may  assist  in  improving  the  inability  of  students  to  

provide  comprehensibly  beneficial  CF  in  group  communicative  exercises.  Therefore,  

this   work   strongly   recommends   that   language   teachers   in   meaning   based  

communicative   language   environments   consider   utilizing   these   differentiated   CF  

scaffolds  in  planning  and  during  instruction.  Furthermore,   if  time  permits,  training  

learners  on  the  meaning,  purpose  and  specifically,  methods  for  delivering  CF  during  

collaborative   language   tasks  may  assist   in   the  maintenance  of  constructivist  social  

learning  environments  and  improve  the  language  acquisition  skills  of  each  learner.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  11  

APPENDIX  

*See  attached  document  titled  ‘Appendix_SLA  Diagrams  for  Intervention’  

References  

Ajideh,  P.  &  FareedAghdam,  E.,  2012.  English  Language  Teachers’  Corrective  Feedback  Types  in  relation  to  the  Learners'  Proficiency  Levels  and  Their  Error  Types.  academians.org,  2(September),  pp.37–51.  Available  at:  http://www.academians.org/Articles/Agust%26September3.pdf  [Accessed  June  5,  2014].    Ammar,  A.  and  Spada,  N.  (2006).  One  size  fits  all?:  Recasts,  prompts,  and  L2  learning.  Studies  in  second  language  acquisition,  28(04),  pp.543-­‐-­‐574.    Bruner,  J.  (1960).  The  process  of  education.  1st  ed.  Cambridge:  Harvard  University  Press.    Carpenter,  H.  et  al.,  2006.  Learners’  Interpretations  of  Recasts.  Studies  in  Second  Language  Acquisition,  28(02),  pp.209–236.  Available  at:  http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0272263106060104.    Ellis,  R.,  Loewen,  S.  and  Erlam,  R.  (2006).  Implicit  and  explicit  corrective  feedback  and  the  acquisition  of  L2  grammar.  Studies  in  second  language  acquisition,  28(02),  pp.339-­‐-­‐368.    Krashen,  S.,  1981.  Second  language  acquisition.  Second  Language  Learning.  Available  at:  http://sdkrashen.com/content/books/sl_acquisition_and_learning.pdf  [Accessed  June  5,  2014].    Krashen,  S.  (1985).  The  input  hypothesis:  Issues  and  implications.  London:  Longman.    Lightbown,  P.  and  Spada,  N.  (1990).  Focus-­‐on-­‐form  and  corrective  feedback  in  communicative  language  teaching.  Studies  in  second  language  acquisition,  12(04),  pp.429-­‐-­‐448.    Lyster,  R.,  &  Ranta,  L.  (  1997  ).  Corrective  feedback  and  learner  uptake:  Negotiation  of  form  in  communicative  classrooms.  Studies  in  Second  Language  Acquisition,  19,  37  –  66.    Lyster,  R.  (  1998  ).  The  ambiguity  of  recasts  and  repetition  in  L2  classroom  discourse.  Studies  in  Second  Language  Acquisition,  20,  51  –  81.    Russell,  J.  and  Spada,  N.  (2006).  The  effectiveness  of  corrective  feedback  for  the  acquisition  of  L2  grammar.  Synthesizing  research  on  language  learning  and  teaching,  pp.133-­‐-­‐164.    Sato,  M.  &  Lyster,  R.,  2012.  Peer  interaction  and  corrective  feedback  for  accuracy  and  fluency  development.  Studies  in  Second  Language  Acquisition,  pp.591–626.  Available  at:  http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0272263112000356  [Accessed  June  6,  2014].    SCHMIDT,  R.  (1990).  The  Role  of  Consciousness  in  Second  Language  Learning1.  Applied  Linguistics,  [online]  11(2),  pp.129-­‐158.  Available  at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129  [Accessed  2  Jun.  2014].    Swain,  M.  (1985).  Communicative  competence:  Some  roles  of  comprehensible  input  and  comprehensible  output  in  its  development.  In  S.  Gass  &  C.  Madden  (Eds.),  Input  in  second  language  acquisition  (pp.235  –  253).  Rowley,  MA:  Newbury  House.    Tedick,  D.  and  de  Gortari,  B.  (1998).  Research  on  error  correction  and  implications  for  classroom  teaching.  ACIE  Newsletter,  1(3),  pp.1-­‐-­‐6.  

  12  

 Tudge,  J.  (1992).  Vygotsky,  the  zone  of  proximal  development,  and  peer  collaboration:  Implications  for  classroom  practice.  Cambridge  University  Press.    van  Lier,  L.  (1996)  Interaction  in  the  Language  Curriculum:  Awareness,  Autonomy  and  Authenticity.  London:  Longman.    Vygotsky,  L.  (1978).  Mind  in  society.  1st  ed.  Cambridge,  MA.:  Harvard  University  Press.      Walqui,  A.  (2006).  Scaffolding  instruction  for  English  language  learners:  A  conceptual  framework.  International  Journal  of  Bilingual  Education  and  Bilingualism,  9(2),  pp.159-­‐-­‐180.