Corrective feedback from cognitive theories perspective
List of Authors
  • Mohammad Halabieh

Keyword
  • corrective feedback, Output Hypothesis, Noticing Hypothesis, Interaction Hypothesis

Abstract
  • After the mid of the twentieth century research in education saw the development of hypotheses in this field. In addition, around 1970s corrective feedback has been examined academically. In order to encapsulate their views, the researcher attempted briefly to demonstrate some hypothesis, for instance Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis, Long's Interaction Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis. This paper endeavored to find out how they are in relation to corrective feedback. The article is started with the definition of theory as well as corrective feedback. After that, he examined every theory independently; he briefly began with an overview of the hypothesis, then discussed its association with corrective feedback.

Reference
  • 1. Agbayahoun, J. P. (2016). Teacher written feedback on student writing: Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(10), 1895-1904.

    2. Ahmad, I., Saeed, M., & Salam, M. (2013). Effects of Corrective Feedback on Academic Achievement of Students: Case of Government Secondary Schools in Pakistan. International Journal of Science and Research, 2(1), 36-40.

    3. Allwright, D. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 156-171

    4. Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    5. Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods (3rded), Oxford University Press

    6. Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies of Second Language Acquisition,15, 357-386

    7. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,12, 267- 269.

    8. Creswell, J. (1994). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

    9. Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.

    10. Ellis, R., & He., X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.

    11. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184.

    12. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA review, 19(1), 3-17.

    13. Ghaemi, F., Salehi, N. (2014). Interaction Hypothesis: A Comprehensive Theory of SLA? International Journal for Teachers of English, 4(4), 23-33

    14. Griffiths, D. E. (1959). Administrative theory. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    15. Halpin, A. W. (1958). Administrative theory in education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    16. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.

    17. Klimova, B. (2015). The role of feedback in EFL classes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 172-177.

    18. Leslie, C. (2015). Humour in Peer Interaction in the L2 Classroom. e-TEALS: An e-journal of Teacher Education and Applied Language Studies, 6, 51-67. New University of Lisbon.

    19. Lightbown P. & Spada N. (2013) How languages are learned. New York: Oxford University Press.

    20. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second languageacquisition. In W.Ritchie & T.Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second languageacquisition (pp. 413- 468). New York: Academic Press.

    21. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011, November). The generation and verification of theory: A bridge to the continuing quest for a knowledge base. In National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal (Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 1-9).

    22. McDonough, K. 2005. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 79–103.

    23. Ogino, M. (2008). Modified Output in Response to Clarification Requests and Second Language. Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato.

    24. Purnawarman, P. (2011). Impacts of different types of teacher’s corrective feedback in reducing grammatical errors on ESl/ EFL students’ writing. (Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Retrieved from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd- 12122011211734/unrestricted/Purnawarman_P_Dissertation_2011.pdf

    25. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Routledge.

    26. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158

    27. Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 201–234

    28. Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2, 593-610.

    29. Shehadeh, A. 2002. Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning 52: 597–647.

    30. Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64, 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029

    31. Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Input in Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), 235–253. Rowley MA: Newbury House.

    32. Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson, G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds), 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    33. Swain, M. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Handbook on Research in Second Language Learning and Teaching, E. Hinkel (ed.), 471–483. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    34. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.

    35. Thomas, G. (2017). How to do your research project: A guide for students. Sage.

    36. Van.Beuningen.C.G. et.al (2012). Evidence of the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-49.

    37. Xhama, L. (2018). Corrective Feedback in Writing Essay in the L2 Classrooms. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 7(1), 19-24.

    38. Yang, Si-Ho. (2012). Social interaction in second language learning. English Teaching, 67(1), 131-156

    39. Yee, Ning, Hua, C. (2016). Chapter 14- The Interaction Hypothesis: Why You Shouldn’t Learn Languages Alone [Blog]. Retrieved from https://blogs.ntu.edu.sg/hss-second-language-acquisition/wiki/chapter-14/hss-second-language-acquisition/wiki/chapter-14/