Opinion and Perspective
ESL Teachers’ Use of Corrective
Feedback and Its Effect on Learners’
UptakeSimon Timms
The University of Sunderland, School of Education
The efficacy of various forms of corrective feedback for second language acquisition(SLA) is a subject that has provoked considerable debate. The interaction of a complex
yet interlocking host of variables, such as the method of corrective feedback chosen by
the teacher, the proficiency of the learner in the target language, and the broader learning
context can make assessment of the relative merits and limitations of individual strategies
an unenviable endeavor. A previous study examined in this paper, attempted to bring muchneeded clarity to this debate via examination of the various corrective feedback strategies
employed in the instruction of beginner-intermediate English as a second language (ESL)
learners. Specifically, that study found that metalinguistic feedback and repetition resulted insuccessful uptake and that teachers tended to correct mainly phonological errors. The mostfrequent forms of correction employed were explicit correction followed by metalinguisticclues for intermediate students, and finally by clarification requests and recasts for beginners.
This investigation aimed to present a critical review of the findings of the study in an effort
to examine the confluence of utility and limiting factors when applying this theoreticalframework to an ESL context for SLA.

The debate over the relative effectiveness of corrective feedback strategies onlearner linguistic uptake is influenced by a host of interconnected factors. These
influences include but are not limited to one’s perspective on the nature of language
acquisition (be it input or output driven), and the type of knowledge acquired,such as implicit/procedural and explicit declarative (Ellis, 2015). The complex
and nuanced nature of this debate has occasionally led to conflicting evidence
as to the effectiveness of certain feedback strategies due to their application in147Timmsdissimilar learning contexts, fluctuating levels of learner proficiency, and theforms of errors that resulted in correction (Ellis, 2015). It is this lack of claritythat Gitsaki and Althobaiti (2010) sought to address via investigation into theeffects of diverse feedback strategies within an English as a second language(ESL) classroom environment, studying two groups of participant-learners
possessing varying levels of ESL proficiency. Additionally, a secondary aim of
their inquiry was to ascertain the types of errors that teachers chose to correct.
Against this background, this investigation presents a critical review of Gitsaki
and Althobaiti’s (2010) framework and conclusions in an effort to identify the
relative convergence of benefits and limitations associated with their theoreticalapplication.
The study by Gitsaki and Althobaiti (2010) falls firmly into the cognitiveinteractionist school of thought with regards to the process of second language
acquisition (SLA), stemming from Krashen’s input hypothesis (1985), Long’s
interaction hypothesis (1996), Swain’s output hypothesis (1985, 1995), andmore recently, Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis (2001). Essentially, the cognitive
interactionist approach identifies the facilitation of L2 acquisition throughthe relationship between the cognitive constructs of noticing and attention;and the process of students encountering input, engaging in interaction,
receiving feedback and producing output (Ellis, 2015). Gitsaki and Althobaiti(2010) attempted to build on this body of research via an investigation of
the effectiveness of various feedback strategies: elicitation, recasts, explicit
correction, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, and modeling. Specifically,
they sought clarification of the following issues:
1. “How often do ESL teachers provide different types of interactional
feedback to students who are in different levels of English language
proficiency?”
2. “Which types of interactional feedback lead to learner uptake mostfrequently?”
3. “Which errors (phonological, lexical, or grammatical) do ESL teachers
prefer to correct, or what type(s) of feedback do they use with specificerror categories?”
148

ESL Teachers’ Use of Corrective Feedback, OnCUE 14(1), pages 147-154(Gitsaki & Althobaiti, 2010, p. 201)
Primary data measures were administered in an Australian English
language school with participants consisting of 28 ESL students from various
nationalities, including Spain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, France, the Republic ofKorea, Iran, Columbia, and Italy. Participants were then divided into twogroups: 14 intermediate level students in class A and 14 beginner level students
in class B. Each class was taught by a different native English-speaking teacher.
Moreover, all classes were observed and audio recorded over a period of twodays, with error correction and uptake taxonomy processed by means of arubric detailed by Lyster and Ranta (1997). The study found that metalinguistic
feedback and repetition resulted in successful uptake and that teachers tended
to correct mainly phonological errors. The most frequent forms of correctionused were explicit correction followed by metalinguistic clues for intermediate
students and explicit correction followed by clarification requests and recasts forbeginners.

Strengths of the StudyFirst, the study’s goal of filling gaps in existing literature describing corrective
feedback and ability is laudable. In my teaching practice, I have often contended
with the relative merits and drawbacks of conflicting methods of feedback,particularly with regard to lower-level groups. The study’s findings on greater
efficacy of explicit feedback for intermediate level learners, as opposed to lower
level students, positively correlates with my practice. Frequently, in lower levelclasses, excessive correction may lead to a disruption in the flow of communicationand fluency-focused lessons. It may also lead to an undesirable and unproductive
tangent as the students attempt to understand why, for example, a particular
grammatical form is appropriate. Students can sometimes struggle as they try
to follow a specific correction in relation to their currently underdeveloped
interlanguage. This may lead to extraneous cognitive load, which Paas et al.
(2010) identified as a significant obstacle to language acquisition.
By accurately defining these linguistic phenomena and clearly articulating
several of the issues faced by ESL practitioners, the study provides a compelling
149

Timmsaccount of descriptive power. Additionally, Gitsaki and Althobaiti’s (2010)
continuous reflection on previous studies is a notable strength, specificallylinking their findings to supporting or contrasting research. As noted previously,
the study aimed to build on the body of work created by the cognitiveinteractionist school of thought, with their investigation containing references
to relevant studies throughout. This comparative reflection provides a certain
degree of external validity. For example, Gitsaki and Althobaiti (2010) highlight
how the findings of their inquiry that relate to the developmental readiness ofintermediate level students to benefit from corrective feedback were supported
by several studies in the field of SLA, including Philp (2003), Ammar et al.
(2005); Ammar and Spada, (2006); and Trofimovich et al. (2007). Further, thestudy actively sought to answer hypotheses posed by Lyster and Ranta (1997)
relating to the role of student ability in learner uptake and the types of corrective
feedback utilized by teachers.
Arguably, it is possible to draw practical implications from the externallyvalidated findings provided by this study. Given Gitsaki and Althobaiti’s (2010)conclusions regarding the inefficient nature of corrective feedback (particularly
more implicit forms) when applied to students with low comprehension, it isreasonable to suppose that it is best to be more judicious with the types of errors
one decides to correct during communication-focused lessons. In practice, thismight involve focusing more on fluency and choosing not to draw specific errors
to the student’s attention if they fail to relate directly to the targeted language
functions of the lesson. During intermediate level classes, however, it may be
more productive, both in terms of uptake and lesson flow, to provide feedback
on a greater variety of student errors.

Limitations of the Study

The multiple aims of the study are problematic. Although one stated purpose is
to “explore the effectiveness of the different feedback types across two different
proficiency levels in an ESL classroom environment,” the authors also aim to“reveal the types of errors that teachers choose to provide corrective feedbackfor” (Gitsaki & Althobaiti’s, 2010, p. 201). Given the prevailing controversy
150

ESL Teachers’ Use of Corrective Feedback, OnCUE 14(1), pages 147-154

over the effectiveness of conflicting forms of feedback (Mitchell & Myles, 2004;
Ellis, 2015), it is perhaps unwise to attempt to extrapolate general conclusions
relating to the effectiveness of various feedback strategies if the individual
teacher-researchers involved in the study were free to employ multiple types oferror correction at their discretion. As Ellis (2015) notes: “different types ofcorrective feedback may affect learning in different ways” (p. 184). By failing tostrictly control the type of error correction given to students, measurement of theeffectiveness of a given form of feedback may prove arduous.
This challenge calls the explanatory power of the study into question. By
allowing participating teachers to correct errors as they saw fit, it is likely thatthe analytical waters were to some extent muddied, making it difficult to assess
accurately why corrective feedback was or was not successful. Ellis (2015)
famously highlighted the complexity of this issue by addressing the controversy
over the relative effectiveness of input-providing and output-prompting
corrective feedback strategies. He notes that whilst research by Lyster and Saito(2010) found that output-prompting strategies were more productive, this may
be due to the fact that these prompts included four separate strategies: repetitionof error, clarification requests, metalinguistic clues, and elicitation. Conversely,
input-providing recasts amount to an isolated procedure; hence, “it is possiblethat the greater effect for prompts is simply because many strategies are more
effective than one” (Ellis, 2015, p. 162). As a consequence, the study’s internal
validity is weakened as a result of the simultaneous examination of conflicting
goals within a single inquiry. Given this failure to adequately control for certain
variables and the subsequent (arguably) compromised nature of the results, it istherefore doubtful that we can infer robust claims regarding the quality of SLA
and corrective feedback from the study.
This issue is compounded by the fact that the investigation sought toascertain the effects of feedback on students of different proficiency levels.
While proficiency remains a key vector during contemplation of feedback
strategy effectiveness, language uptake resulting from feedback is an inherently
complex process, influenced by a host of individual operations. These variances
may include but are not limited to language anxiety, working memory, and151Timmsmotivation (Ellis, 2015). This point may be particularly pertinent given thepresence of various learner nationalities during primary data measures. It is
well noted that both the acculturation and socio-educational models highlightthe significance of sociocultural factors with regards to SLA (Ellis, 2015).
The impact of individual cultural and social integrative attitudes on language
acquisition, however, is not addressed by the study.
Finally, a potential methodological weakness of the inquiry is thecategorization of linguistic uptake. Successful uptake was defined by Gitsaki
and Althobaiti (2010) as dependent on whether participants were capable ofrepeating a feedback corrected utterance or if they were able to use the alteredform in a longer statement. While it is certainly possible that students performing
these actions present evidence of uptake, it is also possible to argue that merely
repeating a teacher-provided correction or using the corrected form at a laterstage during the lesson does not demonstrate uptake adequately. Thus, follow-up
assessment is necessary if the researchers are to lay claim to valid learner uptake.
To their credit, Gitsaki and Althobaiti (2010) acknowledge this frailty and callfor researchers to address the issue in future studies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the earlier paper provided a valuable contribution to the debate
over corrective feedback with regard to SLA. Of principal note are implications
for the differing extent and nature of feedback provided to learners, based on
their level of linguistic proficiency. It is, however, possible to identify certain
limitations of the study. Given the diverse cultural makeup of the students who
participated and the various corrective strategies in the lessons being employedat the discretion of the two teachers, it is perhaps reasonable to caution against
extrapolating firm conclusions from the study. The interaction of complex factors
such as ability, cultural differences, anxiety, and individual motivation potentiallymuddy the analytical waters. These issues are further complicated by the inherent
difficulties in accurately identifying student uptake. The prior researchers
are to be commended for helping to elucidate this area of SLA research. It isadvised that future research into the usage of corrective feedback with regards
152

ESL Teachers’ Use of Corrective Feedback, OnCUE 14(1), pages 147-154

to ESL contexts endeavor to control for the type of feedback given to learnersof different abilities. It is also necessary to account for—to the greatest extent
possible—socio-cultural factors among the participants. It is hoped that by moreclosely controlling for these variables, researchers may be able to obtain greater
confidence in the theoretical justification for the practical application of various
corrective strategies within the classroom.

References

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.
Ammar, A., Trofimovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2005, March). Theinterdependence of recasts on learner differences. 5th International
Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB). Barcelona, ESP.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Gitsaki, C., & Althobaiti, N. (2010). ESL teachers’ use of corrective feedback
and its effect on learners’ uptake. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(1), 197–219.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413–438). Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake.
Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/252160472_Corrective_feedback_and_learner_uptake
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.).
Hodder Arnold Publishers.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller., J. (2010). Cognitive load theory and instructional
design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
153Timms

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Non-native speakers’
noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
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).
Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In
G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics:
Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University
Press.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, B. (2007). How effective arerecasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey(Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of
empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford University Press.

Author Bio

Simon F. N. Timms holds a master’s degree in Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages and has been teaching English in Japan since 2006. He currently
delivers communication-based lessons to high school students and English for businesspurposes to students at various large Japanese companies across the Kansai region.
His research interests include corrective feedback strategies and English for SpecificPurposes (ESP). simontimms@yahoo.co.uk
Received: May 22, 2020
Accepted: April 21, 2021

154