Definition:
Feedback in second language acquisition (SLA) is any response a learner receives — from a teacher, interlocutor, or the communicative context itself — that provides information about the accuracy, appropriateness, or communicative success of their target-language production. SLA researchers distinguish between corrective feedback (specifically targeting errors), positive feedback (confirming correctness), and elaborated feedback (extending and enriching a learner’s message). The central research questions: Which types of feedback best promote acquisition? Under what conditions does feedback lead to uptake and long-term change versus momentary correction without lasting effect?
Types of Corrective Feedback
Explicit feedback: Directly identifies the error or provides the correct form.
- “That’s wrong. The correct form is went, not goed.”
- Metalinguistic feedback: “Be careful with past irregular verbs. What’s the past of ‘go’?”
Implicit (recasts): The teacher or interlocutor reformulates the learner’s incorrect utterance correctly, with emphasis, without explicitly marking it as an error.
- Learner: “Yesterday I goed to the market.”
- Teacher: “Oh, you went to the market! What did you buy?”
Negotiation of meaning sequences:
- Clarification requests: “Sorry, I’m not sure I understood — could you say that again?”
- Comprehension checks: “Do you mean you went yesterday?”
- These indirect feedback moves signal that something in the learner’s message wasn’t clear, prompting reformulation.
Prompts (output-pushing feedback):
Rather than providing the correct form, the teacher withholds it and prompts the learner to self-correct:
- Elicitation: “You went…?” (rising intonation, inviting completion)
- Repetition of error with rising intonation: “You goed?” (marking the error without correcting it)
Uptake and Repair
Uptake is the learner’s response to corrective feedback. Research (Lyster and Ranta, 1997) shows:
- Prompts produce higher rates of uptake and self-repair than recasts
- Recasts are often interpreted as confirmation (not correction) and ignored
- Explicit correction produces immediate accuracy but less durable acquisition than delayed treatment
Form-Focused vs. Meaning-Focused Contexts
In meaning-focused communication (conversations, tasks), recasts tend to be subtle and easily missed. In form-focused instruction (grammar study, structured practice), explicit metalinguistic feedback is more appropriate and better retained. The best-performing feedback type depends heavily on context, the learner’s developmental stage, and whether the learner is attending to form.
History
Krashen (1982): Negative evidence (feedback on error) not necessary for acquisition — comprehensible input sufficient. This claim generated enormous research response.
Long (1996): Interaction Hypothesis includes feedback as a source of “negative evidence” that triggers noticing and drives acquisition. Recasts specifically studied.
Lyster and Ranta (1997), “Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake”: Landmark observational study documenting 6 corrective feedback types in French immersion classrooms; shows recasts are the most common teacher move but the least likely to produce uptake.
Sheen (2007); Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006): Controlled experiments comparing explicit correction vs. recasts; generally find explicit feedback more effective for uptake and accuracy development.
Common Misconceptions
“Positive feedback (praise) and positive evidence are the same thing.” Positive evidence is grammatical input confirming that a structure is well-formed in the target language — it is structural information about what is allowed. Praise is an affective response to a learner’s performance. These serve entirely different functions in acquisition: positive evidence informs structural development; praise motivates continued effort but provides no direct structural information about target language form.
“Negative feedback means telling learners they are wrong.” Negative feedback (negative evidence) is information that a form is not grammatical in the target language, delivered through many types of feedback: recasts (implicit), explicit correction (explicit), classroom error correction routines. Most research-studied negative feedback in SLA is implicit (especially recasts) and involves minimal negative evaluation of the learner — it is structural information about the target system, not social judgment about the learner.
Criticisms
Research on feedback in SLA has been criticized for the proliferation of laboratory studies that do not represent naturalistic classroom feedback conditions — the frequency, timing, and social context of corrective feedback in real classrooms differs substantially from experimental conditions. The interaction between feedback type effectiveness and learner variables (proficiency level, L1 background, individual differences in attention and uptake) is incompletely understood, making it difficult to specify what feedback is most effective for which learners in which conditions. Meta-analyses have found moderating variables that reduce confidence in strong universal prescriptions about optimal feedback types.
Social Media Sentiment
Feedback and error correction practices are frequently discussed in language learning communities. Learners debate whether they want to be corrected during conversation practice sessions; teachers discuss when and how to provide corrective feedback without impeding communicative flow. The impact of harsh or frequent correction on speaking anxiety is a recurring community theme. Language exchange partners and tutors receive specific guidance from learners about how much correction they want — demonstrating that learners have developed sophisticated preferences about feedback that reflect some awareness of the research findings without necessarily being based on them.
Last updated: 2026-04
Practical Application
- With an iTalki tutor, specify your feedback preference. Many learners benefit from asking for recasts during fluency practice (to maintain flow) and explicit corrections after (to get the form). One-size-fits-all feedback hampers either fluency or accuracy development.
- Pay attention to recasts. Since recasts can look like confirmation rather than correction, train yourself to notice when an interlocutor repeats your utterance with a change — that changed form is usually the feedback.
Related Terms
See Also
- Error Correction — The practical implementation of corrective feedback
- Interaction Hypothesis — The theoretical account of why feedback during interaction drives acquisition
- Noticing Hypothesis — The cognitive mechanism through which feedback produces acquisition
- Sakubo
Research
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.
The foundational classroom study documenting feedback types and learner uptake in French immersion classrooms, establishing the distinction between recasts and negotiation-prompting feedback types and demonstrating differential uptake rates that have shaped subsequent research and pedagogy.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
An experimental study comparing implicit feedback (recasts) and explicit feedback (metalinguistic explanation) on L2 grammar acquisition, finding advantages for explicit feedback on delayed posttests — contributing to the empirical case for explicit over purely implicit corrective feedback.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
A meta-analysis of 33 studies examining corrective feedback effects on L2 accuracy, finding overall positive effects with moderation by feedback type, linguistic target, and immediately-delayed outcome timing — the most comprehensive quantitative synthesis of corrective feedback effectiveness research.