The Relative Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in Classroom Interaction
Abstract
This chapter first reviews observational research conducted in second and foreign language classrooms that has identified various types of oral corrective feedback that teachers provide in response to learner errors. The chapter then reviews the relative effectiveness of the different types of corrective feedback as attested by quasi-experimental classroom research. Next, a range of variables that moderate the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback is identified to illuminate the challenges that teachers face in providing corrective feedback despite the positive outcomes of empirical studies. Specifically addressed are (a) the confounding messages conveyed by co-occurrences of positive and negative feedback, (b) the extent to which teachers focus on language in communicative discourse either incidentally or intentionally, and (c) the tensions arising from learners’ attested preferences to receive feedback relative to their teachers’ hesitations to provide it. A discourse perspective is adopted throughout to illustrate the complexity of oral corrective feedback used by teachers in ways that sustain classroom interaction and maintain its coherence, but without consistently fulfilling a corrective function.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Classroom studies confirm the effectiveness of classroom corrective feedback when compared with no corrective feedback.
“Lyster (2015) argued that classroom studies confirm the effectiveness of classroom corrective feedback when compared with no corrective feedback.”
From Teachers’ Classroom Interactional Competence: Scale Development and Validation (2023) · cites this paper as Lyster (2015)
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 · Cited by 2,414 · see citing works
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034 · Cited by 2,259 · see citing works
Self-citationLong, M. (1991) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon · Cited by 1,775 · see citing works
The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis
Li, S. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x · Cited by 941 · see citing works
ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA: A Meta-Analysis
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990520 · Cited by 838 · see citing works
Self-citationInteractions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x · Cited by 746 · see citing works
Responses to Recasts: Repetitions, Primed Production, and Linguistic Development
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00393.x · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teachers’ Classroom Interactional Competence: Scale Development and Validation
Tajeddin, Z., & Kamali, J. (2023) · Language Teaching Research Quarterly · doi:10.32038/ltrq.2023.35.01 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lyster, R.
- Corresponding author
- Lyster, Roy
- Venue
- The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-24
- Pages
- 213-228
- OpenAlex
- W1498367422
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- corrective feedback, oral corrective feedback, second language classroom, foreign language classroom, student errors, positive and negative feedback, classroom interaction, discourse coherence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review