The role of interactional feedback has long been of interest to both second language acquisition researchers and teachers and has continued to be the object of intensive empirical and theoretical inquiry. In this article, I provide a synthesis and analysis of recent research and developments in this area and their contributions to second language acquisition (SLA). I begin by discussing the theoretical underpinnings of interactional feedback and then review studies that have investigated the provision and effectiveness of feedback for language learning in various settings. I also examine research in a number of other key areas that have been the focus of current research including feedback timing, feedback training, learner–learner interaction, and computer-assisted feedback. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the issues examined with regard to classroom instruction.
AdamsR. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
Alcón SolerE.García MayoM.P. (2008). Incidental focus on form and learning outcomes with young foreign language classroom learners. In: PhilpJ.OliverR.MackeyA. (Eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play?: Volume 23 (pp. 173–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3.
AmmarA.SpadaN. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and l2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
4.
AppelG.LantolfJ. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
5.
AyounD. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passe compose and the imparfait. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.
6.
BatstoneR. (2007). Recontextualizing focus on form. In: FotosS.NassajiH. (Eds.), Form focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 87–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BowerJ.KawaguchiS. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English etandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15, 41–71.
8.
BraidiS.M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.
9.
ButlerA.C.KarpickeJ.D.RoedigerH.L.III (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 273–281.
10.
CampilloP. (2005). An analysis of uptake following teacher’s feedback in the ESL classroom. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada / Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics (RESLA), 17–18, 209–222.
11.
CarpenterH.JeonK.MacGregorD.MackeyA. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.
12.
CarrollS. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition: Volume 25. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
13.
ChaudronC. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.
14.
de la FuenteM.J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 47–81.
15.
DilansG. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 787–816.
16.
EllisR. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 69–92.
17.
DoughtyC. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
DoughtyC.VarelaE. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In: DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
EgiT. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The role of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537.
21.
EllisR. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
EllisR. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. 2nd edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
EllisR.BasturkmenH.LoewenS. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
25.
EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–369.
26.
EllisR.SheenY. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
27.
ErlamR.LoewenS. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral french interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 877–905.
28.
FosterP. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.
29.
FuT.NassajiH. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 161–183.
30.
FujiiA.MackeyA. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner–learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 267–301.
31.
GassS. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
GassS. (2003). Input and interaction. In: DoughtyC.LongM. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford:: Blackwell.
33.
GassS.MackeyA. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.
34.
GassS.VaronisE. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In EisensteinM. (Ed.), Variation and second language acquisition (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum.
35.
GassS.VaronisE. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
36.
GassS.MackeyA.Ross-FeldmanL. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.
37.
GooJ. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
38.
GooJ.MackeyA. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
39.
HanZ. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.
40.
HawkesL.NassajiH. (2016). The role of extensive recasts in error detection and correction by adult ESL students. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 19–41.
41.
HeiftT. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 16, 416–431.
42.
IshidaM. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311–394.
43.
IwashitaN. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.
44.
JunqueiraL.KimY. (2013). Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers’ corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 181–206.
45.
KulikJ.A.KulikC.-L.C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58, 79–97.
46.
LeeL. (2002). Enhancing learners ‘ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Languaeg Annlas, 35, 16–24.
47.
LeeL. (2011). Focus-on-form through peer feedback in a Spanish–american telecollaborative exchange. Language Awareness, 20, 343–357.
48.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
49.
LightbownP. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In: HanZ. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
50.
LoewenS. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.
51.
LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14.
52.
LoewenS.NabeiT. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 361–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
LoewenS.PhilpJ. (2006). Recasts in adults English L2 classrooms: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.
54.
LoewenS.ReissnerS. (2009). A comparison of incidental focus on form in the second language classroom and chatroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 101–114.
55.
LongM. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In: DeBotK.GinsbergeR.KramschC. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
56.
LongM. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: RitchieW.BhatiaT. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
57.
LongM. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58.
LongM.RobinsonP. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In: DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
60.
LysterR.IzquierdoJ. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.
61.
LysterR.MoriH. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
62.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
63.
LysterR.RantaL. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.
64.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
65.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2012). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
66.
MackeyA. (2007). The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67.
MackeyA.GassS. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178.
68.
MackeyA.GooJ. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69.
MackeyA.PhilpJ. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
70.
MackeyA.GassS.McDonoughK. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
71.
MackeyA.OliverR.LeemanJ. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.
72.
MackeyA.PolioC.McDonoughK. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachersí use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301–327.
73.
MackeyA.PhilpJ.FujiiA.EgiT.. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
74.
McDonoughK. (2001). Exploring the relationship between modified output and L2 learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA.
75.
McDonoughK. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
76.
McDonoughK. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
77.
McDonoughK. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
78.
McDonoughK.MackeyA. (2000). Communicative tasks, conversational interaction and linguistic form: An empirical study of thai. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 82–92.
79.
McDonoughK.MackeyA. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.
80.
MetcalfeJ.KornellN.FinnB. (2009). Delayed versus immediate feedback in children’s and adults’ vocabulary learning. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1077–1087.
81.
MurphyD.F. (1986). Communication and correction in the classmom. ELT Journal, 40, 146–151.
82.
NabeiT.SwainM. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 43–63.
83.
NagataN. (1997). The effectiveness of computer-assisted metalinguistic instruction: A case study in Japanese. Foreign Language Annals, 2, 187–200.
84.
NakataT. (2014). Effects of feedback timing on second language vocabulary learning: Does delaying feedback increase learning?Language Teaching Research, 19, 416–434.
85.
NassajiH. (2000). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 241–250.
86.
NassajiH. (2007a). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511–548.
87.
NassajiH. (2007b). Focus on form through recasts in dyadic student–teacher interaction: A case for recast enhancement. In: GascoigneC. (Ed.), Assessing the impact of input enhancement in second language education. (pp. 53–69). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
88.
NassajiH. (2007c). Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners’ written errors. In: FotosS.NassajiH. (Eds.), Form focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 117–129). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
89.
NassajiH. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
90.
NassajiH. (2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 907–933.
91.
NassajiH. (2011a). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 315–334.
92.
NassajiH. (2011b). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17–29.
93.
NassajiH. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Language Learning, 63, 835–869.
94.
NassajiH. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.
95.
NassajiH. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 49, 35–62.
96.
NassajiH.CummingA. (2000). What’s in a zpd? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4, 95–121.
97.
NassajiH.FotosS. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.
98.
NassajiH.SwainM. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
99.
NicholasH.LightbownP.SpadaN. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.
100.
NobuyoshiJ.EllisR. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acqusition. ELT Journal, 47, 113–128.
101.
OhtaA. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom in the Japanese classroom. In: HallJ.K.VerplaesteL. (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. (pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
102.
OliverR. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481.
103.
OliverR. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.
104.
PanovaI.LysterR. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.
105.
PhilpJ. (2003). Constraints on ‘noticing the gap’: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
106.
PicaT. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
107.
PicaT. (1996a). Do second language learners need negotiation?IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34, 1–21.
108.
PicaT. (1996b). Do second language learners need negotiation?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34, 1–21.
109.
PolioC.GassS.ChapinL. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate speaker perceptions in native–nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 237–267.
110.
Ross-FeldmanL. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
111.
RussellJ.SpadaN. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In: NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
112.
SachsR.SuhB.-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 199–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
113.
SagarraN.AbbuhlR. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216.
114.
SaitoK. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasi-experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 842–854.
115.
SaitoK. (2013). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the perception and production of English/ɹ/to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63, 499–529.
116.
SatoM. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633.
117.
SatoM.LysterR. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor versus feedback types. In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
118.
SatoM.LysterR. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.
119.
SauroS. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96–120.
120.
SchachterJ. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89–102.
121.
SheenY. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
122.
SheenY. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.
123.
SheenY. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
124.
SlimaniA. (1992). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In: AndersonC.BerettaA. (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 197–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
125.
SternH. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
126.
SwainM. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: GassS.MaddenC. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
127.
SwainM. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
128.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In: WiddowsonH.G.CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of h. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
129.
TrofimovichP.AmmarA.GatbontonE. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
130.
Van LierL. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
131.
VarnosfadraniA. (2006). A comparison of the effects of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed corrective feedback on learners ‘ performance in tailor-made tests. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
132.
VasquezC.HarveyJ. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14, 421–443.
133.
VygotskyL.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
134.
WareP.O’DowdR. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 43–63.
135.
WilliamsJ. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
136.
YangY.LysterR. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learnersíacquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
137.
YilmazY. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
138.
YilmazY.YukselD. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477.
139.
YoshidaR. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17, 78–93.
140.
YoshidaR. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom?The Modern Language Journal, 94, 293–314.
141.
ZhaoS.BitchenerJ. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447.
