This study investigated the relative effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on the acquisition of -ing/-ed participial adjectives by Spanish English-as-a-foreign-language learners in video-based computer-mediated communication. Fifty-two participants took part in a communicative task in one of four groups (two experimental and two control). The immediate-feedback group received explicit corrective feedback during the task whereas the delayed-feedback group received the feedback 24 hours later by means of an edited video recording of the interaction. The effects of the feedback were measured through an oral production task and an untimed grammaticality judgment test. Although the results showed no differences between the two feedback timing groups and control participants on the grammaticality judgment test, both feedback groups outperformed the control group on the oral production task without showing statistically significant timing effects.
AndringaS.RebuschatP. (2015). New directions in the study of implicit and explicit learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 185–196.
2.
ArroyoD.C.YilmazY. (2017). The role of language analytic ability in the effectiveness of different feedback timing conditions. In Gurzynski-WeissL. (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 71–97). John Benjamins.
3.
ArroyoD.C.YilmazY. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, 68, 942–972.
4.
BaraltM. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.
5.
CanalsL.GranenaG.YilmazY.MalickaA. (2020). Second language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of delayed immediate corrective feedback in an asynchronous online setting: An exploratory study. TESL Canada Journal, 37, 181–209.
6.
DeKeyserR. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In DoughtyC.LongM.H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Blackwell.
7.
DeKeyserR. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 97–113). Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
DoughtyC. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In RobinsonP. (Ed.) Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge University Press.
9.
DoughtyC.J.LongM.H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language, Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.
10.
EllisR. (1991). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Wiley-Blackwell.
11.
EllisR. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
12.
EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
13.
GassS.M.MackeyA. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.
14.
GeorgeD.MalleryP. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 17.0 update. 10th edition.Pearson.
15.
González-LloretM. (2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In González-LloretM.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Technology and tasks: Exploring technology-mediated TBLT (pp. 23–50). John Benjamins.
16.
GooJ.MackeyA. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
17.
GooJ.GranenaG.YilmazY.NovellaM. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In RebuschatP. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). John Benjamins.
18.
HendersonC. (2020). Perfect timing? Exploring the effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback, communication mode, and working memory on the acquisition of Spanish as a foreign language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
19.
HendersonC. (2021). The effect of feedback timing on L2 Spanish vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research, 25, 185–208.
20.
JohnsonS.AragonS. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003, 31–43.
21.
Larsen-FreemanD.Celce-MurciaM. (2015). The grammar book: Form, meaning and use for English language teachers. 3rd edition.National Geographic Learning/Cengage.
22.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
23.
LiS.ShintaniN.EllisR. (Eds.). (2015). Synthesizing research in applied linguistics: The complementary contributions of narrative reviews and meta-analyses. Applied Linguistics, 36. Special issue.
24.
LiS.ZhuY.EllisR. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295.
25.
LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14.
26.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.R.BhatiaT.J. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
27.
LongM.H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
LongM.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
29.
LysterR.RantaL. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.
30.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
31.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
32.
MackeyA.GooJ. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407–453). Oxford University Press.
33.
McDonoughK. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ response on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
34.
MonteiroK. (2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video-conferencing. Language Learning and Technology, 18, 56–79.
35.
NassajiH. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19, 129–132.
36.
NicholasH.LightbownP.M.SpadaN. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.
37.
PicaT. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS–NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.
38.
PlonskyL.OswaldF. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
39.
QuinnP. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
40.
RassaeiE. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 133–148.
41.
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). John Benjamins.
42.
SaitoK.AkiyamaY. (2017). Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67, 43–74.
43.
SauroS. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13, 96–120.
44.
ScovelT. (1974). ‘I am interesting in English’. English Language Teaching Journal, 28, 305–312.
45.
SheenY.EllisR. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). Routledge.
46.
ShintaniN.AubreyS. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 100, 296–319.
47.
SmithS.M.HandyJ.D.AngelloG.ManzanoI. (2014). Effects of similarity on environmental context cueing. Memory, 22, 493–508.
48.
TulvingE. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In TulvingE.DonaldsonW. (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). Academic Press.
49.
TulvingE.ThomsonD.M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.
50.
WheelerR.L.GabbertF. (2017). Using self-generated cues to facilitate recall: A narrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 18–30.
51.
YilmazY. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
52.
YilmazY. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344–368.
53.
YilmazY.GranenaG. (2015). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 147–161.
54.
YilmazY.YukselD. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477.
