Recent research indicated the effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback (CF) on second language (L2) learning. What is little known is the moderating effects of learner individual factors such as foreign language anxiety (FLA) on the efficacy of immediate and delayed CF. The primary aim of the present study is thus to investigate if learners’ FLA can moderate the effectiveness of immediate and delayed feedback. To this end, 82 learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) were randomly assigned to two treatment conditions as well as a control group. During three treatment sessions, the participants performed storytelling tasks in groups of four and received either immediate or delayed metalinguistic feedback for the errors they made. Regarding the immediate feedback condition, each participant received metalinguistic feedback immediately following an error while doing the storytelling task. For the delayed feedback condition, metalinguistic feedback was offered for each error at the end of each storytelling task. Two testing instruments, a writing task and an error correction test were used as pretest, posttest and delayed posttest to measure learners’ development as a result of the treatment sessions. Without considering learners’ FLA, the findings revealed that immediate and delayed CF are equally effective to promote L2 development. However, when taking into consideration learners’ FLA through regression analysis, the results revealed that immediate CF was more beneficial for learners with low FLA compared to high anxiety learners, but no significant associations were found between FLA and delayed CF efficacy.
AidaY. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 155–168.
2.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ.P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
3.
AmmarA. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.
4.
ArroyoD.C.YilmazY. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, 68, 942–972.
5.
BitchenerJ. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
6.
CanalsL.GranenaG.YilmazY.MalickaA. (2021). The relative effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback in video-based computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211052793
7.
ChengY.S. (2017). Development and preliminary validation of four brief measures of L2 language-skill-specific anxiety. System, 68, 15–25.
8.
ChengY.S.HorwitzE.K.SchallertD.L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, 417–446.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Erlbaum.
10.
DeKeyserR. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.
11.
DeKeyserR.M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–113). Routledge.
12.
DörnyeiZ. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
DoughtyC. (2001). The cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge University Press.
14.
EgiT. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.
15.
ElkhafaifiH. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 89, 206–220.
EllisR.BarkhuizenG. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.
18.
EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
19.
EllisR.SheenY.MurakamiM.TakashimaH. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
20.
ErlamR.LoewenS. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 877–905.
21.
FuM.LiS. (2020). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 2–34.
22.
FuM.LiS. (2023). The associations between foreign language anxiety and the effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12708
23.
GooJ. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
24.
GrantD.M.WhiteE.J. (2016). Influence of anxiety on cognitive control processes. In BraddickO. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford University Press.
25.
GuchteM.BraaksmaM.RijlaarsdamG.BimmelP. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 246–262.
26.
HertelP.T.MathewsA. (2011). Cognitive bias modification: Past perspectives, current findings, and future applications. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 521–536.
27.
HorwitzE.K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a foreign language anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559–562.
28.
HorwitzE.K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112–127.
29.
HorwitzE.K. (2017). On the misreading of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) and the need to balance anxiety research and the experiences of anxious language learners. In GkonouC.DaubneyM.DewaeleJ.M. (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 31–50). Multilingual Matters.
30.
HorwitzE.K.HorwitzM.B.CopeJ. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
31.
KimJ.NassajiH. (2018). Incidental focus on form and the role of learner extraversion. Language Teaching Research, 22, 698–718.
32.
KourtaliN.E.BorgesL. (2023). The effects of feedback timing on L2 development in written SCMC. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2171066
33.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
34.
LiS. (2020). What is the ideal time to provide corrective feedback? Replication of Li, Zhu & Ellis (2016) and Arroyo & Yilmaz (2018). Language Teaching, 53, 96–108.
35.
LiS.EllisR.ZhuY. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 693–722.
36.
LiS.ZhuY.EllisR. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295.
37.
LiuM.JacksonJ. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71–86.
38.
LoewenS.NabeiT. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361–377). Oxford University Press.
39.
LongM. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de BotK.GinsbergR.KramschC. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). John Benjamins.
40.
LongM. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
41.
LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–402.
42.
LysterR.IzquierdoJ. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.
43.
LysterR.MoriH. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
44.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
45.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
46.
MacIntyreP.D.GardnerR.C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41, 85–117
47.
MacIntyreP.D.GardnerR.C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283–305.
48.
MacIntyreP.D.GregersenT. (2012). Affect: The role of language anxiety and other emotions in language learning. In MercerS.RyanS.WilliamsM. (Eds.), Language learning psychology: Research, theory and pedagogy (pp. 103–118). Palgrave.
49.
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.
50.
MartinS.ValdiviaI.M.A. (2017). Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 1–15.
51.
McLaughlinB.RossmanT.McLeodB. (1983). Second language learning: An information-processing perspective 1. Language Learning, 33, 135–158.
52.
NassajiH. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 53, 3–28.
53.
NetzH.FogelO. (2019). Input-providing vs. output-pushing corrective feedback in dyadic tutoring sessions. System, 87, 102159.
54.
NorouzianR.PlonskyL. (2018). Eta-and partial eta-squared in L2 research: A cautionary review and guide to more appropriate usage. Second Language Research, 34, 257–271.
55.
OrtegaL. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education.
56.
OxfordR.ChoY.LeungS.KimH. -J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 1–47.
57.
PicaT. (1984). Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 69–78.
58.
PlonskyL.OswaldF. L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
59.
QuinnP. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
60.
QuinnP.NakataT. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 35–47). Routledge.
61.
RassaeiE. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development. System, 41(2), 472–483.
62.
RassaeiE. (2015a). The effects of foreign language anxiety on EFL learners’ perceptions of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 87–101.
63.
RassaeiE. (2015b). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.
64.
RassaeiE.RavandH. (2023). Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0137
65.
SaitoY.HorwitzE. K.GarzaT. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 83, 202–218.
66.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68, 507–545.
67.
SawyerS.F. (2009). Analysis of variance: the fundamental concepts. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 17, 27E–38E.
68.
ScovelT. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, 129–142.
69.
SheenY. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford University Press.
70.
SheenY. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
71.
SheenY. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer.
72.
ShintaniN.EllisR. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.
73.
SparksR.L.PattonJ.LuebbersJ. (2018). L2 anxiety and the foreign language reading anxiety scale: Listening to the evidence. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 738–762.
74.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.
75.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
76.
SwainM. (2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In: HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum.
77.
TeimouriY.GoetzeJ.PlonskyL. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 363–387.
78.
YangY.LysterR. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
79.
ZhangL.J.RahimiM. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429–439.
80.
ZhaoY.EllisR. (2020). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person-s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26, 361–381.
