Home How Selection of a Target Feature Impacts Corrective Feedback: Finding Answers Through Meta-Analysis of Chinese EFL Learners
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

How Selection of a Target Feature Impacts Corrective Feedback: Finding Answers Through Meta-Analysis of Chinese EFL Learners

  • Andrew Schenck

    Andrew SCHENCK is Assistant Professor of English at the State University of New York Korea, in South Korea. His research interests are in English grammar and form-focused instruction.
Published/Copyright: May 18, 2022
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information
Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics
From the journal Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics Volume 45 Issue 2

Abstract

Rather than looking at variables like grammatical feature type, proficiency, and L1 as separate, we must start to view them as interrelated and codependent. In this way, educators may finally learn how to maximize the effect of corrective feedback (CF). A meta-analysis of 13 studies was conducted to examine four styles of CF (implicit prompt, implicit reformulation, explicit prompt, and explicit reformulation) along with the following variables: grammatical feature type, L1 similarity (with Mandarin Chinese), and proficiency level. Results suggest that effect size is highly dependent upon the grammatical feature targeted. Explicit feedback appears to have a scaffolding effect for more semantically or syntactically complex grammatical features. Implicit reformulations (recasts) also provide scaffolding, yielding larger effect sizes than implicit prompts when used with L1 dissimilar features that are more semantically or syntactically complex.

Keywords: feedback; recast; grammar; Chinese; proficiency

About the author

Andrew Schenck

Andrew SCHENCK is Assistant Professor of English at the State University of New York Korea, in South Korea. His research interests are in English grammar and form-focused instruction.

References[1]

Banaruee, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Ruegg, R. (2018). Recasts vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of high school EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.145533310.1080/2331186X.2018.1455333Search in Google Scholar

Benati, A., & Angelovska, T. (2015). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English simple past tense: Age and cognitive task demands. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-001210.1515/iral-2015-0012Search in Google Scholar

Benati, A., & Batziou, M. (2019). The relative effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative forms. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57(3), 265-287. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-003810.1515/iral-2016-0038Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jslw.2005.08.00110.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001Search in Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, M., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Williams, H. A. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Heinle & Heinle.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y10.1186/s40862-016-0010-ySearch in Google Scholar

Cho, H. (2012). Relative effects of prompts and recasts on the development of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. English Teaching, 67(4), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.67.4.201212.5710.15858/engtea.67.4.201212.57Search in Google Scholar

Dyson, B. (2018). Developmental sequences. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-8). John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0054Search in Google Scholar

Dyson, B. P., & Håkansson, G. (2017). Understanding second language processing: A focus on processability theory (Vol. 4). John Benjamins.10.1075/bpa.4Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.xSearch in Google Scholar

Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X10.1017/S027226310606027XSearch in Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.00110.1016/j.system.2008.02.001Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-610.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the meantime...?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.00510.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.81-104). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007Search in Google Scholar

*Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2015.06.00610.1016/j.system.2015.06.006Search in Google Scholar

*Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2019). The effect of two forms of computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 65–83.Search in Google Scholar

Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.0014710.1111/1467-9922.00147Search in Google Scholar

Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127-165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311200070810.1017/S0272263112000708Search in Google Scholar

*Guo, Q., & Barrot, J. S. (2019). Effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct correction on EFL learners’ linguistic accuracy. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(3), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10573569.2018.154032010.1080/10573569.2018.1540320Search in Google Scholar

*Guo, X., & Yang, Y. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(4), 841-858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9566-710.1007/s10936-018-9566-7Search in Google Scholar

*Jiang, L., & Xiao, H. (2014). The efficacy of written corrective feedback and language analytic ability on Chinese learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles. English Language Teaching, 7 (10), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n10p2210.5539/elt.v7n10p22Search in Google Scholar

*Jiang, L., & Yi, H. (2014). The effect of positive evidence and negative feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of the third person singular form. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(6), 124133. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v4n6p12410.5539/ijel.v4n6p124Search in Google Scholar

Kim, S., & Cho, Y. W. (2017). The effects of recasts and working memory on Korean EFL learners' past tense accuracy. English Teaching, 72(4), 105-132. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.72.4.201712.10510.15858/engtea.72.4.201712.105Search in Google Scholar

Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524-536. https: //doi.org/10.1017/S026144481900024710.1017/S0261444819000247Search in Google Scholar

*Li, H., & Iwashita, N. (2019). The role of recasts and negotiated prompts in an FL learning context in China with non-English major university students. Language Teaching Research, 1-15. https://doi.org/10. 1177/136216881983972710.1177/1362168819839727Search in Google Scholar

*Li, H., & Lin, Q. (2007). The role of revision and teacher feedback in a Chinese college context. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 230-239.Search in Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.xSearch in Google Scholar

Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in SystemSystem, 84, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.00610.1016/j.system.2019.05.006Search in Google Scholar

*Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/ modl.1231510.1111/modl.12315Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.01110.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011Search in Google Scholar

Luk, Z. P. S., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles, and possessive ’s. Language Learning, 59(4), 721-754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00524.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00524.xSearch in Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 10.1017/S0272263197001034Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167-184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311200071X10.1017/S027226311200071XSearch in Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310999052010.1017/S0272263109990520Search in Google Scholar

Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.10046910.1016/j.asw.2020.100469Search in Google Scholar

McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40 (1), 205-234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641800055310.1017/S0142716418000553Search in Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.5210.1093/applin/10.1.52Search in Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. (1999). Language processing and second-language development: Processability theory. John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.15Search in Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (Vol. 30). John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/sibil.30Search in Google Scholar

Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., & Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective feedback in SLA: Classroom practice and future directions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n1p2110.5539/ijel.v1n1p21Search in Google Scholar

Sakai, H. (2011). Do recasts promote noticing the gap in L2 learning? The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13 (1), 357-385. https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/main-journals/do-recasts-promote-noticing-the-gap-in-l2-learning/Search in Google Scholar

Schenck, A. (2019). The impact of form-focused instruction on the accuracy of Korean learner production: A meta-analysis of technique and timing. English Teaching, 74(2), 75-102. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.74.2.201906.7510.15858/engtea.74.2.201906.75Search in Google Scholar

Schenck, A. (2020). Using meta-analysis of technique and timing to optimize corrective feedback for specific grammatical features. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00097-910.1186/s40862-020-00097-9Search in Google Scholar

Shin, M. K. (2015). The resetting of the head direction parameter. Studies in Foreign Language Education, 18, 17-35. http://hdl.handle.net/10371/95840Search in Google Scholar

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (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(3), 286-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.01110.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011Search in Google Scholar

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/lang.1202910.1111/lang.12029Search in Google Scholar

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language learning, 60(2), 263-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.xSearch in Google Scholar

Tedick, D. J., & De Gortari, B. (1998). Research on error correction and implications for classroom teaching. ACIE Newsletter, 1(3), 1-6. https://carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol1/Bridge1.3.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.xSearch in Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-610.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6Search in Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.xdoi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.xSearch in Google Scholar

Van De Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task - based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 246-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.1221110.1111/modl.12211Search in Google Scholar

Varnosfadrani, A. D., & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.04.00410.1016/j.system.2008.04.004Search in Google Scholar

*Wang, T., & Jiang, L. (2015). The effects of written corrective feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition English collocations. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 319-338. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2015-002010.1515/cjal-2015-0020Search in Google Scholar

Williams, J. (1995). Focus on form in communicative language teaching: Research findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 12-16.Search in Google Scholar

Xie, Q., & Yeung, C. (2018). An investigation of implicit vs. explicit oral corrective feedback on Chinese pupils’ use of past tense. Language Education & Assessment, 1(2), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v1n2.6910.29140/lea.v1n2.69Search in Google Scholar

Yang, C., Hu, G., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). Second language research on recasts: A critical review in response to an ongoing debate. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 411-429. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2014-002610.1515/cjal-2014-0026Search in Google Scholar

Yang, M., Cooc, N., & Sheng, L. (2017). An investigation of cross-linguistic transfer between Chinese and English: A meta-analysis. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(15), 121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0036-910.1186/s40862-017-0036-9Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Y., & He, H. (2016). A corpus-based study on definite article errors in English writing. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 5(6), 24-31. https://ijac.org.uk/images/frontImages/gallery/Vol._5_No._6/3._24-31.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

*Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL students’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235 –263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310999051910.1017/S0272263109990519Search in Google Scholar

*Yu, C. L., & Cheng, Y. S. (2017). The effect of focused direct written corrective feedback with metalinguistic explanations on EFL learners’ accurate use of English articles. English Teaching & Learning, 41(3). https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2017.41.3.0210.6330/ETL.2017.41.3.02Search in Google Scholar

*Zhao, Y. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit recasts on the acquisition of two grammatical structures and the mediating role of working memory (Doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland Press. http://hdl.handle.net/2292/27315Search in Google Scholar

Appendix A Descriptions of Each Experimental Study

StudyGrammarLearner prof.Treatment durationAssessmentEffect size (number of groups)
1Guo & Barrot (2019)regular and irregular past tense, and preposition75 first-year non-English- major students at a university in China (pre-intermediate)(1 week) 5 minutes to review written feedback in week 3 and immediate posttest40 min to write 150–200 words about a pictureMetalinguistic Feedback (Explicit Prompt) d = .89 (1) Direct Feedback (Explicit Reformulation) d = 1.19 (1)
2Li, Zhu, & Ellis (2016)English passive voice120 8th-grade EFL learners at a public school in southeastern China (no proficiency info)(1 week) The study spanned 3 days. On Day 2, the experimental groups received treatment followed by the immediate posttestsElicited Imitation Test (EIT) required each learner to verbally repeat some sentences (grammatical and ungrammatical)Recasts (Implicit Reformulation) d = .67 (2)
3Yang & Lyster (2010)irregular and regular past72 undergraduate EFL students (64 females and 8 males) at a university in northern China (no proficiency info)(2 weeks) Treatment lasts 2 hoursRetell a story based on a series of word cues. For 3 min, the students silently read the story in the L2, before returning the text to the researcherImplicit Prompt d = 1.24 (4) Recast (Implicit Reformulation) d = .86 (4)
4Yu & Cheng (2017)definite and indefinite English articles62 non-English-majors from two intact classes in a public university in northern Taiwan (intermediate and high intermediate)(3 weeks) 3 writing tasks and revisions over semesterWriting tests completed in 25 minutes in class. Time constraint set to gauge the students’ procedural knowledgeCombined: Direct and Metalinguistic Feedback d = .03 (1)
5Frear & Chiu (2015)regular past, irregular past, and past copula42 university-level Chinese learners of English in a Taiwanese context (no info about proficiency)(1 week) Students given 5 mins to study feedback and then immediate posttestAll writing tasks were given. Students read a text and then the text was taken away. They had to rewrite itMetalinguistic (Explicit) Prompt d = .74 (2)
6Li & Lin (2007)2nd Conditional (If I were, I would..)93 participants were sampled from 150 sophomores in Chongqing University, PR China. (no info about proficiency)(1 week) week 4 treatment either revision or feedback or both 30 mins / Posttest not until week 7Asked to write a composition in 30 minutes using at least five sentences with the target forMetalinguistic Feedback (Explicit Prompt) d = .65 (2)
7Zhao (2015)third person singular -s109 Chinese University Participants (no info about proficiency)(2 weeks) 3rd person singular treatment weeks 2 to 4 / immediate posttest week 4Elicited Imitation designed for measure of implicit knowledgeRecast (Implicit Reformulation) d = .92 (8)
8Wang & Jiang (2015)adjective- noun / verb- noun80 intermediate-level Chinese students from three intact university classes (intermediate proficiency)(1 week) Week 3 situated feedback or direct corrective feedback or no corrective feedbackTranslation test 16 target items and 20 min limit / designed for measure of productionCombined (Situated Feedback) d = 3.46 (1) Direct Feedback (Explicit Reformulation) d = 2.11 (1)
9Gao & Ma (2019)simple past117 first-year undergraduate learners of EFL from a Chinese university (intermediate proficiency)(1 week) Only 1 session. First had writing 20 min. pretest, treatment 12 mins and posttestAll the writing tasks were modeled on Task 1 of the IELTS academic writing test. Summarize chart by writing 150 to 200 words within 20 minutesMetalinguistic Feedback (Explicit Prompt) d = .06 (1) Combined: Metalinguistic CF Plus Correction d = .17 (1)
10Jiang & Xiao (2014)English articles98 low-intermediate Chinese students from three intact classrooms in a junior college in China (no info about proficiency)(2 weeks) The two treatment sessions took place in week 3 and 4 with immediate posttest in week 410 sequential pictures. Students were asked to write a coherent story of at least 150 words / 30 minsDirect Feedback (Explicit Reformulation) d = 1.47 (1) Combined: Direct Metalinguistic Feedback and Correct Form d = 4.35 (1)
11Jiang & Yi (2014)third person singular -s125 low-intermediate students from three classes in a junior college in China. (low intermediate)(2 weeks) Week 2 and 3 treatment and posttest right afterSpeed dictation / required to complete 15 blanks in a passage based on what they heard in the tape.Metalinguistic Feedback (Explicit Prompt) d = .51 (1)
12Li & Iwashita (2019)wh and yes/ no questions / past regular and irregular tensesNinety students, Chinese learners all had Mandarin as the L1 (no information on proficiency)(1 week) Between Day 3 and Day 9. Posttest given at the end of the treatment lessons on Day 9Each version contained a warm-up, spot-the-difference, story-discovery and storytelling tasks. / Both oral and timedRecast (Implicit Reformulation) d = .08 (4) Implicit Prompt d = -.01 (4)
13Guo & Yang (2018)third person singular -s178 students from four classes in a three-year college in China (intermediate)(3 weeks) Three activities spread over three weeks, each lasting about 25min15 min free response writing designed to test implicit knowledgeRecast (Implicit Reformulation) d = .11 (1) Implicit Prompt d = .35 (1)

Appendix B. Effect Size by Type of Feedback and Proficiency Level

Feedback typeProficiency levelMeanNStudies calculated (number of groups)*
PromptIntermediate.3521113(1)
Metalinguistic (Explicit) promptHigh beginner.890911(1)
Low intermediate.5101111(1)
Intermediate.061519(1)
RecastIntermediate.1058113(1)
Direct (Explicit) FeedbackHigh beginner1.186711(1)
Intermediate2.113718(1)
CombinedIntermediate1.815628(1), 9(1)
High intermediate.028314(1)
TotalHigh beginner1.038821(2)
Low intermediate.5101111(1)
Intermediate1.044068(2), 9(2), 13(2)
High intermediate.028314(1)

  1. Note. * Please refer to Appendix A for more information about each study.

Published Online: 2022-05-18
Published in Print: 2022-05-25

© 2022 BFSU, FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. The Processing of Chinese as a Second Language Guest Editor: Huili WANG
  3. The Influence of Chinese Proficiency and Cultural Background on CFL Learners’ Comprehension of Chinese Logogriphs
  4. Motor Compatibility Effect on the Comprehension of Complex Manual Action Sentences in L2: An ERP Study
  5. Orthographic, Semantic, and Contextual Influences on Initial Processing and Learning of Novel Words During Reading: Evidence From Eye Movements
  6. New Research Trends in TESOL Guest Editors: Rining (Tony) WEI & Xuesong (Andy) GAO
  7. New Research Trends in TESOL: An introduction
  8. Discourses of Chinese ELT Stakeholders on Native Speakerism
  9. The Influence of Combining Computer-Assisted Language Learning With Instruction on Chinese College Students’ L2 Pragmatic Ability
  10. Chinese University Students’ Attitudes Toward Chinese-English Classroom Code-Switching
  11. Second Language Acquisition
  12. How Selection of a Target Feature Impacts Corrective Feedback: Finding Answers Through Meta-Analysis of Chinese EFL Learners
  13. Cross-Cultural Communications
  14. Transformative Learning: Intercultural Adaptation of Chinese Teachers at the Confucius Institute in Spain
  15. Abstracts
  16. Chinese Abstracts
https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0208
Keywords for this article
feedback; recast; grammar; Chinese; proficiency

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. The Processing of Chinese as a Second Language Guest Editor: Huili WANG
  3. The Influence of Chinese Proficiency and Cultural Background on CFL Learners’ Comprehension of Chinese Logogriphs
  4. Motor Compatibility Effect on the Comprehension of Complex Manual Action Sentences in L2: An ERP Study
  5. Orthographic, Semantic, and Contextual Influences on Initial Processing and Learning of Novel Words During Reading: Evidence From Eye Movements
  6. New Research Trends in TESOL Guest Editors: Rining (Tony) WEI & Xuesong (Andy) GAO
  7. New Research Trends in TESOL: An introduction
  8. Discourses of Chinese ELT Stakeholders on Native Speakerism
  9. The Influence of Combining Computer-Assisted Language Learning With Instruction on Chinese College Students’ L2 Pragmatic Ability
  10. Chinese University Students’ Attitudes Toward Chinese-English Classroom Code-Switching
  11. Second Language Acquisition
  12. How Selection of a Target Feature Impacts Corrective Feedback: Finding Answers Through Meta-Analysis of Chinese EFL Learners
  13. Cross-Cultural Communications
  14. Transformative Learning: Intercultural Adaptation of Chinese Teachers at the Confucius Institute in Spain
  15. Abstracts
  16. Chinese Abstracts
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0208/html
Scroll to top button