Oral corrective feedback on lexical errors: a systematic review

Xiaochen Tan, Barry Lee Reynolds*, Xuan Van Ha

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study adopted a synthetic approach to review empirical studies on oral corrective feedback (OCF) for lexical errors. It examined OCF types, lexical target types, interlocutors’ attention to lexical errors, and OCF effectiveness in promoting vocabulary development. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria on studies retrieved from a search of six databases, 31 primary studies were available for coding and analysis. Findings revealed that interlocutors showed a greater preference for recast than prompt and explicit correction. However, recast resulted in the lowest rate of lexical repairs, whereas prompt was found the most effective. Lexical errors received OCF at a higher rate than grammatical errors and phonological errors, indicating that interlocutors paid greater attention to vocabulary problems. OCF was most often provided for the inappropriate choice of lexical items, or inaccurate use of word derivation, involving a wide range of word classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs). Only a few studies looked into OCF targeting a single lexical feature. Findings suggest it may be more effective for teachers to employ prompts to elicit repairs of lexical errors from learners. There is a need for future researchers to conduct empirical OCF studies on a single lexical target.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1177-1221
Number of pages45
JournalApplied Linguistics Review
Volume15
Issue number3
Early online date15 Nov 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2024
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • explicit correction
  • lexical errors
  • lexical repair
  • oral corrective feedback
  • prompts
  • recasts

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Oral corrective feedback on lexical errors: a systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this