Corrective Feedback and the Development of Second Language Vocabulary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter considers the role corrective feedback plays in second language vocabulary acquisition. The first half of the chapter considers the effects of oral corrective feedback. We first provide a classification of oral corrective feedback, and then discuss findings from existing descriptive and experimental studies, followed by pedagogical implications of the findings. Past studies have suggested that vocabulary tends to benefit more from oral corrective feedback than grammar or morphosyntax, possibly due to the high degree of noticeability and less complex abstract nature of vocabulary. The latter half of the chapter discusses the effects of written corrective feedback. After providing a classification of written corrective feedback, we present two major research frameworks: feedback-for-accuracy and feedback-for-acquisition. The chapter then presents results of experimental studies, followed by pedagogical implications of the findings. Existing studies have suggested that written corrective feedback may lead to more appropriate use of vocabulary in subsequent revisions; however, it is not yet clear whether these positive effects can be carried over to a new piece of writing. The chapter concludes with suggestions for further research and calls for more research comparing the effects of different types of corrective feedback, both oral and written, on vocabulary learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".