{"title":"词汇错误的口头纠正反馈:系统回顾","authors":"Xiaochen Tan, B. Reynolds, Xuan Van Ha","doi":"10.1515/applirev-2022-0053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":46472,"journal":{"name":"Applied Linguistics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oral corrective feedback on lexical errors: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Xiaochen Tan, B. Reynolds, Xuan Van Ha\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/applirev-2022-0053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Linguistics Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Linguistics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0053\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Linguistics Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0053","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Oral corrective feedback on lexical errors: a systematic review
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.