1 T H E E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L OF A P P L I E D L I N G U I S T I C S A N D T E F L 1 ASSESSING ASSUMPTIONS OF CLASSROOM-SITUATED ORAL ERROR FEEDBACK RESEARCH Douglas Paul Margolis, University of Wisconsin-River Falls, USA 1. INTRODUCTION Ask researchers, teachers and language students if oral errors should be corrected in the classroom and the response likely will be affirmative. Numerous student and teacher error feedback preference studies mostly suggest that students want, or expect, error feedback and that teachers believe they should provide it (see Margolis, 2007). Russell and Spada (2006), moreover, conducted an exhaustive meta-analysis of the error feedback literature and found a fairly strong effect size suggesting that providing feedback is beneficial for language acquisition. In addition, when theorists suggest that error feedback might not be necessary or helpful for acquisition (e.g. Krashen, 1980; Truscott, 1999; VanPatten, 2002), other researchers are quick to raise counterarguments (e.g. Lyster, Lightbown & Spada, 1999) or collect data demonstrating a value to feedback (e.g. Ammar & Spada, 2006). Interest in oral error feedback has led to a growing body of research (e.g. Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Han, 2002; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Lyster, 2004; Smith, 2005; Ammar & Spada, 2006; Bigelow, delMas, Hansen & Tarone, 2006; Lee, 2006; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Margolis, 2007; Sheen, 2007a; Ammar, 2008). Researchers have investigated both oral and written error feedback phenomena, but this article limits itself to the oral error feedback domain because fundamental differences exist between the two: (a) oral feedback tends to be given nearer in time to when the error was committed than written feedback, (b) oral feedback tends to be mostly provided in a spoken and temporary mode, while feedback for writing is often written and potentially permanent and (c) oral feedback frequently occurs in the classroom context in front of an audience, while feedback for writing can be received in the safety of a one-on-one conference or without auditors. A number of oral error feedback studies focus on recasts, or reformulations of the learner’s ill-formed utterance into a correct model, finding evidence that recasts frequently occur and seem effective in some contexts (Mackey & Philp, 1998; Nicholas, Lightbown & Spada, 2001; Braidi, 2002; Han, 2002; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Lyster & Mori, 2006). Other studies have reported that prompts, or feedback aimed at eliciting self-correction or modified output, may be more effective than recasts in some contexts (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster, 2001, 2004; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Tsang, 2004; Ammar & Spada, 2006; Ammar, 2008). Still other studies report that meta-linguistic information provided with error feedback may increase feedback efficacy (Carroll & Swain, 1993; Ellis, Sheen, 2004, 2007b; Loewen & Erlam, 2006). Yet, still other studies suggest, however, that learner aptitude, proficiency, literacy level and motivation play a role in whether learners benefit from error feedback (see Dekeyser, 1993; Bigelow, delMas, Hansen & Tarone, 2006; Sheen, 2007a, 2007b). Reflecting on these research findings, one must wonder exactly