The study investigated the effects of recasts and prompts on learning language forms that arose incidentally in dyadic interaction, focusing on the degree of explicitness of each type of feedback and learner proficiency levels. The data were collected from 64 beginning and upper-intermediate English learners of Korean. Thirty-one beginning learners were randomly assigned to a feedback group and to a control group, and thirtythree upper-intermediate learners were also assigned to a feedback group and to a control group. Each learner was paired with an English speaker and worked on a picture-sequencing task. The learners in the feedback groups received recasts or prompts on their erroneous utterances while the learners in the control groups did not. The effects of feedback were measured by pre-interaction picture descriptions and immediate and delayed post-interaction correction tasks. The study found that both recasts and prompts had some effects on learning the targeted forms, and more explicit forms of each feedback resulted in a higher rate of correction. The beginning learners took more advantages of recasts relative to the upper-intermediate learners, and explicit prompts worked better for the upper-intermediate learners. The effects of prompts sustained longer than recasts in both levels.

Second language (L2) research has reported a facilitative role of interaction in L2 learning. It points out that interactional corrective feedback (ICF), which naturally occurs during negotiation for meaning, is one of many benefits. Research argues that such feedback can draw learners’ attention to their nontargetlike utterances. However, many researchers question whether ICF is perceived by learners as correction to language in meaning-based classrooms since it is interwoven with an on­going conversation. In light of this, the current study aims to investigate in nine intact classrooms how learners perceive ICF. In doing so, the study pioneers in the investigation of how learners perceive ICF differently depending on whether they are direct or indirect recipients. In addition, the study examines whether the type of ICF plays a role in learner perception. The study analyzed stimulated recall interviews from 45 students to measure learner perception. The results show that learners perceived about 50% of ICF as correction and that they were generally more sensitive to the corrective function of feedback when they were direct recipients. However, when instructors use recasts, there is no significant difference in learner perception between direct recipients and indirect recipients.