ELTWeekly Vol. 4 Issue#11 | March 12, 2012 | ISSN 0975-3036
Mastaneh Haghani is a PhD student of TEFL at Islamic Azad University of Science and Research Campus, Tehran, Iran. She is a member of English Translation Faculty at Islamic Azad University of Tehran North Branch, Iran. Her areas of interest are second language acquisition, theories of learning and syllabus design.
Abstract
Among different types of feedback, corrective feedback has been recognized as a useful tool which can be used by teachers to draw the learners’ attention to the salient features of the language they are learning. This study probes into the effectiveness of different types of corrective feedback and the frequency of their adoption by an English teacher. Besides, the learners’ uptake as a response towards the teachers’ corrective feedback and as a determinant factor for the efficacy of the teacher’s corrective feedback was also examined. Nine sessions of interaction between the teacher and her learners were audiotaped and analyzed. The findings revealed that implicit corrective feedback seemed to be more efficient in pushing the learners to repair their erroneous utterances. Among different types of implicit corrective feedback elicitation proved to be the most effective form of corrective feedback.
Key terms: corrective feedback, uptake, elicitation, recast, interaction
In recent years, a significant role has been considered for interactive features of classroom behaviors, such as turn-taking, questioning and answering, negotiation of meaning and feedback. This has been motivated by the fact that second language learning is a highly interactive process and the nature of this interaction is believed to have a great impact on learning (Ellis, 1994). In other words, interaction and involvement of learners are thought to have an important role in language learning by presenting learners with authentic input and feedback which are viewed to be influential in shaping the interlanguage and providing the comprehensible input. This teacher-student interaction has even greater prominence in an EFL context, for the learners in such conditions have remarkably fewer chances to use their foreign language communicatively both inside and outside the classroom with people speaking the target language. This means that the teacher is the only source learners can rely on for communication, and one of the effective ways in which teachers can have an efficient role in their classes is by providing feedback (Farooq, 1998).
Literature review
The notion of using corrective feedback in an EFL context has been an issue of controversy among scholars for a long period of time. Those who espoused natural approaches discouraged the use of error correction, while those who adopted a cognitive perspective maintained that learners needed to understand the rudiments of the basic rule system and also be provided with corrective feedback in order to learn a language. These diverse viewpoints, over the years, have caused the educators to adopt a more cautious position and remain skeptical of any new perspective, lest it might advocate the old disciplines in disguise(Hadley 2003).
At the present time, as far as the importance of corrective feedback is concerned, there exists the same condition. Nativists such as Chomsky (1975, cited in Borzabadi& Mirsharifi 2008) and Krashen (1982) hold that corrective feedback almost does not have any important functions in language acquisition, on the other hand Swain and Suzuki (2008) as well as Long (1996) in his Interaction Hypothesis advocate it.
Cook (2008) doubts the usefulness of any types of correction, whether recast or any other types. He argues “there is still little proof of its importance to second language learning than second language comprehension, whether correction or recast” (p. 227). Foster (1998) realizes that most students in language classrooms avoid taking part in the interactions if they could, because they would reveal their ignorance in public. Cook (2008) argues that there are numerous factors involved in second language acquisition and it is not clear how significant this factor is in comparison with the rest.
However, there are others who assert that using corrective feedback is more beneficial than ignoring it. Carroll and Swain (1993), for example, studied the effect of different responses to learners’ errors (e.g., giving an explanation, recasting the learner’s offering, inviting the learner to try again) and suggested that all these forms of feedback were more effective than no feedback at all. Lightbown and Spada (1990) also point out that “accuracy, fluency, and overall communicative skills are probably best developed through instruction that is primarily meaning-based but in which guidance is provided through timely form-focused activities and correction in context” (p.443).
Oberli (2003) claims corrective forms of the feedback is at the core of feedback controversy and consequently, offers the greatest challenge in deciding on an appropriate strategy. Crookes and Chaudron (2001) suggest even in the most learner-centered instruction, it is highly important for the students to be provided with corrective feedback, so that they can distinguish acceptable and unacceptable target language use from each other. Nunan (1989) points out that the use of corrective feedback explains the difference between classroom interaction and the interaction that takes place out of classroom where errors are left uncorrected in the discourse of communication. In fact, when an error occurs during the interaction in the language class, the teacher can choose between two solutions: either to address the error, or to ignore it. Corrective feedback has proved to be useful in providing the learners with the chance to modify their erroneous utterances. Moreover, it has a great impact on creating an interactive atmosphere by strengthening the learners’ language proficiency. Therefore, based on what was said, as Brown (2001) suggests, ignoring error correction does not seem to be a logical decision.
Feedback
According to Ellis (1985, as cited in Oberli, 2003), feedback is the teacher’s response to the efforts made by the learner to get his meaning across and it encompasses certain “functions such as correction, acknowledgement, requests for clarification and back channel cues such as ‘Mmm’. It has been suggested that feedback plays a major role in helping learners to test hypotheses they have formed about the rule system of the target language” (p. 6).
As a type of feedback, corrective feedback has been defined by Lightbowen and Spada (1999) as
An indication to a learner that his or her use of the target language is incorrect. This includes a variety of responses that a language learner receives. Corrective feedback can be explicit or implicit and may or may not include metalinguistic information (pp.172-73).
Kagimito and Rodgers (2007) state that issues related to corrective feedback have been researched from a variety of different perspectives and have continued to be the subject of interest to both teachers and researchers. From a pedagogical viewpoint, teachers have attempted to find answers to practical questions such as how and when to correct errors made by students in the classroom. At a more fundamental level, researchers have sought to investigate the nature of corrective feedback and its relationship to language acquisition. Yet despite the widely recognized importance of corrective feedback and its significant role in the classroom, few studies have sought to discover the student’s preferences toward different types of feedback, particularly in terms of error correction in oral activities. Nonetheless, previous research into students’ beliefs towards language learning and error correction suggests that students may have diverse viewpoints regarding how errors should be corrected in the classroom (Schulz, 2001).
So far various bodies of research investigating the use of corrective feedback in the oral classroom have attempted to provide descriptive accounts of the nature of corrective feedback in the classroom, explicating the frequency of use of each feedback type ( Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Farooq1998) and examining its relationship with language acquisition (Bachman &Purpura, 2008; Basiron 2008; Schultz 2001). In their seminal study, Lyster and Ranta (1997) introduced six different types of oral feedback, which they thought to be quite common in the language classroom based on the results of observational studies in French immersion classes. The feedback types were classified as: explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition. They also examined the degree of frequency with which each feedback type occurred. Results showed that recasts were the most common form of feedback in the classroom, encompassing 55% of all corrective feedback presented, while other types, such as explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback, included as little as 7% and 8% respectively. Kagimot and Rodgers (2008) suggest that “recasts are consistently prevalent and the most widely used form of feedback in a communicative classroom setting” (p. 870). Contrary to what Lyster and Ranta (1997), as well as Kagimot and Rodgers (2008) came up with, Russell (2009) doubts the significance of recast as a method of error correction and argues that recasts are ambiguous to the learners, therefore cannot be considered as an effective type of corrective feedback. While the research has shown that one type of feedback (i.e. recasts) has been found to be the most frequent form of feedback, there remains a question as to how effective they are as far as the ultimate learners’ uptake is concerned. Another question is how their efficacy can be estimated in comparison with other types of feedback used in the classroom. The supposed efficacy of each feedback type is arguably estimated by its relationship with language uptake. In their study, although Lyster and Ranta (1997) found recasts to be the most common form of feedback, they also came to know that recasts were least likely to lead to successful uptake. These results were in line with a previous study by Oliver (1995) also found that fewer than 10% of recasts were used in the speakers following utterances. Kagimoto and Rodgers express their doubt regarding the use of implicit form of corrective feedback in comparison with the explicit ones. “Although implicit forms of feedback such as recasts may be frequently used in the communicative classroom therefore, there is still uncertainty as to how effective such forms of correction are in leading to student uptake”(p. 871).
One of the potential problems with implicit correction is to what extent the students actually pay attention to the teacher’s provision of feedback. In a study by Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000), they found that grammatical corrections were much less likely to be noticed than lexical or phonological corrections. This may in part have been the result of the fossilized nature of many grammatical mistakes, making correction less noticeable. As several researchers have suggested that noticing or attention to form is necessary for language acquisition to occur (Ellis 1994; Long 1996), an awareness of the feedback supplied is considered to be a critical aspect of the correction process and a necessary first step if feedback is going to contribute to language learning. While several of the concepts related to corrective feedback are thus fundamental to language learning, it seems that no research so far has attempted to find out what the students’ preferences towards different types of oral feedback available in the language classroom are. The issues related to the learners’ attitude are among the many factors which may influence how students benefit from feedback offered to them. Hence, their possible effects should also be further researched.
The purpose of the study
As the related literature reveals there are a number of factors suggested by scholars which ensure a successful L2 learning conditions in the language classrooms. One of these factors is the provision of useful and consistent feedback from teachers and peers. It is not enough for teachers to have the necessary knowledge or skill to teach English. The language used in the classroom contains certain salient features which need to be highlighted for the students while they are learning it. The corrective feedback provided by the teacher can draw the students’ attention to these salient features through meaningful interactions taking place in the classroom. Hence, in this study it is meant to discover what type of corrective feedback can prove to be more efficient and if error treatment is beneficial, what forms of corrective feedback can attract the learners’ attention to correct their own utterances. The research questions in this study include
1. What are the different types of corrective feedback and their distribution in a communicatively oriented classroom for English language freshmen at college level?
2. What is the distribution of uptake following different types of corrective feedback?
Method
Participants
The participants in this study were a group of university freshmen who study English Translation. The number of participants was 50.They were both male and female with a Persian language background. The classes chosen for the study included two classes of listening and Speaking (I) and one class of Reading Comprehension (I). However, the teacher in all these classes was the same. She had 17 years of teaching experience at different levels both at university and elsewhere.
Procedure
The data used in this study were based on 252 minutes of audio-recordings of the teacher and her students’ interactions during 9 sessions. The time gaps in each session, when the students were asked to have silent reading or to perform work in pairs in the classes held in the college laboratory, were not recorded. This is because the location of the laboratory booths limited the chance for an optimal recording of the interactions among the individuals in the classroom. The types of errors made by the learners were not classified as grammatical , lexical and phonological , for mostly the type of corrective feedback presented by the teacher and the learners’ response to those forms of corrections were meant to be assessed. The utterances of the students might have contained certain types of errors, yet only those errors which were corrected by the teacher were recorded and taken into consideration.
Feedback
The types of feedback examined in this study are based on the categorizations offered by Lyster and Ranta (1997). They suggest that there are six different types of corrective feedback: 1.Explicit correction
It is the explicit provision of the correct form.
(1) Student: I go for a walk last weekend.
Teacher: No, not go – went. You should use the past tense.
2. Recast
It refers to the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance, excluding the error. Recasts are generally indirect and implicit in that they are not suggested by phrases such as “You mean,” “Use this word,” and “It’s better to say.”
Student: I go for a walk last weekend.
Teacher: I see…you went for a walk last weekend.
However, some recasts are more eye-catching than others in that they may concentrate on just one word, whereas others contain the grammatical or lexical modification in the form of sustained piece of discourse. Recasts also include translations in response to a student’s use of the L1.
3. Asking for clarification
This type of feedback informs the students either that their utterance has been vague or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way and that a repetition or a reformulation is needed. This is a feedback type that can indicate problems in either comprehensibility or accuracy, or both.
Student: I go for a walk last weekend.
Teacher: Sorry? Would you say that again?
4. Elicitation,
Teachers elicit completion of their own utterance by strategically waiting for the students’ response to allow them to “fill in the blank”. Such “elicit completion” moves appear after some metalinguistic comment such as “No, not that. It’s a . . . .”
5. Repetition
Teachers repeat, in isolation, the student’s erroneous utterance. In most cases, teachers adjust their intonation in order to highlight the error.
Student: I go for a walk last weekend.
Teacher: I go for a walk last weekend.
6. Metalinguistic Knowledge
Metalinguistic feedback involves either comments, information, or questions about the well-formedness of the student’s utterance, without directly offering them the correct form. Metalinguistic comments suggest that there is an error somewhere.
(4) Student: I go for a walk last weekend.
Teacher: How about the past tense?
It is important to mention that because repetition was nonexistent in the teacher’s corrective feedback, this type of correction was excluded, yet another type of corrective feedback which has been added to the list is multiple feedback, which referred to combinations of more than one type of feedback in one teacher turn.
Uptake
Uptake in this study is based on the definition offered in Lyster and Ranta (1997, p. 49) It “ refers to a student’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student’s initial utterance .” After an uptake, either the teacher or the students continue the lesson. There are two major types of uptakes. In the first type when the teacher provides the corrective feedback, the learner attempts to repair his/her ill-formed utterance. In the second type of uptake, there is no repair in the learner’s uptake or the utterance still needs repair. As it happens in the classroom context, after the teacher’s feedback, the ill-formed utterance might be corrected by the learner himself, or the correct form might be offered by other learners or the teacher herself after a circle of reformulations offered by the other learners. However, in this study these different types of utterances have not been differentiated. The study seeks to detect the types of corrective feedback that elicit the uptake which might or might not need any repair.
Results and Discussions
Based on the results obtained from this study, Table (1) suggests that among all the teachers’ turn, 33.43%, which is about 1/3 of the teachers’ utterances were given to providing the learners with corrective feedback. Although the formal nature of the university classes does not allow for a fully interactive atmosphere, the teacher tried to minimize the amount of teacher talk time and enhance the chances for the learners’ participation. According to what Table (1) presents, the number of students’ turn in the class exceeds that of the teacher’s, yet it is far from the ideal condition for an interactive class condition.
As it was mentioned before, the learners’ utterances might have contained some errors which have not been reported here but rather only the errors which the teacher aimed at correcting were counted. According to the figures presented in Table (1), 27% of the learners’ utterances were noticed by the teacher to contain errors of some type. The teacher might have detected some other errors but she preferred not to correct them, since the repeated interruption to correct each and every error produced by the learners might have a detrimental effect. Among the feedback provided by the teacher, 70% led to the students’ modifying or repairing the errors. The learners had no uptake of any kind to modify their utterances. This might have been caused by the type of feedback presented to the learners (no uptake situations are mostly observed in the case of explicit feedback), or the learners’ concentration on the flow of the lesson. They preferred to continue the lesson rather than focus on the type of errors they have produced. Among the errors uttered by the learners, 6.92% demonstrated the same or other type of error which needed to be “repaired”. However, the manner of error treatment has not been mentioned here, since it is beyond the scope of the present study.
Table1. Frequency of turns with students’ errors, teacher’s feedback, and students’ uptake
| Teacher | Total student turns | Teacher turns with feedback
|
Students’
Error (% of total student turns) |
Students’ no uptake
(% of feedback) |
Students’ repair
(% of feedback) |
Students’ needs repair (% of feedback) |
| 373 | 335 | 101
27% |
26
6.97% |
70
18.76% |
16
4.28% |
As Table (2) indicates, the most frequent feedback presented to the learners is in the form of explicit correction. The reason might be the immediate outcome of it. According to Table (3), among all the different types of the feedback presented to the learners, the explicit correction had the highest degree of success. Table (2) also reveals that the teachers’ second best choice for the type of corrective feedback is elicitation. The teacher preferred to indirectly lead the students towards the right choice, so she adopted implicit correction. The least desirable form of feedback has been using the learners’ metalinguistic knowledge to guide them towards the right answer. The reason might have been the teachers’ reluctance to draw the learners’ attention away from what was going on in the middle of the lesson towards the learners’ metalinguistic knowledge. Considering the large number of the learners in the class (around 30), asking for the underlying knowledge of the students, might not be a favorable strategy.
Table2. Distribution of feedback types
| Types of Feedback | % of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback |
| Recast
|
16
14.28% |
| Elicitation | 32
28.57% |
| Clarification request
|
8
7.14% |
| Metalinguistic knowledge | 4
3.57% |
| Explicit correction
|
42
37.5% |
| Multiple Feedback | 10
8.92% |
| Total | 112
33.43% |
Concerning the type learners’ response towards the teachers’ correction, it can be inferred that elicitation has been the most successful one, because in elicitation, which is a kind of implicit correction, the learners are pushed to self-correct and provide the right answer. As Table (3) suggests, the most frequent type of feedback has been the explicit correction; however, the learners have been more responsive towards elicitation, where they have been forced to think. It seems that the learners have been more active in response to interaction, for in the cases which the teacher used explicit correction, the learners’ no uptake reaction increased. In 28.57% of the cases when the teacher used explicit correction, the learners chose to take no uptake. This situation reduces to 6.2% when the teacher used elicitation for correction. As the learners are pushed to think when they encounter implicit correction the number of erroneous utterances decreases, as well.
In the cases when the teacher used recast, the learners in 68.75% had no uptake. This might have been due to the fact that noticing the erroneous part in their utterances, the learners found no point in responding. In cases where the learners were asked for clarification or had to use their metalinguistic knowledge, they were forced to have an active role and self-correct their own utterances. In both cases the record did not show any cases of ‘no uptake’ in the part of the learners. It seems that these two forms of correction have also been efficient forms of indirect feedback, yet they were not adopted very often by the teacher.
Table 3. Uptake following teacher feedback
| Repair | Needs Repair | No Uptake | |
| Explicit correction (n=42) | 22
52.38% |
8
19.04% |
12
28.57% |
| Elicitation(n=32) | 26
81.25% |
4
12.5% |
2
6.2% |
| Recast(n=16) | 5
31.25% |
_ | 11
68.75% |
| Clarification Request(n=8) | 8
100% |
_ | _ |
| Metalinguistic knowledge(n=4) | 2
50% |
2
50% |
_ |
| Multiple feedback(n=10) | 7
70% |
2
20% |
1
10% |
Conclusion
The result of the this study unveiled the fact that implicit form of feedback provision seems to be more useful in that it would cause the learners to take an active role in the classroom interaction and modify their erroneous output. Besides, it seems that the students were more responsive to implicit correction; the reason might be because they found it more challenging. However, the teacher adopted an explicit form of correction more than the other types. The second most commonly used form of feedback was implicit feedback in the form of elicitation. The result might seem to be different from that of the research done by Lyster and Ranta (1997), who stated that the most common form of implicit feedback used in language classrooms is recast. However, it was in line with the result of their study in that as Lyster and Ranta (1997) suggested, explicit feedback which are used commonly in the language classrooms, does not provoke the learners’ uptake.
REFERENCES
Bachman L. F., &Purpura, J.E. (2008). Language assessments: Gate-keepers or door-openers? In B. Spolsky &E. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp.456-469). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Basiron, H. B.(2008). Corrective feedback in dialogue-based computer assisted language learning. Retrieved November 2011 from http://nzcsrsc08.canterbury.ac.nz/site/proceedings/Individual_Papers/pg192_Corrective_ Feedback_in_Dialogue-based_Computer_Assisted_Language_Learning.pdf.
Borzabadi, D., & Mirsharifi, F.(2008). Effective and less effective teacher questioning and corrective feedback behavior in an EFL context. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 41, 5-23.
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by principles. (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.
Cook, V.(2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th, ed.).London: Hodder Education.
Crookes, G. & C. Chaudron (2001). Guidelines for classroom language teaching. In Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second language or foreign language (pp.29-42). Ma: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
Farooq, M. (1998). Analyzing teacher’s questioning strategies, feedback and learners’ outcomes. Retrieved October 2011, from http://www.cels.bham.acuk.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics,19(1),1-23.
Hadley, A. O.(2003). Teaching language in context. (3rd ed.). Massachusetts : Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Kagimoto, E., & Rodgers, M.P.H. (2008).Students’ perceptions of corrective feedback. Retrieved October 2011 from http://jaltpublications.org/archive/proceedings/2007/E079.pdf.
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Lightbown, P. M.,& Spada, N.(1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Lightbown, P. M.,& Spada, N.(1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T.K. Bhatia, (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition(pp.413-468) New York: Academic Press.
Lyster,R.,& Ranta, L.(1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. SSLA, 20, 37–66.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). Do learners recognize implicit negative feedback as feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-497.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oberlie, C. (2003).Questioning and feedback in the interactive classroom: Exploring strategies. Retrieved October 2011 from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/oberliM1A.pdf.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459-481.
Russell , V.(2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching , 6(1), 21–31.
Schulz, R. A.(2001).Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA–Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Swain, M.,& Suzuki, W. (2008). Interaction, output, and communicative language learning. In B. Spolsky &E. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics.(pp. 557-570). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
dirty whore, fuck u bitch