corrective feedback and students' uptake in … feedback and students... · pendigitan untuk...
Post on 06-Feb-2018
233 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND STUDENTS' UPTAKE IN ADULT ESL COMMUNICATIVE CLASSROOM
AILEEN LAU EK LING (11597)
This project is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Education with Honours
Teaching English as Second Language (TESL)
Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Hwnan Development UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARA W AK
2008
-
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS Gred:
nmUL: CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND STUDENTS' UPTAKE IN ADULT ESL COMMUNICATIVE CLASSROOM
SESI PENGAJIAN : 2004 - 2008
Saya AILEEN LAU EK LING (HURUF BESAR)
mengaku membenarkan tesis * ini disimpan di Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti J\![alaysia Sarawak dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:
l. Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Malaysia Sarawak 2. Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak dibenarkan membuat
salinan untuk tujuan pengajian sahaja 3. Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak dibenarkan membuat
pendigitan untuk membangunkan Pangkalan Data Kandungan Tempatan 4. Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak dibenarkan membuat
salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara institusi pengajian tinggi 5. ** sila tandakan (,I )
DSULIT
DTERHAD
D TIDAK TERHAD
(mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau kepentingan seperti terrnaktub di dalam AKT A RAHSIA RASMI 1972)
(Mengandungi maklumat Terhad yang telah ditentukan oleh organisasi/badan di mana penyelidikan dijalankan)
(TANDATANGANPENULIS) (T ANDAT ANGAN PENYELIA)
AIamat Tetap:
13, LORONG SEBUYAU, JALAN AWANG RAMLI AMIT, 96000 SIEU, SARA W AK.
Tarikh: Tarikh: ________ . ____ _
Catatan: * TeS1S dlmaksudkan sebagm teslS bag! IJazah Doktor Falsafah, SarJana dan SarJana Muda *Jika tesis ini SULIT atau 1ERHAD, sila Jampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasalorganisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh tesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai TERHAD.
-
The project entitled Corrective Feedback and Students' Uptake in Adult ESL Communicative Classroom was prepared by Aileen Lau Ek Ling and submitted to the Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Education with Honours (Teaching English as a Second Language).
It is hereby confirmed that the student has done all the necessary amendments of the project for acceptance
(Dr. Ting Su Hie)
Date: _______ _
Grade
-
ABSTRACT
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND STUDENTS' UPTAKE IN ADULT ESL COMMUNICATIVE CLASSROOM
Aileen Lau Ek Ling
This study was designed to examine the patterns of en-or treatment sequence in adult ESL communicative classrooms in a tertiary institution. The study investigated the types of corrective feedback used by the instructors and their relationship to students' uptake of feedback and immediate repair of error. A case study was conducted to observe the classroom interaction of 20 classes of students with the average of 30 students per class. From the audio taped recording of the 20 two-hour classroom interaction sessions, 96 incidents comprising of en-ors, con-ective feedback and learner uptake were identified and coded according to Lyster and Ranta's (1997) corrective discourse model. The results included the frequency and distribution of the three ditferent language errors, six different feedback types used by the instructors, and nine different types of students' uptake following each feedback type. The tindings revealed a clear preference for instructors to notice and respond to grammatical and phonological errors. Results indicated an overwhelming tendency for instructors to use recasts to elicit students' response to the feedback, which mostly were repetition and incorporation of the correct form. The study also revealed that recasts were inetfective in encouraging student-generated repairs in spite of the latter's high frequency of use. Consequently, frequency of learners' uptake in tenns of immediate student-generated repair of en-or was low in this study. Other feedback types such as metalinguistic feedback and clarification requests led to student-generated repairs more successfully and allowed students to negotiate the form as the correct form of target language was not provided to students. Generally, the findings have practical applications in the context of ESL communicative classrooms in relation to en-or treatment sequence.
111
-
ABSTRAK
MAKLUM BALAS DAN PEMBETULAN PELAJAR DEW ASA DALAM BILIK DARJAH KOMUNlKATIF ESL
Aileen Lau Ek Ling
Satu kajian kes telah dijalankan dengan tujuan untuk mengkaji urutan kesilapan bahasa secara lisan oleh pelajar dewasa dalam bilik-bilik darjah kamunikatif ESL di satu instilusi pengajian tinggi. Kajian tentang maklum balas digunakan oleh pengajar dan hubungan yang berkaitan dengan pengambilan maklum balas dan pembaikan kesilapan bahasa oleh pelajar-pelajar telah diselidikkan. Satu kajian kes untuk memerhati interaksi bilik darjah bagi 20 kelas yang berpurata 30 pelajar untuk setiap kelas telah djalankan. Daripada 20 rakaman suara bagi sesi-sesi interaksi bilik darjah selama dua jam, 96 contoh kejadian yang mengandungi kesilapan, maklum balas dan pembetulan kesilapan pelajar secara lisan telah dikenalpastikan dan dikodkan mengikut model pembetulan Lyster dan Ranta (1997). Hasil kajian termasuk kekerapan bagi tiga jenis kesilapan bahasa, enam jenis maklum balas yang berbeza digunakan oleh pengajar-pengajar, dan sembilan jenis pembetulan pelajar berikutan setiap jenis maklum balas. Penemuan kajian telah menunjukkan bahawa pengajar memberi keutamaan untuk bermaklum balas terhadap kesilapan gramatis dan fonologi bahasa. Keputusan kajian telah menunjukkan kecenderungan bagi pengajar-pengajar menggunakan recasts untuk mendapatkan respons daripada pelajar-pelajar dan kebanyakan respons pelajar adalah pengulangan dan penyelitan respons betul yang diberikan oleh pengajar. Kajian juga mendedahkan recasts adalah tidak berkesan bagi menggalakkan pelajar dalam membaiki kesilapan bahasa walauplln kekerapan penggllnaannya adalah tinggi. Oleh itu, kekerapan pelajar-pelajar dalam membaiki kesilapan bahasa secara lisan adalah rendah dalam kajian ini. Maklum balas lain seper!i maklum balas me!alinguistik dan permintaan penjelasan adalah lebih berjaya untuk pelajar menghasilkan respons yang betul kerana mengizinkan pelajar-pelaiar untuk berunding tentang bentuk bahasa yang betul memandangkan respons yang betul tidak diberikan oleh pengajar. Umllmnya, penemuan kajian yang berkaitan dengan urutan kesilapan bahasa secara lisan boleh dipraktikkan dalam konteks bilik darjah komllnikatif ESL.
IV
-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Give all glory and honour to my Heavenly Father!
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and heartiest apprecIatIOn to the following people who have guided and supported me throughout the process of accomplishing this project.
1. Dr. Ting Su Hie, my supervisor who has guided me throughout this research on classroom discourse. Thank you for her love, patience, encouragement, advice and professional guidance throughout this research.
2. The instructors who teach Preparatory English I and their students who allowed me to tape recordings in their classrooms.
3. My father, Mr. Lau Yieng Hui and my mother, Mdm. Sii Huong King who always support me through their prayers and encouragements.
4. My beloved pastor, Rev. Ling Man Hsi who prayed for me and was concerned for me throughout my four years of studying in UNIMAS.
5. My dearest coursemates, friends and my 101 housemates-Amelia Soon, Jessica Lau, Ting Sing Yea and Jacinta Yeo who share good times and bad times with me.
v
-
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 Setting of the research problem
1.2 Statement of the problem
2
1.3 Purpose ofthe study
1.4 Objectives of the study
1.5 Operational detinition ofterIns
1.6 Signiticance of the study
1.7 Scope of the study
LITERA TURE REVIEW
Page 111
IV
V
VIII
IX
X
1
4
7
8
8
15
16
18
2.1 Second language learning 18
2.2 Phenomenon and perspectives of error correction in L2 learning 24
2.3 Theoretical framework of study 31
2.4 Relationship between error types, corrective feedback and 37
learners' uptake in communicative classrooms
2.5 Summary 44
VI
-
3
4
5
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research design
3.2 Selection of samples
3.3 Data collection procedures
3.4 Data transcription
3.5 Data analysis
3.6 Limitations of the study
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
48
48
50
54
57
60
64
66
4.1 Learners' language errors 66
4.2 Instructors' corrective feedback 71
4.3 Students' uptake 83
4.4 The relationship between corrective feedback and students' 91
uptake
4.5 Discussion 95
4.6 Summary 102
CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary
5.2 Implications of the findings
5.3 Recommendations for future research
5.4 Conclusions
105
105
110
111
112
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
115
125
V1l
-
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2
3
4
5
Distribution of language errors responded with instructors' 70
immediate corrective feedback
Distribution of corrective feedback types arising from different
types of language errors
Distribution of different patterns of uptake following six different
types of corrective feedback
Frequency and percentage of corrective feedback turns leading to
repaIr
Frequency and percentage of repairs attributed to each feedback
type
V111
77
86
93
94
-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Error treatment sequence adapted from Lyster and Ranta's 35
(1997) analytical model
IX
-
CA
CLS
ESL
IRF
KBSM
Ll
L2
LRE
MUET
SLA
STPM
TESL
UNIMAS
LIST OF ABBREVIA nONS
Communicati ve Approach
Centre for Language Studies
English as a Second Language
Initiating, Responding, Follow-up
KlIrikulllm 8ersepadll Sekolah Menengah
First language
Second language
Language Related Episodes
Malaysian University English Test
Second Language Acquisition
Siji! Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia
Teaching English as a Second Language
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
x
-
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the setting of the research problem. It also explains the
purpose and objectives of the study, operational definitions of tern1S and significance
of the study. The scope of study is also included in this chapter.
1.1 Setting of the Research Problem
Over the years, there were different perspectives on how grammar was to be
taught and learnt in language learning. The dominant methods of the 1960s for
teaching second languages which included grammar-translation method and the
audio-lingual method emphasized the need for grammar teaching, difTering only in
how grammar was to be taught (Ellis, 1997, p. 42). These methods rested on very
different theories of language learning and no single study could demonstrate the
unequivocal superiority of one method over the other.
Tn the early twentieth century, the structural view of language prevailed and
thus led to the assumption on how a language is learnt, that is, by mastering the
elements or building blocks of the language and learning the rules by which these
elements are combined, from phoneme to morpheme to word to phrase to sentence
(Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 49). The structural view oflanguage primarily focuses
1
-
on the grammatical system and it emphasizes on linguistic competence. However, the
structural view oflanguage is not sutlicient on its own to account for how language is
used as a means of communication (Littlewood, 1981, p. I). Tn the late 1960s, the
functional view of language emerged and it focused on communicative competence,
that is, use of language appropriate to a given social context. The functional view of
language thus led to the recognition of Communicative Approach (CA) in language
teaching and learning. In CA classroom, both form and meaning of the language are
taken into account in teaching a second language.
Generally, there are two versious of Communicative Approach, which include
a "strong" and a "weak" version (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). According to Howatt
(1984), the "weak" version ofCA which has become more ofless standard practice in
the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to
use their English for communicative purposes and characteristically, attempts to
integrate such activities into a wider program of language teaching. The "strong"
version of CA, on the other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired
through communication, so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing
hut inert knowledge of the language, hut of stimulating the development of the
language system itself. The former one could be described as "learning to use"
English, while the latter one entails "using English to learn it" (in Richards &
Rodgers, 1986, p. 66).
Since the goal of CA in teaching and 1e3111ing a language focuses on both
f01m and meaning, hence the role of form-focused instruction in second language
(L2) learning is a matter of controversy in the study of Second Language Acquisition
(SLA). On the one hand, some view that learning proceeds most etliciently if it
conforms to how learners develop their interlanguage. In other words, teachers should
organize their instructional syllabus in accordance with the natural order of
acquisition and also the more viable notion that grammar teaching be abandoned,
leaving learners free to acquire the grammar of the second language naturally. On the
other hand, it has been argued that learning second language is not the same as
2
-
acquiring the first language, hence grammar should be taught either explicitly or
implicitly (Ellis, 1997). In particular, grammar teaching seems to help learners to
perf01m grammatical structures with greater accuracy (White, Spada, Lightbown &
Ranta, 1991) and also to progress through development sequences more rapidly
(Spada & Lightbown, 1993). Ellis (1995a) stated grammar teaching can help develop
explicit L2 knowledge or learning, which can be utilized in monitoring. It can also
facilitate the intake of unknown features of the L2 grammar by bringing about
noticing. Noticing is very important, so much so that Ellis categorically stated that
'No noticing, no acquisition' (1995a, p. 89).
Therefore, with respect to form-focused instruction In L2 learning, the
discussions on how error treatment should be given have been developed in the field
of classroom SLA (Allwright & Bailey, 1991 in Suzuki, 2004; Chaudron, 1988;
Dekeyser, 1993). Besides, a number of studies have been conducted to examine the
impact of error correction or teacher feedback on L2 development and learning. The
early research conducted by Allwright (1975) and Fanse10w (1977) revealed that
there was much ambiguity in error treatment or feedback given by teachers (in
Panova & Lyster, 2002). Besides, Krashen (1982) and Dekeyser (1993) also
conducted further studies in a similar field and found that error correction did not
have much impact on language learning. Krashen's (1982) affective filter hypothesis
proposed that error correction can raise learners' level of anxiety and this impedes
learning. On the other hand, Swain (1985), White (1987, 1989), Ellis (1995) and
Long (1996) suggested the beneficial role of teacher's corrective feedback and
concluded that this negotiation process enabled collaboration between teacher and the
learners in managing interactional task in the classroom.
From the pedagogical standpoint, corrective feedback has been the focus of a
number of inquiries into classroom teaching and learning over the past two decades.
A number of studies on the nature and role of corrective feedback in second language
teaching and learning in English as Second Language (ESL) and other second
language educational contexts have been conducted to understand the phenomenon in
3
-
depth (Doughty & Varela, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey & Philp, 1998;
Mackey, Gass & McDonough, 2000; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004; Suzuki,
2004; Williams, 1999). Furthennore, a few recent studies that compared corrective
feedback across different instructional settings were also conducted, for instance,
French Immersion with children in Queba, Canada (Lyster & Ranta, 1997); ESL with
adults in Canada (Panova & Lyster, 2002); ESL with adults in New York (Suzuki,
2004). Though these studies were conducted in different instructional settings, the
specific aspects that were looked into intensely include types of errors, patterns of
corrective feedback in different instructional contexts, patterns of learners' uptake,
and the correlation between types of corrective feedback and learners' uptake and
repair. Most of these studies provided the supportive evidence that corrective
feedback has positive impact on learners' uptake in learning and is able to draw
learners' attention to fonn, although it is only applicable to learners' immediate
responses to the feedback.
However, teachers are m the midst of change in recent ESL teaching
environment. Some teachers view the practices of error correction positively and
some are not. Therefore, this study is conducted to examine the phenomenon of
corrective feedback responses to students' oral errors in Malaysian undergraduate
ESL communicative classrooms.
1.2 Statement of Problem
In Malaysia, the changing trends in English language teaching had been
reflected in the English language syllabi used in secondary schools. Changes in
language teaching and syllabus desi~,'n reflected a shift ITom concern over the fonnal
properties of language to a view of language as primary tool of communication. Tn
1970s, the Structural Syllabus was used for lower secondary level (Ministry of
Education of Malaysia 1973, 1975a, 1976 in Ting, 2007). In 1975, the Malaysian
Communicational Syllabus for the teaching of English at the upper secondary level
was introduced (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 75). Richards and Rodgers (1986)
4
-
stated that this Communicational Syllabus was organized around a specification of
communicative tasks that dealt with the situational or communicative use of language
and the teaching of grammar is covert. Tn the organizational schema three board
communicative objectives were broken down into twenty-four more specific
objectives determined on the basis of needs analysis. These objectives were organized
into learning areas, each of which specitied a number of learning outcomes, goals or
products. The main aim of this Communicational Syllabus was to provide secondary
school students with opportunities to use language for various functions in a range of
everyday situations. Nevertheless, some teachers were dissatisfied with the
Communicational Syllabus because the grammar was not taught explicitly (Asraf,
1996).
In 1988, Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah (KBSM) was implemented
m schools based on a communicative model of language teaching learning which
emphasizes the integration of language content with language skills, using topic as a
context (Pillay & North, 1997). The KBSM English Language Syllabus is arranged
according to themes which are drawn from familiar contexts. These themes provide
the context in which the language skills and language content are to be taught in an
integrated manner (Asrat~ 1996).
Therefore, most English language teachers in Malaysia are taught the
Communicative Approach (CA) in their TESL (Teaching English as Second
Language) degree over the years. However, it seems that some teachers have
misunderstood that communicative language classrooms only emphasized language
t1uency. As a result, some teachers might not be aware that the intended goal of CA
in language teaching is communicative competence, which emphasizes both 1uency
and accuracy. Misunderstanding on the principles of CA in language teaching and
learning may result in negative impact whereby teachers believe that they should not
teach grammar or correct students' language errors explicitly in a communicatively-
oriented classroom. Tn some cases, teachers might not correct students' speech errors
to some extent if the meaning of the language was emphasized more than the form in
5
-
language teaching. In some other cases, teachers ignore the principles of
communicative language teaching and teach grammar in the traditional way based on
the structural view of language (see Ting, 2007) and many English teachers reported
that it is uncomfortable for them not to teach grammar explicitly (see Pillay & North,
1997).
In addition, research on teachers' beliefs and practice in grammar teaching
with respect to KBSM English Language Syllabus had revealed that the teachers
discussed the teaching of the syllabus in terms of teaching the topics instead of
teaching the skills, and the teachers appeared to be unclear of the role of grammar in
the new curriculum and also revealed a lack of understanding of how grammar is to
be integrated into the English lesson (Pillay, 1995 in Pillay & North, 1997). In
relation to this matter, Pillay and North (1997) also found that the participants in this
study preferred explicit teaching of grammar instead of teaching grammar in context.
Similarly, Asrat's (1996) survey on the perceptions of 419 secondary school
English teachers in the Selangor state towards the different aspects of the KBSM
English Language Syllabus reported that 96% of the teachers were of the view that it
is important for the students to learn grammar as the grammar is a fundamental aspect
of language. Regarding grammar teaching in context, 92% of the teachers felt that it
is sometimes necessary to spend an entire period on grammar, and only a relatively
low percentage (31 %) felt that grammar should be taught in context.
Moreover, Farrell and Lim (2005) also conducted a qualitative case study to
investigate the relationship between beliefs and actual classroom practices of two
experienced English language teachers in relation to grammar teaching in a primary
school in Singapore. These teachers revealed that they prefer traditional approach to
grammar teaching. They claimed that deductive approach is preferred rather than
inductive approach to grammar teaching as deductive approach is more
"straightforward" and less time-consuming.
Besides, Richards, Gallo, and Renandya (2001) had administered a selt~report
questionnaire to participants in an in-service course and discovered that although
6
-
many stated they followed a communicative approach to teaching, many of the
respondents still hold firmly to the belief that grammar is central to language learning
and direct grammar teaching is needed by their ESL students (in Farrell & Lim, 2005).
All these studies were in favour of traditional grammar instruction and
deductive approach to grammar teaching. Thus, it is presumed that there is explicit
error correction with the use of the structural approach to teaching language though
these studies do not dwell on the issue of error correction, except for Ting (2007) who
reported that the participants in the study believed in the goal of achieving
grammatical accuracy in language learning through immediate error correction.
Accordingly, the emergence of different beliefs on the importance of
corrective feedback and possible practices in giving corrective feedback to students'
language errors in recent L2 studies leads to the need to look into the research
problem in depth. Teachers' practices in responding to or correcting students'
language speech errors in ESL communicative classroom are greatly intluenced by
their philosophies of language teaching and their proficiency levels of English.
Hence, this study is conducted to study the phenomenon of corrective
feedback on how the teacher responds to students' speech errors verbally in an actual
ESL communicative language classroom as well as the students' immediate responses
to the oral correction. This is due to the reason that a typical classroom interaction
consists of two-way communication, that is, both teacher and students' interaction.
Thus, there is a relationship between teachers' corrective feedback and students'
uptake of correction in learning second language. Therefore, it is necessary to look
into the students' uptake of correction besides instructors' oral error correction.
1.3 Purpose ofthe Study
The aIm of this study is to examme instructors' oral error correction and
students' uptake of corrective feedback, involving the relationship between types of
corrective feedback and how learners respond to them in a communicatively-oriented
ESL classroom context in a tertiary institution.
7
-
1.4 Objectives of the study
The objectives of this study are to:
(1) identify types of students' language errors that receive attention from
instructors, for example, phonological, lexical and grammatical error;
(2) categorise and classify the frequency of different types of instructors' oral
corrective feedback arising from different students' language errors in ESL
communicative classroom, for example, explicit correction, recast,
clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition;
(3) examine the patterns of students' uptake following the corrective feedback
given by instructors, for example, repair, needs-repair and no uptake;
(5) examine the relationship between types of corrective feedback and students'
uptake of correction in terms of students' potential short term acquisition of
second language.
1.5 Operational Definition of Terms
Types of Error
An error IS defined as "an utterance, form or structure that a Pa11icular
language teacher deems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence
in real-life discourse" (Hendrickson, 1978). TIl-fanned utterances are classified as
having either one or more than one error. Errors in ESL context are classified as
phonological, lexical or grammatical errors. Phonological errors are inaccurate
pronunciation of words that often lead to difficulty of comprehension of the target
words. Lexical errors include inaccurate use of nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, in
the sense of open classes or word groups whose membership is in principle indefinite
or unlimited (Crystal, 1991). Grammatical errors are non-target use of determiners,
prepositions, pronouns, subject verb agreement, tense, verb morphology, auxiliaries,
pluralization, negation, question formation and word order. One example for each
8
-
type of error that is taken from Panova and Lyster's (2002) study is provided as
follows:
1. S: Dangerous /dange'rusl? (phonological error)
2. S: Mother gave birth to one people. (lexical error)
3. S: I want practice today, today. (grammatical error)
Accordingly, in the present study, only these three types of errors are given
attention. Phonological, lexical and grammatical errors are analyzed in this study
because these three types of errors are the most common and frequent errors that
made by students in a typical ESL classroom. Besides, this study focuses on the
actual sequences of student's error and instructor's corrective feedback. Therefore,
students' errors that are not responded to with corrective feedback by instructors are
not included in the analysis of error treatment sequence in this present study.
Types of Corrective Feedback
Corrective feedback refers to "any reaction of the teacher which clearly
transfOlms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner
utterance" (Chaudron, 1977 in Panova & Lyster, 2002, p. 574). The definition for
each corrective feedback type below is taken from the Lyster and Ranta's (1997)
model and examples for each feedback type come from the Panova and Lyster (2002)
and Suzuki (2004).
1. Explicit correction refers to the explicit provision of the correct form. As the
teacher provides the correct form, he or she clearly indicates that what the student
had said was incorrect (for example, 'Oh, you mean ... ', 'You should say ... ').
S: The day ... tomorrow (lexical error)
T: No, the day before yesterday. (explicit correction)
9
-
2. Recasts involve the teacher's reformulation of all or part of a student's utterance to
minimize the error. Recasts are generally implicit in that they are not introduced
by phrases such as 'You mean', 'Use this word', or 'You should say'.
s: You should go to see doctor. (grammatical error) T: the doctor. (recast)
3. Clarification requests indicate to students either that their utterance has been
misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterauce is ill-formed in some way and
that a repetition or a reformulation is required. A claritication request includes
phrases such as 'Pardon me ... ', 'J'm sorry?' Jt may also include a repetition of
the error as in 'What do you mean by ... ?'
s: He sick [s",k]. (phonological error) T: He sick? What did you say? (clarification request)
4. Metalinguistic feedback contains comments, information, or questions related to
the well-fornledness of the student's utterance, without explicitly providing the
correct form. Metalinguistic comments generally indicate that there is an error
somewhere (for example, 'Can you tind your error?').
S: She without. (grammatical error)
T: without ... what is the verb? (metalinguistic feedback)
5. Elicitation refers to a corrective technique that prompts the learner to self-correct.
Lyster and Ranta (1997) identified three techniques that teachers use to directly
elicit the correct form from the students: (a) teacher pauses and lets the student
completing the utterance (for example, "It's a ... ", (b) teacher asks an open
10
-
question to elicit correct forms (for example, ... 'How do we say x in English?'),
and (c) teacher occasionally asks the student to reformulate his or her utterance.
s: Because 1 enjoy the city life [laip]. (phonological error) T: City ... (elicitation)
6. Repetition refers to the teacher's repetition of the student's erroneous utterance. In
most cases, the teacher usually highlights the error with a change in intonation.
s: When J don't understand what garden [kuden] is in Japan (phonological error) T: [kuden]? (repetition)
The six different types of corrective feedback that are explicit correction,
recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition of
error identified by Lyster and Ranta (1997) are used in the analysis of classroom
interaction data for classifying types of corrective feedback in this present study.
Based on the definition given, corrective feedback in this study refers to any
immediate response of the teacher to a student's verbal utterance that consists of
language errors.
Types of Students' Uptake
The term "uptake" is used to refer 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
(Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 49). A description of uptake, then, reveals what the student
attempts to do with the teacher's feedback. If there is no uptake, then there is topic
continuation, which is initiated by either the same or another student or by the
teacher. Lyster and Ranta classified two types of students' uptake: (a) repair, when
the uptake move results in repair of an error, and (b) needs-repair, when an error is
II
-
not repaired in the uptake move. Suzuki (2004) identified the third type of uptake,
that is, no uptake, when the teacher's feedback is not responded to nor reacted to by
the student. The examples for each type of uptake are taken fi'om the Pan ova and
Lyster (2002) and Suzuki (2004).
1. Repair refers to the correct reformulation of an error as uttered in a single tum
and not to the sequence of turns resulting in the correct reformulation; nor does it
refer to self-initiated repair (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 49). In other word, repair
refers to correct reformulation of an error only after prompting. Schegloff,
Jefferson & Sacks (1977) also defined repair as "other-initiated repair" (in Lyster
& Ranta, 1997, p. 49). Lyster and Ranta distinguished four types of repair in their
study: repetition, self-repair, peer-repair and incorporation. The examples for each
type ofrepair are taken from Suzuki's (2004) study.
(a) Repetition refers to a student's repetition of the correct form given in the
teacher's corrective feedback when the latter includes the correct form.
S: You should go to see doctor. (grammatical error)
T: the doctor. (recast)
S: You should go to see the doctor (repair - repetition)
(b) Self-repair refers to a self-correction, produced by the student who made the
initial error, in response to the teacher's feedback when the latter does not
provide the correct form.
S: Do the parents time to do so? (grammatical error)
T: What? (clarification request)
S: Do the parents ... pare, parents time, do the parents have time to do so?
(repair - self-repair)
12
-
(c) Peer-repair refers to peer-correction provided by other student, other than the
one who initially made the elTor, in response to the teacher's cOlTective
feedback.
S I: I don't understand wine [win]. (phonological elTor)
T: I'm sorry ... ? (clarification request)
S2: Wine [wain] (repair - peer-repair)
(d) Incorporation refers to a student's repetition of the correct form provided by
the teacher, which is then incorporated into a longer utterance produced by the
student.
S: Eh ... : Kaii [:Kaii] convention. (phonological elTor)
T: What kind of convention? (classification request)
S: Kaii convention ... eh ... some people ... (repair - incorporation)
2. Needs-repair refers to a situation where the learner responds to the colTective
feedback but the learner's utterance does not result in repairing the initial
erroneous utterance. In Lyster and Ranta (1997), six types of needs-repair are
identified in their study: acknowledgment, same elTor, different elTor, off-target,
hesitation and partial repair.
(a) Acknowledgement generally refers to a simple "yes" on the part of the
student's response to the teacher's cOlTective feedback.
s: Two people go out, and pay for one people price. (grammatical error) T: Exactly. Two people go out and pay for one person. (recast)
S: Yeah. (needs-repair- acknowledgement)
13
top related