:: دانشگاه خوارزمی برای مشاهده سایت قبلی اینجا را کلیک کنید Kharazmi University ::
   [Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 19, Number 1 (4-2016) ::
IJAL 2016, 19(1): 181-206 Back to browse issues page
L2 Teachers’ Explicit and Implicit Corrective Feedback and Its Linguistic Focus
Abstract:   (1044 Views)

Various studies have confirmed the influential role of corrective feedback (CF) in the development of different linguistic skills and components. However, little, if any, research has been conducted on comparing types of linguistic errors treated by teachers through CF. To bridge this gap, this study sought to investigate the linguistic errors addressed and the types of CF provided by teachers. To this end, the classes of 40 teachers teaching at the intermediate level were audio-recorded for two successive sessions. The detailed analysis of around 128 hours of classroom interactions showed that explicit correction was the most frequent CF type, accounting for 48.5 percent of all CF types provided, and recast was the second most frequently used CF type, constituting 29.5 percent of all CF types. All the other CF types (i.e. request for clarification, confirmation check, repetition, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and multiple feedback) constituted 22 percent of the CF. Repetition was the least frequently used CF type, amounting to 0.66 percent of the CF given by teachers. As to the linguistic focus of CF, pronunciation errors were found to be the mostly noticed target for teachers’ CF, constituting 47 percent of all errors addressed, while vocabulary was the least frequently addressed linguistic target, accounting for 17.5 percent of all errors. The study suggests that teachers prefer explicit corrective strategies over implicit ones and that they provide CF mainly to correct pronunciations errors. The study suggests that there is a need for change in the types of CF teachers use and the relative attention they assign to different linguistic error types they treat through CF

Keywords: Keywords: Corrective feedback, Explicit correction, Implicit correction, Linguistic feedback, Recast, Types of feedback
Full-Text [PDF 652 kb]   (1169 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: General
Received: 2015/08/11 | Accepted: 2016/01/3 | Published: 2016/10/29
References
1. Al-Harassi, S. (2007). An analysis of the nature of oral corrective feedback types (in particular recasts) used by Omani teachers in Cycle One and Cycle Two English basic education classroom, and their effects on learners' immediate response. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Stirling, UK.
2. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.
3. Brown, D. (2014). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Retrieved January 2016, from http://booksc.org/s/?q=The+type+and+linguistic+foci+of+oral+corrective+feedback+in+the+L2+classroom%3A+A+meta-analysis&t=0
4. 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(3), 357-386.
5. Ellis, N. C. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The Associative-Cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19(1), 100-121.
6. Ellis, R. (1999). Second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dornyei (Eds.), Themes in SLA Research (AILA Review 19, pp. 18-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
10. Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
11. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.
12. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
13. Esmaeili, F., & Behnam, B. (2014). A study of corrective feedback and learner's uptake in classroom interactions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(4), Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/1165/1172.
14. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. ## Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.
15. Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.
16. Kubota. M. (1991). Corrective feedback by experienced Japanese EFL teachers. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 5, 1-25.
17. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
18. Llinares, A., & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181-194.
19. Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
20. Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & B. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
21. Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.
22. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.
23. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300.
24. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
25. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
26. Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519-533.
27. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
28. Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Reid, J.M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. New York: Prentice Hall Regents.
30. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
31. Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial in the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
32. Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no’’: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47(3), 547-583.
33. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden: Blackwell.
34. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.
35. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392.
36. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
37. Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Volume II, pp. 593-610). New York: Routledge.
38. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-255). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
39. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 181-204.
41. Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
42. White, L. (1990). Implications of learnability theories for second language learning and teaching. In M. A. K. Halliday, J. Gibbons, & H. Nicholas (Eds.), Learning, keeping and using language (pp. 271-286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43. Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235-263.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or email:

Write the security code in the box >



DOI: 10.18869/acadpub.ijal.19.1.181


XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

L2 Teachers’ Explicit and Implicit Corrective Feedback and Its Linguistic Focus. IJAL. 2016; 19 (1) :181-206
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2626-en.html
Volume 19, Number 1 (4-2016) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.152 seconds with 866 queries by yektaweb 3430