![A Reflection on Corrective Feedback in the Classroom Wei-Chao Shih, University of Pennsylvania [email_address] Participants Intermediate Class: Medium size class at National Service Center Low Intermediate level. 10 students Nationality varies: Afghanistan, Japan, Mali, Mexico Advanced Class: Medium class in Graduate School of Education Post-doctoral international students 16 students Nationality varies: Argentina, Canada, China, France, Germany, Korea, Japan, Syria Introduction The study compares different patterns of feedback and student’s repair in two instructional settings, in order to increase the knowledge of some contextual variables which may influence learners’ tendency to pay attention to certain type of feedback rather than another. Method Data collection: - Advanced: audio-recorded - Intermediate: Both audio and video-recorded Transcribed by the teacher 31 23 28 64 53 49 37 Total distribution of repair across feedback type 37 51 Types of Feedback Percentage distribution of feedback types Error Treatment Sequence Intermediate class Advanced class Intermediate class Advanced class 17 11 62 57 28 32 60 51 22 12 37 18 Result In advanced class, the proportion of repair after recasts and prompts was reversed. In Intermediate class, choral repetition was used more often. L earners thus responded more frequently and accurately Recasts were more effective in intermediate classrooms, whereas prompts were more effective in advanced classrooms. Support Lyster and Mori’s Counterbalance Hypothesis (2006). References Implication Teachers should choose instructional interventions that differed the most from other instructional activities Conclusion Recasts are effective for learners accustomed to accuracy-based oral production practice Prompts are effective for learners unaccustomed to any accuracy-based oral production practice . form-oriented (intermediate) meaning-oriented (advanced) recasts prompts Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-Speaker/Nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52(1), 1-42. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N.(2006), How Language are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006), Interactional Feedback and instructional counterbalance. SSLA , 28 , 269-300 Lyster, R. (2004), Differential Effects of Prompts and Recasts in Form-focused instruction, SSLA , 26, 399-432 Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997), Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of forms in communicative Classrooms. SSLA , 20, 37-66 Mackey, A., Gass, S., & MacDonough, D. (2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-497 Morris, F. A. (2002). Negotiation moves and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 35(4), 395-404 Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly , 36(4), 573-595 Error treatment sequence . Adapted from Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.44 Explicit Correction Recasts Prompts With target reformulations Without target reformulations 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Percentage Number and percentage distribution of feedback types Feedback type Intermediate class Advanced class Prompts 49 (21%) 67 (32%) Recasts 145 (62%) 122 (57%) Explicit correction 39 (17%) 23 (11%) Number and percentage distribution of repair moves after each feedback type Student turns Intermediate class Advanced class After prompts 14 (22%) 48 (51%) After recasts 38 (60%) 34 (37%) After explicit correction 16 (18%) 11 (12%) Learner’s error -grammatical -lexical -phonological Teacher’s feedback -explicit correction -recast -prompt Topic continuation -teacher -student Learner’s uptake Needs repair -acknowledge -different error -same error -hesitation -off target -partial repair Repair -repetition -incorporation -self repair -peer repair -hand gesture = recast = prompt = explicit = recast = prompt = explicit 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Percentage](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/cfinclassroom-12534206167791-phpapp03/85/Reflection-on-Corrective-Feedback-in-the-Classroom-1-320.jpg)
Reflection on Corrective Feedback in the Classroom
- 1. A Reflection on Corrective Feedback in the Classroom Wei-Chao Shih, University of Pennsylvania [email_address] Participants Intermediate Class: Medium size class at National Service Center Low Intermediate level. 10 students Nationality varies: Afghanistan, Japan, Mali, Mexico Advanced Class: Medium class in Graduate School of Education Post-doctoral international students 16 students Nationality varies: Argentina, Canada, China, France, Germany, Korea, Japan, Syria Introduction The study compares different patterns of feedback and student’s repair in two instructional settings, in order to increase the knowledge of some contextual variables which may influence learners’ tendency to pay attention to certain type of feedback rather than another. Method Data collection: - Advanced: audio-recorded - Intermediate: Both audio and video-recorded Transcribed by the teacher 31 23 28 64 53 49 37 Total distribution of repair across feedback type 37 51 Types of Feedback Percentage distribution of feedback types Error Treatment Sequence Intermediate class Advanced class Intermediate class Advanced class 17 11 62 57 28 32 60 51 22 12 37 18 Result In advanced class, the proportion of repair after recasts and prompts was reversed. In Intermediate class, choral repetition was used more often. L earners thus responded more frequently and accurately Recasts were more effective in intermediate classrooms, whereas prompts were more effective in advanced classrooms. Support Lyster and Mori’s Counterbalance Hypothesis (2006). References Implication Teachers should choose instructional interventions that differed the most from other instructional activities Conclusion Recasts are effective for learners accustomed to accuracy-based oral production practice Prompts are effective for learners unaccustomed to any accuracy-based oral production practice . form-oriented (intermediate) meaning-oriented (advanced) recasts prompts Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-Speaker/Nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52(1), 1-42. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N.(2006), How Language are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006), Interactional Feedback and instructional counterbalance. SSLA , 28 , 269-300 Lyster, R. (2004), Differential Effects of Prompts and Recasts in Form-focused instruction, SSLA , 26, 399-432 Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997), Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of forms in communicative Classrooms. SSLA , 20, 37-66 Mackey, A., Gass, S., & MacDonough, D. (2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-497 Morris, F. A. (2002). Negotiation moves and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 35(4), 395-404 Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly , 36(4), 573-595 Error treatment sequence . Adapted from Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.44 Explicit Correction Recasts Prompts With target reformulations Without target reformulations 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Percentage Number and percentage distribution of feedback types Feedback type Intermediate class Advanced class Prompts 49 (21%) 67 (32%) Recasts 145 (62%) 122 (57%) Explicit correction 39 (17%) 23 (11%) Number and percentage distribution of repair moves after each feedback type Student turns Intermediate class Advanced class After prompts 14 (22%) 48 (51%) After recasts 38 (60%) 34 (37%) After explicit correction 16 (18%) 11 (12%) Learner’s error -grammatical -lexical -phonological Teacher’s feedback -explicit correction -recast -prompt Topic continuation -teacher -student Learner’s uptake Needs repair -acknowledge -different error -same error -hesitation -off target -partial repair Repair -repetition -incorporation -self repair -peer repair -hand gesture = recast = prompt = explicit = recast = prompt = explicit 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Percentage