Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroo

• Authors: Fu Tingfeng , Nassaji Hossein
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The role of corrective feedback in second language classrooms has received considerable research attention in the past few decades. However, most of this research has been conducted in English-teaching settings, either ESL or EFL. This study examined teacher feedback, learner uptake as well as learner and teacher perception of feedback in an adult Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Ten hours of classroom interactions were videotaped, transcribed and coded for analysis. Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) coding system involving six types of feedback was initially used to identify feedback frequency and learner uptake. However, the teacher was found to use a number of additional feedback types. Altogether, 12 types of feedback were identified: recasts, delayed recasts, clarification requests, translation, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, explicit correction, asking a direct question, repetition, directing question to other students, re-asks, and using L1-English. Differences were noted in the frequency of some of the feedback types as well as learner uptake compared to what had been reported in some previous ESL and EFL studies. With respect to the new feedback types, some led to noticeable uptake. As for the students’ and teacher’s perceptions, they did not match and both the teacher and the students were generally not accurate in perceiving the frequency of each feedback type. The findings are discussed in terms of the role of context in affecting the provision and effectiveness of feedback and its relationship to student and teacher perception of feedback.

Keywords

EN

corrective feedback; uptake; feedback perception; second language classroom

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 159-181

Contributors

author

Fu Tingfeng

• Paragon Testing Enterprises, Canada

author

Nassaji Hossein

• The University of Victoria, Canada

References

• Amhrein, H., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.
• Carpenter, H., Jeon, K., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209-236. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060104
• Egi, T. (2007a). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The role of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511-537.
• Egi, T. (2007b). Recasts, learners’ interpretation, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 249-267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, N. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning (pp. 35-47). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.
• Fu, T. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a Chinese as a foreign language class: Do perceptions and the reality match? (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Victoria, Victoria BC, Canada.
• Jimenez, J. (2006). Corrective feedback in EFL university classrooms: A case study at an Italian university. Linguistica e Filologia, 23, 45-89.
• Kim, J. H., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 269-297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
• Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
• Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66.
• Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.
• Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
• Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452.
• Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
• Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392.
• Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 1-21. Retrieved from http://relais. library.uvic.ca:8080/posttoweb/servlet/DownloadDocument?8651165.pdf
• Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 673-691). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Yoshida, R. (2010). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93. doi:10.2167/la429.0
• Zhao, S., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35, 431-447.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.8