Keywords
prompts
recasts
repair
uptake
How to Cite
Number of views: 1289
Number of downloads: 879
Abstract
This study sought to examine the effectiveness of two categories of feedback, namely recasts and prompts. Also, the study focused on the relationship between subsets of each feedback type and the extent to which they led to learner uptake and repair in an EFL context. Data were collected through non-participant observations of three intact upper-intermediate EFL classes where 36 hours of interactions among 59 students and three teachers were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed in terms of pre-specified coding systems that addressed four different subtypes of prompts – clarification requests, repetitions, elicitations, and metalinguistic clues – and two recast subtypes – explicit and implicit recasts. Data analysis showed that among prompts, clarification requests led to the highest percentage of uptake whereas elicitations were associated with the highest repair percentage. As for recasts, more explicit ones led to higher percentages of uptake and repair. The results of the study may contribute to a more in-depth understanding of the patterns of uptake and repair in an EFL context. The study confirms the role of feedback explicitness in such a context.
References
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(s1), 1-46.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 877-905.
Fu, T. & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 159-181.
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 74-93.
Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A teacher’s choices. TESL Canada Journal, 27, 31-50.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Latham-Koenig, C., & Oxeden, C. (2014). American English file 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2016). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 35-64.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
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, 181-194.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153-188.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
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: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?. Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ perceptions on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103.
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 43-63.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511-548.
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101, 353-368.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719-758.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459-481.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-65). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
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, 235-263.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.