TEACHER CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCE AND THEIR UPTAKE IN EFL CLASSES

Authors

  • Tran Thi Bich Phuong Can Tho University, Vietnam
  • Nguyen Buu Huan Can Tho University, Vietnam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejfl.v0i0.1823

Keywords:

oral corrective feedback, uptake, recast, high school

Abstract

Corrective feedback plays a critical role in language teaching and learning, but little research has been done with regard to teachers’ practices of corrective feedback on students’ speaking performance and their uptake. This paper therefore reports on a descriptive study using qualitative approach to provide insights into strategies teachers used to deliver corrective feedback to their students’ speaking performance and distribution of student uptake within EFL context. Data were collected from observations of two teachers and fifty students at a private high school in a Mekong Delta region. The findings indicate that recast and explicit correction were used the most and that clarification request, recast, and metalinguistic cue were effective in helping students recognize their errors. Implications for language teaching are also presented.

Author Biographies

  • Tran Thi Bich Phuong, Can Tho University, Vietnam

    Tran Thi Bich Phuong has been a teacher of English at Vietnamese American high school since 2010. She earned a master’s degree in education, focusing on principles and teaching methods of English language at Can Tho University in 2017. Her research interests include language teaching for undergraduate students and young learners, classroom management, and corrective feedback in students’ written and speaking performance.

  • Nguyen Buu Huan, Can Tho University, Vietnam

    Dr. Nguyen Buu Huan is a senior lecturer in English at Can Tho University. He was the recipient of Fulbright grant for his master’s inRutgers University,USA (2001) and NZAID scholarship for his PhD studies inMassey University,New Zealand (2010). He teaches in his area of reading and supervises a number of masters’ theses. His areas of research include action research, teacher change, language learning, ESP, and curriculum planning. He is now involved in writing teaching materials for undergraduate students at the university and is a regular reviewer for Thai TESOL.

References

Ananda, D. R., Febriyanti, E. R., Yamin, M., & Mu'in, F. (2017). Students' preferences toward oral corrective feedback in speaking class at English Department of Lambung Mangkurat University academic year 2015-2016. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(3), 176-186.

Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction. New York: Longman.

Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19(1), 18-41.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.

Esmaeli, F., & Behnam, B. (2014). A study of corrective feedback and learner's uptake in classroom interactions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(4), 204-212.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities.

Hendricks, C. (2013). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice approach (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398.

Kucera, J. (2009). QAR and its effects on the reading comprehension performance of fourth grade students. (MA thesis), Goucher College.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.

Li, S. (2014). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 68(2), 196-198.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2003). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), The Routlege Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 24-40). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.

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.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010a). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010b). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-497.

Mendez, E. H., & del Rosario Reyes Cruz, M. (2012). Teachers' perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75.

Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 459-481.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.

Safari, P. (2013). A descriptive study on corrective feedback and learners' uptake during interactions in a communicative EFL class. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1165-1175.

Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7(2), 89-102.

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 263-300.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversation interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer.

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 593-610). New York: Routledge.

Suzuki, M. (2005). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-21.

Trustcott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners' perceptions of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525-541.

Downloads

Published

2018-07-25

Issue

Vol 3, No 3 (2018)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).