Teachers’ oral corrective feedback and learners’ uptake in high school CLIL and EFL classrooms

  1. Ruth Milla 1
  2. María del Pilar García Mayo 1
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

Zeitschrift:
VIAL, Vigo international journal of applied linguistics

ISSN: 1697-0381

Datum der Publikation: 2021

Nummer: 18

Seiten: 149-176

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.35869/VIAL.V0I18.3368 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: VIAL, Vigo international journal of applied linguistics

Zusammenfassung

Oral corrective feedback (OCF) has been reported to be affected by several factors such as learners’ age, level of proficiency or the OCF types provided by the teacher. However, little research has been carried out on the variable learning context, even though OCF and uptake vary in rates and types in second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) settings. Moreover, OCF has been clearly under-researched in classrooms that follow a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach. As CLIL programs are being widely implemented mainly in European settings and differences in context characteristics suggest variations in OCF and learners’ uptake, the present study aimed to compare the recorded classroom interaction data (22 hours 43 minutes) from an intact class of learners (N=26) in their last year of secondary education (age 17-18), attending the lessons of an English as a FL (EFL) teacher and a Business Studies (CLIL) teacher. Findings show significant differences as to the proportion and OCF types used, as well as different learners’ behavior regarding the rates of uptake and repair and the uptake after the use of recasts. Pedagogical implications are offered as to how to maximize the potential benefits of OCF in FL classrooms

€ Finanzierung ansehen

Informationen zur Finanzierung

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from research grant IT904-16 from the Basque Government. We are extremely grateful to Botikazahar high school for participating in the study and especially to the teachers Susana Hernández and Iñaki Valencia for allowing data collection in their classrooms.

Geldgeber

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
  • Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F.J. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–342.
  • Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40 (2), 282‒295.
  • Bryfonski, L. & Ma, X. (2020). Effects of implicit versus explicit corrective feedback on Mandarin tone acquisition in an SCMC learning environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 61-88.
  • Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal 93, 46-60.
  • Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458.
  • Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: from practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182‒204.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning (guest editorial). The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117-122.
  • García, O. (2019). Translanguaging: A coda to the code? Classroom Discourse,10, 369–373.
  • Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven SL learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445‒474 .
  • Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–65.
  • Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2010). Factors Influencing Oral Corrective Feedback Provision in the Spanish Foreign Language Classroom: Investigating Instructor Native/Nonnative Speaker Status, Second Language Acquisition Education and Teaching Experience. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University
  • Havranek, G. & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In S. Foster- Cohen & A. Nizegorodzew (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook. Volume 1 (pp. 99‒122). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Kartchava, E. (2016). Learners’ beliefs about corrective feedback in the language classroom: Perspectives from two international contexts. TESL Canada Journal/Review TESL du Canada, 33, 19-45.
  • Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18 (4), 428‒452.
  • Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 376‒395.
  • Li, S. (2014). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal Volume, 68 (2), 196‒198.
  • Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. In J. Liontas et al. (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. London: Blackwell.
  • 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.
  • Lo, Y. L. (2019). Development of the beliefs and language awareness of content subject teachers in CLIL: does professional development help? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22 (7), 818‒823.
  • Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: how it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271–283.
  • Lochtman, K. (2007). Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse (pp. 119–138). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  • Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54 (1), 153‒188.
  • Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-learner interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237‒253.
  • Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (3), 399‒432.
  • Lyster, R. & H. Mori (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (2), 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.
  • Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265‒302.
  • Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46 (1), 1‒40.
  • 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 (pp. 407‒472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471‒497.
  • McWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3Rd edition. Mahwah, N. J. Lawrence Earlbaurn Associates.
  • Milla, R. & García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1): 1-20.
  • Milla, R. & García Mayo, M. P. (in press). Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about corrective feedback compared with classroom behaviour in CLIL and EFL. In Talbot, K., Mercer, S., Gruber, M.-T. & Nishida, R. (Eds.), The Psychological Experience of Integrating Language and Content. UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Mori, R. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and corrective feedback. JALT Journal, 24 (1), 48‒69.
  • Nassaji, H. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 53, 3-28.
  • Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming). Oliver, R. & Grote, E. (2010). The provision and uptake of different types of recasts in child and adult ESL learners: What is the role of age and context? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33 (3): 26.1‒26.22.
  • Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573‒595.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315-341.
  • R Development Core Team (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  • Russell, V.J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 133‒164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Saito, K. (2013). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63 (3), 499-529.
  • Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of / ɹ / by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595‒633.
  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129‒158.
  • 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.
  • Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. New York: Springer.
  • Spada, N. & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme: Coding Conventions and Applications. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
  • Tedick, D. J. & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language integration in K-12 contexts: Learner outcomes, teacher practices and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45 (1), 28–53.
  • Yang, J. (2016). Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and type of error. System, 61, 75-86.
  • 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.
  • Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134‒1169.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet