A Study on Middle School English Teachers’ Corrective Feedback in Different Instructions

jie XU

Abstract


Teachers’ corrective feedback has been the focus for some time in SLA. The study, based on the framework of teaching focus, corrective feedback and learner uptake by these researchers, explores how teachers’ corrective feedback is related to focus on instruction. The research method is a corpus-based approach, which relies on computer and corpus tool—Antconc 3.2.0w and Repetition Tool. The findings show that (a) MF Instru. invites the most CFSs, followed by F&M Instru. and FF Instru. respectively; (b)When teachers correct students’ errors, they pay much more attention to form-focused errors (FF errors) than to meaning-focused errors (MF errors); grammatical errors attract the most attention whichever the instruction it is; in MF Instru. and F&M Instru., though MF errors occupy a small proportion of all the errors, their number is larger than that of phonological errors and lexical errors; (c) In general, the majority of feedback type after FF errors (phonological, grammatical and lexical errors) is recast, whereas the majority of feedback type after MF errors is Negotia.C; as it is related to instruction types, in FF Instru., teachers prefer to use Negotia.C to follow phonological and lexical errors, and recast to follow grammatical errors; in MF Instru., teachers prefer to use recast to follow FF errors (phonological, grammatical and lexical errors); in F&M Instru., teachers prefer to use recast to follow phonological errors, Negotia.C to follow grammatical errors, and both Negotia.C and recast are preferred after lexical errors; (d) Negotia.C invites the most learner repair, followed by Expli.C and recast respectively; As it is related to instruction types, Negotia.C brings about the highest repair rate, and recast leads students to produce the lowest rate of repair in FF Instru., MF Instru. and F& M Instru. as well.

Keywords


Corrective Feedback Sequence (CFS); Instruction focus; Error types; Feedback types; Uptake types

Full Text:

PDF

References


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

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Jack, C. R., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. (1998a). Recast, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. SSLA, 20, 51-81.

Shi, G. (2005). Teachers’ error correction and students’ acception in English class. Foreign Language and Literature, 4, 242-248.

Tang, J. Y. (2003). Teachers’ error correction’s impact on the students’ acquisition uptake in English class (Master’s Thes). South China Normal University.

Zhao, C. (2005). Teachers’ corrective feedback of different level of English teaching—A Study based on corpus. Journal of PLA Foreign Languages Institute, 3, 35-44.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/%25x

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c)



Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

Submission Guidelines for Canadian Social Science

We are currently accepting submissions via email only. The registration and online submission functions have been disabled.

Please send your manuscripts to css@cscanada.net，or css@cscanada.org for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 

Canadian Social Science Editorial Office

Address: 1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture