CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND STUDENTS' UPTAKE IN ADULT ESL COMMUNICATIVE CLASSROOM

AILEEN LAU EK LING (11597)

This project is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Education with Honours

Teaching English as Second Language (TESL)

Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Hwnan Development UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARA W AK

2008

BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS Gred:

nmUL: CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND STUDENTS' UPTAKE IN ADULT ESL COMMUNICATIVE CLASSROOM

SESI PENGAJIAN : 2004 - 2008

Saya AILEEN LAU EK LING (HURUF BESAR)

mengaku membenarkan tesis * ini disimpan di Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti J\![alaysia Sarawak dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:

l. Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Malaysia Sarawak 2. Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak dibenarkan membuat

salinan untuk tujuan pengajian sahaja 3. Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak dibenarkan membuat

pendigitan untuk membangunkan Pangkalan Data Kandungan Tempatan 4. Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak dibenarkan membuat

salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara institusi pengajian tinggi 5. ** sila tandakan (,I )

DSULIT

DTERHAD

D TIDAK TERHAD

(mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau kepentingan seperti terrnaktub di dalam AKT A RAHSIA RASMI 1972)

(Mengandungi maklumat Terhad yang telah ditentukan oleh organisasi/badan di mana penyelidikan dijalankan)

(TANDATANGANPENULIS) (T ANDAT ANGAN PENYELIA)

AIamat Tetap:

13, LORONG SEBUYAU, JALAN AWANG RAMLI AMIT, 96000 SIEU, SARA W AK.

Tarikh: Tarikh: ________ . ____ _

Catatan: * TeS1S dlmaksudkan sebagm teslS bag! IJazah Doktor Falsafah, SarJana dan SarJana Muda *Jika tesis ini SULIT atau 1ERHAD, sila Jampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasalorganisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh tesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai TERHAD.

The project entitled Corrective Feedback and Students' Uptake in Adult ESL Communicative Classroom was prepared by Aileen Lau Ek Ling and submitted to the Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Education with Honours (Teaching English as a Second Language).

It is hereby confirmed that the student has done all the necessary amendments of the project for acceptance

(Dr. Ting Su Hie)

Date: _______ _

Grade

ABSTRACT

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND STUDENTS' UPTAKE IN ADULT ESL COMMUNICATIVE CLASSROOM

Aileen Lau Ek Ling

This study was designed to examine the patterns of en-or treatment sequence in adult ESL communicative classrooms in a tertiary institution. The study investigated the types of corrective feedback used by the instructors and their relationship to students' uptake of feedback and immediate repair of error. A case study was conducted to observe the classroom interaction of 20 classes of students with the average of 30 students per class. From the audio taped recording of the 20 two-hour classroom interaction sessions, 96 incidents comprising of en-ors, con-ective feedback and learner uptake were identified and coded according to Lyster and Ranta's (1997) corrective discourse model. The results included the frequency and distribution of the three ditferent language errors, six different feedback types used by the instructors, and nine different types of students' uptake following each feedback type. The tindings revealed a clear preference for instructors to notice and respond to grammatical and phonological errors. Results indicated an overwhelming tendency for instructors to use recasts to elicit students' response to the feedback, which mostly were repetition and incorporation of the correct form. The study also revealed that recasts were inetfective in encouraging student-generated repairs in spite of the latter's high frequency of use. Consequently, frequency of learners' uptake in tenns of immediate student-generated repair of en-or was low in this study. Other feedback types such as metalinguistic feedback and clarification requests led to student-generated repairs more successfully and allowed students to negotiate the form as the correct form of target language was not provided to students. Generally, the findings have practical applications in the context of ESL communicative classrooms in relation to en-or treatment sequence.

111

ABSTRAK

MAKLUM BALAS DAN PEMBETULAN PELAJAR DEW ASA DALAM BILIK DARJAH KOMUNlKATIF ESL

Aileen Lau Ek Ling

Satu kajian kes telah dijalankan dengan tujuan untuk mengkaji urutan kesilapan bahasa secara lisan oleh pelajar dewasa dalam bilik-bilik darjah kamunikatif ESL di satu instilusi pengajian tinggi. Kajian tentang maklum balas digunakan oleh pengajar dan hubungan yang berkaitan dengan pengambilan maklum balas dan pembaikan kesilapan bahasa oleh pelajar-pelajar telah diselidikkan. Satu kajian kes untuk memerhati interaksi bilik darjah bagi 20 kelas yang berpurata 30 pelajar untuk setiap kelas telah djalankan. Daripada 20 rakaman suara bagi sesi-sesi interaksi bilik darjah selama dua jam, 96 contoh kejadian yang mengandungi kesilapan, maklum balas dan pembetulan kesilapan pelajar secara lisan telah dikenalpastikan dan dikodkan mengikut model pembetulan Lyster dan Ranta (1997). Hasil kajian termasuk kekerapan bagi tiga jenis kesilapan bahasa, enam jenis maklum balas yang berbeza digunakan oleh pengajar-pengajar, dan sembilan jenis pembetulan pelajar berikutan setiap jenis maklum balas. Penemuan kajian telah menunjukkan bahawa pengajar memberi keutamaan untuk bermaklum balas terhadap kesilapan gramatis dan fonologi bahasa. Keputusan kajian telah menunjukkan kecenderungan bagi pengajar-pengajar menggunakan recasts untuk mendapatkan respons daripada pelajar-pelajar dan kebanyakan respons pelajar adalah pengulangan dan penyelitan respons betul yang diberikan oleh pengajar. Kajian juga mendedahkan recasts adalah tidak berkesan bagi menggalakkan pelajar dalam membaiki kesilapan bahasa walauplln kekerapan penggllnaannya adalah tinggi. Oleh itu, kekerapan pelajar-pelajar dalam membaiki kesilapan bahasa secara lisan adalah rendah dalam kajian ini. Maklum balas lain seper!i maklum balas me!alinguistik dan permintaan penjelasan adalah lebih berjaya untuk pelajar menghasilkan respons yang betul kerana mengizinkan pelajar-pelaiar untuk berunding tentang bentuk bahasa yang betul memandangkan respons yang betul tidak diberikan oleh pengajar. Umllmnya, penemuan kajian yang berkaitan dengan urutan kesilapan bahasa secara lisan boleh dipraktikkan dalam konteks bilik darjah komllnikatif ESL.

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Give all glory and honour to my Heavenly Father!

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and heartiest apprecIatIOn to the following people who have guided and supported me throughout the process of accomplishing this project.

1. Dr. Ting Su Hie, my supervisor who has guided me throughout this research on classroom discourse. Thank you for her love, patience, encouragement, advice and professional guidance throughout this research.

2. The instructors who teach Preparatory English I and their students who allowed me to tape recordings in their classrooms.

3. My father, Mr. Lau Yieng Hui and my mother, Mdm. Sii Huong King who always support me through their prayers and encouragements.

4. My beloved pastor, Rev. Ling Man Hsi who prayed for me and was concerned for me throughout my four years of studying in UNIMAS.

5. My dearest coursemates, friends and my 101 housemates-Amelia Soon, Jessica Lau, Ting Sing Yea and Jacinta Yeo who share good times and bad times with me.

v

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Setting of the research problem

1.2 Statement of the problem

2

1.3 Purpose ofthe study

1.4 Objectives of the study

1.5 Operational detinition ofterIns

1.6 Signiticance of the study

1.7 Scope of the study

LITERA TURE REVIEW

Page 111

IV

V

VIII

IX

X

1

4

7

8

8

15

16

18

2.1 Second language learning 18

2.2 Phenomenon and perspectives of error correction in L2 learning 24

2.3 Theoretical framework of study 31

2.4 Relationship between error types, corrective feedback and 37

learners' uptake in communicative classrooms

2.5 Summary 44

VI

3

4

5

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

3.2 Selection of samples

3.3 Data collection procedures

3.4 Data transcription

3.5 Data analysis

3.6 Limitations of the study

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

48

48

50

54

57

60

64

66

4.1 Learners' language errors 66

4.2 Instructors' corrective feedback 71

4.3 Students' uptake 83

4.4 The relationship between corrective feedback and students' 91

uptake

4.5 Discussion 95

4.6 Summary 102

CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary

5.2 Implications of the findings

5.3 Recommendations for future research

5.4 Conclusions

105

105

110

111

112

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

115

125

V1l

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2

3

4

5

Distribution of language errors responded with instructors' 70

immediate corrective feedback

Distribution of corrective feedback types arising from different

types of language errors

Distribution of different patterns of uptake following six different

types of corrective feedback

Frequency and percentage of corrective feedback turns leading to

repaIr

Frequency and percentage of repairs attributed to each feedback

type

V111

77

86

93

94

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Error treatment sequence adapted from Lyster and Ranta's 35

(1997) analytical model

IX

CA

CLS

ESL

IRF

KBSM

Ll

L2

LRE

MUET

SLA

STPM

TESL

UNIMAS

LIST OF ABBREVIA nONS

Communicati ve Approach

Centre for Language Studies

English as a Second Language

Initiating, Responding, Follow-up

KlIrikulllm 8ersepadll Sekolah Menengah

First language

Second language

Language Related Episodes

Malaysian University English Test

Second Language Acquisition

Siji! Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia

Teaching English as a Second Language

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak

x

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the setting of the research problem. It also explains the

purpose and objectives of the study, operational definitions of tern1S and significance

of the study. The scope of study is also included in this chapter.

1.1 Setting of the Research Problem

Over the years, there were different perspectives on how grammar was to be

taught and learnt in language learning. The dominant methods of the 1960s for

teaching second languages which included grammar-translation method and the

audio-lingual method emphasized the need for grammar teaching, difTering only in

how grammar was to be taught (Ellis, 1997, p. 42). These methods rested on very

different theories of language learning and no single study could demonstrate the

unequivocal superiority of one method over the other.

Tn the early twentieth century, the structural view of language prevailed and

thus led to the assumption on how a language is learnt, that is, by mastering the

elements or building blocks of the language and learning the rules by which these

elements are combined, from phoneme to morpheme to word to phrase to sentence

(Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 49). The structural view oflanguage primarily focuses

1

on the grammatical system and it emphasizes on linguistic competence. However, the

structural view oflanguage is not sutlicient on its own to account for how language is

used as a means of communication (Littlewood, 1981, p. I). Tn the late 1960s, the

functional view of language emerged and it focused on communicative competence,

that is, use of language appropriate to a given social context. The functional view of

language thus led to the recognition of Communicative Approach (CA) in language

teaching and learning. In CA classroom, both form and meaning of the language are

taken into account in teaching a second language.

Generally, there are two versious of Communicative Approach, which include

a "strong" and a "weak" version (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). According to Howatt

(1984), the "weak" version ofCA which has become more ofless standard practice in

the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to

use their English for communicative purposes and characteristically, attempts to

integrate such activities into a wider program of language teaching. The "strong"

version of CA, on the other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired

through communication, so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing

hut inert knowledge of the language, hut of stimulating the development of the

language system itself. The former one could be described as "learning to use"

English, while the latter one entails "using English to learn it" (in Richards &

Rodgers, 1986, p. 66).

Since the goal of CA in teaching and 1e3111ing a language focuses on both

f01m and meaning, hence the role of form-focused instruction in second language

(L2) learning is a matter of controversy in the study of Second Language Acquisition

(SLA). On the one hand, some view that learning proceeds most etliciently if it

conforms to how learners develop their interlanguage. In other words, teachers should

organize their instructional syllabus in accordance with the natural order of

acquisition and also the more viable notion that grammar teaching be abandoned,

leaving learners free to acquire the grammar of the second language naturally. On the

other hand, it has been argued that learning second language is not the same as

2

acquiring the first language, hence grammar should be taught either explicitly or

implicitly (Ellis, 1997). In particular, grammar teaching seems to help learners to

perf01m grammatical structures with greater accuracy (White, Spada, Lightbown &

Ranta, 1991) and also to progress through development sequences more rapidly

(Spada & Lightbown, 1993). Ellis (1995a) stated grammar teaching can help develop

explicit L2 knowledge or learning, which can be utilized in monitoring. It can also

facilitate the intake of unknown features of the L2 grammar by bringing about

noticing. Noticing is very important, so much so that Ellis categorically stated that

'No noticing, no acquisition' (1995a, p. 89).

Therefore, with respect to form-focused instruction In L2 learning, the

discussions on how error treatment should be given have been developed in the field

of classroom SLA (Allwright & Bailey, 1991 in Suzuki, 2004; Chaudron, 1988;

Dekeyser, 1993). Besides, a number of studies have been conducted to examine the

impact of error correction or teacher feedback on L2 development and learning. The

early research conducted by Allwright (1975) and Fanse10w (1977) revealed that

there was much ambiguity in error treatment or feedback given by teachers (in

Panova & Lyster, 2002). Besides, Krashen (1982) and Dekeyser (1993) also

conducted further studies in a similar field and found that error correction did not

have much impact on language learning. Krashen's (1982) affective filter hypothesis

proposed that error correction can raise learners' level of anxiety and this impedes

learning. On the other hand, Swain (1985), White (1987, 1989), Ellis (1995) and

Long (1996) suggested the beneficial role of teacher's corrective feedback and

concluded that this negotiation process enabled collaboration between teacher and the

learners in managing interactional task in the classroom.

From the pedagogical standpoint, corrective feedback has been the focus of a

number of inquiries into classroom teaching and learning over the past two decades.

A number of studies on the nature and role of corrective feedback in second language

teaching and learning in English as Second Language (ESL) and other second

language educational contexts have been conducted to understand the phenomenon in

3

depth (Doughty & Varela, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey & Philp, 1998;

Mackey, Gass & McDonough, 2000; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004; Suzuki,

2004; Williams, 1999). Furthennore, a few recent studies that compared corrective

feedback across different instructional settings were also conducted, for instance,

French Immersion with children in Queba, Canada (Lyster & Ranta, 1997); ESL with

adults in Canada (Panova & Lyster, 2002); ESL with adults in New York (Suzuki,

2004). Though these studies were conducted in different instructional settings, the

specific aspects that were looked into intensely include types of errors, patterns of

corrective feedback in different instructional contexts, patterns of learners' uptake,

and the correlation between types of corrective feedback and learners' uptake and

repair. Most of these studies provided the supportive evidence that corrective

feedback has positive impact on learners' uptake in learning and is able to draw

learners' attention to fonn, although it is only applicable to learners' immediate

responses to the feedback.

However, teachers are m the midst of change in recent ESL teaching

environment. Some teachers view the practices of error correction positively and

some are not. Therefore, this study is conducted to examine the phenomenon of

corrective feedback responses to students' oral errors in Malaysian undergraduate

ESL communicative classrooms.

1.2 Statement of Problem

In Malaysia, the changing trends in English language teaching had been

reflected in the English language syllabi used in secondary schools. Changes in

language teaching and syllabus desi~,'n reflected a shift ITom concern over the fonnal

properties of language to a view of language as primary tool of communication. Tn

1970s, the Structural Syllabus was used for lower secondary level (Ministry of

Education of Malaysia 1973, 1975a, 1976 in Ting, 2007). In 1975, the Malaysian

Communicational Syllabus for the teaching of English at the upper secondary level

was introduced (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 75). Richards and Rodgers (1986)

4

stated that this Communicational Syllabus was organized around a specification of

communicative tasks that dealt with the situational or communicative use of language

and the teaching of grammar is covert. Tn the organizational schema three board

communicative objectives were broken down into twenty-four more specific

objectives determined on the basis of needs analysis. These objectives were organized

into learning areas, each of which specitied a number of learning outcomes, goals or

products. The main aim of this Communicational Syllabus was to provide secondary

school students with opportunities to use language for various functions in a range of

everyday situations. Nevertheless, some teachers were dissatisfied with the

Communicational Syllabus because the grammar was not taught explicitly (Asraf,

1996).

In 1988, Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah (KBSM) was implemented

m schools based on a communicative model of language teaching learning which

emphasizes the integration of language content with language skills, using topic as a

context (Pillay & North, 1997). The KBSM English Language Syllabus is arranged

according to themes which are drawn from familiar contexts. These themes provide

the context in which the language skills and language content are to be taught in an

integrated manner (Asrat~ 1996).

Therefore, most English language teachers in Malaysia are taught the

Communicative Approach (CA) in their TESL (Teaching English as Second

Language) degree over the years. However, it seems that some teachers have

misunderstood that communicative language classrooms only emphasized language

t1uency. As a result, some teachers might not be aware that the intended goal of CA

in language teaching is communicative competence, which emphasizes both 1uency

and accuracy. Misunderstanding on the principles of CA in language teaching and

learning may result in negative impact whereby teachers believe that they should not

teach grammar or correct students' language errors explicitly in a communicatively-

oriented classroom. Tn some cases, teachers might not correct students' speech errors

to some extent if the meaning of the language was emphasized more than the form in

5

language teaching. In some other cases, teachers ignore the principles of

communicative language teaching and teach grammar in the traditional way based on

the structural view of language (see Ting, 2007) and many English teachers reported

that it is uncomfortable for them not to teach grammar explicitly (see Pillay & North,

1997).

In addition, research on teachers' beliefs and practice in grammar teaching

with respect to KBSM English Language Syllabus had revealed that the teachers

discussed the teaching of the syllabus in terms of teaching the topics instead of

teaching the skills, and the teachers appeared to be unclear of the role of grammar in

the new curriculum and also revealed a lack of understanding of how grammar is to

be integrated into the English lesson (Pillay, 1995 in Pillay & North, 1997). In

relation to this matter, Pillay and North (1997) also found that the participants in this

study preferred explicit teaching of grammar instead of teaching grammar in context.

Similarly, Asrat's (1996) survey on the perceptions of 419 secondary school

English teachers in the Selangor state towards the different aspects of the KBSM

English Language Syllabus reported that 96% of the teachers were of the view that it

is important for the students to learn grammar as the grammar is a fundamental aspect

of language. Regarding grammar teaching in context, 92% of the teachers felt that it

is sometimes necessary to spend an entire period on grammar, and only a relatively

low percentage (31 %) felt that grammar should be taught in context.

Moreover, Farrell and Lim (2005) also conducted a qualitative case study to

investigate the relationship between beliefs and actual classroom practices of two

experienced English language teachers in relation to grammar teaching in a primary

school in Singapore. These teachers revealed that they prefer traditional approach to

grammar teaching. They claimed that deductive approach is preferred rather than

inductive approach to grammar teaching as deductive approach is more

"straightforward" and less time-consuming.

Besides, Richards, Gallo, and Renandya (2001) had administered a selt~report

questionnaire to participants in an in-service course and discovered that although

6

many stated they followed a communicative approach to teaching, many of the

respondents still hold firmly to the belief that grammar is central to language learning

and direct grammar teaching is needed by their ESL students (in Farrell & Lim, 2005).

All these studies were in favour of traditional grammar instruction and

deductive approach to grammar teaching. Thus, it is presumed that there is explicit

error correction with the use of the structural approach to teaching language though

these studies do not dwell on the issue of error correction, except for Ting (2007) who

reported that the participants in the study believed in the goal of achieving

grammatical accuracy in language learning through immediate error correction.

Accordingly, the emergence of different beliefs on the importance of

corrective feedback and possible practices in giving corrective feedback to students'

language errors in recent L2 studies leads to the need to look into the research

problem in depth. Teachers' practices in responding to or correcting students'

language speech errors in ESL communicative classroom are greatly intluenced by

their philosophies of language teaching and their proficiency levels of English.

Hence, this study is conducted to study the phenomenon of corrective

feedback on how the teacher responds to students' speech errors verbally in an actual

ESL communicative language classroom as well as the students' immediate responses

to the oral correction. This is due to the reason that a typical classroom interaction

consists of two-way communication, that is, both teacher and students' interaction.

Thus, there is a relationship between teachers' corrective feedback and students'

uptake of correction in learning second language. Therefore, it is necessary to look

into the students' uptake of correction besides instructors' oral error correction.

1.3 Purpose ofthe Study

The aIm of this study is to examme instructors' oral error correction and

students' uptake of corrective feedback, involving the relationship between types of

corrective feedback and how learners respond to them in a communicatively-oriented

ESL classroom context in a tertiary institution.

7

1.4 Objectives of the study

The objectives of this study are to:

(1) identify types of students' language errors that receive attention from

instructors, for example, phonological, lexical and grammatical error;

(2) categorise and classify the frequency of different types of instructors' oral

corrective feedback arising from different students' language errors in ESL

communicative classroom, for example, explicit correction, recast,

clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition;

(3) examine the patterns of students' uptake following the corrective feedback

given by instructors, for example, repair, needs-repair and no uptake;

(5) examine the relationship between types of corrective feedback and students'

uptake of correction in terms of students' potential short term acquisition of

second language.

1.5 Operational Definition of Terms

Types of Error

An error IS defined as "an utterance, form or structure that a Pa11icular

language teacher deems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence

in real-life discourse" (Hendrickson, 1978). TIl-fanned utterances are classified as

having either one or more than one error. Errors in ESL context are classified as

phonological, lexical or grammatical errors. Phonological errors are inaccurate

pronunciation of words that often lead to difficulty of comprehension of the target

words. Lexical errors include inaccurate use of nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, in

the sense of open classes or word groups whose membership is in principle indefinite

or unlimited (Crystal, 1991). Grammatical errors are non-target use of determiners,

prepositions, pronouns, subject verb agreement, tense, verb morphology, auxiliaries,

pluralization, negation, question formation and word order. One example for each

8

type of error that is taken from Panova and Lyster's (2002) study is provided as

follows:

1. S: Dangerous /dange'rusl? (phonological error)

2. S: Mother gave birth to one people. (lexical error)

3. S: I want practice today, today. (grammatical error)

Accordingly, in the present study, only these three types of errors are given

attention. Phonological, lexical and grammatical errors are analyzed in this study

because these three types of errors are the most common and frequent errors that

made by students in a typical ESL classroom. Besides, this study focuses on the

actual sequences of student's error and instructor's corrective feedback. Therefore,

students' errors that are not responded to with corrective feedback by instructors are

not included in the analysis of error treatment sequence in this present study.

Types of Corrective Feedback

Corrective feedback refers to "any reaction of the teacher which clearly

transfOlms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner

utterance" (Chaudron, 1977 in Panova & Lyster, 2002, p. 574). The definition for

each corrective feedback type below is taken from the Lyster and Ranta's (1997)

model and examples for each feedback type come from the Panova and Lyster (2002)

and Suzuki (2004).

1. Explicit correction refers to the explicit provision of the correct form. As the

teacher provides the correct form, he or she clearly indicates that what the student

had said was incorrect (for example, 'Oh, you mean ... ', 'You should say ... ').

S: The day ... tomorrow (lexical error)

T: No, the day before yesterday. (explicit correction)

9

2. Recasts involve the teacher's reformulation of all or part of a student's utterance to

minimize the error. Recasts are generally implicit in that they are not introduced

by phrases such as 'You mean', 'Use this word', or 'You should say'.

s: You should go to see doctor. (grammatical error) T: the doctor. (recast)

3. Clarification requests indicate to students either that their utterance has been

misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterauce is ill-formed in some way and

that a repetition or a reformulation is required. A claritication request includes

phrases such as 'Pardon me ... ', 'J'm sorry?' Jt may also include a repetition of

the error as in 'What do you mean by ... ?'

s: He sick [s",k]. (phonological error) T: He sick? What did you say? (clarification request)

4. Metalinguistic feedback contains comments, information, or questions related to

the well-fornledness of the student's utterance, without explicitly providing the

correct form. Metalinguistic comments generally indicate that there is an error

somewhere (for example, 'Can you tind your error?').

S: She without. (grammatical error)

T: without ... what is the verb? (metalinguistic feedback)

5. Elicitation refers to a corrective technique that prompts the learner to self-correct.

Lyster and Ranta (1997) identified three techniques that teachers use to directly

elicit the correct form from the students: (a) teacher pauses and lets the student

completing the utterance (for example, "It's a ... ", (b) teacher asks an open

10

question to elicit correct forms (for example, ... 'How do we say x in English?'),

and (c) teacher occasionally asks the student to reformulate his or her utterance.

s: Because 1 enjoy the city life [laip]. (phonological error) T: City ... (elicitation)

6. Repetition refers to the teacher's repetition of the student's erroneous utterance. In

most cases, the teacher usually highlights the error with a change in intonation.

s: When J don't understand what garden [kuden] is in Japan (phonological error) T: [kuden]? (repetition)

The six different types of corrective feedback that are explicit correction,

recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition of

error identified by Lyster and Ranta (1997) are used in the analysis of classroom

interaction data for classifying types of corrective feedback in this present study.

Based on the definition given, corrective feedback in this study refers to any

immediate response of the teacher to a student's verbal utterance that consists of

language errors.

Types of Students' Uptake

The term "uptake" is used to refer to a student's utterance that immediately

follows the teacher's feedback, and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the

teacher's intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student's initial utterance

(Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 49). A description of uptake, then, reveals what the student

attempts to do with the teacher's feedback. If there is no uptake, then there is topic

continuation, which is initiated by either the same or another student or by the

teacher. Lyster and Ranta classified two types of students' uptake: (a) repair, when

the uptake move results in repair of an error, and (b) needs-repair, when an error is

II

not repaired in the uptake move. Suzuki (2004) identified the third type of uptake,

that is, no uptake, when the teacher's feedback is not responded to nor reacted to by

the student. The examples for each type of uptake are taken fi'om the Pan ova and

Lyster (2002) and Suzuki (2004).

1. Repair refers to the correct reformulation of an error as uttered in a single tum

and not to the sequence of turns resulting in the correct reformulation; nor does it

refer to self-initiated repair (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 49). In other word, repair

refers to correct reformulation of an error only after prompting. Schegloff,

Jefferson & Sacks (1977) also defined repair as "other-initiated repair" (in Lyster

& Ranta, 1997, p. 49). Lyster and Ranta distinguished four types of repair in their

study: repetition, self-repair, peer-repair and incorporation. The examples for each

type ofrepair are taken from Suzuki's (2004) study.

(a) Repetition refers to a student's repetition of the correct form given in the

teacher's corrective feedback when the latter includes the correct form.

S: You should go to see doctor. (grammatical error)

T: the doctor. (recast)

S: You should go to see the doctor (repair - repetition)

(b) Self-repair refers to a self-correction, produced by the student who made the

initial error, in response to the teacher's feedback when the latter does not

provide the correct form.

S: Do the parents time to do so? (grammatical error)

T: What? (clarification request)

S: Do the parents ... pare, parents time, do the parents have time to do so?

(repair - self-repair)

12

(c) Peer-repair refers to peer-correction provided by other student, other than the

one who initially made the elTor, in response to the teacher's cOlTective

feedback.

S I: I don't understand wine [win]. (phonological elTor)

T: I'm sorry ... ? (clarification request)

S2: Wine [wain] (repair - peer-repair)

(d) Incorporation refers to a student's repetition of the correct form provided by

the teacher, which is then incorporated into a longer utterance produced by the

student.

S: Eh ... : Kaii [:Kaii] convention. (phonological elTor)

T: What kind of convention? (classification request)

S: Kaii convention ... eh ... some people ... (repair - incorporation)

2. Needs-repair refers to a situation where the learner responds to the colTective

feedback but the learner's utterance does not result in repairing the initial

erroneous utterance. In Lyster and Ranta (1997), six types of needs-repair are

identified in their study: acknowledgment, same elTor, different elTor, off-target,

hesitation and partial repair.

(a) Acknowledgement generally refers to a simple "yes" on the part of the

student's response to the teacher's cOlTective feedback.

s: Two people go out, and pay for one people price. (grammatical error) T: Exactly. Two people go out and pay for one person. (recast)

S: Yeah. (needs-repair- acknowledgement)

13