14
Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students * Eun Jeong (Esther) Lee The Ohio State University, USA Received 27 March 2012; revised 19 October 2012; accepted 24 January 2013 Available online 16 February 2013 Abstract The present study investigates the patterns of corrective feedback and learner repair present in advanced-level adult ESL classrooms, and examines both teacher and student preferences regarding that feedback. The data were collected through actual classroom observations, questionnaires, and in-depth follow-up interviews. The findings of this study were as follows: first of all, based on classroom observations, the most frequent type of corrective feedback was recasts, which generated 92.09% learner repair. Secondly, the student respondents most preferred to receive explicit and immediate corrections in the middle of their conversations and during teacher-student interactions. However, the teachers strongly disagreed that they should correct all of the students’ errors and mistakes, although they recognized the benefits of teachers’ corrective feedback and the efficacy of immediate correction of the students’ errors to enhance their oral proficiency. Finally, in-depth follow-up interviews with students analyzed the discrepancies between their preferences and the actual classroom feedback given. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teachers’ oral corrective feedback; Students’ corrective feedback preferences; Learner repair; Second language acquisition; Advanced- level adult ESL classrooms 1. Introduction Corrective feedback (hereafter, CF) is a pedagogical technique teachers use to draw attention to students’ erroneous utterances, and which may result in learners’ modified output (Suzuki, 2004). According to Long (1996), CF is connected to further ESL improvement, in that it can offer students opportunities to perceive the differences between output and input by means of a negotiation of meaning (as cited in Yamamoto, 2003). Uptake refers to the learners’ immediate responses following teacher feedback (Lyster, 1998), and repair denotes the teacher-initiated correction of an error in a single utterance (Lyster and Ranta, 1997). Teachers’ in-class CF on their students’ oral second language (L2) production has received considerable attention over the past 20 years. Many studies have been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of CF and learner uptake in terms of target language development through teacherelearner interaction. In addition, studies on CF in second * This paper was presented at the 2011 TESOL Convention (New Orleans, Louisiana). E-mail address: [email protected]. 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022 www.elsevier.com/locate/system Available online at www.sciencedirect.com System 41 (2013) 217e230

Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/systemSystem 41 (2013) 217e230

Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advancedESL students*

Eun Jeong (Esther) Lee

The Ohio State University, USA

Received 27 March 2012; revised 19 October 2012; accepted 24 January 2013

Available online 16 February 2013

Abstract

The present study investigates the patterns of corrective feedback and learner repair present in advanced-level adult ESLclassrooms, and examines both teacher and student preferences regarding that feedback. The data were collected through actualclassroom observations, questionnaires, and in-depth follow-up interviews. The findings of this study were as follows: first of all,based on classroom observations, the most frequent type of corrective feedback was recasts, which generated 92.09% learner repair.Secondly, the student respondents most preferred to receive explicit and immediate corrections in the middle of their conversationsand during teacher-student interactions. However, the teachers strongly disagreed that they should correct all of the students’ errorsand mistakes, although they recognized the benefits of teachers’ corrective feedback and the efficacy of immediate correction of thestudents’ errors to enhance their oral proficiency. Finally, in-depth follow-up interviews with students analyzed the discrepanciesbetween their preferences and the actual classroom feedback given.� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teachers’ oral corrective feedback; Students’ corrective feedback preferences; Learner repair; Second language acquisition; Advanced-

level adult ESL classrooms

1. Introduction

Corrective feedback (hereafter, CF) is a pedagogical technique teachers use to draw attention to students’ erroneousutterances, and which may result in learners’ modified output (Suzuki, 2004). According to Long (1996), CF isconnected to further ESL improvement, in that it can offer students opportunities to perceive the differences betweenoutput and input by means of a negotiation of meaning (as cited in Yamamoto, 2003). Uptake refers to the learners’immediate responses following teacher feedback (Lyster, 1998), and repair denotes the teacher-initiated correction ofan error in a single utterance (Lyster and Ranta, 1997).

Teachers’ in-class CF on their students’ oral second language (L2) production has received considerable attentionover the past 20 years. Many studies have been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of CF and learner uptake interms of target language development through teacherelearner interaction. In addition, studies on CF in second

* This paper was presented at the 2011 TESOL Convention (New Orleans, Louisiana).

E-mail address: [email protected].

0346-251X/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022

Page 2: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

218 E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

language (L2) classrooms and ESL settings have verified its characteristics and role in L2 teaching and learning(Doughty and Varela, 1998; Havranek, 1999; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Panove and Lyster, 2002; Ohta, 2000; Oliver,2000). However, most studies on CF and learner uptake in ESL classrooms were conducted in instructional settingsspecifically for young students. For example, in White’s (1991) study the participants were fifth and sixth graders in anintensive English ESL program; in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) research the subjects were fourth, fifth, and sixth gradersin French immersion classrooms; in Doughty and Varela’s (1998) study the participants were sixth through eighthgraders in a content-based ESL classroom; and in Tsang’s (2004) research the subjects ranged from seventh througheleventh grade, all in ESL classrooms in Hong Kong. However, learning differences (contextual, linguistic, andcognitive factors) between young students and adult students, lead to different preferred CF types, and differentlearner uptake and repair following that feedback (Panove and Lyster, 2002). Accordingly, there is a need to analyzethe different types of CF that occur in adult ESL classrooms, particularly advanced-level classrooms, to supplementprevious work on recasts and to determine which CF types are most effective for these students.

2. Literature review

2.1. Types of corrective feedback

To classify and evaluate specific patterns of CF and learner uptake and repair, many studies have primarily used thedefinitions that Lyster and Ranta (1997) have developed (Han and Jung, 2007; Heift, 2004; Kang, 2008; Panove andLyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004; Suzuki, 2004; Yoshida, 2008). Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) research was conducted in fourFrench immersion classrooms (one fourth grade class, one fifth grade class, and two sixth grade classes), whereprimary school students learned French via content-based instruction. Although Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) studydiffered from many subsequent studies in its instructional contexts, subjects’ ages, and the goals for learning a targetlanguage, their study plays a significant theoretical role. To produce an analytic corrective discourse model of cor-rective feedback in the L2 classroom, they analyzed a series of what they call interactional moves: the student makesan error, the teacher offers some sort of CF, and the student attempts to correct his or her original error. The resultingmodel classifies different error types (phonological, grammatical, and lexical), CF types (recasts, explicit correction,elicitation, clarification, repetition of error, and meta-linguistic feedback), and uptake types (self- or peer repair andneeds-repair).

In order to be comparable with the classifications of teachers’ corrective feedback present in these recent studies,the present study uses Lyster and Ranta’s taxonomy of corrective feedback, divided into six main feedback moves.Definitions of the six types of CF follow the ones in Ellis (2009), Lyster and Ranta’s (1997), Panove and Lyster’s(2002), and Sheen’s (2004) studies, as indicated in Table 1:

Table 1

Corrective feedback types.

CF types Definition Example

1. Explicit correction Indicates an error has been committed, identifies the error,

and provides the correction.

S: On May.

T: Not on May, In May.

We say, “It will start in May.”

2. Recast Reformulates all or part of the incorrect word or phrase,

to show the correct form without explicitly identifying the error.

S: I have to find the answer on the book?

T: In the book

3. Clarification request Indicates that the student’s utterance was not understood

and asks that the student reformulate it.

S: What do you spend with your wife?

T: What? (Or, Sorry?)

4. Meta-linguistic feedback Gives technical linguistic information about the error

without explicitly providing the correct answer.

S: There are influence person who.

T: Influence is a noun.

5. Elicitation Prompts the student to self-correct by pausing so the

student can fill in the correct word or phrase.

S: This tea is very warm.

T: It’s very.?

S: Hot.

6. Repetition Repeats the student’s error while highlighting the error

or mistake by means of emphatic stress.

S: I will showed you.

T: I will SHOWED you?

S: I’ll show you.

Page 3: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

219E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

2.2. The relationship between corrective feedback and learner repair in recent empirical classroom observationstudies

Since the 1990s, most research on CF vs. learner uptake and repair has been conducted in second languageacquisition (SLA) studies (Suzuki, 2004). In particular, scholarly debates have centered on which types of CF are moresuccessful in correcting learners’ errors and promoting L2 development, and on which types of CF effectively result inlearner uptake and repair in a variety of instructional settings. Specifically, of the six different CF types that Lyster andRanta (1997) developed, recasts are one prominent form of oral CF frequently adopted by language teachers (Kang,2008; Lyster and Mori, 2006; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Panove and Lyster, 2002). However, a review of three recentempirical observational studies (Han and Jung, 2007; Panove and Lyster, 2002; Suzuki, 2004) conducted in beginningand intermediate-level adult ESL classrooms suggests that there is a need to implement different types of CF inrelation to students’ proficiency levels.

Han and Jung (2007), Panove and Lyster (2002), and Suzuki (2004) all demonstrated that teachers most frequentlyused recasts in both beginner-level and intermediate-level classes. The teachers in the intermediate-level classes, inparticular, utilized recasts most frequently in treating students’ erroneous utterances, rather than using other types ofCF. On the other hand, the beginner-level classes displayed a preference for other types of CF. For instance, while theteacher in Panove and Lyster’s (2002) study employed recasts at the highest rate, in Han and Jung’s (2007) research theteachers for notably used explicit correction, and frequently elicitation, instead of utilizing recasts.

Moreover, there are critical differences between the recasts that many ESL teachers employed most often inobservational ESL classrooms and the learner repair presented. In beginner-level classes, despite having the highestrate of 77%, recasts did not lead to the highest rate of learner repair in Panove and Lyster’s (2002) study. Only 17% ofrecasts, in fact, generated beginner-level learners’ repair. Instead, elicitation and repetition, both of which were uti-lized very little by teachers, resulted in the maximum percentage of learner repair. On the other hand, the techniques ofexplicit correction and elicitation, which the teachers often used in Han and Jung’s (2007) study, led to equally highlearner repair.

With respect to intermediate-level classes, the relationship between recasts and learner repair was a little moreconsistent than in the beginner-level classes. For example, in Suzuki’s (2004) study recasts brought about a high rate oflearner repair, just behind explicit correction. However, Han and Jung’s study (2007) indicated that a more noteworthytrend of learner repair was led by clarification requests, elicitation, and explicit CF types, rather than the recasts mostfrequently used by teachers in intermediate-level classes. In the intermediate-level context, both studies revealed thatexplicit correction resulted in superior rates of learner repair.

The most critical contextual variable influencing these studies was the students’ proficiency level in English. Theadult students in the beginning-level classes showed high learner repair after the teachers’ explicit correction, elic-itation, and repetition CF. Although the teachers frequently provided them with recasts as implicit CF, recasts did notlead to high learner repair in adult beginner students. In other words, the adult beginner students were more likely torespond to explicit CF types than to implicit CF types. Lin and Hedgcock (1996) assert that learners who have a lowproficiency level in a target language do not sensitively recognize the gap between their interlanguage and the correctforms of a target language. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers in beginning-level classes to provide their studentswith more explicit and understandable CF.

In intermediate-level classes, adult students also displayed high learner repair in response to the teachers’ CF ofclarification requests, elicitation, explicit correction, and recasts. However, the difference between the intermediate-level and the beginning-level students was that the intermediate students noticed and responded to their teachers’recasts more often, which led to high learner repair. This suggests that proficiency level is directly related to theeffectiveness of implicit CF. Therefore, studying the patterns and preferences of teachers’ CF and learner repair inadvanced-level adult ESL classrooms, a context that previous studies have neglected, is worthwhile. Accordingly, thisstudy poses three research questions: 1) what types of corrective feedback actually occur in an adult ESL advanced-level classroom? 2) What types of corrective feedback do students and teachers in adult ESL advanced-level class-rooms prefer? And, 3) what might account for the discrepancy between student preferences and actual classroomfeedback? By analyzing CF types and the learner repair occurring in adult ESL advanced-level classes, the presentresearch contributes to systematizing the types of CF that are the most effective for each of the three different profi-ciency levels among adult students. Also, investigations of advanced-level adult ESL students’ preferences for CF willhelp teachers select appropriate CF types to correct their students’ utterance errors and mistakes more successfully.

Page 4: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

220 E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Sixty advanced-level graduate students, in training to be teaching assistants (TAs), enrolled in the ESL SpokenEnglish program at a university-affiliated language institute at a large public university in the United States. Theparticipants were all doctoral students who would be expected to teach courses in their respective fields to college-level students, and represented a diverse range of fields: Computer Science (9 students), Chemistry (7), Bio-chemistry (5), Economics (4); three each in Biophysics, Statistics, Mathematics, Agricultural Economics, Geography,Mechanical Engineering; two each in Physics, Consumer Science, and Education; and one each from Biology, Music,Art, Philosophy, Operation Research, City Planning, Nutrition, Hospital Management, Family Therapy, PhysicalEducation, and Linguistics.

Likewise, the students were from diverse countries: 28 were Chinese, 10 Korean, 6 Indian, 4 Turkish, 3 Taiwanese,2 Sri-Lankan, 2 Thai, 1 Vietnamese, 1 Indonesian, 1 Nepalese, 1 Bangladeshi, and 1 Singaporean. Their ages rangedfrom 22 to 40. Before the ESL Spoken English program began, all the students took the SPEAK test, an institutionalversion of the TSE (Test of Spoken English) which determines the spoken English proficiency of people whose nativelanguage is not English. Students who receive a score of 230 and above on the SPEAK are immediately certified toteach. The students who participated in this research received scores between 180 and 200. In addition, four teachers(all native speakers of English) whowere responsible for the participants participated in this study. Two of the teachershad taught Spoken English for over 19 years, the third for 6 years, and the fourth for 3 years, all in the ESL SpokenEnglish program at the university.

Thirty students indicated their willingness to participate in in-depth follow-up interviews, and twenty were chosenbased on their questionnaire responses (see below for a detailed account of study instruments and procedures). Theseinterviews expanded on the students’ responses on the questionnaire, especially the open-ended questions. Theinterviewees were from different countries: 9 were Chinese, 5 Korean, 2 Indian, 1 Vietnamese, 1 Indonesian, 1Bangladeshi, and 1 Turkish. Their areas of study were varied as well. Table 2 shows the backgrounds of the inter-viewed students.

Table 2

Interviewed participants’ backgrounds.

Namea Age Gender Home country Area of study in

the Ph.D. program

Duration of

prior English

education (Yrs)

Duration of

time in USA

(Yrs)

1. Joyce 24 Female China Economics 10 1

2. Doris 25 Female China Economics 12 1

3. Joan 24 Female China Geography 13 1

4. Billy 22 Male China Agricultural Econ. 10 1

5. Frank 24 Male China Geography 7 1

6. Jack 27 Male China Education 9 4

7. Racheal 23 Female China Chemistry 14 1

8. Julie 24 Female China Biochemistry 13 2

9. Deb 22 Female China Biochemistry 12 1

10. Mary 29 Female Korea Family Therapy 12 1

11. Emily 27 Female Korea Consumer Science 9 1

12. Joe 29 Male Korea Economics 16 2

13. Robert 34 Male Korea Physical Education 12 3

14. Jay 33 Female Korea Linguistics 10 2

15. Dick 25 Male India Physics 12 1

16. James 25 Male India Geography 12 5

17. Elma 27 Female Vietnam Mathematics 4 2

18. Kate 28 Female Indonesia Art 10 1

19. David 26 Male Bangladesh Computer Science 6 1

20. John 25 Male Turkey Computer Science 8 1

a These are all pseudonyms.

Page 5: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

221E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

3.2. Setting

The ESL Spoken English program, the setting for this study, was established in 1986, to improve English com-munication skills among international teaching assistants (ITAs) whose first language is not English, and ensure theycan teach effectively in a U.S. university system. Specifically, the program screens all prospective ITAs, providescoursework for those who require it, and administers teaching performance tests at the end of coursework to determineteaching certification.

The ESL Spoken English program has four sequenced courses: 504, 504.5, 505, and 505.5. At the end of eachquarter, the students take a mock teaching test. According to the results of their test, some students can advancedirectly from 504 to 505. Specifically, the courses 505 and 505.5, for which the researcher collected the data for thecurrent study, are designed to improve students’ classroom communication skills and teaching techniques. Toaccomplish this, the class focuses on three key components: language, culture, and pedagogy. In terms of language,students improve their functional grammar, listening comprehension, and pronunciation, with specific reference toclassroom discourse and using key terms from their field of study. Specifically, to help students achieve effectiveclassroom communication, teachers in these two courses emphasize natural and readily comprehensible English, notnative speaker-like English. For this reason, they very frequently use immediate oral CF in the classroom, so thatstudents are stopped and corrected whenever a problem in their communication occurs. Students are then asked torepeat their utterances, making the suggested corrections. With respect to culture, students develop an awareness ofthe culture of the undergraduate American classroom, attitudes toward that culture, and how best to deal with it as aninstructor. In regard to pedagogy, students develop proficiency in the teaching strategies that will improve their abilityto communicate effectively in the classroom. In brief, the ultimate goal of the 505 and 505.5 courses is to improvestudents’ natural English so American college students can readily understand it. Through the provision of extensivepeer teaching with video recording and individual reviews, students have many opportunities to refine their Englishcommunication and teaching skills.

3.3. Instruments

The data were collected by means of questionnaires, follow-up interviews, and classroom observations. To beginwith, the students’ and teachers’ questionnaires, which were used to explore students’ and teachers’ preferences forCF, were divided into three parts. The students’ first part consisted of twelve questions that examined their back-grounds in learning English; its counterpart for the teachers consisted of five questions that scrutinized the teachers’backgrounds in teaching English. The second section on both surveys investigated students’ and respective prefer-ences for CF, using a Likert-type scale on eight declarative statements. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used for eachquestion, ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. Similarly, the third part of the survey asked studentsand teachers to rank their preferences for specific types of CF, using a scale ranked from 1 (most preferred type) to 6(least preferred type). Open-ended questions were utilized to ask why students preferred to get the feedback that theyranked highest, and why they did not like to get the feedback that they ranked lowest. In addition, follow-up interviewswere conducted to gather qualitative data, particularly on the open-ended questions, to buttress the quantitative dataderived from the questionnaires.

3.4. Procedures

In order to collect the classroom observation data concerning error correction classification, frequency, studentattitudes, and repair, the researcher observed an advanced ESL classroom for 12 h over the course of four weeks. Eachclass had one and a half hours of instruction and fifteen students. The observed classes were audio-recorded andtranscribed. During the fourth week of November, the researcher administered the questionnaire survey. In eachclassroom, the students and teacher were given 15 min to complete the questionnaire. At the end of the questionnaire,the students were asked if they were willing to participate in an individual follow-up interview with the researcher. Ofthe 30 students who showed an interest in the follow-up interviews, 20 students were selected for interviews based ontheir questionnaire responses about which types of CF they preferred and why. Specifically, their CF rankings andreasons data showed complex and potentially interesting trends suitable for more qualitative analysis, while therejected students’ answers suggested more sporadic preferences and explanations.

Page 6: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

222 E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

Accordingly, the twenty interview participants were interviewed individually for 40 min each, two weeks after thequestionnaire. Before their individual interviews, the interviewees received an email regarding the interview ques-tions, to give them time and opportunity to organize their thoughts and prepare for the interview. The interviewsprobed, in greater depth and detail, the students’ responses about their CF preferences and their responses to the open-ended questions. Member checks were used in order to corroborate face validity, and the recurring themes and reasonsfor why students do or do not prefer to get certain types of CF were coded and classified. The interviews wereconducted in English, in a quiet and empty classroom. Each interview was recorded and immediately transcribed.

3.5. Data analysis

To scrutinize the frequency of CF types used in the classroom (Research Question 1), an external rater coded theaudio-recorded classes in accordance with Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) corrective discourse analytic model categories.In order to establish rater reliability in measuring error correction classification, frequency, and repair, the researcherlater coded the audio-recorded classes the same way. The intrarater reliability correlation reached 0.99 for bothCronbach’s alpha and intra-class correlation (ICC).

Next, to examine the students’ and teachers’ CF preferences (Research Question 2), all eight of the declarativestatements in Section 2 of the students’ and teachers’ surveys were used. The internal reliability of the test tool was0.762 (Cronbach’s alpha). A one-sample t-test was used to identify the discrepancy between the students’ and theteachers’ preferences for CF, but an independent t-test could not be used since there is a big difference between thenumber of students and teachers. In order to compensate for this shortcoming, the mean value of the teachers’preference for that CF type was used as the test value in the one-sample t-test. This process compared the mean valuesof each item in the students’ and teachers’ respective eight declarative items, thereby helping to identify the dis-crepancy between each group’s preferences for CF.

Similarly, the students’ preferred CF types (and the frequency of each) were ranked from 1 (most preferred type) to6 (least preferred type). The top-ranked type was assigned six points, the bottom one point, and so on. The results wereexamined by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test instead of a paired sample t-test, because the scale was ordinal, notinterval. Finally, in order to account for the discrepancies between student preferences and the actual feedback used(Research Question 3), the students’ and teachers’ interview transcriptions were utilized.

4. Results

4.1. What types of corrective feedback actually occur in an adult ESL advanced-level classroom?

As indicated in Table 3, classroom observations demonstrated that teachers in advanced-level adult ESL class-rooms utilized recasts most frequently, at a rate of 48.94%. The other types of corrective feedback were used asfollows: explicit corrections (38.38%), clarification requests (11.27%), repetition (1.06%), and elicitation (0.35%).The teachers did not use meta-linguistic feedback. In terms of the rates of post-feedback student repair, recastsresulted in 92.09% repair, clarification requests led to 90.63%, and explicit corrections brought about 85.32%. Eventhough elicitations and repetition led to 100% learner repair, their frequency rates were comparatively low.

Table 3

Types of teacher’s corrective feedback and learner repair in an actual classroom.

Types of teacher’s corrective feedback Learner repair

Frequency Rate Repair/CF Rate of repair

Explicit corrections 109 38.38% 93/109 85.32%

Recasts 139 48.94% 128/139 92.09%

Clarification requests 32 11.27% 29/32 90.63%

Meta-linguistic feedback 0 0% 0 0%

Elicitation 1 0.35% 1/1 100%

Repetition 3 1.06% 3/3 100%

Total 284 100% 254/284 93.61%

Page 7: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

223E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

Compared to the beginning and intermediate-level adult ESL learners in the studies reviewed earlier, the rates oflearner repair for the various corrective feedback types e particularly that from recasts e were much higher amongadvanced-level adults. This result substantiates a premise maintained by many researchers that recasts may allowmore advanced learners to infer negative evidence, but may pass unnoticed by less advanced learners (Lin andHedgcock, 1996; Mackey and Philip, 1998; Netten, 1991). Including the data from this study, Table 4 shows therelationship between teachers’ corrective feedback and learner repair among adult ESL learners at three differentproficiency levels.

Overall, these observations demonstrate the prevalence of recasts in these classrooms, and suggest that the stu-dents’ high proficiency level made these recasts particularly effective for generating high rates of post-feedbacklearner repair. Further studies should examine this influence more precisely, to determine how feedback type, stu-dent proficiency, and broader pedagogical strategies interact to generate high repair rates.

4.2. What types of corrective feedback do students and teachers in adult ESL advanced-level classrooms prefer?

On the initial questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with eight declarativestatements, originally taken from Han and Jung (2007). These ratings were analyzed to determine students’ andteachers’ preferences for CF. The statements (in US English, since the study was conducted at an American university)for the student survey are:

(1) I want my teacher to correct all of my errors when I speak English.(2) I think I learn more when my teacher corrects my speech.(3) I feel embarrassed when the teacher corrects me in front of other classmates.(4) I want my teacher to correct the errors that I make most often when I speak English.(5) I like to practice speaking English freely. I do not want my teacher to correct my errors when I speak.(6) When my teacher corrects me, I want him/her to tell me what I got wrong and provide the correct form

immediately.(7) When my teacher corrects me, I want him/her to point out what I got wrong, but not give me the correct from so

that I can figure it out myself.(8) I try to correct my errors after the teacher corrects me, by repeating after him/her.

The teachers were asked to evaluate eight similar statements, but from a pedagogical perspective. These statementsare:

(1) Teachers should correct all student errors in spoken English.(2) Students learn more when teachers correct their speech.(3) I do not correct students’ errors because they may feel embarrassed if the teacher corrects their errors in front of

the class.(4) Teachers are obliged to provide correction most often if students display a pattern in their errors.(5) Students should practice speaking English freely, so teachers should not correct their errors.(6) When I am correcting a student, I point out what they got wrong and provide the correct form immediately.

Table 4

Relationship between corrective feedback and learner repair.

Proficiency

level

Explicit correction

repair

Recasts

repair

Clarification

request

Meta-linguistic

feedback

Elicitation

repair

Repetition

repair

1. P&L (2002) Beginning 0% 17% 23% 29% 73% 83%

2. H&J (2007) Beginning 65.8% 14.6% 21.5% 15.4% 38.3% 0%

Intermediate 70.9% 63% 100% 50% 75% 0%

3. Suzuki (2004) Intermediate 100% 65% 37% 50% 17% 40%

4. Current study Advanced 85.32% 92.09% 90.63% 0% 100% 100%

Page 8: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

224 E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

(7) When I am correcting a student, I point out what they got wrong, but do not provide the correct form imme-diately so that students can have time to think about their errors.

(8) Students generally try to correct their errors and practice the correct form immediately after the teacher providesthe correct form.

As indicated in Table 5 and Fig. 1, six of the eight (1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8) declarative items on the questionnaire showedstatistically significant differences between students’ and teachers’ CF preferences (df ¼ 59, p < 0.001).

In particular, the sixty students in the surveyed classrooms strongly preferred that their teachers correct all of theirerrors (Item 1, t ¼ 17.29), and they also strongly wanted their teachers to correct their most frequent errors (Item 4,t¼ 16.03). However, the teachers strongly disagreed that they should correct all of the students’ spoken English errors(Item 1), and they did not feel an obligation to provide CF for all the students’ errors (Item 4).

In addition, the students strongly agreed with the statement that they learn more when their teachers correct theirerrors (Item 2, t¼ 5.31), they strongly desired that their teachers correct their errors explicitly and immediately (Item6, t¼ 7.96), and they strongly agreed with the statement that the students correct their errors after their teachers correcttheir errors, by repeating after their teachers (Item 8, t ¼ 6.97). On the other hand, the four teachers agreed with thestatements that students learn more when teachers correct their errors (Item 2), that they (the teachers) use explicit CF(Item 6), and that students correct their errors and practise the correct form after teachers’ immediate CF (Item 8).Furthermore, the teachers preferred to provide students with implicit CF (Item 7, t ¼ 6.88), though the studentsdisliked this option.

In terms of embarrassment about their teachers’ CF, there was no statistically significant difference between thestudents’ and teachers’ responses (Item 3, t¼�0.59, df¼ 59, p> 0.05). Both the students and teachers disagreed thatteachers’ feedback caused the students embarrassment, even when the corrections occurred in front of other class-mates. In other words, like the students, the teachers did not consider potential student embarrassment to be a hin-drance to giving corrections in front of the class. Similarly, with respect to Item 5, there was no statistical significance(t ¼ 1.91, df ¼ 59, p > 0.05). The teachers and students did not agree that teachers should not correct students’ errorswhen the students practise speaking English freely. These beliefs differ from those of the beginning- and intermediate-level teachers in Han and Jung’s (2007) study, who showed more careful attitudes toward error corrections becausethey considered that opportunities for free speech should not be interrupted frequently by error corrections in order toencourage the students to speak more confidently.

Overall, the advanced-level students preferred to get their teachers’ explicit and immediate corrections as much asthey could. Instead of feeling any frustration by receiving such feedback in front of their classmates, the studentsinstead welcomed the chance to correct their errors and mistakes in the middle of their conversations and duringteacher-student interactions. On the contrary, the teachers did not prefer to correct all of the students’ errors, and theydid not want to be forced to give error corrections when student errors occurred, even though the teachers in theadvanced-level adult ESL classrooms were aware of the significance of their CF and the effectiveness of immediatecorrection to correct the students’ errors and improve their speech.

These preferences corroborated the outcomes of the students’ and teachers’ most and least preferred types of CF.As shown in Fig. 2, the result demonstrated that the students most preferred to get explicit correction, while clar-ification requests and meta-linguistic feedback were their least preferred types of CF. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test

Table 5

Students’ and teachers’ preferences for corrective feedback.

Mean Statistic Standard error Test value t

Item 1 4.17 1.06 0.14 1.75 17.29**

Item 2 4.43 1.00 0.13 3.75 5.31**

Item 3 3.92 1.09 0.14 4.00 �0.59

Item 4 4.42 0.93 0.12 2.50 16.03**

Item 5 3.83 1.36 0.17 3.50 1.91

Item 6 4.43 0.91 0.12 3.50 7.96**

Item 7 3.60 1.24 0.16 2.50 6.88**

Item 8 4.22 1.08 0.14 3.25 6.97**

Total 4.00 0.59 0.08 3.20 11.98**

*P < 0.05, **p < 0.001.

Page 9: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

Fig. 1. Students’ and teachers’ preferences for corrective feedback.

225E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

illustrated that the mean values of recasts and elicitation were significantly different (z¼ 2.38, p< 0.05). Likewise, themean values of elicitation and repetition showed a significant difference (z ¼ 2.19, p < 0.05).

In addition to this statistical analysis, the frequency measurement reaffirmed the results of the students’ most andleast preferred types of CF. 24/60 students (40%) chose explicit correction as their most preferred type of CF, and 22/60 students (36.67%) selected clarification requests as their least preferred type of CF. In terms of the teachers’ results,half (2/4, 50%) most preferred to use recasts, and half (2/4, 50%) least preferred to use meta-linguistic feedback.

In summary, the statistical analyses and the frequency measurement for research question 2 showed a discrepancybetween students’ and teachers’ preferred CF types in adult ESL advanced-level classrooms. While the students mostpreferred to get explicit and immediate corrections through teacher-student interactions, the teachers most preferred togive the students recasts, and they strongly resisted correcting all of the students’ oral errors and mistakes.

4.3. What might account for the discrepancy between student preferences and actual classroom feedback?

Among the available types of CF, the teachers in this study most frequently used recasts (48.94%), though thestudents most preferred explicit correction. Additionally, whereas clarification requests generated 90.63% of learnerrepair, they were the students’ least preferred type of CF. Meta-linguistic feedback ranked the lowest on the list ofpreferred feedback; however, the teacher did not use it during the observed classes. In order to explore what mightaccount for the discrepancy between actual classroom feedback and student preferences, the researcher analyzed theinterview transcriptions more closely, concentrating on why the advanced-level students most preferred explicitcorrections and why they least preferred clarification requests. The results from the interviews revealed more detailsabout these preferences and their rankings.

First of all, the following interview transcriptions reveal the recurring themes and reasons for why the students mostpreferred explicit corrections. Ten of the interviewees pointed out that when their teachers clearly indicated their

Fig. 2. Students’ most and least preferred types of corrective feedback.

Page 10: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

226 E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

utterance errors, they could easily understand what errors and mistakes they made, where they went wrong, and howthey had to correct their errors:

Explicit correction indicates both where the mistake is and what the correct usage is. That way, I canremember my mistakes more easily. Also, it is direct and does not lead any confusion. If the instructor correctsme this way, I know the exact source of my mistake and how to avoid it next time (John’s interview, Dec 10,2010).

Likewise, they stated that explicit correction was the most effective and successful method to improve their oralskills and proficiency; through this feedback, they believed, they could correct their errors quickly and directly. Forthis reason, they emphasized that they could save a lot of time in realizing their errors and mistakes:

I can correct my spoken English errors timely. Since I want to improve my spoken English level, I can acceptany advice given by native speakers timely. Also it is good for me to remember the correct way if it is correctedimmediately. Besides, explicit correction saves time. For example, I can remember it as soon as the mistakesare pointed out timely. I think that the teachers who are willing to correct my mistakes are nice and help me alot in improving my oral English (Joan’s interview, Dec 12, 2010).

Finally, eight interviewees indicated that by explicit corrections they could get the best and most accurate answersfrom their teachers, and they felt they were learning something straightforwardly. Since their teachers are nativespeakers of English and they speak standard American English, the students wanted more opportunities to have theteacher correct their errors explicitly and instantaneously:

Whenever teachers give explicit correction I can feel that it is correct English, and I can get it immediately andremember it easily. In addition, I can feel that I am learning something directly. For example, if my teacherdoes not give explicit correction when I say something wrong or mispronounces, I might not realize what I amwrong, but if teacher gives a correction whenever I make a mistake, I can correct something that teacherspoint out, and then I can remember it (Robert’s interview, Dec 12, 2010).

Secondly, the interviewed students’ reasons and explanations for why they least preferred clarification requestswere investigated. Fourteen of the students insisted that clarification requests were vague and unclear corrections sincethey could not recognize what their errors and mistakes were. Without their teachers’ explicit indication of their errors,they said they could not correct errors. Consequently, they maintained that clarification request feedback was noteffective in improving their speaking in English:

I dislike clarification requests because they don’t give students any useful information about their errors andmistakes. So, I am confused and I am more likely to blank out when I listen to “I am sorry?” or “Pardon?” Ifwe want to improve our English, we have to know what makes our English confusing and what the mistakesare. So asking only "sorry?" or "excuse me?" won’t work. So, it is hard for students to find the mistakesthemselves (Billy’s interview, Dec 10, 2010).

Twelve students similarly emphasized that clarification requests made it difficult to understand the teachers’intentions and the purposes of their requests. Therefore, they were confused about how to respond to the teachers’clarification requests:

When I listened to “Sorry?” from my teacher, I came up with lots of things in my mind. For example, she didnot carefully listen to me, she missed my sentences, I had something wrong in my grammar, or I just pro-nounced some words wrong. So, I don’t think that clarification requests are very specific. I don’t know what’swrong with my speaking. Therefore, when my teacher just says “I’m sorry?”, “Pardon?” to me, I am reallyconfused (David’s interview, Dec 12, 2010).

Fourteen respondents also linked clarification requests to embarrassment, since they thought their teacher not onlydid not understand their speech, but that he or she wasn’t paying attention in the first place. Moreover, they feltuncomfortable when clarification requests exposed their lack of oral proficiency in front of their classmates. Clar-ification request feedback discouraged them from maintaining further conversations. Furthermore, they claimed thatthey did not want their conversations and presentations to be interrupted by clarification request feedback:

Page 11: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

227E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

I feel embarrassed because before I answer the teacher’s question or ask a question in the class, I will carefullyprepare the answer in mind. When the teacher can’t understand me, and says "sorry? or “pardon?” in theclass, I will be suspicious of my English ability and get frustrated. Why can’t people understand me eventhough I have prepared the answer so well? Also, it will make me feel uncomfortable knowing my classmatesnotice that I can’t speak correctly (John’s interview, Dec 10, 2010).

Lastly, all of the interviewees suggested some useful ways in which the teacher could use clarification requestfeedback more effectively. They would like their teachers to provide some more specific follow-up questions, so thatthey can realize what their errors and mistakes are after clarification request feedback. They argued that such waysallow them to feel more comfortable and relaxed when they get clarification requests from their teachers:

Listening to “I’m sorry?” or “Excuse me?” is okay for me; however, after that the teacher has to explainwhat’s wrong with my speech and in what parts I made errors. And the teacher should give me some infor-mation related to my mistakes like “I don’t understand ‘the word’ and ‘some pronunciations’ more in detail. Ifshe doesn’t do so, it’s hard for me to figure out what I have to do when I listen to “I’m sorry?” or “pardon?”(Kate’s interview, Dec 12, 2010).

Overall, the twenty in-depth follow-up interviews confirmed the reasons for the discrepancy between studentpreferences and actual classroom feedback. Students indicated that they most preferred explicit corrections rather thanthe frequency-used recasts, because explicit corrections helped them to recognize their errors and mistakes clearly, toget quick and direct error correction, and to identify the best and most accurate solutions to their errors. Conversely,even though clarification requests prompted 90.63% learner repair, the students pointed out they were vague andunobvious corrections, that it was difficult to notice the teachers’ intentions and purposes, that they felt embarrassedbecause of the teachers’ inattentive listening to their conversation, and because they feared revealing their lack of oralEnglish proficiency in front of their classmates. Lastly, the students suggested that their teachers offer them morespecific follow-up questions after clarification requests, in order to communicate clearly what their errors and mistakeswere.

5. Discussion

For L2 learners, discovering the differences between what is acceptable and unacceptable in the target language hasbecome “the most pivotal condition for a positive outgrowth of corrective feedback on L2 development” (Kim, 2004,p. 19). As this study has shown, though, there are significant gaps between advanced-level adult ESL students’corrective feedback (CF) preferences and the actual CF their teachers use in the classroom. By means of in-depthfollow-up interviews with the students about their CF preferences, this study suggests several reasons for thisinconsistency. Although these outcomes are based primarily on the students’ and teachers’ preferences, as a whole thestudy contributes to ongoing scholarly discussions on the effects of oral CF on adult L2 learner’s oral production.

As this study’s classroom observations indicate, recasts were the most frequent CF type, and they led to 92.09%student repair. Despite recasts’ frequent use and high learner repair, however, the advanced students much preferred toget explicit corrections rather than recasts, though they did not specifically compare the two feedback types in theirquestionnaire or interview answers. Previous research on effective CF, though, may shed some light on this prefer-ence: previous classroom-based studies of oral CF on target language development reveal how recasts as a form ofimplicit CF should be performed in order to facilitate L2 production effectively. Ellis (2007), who explored the extentto which the efficacies of CF on various grammatical structures differ according to types of feedback, maintains thatrecasts must be intensive and salient to work best for adult L2 learners’ oral production. Corroborating Ellis’s (2007)study, Sheen’s (2007) study also shows that “a moderate amount of recasts may not constitute an effective CF strategyin a classroom context” (p. 321), particularly when the recast treatment was too short and recasts “involving articleerrors were not sufficiently salient for learners to notice their corrective function” (p. 319). The use of an exitquestionnaire bolstered this claim: since “no one in the recast group recognized that articles were the target of thetreatment and tests” (Sheen, 2007, p. 319), recasts failed to elicit the learners’ attention and awareness of theirutterance errors and mistakes in the classroom context.

More importantly, the present study indicates that recasts have produced a high amount of student repair (92%), yetit is claimed that students favor recasts far less than other CF types. In a nutshell, as Sheen (2007) correctly points out,

Page 12: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

228 E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

while these laboratory studies do “provid[e] evidence of the acquisitional value of recasts,” the “evidence in favor ofrecasts in classroom settings has been much weaker” (pp. 302e303). Similar results have been indicated in previousresearch. Specifically, Ellis’s (2007) and Sheen’s (2007) studies confirmed that due to a lack of salience and a shortlength, adult L2 learners often fail to notice their teachers’ recast error corrections, and to recognize the gaps betweentheir stabilized language and the target structures in L2 classroom settings. Conversely, studies using experimentallaboratory settings to investigate the efficacy of recasts (Long et al., 1998; Mackey and Philip, 1998; Han, 2002;Iwashita, 2003; Ishida, 2004; as cited in Sheen, 2007) emphasize their significance as successful facilitators of L2acquisition and learning. Indeed, though CF is carried out in both settings through dyadic teacher-student and stu-dentestudent interactions, it is crucial to recognize the greater significance of the role of CF in natural classroomenvironments, which are different from the laboratory research settings that control various learners’ factors.

The students’ educational background (in their respective home countries) suggests another reason why they mightprefer explicit CF over recasts. Fifty of the sixty students were from the Expanding Circle, where they learned Englishas a foreign language (McKay and Bokhorst-Heng, 2008), and the other ten learned English as an official language or asecond language. Most significantly, most of the students were from Asian countries, where all public secondaryEnglish education concentrates on reading and grammar learning based on rote-learning and memorization, ratherthan on acquiring speaking skills. According to Hu (2003), “the exclusive use of traditional grammar translationapproaches is problematic and results in learners who are able to achieve high scores on discrete-point grammar testsyet unable to communicate fluently and accurately in communicative context” (as cited in Yang and Lyster, 2010, p.236). As a result of this background, these students had few opportunities to learn how to communicate and interactwith each other in English, or to practise their oral English in their EFL classrooms. Specifically, many of them studiedEnglish for their college entrance examinations, which focused on English grammar, reading, vocabulary, and writinge not oral communication. This exclusion made it easy for these students to overlook the importance of oral com-munication in English, even after ten or more years of formal English study.What’s worse, in these classes the studentswere given little exposure to colloquial spoken American English with actual Americanized pronunciations (e.g.,accents, intonation, rhythm, and pitch), or to daily natural English expressions. For this reason, their teachers’ oralcorrective feedback in the classroom might play significant roles not only in making them being aware of their errorsand mistakes in an efficient way, but also in facilitating their oral English proficiency.

This pedagogical background makes for a similar setting to Yang and Lyster’s (2010) study, which was conductedin an EFL classroom at university level in China. There, since the participants were given “ample exposure to regularand irregular past tense forms in English as well as the rules that govern their formation” (p. 255), CF and oralproduction practice opportunities via classroom interactions enabled the participants to improve their oral L2development by means of their well-developed explicit grammar knowledge. Consequently, the results of the currentstudy suggest important pedagogical implications for best CF practices with Asian international graduate students.Similarly, this study offers more precise reasons, based on the students’ English educational backgrounds, why theadvanced-level ESL adult students preferred to get more explicit CF from their teachers in the USA. Conversely, ofcourse, other CF types or techniques might improve L2 learning more effectively given other differences in learningprocesses, purposes, and the participants’ previous English learning backgrounds and circumstances.

6. Conclusion

The present study investigated the patterns of CF and learner repair presented in advanced-level adult ESLclassrooms, and examined both teacher and student preferences regarding that feedback. Based on the analyses of theactual classroom observations, questionnaire, and interview data, the study provided the following results. First, themost frequent type of CF occurring in the classroom was recasts, which generated 92.08% learner repair. Similarly,this study helps to classify the different types of corrective feedback and learner repair occurring in the beginning-,intermediate-, and advanced-level classrooms, as well as to identify how the rates of learner repair were different inaccordance with the students’ three different proficiency levels. Also, even though students most prefer explicit oralCF, the result verifies the assertion that if students have a high proficiency level in the target language, they can moreeasily recognize teachers’ implicit CF, so they can notice and potentially correct their erroneous utterances withoutinterrupting communicative flow (Doughty, 1999; Doughty and Varela, 1998; Long and Robinson, 1998).

Secondly, with respect to students’ preferences for teachers’ CF, the advanced-level adult ESL students mostpreferred to receive explicit and immediate corrections in the middle of their conversation and during teacherestudent

Page 13: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

229E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

interactions. On the other hand, the teachers strongly disagreed that teachers should correct all of the students’ errorsand mistakes. Even though the teachers perceived the results of their CF and the efficacy of immediate correction tocorrect the students’ errors and enhance their oral proficiency, they did not want to be compelled to provide errorcorrections when student errors presented themselves.

Finally, the discrepancies between student preferences and the actual classroom feedback were examined by in-depth follow-up interviews. To begin with, this study demonstrated the reasons why the advanced-level adult stu-dents most preferred explicit corrections rather than the frequently-used recasts. The students maintained that theymost liked to get explicit corrections for several reasons. First, when their teachers clearly indicated utterance errors,they could easily understand what errors and mistakes they made, where they went wrong, and how they had to correcttheir errors. In addition, they could correct their errors quickly and directly. Therefore, they could save a lot of time inrecognizing their errors and mistakes. Lastly, they felt explicit correction gave them the best and most accurateanswers from their teachers, and they felt they were learning something straightforwardly.

Even though clarification requests led to 90.63% learner repair, students least preferred them, for several reasons.To begin with, they argued that clarification requests offered only vague and unclear corrections since the studentscould not recognize what their errors and mistakes were. Secondly, they got embarrassed and frustrated because theycould not clearly understand the teachers’ intentions and the purposes of their requests. Thirdly, clarification requestsmade them embarrassed since they thought their teachers did not carefully listen to what they were talking about.Fourthly, they felt uncomfortable when clarification requests exposed their lack of oral proficiency in front of theirclassmates. Lastly, clarification request feedback discouraged them from further conversations and presentations. Inthe end, the students said that they wanted their teachers to provide more specific follow-up questions, so that theycould identify their mistakes. Indeed, this technique could lead to more effective pedagogical uses of clarificationrequests.

The present research has some limitations. First of all, the number of teachers who participated in this research wastoo small to generalize the results of teachers’ preference of corrective feedback, even though the ratio of teachers tostudents was appropriate. Moreover, the limited number of teachers and their tight schedules did not allow for in-depthfollow-up interviews, which could have provided more meticulous explanations and reasons why they most preferredto give students recasts. In further research on discrepancies between the actual classroom feedback and studentpreferences, such detailed interviews would better balance the results, and help researchers to understand both sides.Furthermore, there is a need to carry out continued studies on the influences of recasts in L2 classroom settings, inorder to understand recasts’ role and measure their effects better. Overall, more studies based on L2 classrooms shouldbe conducted to discover the most effective CF types and strategies for L2 learners’ oral production.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Leila Ranta for her insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.I am also grateful to my audience at the 2011 TESOL Convention (New Orleans, Louisiana) for their feedback.Finally, I would like to express my special thanks to Dr. Alan Hirvela and Dr. Leslie Moore for their continuedcomments and support for this research.

References

Doughty, C., 1999. The cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. University of Hawai’I Working Papers in ESL 18, pp. 1e69.

Doughty, C., Varela, E., 1998. Communicative focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 114e138.

Ellis, R., 2007. The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures in a Mackay. In: Conversational Interaction in Second

Language Acquisition: a Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 407e452.

Ellis, R., 2009. Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal 1, 3e18.Han, Z., 2002. A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly 36, 543e572.

Han, J., Jung, J., 2007. Patterns and preferences of corrective feedback and learner repair. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 23, 243e260.

Havranek, G., 1999. The effectiveness of corrective feedback: preliminary results of an empirical study. Acquisition et interaction en language

etagere: Proceedings of the Eighth EUROSLA Conference 2, 189e206.Heift, T., 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL 16, 416e431.

Hu, G., 2003. English language teaching in China: regional differences and contributing factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development 24, 290e318.

Page 14: Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students

230 E.J. (Esther) Lee / System 41 (2013) 217e230

Ishida, M., 2004. Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form of -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language

Learning 54, 311e394.

Iwashita, N., 2003. Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: differential effects of L2 development. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 25, 1e36.

Kang, E., 2008. An investigation on characteristics of recasts and learner repair in beginning and advanced ESL classrooms. Foreign Languages

Education 15, 51e75.

Kim, J.H., 2004. Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL

& Applied Linguistics 4, 1e24.

Lin, Y.H., Hedgcock, J., 1996. Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of

Spanish. Language Learning 46, 567e611.Long, M.H., 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritche, W.C., Bhatia, T.K. (Eds.), Handbook of

Second Language Acquisition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 413e468.

Long, M.H., Robinson, P., 1998. Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom

Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 15e41.Long, M., Inagaki, S., Ortega, L., 1998. The role of implicit negative evidence in SLA: models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern

Language Journal 82, 357e371.

Lyster, R., 1998. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms.

Language Learning 48, 183e218.Lyster, R., Mori, H., 2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 269e300.

Lyster, R., Ranta, L., 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 19, 37e66.Mackey, A., Philip, J., 1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: recast, responses, and red herrings? The Modern

Language Journal 82, 338e356.

McKay, S.L., Bokhorst-Heng, W.D., 2008. International English in its Sociolinguistic Contexts: Towards a Socially Sensitive EIL Pedagogy.

Routledge Taylor Francis, New York & London.

Netten, J., 1991. Towards a more language oriented second language classroom. In: Malave, L., Duquette, G. (Eds.), Language, Culture and

Cognition. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, England, pp. 284e304.

Ohta, A., 2000. Rethinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom. In: Hall, J.K., Verplaetse, L.

(Eds.), The Construction of Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 47e71.Oliver, R., 2000. Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning 50, 119e151.

Panove, I., Lyster, R., 2002. Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 36, 573e593.

Sheen, Y., 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research

8, 263e300.

Sheen, Y., 2007. The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In: Mackey, A.

(Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

pp. 301e322.Suzuki, M., 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied

Linguistics 4, 1e21.

Tsang, W.K., 2004. Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: an analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms.

RELC Journal 35, 187e209.White, L., 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second

Language Research 7, 133e161.

Yamamoto, S., 2003. Can corrective feedback bring about substantial changes in the learner inter-language system? Columbia University Working

Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 3, 1e9.

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, 235e263.

Yoshida, R., 2008. Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness 17, 78e93.