Exploring Student Errors, Teachers' Corrective Feedback, Learner Uptake and Repair, and Learners' Preferences of Corrective Feedback

Öz

This study explored student errors, teachers' oral CF, learner uptake and repair, and learners' CF preferences in a Chinese language classroom setting. The results showed that the two most frequently made errors were phonological and lexical and that recasts were the most frequently used CF type. Also, this study found a statistical significance between CF type and learner repair in the beginner class. In addition, the majority of the beginner participants preferred recasts while the advanced participants had preferences more scattered among different CF types. The participants' CF preferences were influenced by their learning styles and beliefs, their proficiency levels, the nature of the Chinese language, and the differences between Chinese and their native language, English.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• corrective feedback
• learner uptake and repair
• learners&#039
• preferences of corrective feedback
• Chinese language teaching and learning

Kaynakça

1. Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011). Exploring the teachers’ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859-1868.
2. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
3. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
4. Ferreira, A., Moore, J.D., & Mellish, C. (2007). A study of feedback strategies in foreign language classrooms and tutorials with implications for intelligent computer-assisted language learning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17(4) , 389-422.
5. Haberman, S. J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 29, p. 205-220. Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A teacher's choices. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 31-50.
6. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
7. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557-587.
8. Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.

9. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. NY: Oxford University Press.
10. Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on "noticing the gap": non-native speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
11. Pinyin Info. (2012). Chinese characters with multiple pronunciations. Retrieved December 14, 2012 from: http://pinyin.info/chinese_characters/
12. Rydahl, S. (2005). Oral feedback in the English classroom, teachers' thoughts and awareness. Retrieved December 15, 2012 from http://kau.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:6576/FULLTEXT01
13. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300.
14. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.
15. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
16. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Yoshida, R. (2008). Perceptions of learners' private speech by teachers and the learners in Japanese language classrooms' Innovation. Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 268- 288.
18. Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom? Modern language Journal, 94(2), 293-314.