ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE IN A YOUNG LEARNER EFL CLASSROOM
(A CASE STUDY IN AN ENGLISH COURSE IN BANDUNG)
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master’s Degree
in English Education
By:
ELIS HOMSINI MAOLIDA
1104036
ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE IN A YOUNG LEARNER EFL CLASSROOM
(A CASE STUDY IN AN ENGLISH COURSE IN BANDUNG)
Oleh
Elis Homsini Maolida
S.Pd UPI Bandung, 2005
Sebuah Tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) pada Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
© Elis Homsini Maolida 2013
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Agustus 2013
Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.
Tesis ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhnya atau sebagian,
APPROVAL PAGE
A Thesis
Oral Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake
in a Young Learner EFL Classroom
(A Case Study in an English Course in Bandung)
by
Elis Homsini Maolida 1104036
Approved by
Main Supervisor,
Dr. Dadang Sudana, M.A.
Co-Supervisor,
DECLARATION
I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “Oral Corrective Feedback and Learner
Uptake in a Young Learner EFL Classroom (A Case Study in an English Course
in Bandung)” is completely my own work. I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from various sources, and all quotations are properly
acknowledged.
Bandung, August 23, 2013
ABSTRACT
This study reports various types of oral corrective feedback in relation to learner uptake in an English class for young learners. It unfolds types of teacher’s oral corrective feedback and their distribution in classroom interaction and learner uptake following the different types of oral feedback. This study employed a qualitative research design, embracing the characteristics of a case study. The data were collected by means of approximately 9 hours audio and video recording to capture types of teacher’s oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in the classroom interaction which were then transcribed and coded by using the categorization from Lyster&Ranta (1997) and Ellis (2009). The data were also obtained from stimulated recall interview one week after the observation finished. The first finding reveals that the teacher employed seven types of oral corrective feedback: recast, elicitation, clarification request, explicit correction, repetition,
metalinguistic feedback, and paralinguistic signal. In this case, the teacher’s choice to give oral corrective feedback was led by three motives: the teacher’s
perception of the benefit of correction for language learning, the teacher’s
professional concern, and the teacher’s intention to avoid fossilization. It is also
revealed that in employing different types of oral corrective feedback, the teacher put several aspects into her consideration such as learners’ proficiency, learners’ types of spoken error, and learning objectives. The distribution of oral corrective feedback in the interaction shows that recast was the most preferred strategy even though it resulted in the least frequency of learners’ uptake. The second finding
reveals that the learners responded to the teacher’s oral corrective feedback with
uptake or topic continuation. The learner uptake in the form of self-repair, peer-repair, repetition and incorporation were identified as repair while the learner uptake in the form of same error, different error, partial error, hesitation and acknowledgement were identified as need-repair. The distribution of learner uptake following different types of oral corrective feedback shows that elicitation, clarification request, repetition, metalinguistic feedback and paralinguistic signal repair resulted in a higher number of learner uptake comparing to recast and explicit correction. It is also noteworthy that elicitation and repetition led to the highest number of repair. The results imply that the types of oral corrective feedback utilized by the teacher influence the types of learner uptake. In this case, output prompting feedback strategies are more successful in encouraging learner uptake and learner generated repair than input providing feedback strategies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1.1 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback………..
2.1.1.1 Recast………. 2.1.2 Choice of Errors to Correct………... 2.1.3 Choice of Corrector………... 2.1.4 The Timing of Correction………..
2.1.5 Teaching Speaking to Young Learner and Oral Corrective
2.2.1.2.3 Different Error………
2.2.1.2.4 Hesitation……… 2.2.1.2.5 Partial Error……… 2.2.1.2.6 Off Target………... 2.2.1.3 Topic Continuation………... 2.3 Theoretical Rationale for Error Correction………..
2.3.1 Cognitive Theories of Error Correction………
2.4 Previous Studies………...
3.3.4.1 Observation (Audio and Video Recording) ………
3.3.4.2 Stimulated Recall Interview……… 3.4 Data Analysis………... 3.4.1 Analysis of Audio and Video Recording……….. 3.4.2 Analysis of Stimulated Recall Interview……….. 3.5 Validity and Reliability………
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION……… 4.1 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback and Their Distribution ………….. 4.1.1 Recast………. 4.2 Types of Learner Uptake and Their Distribution……….
4.2.2.5 Partial Error……… 4.3 Synthesis of Findings………...
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION, LIMITATION & RECCOMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion ……….. APPENDIX 1: Coding of Oral Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake… APPENDIX 2: Result of Stimulated Recall Interview………... APPENDIX 3: Sample of Students’ Activities………...
Table 2.1 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback from Lyster&Ranta (1997) and Ellis (2009) ……….. Table 2.2 Definition of Recast from Different Experts……… Table 2.3 Various Categorizations of Feedback from Different Experts…… Table 2.4 Taxonomy of Oral Corrective Feedback (Sheen&Ellis, 2011)…... Table 2.5 Assessment of Young Learners’ Oral Skills (Cameron, 2001)…… Table 2.6 Three Hypotheses Supporting the Use of Corrective Feedback…..
Table 3.1 Schedule of Data Collection………
Table 3.2 Categorization of Oral Corrective Feedback (Lyster&Ranta,1997) Table 3.3 Categorization of Uptake (Lyster&Ranta, 1997)………. Table 3.4 Table Design for the Distribution of Feedback Types………. Table 3.5 Table Design for the Distribution of Learner Uptake……….. Table 4.1 Distribution of Different Types of Oral Corrective Feedback……. Table 4.2 Distribution of Learner Uptake Following Teacher’s Feedback….
10
Figure 2.1 Model of Error Treatment Sequence (Lyster &Ranta, 1997)……
Figure 3.1 Typical Seat Arrangement in the Classroom During Observation 9 59
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The first chapter is an initial description that sets the nature of the present research
in exploring various types of oral corrective feedback in relation to learner uptake
in a young learner EFL classroom. It starts with the background of the study on
oral corrective feedback and learner uptake. This section is followed by research
questions and aims of the study. The subsequent section is the significance of the
study, scope of the study, definition of key terms and organization of the paper.
1.1Background
Corrective feedback has been discussed for decades in the realm of language
teaching. Ellis (2009, p.3) states that most theories of second language learning
and language pedagogy give a place for a role of feedback, “In both behaviorist
and cognitive theories of L2 learning, feedback is seen as contributing to language
learning. In both structural and communicative approaches to language teaching,
feedback is viewed as a means of fostering learner motivation and ensuring
linguistic accuracy.” However, nativist such as Krashen (1981) questions the role
of feedback by stating that error correction is not useful for language learning and
harmful for learners’ affective factor. This dilemma, to certain extent, can
bewilder EFL teachers in giving corrective feedback to their learners (Rezaei,
Mozaffari, Hatef, 2011).
Responding to the dilemma, experts on language teaching such as Brown
(2001), Harmer (2007), and Riddell (2001) welcome the use of corrective
feedback in the class with several notices. Brown (2001) asserts that too much
negative cognitive feedback often leads learners to shut off their attempts at
communication. On the other hands, too much positive cognitive feedback serves
to reinforce the errors of the speaker-learner that may lead to the persistence and
balance of positive feedback to encourage communication and negative feedback
to call attention to the crucial errors. Harmer (2007) adds that in giving oral
corrective feedback, teachers should consider the stage of the lesson, the activity,
the type of mistake made and the particular student who is making mistake.
Furthermore, Riddell (2001) asserts that teachers should focus their correction on
mistakes involving the target language, repeated common mistakes, and
significant mistake. Those general points on the use of oral corrective feedback
suggested by the experts need to be described in a more practical way with some
real examples. This study is clearly useful for that purpose.
The importance of corrective feedback in classroom is recognized by
cognitive theories (Sheen&Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2009; Ellis, 2010) and sociocultural
theory (Sheen&Ellis, 2011; Aljaafreh&Lantolf, 1994). Cognitive theories claim
that CF serves as a valuable input in interaction (Long, 1996), it gives opportunity
for learners to stretch their interlanguage to meet targeted output (Swain, 2007)
and it functions as noticing tool (Schmidt, 2010). Meanwhile sociocultural theory
considers corrective feedback as having a facilitative role to assist learners
through self correction to achieve self regulation (Sheen&Ellis, 2011). Both
perspectives endorse that “learning is viewed not as an outcome (i.e., something
that results from correction) but rather as a process that occurs within the
enactment of a corrective episode” (Ellis, 2010, p. 346).
To date, studies on corrective feedback have covered several different areas
such as different effects of corrective feedback in classroom interaction (Chu,
2011; Campos, 2011), the application of corrective feedback in different contexts
(see Chu, 2011; Magilow, 1999; Nabei, 2005;Campos, 2011;Fu, 2012; Pany, et
al., 1981; Bower, 2011; Erel&Bulut, 2007 ; Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Khaerunisa,
2002; Maolida, 2012; Sheen, 2004; Nabei, 2005), teachers’ and students’
perception on corrective feedback (Guennete, 2009; Vasquez&Harvey, 2010;
Harris, et al., 2012), the application of corrective feedback in different levels of
the strengths and weaknesses of recast as a corrective strategy (Carpenter, 2006;
Leeman, 2003). More relevant to this research are studies on oral corrective
feedback and uptake (Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Choi&Li, 2012; Panova&Lyster,
2002; Diaz, 2009; Nabei, 2005; Surakka, 2007; Sheen, 2004; Taipale, 2012). The
last types of research focus more on the occurrence of oral corrective feedback
and uptake and catch a glimpse of the potential relation between the corrective
feedback and uptake.
However, most studies on oral corrective feedback and learner uptake listed
above were conducted in CLIL, speaking contexts in ESL and immersion formal
education setting. None of them was conducted in young learner’s speaking class
in EFL informal education setting such as English course in Indonesia. Then, this
study is expected to fill the gap of previous studies by revealing types of oral
corrective in relation to learner uptake in young learner speaking sessions in an
English course where learning circumstance is, to certain extent, different from
formal educational setting (e.g. school).
1.2 Research Questions
To reveal various types of oral corrective feedback in relation to learner uptake in
a young learner EFL classroom, there are two research questions posed in this
study:
1. What are the types of oral corrective feedback and their distribution in a
young learner EFL classroom?
2. What are the types of learner uptake and their distribution following
different types of oral corrective feedback?
1.3 Aims of the Study
Relevant to the research questions, this present study aims:
1. To explore various types of oral corrective feedback and their distribution
2. To explore various types of learner uptake following different types of oral
corrective feedback.
1.4Significance of the Study
This study is potentially significant in three aspects of contribution. The first is its
theoretical contribution to research in corrective feedback. The second is its
practical contribution to practice in teaching and learning in Indonesia. And the
third is its professional contribution to teacher’s development.
Theoretically, this study offers some information on the application of oral
corrective feedback in a young learner EFL classroom in an English course that is
rare since the studies on corrective feedback in young learner classroom context
are dominated by ESL and immersion formal education context. Therefore, this
study attempts to fill in the gap of previous studies.
Practically, this study is advantageous for teachers to recognize different types
of oral corrective feedback and apply them in their classroom interaction by
suiting with learners’ development and needs. In this case, Allwright (1975, in
Panova and Lyster, 2002) states that study on corrective feedback is able to show
the effectiveness of instructional process in the classroom and it can also describe
how language learning happens. In this case, this study is expected to enable
teachers to see the potential effectiveness of certain oral feedback in initiating
uptake and how the feedback may influence young learners’ language learning
through interaction in the class.
Professionally, this study can be a reflection for the researcher and other
teachers in giving oral feedback to the learners. It is hoped that this study can
give information for teachers about various types of oral corrective feedback and
skill of choosing appropriate types of oral corrective feedback can be put in
teacher training program to improve teaching quality in the classroom as stated by
Riddell (2001) that all teachers need to know the skills of correction, and trainee
teachers are assessed on their ability to recognize and correct both spoken and
written mistakes.
1.5Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is exploration of oral corrective feedback strategies
employed by a teacher in a young learner EFL classroom in an English course and
identification of various types of learner uptake following the teacher’s oral
corrective feedback strategies. By answering those questions, the occurrence of
oral corrective feedback and learner uptake are revealed and the relation between
them is disclosed.
1.6Definition of Key Terms
a. Corrective feedback is “The feedback that learners receive on the linguistic errors they make in their oral production in a second language”
(Sheen and Ellis, 2011, p. 593).
b. Uptake is “A student’s utterance that immediately follows the teachers’ 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 and Ranta, 1997, p. 49).
c. Young Learners in this study refer to 10 years old learners who learn
1.7Organization of the Paper
This paper consists of five chapters. Chapter I provides a general description for
the present research. This introductory chapter consists of background, research
questions, aims of the study, significance of the study, definition of key terms, and
organization of the paper.
Chapter II deals with literature review concerning several theories
underpinning the study. It covers the definition, categorization, and discussion of
corrective feedback and uptake. It also discusses the notion of corrective feedback
and uptake in regard to cognitive theories including interaction, output, and
noticing hypotheses.
Chapter III elaborates research method of the present study. It presents
research questions and develops research design for this study. It also explains
data collection for the present study by means of audio-video recording and
stimulated recall interview. Lastly, it explains the analysis process of the collected
data to answer the stated research questions.
Chapter IV presents and analyzes findings from the result of recording and
stimulated recall interview. The findings are discussed to find out types of oral
corrective feedback employed by the teacher in classroom interaction and types of
learner uptakes following different types of oral corrective feedback. Finally the
findings and analysis are synthesized to answer the research questions.
Chapter V elaborates conclusion, limitation, and recommendation. It
concludes the synthesis of data analysis and discussion in the previous chapter. It
also presents the limitation of the study. Lastly, it mentions several potential
topics for further research in the same vein of study and several suggestions for
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology used to collect and analyze data in this
study. There are six sections in this chapter. In the first section, aims of the study
are displayed in the introduction section to show readers the research problems
addressed in this study. Second, research design is discussed to inform research
method and approach applied in this study. Next, data collection is described to
show research site, subjects of study, steps of data collection and techniques used
in collecting the data. Finally, data analysis is explained to report how the
collected data are analyzed step by step to answer research questions.
3.1 Introduction
It was acknowledged in chapter one that this research mainly aims to report
various types of oral corrective feedback in relation to learner uptake. To fulfill
the aim, two research questions are proposed: The first deals with types of oral
corrective feedback and their distribution in a young learner EFL classroom, the
second copes with types of learners’ uptake and their distribution following
different types of oral corrective feedback. The following sections elaborate the
methodology used in collecting and analyzing the data to answer the proposed
research questions.
3.2Research Design
Based on the categorization of research design from Nunan and Bailey (2009),
this study can be classified as a case study research because the case in this study
has physical boundary (this study was conducted in a certain English course in
Bandung), temporal boundary (this study investigated several lesson sessions
which had a beginning and an end) and bounded instance (this study focused on
naturally occurring situation and context without manipulating variables (p.162).
Hence, the result is centered on description, inference, and interpretation.
This study applied a qualitative approach by taking transcripts of lessons and
interview to find the teacher’s strategies of oral corrective feedback and learner
uptake in classroom interaction. To make the description clearer, some qualitative
data were quantified to show the number, percentage and distribution of corrective
feedback strategies and learner uptakes. In this case, Nunan and Bailey (2009)
state:
All qualitative data can be quantified in some way. In other words, things can be counted in qualitative data. In fact, there is almost no limit to the things that can be counted in qualitative data sets. Consider a lesson
transcript…(Nunan&Bailey, 2009, p.414)
In addition, stimulated recall responses from the teacher were also analyzed to
look for parallel and connected comments that confirm or contradict the findings
from observation data. The description of research design and data analysis
hopefully can give a clear picture on how this study was carried out to answer the
three research questions mentioned above.
3.3Data Collection
This part answers who were taken as subjects of study and where, when and how
the data were collected:
3.3.1 Research Site
This study was conducted in a young learner English Classroom in an English
course in Bandung. The course was designed for young learners to learn English
as foreign language (EFL). There were six levels of classes: Gogo 1, Gogo 2,
Gogo 3, Gogo 4, Gogo 5, and Gogo 6 (The levels of class followed the levels of
English book Gogo series published by Longman). Each level was designed for a
This course was chosen as research site for several reasons. The first reason
was the English course serves as a typical case (Nunan&Bailey, 2009)to find out
information from a specific case to fill in the gap of previous research. In this
case, the site fit with the researcher’s intention to investigate the occurrence of
oral corrective feedback in a young learner English class in English course. The
programs in this English course were targeted for young learners. With more than
a hundred and fifty young learners learning English at the course, classroom
research is important to conduct in order to improve teaching and learning quality
there.
The second reason was the researcher’s convenience (Patton, 1980, in
Alwasilah, 2002) to conduct research in chosen research site due to its support and
accessibility. The research was fully supported by the owner, the manager, and the
teachers since this research was expected to help teachers in improving the quality
of language instruction in the classroom. In addition, the research site was fully
accessible. In this case, the researcher was fully permitted and supported to
conduct observation in the classroom.
3.3.2 Subjects of the Study
After several considerations, a class of Gogo 4 was chosen. This class was taken
due to several reasons. The class was more homogenous in terms of age
comparing to other classes. The students were 9-10 years old and most of them
were in grade four. Homogenous age was put into consideration to avoid multiple
variables in the research since age may influence the way teacher corrects
students’ errors. The students in the class were also considered as active students
who usually take part in oral interaction.
There were seven students in the class. Most of them came from family with
high socioeconomic status. The students in this study had learned formal English
for three semesters in the English course. Their first language was Sundanese and
Since there were only seven students in the class, it was easier for the teacher to
identify the students’ proficiency and personality. The teacher identified her seven
students this way:
1) B (Female)
B is a competent student. Her ability in four basic English skills is sufficient. She
is able to receive new input, especially new vocabularies, very well. However, in
writing, she sometimes makes unnecessary mistakes, due to her carelessness.
Considering personality, she is often whiny, and also negotiates a lot.
2) M (Female)
M finds it difficult to understand new materials all at once. Since she still has
problem with spelling, writing is her biggest challenge. She also still has to
practice more on her reading, speaking, and listening because all skills are related
one to another, for example in dictation. Regarding personality, she often feels
unconfident when practicing her English because she realizes her weaknesses.
3) H (Male)
For proficiency, H is similar to B. However, he is often uncertain when practicing
his English, for example when speaking; he speaks in low volume because he is
afraid that he pronounces the vocabularies wrong. About personality, he is a nice
student. He is submissive yet still cheerful.
4) I (Female)
I is a bright student, the four basic English skills are mastered quite well.
English that she tends to play safe. For example when being asked to make
sentences; she chooses to make simple sentences as long as the pattern is correct.
She gets anxious easily; and her anxiety often influences her learning mood. She
is a good student, though.
5) A (Female)
A’s attention span is probably the biggest concern. Although her English
competence is basically adequate, she is very easily distracted and that definitely
has impacts in her learning process. Her attention is usually maintained by asking
her questions regarding the materials being learnt and involving her actively in
class activities. However, her eagerness to learn is very helpful. About her
personality, A is a very cheerful student. She is also physically active.
6) Ay (Female)
Since Ay is a new student, she needs to catch up what she has missed. This might
has resulted unconfident use of English. Speaking is probably her biggest
challenge, specifically pronunciation; that’s why she speaks in a very low volume.
Concerning personality Ay is an easygoing student. She can mingle with the other
students well.
7) F (Female)
It is no problem for F to receive new inputs. She is very smart. Her background
knowledge also helps her a lot in her learning process, like a support-system. She
knows many vocabularies, and she is brave in using them when writing and
speaking. For her personality, F realizes that she is smart that she often
underestimates the materials; unfortunately that results in unnecessary mistakes.
The teacher was an English teacher with more than five years teaching
experience in different levels (young and teenager). She was a teacher who was
her as one of curriculum team and sent her to teacher trainings. In that case, she
was often assigned to share the result of trainings. The evaluation of teacher’s
performance also revealed that she was more consistent in using English as
language instruction in the class comparing to other teachers. Furthermore, she
wrote articles in English for a reputable airline in Indonesia. With the
qualifications mentioned above, the teacher was expected to be a good teacher
model in employing corrective feedback strategies in the classroom. More
importantly, she volunteered herself to be observed for research and improvement.
Classroom interaction usually lasted in 90 minutes. However, the interaction
that was transcribed only covered speaking sessions, especially those that focused
on oral oriented skill. The steps of classroom activities were designed in line with
the syllabus and the book that had been provided by Longman. Each lesson unit
had a topic with several learning activities: conversation, vocabulary, practice 1,
practice 2, song, activity 1, activity 2, and sounds & words.
3.3.3 Steps of Data Collection
Prior to this study, a preliminary study had been conducted in different research
site. The preliminary study was conducted in a first grade of an elementary school
in Bandung Barat. The stated purpose of the preliminary study was to describe the
occurrence of teacher’s feedback (Maolida, 2012). The study revealed that the
corrective feedback utilized by the teacher was used to negotiate meaning and
form in classroom interaction. It was also used to expand conversation and
scaffold learning. By conducting the preliminary study, the researcher also
practiced coding process by using Lyster and Ranta’s categorization (1997) and
learnt how the context contributed a lot to the result of study.
Data collection for the present study was conducted in five weeks. The
following table is the schedule of data collection for this study:
Tuesday, April 9th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note
Friday, April 12th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note
Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note
Friday, April 19th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note
Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note
Friday, April 26th, 2013 90 minutes Video-audio recording, field note
Tuesday, April 30th, 2013 Stimulated recall interview
Friday, May 3rd, 2013 Interview to confirm previous data
Observation in the class was conducted for three weeks that involved six
meetings. Those six meetings covered two unit lessons. The stimulated recall
interview was conducted one week after all observations were carried out.
3.3.4 Data Collection Techniques
This section describes the procedures utilized to collect the data. There were two
data collection techniques employed in this study: Observation and stimulated
recall interview. The two techniques were used to corroborate the findings to
answer the research questions. By employing two different techniques, this study
is expected to provide triangulated findings and analysis on the teacher’s
strategies on employing oral corrective feedback and the learner uptake following
different types of feedback.
3.3.4.1Observation (Audio and Video Recording)
This technique was employed for three purposes. First, it was utilized to
investigate the teacher’s oral corrective feedback strategies to correct young
learners’ erroneous spoken utterances. Second, it was utilized to investigate the learner uptake as a response to the oral corrective feedback. Third, it was utilized
to see the context of how the teacher and students naturally interacted in the
To achieve those three purposes, the classroom interaction was observed
electronically by recording the interaction using audio and video recording
(Nunan&Bailey, 2009). Besides, the researcher presented there to make sure the
recorders worked well and jot down some important things regarding the focus of
this study. In the process of observation, the researcher tried to set up the
recorders and located herself so the students did not feel disrupted. The following
picture shows the typical seat arrangement during the observation and the location
of recorders to record the interaction.
Figure 3.1 Typical Seat Arrangements in the Classroom during Observation
Five hundred and forty minutes of lesson were recorded using a video camera and
a digital audio recorder that involved six sessions (90 minutes per meeting). The
video camera of Samsung Camcorder F70 series was used to record the Board
Audio
Observer
interaction. Before the students entered the class, the camera was turned on and
put on a bookcase behind the students. To make sure the voice could be well
recorded; an audio recorder (Blackberry Curve 9930) was turned on and put on
teacher’s table in front of the class. By setting up a camera at the back side and an
audio recorder in the front side of the classroom, it was hoped that all interactions
were well documented.
In observing classroom interaction, the researcher took a role as a
non-participant observer. The researcher did not take a part in planning the lesson nor
in teaching and learning process. She only put the video and audio recorder in a
hidden place in the classroom and sat on a chair with a computer in order to avoid
possible distraction to the students. The teacher was informed that the researcher
was going to record the classroom interaction without specifically mentioning
what features of interaction were going to be investigated.
3.3.4.2Stimulated Recall Interview
This technique of data collection was applied for three purposes. First, it was
employed to reveal the teacher’s comments on employing different types of
corrective feedback. Second, it was employed to reveal the teacher’s comments on
her intentions on applying different types of oral corrective feedback in
connection with the learner uptake. Third, it was employed to confirm the data
findings obtained from observation. By conducting this technique, the teacher’s
comments, opinions, justifications, and decision making process in employing
different types of oral corrective feedback in connection with the learners’ uptake
were revealed.
The application of this technique followed the definition of stimulated recall
from Nunan and Bailey (2009):
such recordings, though some researchers have also used field notes (Nunan&Bailey, 2009, p.259).
The researcher showed the transcript to the teacher, especially specific parts of
transcript which contained oral corrective feedback episode. Then, the researcher
asked the teacher to comment on what happened during the feedback episodes and
the decision making process she had at that time. For some parts, the video
recording was shown and paused at specific part of interaction. By doing this, the
teacher reflected on the cognitive process of decision making she made in
employing different type of corrective feedback.
The questions in the interview were divided into three parts. First were grand
tour questions that involved six questions. The first six questions were intended as
starting questions that introduced the teacher to the core questions that would be
given later. These questions were also intended to lead the teacher to focus on her
corrective strategies that were shown in the transcript and video later. Second
were stimulated recall interview that involved seven main questions regarding the
teacher’s choice to employ different types of feedback. In this case, transcript and
some parts of video recording were shown to recall the teacher’s cognitive process
at that time. Third was stimulated recall closing that involved five questions
regarding the teacher’s opinion on the findings that were based on the transcript
and recordings.
Stimulated recall interview was chosen due to its appropriateness to use in this
study and several advantages (Nunan& Bailey, 2009, p. 259). First, by doing
stimulated recall interview, the researcher did not need to interrupt classroom
interaction. It was mentioned earlier that the teacher was aware that her interaction
with the students was observed but she did not know that the focus of the
observation was on corrective feedback and learners’ uptake. By delaying the
interview until all observations were finished, it was hoped that the natural
interaction could be maintained. It was also expected that the teacher was not
interview, it was hoped that the researcher could get better data than simply
asking the teacher to remember the lesson without supporting data. By doing this,
the researcher could get teacher’s response without pushing her to answer certain
questions while in the same time the teacher could comment freely on what she
did and how she decided to do that.
3.4 Data analysis
Data analysis in this study focused on data collected above: data from the
recordings and data from interview. The recording results were transcribed, coded,
categorized and analyzed. Meanwhile, the result of interview was coded and
analyzed. Then, the analysis of each data collection was synthesized and discussed
to answer the research questions. The following parts explain the process of
analysis of each collected data to fulfill the aims of study.
3.4.1 Analyzing the Data from Audio and Video Recording
The data from audio and video recording were transcribed, coded, categorized,
described and analyzed to reveal the different types of oral corrective feedback
and learner uptake following different types of oral corrective feedback. From the
total recordings of six lesson events, only the interactions in oral production –
oriented sessions were transcribed. In this case, lesson opening and closing were
also included in transcription, since the opening and closing were always done
orally and targeted to provide opportunities for students to ‘speak up’ and review
the previous topics.
The process of analysis started with transcribing the data. In this case, the
transcription strategy adapted the transcription conventions from Ellis and Duff
(in Nunan&Bailey, 2009, pp.348-349), with the following conventions:
a. T=teacher; students are designated by their initials; Ss is used to refer to
more than one students.
c. XXX is used to indicate speech that could not be deciphered.
d. Phonetic transcription is used when the student’s pronunciation is
markedly different from the teacher’s pronunciation and also when it was
not possible to identify the English word the pupils were using.
e. …indicates an incomplete utterance.
f. A limited amount of contextual information is given in brackets ( ).
g. Italics is used to distinguished L1 and L2 utterance.
h. Period (.) is for terminal falling intonation, coma (,) is for rising
continuing intonation and question mark (?) is for high rising intonation.
The result of transcribed recording was read and confirmed by the observed
teacher. To be noted, the transcription process did not wait until all recordings
finished. Every time a recording was conducted, it was immediately transcribed
and confirmed. Different from recording data that were transcribed in detail by
following the convention mentioned above, interview data were not transcribed in
a detailed way. In other words, the data from interview were transcribed to reveal
the ideas from the teacher, excluded the linguistic form used by the teacher in
answering the questions.
After the transcription process was finished, the result of transcription was
shown to the observed teacher for clarification. In that case, the observed teacher
gave some clarifications on some utterances she and her students produced,
especially in corrective feedback episodes.
After the recordings of interaction in speaking sessions were transcribed, the
data were coded and categorized by adapting the categorization of oral corrective
feedback from Lyster&Ranta (1997) and Ellis (2009) to answer the first research
question regarding the various types of oral corrective feedback and their
distribution in the classroom interaction.
Table 3.2 Categorization of Oral Corrective Feedback (Lyster and Ranta, 1997)
erroneous utterance without changing its
original meaning.
2 Explicit correction Provision of the correct form with a clear
indication of what is being corrected.
3 Elicitation Techniques to elicit the correct form from the
students without providing the correct form in
the form of elicit completion, elicitative
question and reformulation request.
4 Metalinguistic feedback Metalinguistic information regarding the
student’s erroneous utterance.
5 Clarification request Moves that indicate learners that their
utterances were either not understood or were
ill-formed.
6 Repetition A repetition of the student’s erroneous
utterance.
7 Paralinguistic signal The use of gesture or facial expression to
indicate the error has taken place
(The last category was taken from Ellis (2009))
The process of coding the data to answer the first research question was done
simultaneously with the coding of data to answer the second research question
(see appendix). To answer the second research question, the categorization of
uptake from Lyster and Ranta (1997) was used in the coding process.
Table 3.3 Categorization of Uptake (Lyster and Ranta, 1997)
1 Repair Uptake that leads to the correct reformulation of an
error as a response to feedback.
2 Need repair Uptake that does not entail the correct form.
the teacher feedback and carries on topic
continuation.
As a result, the types of corrective feedback and uptake were revealed. To
maintain the validity and reliability of data codification, the coding process was
also coded by a partner (see validity and reliability in the next part).
After oral corrective feedback strategies and learner uptakes were coded and
categorized, they were quantified to look at their distribution in the interaction.
Then, the numbers and percentage of oral corrective feedback were put in the
table, as shown below:
Table 3.4 Table Design for the Distribution of Feedback Types
Feedback Types Number of Turns with
Corrective Feedback
Percentage
Recast
Elicitation
Metalinguistic
Feedback
Explicit Correction
Clarification Request
Paralinguistic Signal
Repetition
(Adapted from Lyster&Ranta, 2007; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Khaerunisa, 2002;
Choi and Li, 2012)
Regarding the second research question, the different types of learners’ uptake
following different types of oral corrective feedback were distributed to look at
Table 3.5 Table Design for the Distribution of Learner Uptake
(Adapted from Lyster&Ranta, 2007; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Khaerunisa, 2002;
Choi and Li, 2012)
Based on the result of coding and distribution, the researcher described each
type of oral corrective feedback given by the teacher by providing examples,
describing the context, explaining the distribution in the interaction and
interpreting the occurrence of feedback in the interaction to answer the first
research question. In answering the second research question, the researcher
described each type of learner uptake, describing the context and explaining the
distribution for each type of oral corrective feedback and interpreting on the
potential influence of corrective feedback to learner uptake.
3.4.2 Analyzing the Data from Stimulated Recall Interview
The data from stimulated recall interview were transcribed and analyzed
qualitatively. The interview data were analyzed to confirm the findings obtained
Feedback Types
Uptake
No Uptake
Repair Needs Repair Total
Uptake
RP IN SR PR Total AC SE DE OT HE PE Total
Recast
Elicitation
from observation in answering the first and second research questions. In
analyzing the data, the researcher carried out several steps. First, data from
stimulated recall interview were transcribed. Second, the transcribed data were
coded by following Alwasilah’s coding strategy (2002, p.232) by categorizing the
data based on the responses given by the teacher. Third, the result of coding was
condensed to confirm or contradict the findings obtained from observation.
In supporting the findings from observation, the findings from stimulated
recall interview were cited in the analysis following Creswell’s (2003, p.197)
suggestion to use the wordings from participants to give a detailed descriptive
portrait. The wordings from interview were also compared and contrasted with the
data from observation, theories and previous studies on oral corrective feedback
and uptakes.
3.5 Validity and Reliability
In maintaining validity, the researcher did several things:
a. Methods Triangulation: Multiple methods were used in collecting the data
including audio recording, video recording and stimulated recall interview.
b. Theory triangulation: Various theories were brought to bear in this study
including interaction, output and noticing theories.
c. Member Validation/member checking: It involved asking the teacher to
review the data and the interpretation to provide the researcher with
feedback.
In maintaining reliability of this study, the researcher applied intercoding
process, following Nunan&Bailey (2009) who suggest researchers to conduct
intercoder agreement with the following steps:
The general rule of thumb is that intercoder agreement should be at least 85% for readers to have confidence in the reported findings (Nunan&Bailey, 2009, p. 428 )
In applying intercoder agreement, the researcher carried out several steps.
First, a partner was purposively chosen as an intercoder. She was chosen due to
the researcher’s assumption of her linguistic sensitivity. Second, the partner was
trained to code the data base on detail descriptors. Third, the researcher and the
intercoder coded 10% of data together as an internalization of agreement toward
the descriptor. Fourth, the researcher asked a partner to code 90% of data (see
Sheen, 2004) and looked at the result whether agreement reached more or less
than 85%. After the coding process was finished, the results were compared to
look at the level of agreement. As a result, the agreement for learners’ uptake
codification reached 91% while the agreement for oral corrective feedback
codification reached 87%. The differences were resolved by discussion and
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter discloses conclusions of the data analyses and discussions that are
presented in the previous chapter. It provides the answers for the research
questions that have been directing this paper. It also reveals several gaps in some
areas. These gaps are discussed as limitations of the study. Then, the limitations
provide several recommendations for further studies in the same area.
5.1 Conclusion
This study reports various types of oral corrective feedback used by a teacher and
their distribution in classroom interaction. This study also explores types of
learner uptake and their distribution following the different types of oral
corrective feedback. The study was conducted in a young learner EFL classroom
in an English course in Bandung. The findings of discussion can be described as
follow:
First of all, the teacher employed seven types of oral corrective feedback in
the interaction with young learners: recast, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback,
clarification request, explicit correction, paralinguistic signal and repetition. The
distribution shows that recast was the most preferred oral corrective feedback
while at the same time it was identified as the least feedback type that resulted in
uptake. This finding is parallel with the results of previous studies (see
Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Panova&Lyster, 2002; Surakka, 2007; Taipale, 2012;
Choi&Li, 2012) that the teachers tend to prefer recast than other types of feedback
even though recast leads to less number of uptakes. In this case, teacher’s
preference of recast is confirmed to give valuable input for the students (Long,
1996) by giving them models to copy and fulfill the objective of prioritizing
fluency over accuracy (Linse, 2005) without distracting the flow of conversation
(Cameron, 2001). Meanwhile, the fact that recast as the most favored feedback
since the learners may perceive recast as affirmation of their utterance
(Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Panova&Lyster, 2002), especially in the context of young
learner where the learners might not be able to recognize less salient corrective
feedback. In addition, the teacher’s providence of correct answer likely
contributes to the less number of learner uptakes (Choi&Li, 2012). It is also found
that in employing oral corrective feedback, the teacher considered several aspects such as learner’s proficiency, types of spoken error and learning objectives. Furthermore, it is revealed that in employing oral corrective feedback, the teacher
was led by several motives such as professional consideration, the benefit of
feedback for language learning and the intention to avoid fossilization.
Responding to the teacher’s various types of oral corrective feedback, the
learners used various types of uptake: repair which includes repetition,
incorporation, self-repair, peer-repair and needs repair which includes partial
error, same error, different error, hesitation and acknowledgement. In this case,
input providing feedback such as recast and explicit correction resulted in the less
number of uptakes comparing to output prompting feedback such as elicitation,
repetition, metalingusitic feedback, clarification request, and paralinguistic signal
that resulted in 100% uptake. It is also noteworthy that among those that resulted
in 100% uptake, elicitation and repetition led to the highest percentage of repair.
The finding that output prompting feedback led to more uptake and repair than
input providing feedback corroborates the findings from previous studies (see
Lyster&Ranta, 1997; Panova&Lyster, 2002; Surakka, 2007; Taipale, 2012;
Choi&Li, 2012). The reason is likely because output prompting feedback has the
characteristic of pushing learners in their output (Ellis, 2009; Sheen& Ellis, 2011;
Lyster& Ranta, 1997) by giving the learners opportunity to uptake the feedback
while input providing tends to provide learners with the correct answer (Choi&Li,
2012).
The results imply that the types of oral corrective feedback utilized by the
feedback strategies such as elicitation, repetition, metalingusitic feedback,
clarification request, and paralinguistic signal are shown to be more effective than
input providing such as recast and explicit correction in drawing learner uptake. It
can also be identified that output prompting feedback strategies tend to be more
successful in encouraging learner uptake since they give the opportunity for the
learners to restructure and modify their utterance. On the other hand, input
providing strategies are shown to be less successful in encouraging learner uptake
since they often skip the opportunity for learners to restructure and modify their utterance due to the teacher’s decision to directly provide the correct version of utterance and continue the topic. In the case of recast, fewer uptakes may also
result from the ambiguity of its illocutionary force as a corrective feedback since
learners may perceive recast as an affirmation and another way of saying
something. It is different from recast, explicit correction gives a clear highlight on
what to correct so the less number of uptakes for explicit correction is mostly caused by the teacher’s direct providence of the correct answer and topic continuation.
5.2 Limitation of the Study
This present study is limited in some ways. First, this study is limited in terms of
context and time. As acknowledged in chapter three, this study was conducted
only in a young learner EFL classroom. Therefore, the result cannot be
generalized to other contexts.
This study is also limited in terms of content coverage for it only focuses on teacher’s oral corrective feedback and learner uptake. In this case, the types of error have not been covered by the present study. Finally, the empirical result is
also considered as limitation of study. The result of this study cannot be used to
claim whether certain types of oral corrective feedback are beneficial for language
acquisition since this study only provides conjectures of the benefit of oral
5.3 Recommendation
This study offers several recommendations that provide some spaces for further
studies in the field of oral corrective feedback and several practical suggestions
that can be applied by teachers in their classroom.
First, the research on oral corrective feedback and uptake is suggested to be
applied in various contexts and settings to look at the possible similarities and
differences of the result. Since this study focuses only on the occurrence of oral
corrective feedback and uptake in young learner context, further study in another
context such as adult level will give a significant contribution to the topic of
corrective feedback. Besides, a longitudinal study is recommended since it can
give a promising result on the corrective feedback for it may result in a pattern
that gives a clue on the influence of oral corrective feedback for acquisition.
Second, the study on the whole aspects of error treatment is suggested since it can
give a more holistic picture on the phenomena of oral correction. Finally, more
laborious research that gives empirical data on the benefit and drawbacks of
corrective feedback is recommended since it can give more convincing
information on the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback.
Furthermore, this study suggests several practical guidelines for teachers.
First, this study recommends teachers to recognize different types of oral
corrective feedback and apply them in their classroom interaction by suiting with learners’ proficiency, language development and needs. Second, in line with the findings mentioned above, this study suggests that teachers need to employ output
prompting strategies to give learners opportunity for self and peer-repair by
involving their existing knowledge. In this case, output prompting strategies are
likely to be more effective to correct the errors that result from the failure in
performing the competence but less effective for the failure that results from lack
of knowledge or competence. It does not mean that teachers should omit input
providing strategies since they may be beneficial in certain contexts. Since it is
context where the learners are in the beginning stage of learning foreign language,
recast can be advantageous to give a correct model for the learners. Its function as
corrective feedback can be highlighted by changing the tone, using gesture,
providing wait time or isolating the error. Explicit correction can also be effective
to correct errors that result from the failure from lack of knowledge by directly
REFERENCES:
Aljaafreh, A. & J. Lantolf. (1994). Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, pp.465-483.
Alwasilah, A.C. (2002). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya
Archer, A. L. & Hughes, C.A. (2011). Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching. New York: The Guilford Press.
Boot,K.D.,Lowie,W.&Verspoor,M. (2005). Second Language Acquisition: An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge
Bower, J. (2011). Negotiation of Meaning and Corrective Feedback in Japanese/English e-Tandem. Language Learning & Technology 15 (1),
pp. 41–71. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2011/bowerkawaguchi.pdf
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Longman
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Campos, L.V. (2011). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Classrooms. Literatura Lingüística ,19, pp. 283-292
Carpenter, H.,Jeon K.S.,MacGregor, D.,&Mackey, A. (2006). Leaners’ Interpretation of Recast. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, pp.209–236. DOI: 10+10170S0272263106060104
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Choi, S.Y. & Li, S. (2012). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in a Child ESOL Classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), pp. 331 –351. DOI:
10.1177/0033688212463274, retrieved from
Chu, R. (2011). Effects of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback on Accuracy in the Oral English of English-majors College Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), pp. 454-459
Corder, S.P. (1976). The Significance of Learners’ Error. International Review of Applied Linguistics, pp. 161-169
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method. London: Sage Publication
Cullen, R. 2002. Supportive Teacher Talk: The Importance of the F Move. ELT Journal, 56 (2)
Diaz, N. R. (2009). A Comparative Study of Native and Non-Native Teachers’ Scaffolding Techniques in SLA at an Early Age. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 17, pp.57-73
Djiwandono,P. (2013).Error correction (Facebook group thread). Retrieved from www.facebook.com/group/Teachers Voice
Ellis, R.&Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, pp. 575-600. DOI:10.10170S027226310606027
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 1(1), pp.1-18, retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2504d6w3
Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for Investigating Oral and Written Corrective Feedback. Studies of Second Language Acquisition,32,pp.335-449.DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990544
Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learner. Bandung: Rizki Press.
Erel, S &Bulut, D. (2007). Error Treatment in L2 Writing: A Comparative Study of Direct and Indirect Coded Feedback in Turkish EFL Context. Sosyal
Fu, T. (2012). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in a Chinese as a Foreign Language Class: Do Perceptions and the Reality Match? University of Victoria: Unpublished (Thesis)
Gass S. M. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (1991). Grammar Instruction, Selective Attention, and Learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp. 124-141).
Gass, S.M.& Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York: Routledge
Guénette, D. (2009). The Cyberscript Project: A Mixed-Method Study of
Pre-service ESL Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Beliefs and Practices. McGill
University: Unpublished (Dissertation)
Hammond, J.&Gibbons, P. (2001). What is Scaffolding? In Hammond, J (ed).Scaffolding Teaching and Learning in Language and Literacy Education. Newtown: PETA
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Essex: Pearson Education
Hartono, D. & Wahyuningsih,N. (2012). Corrective Feedback as a Meaningful Element of Error Treatment in Speaking. A paper presented at the TEFLIN 59 , 6-8November, Widay Mandala Catholic University, Surabaya.
Harris, L.R. et al. (2012, April). Student Pictures of Feedback: Feedback is for Learning and from Teachers. A paper presented at the 2012 AERA Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association conference, Vancouver, BC to the Classroom Assessment SIG
Heift, Trude. (2004). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16, pp.416-431, Doi:10.1017/S0958344004001120.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
Ianziti, J. R. (2006).Teacher Corrective Practices in the Foreign Language Classroom: The Effect of Timing. A paper presented to the Social Change in the 21st Century Conference Centre for Social Change Research, 27th October 2006, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland.
Khaerunisa. (2002). Teachers’ Corrective Feedback on Students’ Spoken Errors in Second Grade EFL Classrooms of a Senior High School (Thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, unpublished).
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. NewYork : Pergamon Press.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and Second Language Development: Beyond Negative Evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63, retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448 retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org
Linse, C. T. 2005. Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies
Long, M.H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition, pp. 413–468. San Diego: Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.(1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, pp.37-66
Lyster, R and Saito, K. (2010). Oral Feedback in Classroom SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, pp. 265-302
Magilow, D.H. (1999). Error Correction and Classroom Affect. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 32 (2), pp. 125-129 retrieved from http://www.jstor.org
Maolida, E.H. (2012). A Descriptive Study of Teacher’s Oral Feedback in ESL Young Learner Classroom in Indonesia. UPI: Unpublished (Paper)
Mustafha, B. (2010). Teaching English to Young Learners in Indonesia: Essential Requirements. EDUCATIONIST 4 (2), pp. 120-125
Nabei, Toshiya. (2005). Teacher Feedback, Learner Dialogue, and the Zone of Proximal Development, pp.41-58, retrieved from http//www. Kansai-u.ac.jpfl
Nunan, D. & Bailey,K.M. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom Research. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning
Panova, I and Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom. TESOL QUARTERLY 36(4), pp. 575-595
Pany, D., McCoy, Kathleen, M., Peters & Ellen.E. (1981). Effects of Corrective Feedback on Comprehension Skills of Remedial Students. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 13 (2), pp.131-143, DOI:
10.1080/10862968109547401, retrieved from http://jlr.sagepub.com
Rassaei, E & Moinzadeh, A.(2011). Investigating the Effects of Three Types of Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of English Wh-question Forms by Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 4 (2), retrieved from www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language doi:10.5539/elt.v4n2p97
Rezaei, S, Mozaffari, F &Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective Feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice and Future Directions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), pp. 21-29 retrieved from www.ccsenet, org/jel
Riddell, D. (2001). Teach EFL. London: Hodder Education
Russell, V. (2009). Corrective Feedback, over a Decade of Research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where Do We Stand Today? Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching 2009, 6(1), pp. 21–31
Samar, R. G.& Shayestefar, P. (2009). Corrective Feedback in EFL Classrooms: Learner Negotiation Strategies and Uptake. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning , 52 (212), pp. 107-134, retrieved from
www.SID.ir
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective Feedback in Historical Perspective. Second Language Research, 7, pp. 89-102
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, Awareness, and Individual Differences in Language Learning. In W.M.Chan, S.Chi, K.N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, L.W.Sew, T. Suthiwan & I.Walker, Proceedings of Clasic 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp.721-737). Singapore:National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms across Instructional Settings. Language Teaching Research, 8 (3), pp. 263-300
Sheen, Y & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective Feedback in Language Teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed). (2011). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 2, pp.593-607. New York: Routledge.
Surakka, K. (2007). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in an EFL Classroom. University of Jyvaskyla: Unpublished (Thesis)
Swain, M. (2007).The Output Hypothesis: Its History and Its Future [PowerPoint
Slide]. Retrieved from
http://www.celea.org.cn/2007/keynote/ppt/Merrill%20Swain.pdf