Corrective Feedback for Learners of Varied Proficiency Levels: A Teacher’s Choices

Abstract

This study investigates how one English-as-a-second-language (ESL) teacher provided corrective feedback to 15 child ESL learners that the teacher had divided into two groups based on proficiency level. Classroom data in transcripts from the CHILDES database were analyzed for type of learner errors, type of teacher feedback, and rate of learner uptake (attempts at correction) and repair (correction). Results showed differences in the types of errors produced by each proficiency group and in the type of feedback the teacher provided to each proficiency group, demonstrating provision of finely tuned corrective feedback based on learners' individual differences. Cette étude porte sur la rétroaction corrective d'un enseignant en ALS avec 15 élèves répartis en deux groupes en fonction de leurs compétences. Des transcriptions de la base de données CHILDES et portant sur des données de salles de classe ont été analysées pour déceler le type d'erreurs chez les apprenants, le type de rétroaction de la part de l'enseignant, et taux d'application (tentatives de se corriger) et de correction par les apprenants. Les résultats révèlent des différences dans le type d'erreurs produites par chaque groupe et dans le type de rétroaction fournie par l'enseignant à chaque groupe, démontrant l'adaptation de la rétroac-tion corrective aux différences individuelles chez les apprenants. IntroductionIn 1997 Lyster and Ranta published a seminal article on the use of corrective feedback by teachers in grades 4 and 5 French immersion classrooms. This article presaged a growing body of research on corrective feedback for and by second-language (L2) learners. A basic question underlying-although not altogether resolved by-research on corrective feedback is this: What kinds of feedback for what kinds of errors are effective for what kinds of learners? Lyster and Ranta found that although the French immersion teachers provided corrective feedback for most learners' errors, some types of feedback were more effective than others. One of the possible factors that seems to influence the effectiveness of corrective feedback is L2 learners' level of proficiency (Ammar & Spada, 2006;Havranek & Cesnik, 2001;Lin & Hedgcock, 1996;Mackey & Philp, 1998 Results from studies on corrective feedback and learner proficiency have generated valuable suggestions for L2 teaching. However, these results are based on observation or assessment of multiple groups of learners and teachers or interlocutors. In other words, research on corrective feedback and learner proficiency thus far has largely not targeted individual teachers, or specifically how a teacher may provide feedback to learners of varied proficiency levels in his or her classroom. A notable exception is Lightbown (1991), who remarked on the effectiveness of one L2 teacher's feedback strategies for learners making a particular type of error. Because much corrective feedback provided to classroom L2 learners comes from teachers, 1 it is important to determine how (and why) individual teachers provide feedbac...

Technology as an Educational Equalizer for EFL Learning in Rural China? Evidence from the Impact of Technology-Assisted Practices on Teacher-Student Interaction in Primary Classrooms

“…Corrective feedback includes the implicit provision of target language forms (i.e., recast), techniques for selfcorrection (i.e., clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition), and explicit error correction techniques (Lyster & Ranta, 1997;Panova & Lyster, 2002;Sheen, 2004). Findings on corrective feedback in EFL classrooms (Ahangari & Amirzadeh, 2011;Kennedy, 2010;Panova & Lyster, 2002;Sheen, 2004) indicate that recast (when the teacher implicitly reformulates the student's error, or provides the correction) is the predominant technique that teachers employ, even though it leads to the lowest rate of uptake of the target language. In comparison, techniques that encourage student selfresponses, such as clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback (when the teacher poses questions related to the formation of a student's utterances), elicitation (when the teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking questions, pausing, or asking for correction), and repetition, lead to more successful student-generated repair (J.…”

Error Analysis in EFL Writing Classroom

“…This finding is linear to Kennedy's (2010) study, indicating that grammatical errors are the most frequently committed errors by the learners. Conversely, Sung & Tsai's (2014) investigation revealed that grammatical errors are rarely made errors by the Chinese EFL learners, although there is substantial difference existing between Chinese grammar and English grammar.…”

Does Learners’ Proficiency Level Affect Oral Corrective Feedback Preferences?

“…Furthermore, Ahangari and Amirzadeh's (2011) findings are in line with Kennedy's (2010).Specifically, they explored teachers' provided CF to learners at different proficiency levels. Whereas the most frequent type of CF in all three levels was recast, the frequency of using it reduced as the learners became more proficient.…”

“…More recently, Kennedy (2010) carried out a study to investigate young learners' type of ISSN 1948-5425 2016 www.macrothink.org/ijl 154 error in two different levels of proficiency and also their teachers' preferred CF practices. The findings revealed that low-proficiency learners made more content errors, whereas the high-proficiency students made more form errors.…”