Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic vs. formulaic errors

Gholami, Leila

doi:10.1177/13621688211021560

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings from this study were similar to previous studies (Bao, 2019;Gholami, 2021;Phuong & Huan, 2018;Choi & Li, 2012) where recast was most frequently used, although the research instruments, research settings, and participants varied across all studies. However, this study's findings contradicted those of Lyster and Ranta (1997), who regarded recast as an ineffective OCF type.…”

Section: Research Findings and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Investigating Teachers’ Oral Corrective Feedback and Students’ Uptake in Grade 6 Bhutanese Primary Classrooms

Wangchuk

2023

JISTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral corrective feedback (OCF) plays an important role in language teaching and learning, but little research has examined Bhutanese teachers’ practices of OCF on students’ speaking performance and uptake. This paper reports on a mixed-method approach to investigate the rate of students' uptake on teachers' OCF within an ESL setting in Bhutanese grade six primary classrooms. Convenience sampling was applied to gather data from observations of two teachers and fifty-seven students in a primary school. The results of content analysis from classroom observations indicate that the teachers used four types of OCF: explicit correction, recast, metalinguistic feedback, and repetition, with recast being the highest used. The results showed a high degree of student participation, which resulted in error correction following the teachers' OCF. It is suggested that different classes be studied to see if there are differences in the effects of OCF on students.

show abstract

Section: Research Findings and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Investigating Teachers’ Oral Corrective Feedback and Students’ Uptake in Grade 6 Bhutanese Primary Classrooms

Wangchuk

2023

JISTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies made a distinction between non-formulaic (drop the beans) and formulaic (spill the beans) language, albeit for different research purposes (e.g., Gholami, 2021aGholami, , 2021bGholami, , 2021cGholami, Karimi, & Atai, 2017). For the purpose of this study, non-formulaic forms were differentiated from formulaic forms.…”

Section: Coding Foci Of Ffesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidental Focus-on-Form characteristics: Predicting learner uptake.Formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms

Gholami

2022

VIAL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A substantial number of studies have investigated the efficacy of incidental focus on form (FonF) measured through (successful) uptake rate in teacher-learner interactions in communicative contexts and have established a link between learners’ (successful) uptake of linguistic forms and their second language learning. In this line of research, the analysis of uptake and FonF characteristics mediating learners’ (successful) uptake has been limited to linguistic forms of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling (non-formulaic forms). However, formulaic sequences, including idioms, collocations, lexical bundles, and compounds (formulaic forms), have received scant attention in FonF research. This study examined incidental FonF characteristics that best predicted learners’ (successful) uptake of formulaic forms and compared the findings with the variables that mediate the (successful) uptake of non-formulaic forms targeted in focus-on-form episodes (FFEs). To this end, 30 hours of audio-recorded teacher-learner interactions in primarily communicative activities from English as a foreign language classes were examined. The findings showed that learners’ attention was drawn to non-formulaic forms more frequently than formulaic forms in FFEs. Nonetheless, learners produced (successful) uptake more often when formulaic forms were targeted in FFEs than non-formulaic forms. Logistic regression analyses showed that FonF characteristics that predicted learners’ production of (successful) uptake were different for formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms targeted in FFEs.

show abstract

“…Students believe that the value of corrective feedback stems from its consistent correction of defects and mistakes throughout the learning process. It is also beneficial in boosting the learning process and improving both speech and spelling (Gholami, 2021;Munfadlila et al, 2019). It is crucial to highlight that the efficacy of oral corrective feedback might vary based on factors such as learners' particular style of learning and desires, the environment of the classroom, and overall teaching strategy (Mahvelati, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distribution of Junior High School Students’ Language Awareness Across English Oral Proficiency and Oral Corrective Feedback Preference

Prakoso,

Munir,

Mustofa

2024

IJLECR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language awareness is crucial in langage learning. It entails how language is perceived and used by the students. Language awareness cannot be separated from teaching learning process since there are many interactions between teacher and students in the class including performing oral competency, learning from mistake, giving and taking oral corrective feedback. Thus, it stil uncovered yet that language awareness is really matter in junior high school. This research tried to investigate the level of language awareness of junior high school students across their oral proficiency level. The study also aims to find out whether students' level of language awareness is significantly different or not in their English oral language proficiency. In addition, the study also arried out to find out students type preference in receiving oral corrective feedback based on their language awareness level. This research is quantitative in nature. The data was collected from teacher archive in the form of students score and questionnaire. Then, the data was analyzed with the help of SPSS 20. The result showed that from 92 junior high school participant 35% of participants are in low level of language awareness; 32% in moderate level and 31% in high level. Based on the result, it can be concluded that majority of junior high school student are in low level of language awareness followed by moderate, and high. The analysis also showed that it retains the hypothesis of students’ language awareness level is similar across different English oral proficiency. Student with low, moderate, and high proficiency shows relatively similar level of language awareness level. Thus, the majority of students prefer explicit correction for oral corrective feedback type.

show abstract

Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic vs. formulaic errors

Cited by 8 publications

References 78 publications

Investigating Teachers’ Oral Corrective Feedback and Students’ Uptake in Grade 6 Bhutanese Primary Classrooms

Investigating Teachers’ Oral Corrective Feedback and Students’ Uptake in Grade 6 Bhutanese Primary Classrooms

Incidental Focus-on-Form characteristics: Predicting learner uptake.Formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms

The Distribution of Junior High School Students’ Language Awareness Across English Oral Proficiency and Oral Corrective Feedback Preference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About