Strategies of Metalinguistic and Recast Feedback on Learner Uptake during Oral Interactions in Upper-Intermediate Level Foreign Language Students

Abstract

Corrective feedback has attracted much attention in recent years, this with a particular emphasis on meaning-focused language instruction. In order to compare the effectiveness of the strategies of Metalinguistic and Recast feedback in student uptake during oral interactions, an eight-week quasi experimental study was conducted. This study comprised thirty participants distributed in two classes. One group of 16 students was exposed to metalinguistic feedback and the other group of 14 students to recast. Throughout the study students remained constant in each group, this means they were not mixed. The selected students were aged from 18 to 20 year-old and they were attending the Eighth course of the English Foreign Language Program in ESPE [Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas] during the semester October 2015 to February 2016. To compare the effectiveness of the two aforementioned feedback strategies, four target structures were adopted, these were: omission of subject, auxiliary use in questions, subject-verb agreement, reported statements. The selected structures emerged from a survey which was administered to a sample of EFL teachers from the Language Center of ESPE. The findings of the study revealed that learners who were exposed to metalinguistic feedback outperformed their counterparts who were exposed to recast feedback.

Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback Strategies Through the Lens of the Students

“…This type of feedback refers to providing comments, information, and questions about the students' work without directly correcting the work. The information gave the learners several hints for the possible reconstruction of the errors (Tamayo & Cajas, 2017). This theme emerged because of the error-correction feedback (ST 2 & 4) along with feedback with a brief description (ST & & 3).…”