The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: a comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms

Abstract

This study compares the frequency and distribution of different types of corrective feedback (CF) (recasts, prompts and explicit correction) and learner uptake in 43 hours of classroom interaction at the 4th-5th grade level across three instructional settings: (1) two content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms in Spain with English as the target language; (2) four French immersion (FI) classrooms in Quebec (using published data from Lyster and Ranta 1997); and (3) three Japanese immersion (JI) classrooms in the US (using published data from Lyster and Mori 2006). The findings revealed that teachers in all three settings used recasts, prompts and explicit correction in similar proportions, with recasts being the most frequent, followed by prompts then explicit correction. However, in the CLIL and JI classrooms, the majority of learner repair moves followed recasts, whereas the majority of repair moves in FI classrooms followed prompts. The similarities and differences across contexts are discussed in terms of the different types of recasts used by the teachers (i.e. didactic recasts in CLIL and JI; conversational recasts in FI), as well as in terms of context-specific influences and the teachers' professional trajectories.

The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes' intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study

“…During the last decade it has quickly spread especially throughout Europe and Asia, where it is often being established as a preferential educational approach (Coyle et al, ; Smit, ; Yang, ), while an intense debate has also been taking place in some of the main applied linguistic journals about the definition of the concept itself (Bruton, ; Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, ; Dalton‐Puffer, Llinares, Lorenzo, & Nikula, ; Hüttner & Smit, ; Lasagabaster & Sierra, ). Some authors state that there are differences between CLIL and immersion (Pérez‐Cañado, ), some authors consider that there are more similarities between CLIL and immersion programmes than between different immersion programmes (Llinares & Lyster, ), whereas other scholars (Cenoz, ) claim that content‐based instruction and CLIL share the same basic features and cannot be regarded as pedagogically different. In any case, the conclusion to be drawn would be that the terminological debate should be left behind and researchers should focus on identifying the “features of bi/multilingual education programmes all over the world, to help researchers carry out comparative studies across contexts” (Dalton‐Puffer et al, : 217).…”

CLIL: A European Approach to Bilingual Education

“…Cammarata and Tedick, 2012). Examples of such collaboration already exist: Llinares and Lyster (2014) examined patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake in CLIL classrooms in Spain, Japanese immersion classrooms in the US, and French immersion classrooms in Canada, finding differences that set CLIL and Japanese immersion apart from French immersion classrooms in the way recasts were handled, probably resulting from contextual features as well as teacher professional trajectories. Nikula and Mård-Miettinen (2014) combine immersion and CLIL insights to review the contribution of these areas to language learning research.…”

Is Recast the Most Effective Type of Corrective Feedback?—Under Cognitive and Sociolinguistic Approach

“…In Llinares and Lyster (2014)'s research, recasts occurring more frequently than prompts and explicit correction in both content-based language teaching (CBLT) and immersion classrooms. However, recasts were much more effective than either prompts or explicit correction at leading to immediate repair in CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) classrooms.…”