Corrective feedback and learner uptake: a comparison between Content Based Language Teaching and Com

1

• Corrective feedback and learner uptake a
  comparison between Content Based Language
  Teaching and Communicative Language Teaching
  
• Antonieta Cal y Mayor Turnbull
• June 2005

2
OUTLINE

• Introduction
• Literature review on corrective feedback and
  learner uptake
  
• Research questions
• Observation setting
• Observation scheme
• Examples of corrective feedback
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion

3
INTRODUCTION

• Purpose of the observations
• To identify and compare the types of corretive
  feedback teachers provide in a CBLT and CLT
  environment.
  
• To identify what type of corrective feedback
  leads to learner uptake in each one of the
  teaching environments.
  
• Focus of the study
• Corrective feedback and learner uptake in
  learner-teacher interaction.
  
• N.B. Errors committed in learner-learner
  interaction were not taken into consideration for
  this analysis.

4
LITERATURE REVIEW

• Principles of language learning and teaching
  (Brown, 1994)
  
• Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Practical
  Understandings(Kleinsasser Sato, 1999).
  
• Content-based instruction perspectives on
  curriculum planning (Stoller, 2004).
  
• Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in
  communicative language teaching (Han2002)
  
• Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in
  communicative
  
• language teaching effects on second
  language learning (Lightbown Spada, 1990).
  
• Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake (Lyster
  Ranta, 1997).
  
• Differential effects of prompts and recasts in
  form-focused instruction (Lyster, 2004).
  

5
OBSERVATION SETTING

• Content Based Language Teaching
• Brooklyn International High School
• Class 10th grade Science class.
• No.of Ss 18 (normally 22)(Teenagers from
• different language backgrounds).
• Observation period 1000 to 1050 A.M.
• Topic The different body systems
• Seating arrangement Groups of 3 to 5 Ss
• in round tables. Group work throughout the
• class. No lockstep work.

6
OBSERVATION SETTING

• Communicative Language Teaching
• Communicative English Program
• Level of Ss Lower Intermediate (I-1)
• No. of Ss 15 (adults from different language
• backgrounds)
• Observation period 710 to 800 p.m.
• Topic Papparazi and celebrities
• Seating arrangement Lockstep. Teacher
• fronted.

7
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What are the types of corrective feedback used in
  a High School CBLT class and in a CLT ESL adult
  class?
  
• What is the type of corrective feedback most
  frequently used in each of the two language
  teaching settings?
  
• What is the distribution of uptake following the
  different types of corrective feedback in each of
  the two language teaching settings?
  

8
OBSERVATION SCHEME

• Lyster and Rantas (1997) corrective feedback
  taxonomy.
  
• Types or corrective feedback
• Explicit correction
• Recasts
• Clarification requests
• Metalinguistic feedback
• Elicitation
• Repetition
• Learner uptake A students utterance that
  immediately follows the teachers feedback and
  that constitutes a reaction in some way to the
  teachers intention to draw attention to some
  aspect of the students initial utterance.
  (Lyster and Ranta, 1997, p. 49)

9
OBSERVATION SCHEMEEXAMPLE FROM CBLT
10
OBSERVATION SCHEMEEXAMPLE FROM CLT
11
CELEBRITY

• 742 S9 Celebre T Celebrity
• S9 Celebrity
• 743 S10 Celebrity T Celebrity
• 744 T writes on the board and makes Ss repeat
  the word twice.
  
• 747 S15.celebrity
• 748 S3 . celebrity
• 751 S7 celebrity
• 755 S9celebrity

12
RESULTSTYPES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

• CBLT

• CLT

13
RESULTS

• Comparison between errors, corrective feedback
  and learner up take
  
• Raw numbers Percentages

14
RESULTS

• Comparison of results across both
• teaching settings

Real numbers are written in parenthesis.
Percentages are followed by the symbol . In the
fourth and fifth columns, the original percentage
of corrective feedback has been turned into 100.
In column six, learner uptake has been turned
into 100 to allow comparison on the distribution
of up take after each type of corrective feedback
15
Corrective feedbak and learner up take on the
word celebrity
16
DISCUSSION

• The amount of corrective feedback in both
  teaching settings was inferior to the amount of
  errors committed.
  
• Corrective feedback was higher in CLT than in
  CBLT.
  
• Recast was the most used type of corrective
  feedback in both settings.
  
• Results for the CBLT differed from the findings
  in previous SLA empirical studies.
  
• The uptake was higher in CBLT than in CLT.
• Recasts resulted in 100 up take in the CBLT.
• Theres evidence that the corrective feedback
  provided for the word celebrity by the CLT
  teacher, helped students if not to acquire, to at
  least store the native like pronunciation in
  their short term memory.

17
CONCLUSION

• Results should be taken with caution.
• Classroom seating arrangement had an impact on
  the data collection.
  
• Taped data instead of pencil and paper
  information is preferable. If this is not
  possible, two observers are advisable in order to
  obtain inter-observer reliability.
• In order to arrive to definite conclusions,
  various teachers in each of the teaching settings
  should be observed during an extended period of
  time.
• Relatioship between type of error and amount and
  type of corrective feedback, as well as between
  type of corrective feedback and type and quality
  of learner up take are other variables that can
  be taken into consideration when conducting
  further research on this topic.