Abstract
This research aimed to study the error treatment sequences, namely, learner error and teacher feedback in 4 classrooms taught by 2 native English speaking and 2 non-native English speaking teachers respectively. 12.3 hours of classroom interactions were analyzed using the correction analytic model comprising teacher feedback, student uptake and student repair. Results showed that error treatment sequences including recast tended to lead to high rate of students’ no response in both Native and Non-Native teachers’ classes; while those consisting of elicitation, clarification and repetition, seemed to be more effective as could be seen in high rate of students’ self-repairs in both types of classrooms; and the error treatment sequence linked by explicit correction generated more repairs in Non-Native teachers’ class. All these results may suggest that both Native and Non-Native teachers should avoid producing error treatment sequences including recast and try to initiate the sequences containing elicitation, clarification or repetition in order to trigger student repairs effectively.
Highlights
In 1978, Hendrickson summarized five framing questions concerning the matter of error treatment process in the classroom: why the mistakes need to be corrected, when to correct them; what to be corrected; how to correct; who do the correction (Hendrickson, 1978)
Since error-comment-repair is the common and basic error correction process happening in almost every classroom, this current study, based on Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) analytic model, focused on examining the error treatment sequences occurred in four classrooms with the fundamental factors such as student errors, teacher feedback and student uptake
Based on the consecutive studies conducted by Lyster and Ranta (1997), Lyster (2001) and Panova and Lyster (2002) which unveiled the error treatment sequence in classroom and an analytic model, the current study made some similar investigation on teacher and students’ interaction process, especially the error treatment sequences occurred in both Native and Non-Native English teachers’ classrooms
Summary
In 1978, Hendrickson summarized five framing questions concerning the matter of error treatment process in the classroom: why the mistakes need to be corrected, when to correct them; what to be corrected; how to correct; who do the correction (Hendrickson, 1978). Corrective feedback or interactive feedback, as teachers’ comments, responses or reformulation of learners’ incorrect or inappropriate utterances, plays a scaffolding role in error treatment procedure happened in classrooms, which was supported by both Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985) and Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996). Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985) states that comprehensible input might not be enough to achieve learners’ language acknowledgement; modified output is needed and necessary for completing the whole process of language mastery. Corrective feedback and learner uptake, which stimulate the interaction between learners and teachers, can benefit language learning process (Long, 1996)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
