Abstract
This classroom-based research investigated how a non-native teacher of English provided corrective feedback to Turkish EFL learners. More specifically, the study aimed to identify language errors produced by the students, corrective feedback types employed by the teacher, and students’ uptake rate following the provided feedback. The data were collected through audio-recording, transcribed, and analyzed in detail for the type of learner errors, type of teacher feedback, and rate of learner uptake. The results revealed that grammatical errors were found to be the most produced error type, and lexical errors were found to be least produced error type. The study also indicated that recast was the most frequently preferred, and clarification request was the least frequently preferred corrective feedback type by the teacher. It was also found that all feedback types led to successful correction of erroneous utterances of the students with 100% learner uptake rate.
Highlights
In the literature, researchers have put emphasis on various aspects of language learning for years
All the recordings were transcribed verbatim to find out error types of the students, the types of corrective feedback provided by the teacher, and the students’ uptake rate
Six corrective feedback types led to 100% uptake, revealing the effectiveness of feedback types. The purpose of this classroom-based research was to find out error types produced by Turkish EFL learners and corrective feedback types employed by a Turkish non-native teacher at a state university
Summary
Researchers have put emphasis on various aspects of language learning for years. Among all different language learning aspects, error correction has been one of the most disputed issues in the field (Iwashita, 2003; Lyster, 2001; Lyster and Ranta, 1997). In second language learning field, scholars have attempted to define corrective feedback in various ways. Lightbown and Spada (1990:171) define corrective feedback as “any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect”. According to Long (1996), positive evidence and negative evidence are two categories of providing feedback to learners. Long (1996) gives the definition of positive evidence as supplying students with models of grammatical and acceptable forms in the target language and negative evidence as giving direct and indirect information about ungrammatical and unacceptable utterances. According to Long (1996), positive evidence and negative evidence are two categories of providing feedback to learners. Long (1996) gives the definition of positive evidence as supplying students with models of grammatical and acceptable forms in the target language and negative evidence as giving direct and indirect information about ungrammatical and unacceptable utterances. Sheen (2007) refers to corrective feedback as teachers’ effort to encourage the students to focus on the accuracy of their production
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.
