Feedback Used in Classrooms with Native English and Non-Native English Teachers

Sen Zhang,Monta Chatupote

doi:10.5296/ijele.v2i1.5347

Abstract

Based on Lyster and Ranta (1997), this current study made a comparison between native and non-native English speaking teachers’ corrective feedback to students’ errors, and also between different teachers’ feedback types and students’ uptake. The database consisted of 738 minutes’ or 12.3 hours’ classroom observation, including two types of teachers, six types of corrective feedback and two types of student uptake. Results showed that recast was the most frequently used feedback type across all the teachers, which simultaneously led to low rate of learner repairs; non-native English speaking teachers provided overwhelmingly more feedback than native teachers, and they tended to use more recast; both native and non-native teachers preferred to use varied kind of feedback at similar distribution which might suggest that corrective feedback did not necessarily rely on teacher types with students of the same proficiency level; elicitation tended to be the most effective feedback type in both native and non-native teachers’ class, which might indicate that feedback types which can trigger negotiation of form were effective no matter what types of teachers use them. The results suggested that teachers should avoid using recast and opt for elicitation for more effective learning.

Highlights

Results showed that recast was the most frequently used feedback type across all the teachers, which simultaneously led to low rate of learner repairs; non-native English speaking teachers provided overwhelmingly more feedback than native teachers, and they tended to use more recast; both native and non-native teachers preferred to use varied kind of feedback at similar distribution which might suggest that corrective feedback did not necessarily rely on teacher types with students of the same proficiency level; elicitation tended to be the most effective feedback type in both native and non-native teachers’ class, which might indicate that feedback types which can trigger negotiation of form were effective no matter what types of teachers use them
As for two native English teachers, teacher 3 and 4 were different in their total utility of corrective feedback, such as that feedback used by teacher 4 was double the amount of teacher 3’s
Numerous studies in the past few decades focused on investigating the relationship between learner error and corrective feedback, and between corrective feedback and learner uptake

Summary

Introduction

Corrective feedback, which plays a scaffolding role in classroom interaction process, has been the focus and prominence of many SLA researchers for the past few decades (Chaudron, 1977, 1986, & 1988; Doughty, 1994a; Long, 1996; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Suzuki, 2004; Li, 2010). Gass (1997), Schmidt and Frota (1986) suggested that corrective feedback provided by teachers offers an opportunity for students to perceive the mismatches between their language production and the target discourse forms, potentially to reformulate their language outcomes Based on these theories, previous researches explored the relationships between learner error and teacher feedback, corrective feedback and learner uptake, corrective feedback and learner repair, teacher feedback and classroom context types (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004; Suzuki, 2004). Recast was testified as the most frequently used corrective feedback by different studies (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Ellis et al, 2001; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Suzuki, 2004); teachers tended to use varied types of teaching strategies (Lyster & Ranta, 1997); there were both similarities and differences between feedback types observed in different studying contexts (Heift, 2004; Sheen, 2004; Suzuki, 2004; Li, 2010); teachers would better take learners’ proficiency level into consideration when providing feedback (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sara, 2010; Parviz, 2012)

Methods

Results

Conclusion