Abstract
The present study is an attempt to investigate the frequency of different types of errors committed by EFL learners and the most prevalent types of errors, the types of corrective feedback do EFL teachers provide primarily in their classes and the students’ reaction followed by feedback, and the combination of corrective feedback and learner uptake leading to negotiation of form. To perform this study, an observational, analytical and descriptive study was conducted. For collecting data, six classes with 6 different instructors were chosen. The number of participants was 60 female students who were at intermediate level from two subsidiaries of Jahad Language Institutes in Karaj, Albourz Province. Homogeneous groups of language learners were selected. Each class was observed for 5 sessions and the interactions among students and instructors in different classes were recorded. The coding scheme was according to Lyster and Ranta’ (1997) model with some additional parts. Two other types of feedback were added, translation and multiple feedback. Also a combination of errors, multiple errors, was added. The analysis of the database showed that among five types of errors, i.e. phonological, grammatical, lexical, multiple errors and L1, the phonological and grammatical errors were committed primarily by students (43% and 30% respectively). From eight types of feedback given to learners, explicit feedback and recast were the most frequent types of feedback provided by the instructors. Finally, four types of feedbacks including elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback and repetition of errors led to student uptake: self repair and peer correction.
Highlights
Learner’s errors and feedbacks followed an error are two significant parts of learning process; coping with errors and understanding how to tackle them could be considered as a means at teachers’ disposal to know how to assist learners
The low rate of gender error might be due to proficiency level of student. Another possible reason might be attributed to the feedback type the participants received since the errors were mostly corrected through peers and self repair and not through teacher feedback
Analyzing the frequency and percentage of eight types of feedback showed that explicit feedback was the most frequent type of feedback (32%), and metalinguistic feedback as the least frequent feedback type (3%)
Summary
Learner’s errors and feedbacks followed an error are two significant parts of learning process; coping with errors and understanding how to tackle them could be considered as a means at teachers’ disposal to know how to assist learners. Chaudron (1977) defines it as “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demand improvement of the learner utterance” (p.31). It is described by Lightbown & Spada (2003) “as any indication to a learner that his/ her use of the target language is incorrect” (p.172), it is classified into two categories based on the way IJALEL 3(1):54-62, 2014 they are corrected, explicitly and implicitly. It is described by Lightbown & Spada (2003) “as any indication to a learner that his/ her use of the target language is incorrect” (p.172), it is classified into two categories based on the way IJALEL 3(1):54-62, 2014 they are corrected, explicitly and implicitly. Ellis (1994) maintained that the terms “correction” “repair” and “feedback”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callMore From: International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature
Disclaimer: 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.
