Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
This study attempted to investigate the applying and effect of different types of corrective feedbackincommunicative classroom and in students writing. In 1996, Truscott ever declared a news differ from thecommon run that correct feedback was ineffective and harmful for L2 students writing. However, hisargument probably has little impact on teachers and researchers. Studies on various types of corrective feedback in English classroom still have been continued. So far, a large amount of fruits in this line ofresearch were existed. In 1997, Lyster and Ranta examined six types of oral feedback: recasts, elicitation,clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, and repetition in four French immersionclassrooms in Canada and transcribed 18.3 hours of classroom interaction. Final results showed that thefour teachers made a total of 686 error correction moves during their observations, and of these, recastsaccounted for 375 of them. Over half of all four teachers oral error corrections came in the form of a recast.Students had no uptake for 260 of the 375 re-casts, and they demonstrated uptake without repair for 49 ofthe 375 recasts. A mere 66 recasts resulted in both uptake and repair by students; this number accounts forless than 20% of all recasts given by the teachers. Although recasts appeared to be the most common errorcorrection move employed by teachers, they were found to be the least effective in terms of uptake andrepair, with nearly 70% of recasts going unnoticed by the students. Later in 1998, Lyster used the data fromLyster and Ranta (1997) to examine the relationship between error patterns and feedback types. Lyster(1998b) collapsed the six feedback types into the following three categories: explicit correction, recasts,and the negotiation of form. And the negotiation of form contains the former categories of elicitation,metalinguistic cues, clarification requests, and repetitions.
……….
1.2 Purposes and Significance of the Study
Error correction has a long and controversial history in the fields of Second Language Learning (SLL).Whether and how to correct errors usually depends upon the methodological perspective to which a teacherascribes. Historically, the behaviorist teaching models that were practiced in the 1950 s and 1960 s such asthe Audiolingual Method stressed error correction at all costs. Behaviorists viewed errors as inevitable, butstrove to avoid and overcome them by providing speedy examples of correct responses. Brooks (1960)wrote, “Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome... the principal way of overcoming it isto shorten the time lapse between the incorrect response and a presentation once more of the correct model”(p. 56). However, in the 1970 s SLA research began to cast doubt upon behaviorist models of instructionand question the value of grammar instruction and error correction in the second language (L2) classroom,largely based on the research findings of naturalistic SLA. Competence in the TL over the attainment ofgrammatical perfection. The Natural Approach prohibits both structured grading and error correction inorder to keep students affective filters low. According to Terrell (1977), affective rather than cognitivefactors are of primary concern in the language classroom, and the correction of students errors is “negativein terms of motivation, attitude, and embarrassment” (p.330).
……..
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1 Definitions of Corrective Feedback and its Patterns
In order to improve the learner s performance of a learning task, feedback, as a kind of information,should be given to the learner. Feedback is composed of two main distinguishable parts: indication andcorrection. In indication, the learner is simply informed how about his or her performance. In correction,the learner s performance will be given some specific information: through explanation, providing thecorrect form of the target language, or metalinguistic information about the nature of the error, or anycombination of these. Corrective feedback, as one of the many kinds of feedback, informs the learner thattheir response is incorrect and with the knowledge of the correct or desired response provided.(崔彩英,2013). In the current study have been conducted on the collection and analysis of feedback and repair incommunicative class and in writing. So oral and written corrective feedback have been introducing firstly.Oral and written corrective feedback have been investigated independently of each other. This reflects thediffering concerns. Oral and written CF differ in a number of ways. For example, whereas oral CF can beboth implicit and explicit, written CF is invariably explicit. Whereas oral CF typically occurs online (i.e.,more or less immediately after the learner error has occurred), written CF is inevitably offline (i.e., there isa delay between the learner making the error and receiving the feedback). There are a number of ways inwhich oral and written CF potentially differ. Following table summarizes these key distinctions betweenoral and written CF.
…….
2.2 Studies of Corrective Feedback
A quick review of literature indicated that so many studies done in the area of correct feedback.Important figures in this field are Lyster, Grass, Sheen, Lee, Ferris and Ellis. Go over the literatures, mostof researches are affiliated with university at aboard. Teachers in Junior did so little. Below is a review ofmain studies done on correct feedback.No matter what kind of feedback is studies, most of researchers try to solve five questions below as adesigning which recreated base on five questions raising by Hendrickson (1977). (1) Whether is itnecessary to feedback? (2) Which types of feedback is best for students? (3) Should learners errors becorrected? (4) Who should do the correcting? (5) Which, when or how should learners errors be corrected?But so far there still remain largely unanswered today.Truscott and Hsu (2008) reported written corrective feedback did not lead to improved accuracy in thewriting of a new text as well as in the revision. Van Beuningen et al (2012) opposed to it. He found thatwritten corrective feedback led to improved accuracy in both text revisions and new texts. Ferris(1999)blasted away at Truscott s research which was too limited and conflicting in his findings so that furtherinvestigations of the studies that have been conducted, (i.e. Ellis,2001; Nassaji, 2004), They believe thatlearning a second language, error correction is an integral part.. Bitchener and Ferris (2012) still continuedtheir researches they proved that written corrective feedback was helpful for second language studentswriting. With the controversy in correct feedback, instead of being abandoned by researchers, more andmore researchers and teacher devoted themselves into that effort in recently years.
………..
Chapter Three Theoretical Bases ..........15
3.1 Error Analysis ........15
3.2 Output Hypothesis ........16
3.3 Noticing Hypothesis......17
3.4 The Interaction Hypothesis .........19
Chapter Four Methodology.....21
4.1 Research Questions.......21
4.2 Participants......21
4.3 Instruments......21
4.4 Procedures and Data Collection.........25
4.4.1 Procedures.......25
4.4.2 Data Collection ......26
Chapter Five Results and Discussion....28
5.1 Results of Oral Corrective Feedback and Distribution.....28
5.2 Results of Written Corrective Feedback and Distribution.......31
5.3 Discussion.......34
Chapter Five Results and Discussion
5.1 Results of Oral Corrective Feedback and Distribution of Students’ Repair
With regard to student errors, it is important to declare that the author is not reporting the absolutenumber of errors produced by students but rather the number of student errors avoiding the same ones. Sodo feedback numbers, uptake number and repair numbers. Following table 2 provided unequal totaldistribution of each feedback type. Preference for different feedback types were clear in table 2. It was obvious that single largest category was the recast which accounted for over half (52%) of thetotal number of teacher feedback. Except for recast, others feedback types distribution were: elicitation 53(15%), clarification request 43(12%), metalinguistic feedback 28(8%), explicit correction 25(7%),repetition 21(6%). Repetition which showed received attention by author in present study only accountedfor 6%. The lower figure for repetition might because teachers gave repetition combined with otherfeedback categories. The highest figure for recast might because the spread of new research result andsuggestion that direction of relevant teaching practice. Next table 3 provided distributed situation of studentuptake and repair following teacher feedback. (Explanation of uptake and no uptake.
……….
Conclusions
There were three purposes of current study: first, comprising the various types of oral feedback to findout their effects on repair that follows and the distributed of students repair in communicative classroom.Second, comprising the various types of written feedback to find out their effects on repair that follows andthe distributed of students repair in writing. Based on the numbers and proportion with student error,teachers feedback and students repair, it tries to find a way which is good for students repair and secondlanguage learning. The research results showed following: According to teachers different oral feedbacks, what is the distribution of students repair? Resultsin the study referred to six types of feedback According to the table 1, the single largest category is therecast, which accounts for over half (52%) of the total number of teacher feedback. The other feedbacktypes are distributed in decreasing frequency as follows: elicitation (15%), clarification request (12%),metalinguistic feedback (8%), explicit correction (7%), and repetition (6%). In table 2, it is evident that therecast, the most popular feedback technique, is the least likely to lead to uptake of any kind: Only 31% ofthe recast moves lead to uptake. Explicit correction leads to uptake only 52% of the time, although it ismore than twice as likely to lead to repair than needs-repair. Clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback,and repetition are similar in that they are effective at eliciting uptake from the student (86%, 98%, and 75%,respectively), although metalinguistic feedback is more successful at eliciting repair (51%) than eitherclarification requests (25%) or repetition (30%). The most successful technique for eliciting uptake iselicitation: All learner utterances following elicitation involve uptake with an almost even distributionbetween repair and needs-repair.
…………
References (omitted)
15012858052
153688106
