Oral Corrective Feedback and Learners’ Uptake in Teenage EFL Class
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.9744/katakita.7.2.203-213Keywords:
Budi Pekerti, Pendidikan Karakter, Film Pendek AnimasiAbstract
This study was done to find out: (1) the types of oral corrective feedback (CF) strategies, (2) the types of learners’ uptake, and (3) the types of learners’ uptake elicited in relation to the teacher’s types of oral CF. In order to answer the research questions, the writer applied two theories, Sheen and Ellis (2011) for oral CF strategies and Panova and Lyster (2002) for the types of learners’ uptake, as the guideline. This study used qualitative approach, using audio recording. The findings showed that there were forty three (43) oral CF occuring in the class, and forty one (41) uptakes elicited in relation to teacher’s oral CF. There were 2 (two) oral CF which did not result in uptake. Six (6) out of nine (9) oral CF strategies and seven (7) out of ten (10) types of learners’ uptake occurred in the class. Didactic Recast was the most frequently applied oral CF strategies, whereas Repetition was the most frequently applied learners’ uptake type. There were 18 types of oral CF strategies and learners’ uptake sequences occurring in the class, and the most occurring sequence was Didactic Recasts – Repetition, with total 11 times. There were some possible reasons why uptakes did not occur: learners were taking too long to answer or the teacher did not want to wait longer expecting that learner had already known the correct form through prior explanation. In order to maintain the class running smoothly, the teacher sometimes was faced to a situation when none uptakes were elicited from the learners.
Keywords: corrective feedback, oral corrective feedback, uptake
References
Elliott, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London, UK: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, G. 2007. Teenagers. Oxford: OUP
Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and second language learning: language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R., and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-61.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., and Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365.
Méndez, E. H., Arguelles, L. G., & Castro, A. B. J. (2011). Oral corrective feedback: Some ways to go about it. Memorias del VI Foro de Estudios en Lenguas Internacional (FEL 2010), 254-270. Retrieved from http://fel.uqroo.mx/adminfile/files/memorias/hernandez_mendez_edith_et_al.pdf.
Panova, I. and Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult esl classroom. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 2002), pp. 573-595
Sheen, Y and Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. 2. 593-610.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. New York: Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
