Abstract: Corrective feedback is a type of interaction between teachers and students providing feedback to learners’ errors they make in learning. Corrective feedback helps learners notice the gap between learner language and the target language. Much research is on the effect of corrective feedback on language development. The present study observed some English major and non-English major classroom behavior concerning the teachers’ corrective feedback and their perception by the participants. It was found that: (1) The majority of errors made by English majors were grammatical ones, and thus the majority of corrective feedback from the teacher was also for grammatical errors. But the majority of errors made by the non-English majors were lexical ones, and the most of the corrective feedback provided by their teacher was also about vocabulary. (2) Both teachers preferred to use recast, though the percentage of repair following recast was not high. Besides recast, the teacher in the non-English major classroom also used much direct and explicit corrective feedback. This may be the result that these students have a smaller vocabulary compared with the English majors at the same grade. (3) The rate of uptake including repair and needs-repair was as high as 86%. However, the uptake of recast was relatively low, compared to the uptake of other types of corrective feedback.
Key words: Corrective feedback; Uptake; Repair
CONTENTS
Abstract
摘要
1. Introduction1
2. Literature Review.2
2.1 Theoretical Rationale: the Noticing Hypothesis
2.2 Corrective Feedback and Noticing
2.3 Uptake
2.4 Related Studies on Corrective Feedback
2.5 Research Questions
3. Methodology6
3.1 Participant
3.2 Data Collection
3.3 Data Analysis
3.3.1 Analysis of the Types of Errors
3.3.2 Types of Feedback
3.3.3 Types of Uptake
4. Results and Discussion15
4.1 Error Types
4.2 Distribution of Error Types Among Corrective Feedback
4.3 Distribution of Corrective Feedback Among Errors
4.4 Learners’ Uptake
4.5 Rough Comparison Between the Present Study and Lyster & Ranta’s Study (1997)
4.6 Discussion
5. Conclusion .21
Bibliography23
Acknowledgements.25
