Oral Corrective Feedback

2011 Words9 Pages
The role of oral corrective feedback (CF) in language acquisition has been a highly controversial issue. Whereas some believe that exposing learners to naturally occurring samples of a target language is the only way to develop second language, others argue that error treatment is harmful rather than helpful (Krashen 1982; Schwartz1993; Truscott 1999). Lewis (2002) classified the purposes for oral CF in four categories: 1) it provides learners with advice about learning and it also helps them to acquire some kind of language input as they might learn new vocabulary and structures in context, 2) it provides information for both teachers and students as it paves ways for teachers to describe their learners’ language, and for learners to be assessed…show more content…
According to the findings of this study, they identified six types of CF: explicit correction, recast, clarification requests, meta-linguistic clue, elicitation and repetition of error. These types are classified into two major categories on the basis of whether they are explicit or implicit in nature. As Ellis,Loewen, and Erlam (2006) argue, in explicit feedback types there is an overt indication that an error has been occurred; while in implicit ones there is no overt indication that an error has been occurred. Lyster (1998) categorized these types of feedback as recasts, explicit correction and negotiation of form which involves the elicitation, metalinguistic clue, clarification request and repetition. In the case of recasts and explicit correction the teacher gives the correct form of the error. But, in the first case, correction is done implicitly whereas, in the second one, it is done explicitly. With regard to negotiation of form, it can be seen that the TL form is not given and the teacher simply gives a hint that the utterance of the student includes an error and therefore prompts the correct form. That is why this category is also called…show more content…
They used a foreign language classroom anxiety scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz etal., 1986) and a grammar test at both pre-test and post-test stages of the study. The experimental group received treatment based on interactional feedback (recast type) for one semester, but the control group received direct feedback (traditional way). After analyzing the data it was discovered that interactional feedback had a significant effect on Iranian EFL learners’ anxiety with regard to grammar
Open Document