Principles of Language Learning and Teaching

Reducing international graduate students’ language anxiety through oral pronunciation corrections

This study investigates whether indirect corrective feedback is effective o n students’ writing  accuracy and whether there is any interaction between corrective feedback and students’ levels of  grammatical sensitivity. A quasi-factorial design was adopted for this research. The subjects of the  study were fourth-semester students of English Department, at a State University in Malang, selected  randomly. The experimental group was treated with indirect corrective feedback and the control  group with direct corrective feedback. A parametric statistical test, ANCOVA, was used to test the  hypotheses. The findings show that there was no statistical difference on writing accuracy between  the experimental and control groups. Yet, among students with a high level of grammatical  sensitivity, there was significant difference in writing accuracy between those given indirect and  direct corrective feedback. Further, there was no interaction between corrective feedback on writing  accuracy and students’ levels of grammatical sensitivity. However, indirect corrective feedback  improved students’ writi ng accuracy better than direct corrective feedback.

/pdf/corrective-feedback-and-writing-accuracy-of-students-across-3owcbdsb6h.pdf

Corrective feedback and writing accuracy of students across different levels of grammatical sensitivity

The present study aims to examine corrective feedback and learner uptake in classroom interactions. Inspired by Lyster and Ranta’s corrective feedback framework (1997), this study intends to describe and analyze the patterns of corrective feedback utilized by Iranian teachers, and learners' uptake and the repair of those errors. To this aim, 400 minutes of classroom interaction from three elementary EFL classes which comprised 29 EFL learners were audiotaped and transcribed. The learners were within age range of 16-29 and were native speakers of Turkish language. The teachers were within 26-31 age range and had 3-4 years experience of teaching and hold MA degree in TOEFL. Analysis of data constituted the frequency of six different feedback types used by three teachers, in addition distribution of learners' uptake following each feedback type. The findings indicated that among six corrective feedback types, recast was the most frequent feedback utilized by teachers although it did not lead to high amount of learner uptake. Metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and clarification request led to higher level of uptake. It was also found that explicit feedback was more effective than implicit feedback in promoting learner uptake.

/pdf/a-study-of-corrective-feedback-and-learner-s-uptake-in-17kvrbmphu.pdf

A Study of Corrective Feedback and Learner's Uptake in Classroom Interactions

The current observational and descriptive study makes an attempt to present the interactional discourse patterns of corrective feedback (CF) and uptake occuring in a communicative adolescent EFL class.  Using Lyster and Ranta’s corrective discourse model (1997), this study intends to investigate, describe, and analyze the discourse patterns of corrective feedback utilized by an Iranian teacher and also their relationship to the learner’s uptake and the repair of those errors. Transcripts totaling 16 hours of classroom interaction included 181 episodes, each containing a trigger (error) produced by the learner, a CF move from the teacher and a learner’s subsequent uptake in response to the CF.  The findings obtained from such context reveal the ratio and distribution of the six different feedback types as well as those of different kinds of learner’s uptake and immediate repair of errors.

/pdf/a-descriptive-study-on-corrective-feedback-and-learners-2ge4agt2ir.pdf

A Descriptive Study on Corrective Feedback and Learners’ Uptake during Interactions in a Communicative EFL Class

In the realm of language teaching, error correction has a long and contentious history. Some schools of thought like nativism refute error correction while others firmly adhere to error correction and regard error as a sin that should be avoided. This dilemma bewilders TEFL practitioners and teachers how to treat errors. Due to the controversial nature of this issue, whether and how to correct errors have spawned numerous celebrated publications in this area in the domains of first language acquisition (FLA) and second language acquisition (SLA). In this vein, lots of studies have probed the role of corrective feedbacks in language classrooms. This paper reviews the main surveys on corrective feedback, providing the theoretical rational for and against error correction, shedding light on different types of corrective feedbacks, and encapsulating the theoretical and empirical studies conducted to investigate corrective feedback and its impact on different aspects of language, offering issues for further directions to cast away all the doubts in this domain.

/pdf/corrective-feedback-in-sla-classroom-practice-and-future-17cffvprrb.pdf

Corrective Feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice and Future Directions

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Ali Hatef

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Corrective Feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice and Future Directions