I found the Lyster & Ranta study on corrective feedback to be very interesting. Corrective feedback is a huge topic of debate in the area of second language learning and ever-changing. It is a topic that all of us, as teachers, should be knowledgeable of as error correction is an issue that every language teacher faces.
The article began by summarizing the findings of many popular studies on corrective feedback. It was interesting to read about some of the studies; however, I thought this section was somewhat unnecessary because Lyster & Ranta ultimately concluded that these studies construct “a sketchy picture” (p. 40) of error correction in the classroom.
The majority of the article was devoted to a detailed description of the Lyster & Ranta study. Through their observations of four different classrooms, the researchers identified six types of error correction: explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition. The researchers also examined dialogues for evidence of learner uptake, in the form of either “repair” or “needs-repair” student responses. Lyster & Ranta defined uptake as the student’s response to feedback, in contrast to topic continuation with no uptake. This definition was difficult for me to adjust to since it differs from other definitions of uptake that I have heard. I don’t particularly like Lyster & Ranta’s definition because it only accounts for learning that is expressed aloud immediately after the feedback. In my opinion, just because a student doesn’t explicitly respond to a correction doesn’t mean the error went unnoticed.
The study found that recasts were by far the most common type of error correction used by teachers. Recast and explicit correction were the two types least likely to result in student uptake, while elicitation was the most likely to do so (with all feedback resulting in uptake of one form or another). Clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, and repetition also led to student uptake more often than not. In a similar pattern, recasts and explicit correction did not prompt any student-generated repairs, while elicitation accounted for the most out of the six types of feedback.
The findings of the study were very interesting; however, I thought that the article went into too much detail about the research setup and analysis. Instead of all the research details, I would have been interested to read about some practical implications for teachers in the classroom, such as how the researchers would recommend that teachers go about changing their habit of using recasts. While the article had a lot of useful information about error correction, I think that it could have been more explicit in its advice for language teachers.
Task: Below I have listed some examples from the article (English translations from Appendix B) in which teachers in the study used recast or explicit correction to correct a student. Lyster and Ranta concluded that these two error correction types are the least likely to prompt student uptake and repair. Choose one or two of the errors and explain how you, as a teacher, could correct the student(s) in a different, more effective way. Why would your correction be more likely to encourage uptake and/or student-generated repair? Can you think of a case when recast or explicit correction might actually be the better choice when correcting an error?
(1) Student: Procedure: We cut the straws into six different thickness and attaches the straws with tape.
Teacher: Uh, David, excuse me. I want you to use the word “lengths.” Not thicknesses. [explicit correction]
(2) Student: The note for the shot.
Teacher: Oh, for the, oh, for that. You mean the needle. Needle. Yes? [explicit correction]
(3) Student: Because he wants just him to be warm.
Teacher: Oh. Someone who wants to have the heat just for himself. [recast]
(4) Student: Now, I wanna, now I’m gonna do it on foot.
Teacher: ...with my foot. [recast]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Number (1) is an extremely direct method for correcting a child expressing errors. I, as an aspiring teacher, would not use this method. Instead of embarrassing the student, I would have interacted like so
ReplyDeleteStudent: Procedure. We cut the straws into six different thickness and attaches the straws with tape.
Teacher: Good David. Will you re-read the procedure with the word "Lengths" instead of "thicknesses"? Also, we will substitute "lengths" for "thicknesses" from now on.
I think that this manner of addressing the error is more appropriate than almost scolding the child using words such as "uh" and "excuse me". Personally, I appreciate when teachers correct my errors, because then I know I am learning, however when a teacher embarrasses me or scold me, I associate that new knowledge with a negative connotation. Everytime I would think of that information along would come the bad memory of learning. In extreme scenarios, I block out the information being taught because I was embarrassed. I know this is from the students perspective, but isn't that the way teachers should address their instruction towards? I think so.
Secondly, I think (3) is the best manner to correct an error. The teacher casually addresses the error without calling attention to the student. Through this type of instruction the student knows that an error has been committed and through the response of the teacher the student knows the correct manner to speak that statement. Also, through the almost rhetorical question from the teacher the student is able to metacognitively think about what they just said through scaffolding from the teacher and then have the change to re-word what they initially were trying to say.
I think error correction is an integral part in language acquisition especially during critical periods.
I thoroughly enjoyed this article!
Elizabeth
I will talk about the first error. I would keep with the idea of correcting the error explicitly, but I would approach it differently. The way that the teacher grabbed David's attention comes across a bit rude and harsh, at least from what it looks like written down. I would say "Excuse me David, did you mean to say that we cut the straws into six different lengths?" From there, I would draw a picture of a straw on the board and label what the length and what the width/thickness is of the straw, so that students can get a visual understanding of what these terms mean.
ReplyDeleteBy doing so, I think that student uptake will be improved because they won't be as threatened by the feedback as it comes across less harshly, and the student can see a visual representation of the difference between lengths and thicknesses.
In one of my classes last semester, we had a guest lecturer come in and talk to us about how to make recasts more effective. He said that in many cases, students miss the correction in the recast, or that they are being corrected altogether. He suggested that teachers give a hand signal to alert students to a correction being present in a recast, which sort of makes it more explicit.
I am going to discuss the first example-
ReplyDelete1) Student: Procedure: We cut the straws into six different thickness and attaches the straws with tape.
Rather than an explicit correction, as was used by that teacher, I would say "So if I wanted to do this, I would cut the straws into six different thicknesses and attach the straws with tape?" By using this approach, the student's ideas are summarized while the teacher corrects the grammar. I feel that this method is a less embarrassing correction for the student, so that the focus is on learning.
For error number one, I would use a method different than explicit instruction.
ReplyDelete(1) Student: Procedure: We cut the straws into six different thickness and attaches the straws with tape.
Teacher: Do you mean you would cut the straws into six different lengths? Thickness means...I would then verbally explain thickness and draw a picture of different thicknesses on the studnet's paper and then explain lengths and draw different lengths on the student's paper. I would then re-ask the question, "would you cut the straw into six different lengths or thicknesses" to see if the students understands the vocabulary. If the student in incorrect again, I would repeat my explanation and continue drawing examples until the student can show me (by verbally explaining or drawing) they understand why they are cutting the straws into six different "lengths".
I feel explicit correction could be valuable if the students has been explained and shown the correct answer multiple times and you as a teacher have assessed the student that they understand the answer, they are just simply mistaking a word for another. The student could have misspoken and just needs to be reminded of the proper vocabulary word.
It seemed like example 1 was a little embarrassing for the student, and might make them feel dumb. Instead of correcting it the way from the example, I might say something like, "lets read over that again, and instead of using the word instruction, lets replace that with the word lengths and see how that sounds". That would be a little less forward and would give the student the opportunity to repeat it, correcting his own mistakes.
ReplyDeleteIt is always challenging to find a balance between giving noticeable feedback and not embarassing the student.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about example #1 I would have definitely approached the situation differently, had I been the teacher. I think the teacher was too harsh on David, and embarrassed him in front of his peers. I would have approached it by asking him to repeat himself and ask him if he thought it made sense. If he did not proceed to make any corrections I would as him something like "did you mean you would cut the straws into different lengths?" I would then draw a pictures of different lengths and label the thickness so that not only David, but all the students could have a good visual on thicknesses, which would improve their uptake since correction will be approached and addressed positively.
ReplyDelete