Corrective feedback in oral interaction: A comparison of an EFL and a CLIL classroom


Abstract  A great deal of research has been carried out to investigate the role of corrective feedback (CF) in second language (L2) learning (Sheen, 2011). Although there is a consensus as to its positive contribution, there are still open debates about the effectiveness of specific CF types (Yang & Lyster, 2010) and the role of learners’ individual differences (Sheen, 2011) or instructional context (Lyster & Mori, 2006). It is precisely the issue of CF and instructional context that this paper addresses. The present study explores CF in two different learning contexts: a traditional form-oriented English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom and a meaning-oriented Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classroom (Dalton-Puffer, 2011). The oral interaction of an intact class of thirty Spanish intermediate-level high-school students and two teachers (EFL and CLIL) was recorded during seven classroom sessions (6 hours and 17 minutes). Classroom activity was reflected following the Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) observation scheme (Spada and Fröhlich, 1995) and corrective feedback episodes (CFE; Lyster, 1994) were used as the unit of analysis. The findings of the study indicate that there are differences in the type, quantity and manner of CF episodes between the two learning contexts: the CF moves were more varied and of a more explicit nature in the EFL classroom than in the CLIL classroom, where they were mainly recasts. However, no significant difference in the proportion of learners’ uptake was found between the EFL and CLIL contexts. A qualitative analysis of the data indicated that the teachers’ attitude toward CF influenced subsequent learner uptake. These findings will be considered in light of previous literature on CF and instructional context, specifically Lyster and Mori’s Counterbalance Hypothesis (Lyster & Mori, 2006) and implications for further research on the issue of CF, learner uptake and instructional context will be suggested. References Dalton-Puffer, C. 2011. Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 182-204. Lyster, R. 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students‘ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15: 263–287. Lyster, R. and Mori, H. 2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance‘. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28:269–300. Sheen, Y. 2011. Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. New York: Springer. Spada, N. and Frölich, M. 1995. COLT. Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme:Coding, Conventions and Applications. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching Research. Yang, Y. and Lyster, R. 2010. Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners‘ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 235– 263.

Mail Portal

powered by Google