This article was downloaded by: [Hosei University]

On: 22 April 2013, At: 00:11

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language Awareness
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Teachers' Choice and Learners'

Preference of Corrective Feedback
Types
a
Reiko Yoshida
a
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Version of record first published: 29 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Reiko Yoshida (2008): Teachers' Choice and Learners' Preference of
Corrective Feedback Types, Language Awareness, 17:1, 78-93

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/la429.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this
material.
 Teachers’ Choice and Learners’
Preference of Corrective Feedback Types
Reiko Yoshida
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Corrective feedback (CF) has been investigated in relation to learners’ error types that
trigger CF and learners’ responses to CF. These research findings generally suggest that
recasts, the most frequently used type of CF, did not trigger learners’ reformulation
of their erroneous utterances very frequently. In these studies, however, teachers’
choice and learners’ preference of CF types have not been probed from the point of
view of the teachers and learners. The present study explores teachers’ choice and
learners’ preference for CF types in Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) classrooms
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

through audio recordings of the classes and a stimulated recall (SR) interview with
each participant. The findings indicate that teachers chose recasts because of the time
limitation of classes and their awareness of learners’ cognitive styles. They also chose
CF types such as elicitation or metalinguistic feedback when they regarded the learners
who made erroneous utterances as being able to work out correct forms on their own.
Most of the learners preferred to have an opportunity to think about their errors and
the correct forms before receiving correct forms by recast.

doi: 10.2167/la429.0

Keywords: corrective feedback, learners’ preference of feedback, recasts, teach-

ers’ choice of feedback

Introduction
In the 1990s, a theory that second language (SL) learners should be encour-
aged to pay attention to particular linguistic forms in communicative language
classes became prevalent. This ‘Focus on Form’ led second language acquisi-
tion (SLA) researchers to give more attention to corrective feedback (CF) in
classrooms. Teachers provide CF implicitly and explicitly to the erroneous or
inappropriate utterances of learners in SL or foreign language (FL) classrooms.
In the previous studies (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Moroishi, 2001; Panova & Lyster,
2002), teachers most frequently used recasts (utterances involving the refor-
mulation of learners’ erroneous utterances) as CF. Some studies examined the
relationship between the types of error made by learners and the types of CF
provided to them (Mackey et al., 2000; Moroishi, 2002). Many studies (Ellis
et al., 2001; Loewen, 2004; Lyster, 1998b; Moroishi, 2002; Ohta, 2000, 2001) have
investigated the relationship between recasts and learners’ uptake (responses to
CF immediately after the CF).1 However, teachers’ choices of CF types have not
been explored from the teachers’ point of view, and neither has learners’ prefer-
ence of CF types. These factors are investigated in the present study. The research

0965-8416/08/01 078-16 $20.00/0

C 2008 R. Yoshida

LANGUAGE AWARENESS Vol. 17, No. 1, 2008

78
 Choice of Corrective Feedback in Classrooms 79

questions are:
(1) How do teachers choose the type of CF in relation to the errors of particular
learners?
(2) Do learners prefer receiving recasts over the other types of CF and, if yes,
why? And if not, why?

Previous Studies of Corrective Feedback in SL/FL Classrooms

Doughty (1994) found that teachers finely tuned CF to adult SL learners in
the same way that parents do in their interactions with their children and that
the learners noticed the teachers’ feedback. These findings led SLA researchers
to focus on the relationship between learners’ errors, the CF provided to them
and their responses to the CF. Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (1998a, 1998b)
investigated CF in an immersion programme at a primary school. Recasts oc-
curred most frequently, although the uptake rate after recasts was lowest at
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

31%, while uptake after the other CF was 50% or more (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
The grammatical and phonological errors of learners triggered teachers’ recasts
more often compared to other errors (Lyster, 1998a). Most of the teachers’ recasts
were similar to non-corrective repetitions and this made the recasts ambiguous
to the learners (Lyster, 1998b).
Ohta (2001) indicates that the rate of occurrence of recasts in Japanese as a for-
eign language ( JFL) classes at university was 29% out of all the CF that occurred.
This is low compared to the 55% found by Lyster and Ranta (1997) in French
immersion primary school classes. Ohta (2001) found that learners responded
to more than half of the recasts, and also that learners vicariously responded to
teachers’ questions to classes or other learners by using private speech, defined
by Ohta (2001: 38) as ‘language directed to the self, whether or not an overhearer
or potential interlocutor may be present’. When learners’ answers included er-
rors, the teachers’ provision of correct answers incidentally contrasted with the
erroneous utterances. Ohta (2001) named these instances of CF ‘incidental re-
casts’. Moroishi (2002) found that recasts occurred most frequently after morpho-
syntactic errors in JFL classes at a university, as did Mackey et al. (2000), who
examined the interactions between adult English and Italian learners as SL, FL
and native speakers. In Moroishi (2002), the teachers’ intention in using recasts
was not understood by learners in about 25% of occurrences, while correction as
recast was perceived accurately at least 50% of the time. Lyster (2004) found that
the provision of CF, such as clarification requests or elicitations in communica-
tively oriented SL classrooms of an immersion programme, were more effective
for the learners’ improvement in written tasks compared to recasts. Panova and
Lyster (2002) compared adult ESL learners’ perceptions of CF between learners
of higher and lower proficiency. Recasts happened most often, and proficient
learners noticed recasts better than less proficient learners.
These previous studies vary in a number of ways, such as the learner popu-
lation (children or adults), the interactional contexts where CF occurs and the
teaching styles in the programme (form-oriented or meaning-oriented). These
factors seemed to trigger the varied results of the studies, such as the CF types
that were found to occur frequently or the effectiveness of CF. Oliver (2000)
suggests that the age of learners can invite significant differences in patterns of
 80 Language Awareness

interactions between the learners and their teachers, pointing out the fact that a
teacher of adults tended to provide CF in the form of negotiation strategy more
often than recasts when compared to teachers of children. According to Oliver
and Mackey (2003), the interactional context influences types of CF and the rate
of learners’ modified output following the CF in children’s ESL classrooms. The
CF occurred most frequently in exchanges where the focus was on language,
while recasts occurred most often in exchanges where it was on content. The
rate of modified output after CF was highest in the language-focused exchange.
Lyster and Mori (2006) showed that effective CF types are different in form-
oriented and meaning-oriented classes. Uptake occurred most frequently after
recasts in Japanese immersion classrooms where teachers expect the learners to
speak accurately and repeat the teachers’ recasts in order to practice the forms
during discourse. On the other hand, the use of CF as prompts, such as clari-
fication requests or elicitations, resulted in the most frequent uptake in French
immersion classes, where meanings and content are focused on more than the
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

accuracy of forms.
Although previous studies were conducted in varied contexts, the overall
results reveal that teachers use recasts more frequently than other types of CF.
Recasts, however, are not likely to trigger learners’ uptake or their understand-
ing of the teacher’s intention in using the CF. A teachers’ CF is usually directed
at particular learners in SL or FL classrooms where the learners have made er-
roneous utterances. Therefore, a teacher’s choice of CF type may be influenced
by their perception of particular learners as well as the error types of the learn-
ers. Moreover, the low rate of uptake or lack of understanding of the teacher’s
intention of the CF may be related to the learners’ preference for particular CF
types. The present study examines how teachers choose CF types in relation to
the errors of particular learners and the learners’ preferences of CF types.

The Data
The data were collected from three classes of a second-year level Japanese
language course at a university in Australia. There are five Japanese language
courses ranging from beginning to advanced level at the university. The data
in the present study were collected from the second-year course. The students
enrolled on the course after completing the first-year level Japanese course at the
university or an equivalent course, including those conducted at high schools.
Those enrolled on the course were required to attend a one-hour lecture and
two tutorial classes (one of two hours and one of one hour duration) every
week in the semester. In the lecture, new grammatical forms were introduced;
these forms were then practised in tutorial tasks. The two-hour tutorials focused
on kanji and the mechanics of the language, such as grammar and vocabulary.
The other one-hour tutorials concentrated on the communicative function of
the language. The two-hour tutorial classes given at the beginning of the week
were targeted at collecting data for the present study. There are three two-hour
tutorial classes. The course coordinator, who was also a teacher of two of the
tutorial classes, made a teaching plan for each week so that the content taught
in the three tutorial classes would be the same. There were approximately 20–
25 students in each of the classes.
 Choice of Corrective Feedback in Classrooms 81

Table 1 Information about the learners in the study

Previous
Major Japanese Number/duration
study instruction of previous visits Native
Name area (years) to Japan language
Linda Japanese and 5.5 None English
Spanish
Jack Japanese 2.5 None English
Rachel Japanese and 3.5 None English
Economics Chinese
Anthony Japanese 1.5 4 months in 2002/2003 English
Patricia Japanese and 1.5 None English
DNA studies Chinese
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

Natalie Japanese 8.5 2 months in 1995 and 1996 English

Irene Psychology 1.5 7 days in 1995 English
5 days in 2003 Chinese
∗ The
names of the learners are pseudonyms.
∗ Thecourse coordinator taught Linda, Patricia and Natalie. The part time teacher taught Jack,
Rachel, Anthony and Irene.

Two teachers agreed to participate in the study. One was the course coor-
dinator with 14.5 years’ Japanese language teaching experience, and the other
was a part time teacher with 3.5 years’ Japanese language teaching experience.
The author visited the three two-hour tutorial classes and asked the learners to
participate in the study. Table 1 shows relevant background data on the seven
learners who volunteered.

Methodology
The speech of two teachers and seven learners in three different classrooms
was audio-recorded five times, resulting in 30 hours of recordings. The learners
wore small clip-on microphones to record all of their speech, including their
private speech, in the classes. The researcher sat at the back of the classrooms
and took detailed notes of classroom activities, items written on the whiteboard
and OHT (overhead transparency) sheets, and the behaviour of the participants.
These detailed notes of classroom observations supported the audio-recorded
data, providing information about situations where interactions occurred.
As Pica (1994) and Breen (2001) point out, negotiation data are not always suf-
ficient to explain the participants’ perception of interactional events. Stimulated
recall (SR) interviews are necessary to discover the elements that are not imme-
diately apparent in the interactions. An interview was therefore conducted with
each learner and teacher within a week after each recorded classroom session.
The researcher listened to a tape of a classroom recording with a participant and
asked what he/she was thinking during each CF episode. Each interview took
1–1.5 hours and was audio-recorded. Interviews with learners were conducted
in English and those with teachers in Japanese. Each CF episode was transcribed
using the transcription conventions described in the Appendix.
 82 Language Awareness

Categories of Errors and CF

Employing the coding scheme used in Mackey et al. (2000) and Nishita (2004),
the audio-recorded data was categorised into five error types that triggered the
teachers’ use of CF. These categories were:
(1) Morphosyntactic error. This occurs when learners incorrectly use items such
as word order, tense, conjugation and particles.
(2) Phonological error. This normally indicates mispronunciation of vocabulary.
(3) Lexical error. This involves the inappropriate use of vocabulary or a switch to
the learner’s L1 (first language) because of their lack of lexical knowledge.
(4) Semantic error. This occurs when a teacher does not understand a learner’s
utterance, even though the speech does not contain any grammatical, lexical
or phonological errors.
(5) Kanji reading errors. This indicates errors of kanji recognition.
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

The CF was also categorised into nine types according to the coding categories
used in Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Ohta (2001). Delayed recast occurred in the
present study and was added as an additional category. The CF categories used
by the teachers are as follows:
(1) Recast. This involves the immediate reformulation of a learner’s erroneous
utterance, usually contrasting the utterance with the learner’s erroneous
utterance. For example:

P: Hajimemashite, Patorisia to moo itashi masu, uhn

Nice to meet you. I am Patricia ((error of a honorific form)), uhn
∗ T: Mooshi masu ((correct honorific form))
P: Mooshi masu
(Patricia, Aug. 10)
(2) Incidental recast. This is an utterance that is not a response to a learner’s
erroneous utterance but still incidentally functions as a recast. Incidental
recasts may occur immediately after the erroneous utterance, overlap with
the erroneous utterance or occur after some delay. For example:

T: Jya eeto nanaban o, eeto S-san doo desu ka?

Well number seven, S, can you do this?
S: (..) ((inaudible)) Sensei to attara (.) ◦◦ hon (.) uhn◦◦
(..) ((inaudible)) If I see a teacher (.) book (.) uhn
R: ◦◦ Shitsumon o kikimasu◦◦
I will ask a question ((error))
S: Shitsumon o kikimasu
I will ask a question ((error))
∗ T: Shitsumon o shimasu
I will ask a question
S: Shitusmon o [((inaudible))
Question ACC [((inaudible))
R: [Shimasu
Ask
(Rachel, Aug. 23)
 Choice of Corrective Feedback in Classrooms 83

(3) Explicit correction. This clearly indicates that a learner’s utterance is incorrect
and provides the correct form. For example:

T: Kuuki wa nan desu ka

What is ‘kuuki’?
A: Temperature?
∗ T: Air ne, temperature jya nai, kuuki ne
It’s ‘air’ not ‘temperature’, Air.
A: Hai
Yes
(Anthony, Oct. 18)
(4) Metalinguistic feedback. This provides metalinguistic comments, feedback
or questions without providing the reformulation. For example:
◦
N: Kakete kakete kimasu◦
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

Make a call
T: Koko dewa example o mite kudasai
Here please look at the example.
N: ◦ Fu◦
Fu
∗ T: Example wa (.) past tense desu
The example is a past tense
N: Aa suimasen deshita
Oh I am sorry.
(Natalie, Aug. 23)
(5) Repetition is the teacher’s repetition of a learner’s erroneous utterance. For
example:

T: Motto benkyoo?
More ((the first part of the verb ‘benkyoo suru’ (study)))
I: Shitatta n desu
((makes no sense, error)) COP
∗ T: Shitatta?
I: Uh motto benkyoo: shimashita
Uh I studied more.
(Irene, Aug. 23)
(6) Elicitation. (a) a teacher’s strategic pause in the middle of an utterance
to elicit a learner’s completion, (b) a teacher’s use of a partial repetition
of the learner’s erroneous utterance and (c) a teacher asking questions
(excluding the use of yes/no questions) to elicit the learner’s reformulation.
For example:

I: Uh watashi dattara (.) uh uh uh motto uh motto benkyoo shitattan

desu
Uh if it had been me, uh uh uh I would have studied more ((error))
∗ T: Motto benkyoo?
More ((the first part of the verb ‘benkyoo suru’ (study)))
 84 Language Awareness

I: Shitattan desu
((makes no sense, error)) COP
(Irene, Aug. 23)
(7) Re-asks. This occurs when a question that triggered the learner’s erroneous
response is repeated. For example:
T: Eeto daigaku no ((writes kanji ‘seimon’ (main gate) on the white-
board))
Well, University GEN
R: Katamon?
((makes no sense, error))
∗ T: Daigaku no?
University GEN
R: ◦ Irikata, no◦
((makes no sense, error)) no
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

(Rachel, Sep. 6)
(8) Clarification. This is where clarification is requested. For example:
R: Ano hito wa gorufu no koto o renshuu shite imasu
That person TOP golf GEN nom ACC practicing.
That person is practising the golf . ((error))
∗ T: Hai?
What?
R: Oh, ano hito wa gorufu no renshuu koto (.) gorufu no koto o renshuu
shiteiru no ga miemasu
Oh, that person TOP golf GEN practice nom ((error)) (.) golf NOM nom
((error)) ACC
practicing nom NOM I can see.
I can see that person practicing the golf 
(Rachel, Oct. 18)
(9) Delayed recast. This is an utterance that occurs a short interval after a
learner’s erroneous utterance and functions as a recast. For example:
A: Uh ano hito wa: keitai denwa o: a de, uh hanashi (.) hai, uhn hanashi
nagara, uh nooto o uhn kaite iru: no ga miemasu
Uh that person TOP mobile ACC un PAR uh hanashi (.) yes
uhn speaking, uh notebook ACC uhn writing nom NOM
I can see. ((error))
Uh I can see that person taking a note while speaking
on a mobile
T: Aa nooto kaite mashita ne
Oh yes, she is writing.
A: Um. Oh yeah, you got to look at the whole picture, because equal
activities, uhn you can’t divorce it to two
Yea. Oh yeah, you got to look at the whole picture, because
equal activities, uhn you can’t divorce it to two
∗ T: E onna no hito ga benchi ni suwatte, denwa o kake nagara memo o
totte iru no ga miemasu
 Choice of Corrective Feedback in Classrooms 85

Well, I can see a woman sitting on a bench and taking a note while talking
on her mobile.
A: Um OK
Yea OK
(Anthony, Oct. 18)

Frequency of Errors, CF and Responses

In this section, the types of errors that triggered teachers’ CF, and the fre-
quency of teachers’ CF are discussed to show some general patterns of CF in the
classrooms. Table 2 shows the error types that led to teachers’ CF.
Morphosyntactic errors by the learners received CF most frequently (64%
followed by errors in kanji recognition, 19%). The relatively high frequency of
these two types of errors may be explained by the structure of the particular
lessons that were observed. The lessons were structured similarly every week
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

in such a way in which newly introduced kanji characters were presented first,
followed by grammar exercises.
Table 3 shows the quantities of the types of CF provided by the teachers.
Repetitions of the same errors by learners after the first CF were not counted
as new errors. Hence, the error and CF numbers do not match. Recasts were

Table 2 Error types that caused corrective feedback moves

Type of error Number of incidents
Morphosyntactic 49 (64%)
Kanji reading 15 (19%)
Lexical 7 (9%)
Phonological 5 (7%)
Semantic 1 (1%)
Total 77 (100%)

Table 3 Types of corrective feedback moves

Type of corrective feedback Number of incidents
Recast 47 (51%)
Incidental recast 10 (11%)
Metalinguistic feedback 10 (11%)
Elicitation 9 (10%)
Explicit correction 10 (11%)
Repetition 1 (1%)
Clarification 2 (2%)
Re-asks 2 (2%)
Delayed recast 1 (1%)
Total 92 (100%)
 86 Language Awareness

used most often as CF (51%) in line with the results of Lyster and Ranta (1997),
Panova and Lyster (2002) and Moroishi (2001). Approximately half (51%) of the
CF led to the learners’ uptakes. The data revealed the teachers’ frequent use of
recasts. The following sections consider the teachers’ choice and the learners’
preference of CF.

Teachers’ Choice of CF Types and Learners’ Perception of CF

This section examines how the teachers chose CF types for particular learners
and how the learners perceived the CF. Learners may use different ways to learn
a target language. For example, some learners may need grammatical explana-
tions for their errors, while others may not. One of the teachers was actually
aware of this difference in the cognitive styles of the learners who received CF.
In the SR interviews, Rachel could often not explain the differences between
correct forms and her errors. She commented that they ‘sounded better’ than
her expressions and could not give more concrete explanations. According to
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

Rachel, she usually checks if particular forms or expressions ‘sound all right’
and does not think about the grammatical rules if she is not sure about the ac-
curacy of them. In his SR interview, Rachel’s teacher explained that he thought
showing a correct form was more effective for Rachel than providing a gram-
matical explanation for her erroneous or inappropriate utterances. In class, he
often gave recasts to Rachel:
Excerpt 1

Jyaa ‘kekkon’ wa doo deshoo, jyaa Reicheru-san doo desu ka

1. T:
How about ‘marriage’? Well Rachel, can you do this?
2. R: Ha:i ((laugh)) uhn jyaa kekkon sureba, ryoko ((error, should be
‘ryokoo’)) shitai n desu
Yes ((laugh)) uhn well, if I get married, I want to travel.
∗ 3. T: Kekkon sureba ryokoo shimasu
If I get married, I will travel.
4. R: Hai, ryokoo shimasu
Yes, I will travel.
(Rachel, Aug. 9)

Excerpt 2

Oh, ano hito wa gorufu no renshuu koto (.)gorufu no koto o

1. R:
renshuu shite iru no ga mie masu
Oh, that person TOP golf GEN practice nom ((error)) (.) golf
GEN nom ((error)) ACC practicing nom GEN I can see.
I can see that person practicing the golf . NOM
∗ 2. T: Otoko no hito ga gorufu no renshuu o shite iru no ga mie masu,
ii desu ne
I can see a man practicing the golf. OK?
3. R: Hai
Yes
(Rachel, Oct. 18)
 Choice of Corrective Feedback in Classrooms 87

In Excerpts 1 and 2, the teacher used recasts (line 3 in Excerpt 1 and line 2 in
Excerpt 2) without providing grammatical explanations to Rachel’s morphosyn-
tactic errors (line 2 in Excerpt 1 and line 1 in Excerpt 2). Rachel mentioned in her
SR interview that she considered the teacher’s utterances to be better than hers.
She could not, however, explain why she thought this was the case.
Anthony, on the other hand, was very often aware of grammatical rules. He
frequently asked questions about grammar in the classes and commented in his
SR interviews that he usually constructed sentences according to grammatical
rules. The following excerpt shows an interaction between Anthony and his
teacher:

Excerpt 3

1. T:Jya Ansonii-san, hai

Anthony, please
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

2. A: OK uhn, kinjyo no hito ga uh hen na uwasa o uh sarete uh okotte

imasu
A neighbour is angry because someone is speaking ill of him/her.
∗ 3. T: (..) Moo ichido, kinjyo no?
(..) Once again, my neighbourhood?
4. A: Kinjyo no hito ga, uh hen na uwasa o: uh:n sarete? okotte imasu
A neighbour is angry because someone is speaking ill of him/her.
∗ 5. T: Eeto, particle o chotto kangaete kudasai
Well, please think about the particle.
6. A: Uh OK
7. T: E kinjyo no hito ni hen na uwasa o sarete komatte imasu, ne,
particle
Well, I am puzzled because my neighbourhood person is speaking
ill of me, particle.
8. A: Hai
Yes
(Anthony, Sep. 20)
The teacher used an elicitation in line 3 and metalinguistic feedback in line 5
to Anthony’s erroneous use of particles. The task required the learners to change
the sentence ‘Kinjyo no hito ga hen na uwasa o shite imasu’ (My neighbour is
speaking ill of me) by using a passive form with ‘komatte imasu’ (I am puzzled).
The answer should, therefore, have been ‘Kinjyo no hito ni hen na uwasa o
sarete, komatte imasu’. Anthony responded to the teacher’s feedback in line
6 by showing his acknowledgement. After this, the teacher showed the correct
answer in line 7, emphasising that Anthony’s error was in the use of the particle.
Anthony showed his acknowledgement again in line 8. In his SR interview
following the class, the teacher commented that he thought Anthony would be
able to notice his errors in particle use just by receiving a hint, because he was
a capable student with a good grammatical knowledge. The teacher perceived
that Anthony understood the correct particle after receiving the correct answer
in line 7. According to Anthony, however, he did not understand the teacher’s
feedback because he was not paying attention to the teacher.
 88 Language Awareness

Another learner, Irene, often responded to her teacher quickly in the classes.
In his SR interview, Irene’s teacher said that he regarded her as a capable student
who often responded quickly and had a good understanding of the language.
The teacher tended to use elicitations as first CF to Irene. The following excerpt
shows an example:

Excerpt 4

Jyaa eeto goban o (.) ee:to jya a Airiin-san doo desu ka?
1. T:
Well, No. 5 (.) well, Irene, can you do this?
2. I: Uh watashi dattara (.) uh uh uh motto uh motto benkyoo
shitatta n desu
Uh if it had been me, uh uh uh I would have studied more
((error))
∗ 3. T: Motto benkyoo?
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

More ((the first part of the verb ‘benkyoo suru’ (study)))?

4. I: Shitatta n desu
((makes no sense, error)) COP
∗ 5. T: Shitatta?
6. I: Uh motto benkyoo: shimashita
Uh I studied more.
(Irene, Aug. 23)
The teacher tried to elicit a correct answer in line 3 by repeating the correct
part of Irene’s utterance with a rising intonation. After Irene repeated the wrong
verb form ‘shitatta’, he repeated the incorrect part of Irene’s utterance with a
rising intonation, which signaled his questioning of her utterance. This triggered
Irene to produce the correct form ‘shimashita’. The teacher explained that his
provision of elicitation rather than recast was influenced by his belief that Irene
might be able to work out the correct forms on her own because she is a quick
thinker with good language skills. Irene commented in her SR interview that
she realised her error and corrected the form after the teacher’s repetition of her
erroneous utterance.
Rachel, Anthony and Irene’s teacher chose differing CF types according to
their cognitive styles and language ability. It is important to note that the teacher
had known these three learners since the first semester. This previous experience
may have allowed him to appropriately judge their cognitive styles or language
ability, although his understanding of Anthony’s responses to his CF in Excerpt
3 was not correct.

Teachers’ Use of CF vs. Learners’ Preference of CF

Although one of the teachers used prompts such as elicitation or meta-
linguistic feedback for the learners he considered to be capable, both teach-
ers used recasts more often than other types of CF. In their SR interviews, both
teachers explained that the time restrictions imposed by the classes prompted
their provision of recasts to the learners. As the three tutorial classes were taught
according to the same plan, the teacher needed to complete particular tasks in
the allotted time to ensure that all the classes were taught at the same pace. This
 Choice of Corrective Feedback in Classrooms 89

situation may have placed more pressure on the teachers to complete the activi-
ties during the classes. The other reason mentioned by teachers for their choice of
recasts as CF was that they preferred less intimidating feedback for the learners.
One of the teachers described her policy to avoid denying what her learners said
so as not to intimidate them. According to their comments from the interviews,
both teachers positively evaluated the learners’ self-corrections after CF. They
also perceived self-corrections to be more effective for the learners’ learning than
the provision of correct forms by CF, like recasts. They sometimes negatively
evaluated their lack of explanation after CF, mentioning that they could not give
an explanation due to a lack of time. They also commented that they did not use
prompts as CF because they feared that the learners would be unable to self-
correct. In many cases, the teachers seemed to believe that the use of CF to elicit
self-corrections and the provision of more explanation after CF was more effec-
tive for learning. Despite this, they often chose recasts, mainly because of time
restrictions, but also to avoid intimidating the learners by explicitly correcting
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

their errors or forcing them to self-correct in front of the whole class.

Breen (2001) found that teachers’ responses to learners’ participation in a
class crucially influences learners’ self-esteem in a public situation. Senior (1999)
reports that teachers use a range of social strategies in order to keep collaborative
and supportive classroom environments. The present study indicates that the
teachers use recasts, which are not face-threatening CF, as their social strategy
for the maintenance of a supportive classroom atmosphere.
While the teachers use recasts often, (a) for practical reasons and (b) as their
teaching philosophy, the type of CF that the learners prefer to receive is unclear.
In an interview with each learner, the author asked the following question to
investigate their preference of CF type: ‘Do you prefer receiving a correct answer
immediately after your erroneous utterances or receiving a hint or clue for a
correct answer first?’ All the learners except Linda preferred being given time to
think about correct answers over receiving them straight after their erroneous
or inappropriate utterances. Rachel commented that she prefers to have time to
work out correct answers when she has some idea about the answers, but that
she would like to receive a correct answer immediately when she has no idea. It
may not, however, always be easy for teachers to determine whether or not the
learners do have some idea about correct answers. All the learners except Linda
mentioned that finding out correct answers on their own was more effective for
their learning than being provided the answers by the teachers. Moreover, self-
corrections may also give the learners a sense of achievement and confidence.
The learners, therefore, tended to prefer to receive feedback such as clarifi-
cations or elicitations in order to work out correct answers themselves, rather
than receiving correct forms immediately after their erroneous utterances. This
position contrasts with the finding in this study (and others) that recasts were
used most frequently by the teachers. In Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005), both
teachers and learners perceived CF as more effective when the teachers take
more time, provide longer explanations and use different types of CF. This view
coincides with the perceptions of the teachers and the learners in the present
study, that allowing learners more time for self-correction is better for learning.
It also supports the finding in this study that teachers prefer giving more ex-
planations if time allows. de Bot (1996) states that learners producing correct
 90 Language Awareness

forms on their own after CF is more effective for learning than receiving input
of correct forms by CF. This supports the perception of the teachers and the
learners in the present study that self-corrections are better for learning.

Discussion
Both the teachers and the learners perceived that self-correction was more
effective for learning than the provision of correct forms by recasts. Nevertheless,
the teachers chose to use recasts more frequently than any other type of CF. There
was, therefore, a gap between the teachers’ CF preference and their CF use. In
addition, a gap between the teachers’ use of CF and the learners’ CF preference
was evident. Reasons for these gaps in relation to the classroom context are
considered below.
Allwright (1989, 1996) states that the behaviours of teachers and learners
in language classrooms are related to social and pedagogical pressures because
language classes are simultaneously social and pedagogical events. According to
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

Allwright (1989), there is a conflict between the discoursal demands of classes as

social events, which must be trouble-free to avoid social strain, and as pedagogic
ones, which must deliberately incorporate some ‘troubles’ for the learners to
learn from solving them. From a pedagogical perspective, Rachel may have
preferred to be given time to think about correct answers because she would like
to learn through self-correction (although she risks the potential embarrassment
of being unable to correct them). From a social perspective, her preference
for receiving correct answers immediately after errors might avoid the social
embarrassment triggered by not being able to present proper answers. Linda,
who preferred being given correct answers immediately, considered them more
useful for her learning. For Linda, who was the quietest student, being given
time to think about correct answers, which would lead to social strain, may not
promote her learning. However, from a pedagogical perspective, most of the
learners preferred being given time to find out correct answers on their own.
Teachers believed that the limited time allotted to the classes did not allow
them to spend much time on each learner’s errors. Allwright (1996) explains
that teachers are constantly faced with the problem of immediately choosing
which items are important in order to avoid spending time on less important
items. It is not always easy for teachers to judge whether they should try to
elicit answers from the learners or show correct answers by recasts; it may not
be possible to give all the learners opportunities to self-correct their errors. The
teachers’ provision of recasts may also be caused by a desire to avoid learners’
social embarrassment, especially if they consider that the learners may not be
able to self-correct their answers.
The teachers used recasts frequently due to the limited time available in classes
and because of their desire to avoid socially embarrassing the learners. On the
other hand, from a pedagogical purpose, learners preferred receiving an oppor-
tunity to work out correct forms on their own after their erroneous utterances.
Teachers provided this opportunity to the learners whom they considered to
have the ability to work out the correct forms on their own. In the present study,
however, most of the learners (including highly proficient and less proficient
ones) preferred having an opportunity to think about their errors and the correct
forms before correct forms were provided by the teachers.2
 Choice of Corrective Feedback in Classrooms 91

Conclusion
In terms of Research Question 1, the teachers in this study chose recasts as
CF because of their awareness of learners’ cognitive styles and the limited class
time. They also chose CF types like elicitation or metalinguistic feedback in
cases where they thought that learners who made erroneous utterances would
be able to work out correct forms on their own. In terms of Research Question 2,
most of the learners preferred being provided with an opportunity to think
about their errors and the correct forms before receiving correct forms from
the teacher. From a social perspective, teachers tended to provide recasts, while
from a pedagogical perspective, learners were likely to prefer being given time
to think about the correct answer after an error.
Recasts are useful in that they show learners the correct forms without affect-
ing the flow of conversation, and without risking embarrassing the learners by
making their errors more obvious. However, recasts may not be the most appro-
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

priate type of CF because learners do not always pay attention to the teachers’
utterances. They may also prefer working out the correct forms themselves. Al-
though it is not easy for teachers to provide many learners with opportunities
to think about errors and to correct them in the limited time available, they may
need to give learners more opportunities to self-correct. The present study also
suggests that learners’ responses or repetitions of CF do not always indicate
their noticing or understanding of the CF.3
The present study explored how teachers chose CF when they provided it to
particular learners and how the learners perceived the teachers’ CF in the JFL
classrooms. A small number of participants was preferred because classroom
recording/observation and SR interviews were used. However, this small num-
ber precludes generalising these findings. In addition, with data from just one
semester, it was not possible to investigate changes in the teachers’ choice of CF
for a particular learner, or links between learners’ language ability and their CF
preferences. For such questions, longitudinal studies are needed.

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Reiko Yoshida, PO Box 6247,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 1466, Australia (reikoy58@
hotmail.com).

Notes
1. In the present study, uptake is defined as learners’ reformulation of the erroneous or
inappropriate utterance or repetition of teacher’s CF immediately after the feedback.
The learners’ responses such as ‘yes’ or repetitions of same errors after CF were not
counted as uptake.
2. The learners’ previous Japanese instruction varied from 8.5 to 1.5 years in Table 1.
However, the learners who had longer experience of Japanese instruction were
not necessarily more proficient than the learners who had shorter experience of
Japanese instruction. Therefore, this factor does not indicate that the data were
heterogeneous.
3. This point is discussed in the other study in relation to the learners’ noticing and
understanding of CF.
 92 Language Awareness

References
Allwright, D. (1989) Interaction in the Language Classroom: Social Problems and Pedagogic
possibilities. In actes des Etate Generaux des Langues. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 26–29). Paris: Association Pour
Les Etats Generaux des Langues.
Allwright, D. (1996) Social and pedagogic pressures in the language classroom: The role
of socialisation. In H. Coleman (ed.) Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 209–228).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Breen, M.P. (2001) Overt participation and covert acquisition in the language classroom.
In M.P. Breen (ed.) Learner Contributions to Language Learning (pp. 112–140). London:
Longman.
de Bot, K. (1996) The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning 46,
529–555.
Doughty, C. (1994) Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learn-
ers. In J. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table (GURT) 1993 (pp. 96–108).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. and Loewen, S. (2001) Learner uptake in communicative ESL
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

lessons. Language Learning 51, 281–318.

Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2005) Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ per-
ceptions. Language Awareness 14, 112–127.
Loewen, S. (2004) Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons.
Language Learning 54, 153–188.
Lyster, R. (1998a) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error
type and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 48, 183–218.
Lyster, R. (1998b) Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 20, 51–81.
Lyster, R. (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction.
Studies of Second Language Acquisition 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R. and Mori, H. (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 269–300.
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake, negotiation of
form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 36–66.
Mackey, A., Gass, S. and McDonough, K. (2000) How do learners perceive interactional
feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22, 471–497.
Moroishi, M. (2001) Nihongo kyooshi no iinaoshi no shiyoo no koosatsu (The use of
recasts by teachers of Japanese). In M. Minami and Y. Alam-Sasaki (eds) Gengogaku
to Nihongo Kyooiku II (Linguistics and Japanese Education II), New directions in Applied
Linguistics of Japanese (pp. 237–252). Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan.
Moroishi, M. (2002) Recasts, noticing and error types: Japanese learners’ perception of
corrective feedback. Daini Gengo to shite no Nihongo no Shuutoku Kenkyuu (Acquisition
of Japanese as a Second Language) 5, 24–41.
Nishita, M. (2004) Recasts and repair in the teaching of small groups. ASAA E-Journal of
Asian Linguistics and Language Teaching 7, 1–13.
Ohta, A.S. (2000) Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feed-
back in the Japanese language classroom. In J.K. Hall and L. Verplaeste (eds) The
Construction of Second and Foreign Language Learning Through Classroom Interaction
(pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ohta, A.S. (2001) Second Language Acquisition Process in the Classroom, Learning Japanese.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (2000) Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork.
Language Learning 50, 119–151.
Oliver, R. and Mackey, A. (2003) Interactional context and feedback in child ESL class-
rooms. The Modern Language Journal 87, 519–533.
Panova, I. and Lyster, R. (2002) Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult
ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 36, 573–595.
Pica, T. (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learn-
ing conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning 44, 493–527.
 Choice of Corrective Feedback in Classrooms 93

Senior, R. (1999) The good language class: Teachers’ perceptions. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia.

Appendix
Transcription conventions

∗ Line to be discussed in the text.

—– Portion of special note to the current analysis is underlined.
? Rising intonation.
(( )) Comments enclosed in double parentheses.
(.) Brief pause.
(..) Longer pause.
[ Overlap with a portion in the next turn that is similarly bracketed.
 The speaker’s emphasis for the portion.
Downloaded by [Hosei University] at 00:11 22 April 2013

◦◦
Reduced volume – soft voice.
◦◦ ◦◦
Reduced volume – whispered.
<> Translation of the meaning of the sentence with an error.
T: The teacher in the particular excerpt; the identity of ‘T’ may differ
across excerpts.
R: Rachel
A: Anthony
P: Patricia
N: Natalie
I: Irene
S: Unidentified student

Abbreviations used to gloss Japanese

ACC Accusative case marker

NOM Nominative marker
TOP Topic marker
GEN Genitive marker
COP Copula
nom Nominaliser