Options
A study of oral corrective feedback in the Chinese university EFL context
Author
Dong, Yang
Supervisor
Lwin Soe Marlar
Abstract
According to Gass (1997), corrective feedback (also known as negative feedback) can draw the learners’ attention to the gap between their output production and the target-like form, and has a positive influence on their inter-language development. There has been a sizable body of research including both descriptive and experimental studies on the many facets of corrective feedback. However, few studies have been conducted in the Chinese EFL context, especially with students at the tertiary level. Thus, the present study aims to investigate the effectiveness and distributions of corrective feedback used by a Chinese university EFL teacher on her students’ learning of English articles, and the learners’ attitudes towards receiving corrective feedback in general as well as towards different types of corrective feedback. To this end, it adopted a mixed-methods design and employed one pre-test and one post-test, eight lesson activities for providing corrective feedback, one questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews with five students to collect data from one university in Mainland China.
The study has yielded three key findings. First, with regard to the effectiveness of corrective feedback used by the Chinese university EFL teacher, there is no statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. The lack of statistically significant difference could be explained in relation to the small sample size, short duration of corrective feedback provided, age and proficiency of student participants, difficulty of learning English articles, research design and individual differences of the two teachers.
Second, with regard to the distributions of different corrective feedback types used by the Chinese university EFL teacher, the findings show that elicitation (P=55%) was the most frequently used oral corrective feedback type by the teacher of the treatment group, while metalinguistic feedback (P=0%) was the least frequently used type. Recasts (P=21%) and repetition (P=16%) ranked the second and third most frequently used oral corrective feedback type respectively, while explicit correction (P=6%) and clarification requests (P=2%) were in the fourth and fifth places.
Third, for the Chinese adult learners’ attitudes towards receiving corrective feedback and towards different types of corrective feedback, the study reveals that the learners in general hold a positive attitude towards receiving corrective feedback. Elicitation is regarded as the most effective corrective feedback type, while metalinguistic feedback is the least effective type. Recasts and repetition ranked the second and third most effective corrective feedback types, while explicit correction and clarification requests were in the fourth and fifth places. The findings obtained from the semi-structured interviews complement the findings from the questionnaire concerning learners’ attitudes towards receiving corrective feedback and different types.
Based on the findings, the study concludes that the EFL teachers should be more aware of corrective feedback practices in the classroom and learners’ attitudes towards corrective feedback.
The study has yielded three key findings. First, with regard to the effectiveness of corrective feedback used by the Chinese university EFL teacher, there is no statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. The lack of statistically significant difference could be explained in relation to the small sample size, short duration of corrective feedback provided, age and proficiency of student participants, difficulty of learning English articles, research design and individual differences of the two teachers.
Second, with regard to the distributions of different corrective feedback types used by the Chinese university EFL teacher, the findings show that elicitation (P=55%) was the most frequently used oral corrective feedback type by the teacher of the treatment group, while metalinguistic feedback (P=0%) was the least frequently used type. Recasts (P=21%) and repetition (P=16%) ranked the second and third most frequently used oral corrective feedback type respectively, while explicit correction (P=6%) and clarification requests (P=2%) were in the fourth and fifth places.
Third, for the Chinese adult learners’ attitudes towards receiving corrective feedback and towards different types of corrective feedback, the study reveals that the learners in general hold a positive attitude towards receiving corrective feedback. Elicitation is regarded as the most effective corrective feedback type, while metalinguistic feedback is the least effective type. Recasts and repetition ranked the second and third most effective corrective feedback types, while explicit correction and clarification requests were in the fourth and fifth places. The findings obtained from the semi-structured interviews complement the findings from the questionnaire concerning learners’ attitudes towards receiving corrective feedback and different types.
Based on the findings, the study concludes that the EFL teachers should be more aware of corrective feedback practices in the classroom and learners’ attitudes towards corrective feedback.
Date Issued
2016
Date Submitted
2016