This paper examines the distribution of corrective feedback in the Swedish EFL classroom, and the relationship between the context of teacher-student exchanges and the provision of feedback. Corrective feedback was categorized in six types as being ‘recasts’, ‘explicit feedback’, ‘repetition’, ‘elicitation’, ‘metalinguistic feedback’, and ‘clarification requests’. In parts of this study, the latter four types were classed together as ‘prompts’ because they aim at pushing the students to say the correct forms of language. Student exchanges were defined in four ways: content, communication, management, and explicit language-focused exchanges. The results show the number of moves per category of corrective feedback type used by each of the teachers, the overall number of feedback moves per context, and even the overall number of feedback moves provided by each teacher in each context. The findings indicated that recasts yielded the highest number of feedback moves. Recasts were also the favored feedback type provided by the teachers. However, when recasts were compared to prompts, prompts were used often by teachers, and thus suggesting that at least two of the teachers usually pushed their students to say the correct form. The findings also indicated that explicit language-focused exchanges yielded the highest number of feedback moves, whereas management exchanges had the fewest. In conclusion, this study suggests that context plays a role in the provision of corrective feedback, and teachers appear to favor recasts over any other single feedback type. The findings also confirmed that similar results which have been found in other cultural and educational contexts can be yielded in the Swedish EFL classroom.

When teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), teachers use feedback in order to help students to improve their English skills. They can use both oral and written feedback to encourage students to make progress. Oral and written feedback play a significant role in second language acquisition, and this study could raise teachers' awareness of the different feedback strategies that can be employed in EFL classrooms. This could benefit their teaching performance and students’ learning. This study aims to examine the different types of oral and written feedback used in the EFL classroom, as well as teachers’ own perceptions of feedback. The approach used to conduct this study was both quantitative and qualitative. Three types of data material were collected in a secondary school (grades 7-9) for the analysis: three secondary school teachers were interviewed; their English lessons were observed; and their feedback on student essays was collected. The material collected was used in the analysis, which indicated that the teachers used different types of feedback. The most frequent oral feedback types used were recast, elicitation, and praise. However, the teachers employed different strategies regarding to how they provide this feedback. Two of the teachers provided feedback in the traditional way by using corrective types of feedback frequently, while one teacher chose not to correct students too often and instead encouraged them by giving them praise. The evaluation of different feedback types performed in this study suggests that recast as an implicit feedback type provided orally could be more effective in a communicative classroom setting, as it does not interrupt the communicative flow. In writing, on the other hand, explicit feedback combined with face-to-face sessions could lead to better results. It would be interesting to investigate in further research the effects of different oral and written feedback types.

abstract: This qualitative study follows an instructor and four Spanish Heritage Language (SHL) learners in an elementary-level, mixed Spanish course at a community college over the course of 11 class visits. In studying how language ideologies shape oral corrective feedback (oral CF) practices, data were collected through ethnographic observations (field notes, researcher memos), classroom audio recordings, and semi-structured interviews (student, teacher). Specifically, this study analyzes (1) language ideologies prevalent in the classroom context in relation to the conceptualization of errors, (2) the instructor’s goals for oral CF, (3) how the instructor provides oral CF and in what contexts, and (4) how the mixed class environment relates to oral CF. To do so, the data were analyzed via a bifocal approach in coding interview and classroom discourse (Razfar, 2003) and engaging in Critical Discourse Analysis (van Dijk, 2016) informed by frameworks in Linguistic Anthropology (Irvine, 1989; Kroskrity, 2004, 2010; Leeman, 2012) and Second Language Acquisition (Ellis, 2009; Li, 2017; Lyster & Ranta, 1997). The findings demonstrate how oral CF becomes ideologically charged in a classroom context primarily designed to impart foreign language instruction. Under the guise that SHL learners’ varieties represent negative characteristics (e.g., low socioeconomic strata, Mexicaness, immigration), oral CF is used to eradicate their Spanish varieties. Findings also illustrate the (in)congruency of the instructor and learners’ perceptions of oral CF and what takes place in the classroom. In some cases, SHL learners demonstrated language pride and resisted the imposition of a foreign variety but reported hegemonic beliefs about their own varieties. Exemplifying how the instructor and SHL learners contribute to the complex dynamics of ideologization of oral CF, this study advocates for the adoption of Critical Language Awareness frameworks (Martínez, 2003; Leeman, 2005) in mixed language classrooms that encompasses this practice (e.g., focus-on-form instruction). Additionally, in acknowledging that teachers and educational institutions play a key role in the (re)production of dominant language norms, this study calls for the creation of instructional guidelines for oral CF as a pedagogical practice. Such guidelines must include critical discussions with students about the relationship between “correct,” “correcting,” and “being corrected” and asymmetrical power relationships. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Spanish 2019

Both grammar and corrective feedback (CF) are important for second language acquisition, though they are not mentioned explicitly in the Swedish upper secondary school curriculum. Moreover, it is not clear which type of CF is most effective in grammar acquisition. This paper aims to consolidate, compare and contrast the findings of several articles examining the effect of CF on grammar acquisition. Two databases were used to find articles applicable to answering the research question. After excluding those that did not meet the criteria, nine articles were used in the end. Although the findings show that CF is effective for grammar acquisition in general, they do not show any type of CF to be superior to another. The factors identified as affecting the results of the studies are target structure, method, language proficiency and L1. Through the studies analyzed, it is not possible to establish the long-term effects of the various types of CF. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that oral meta-linguistic explanation (ME) is beneficial for teachers due to its time-efficiency. In conclusion, CF, being shown to facilitate grammar acquisition for L2 learners in general, has positive effects on English learning in the Swedish classroom. However, more research is needed in order to establish its effectiveness long-term and on a more detailed level.

No description available.

A growing body of research has compared the effects of explicit and implicit corrective feedback (CF) on L2 accuracy. However, L2 performance is not limited to accuracy. Fluency is another important aspect of L2 performance, but less is understood about its relationship with CF and CF explicitness/implicitness. This experimental study examined the effects of explicit correction versus implicit recasts on not only the accuracy but also the fluency of L2 speech during videoconferencing. Forty-eight lower-intermediate learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) were assigned to an explicit correction group, an implicit recast group, and a no-feedback group. Each engaged in eight picture description tasks with the researcher and received feedback according to the group they came from. Pre and posttests (immediate and delayed) of accuracy and fluency were conducted using additional picture tasks. Accuracy was measured by calculating the percentage of learners’ (a) error-free clauses and (b) error-free T-units. Fluency was measured by calculating the number of (a) syllables per minute and (b) meaningful syllables per minute. Statistical analyses included (a) two-way repeated measures ANOVAs with feedback type as the between-subject factor and time as the within subject factor, (b) Planned comparisons, which treated the two experimental groups as one group and compared their mean with the mean of the control group, (c) Bonferroni post hoc tests, which examined the pairwise differences, and where needed, (d) paired sample t-tests, which examined each group’s pretest-posttest differences. As for accuracy, planned comparisons showed that videoconferencing CF, irrespective of its explicitness/implicitness, improved accuracy. Further analyses showed that whereas the explicit correction group outperformed the control group on both the immediate and delayed posttests, the recast group did not. However, the explicit feedback group produced a significantly less fluent speech compared to the recast group and the control group. But this was true on the immediate posttest and not on the delayed posttest. Pretest-posttest comparisons further indicated a negative effect for explicit correction but a positive effect for recasts on L2 fluency. The results suggest that (a) while explicit correction assisted accuracy, it negatively influenced fluency, and (b) while implicit correction seemed to assist fluency, it was not as effective as the effect of explicit correction on L2 accuracy. Further analyses indicated that the explicit correction group exhibited a large amount of monitoring behaviour on the immediate posttest, whereas the other two groups did not. The results are explained using an information-processing perspective of language performance and a knowledge proceduralization model of language development. The theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical implications are also discussed. / Graduate

The purpose of this study was to investigate four Swedish upper secondary teachers' reasoning about their own corrective feedback strategies in oral EFL learning environments, and how their reasoning correlated to previous research in the subject.The research was carried out by using the qualitative method of interviewing aselection of teachers. Four teachers of English as a foreign language from one Swedish upper secondary school participated in semi-structured pair-interviews.The study found that the participating teachers’ perceptions and use of corrective feedback corresponds to a large extent with the findings of previous research, saying that teachers in various contexts prefer more implicit means of corrective feedback,but that they would adapt their strategies depending on the learner, error type, and the focus of the lesson. The result also suggested that although the teachersreportedly make conscious choices when selecting a corrective feedback strategy, they sometimes have to choose between using a strategy that promotes learning orusing a strategy that will cause the least amount of inconvenience for the learner.The conclusion was made that the teachers of the study are aware of their own corrective feedback strategies to some extent, which also corresponds with the results of previous research, but that their awareness is not always sufficient, and their strategies might not be as effective as the teachers think.

In recent years, language awareness (LA) has received increasing attention and is an aim for the English subject in the Swedish curriculum for upper secondary school. The present study aims to connect LA to a practice that teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) perform on a regular basis, namely written corrective feedback (WCF), which focuses on linguistic or pragmatic errors in students’ texts. To explore what contributions WCF can make towards developing LA, a mixed-methods approach was employed with the participation of 111 Swedish EFL students. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire. The results revealed that a majority of the participating students believe that WCF can support their development of LA. However, the findings also suggest that students’ views, experience and preferences of WCF might affect their understanding of it and also, to a certain extent, their motivation to attend to it. Therefore, in order for EFL teachers to work towards developing upper secondary students’ LA through WCF, it is important to work with it in class and explore it together with the students by engaging with language (EWL) through WCF.

What started as a discussion of the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction has over time led to a debate about the need for and effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) within the field of English language teaching (ELT). Dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) is a relatively new strategy developed by Dr. Norman Evans to provide WCF to English as a second language (ESL) students through systematic, coded feedback. While previous studies on DWCF have looked at its effects among other groups, few studies have examined DWCF in the context of ESL students studying at the graduate level. This study analyzes the linguistic accuracy and lexical and syntactic complexity of these students before and after a fourteen-week DWCF intervention.

The purpose of this study is to determine two types of error gravity in a corpus of texts written by native Chinese learners of English (ELLs)—one that enriches the traditional construct of gravity found in error gravity research by including error frequency, or how often an error occurs in a text relative to others, as an intervening variable, and one that applies the new error gravity data in a practical way to help establish salient grammatical focal points for written corrective feedback (WCF). Previous error gravity research has suggested that the amount of irritation caused by error is determined by the extent to which an utterance departs from "native-like" speech. However, because these studies often neglect the role of frequency in determining gravity—relying on isolated sentences, pre-determined errors, and manipulated texts to define it—a more complete view of error gravity is needed. Forty-eight native English speakers without ESL teaching experience and 10 experienced ESL teachers evaluated a set of 18 timed, 30-minute essays written by high intermediate to advanced native-Chinese ELLs. Errors were identified, verified, tagged, and classified by the level of irritation they produced. Results show the most serious errors included count/non-count (C/NC), insert verb (INSERT V), omit verb (OMIT V), and subject-verb agreement (SV). The most frequent error type was word choice (WC), followed by singular/plural (S/PL), awkward (AWK), and word form (WF). When combined, singular/plural (S/PL), word form (WF), word choice (WC), and awkward (AWK) errors were found to be the most critical. These findings support Burt and Kiparsky's (1972) global/local error distinction in which global errors, or those lexical, grammatical and syntactic errors that affect the overall organization or meaning of the sentence (Burt, 1975) are deemed more grievous than local ones, which affect only "single elements (constituents)" (Burt, 1975, p. 57). Implications are discussed in terms of future research and possible uses in the Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback classroom.