<p>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.</p>

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.