Interactional corrective feedback in L1 & L2 learning

1. Interactional corrective feedback in L1 & L2 learning Krakow 2006 Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agency for schools, London

2. Competence: implications for Language Education Framework

3. Assessment & competence

4. Why correct errors? • Self-repair • Assist transitional competence • Develop metalinguistic awareness • Avoid fossilisation

5. Whaterrors? • Corder’s systematic errors When? • immediately? / defer? How? • implicitly? / explicitly?

6. Corrective feedback dimensions

7. Most effective feedback in L2 • Locate errors • Immediate rejection + repetition of error in emphatic tone • Metalinguistic explanation > self-correction • Rephrase original question if no self-correction • Peer assistance if no self-correction

8. Least successful feedback • Exact repetition of error • Expansion • Mixed • Intonation • idiosyncrasy

9. Empirical enquiry: corrective feedback • 33 education authorities • 65 primary schools – 1 teacher in each • 33 schools > questionnaire • 33 schools > interview • Cross-validation • Observation study: 8 questionnaire schools

10. Feedback type by 65 teachers

11. Feedback to speaking

12. Cross-validated findings: 8 questionnaire teachers’ observed feedback in recorded lessons

13. Learner errors corrected covertly

14. Confusing feedbackCVN = covert negativeCON = covert overt negativeCNP = covert negative positive

15. Feedback dilemma This reveals what must be a source of ambiguity for young L2 learners as well as a dilemma for teachers whose mandate is to teach both language and content: namely, how to reinforce the substantive content of student messages while giving them clear messages about language form Lyster, 1998, p 71

16. Covert Negative Positive: example 8 utterances on Christmas

17. Error correction: 6 children’s attitudes to error correction at 3 different times over a period of 10 lessons

18. Conclusion: corrective feedback • metalinguistic √ • Recasts X • Idiosyncratic ? • Confusing ?