“Corrective feedback and learner
uptake: a comparison between
Content Based Language Teaching
and Communicative Language
Teaching”
Antonieta Cal y Mayor Turnbull
June 2005
OUTLINE
Introduction
Literature review on corrective feedback
and learner uptake
Research questions
Observation setting
Observation scheme
Examples of corrective feedback
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the observations:
1. To identify and compare the types of corretive
feedback teachers provide in a CBLT and CLT
environment.
2. To identify what type of corrective feedback leads to
learner uptake in each one of the teaching
environments.
Focus of the study:
Corrective feedback and learner uptake in learner-
teacher interaction.
N.B. Errors committed in learner-learner interaction were
not taken into consideration for this analysis.
LITERATURE REVIEW
“Principles of language learning and teaching” (Brown,
1994)
“Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Practical
Understandings”(Kleinsasser & Sato, 1999).
“Content-based instruction: perspectives on curriculum
planning” (Stoller, 2004).
“Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching” (Han:2002)
“Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative
language teaching: effects on second language learning”
(Lightbown & Spada, 1990).
“Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake” (Lyster & Ranta,
1997).
“Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused
instruction” (Lyster, 2004).
OBSERVATION SETTING
Content Based Language Teaching
Brooklyn International High School
Class: 10th grade Science class.
No.of Ss: 18 (normally 22)(Teenagers from
different language backgrounds).
Observation period: 10:00 to 10:50 A.M.
Topic: “The different body systems”
Seating arrangement: Groups of 3 to 5 Ss
in round tables. Group work throughout the
class. No lockstep work.
OBSERVATION SETTING
Communicative Language Teaching
Communicative English Program
Level of Ss: Lower Intermediate (I-1)
No. of Ss: 15 (adults from different language
backgrounds)
Observation period: 7:10 to 8:00 p.m.
Topic: “Papparazi and celebrities”
Seating arrangement: Lockstep. Teacher
fronted.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What are the types of corrective feedback
used in a High School CBLT class and in a
CLT ESL adult class?
2. What is the type of corrective feedback
most frequently used in each of the two
language teaching settings?
3. What is the distribution of uptake following
the different types of corrective feedback
in each of the two language teaching
settings?
OBSERVATION SCHEME
Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) corrective feedback
taxonomy.
Types or corrective feedback:
Explicit correction
Recasts
Clarification requests
Metalinguistic feedback
Elicitation
Repetition
Learner uptake: “A student’s utterance that
immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that
constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s
intention to draw attention to some aspect of the
student’s initial utterance”. (Lyster and Ranta, 1997,
p. 49)
OBSERVATION SCHEME
EXAMPLE FROM CBLT
Time Interaction Corrective Learner Additio Comments
feedbacck Uptake nal CF
10:25 T: Is YES – NO YES YES T. Is checking
Mohammed Explicit Repair (Sequen the work of the
working on correction Needs repair ce in circulatory
the content Recasts system team.
of your the She asks a S to
brochure? Clarification NO next read aloud what
requests line) they have
S3: He don’t
want to. He Metalinguistic written in the
want to do feedback picture of the
NO
the picutres. Elicitation heart.
T: That’s OK. Repetition
But where is
he?
S4: He went
to the lab.
OBSERVATION SCHEME
EXAMPLE FROM CLT
Time Interaction Corrective Learner Additio Comments
feedbacck Uptake nal CF
7:20 T: Where do YES – NO YES YES T has just
people find Explicit Repair (Sequen showed the
gossiping correction Needs repair ce in magazine “The
information? Recasts Enriquer” and
the made comments
S5: In the Clarification
tablod NO next about it. He
requests line) mention this
T: Tabloid Metalinguistic kind of magazine
S5: Tabloid feedback is a “tabloid” and
NO
Elicitation writes the word
Repetition on the board..
Then he goes on
asking Ss
questions.
“CELEBRITY”
7:42 S9: Celebre T: Celebrity
S9: Celebrity
7:43 S10: Celebrity T: Celebrity
7:44 T writes on the board and makes Ss
repeat the word twice.
7:47 S15:…….celebrity…
7:48 S3: ……. celebrity…
7:51 S7:…… celebrity…
7:55 S9:……celebrity…
RESULTS
TYPES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
CBLT CLT
Explicit
17% Correction
(1) 84%
Elicitation 5% (1) (16)
66%
17% (4) 11% (2)
Recasts
(1)
RESULTS
Comparison between errors, corrective
feedback and learner up take
Raw numbers Percentages
120%
25
100%
20 23 Errors
80% Corrective
19 83%
15 feedback
Corrective 60%
feedback 58% Leaner
10 11 40%
10 uptake
Leaner
5 6 5 uptake 20%
0 0%
CBLT CLT CBLT CLT
RESULTS
Comparison of results across both
teaching settings
Corrective Type of corrective Learner Learner up take
Errors feedback feedback uptake by type of C.F.
CBLT (10) 60% (6) Explicit Correction 17% (1) 83% (5) Explicit Correction 0% (0)
Elicitation 17% (1) Elicitation 100% (1)
Recasts 66% (1) Recasts 100% (4)
CLT (23) 82% (19) Explicit Correction 11% (2) 58% (11) Explicit Correction 50% (1)
Elicitation 5% (1) Elicitation 0% (0)
Recasts 84% (16) Recasts 63% (10)
Real numbers are written in parenthesis. Percentages are followed by the symbol %. In the fourth
and fifth columns, the original percentage of corrective feedback has been turned into 100%. In column six,
learner uptake has been turned into 100% to allow comparison on the distribution of up take after each type
of corrective feedback
Corrective feedbak and learner up
take on the word “celebrity”
Time Interaction
7:42 S9: Celebre
T: Celebrity
S9: Celebrity
7:43 S10:…..celebrity
T: Celebrity
7:44 T writes the word celebrity on the board. He underlines the stressed syllable and makes the whole class repeat after
him the word two times.
T: Celebrity
Ss: Celebrity
T: Celebrity
Ss: Celebrity
7:47 S15:…….celebrity….. (The student is reading out loud)
7:48 S3:……celebrity…… (The student is reading out loud)
7:51 S7:……celebrity… (The student is reading out loud)
7:55 S9:…. celebrity… (The student is reading out loud)
DISCUSSION
The amount of corrective feedback in both teaching
settings was inferior to the amount of errors
committed.
Corrective feedback was higher in CLT than in CBLT.
Recast was the most used type of corrective feedback
in both settings.
Results for the CBLT differed from the findings in
previous SLA empirical studies.
The uptake was higher in CBLT than in CLT.
Recasts resulted in 100% up take in the CBLT.
There’s evidence that the corrective feedback
provided for the word “celebrity” by the CLT teacher,
helped students if not to acquire, to at least store the
native like pronunciation in their short term memory.
CONCLUSION
Results should be taken with caution.
Classroom seating arrangement had an impact on the
data collection.
Taped data instead of pencil and paper information is
preferable. If this is not possible, two observers are
advisable in order to obtain inter-observer reliability.
In order to arrive to definite conclusions, various
teachers in each of the teaching settings should be
observed during an extended period of time.
Relatioship between type of error and amount and
type of corrective feedback, as well as between type
of corrective feedback and type and quality of learner
up take are other variables that can be taken into
consideration when conducting further research on
this topic.