施瑞

【Abstract】There are many kinds of corrective feedback for SLA learners， which include explicit feedback， recast and prompts. Since teacher plays a very important role in SLA teaching， we should carefully use corrective feedback. From the book A Research Agenda For Second Language Acquisition Of Pre-literate And Low-literate Adult And Adolescent Learnerss examples and my own real teaching experience， I assume that teacher should choose different corrective feedback to different students. Their learning abilities， English levels as well as their characteristics and personalities should be all taken into account when you are giving a corrective feedback to students. In other words， as a SLA teacher， we should teach students in accordance with their aptitude. And teachers better use different corrective feedback when they are going to response or react to their different students.

【Key words】corrective feedback； explicit feedback； recast； prompt； implicit feedback； different characteristics； different English levels； error& mistake

Introduction： Undoubtedly， teacher plays an important role in SLA teaching. In other words， what teacher says and what teacher does can affect a second language learners acquisition rate and even ultimate attainment a lot. Some days ago， I did a presentation on research agenda for second language acquisition of pre-literate and low-literate adult and adolescent learners. When reading relating articles， one material impresses me very much that SLA learner with low literacy has difficulty in processing the corrective feedback. Here is the case I found from the book A Research Agenda For Second Language Acquisition Of Pre-literate And Low-literate Adult And Adolescent Learners： Abukar was a 15 years old immigrant who was attending 9th grade classes. He had began formal schooling in the United States four and a half years earlier， after spending four years in a refugee camp. When he spoke English， he often forgot to use auxiliary inversion， “do” support and the third person singular verb marking. For example：

Abukar： What he sit on， what he SIT on， or whatever？

MB： What is he sitting on？

A： Mhm.

MB： What is he sitting on？ Again. Repeat.

A： What he sitting on？

MB： What IS he sitting on？

A： Oh， what he sitting on？

MB： What IS he sitting on？

A： What IS he sitting on？ （Tarone， Bigelow， 2011）

In this example， we can easily see that the researcher gave Abukar a corrective feedback. Although， Abukar tried many times to find his mistakes， he has difficulty in processing corrective feedback. He had to spend a little more time to give a correct answer. Here is another example which shows the similar problem：

Abukar： Why he is mad？ Why [he]， he is mad？

MB： [yeah]

MB： Why HE is mad？

Abukar： Why HE is mad？ Why

MB： Why IS he mad？

Abukar： Why IS he mad？ Why is， [is he]... （Tarone， Bigelow， 2011）

In this example， Abukar noticed the researchers placement of stress on the second syllable before he finally took up her change in word order in the line 6， which means that words， stress， and its cousin rhythm are more salient to Abukar than the word order. Abukar could not receive corrective feedback easily， but he could process them in some forms. From Abukars example， I am thinking that as a SLA teacher， each students are definitely at different levels although they are in a same class. Even some of them are not as low-literate as Abukar， they acquire knowledge slower than other students due to different kinds of reasons such as concentration degree. Thus， according to this situation， do we SLA teachers need to take different forms of corrective feedback when facing students responses？ Because in my opinion， a teachers response or reaction do affect students responses and output， even influence students SLA performance and results to some degree. In addition， in a real teaching scenes， since time limited， teachers cannot always spare much time for enlightened corrective feedback， especially in China， where our teaching is exam-oriented education. So， under such circumstances， as an SLA teacher， how can we response to students output and realize a win-win situation for both individual students and the whole class at the same time？ Therefore， my paper is going to do research on the field of teachers responses and reactions to students output.

Body： To begin with， I want to illuminate that there are many types of corrective feedback. According to Lysters research， Lyster and Mori have classified three kinds of corrective feedback in terms of their clarify to learners： explicit correction， recast and different kinds of prompts. Among them， recasts and prompts are both considered as implicit corrective feedback which are contrary to the explicit corrective feedback. In the textbook Exploring Learner Language （Tarone， Swierzbin， 2009）， there are six SLA learners at different levels learning English. And here I will focus on two of the learners —Rodrigo and Jeanne in the corrective feedback experiments. The first dialogue happened between Rodrigo and the interviewer：

R： The teacher he are， not interact in， speak， or with， eh eh students.

I： He doesnt interact. You should say “he doesnt”.

This is an explicit correction that the learner is clearly told what was incorrect， and given the correct form. In this case， the researcher directly indicated the error and gave the correct reformulation （Tarone， Swierzbin， 2009）. Another case also conducted between Rodrigo and the interviewer：

R： more easy. I I I feel， to learn...

I： so you said its easier now.

In this case， the feedback is recast. The teacher reformulates all or part of the learners utterance， providing a correct alternative， without explicit signaling that it is a correction （Tarone， Swierzbin， 2009）. Different from both explicit correction and recasts， prompts do not provide a repair， offering instead a variety of signals to push the learner to self-repair. Types of prompts include clarification requests， elicitation， meta-linguistic feedback and repetition. Clarification requests may be used to negotiate meaning or to provide feedback， but in either case， they indicate that the interlocutors utterance was misunderstood or incorrect （Tarone， Swierzbin， 2009）. There is a dialogue between Jeanne and the interviewer：

J： Does， his head hurt？

I： Im sorry， what？

Here the interviewers corrective feedback is clarification request， she used “Im sorry， what？” to indicate Jeannes question included a pronunciation error.

in elicitation， the teacher tend to invite the learner to reformulate a specific form. One way is by asking a question （Tarone， Swierzbin， 2009）. Like the dialogue below：

J： It was like require in my school...

I： Require. How do we say that？

Another type of prompt is a meta-linguistic clue， a comment or question about form used in error：

R： But now， in the fourth， s，s，s， week， is more easy.

I： you need-ER on the end of “easy” to make the comparative form.

The last type of prompt is repetition：

J： It was like require in my school...

I： It was like require？ （Tarone， Swierzbin， 2009）

As far as I am concerned， prompts are more enlightened to students than explicit correction and recast. Because they put the burden of self-repair on the learner， forcing more depth of processing （Lyster and Mori， 2006）. And compared to Rodrigo who has learned English three years in his high school， but who has been living in US for only 36 days， Jeanne has studied English for more than 6 years and she has lived in US for 18 months. Of course， her English is better than Rodrigo. Obviously， in the dialogues with the interviewer， Jeanne was provided with more prompts while Rodrigo was more often provided with explicit corrections and recasts. It seems that this finding with what I have said in the introduction that low-literate learners have difficulty in processing corrective feedback can analyze the question that as a SLA teacher， how to response to students output and realize a win-win situation for both individual students and the whole class at the same time. As a Chinese SLA teacher， when response to a student with relatively good foundation of English I prefer to use prompts such as clarification requests or elicitation or repetitions， which can provide the student an precious opportunity to rethink his or her answer and do a self-repair because as a teacher， we all know that self-discovery and self-repair can more impressive for students than explicit telling. Nevertheless， when we are going to react to a student with relatively weak foundation of English， I tend to utilize explicit correction or recast. It is undeniable and unavoidable that some students are behind others in a same class. As what I have showed in my introduction that students with low-literate tend to process corrections more difficult， teachers need to give them some more salient and more perceived corrective feedback. And I do put my ideas into the class. The students I am teaching are the freshmen of college students at medium level according to their English performances in college entrance exam. In fact， one exam is very limited. I cannot make a judgment that my students are at an absolutely same level. Actually， after teaching for a while， I find that although they are all so-called medium level students， ones real capability in English could differ from the others. Here is my different corrective feedback when encountering with different students outputs in response.

Teaching scene 1 ： translation class

Student A： top student in my English class

Student B： relatively medium-level student in my English class

I firstly asked student B to answer a translation exercise.

B： Half an hour has gone by， but the last bus didnt come yet. We had to walk home.

T： Has gone by？ Had to walk home？

B： Mhm...

T： The use of tense is not correct.

After 30 secs...

B： Mhm... Sorry， I do not know.

T： Ok. Half an hour had gone by， but the last bus hadnt come yet. We had to walk home.

In this conversation， at first， the corrective feedback I used are repetition and meta-linguistic feedback， I wanted to give some hints or clues to the student to let himself know the errors he made through repeating and grammatical clues. However， he could not find his mistakes by these two corrective feedback after some seconds. Taking the whole classs teaching schedule into account， I decided to give him more direct feedback—recast， which will not only let him realize where he made the mistakes but also continually go on the class.

Then， I asked student A to ask another translation exercise.

A：It is said that Bill has been fired for continually violate the companys s-afety rules.

T： I am sorry， its what？

After a few secs，

A： Oh， violating. For doing something. For violating...

In this conversation， I used clarification request to indicate As grammar error. And after a very short time， A found her error and soon self-repaired it. For students like A， as I said before， prompts are a better corrective feedback. A could find her mistake by herself with the hint very soon， at the same time， we would not suspense and quickly continue our class.

Teaching Scene 2： reading class

Student C： medium-level student in my English class who is shy

Student D： medium-level student in the same class who is outgoing

In this reading class， I gave students some questions for discussion. Firstly， I asked student C to give the answer. She is a shy girl and she answered with a low voice.

T： Lucy， do you think it is possible to deal with life in a completely rational and logical way？

C： I...I think it is not possible.

T： Why not？

C： Because I am a sense girl.

T： A sense girl？

C： Em...yeah

T： You mean sensitive right？

C： Em.

In this conversation， at beginning， I gave her a hint by recast， trying to rise her own awareness of finding her mistake. Then I found C is too shy to find her mistake in class. So in order to avoid her embarrassment， I directly gave a mild explicit feedback to her.

In another conversation， I asked the same question to student D.

T： Do you think it is possible to deal with life in a completely rational and logical way？

D： No.

T： Why？

D： Because， em... Because I am an art student， and I think some thing like love cannot just use logic way.

T： Good point. Em， logic way or？

D： Ah？ Logic way... （A few seconds later）， Oh， logical， logical way.

T： Good， sit down.

Student D is an outgoing girl， so when I give her an implicit feedback， she did not feel nervous when given an implicit feedback. After thinking about the corrective feedback， she gave me a satisfying answer.

Besides， I also had observation in other SLA teachers class. Wang is my colleague， she teaches students at level A （the highest English level students in my university）. And I recorded her corrective feedback to her students.

Teaching scene 3： reading class

T： What does the story tell us about love？

S： I think love is blind， and it is a ridiculous to use logic to deal with love.

T： A ridiculous？ How do we say this？

S： Em...There is no “a” because ridiculous is a adjective.

Therefore， as a Chinese SLA teacher， I assume that， probably， I need to utilize different corrective feedback in the same class for the students not only at different English levels but also in different personalities to better improve the pedagogical quality. In fact， no matter what kind of corrective feedback you uses， it has both advantages and disadvantages. There are two benefits for giving those students explicit correction or recast. The first and foremost， it is easier for them to know where are their errors lie in and they can correct them very fast. In addition， teachers can save time to consider all students in class. Traditionally， there are only 45minutes for a class in China， so time is very limited and precious for both teachers and students. If teachers response with prompt feedback to all students， it might take so much time that teachers cannot finish their teaching plans in time. However， some students who are relatively lag behind are sensitive and fragile， which requires our teachers to be more cautious when reacting to them. When encountering with these students， I suggest that teachers can use recasts rather than explicit corrections as feedback because recasts are relatively indirect. So， the key is to choose a proper corrective feedback facing different student in class. Thats what we teacher needs to focus on.

However， the finding “good students are better to be received prompts by teachers while relatively weak students tend to be received direct corrections” is not absolutely true. Some other factors should be considered into.

It is considered important for learners to notice discrepancies between forms in their own linguistic systems and those in the input （Schmidt 1990） if they are to acquire the input forms. Corrective feedback contains important information about those discrepancies. But it turns out that second language （L2） learners tend to notice corrections tosome types of their linguistic errors more than others. In a research study with learners like ours， the learners were most accurate in identifying phonological， lexical， and semantic feedback， but they oftenfailed to notice corrections to their morphology or syntax （Mackey， Gass， and McDonough 2000）. They noticed when their pronunciation or their vocabulary was corrected， but they did not notice when the correction added a morpheme， as in （9）， or changed the word order. They mistook such moves either as confirmations of meaning， or as focused on pronunciation or vocabulary.

NNS It have mixed colors.

NS It has mixed colors.

NNS Mixed colors aha. （Tarone， Swierzbin， 2009）

Therefore， sometimes， when teachers are ready to give correction to students， they themselves are required to think about what kind of errors students make. Phonological error？ Lexical error？ Or the errors in morphology and syntax？ Then， they could choose the most suitable corrective feedback to students. At the mention of error， there is another very important factor that needs to pay attention in class — error analysis. In my opinion， before giving a correction to students speaking， teachers are better to be clear whether it is an error or just a mistake. Mistake is a one-time slip that native speakers may also make， while error is related to system that may make several times by makers who cannot correct by themselves. In class-teaching， when I find that a student make a mistake， sometimes I do not correct it as it is just a one-time slip. If I find a student make a mistake， I will give him or her corrections by either explicit or implicit feedback according to different students. For college education， the number of students usually average out at 40， which means teachers can not always take care to every student in class in order to finish the target teaching schedule.

Conclusion： As a SLA teacher， I always believe that teaching is not just an act of teaching， but a combination with psychology. There is an old saying by Confucius that “teach students in accordance with their aptitude” （Bojun Yang， 2006） ， which suggests teachers should use different teaching methods when facing different students with different characteristics. Therefore， my conclusion via the cases of Rodrigo and Jeanne and my class is that teachers better use different corrective feedback when they are going to response or react to their different students.

References：

[1]Elaine Tarone，Bonnie Swierzbin，Exploring Learner Language， 2009，UK，Oxford University Press.

[2]Elaine Tarone，Marsha Bigelow，A Research Agenda For Second Language Acquisition Of Pre-literate And Low-literate Adult And Adolescent Learners，2011，Minneapolis in USA，University of Minneapolis.

[3]Lyster，R.And H.Mori，Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28：269-300.

[4]Bojun Yang，the Analects of Confucius，2006，China，Zhong Hua Book Company.

*本文为浙江传媒学院校级科研项目（编号：ZC15XJ043）的结题成果。