| Classroom interaction between the teacher and the students has attracted more and more attention of foreign as well as domestic researchers and teachers in the field of second language classroom research. Teachers'corrective feedback, the medium of classroom interaction, lies at the core in the researches of the classroom interaction. It is suggested that the students are able to approach the target language, obtain useful feedback information from the teacher and have more language output to benefit their language development through the interaction between the teacher and the students. To explore how teachers'corrective feedback in classroom interaction inspire students'modified uptake, an empirical study including four English major teachers, sixty first-year English majors (FEM) and sixty third–year English majors (TEM) from Jilin agricultural university is conducted. Data were collected from classroom observation supplemented with a questionnaire for students and interviews with teachers. The results of the present study are as follow:Both FEM and TEM make errors in classroom interaction. The types of errors they make are different. The type of errors FEM make most frequently is grammatical errors. Next are lexical errors and phonological errors. While discourse errors are most frequently made by TEM. Followed are expression errors and lexical errors.Both FEM teachers and TEM teachers do not over-react to students'errors. TEM teachers correct the students less often than FEM teachers. Their choice of corrective feedback following errors varies in accordance with different types of errors and students'proficiency. FEM teachers tend to employ elicitation to treat lexical errors and grammatical errors, explicit correction for phonological errors and discourse errors. TEM teachers seem more likely to use elicitation to treat students'expression errors while clarification request for discourse errors.Different types of errors lead to different types of corrective feedback, and different types of corrective feedback lead to different types of uptake with regard to different proficiency levels. For TEM, prompts (namely elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic clues and repetition) tend to successfully invite students'self-repair. By comparison, prompts lead less self-repair but more needs-repair for FEM. Explicit correction is more suitable for FEM to lead to their repair.Metalinguistic clues is provided much less frequently than other corrective feedback by both FEM teachers and TEM teachers in the present study, despite the fact that it is significantly more effective in encouraging students'repair.Students with different proficiency levels have different preferences on teachers' corrective feedback. Most students want their teachers to correct their errors. TEM prefer elicitation and metalinguistic clues leading to self-repair more than FEM while FEM like repetition best.For phonological errors, teachers tend to give explicit feedback which meets students'preference, for grammatical errors, teachers seem to give implicit feedback, while students prefer teachers to give them explicit feedback.TEM teachers treat students'discourse errors most frequently. Next to it are expression errors and lexical errors. This attributes to the relatively higher frequency of occurrence of discourse errors in TEM students'speech.The present thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter one is the introduction of the thesis. Chapter two introduces some relevant terms in the thesis. i.e. errors, corrective feedback and uptake. In chapter three theoretical background is presented. Chapter four is a detailed description of research design, which includes the method of data collection and data analysis. Chapter five addresses the results and discussion of the investigation. The last chapter is the conclusion part, major findings are summarized, pedagogical implications, limitations of the present study and suggestions for further research are presented as well.
|
PDF Full Text Request