An Investigation Of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback And Student’ Repair In English Classroom In Junior High School

Feedback has been a very popular concerning area in the study of second language acquisition. Due tothe varied characteristics of feedback form, which makes continued controversies on the research of variousfeedback effects. In order to let teacher choose more suitable feedback types in the process of givingfeedback, made student more effectively repair and promote their second language learning. The currentstudy put forward the following research questions:(1) According to teachers different oral feedbacks,what is the distribution of student s repair?(2) According to teachers different written feedbacks, what isthe distribution of student s repair?(3) What are the implications of distributions in English classroom?There are two types of feedback, one is oral feedback, the other is written feedback. The current studyhas been conducted on the observing and sampling of teacher s feedback and student s repair aboutspeaking and writing in English classroom in order to explore the distributions of teachers feedback andstudents repair, then to get pedagogical implications. First of all, the author observed three teachers andtheir nine English lessons (a total of405minutes) and transcripted them based on Lyster s six oralcorrective feedback types. Then there was a random sample from the three classes as same to the above andeach class got ten students writing copies, total number was thirty. The author classified them based onthree written feedback types which inducted by Sheen. At last, the author figured out and reported thefrequency and distribution of various oral or written feedback types, and the frequency and distribution ofstudents repair after teacher s corrective feedback. And discussing and explaining the distributions tried toget pedagogical implications and give teaching suggestions.The research results showed that:(1) Among six types of oral feedback, the frequency of recast washighest, next is elicitation. The metalinguistic feedback was most effectively to promote students uptakeand correct. Repair rate is51%. Elicitation was the most effective feedback to promote students self-repair.Repair rate is41%. From the point of the different error patterns, for grammar errors, recast, clarificationrequest and repetition feedback led to higher repair rate; For lexical errors, elicitation and metalinguisticfeedback led to higher repair rate; For phonological errors, explicit feedback led to higher repair rate.(2)Among three different written feedback, the frequency of indirect feedback appears most often, but it ledto the lowest repair rates. On the other hand, it was good for promoting student self-repair. From the pointof different error patterns, due to direct feedback gave a correct form immediately, it made the repair rate bethe highest, followed by indirect feedback, the metalinguistic feedback in turn.(3) Thus, during the second language learning and teaching, the feedback emphasized by teacher, for example, recast, is not the mostbeneficial of students repair. So teachers should provide feedback types which are cater to students acceptable level and repair needs. For different error patterns, teachers should provide targeted feedbacktypes which are benefit for students repair. When it needs to give multiple feedback, teacher shouldcombine two or more than two feedback types in order to be good for students repair. When feedbacktypes are consistent with need of students, it can promote second language learning of students withdifferent development levels.