1) Did you do Assignment #1? If not, go do that first.
2) Which of the six types corrective feedback outlined by Lyster and Ranta have you received most frequently in your language education? Which do you find most helpful? What kind of “student uptake” do Lyster and Ranta identify as important? Why? What types of feedback produce these this kind of uptake?
In my own experience, I have most frequently received the “recast” and “metalinguistic clues” forms of corrective feedback. Ultimately, I found it best when my teacher or professor drew attention to my error, thus giving me the time to reanalyze and reformulate. In order for a student to improve, he/she must reconsider and reformulate his/her answers after attention has been drawn to his/her error. Examples of such forms include “elicitation”, “clarification request” and “metalinguistic feedback”.According to Lyster and Ranta, feedback forms such as “recast” and “explicit correction” are the least effective forms of feedback as the answer is explicitly given to the student.
In my language education I have received more frequently “elicitation,” “clarification requests,” and “recasts.” In my opining recasts have proven the most helpful, because it helps me to hear the correct form and construction from the professor, as it helps me figure out how construct good sentences and expressions. Lyster and Ranta explain consider important that students get enough feedback to produce a correct answer on their own, that is because it is important that they learn how to construct grammatically correct expressions. Feedback like metalinguistic feedback or clarification are effective in encouraging the students to create their own correct expressions.
Based on my experience, I received explicit correction the most. I personally think that elicitation is most helpful for students because rather than being directly corrected, students are encouraged to rethink about what is correct. And this thinking process not only improves but also reinforces a student’s learning process. Lyster and Ranta found that feedbacks types that do not provide students with correct forms, such as elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, and clarification request, led to student-generated repairs. These types of feedback motivate students to actively engage in the learning process, as they think independently and respond to teachers.
My language teachers have mostly used metalinguistic clues and elicitation as corrective feedback. While I certainly found these to be the most helpful, there were times occasionally when I simply did not know the correct answer, thus explicit correction actually proved useful. I also found that all types of feedback were helpful in that they pointed out the type of error, thus I could look for preventing a similar error in the future. Lyster and Ranta identify student-generated repairs as important since they indicate students actively working on improving. These most occur when teachers do not provide the answer, but rather encourage students to formulate the answers themselves.
While I have encountered all six throughout my language acquisition, I think that my teachers have most often used “Recast” and “Clarification request.” Though a bit harder at times I find clarification request helpful because it helps you to correct yourself by recalling the information. I also find recast helpful, especially in conversation because it doesn’t necessarily stop the conversation, it allows you to keep going. Lyster and Ranta believe that student-generated repairs are a beneficial form of uptake. This is because it shows the student is engaged in learning the language. Clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition resulted in student generated repairs, with elicitation having the highest percentage.
The two types of corrective feedback that I have received most frequently in my language education are repetition and metalinguistic clues. Personally, repetition was the most helpful to me since it made me become aware of my error without having the teacher correct it. Whenever I did not know the answer, and therefore could not correct my error, I would state that I did not know which gender/article/verb conjugation to use.This might not be the best for every student since some might panic and remain silent when they do not know the correct answer. Lyster and Ranta identify student-generated repairs as extremely important since they show active engagement and negotiation of form. Elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, and repetition all produce this type of uptake.
Throughout both my studies of languages, I have experienced all six types of feedback. I believe that correction is very hard in a language. It can affect the competency of students if it is not appropriate for an individual. This can affect how students feel about a language and whether or not they will continue the studies. I often hear the repetition tool within all of my classes. This is very helpful because it helps me to hear my mistakes out loud, by someone else, and I can think about how it’s correct. However, I tend to like the clarification request the most. This clarification allows me to think about what my mistake could be, it is not explicit so I need to figure it out. This helps me to analyze the sentence or word and think about the right way to say it without instruction. Figuring it out on my own helps me to learn from my mistakes and not forget them. Being told explicitly does not stick in my memory as much as figuring it out on my own. However, there are many many times I have needed to be told explicitly. These are cases where I really do not know the correct answer and someone has to tell me in order to make the correction. I believe all these methods are important, sometimes they are just better in different contexts.
Reflecting on my language learning experience, I have definitely experienced all six types of corrective feedbacks and I am very sure that they reflect my daily experiences at my Arabic class. Even though I believe that the frequency is pretty even, I think I have received explicit correction and repetition most frequently in learning Arabic. It should also be noted that the type of corrective feedback by Lyster and Ranta depends on the type of classroom setting. Corrective feedbacks such as the metalinguistic clues and the elicitation are more frequent and appropriate in a group class setting whereas individual language sessions are more likely to be based on the explicit correction and clarification request. I find explicit correction and clarification request more helpful because they are direct and fast.
According to Lyster and Ranta, student-generated repairs as the most important kind of student uptake because of the students are involved more actively in figuring out answers themselves and lessons for his or her language education. Methods such as clarification request, metalinguistic clues, repetition and elicitation can produce this kind of uptake.
Having studied under the direction of many different professors, I have encountered each type of correction. Personally, repetition helped me after my second year of study because I had to stop and think for the answer on my own. In first year though, I liked both explicit correction and metalinguistic clues. As my vocabulary was very preliminary, the teacher drawing attention to the specific problem allowed me to re-evaluate what I had said.
I agree with Lyster and Ranta that student-generated repairs are the most important. These repairs encourage self-correction, which allows a student to improve their language ability both in and out of the classroom.
I have most often received “recast” and “elicitation” corrections when learning a language. However, for me the most helpful kind of correction is the “explicit correction.” When a teacher directly corrects me I am then certain about what I should say, whereas when a teacher indirectly corrects me or hints at the correct answer I am sometimes left unsure of what the correct answer is. Lyster and Ranta identify two types of uptake: an uptake whose feedback still contains errors or an uptake whose feedback has been repaired of any errors according to the teacher’s correction. Lyster and Ranta emphasize that corrections which lead to student-generated repair of the error, that is, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition, are important because the student is actively engaged in finding the correct answer and thus more involved in the learning process.
During my study of Japanese, I have received “metalinguistic clues” and “clarification request” the most. In my experience, the metalinguistic clues are the most helpful. If the teacher simply says “that’s wrong”, I may be so lost in the sentence that I’m not even sure what part of it was wrong, let alone how to fix it. But if the teacher brings attention to the part that needs correction without saying exactly how to fix it, that forces me to remember that particular grammar point and it tends to stick afterwards.
The authors Lyster and Ranta say that student-generated repair, in which students fix their own mistakes without being told how to fix them, is highly important as it forces the student to actively identify the problem rather than blindly accept the teacher’s corrections without really knowing what was wrong. The types of feedback that produces these responses are “metalinguistic clues”, “elicitation”, “repetition”, and “clarification request”.
During my language studies, I remember mostly having the “recast” and metalinguistic clues” forms of feedback from instructors and native speakers. From my experience, I think recast and elicitation have proven most effective for my success in correcting errors, depending on the scenario. Elicitation seems to work well when the word or structure is something the student has had more exposure to, but may not have completely mastered yet. In this way, he can analyze the context and try to produce a correct response. However, recast may be more appropriate when a student has seen a word or structure only once or not at all and therefore will likely not be able to produce the correct response on his own. Lyster and Ranta suggest that student-generated repairs are important because they imply the student’s active role in the learning process. The most helpful types of feedback to generate this result are clarification request, metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and repetition, whereas explicit correction and recast tend to inhibit student-generated repairs.
At the beginner level of a second language I encountered a lot of “explicit correction”. When I reached the intermediate level, my teachers preferred to correct students using the “metalinguistic clues” and “elicitation” techniques. However, at one point or another all my teachers used all the methods presented. I just started learning a new language and I have realized that some professors have to use the “recast” technique when they do not have time to get the student to correct him/herself. I have found that “elicitation” is the best type of error correction if the professor has time to work through a mistake with you until you realize where you went wrong. At an intermediate and advanced level a “recast” correction usually suffices for the student to realize where he/she went wrong. Lyster and Ranta make a point of stating that the best type of correction is one that causes students to generate the repair to their mistake. In these cases the students are obliged to think about the mistake and figure out where they went wrong. The “metalinguistic clues” and “elicitation” techniques are the best for students to generate their own repairs.
When I first began learning a new language I would encounter “explicit correction” and “recast.” Once I reached the intermediate level my professors would use elicitation, repetition, and metalinguistic clues. I found elicitation to be more helpful because it makes you figure out what is the error, you partake in the process of learning the correct formation. However, at the upper levels I have found that professors simply use the “recast” method because at this point they expect the student to understand quickly what the error is. Lyster and Ranta find that student-generated repairs are more important in language learning because the student is active and engaged in the learning process. In other words, the teacher does not provide the correct form right away but instead provides cues as a guide to help the student consider how to reformulate the error. Thus, the best types of feedbacks in this situation are elicitation, and metalinguistic, repetition and clarification request.
I have encountered elicitation and metalinguistic clues most often as a student of a foreign language. Personally, I have always found metalinguistic clues the most helpful, because Russian has an extremely complex and rigid grammar system that is important to learn early on in the study of the language. Lyster and Ranta held that feedback types such as metalinguistic clues, clarification, and elicitation were the most effective, because rather than supplying students with the correct answers, they encourage students to seek out the correct answer on their own. These types of feedback help students both to become creative, independent language learners and to engage more fully with their instructor.
Of the six types of corrective feedback outlined by Lyster and Ranta the ones I most often encountered were: Repetition and Recast. Although these two were encountered once I was in higher level classes, initially teachers often used explicit correction or clarification request. I find that if a student has a good grasp of the language and is just unsure of themselves then Recast is good. The “student uptake” that Lyster and Ranta identify as important are: uptake that produces utterance still needing repair and uptake that produces a repair of the error. I agree that student initiated repairs are much more important to the learning process. To facilitate the student reaching this correction one can use: Metalinguistic clues, clarification request, and repetition.
This weeks reading by Thornbury was interesting in that it again emphasized the importance of good input. Unlike last week’s emphasis on good input, Thornbury talks about how good input should promote noticing and describes exercises like reformulation activities and community language learning that come in with built in mechanisms for noticing. Both readings from this week talk about how correction can some times be ineffective and seem to have an underlying theme that language acquisition should be as close to the acquisition of our first language that we acquired as infants as possible. One thing that I found particularly interesting from the the Thornbury reading was that content should be developed by the learners and the teacher should only go back and reformulate it. This seems especially important to me going to teach English in Bangladesh since there will be a significant cultural barrier and my students will be able to do a better job of coming up with relevant content than I could.
The reading by Thornbury emphasized the role of noticing for learning a language. Learners must notice the level of their speaking as compared to their target level and teachers must provide activities that encourage noticing. The second reading for this week discussed how teachers’ responses to students’ language errors have a significant effect on the quality of learning of the students. When deciding what tactics of correction to use it is important to keep in mind that student-generated corrections allow active engagement in the learning process by the students. Instead of directly giving students the answer it is better to help them come up with the correct form themselves which allows them to learn the language better.
The two readings for this week yielded many interesting concepts and theories that promote efficient language learning skills. In Thornbury’s paper, the importance of student noticing was displayed as paramount for learning. He showed that intake is increased when learners are forced to attend to linguistic features and when they notice the “gap” between their current state and developing linguistic system. Thornbury offers two main techniques to promote these two beneficial points of noticing–reformulation and reconstruction. I find the reformulation more interesting, especially as a student, because when I produce my own content I am interested in that subject, which peaks my interest in finding an intelligible way to convey my thoughts. This peaked interest urges me to try harder to notice my mistakes when the teacher reformulates my thoughts correctly. I find it slightly more difficult to agree with Thornbury’s reconstruction techniques because it allows students to not participate or engage as fully as they would with reformulation. However, I do see the merit in the opportunity to notice the gap in one’s language skills. The other reading, a research paper on error correction in language classrooms, illustrated that student-generated repairs are important in language learning because they activate engagement in the learning process on the part of the student. This finding coincides with Thornbury’s ideas, because it reinforces the idea of student’s noticing and being engaged in language skills. The key this paper outlines is that teachers need to be patient with students, and allow them to correct themselves–not provide the answer. These ideas are intuitive techniques that would help the language learning skills of many students.
This week’s reading talks more about noticing for learning a language. As a language teacher, one must know that helping students find their errors has a significant effect on their learning. They will improve their language level faster if they know where they are wrong and what is the correct answer. By the way, the strategy of correction is pretty important as well. With a effective tactic, students can develop their learning efficiency. Furthermore, to be a fantastic teacher, we not only need to give students the answer, yet also have to give them the approaches, helping them find the answer by themselves.
Throughout my Italian and German instruction, the most common technique used to aid in my learning has been recast. Consequently, I also find this the most helpful form of correction. It encourages students to formulate without the concern of being blatantly corrected of any mistakes and then allows the student to hear the correct form out loud, fostering learning as they identify the differences between what they said and the correct form. Lyster and Ranta identify two types of student uptake, one producing an expression still in need of repair and the other producing an expression in which the error was repaired. The crucial student uptake is student-generated repairs, as this fosters the learning and growth instruction is shooting for. The techniques that promote this type of feedback are elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, and repetition.
Of Lyster and Ranta’s sixt types of corrective feedback, I have received explicit correction most frequently. However, I think that elicitation or repetition are the most helpful and effective. Rather than simply providing the student the correct answer, these types of feedback allow the student to come up with the answer on their own. Lyster and Ranta identify as important “student uptake” which produces “a repair of the error on which the teacher’s feedback focused.” The whole point of correction is for the student to learn to no longer make that error, and this type of student uptake shows that they have learned that. Elicitation most frequently produced the desired kind of uptake.
This reading makes me think more about the methods I can use in my teaching sessions. I notice that both the reformulation activities and the community language learning focus much on the fact that learners should notice their individual needs. In fact, all of my tutees have different problems they want to address to, so one of them might say, “I want to practice my oral Chinese”, but the other might have problems making sentences out of the phrases he learned in class. So according to the material I’ve learned, I can put the first person in a reformulation activity mode, in which he can read a sentence and I will re-read it, so that he can compare the two versions and notice the mistakes he’s made. And to the latter kind of learners, I might use community language training, when I can ask him to form a conversation on his own, using whatever terms he has learned in class, and I will only serve as a outside help tool.Or, the learners who want to be more familiar with the grammar and specific phrases, can utilize the reconstruction method.
In my acquisition of Arabic the most common feedback that I received was Explicit Correction and recast. This is in large part because of the fine points of Arabic pronunciation and grammar. Teachers that are native speakers would usually explicitly point out my errors with the pronunciation if a short vowel or a taa marbouta or case ending. This I believe is most helpful for Arabic learners who are at a higher level. This strategy may not be the best for lower level students that still need to be reinforced about the simpler aspects of the language.The study found elicitation to be the most frequently effective type of uptake because it allowed the student to produce language themselves.
Among the six types corrective feedback outlined by Lyster and Ranta, my French professors used repetition most often. This feedback is especially helpful to beginning level students like me because it provides a less stressful environment. Among the two student uptakes, Lyster and Ranta found the one that produces a repair of the error on which the teacher’s feedback focused the most important. Because in that case, the student is actively learning rather than passively absorbing. Elicitation, Metalinguistic feedback, clarification request and repetition all produce student-generated repairs, among which elicitation is the most effective.
The type of corrective feedback I have received most frequently in my language education is repetition, especially from my parents. I find this the most helpful for me as it draws attention to my the errors I make in a fairly explicit way that still allows me to figure out the correct usage on my own. Lyster and Ranta identify student uptake “that produces a repair of the error on which the teacher’s feedback focused” as important in that the students learn from feedback provided by the teacher. The key to this type of uptake is that teachers’ initiate it. The other type of uptake will still require repair.
Out of the six types corrective feedback outlined by Lyster and Ranta, the majority of my professors used a repetition feedback system as a way of learning. This kind of feedback was helpful when I first began the Spanish acquisition because it fostered a learning environment and promoted it as well. Lyster and Ranta identify student uptake as that produces a repair of the error on which the teacher’s feedback focused. This is important because the only way a student will learn from his or her mistakes is by correction. Elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request and repetition all produce these kinds of uptakes. They concluded elicitation is the most successful.
Of the six types of corrective feedback outlined by Lyster and Ranta, I have most frequently received recast and explicit correction in my language education. I believe that after having taught many classes and having to correct so often, these are the easiest ways for professors and teachers to correct mistakes or performance slips. Teachers provide this explicit correction for papers and the many written assignments I have done for Spanish language learning. Personally though, I believe this was only effective to a certain extent that I was reminded in that moment of the correct formulation. These techniques did not help me engrain the language understanding as well as metalinguistic clues or elicitation would have. Interestingly, both of these seemed to prove more effective and important for students, according to the experiment done by Lyster and Ranta. Elicitation and metalinguistic clues actively engage students in the learning process so they can think through the rules and words, applying the knowledge better to memory.
During my own language development, I have most frequently received recast as a way to identify my errors. I find this to be helpful because I have found that I become very self-conscious while speaking in another language. Recast allows me to identify the error in my speech without feeling blatantly called out or ashamed. Lyster and Ranta suggest two different types of student uptake. These various inputs range from expressions still in need of repair to expressions in which the repair has already occurred. Lyster and Ranta would argue that student-generated repairs are the most important ones because they are the most effective in producing the desired developmental goals. The techniques, besides recast, used to create such repairs are: elicitation, clarification, request, metalinguistic feedback, and repetition.
In my own education, I probably have received a combination of explicit correction, recast, and repetition when working on language skills. Recast has probably been the most helpful because I attempted something on my own, the teacher reformulates it, and then I am able to reintegrate the correct piece into my own expression. The two types of student uptake that Lyster and Ranta identify are one that produces an expression that needs to be repaired, and one that produces an expression where the error was already repaired. Of these two, the most important form according to Lyster and Ranta is where the student generates their own repair because this encourages more development in the language. Recast does elicit this response, as does clarification, metalinguistic cues, elicitation, and repetition.
I love the emphasis from the point made in this week’s readings that corrective feedback can sometimes actually be counter-productive. I find that recast works much more effectively because it teaches me how to speak properly without calling attention to a mistake. Highlighting mistakes can definitely make the speaker feel more self-conscious and less confident when speaking which can hurt speaking ability. Lyster and Ranta offer two different types of student learning. These can range from students using expressions needing to be fixed and ones that have already been fixed.
Through my Spanish learning, the most common corrective feedback type I have received must have been recast. Oftentimes the teacher will not tell me what I said was wrong directly, put will try to have me repeat what I said, or reformulate my answer. I also find this the most helpful because it tends not to discourage discussion by repeatedly telling students they are wrong, but still encourages correctness by not letting an incorrect phrase or wording go unnoticed by the student. Lyster and Ranta define student uptake as the success in repairing of an error on which the teacher’s feedback is focused. These type of uptakes include elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request and repetition. They concluded elicitation as being the most successful through their study.
In my own experience learning Spanish, I have most frequently been a recipient of the recast and elicitation types of corrective feedback. Though each of Lyster and Ranta’s methods of corrective feedback are useful in different regards, I have found recast and elicitation to be especially helpful in my own experience to learn a foreign language. Recast strikes me as a powerful form of corrective feedback because it allows the student to acknowledge his/her error without feeling discouraged or embarrassed since the teacher is not directly indicating their mistake. Elicitation is useful in that it employs Krashen’s input hypothesis. If only recast was put into effect, the student would never be challenged to come to their own conclusions. After looking at student uptake, which included looking at data comparing all repairs in comparison to student-generated repairs, Lyster and Ranta conclude that elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic, and repetition feedback are most important in that they produce student-generated repairs and indicate active engagement in the learning process.
In my language learning, my professors have most often used the “recast” corrective feedback technique. While this method is the close cousin to explicit correction, it also offers encouragement and does not cause students’ affective filters to become too strong. My professors have also used the elicitation technique especially when the error was grammatical. I agree with Lyster and Ranta that elicitation, when appropriate, is the most effective form of corrective feedback because it engages the student directly in their own learning. Some forms of corrective feedback produce an expression still in need of correction and the other produces an expression in which the error has been repaired. As a tutor, I will use the first type whenever possible by asking for clarification, using the metalinguistic form, or elicitation form. For Chinese, since many errors are tonal, recasting is also very effective.
I taught English in Hawaii to asian students for a job two summers ago and it was there that I learned that a good way to correct students in their errors is to repeat what they said but with the proper grammar. For example if someone said “yesterday I go to the store” you would say “oh you went to the store yesterday?” and from that repetition they would understand that what they said was wrong but its less direct than outright calling them out on their errors which would cause embarrassment along with some other negative emotions. I do this with Japanese as well. When someone misuses a particle or says a wrong word I will repeat the sentence that they said using the right one and almost immediately they’ll say “OH YEAH” because they can recognize the error that they made. Then when continuing the conversation, I notice that they are now able to use the particle correctly.
In my language learning experience I feel that I have likely most frequently received recast correction. In going over the types of corrective feedback I also feel quite familiar with metalinguistic clues corrective feedback. I would say that I have likely found recast correction to be most effective because of how it has allowed me to recognize the correct form on my own and then have that be affirmed by the instructor. However, in my experience elicitation and metalinguistic clues can be very effective methods of corrective feedback as well. Both elicitation and metalinguistic clues engage the student to come up the correct language usage on his or her own that better commits the language to memory.
According to the study by Lyster and Rant it seems that the method of elicitation is the most effective in learning acquisition. Recasting might be the easiest way to correct a student but often times it does not help students repair the mistake for the next time. Personally, I prefer the elicitation method. Most of the times I know the rule, but often I forget to apply it when necessary. Elicitation forces me to try to find the correct way of framing my sentence. I feel that not only am I am improving but learning at the same time. Recasting for me often came off as criticism. Especially, when your speaking abilities are low, it seems as if everything you say is wrong, but you are not entirely sure why you continue to make the same mistakes.
The six types corrective feedback are Recast, Elicitation, Clarification Request, Metalinguistic Feedback, Explicit Correction, Repetition. The one I mostly received in my language education is explicit correction. However, I found clarification request worked best for my tutees. Usually when I asked for a clarification request, most of my tutees would immediately realize their errors and corrected themselves in the second time. Lyster and Ranta identified “uptake with repair” as the important kind because although this type of repairs does not “include self-initiated repair but rather those types of repairs that students produced in direct response to the feedback provided by the teacher.” Usually, “elicitation”, “clarification request”, “metalinguistic feedback” and “repetition” can provide this kind of uptake.
In my language classes, the type of corrective feedback most often employed by my teachers has been metalinguistics cues. I find this helpful, but prefer the method of repetition. Repetition seems to allow the most constructive criticism without greatly disrupting the flow of conversation. Lyster and Rantor define “uptake” as how the student responds to an instructor’s feedback. It is vital for students to notice their errors and correct them in a “student-generated” manner. As an instructor, one must practice self-awareness and consider how one corrects- it is ideal to use a variety of techniques. An awareness of the learner is required as well. Nothing will be accomplished by giving an answer. The learner must self-correct.
One of the biggest points that I took from Thornbury’s paper is the necessity for a student to “notice,” and to be aware of their own language learning processes. It is important for students to know the correct answers to problems, or issues that they’re struggling with. And I’ve been realizing that this process becomes even more meaningful when the students pick up on their own mistakes themselves. As a language tutor, I can do my job best to assist students in learning language the most effective way possible. This involves doing all I can to help them “notice” and discover on their own, as well as guiding them in the right direction as they search for answers. Another important aspect that was highlighted is the importance of how students respond to the feedback they’re given.