1. Interactional corrective feedback in L1 & L2 learning Krakow 2006 Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agency for schools, London

2. Competence: implications for Language Education Framework Competence LAC LS LE Policy makers KALTeachers Cognitive + Socio- affective level Curriculum Planners Standard language + dialect Learners Social inclusion

3. 3 Assessment & competence personalsocialformaleducationalprofessiona l competence Assessment for learning + Interactional corrective feedback

4. Why correct errors? 1. Self-repair 2. Assist transitional competence 3. Develop metalinguistic awareness 4. Avoid fossilisation

5. What errors? Corders systematic errors When? immediately? / defer? How? implicitly? / explicitly?

6. Corrective feedback dimensions TypesRecasts: repetitions / expansions Cognitive orientation Develop grammatical knowledge > self-monitor PsychologicalPositive-affective + negative- cognitive ImplicitConfirmation checks / requests for clarification ExplicitOvert statements: learners output not appropriate

7. Most effective feedback in L2 1. Locate errors 2. Immediate rejection + repetition of error in emphatic tone 3. Metalinguistic explanation > self- correction 4. Rephrase original question if no self- correction 5. Peer assistance if no self-correction

8. Least successful feedback Exact repetition of error Expansion Mixed Intonation idiosyncrasy

9. 9 Empirical enquiry: corrective feedback 33 education authorities 65 primary schools – 1 teacher in each 33 schools > questionnaire 33 schools > interview Cross-validation Observation study: 8 questionnaire schools

10. Feedback type by 65 teachers Feedback To speaking and writing Questionnaire mentions Interview mentions Total mentions % covert34215542.3 overt11223325.4 mixed21194030.8 none221.5 130100

11. Feedback to speaking Covert > speaking Overt > speaking Wilcoxon 2-tailed test Questionnaire teachers 193Z= -3.411; p=.001<.01 Interview teachers165Z= -2.400; p=.016 <.05

12. Cross-validated findings: 8 questionnaire teachers observed feedback in recorded lessons Total Utterances Total Feedback Utterances Positive + negative + % of TU Total Corrective Feedback + % of TFU Total Overt Corrective Feedback + % of TCF Total Covert Corrective Feedback + % of TCF 74633883 (52%) 2185 (56.3%) 519 (23.8%) 1666 (76.2%)

13. Learner errors corrected covertly Total linguistic errors Errors treated CVF % Errors treated OVF %Errors ignored % 33724071.2%3510.4%6218.4%

14. Confusing feedback CVN = covert negative CON = covert overt negative CNP = covert negative positive Total CVF teacher utterances CVN%CON%CNP% 1666110466.3%12007.2%44226.5%

15. Feedback dilemma This reveals what must be a source of ambiguity for young L2 learners as well as a dilemma for teachers whose mandate is to teach both language and content: namely, how to reinforce the substantive content of student messages while giving them clear messages about language form Lyster, 1998, p 71

16. Covert Negative Positive: example 8 utterances on Christmas 1Ppl it comes every year 2Tch It comes every year. [rcr][cvp][tn3] 3Tch Right. [ovp][tn5] 4Tch Very good. [ovp][tn1] 5Tch Well done. [ovp][tn5] 6Tch What else? [cnp][tn1][rf] 7Tch It comes every year. [rcr][cnp][tn3] 8Tch That doesnt explain a lot. [cnp][tn1]

17. Error correction: 6 childrens attitudes to error correction at 3 different times over a period of 10 lessons Do you like being corrected? – 18 occasions Yes / NoHow?Why? 6Lesson 2 Lesson 4 Interview YES 17 94% Any wayTo learn No 1Did not want to be told correct version Liked to learn from own mistakes

18. Conclusion: corrective feedback metalinguistic Recasts X Idiosyncratic ? Confusing ?