the interface of error types, teacher’s feedback, and students’ uptake
Clicks: 193
ID: 254028
2014
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
193 views
42 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #65 of 115 articles by views in neuropeptides
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The present study is an attempt to investigate the frequency of different types of errors committed by EFL learners and the most prevalent types of errors, the types of corrective feedback do EFL teachers provide primarily in their classes and the students’ reaction followed by feedback, and the combination of corrective feedback and learner uptake leading to negotiation of form. To perform this study, an observational, analytical and descriptive study was conducted. For collecting data, six classes with 6 different instructors were chosen. The number of participants was 60 female students who were at intermediate level from two subsidiaries of Jahad Language Institutes in Karaj, Albourz Province. Homogeneous groups of language learners were selected. Each class was observed for 5 sessions and the interactions among students and instructors in different classes were recorded. The coding scheme was according to Lyster and Ranta’ (1997) model with some additional parts. Two other types of feedback were added, translation and multiple feedback. Also a combination of errors, multiple errors, was added. The analysis of the database showed that among five types of errors, i.e. phonological, grammatical, lexical, multiple errors and L1, the phonological and grammatical errors were committed primarily by students (43% and 30% respectively). From eight types of feedback given to learners, explicit feedback and recast were the most frequent types of feedback provided by the instructors. Finally, four types of feedbacks including elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback and repetition of errors led to student uptake: self repair and peer correction.
| Reference Key |
zoghi2014internationalthe
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Abdolsaleh Zoghi;Jahanbakhsh Nikoopour |
| Journal | neuropeptides |
| Year | 2014 |
| DOI |
10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.1p.54
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.