Corrective feedback and uptake patterns in english university speaking lesson

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES NHẠC THANH HƯƠNG CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE PATTERNS IN ENGLISH UNIVERSITY SPEAKING LESSONS (HÀNH VI SỬA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ VIỆC TIẾP NHẬN CỦA SINH VIÊN TRONG GIỜ NÓI TIẾNG ANH) M.A Combined Program Thesis English Methodology Major code: 60 14 10 Hanoi - 2011 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES NHẠC THANH HƯƠNG CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE PATTERNS IN ENGLISH UNIVERSITY SPEAKING LESSONS (HÀNH VI SỬA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ VIỆC TIẾP NHẬN CỦA SINH VIÊN TRONG GIỜ NÓI TIẾNG ANH) M.A Combined Program Thesis English Methodology Major code: 60 14 10 Supervisor: Lê Văn Canh, M.A Hanoi - 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acceptance…………………………………………………………………… i Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… ii Abstract……………………………………………………………………… iii Table of contents……………………………………………………………… v Lists of abbreviations………………………………………………………… viii Lists of tables and figures…………………………………………………… ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………… 1.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study…………………… 1.2 Aims of the study………………………………………………………… 1.3 Scope of the study………………………………………………………… 1.4 Research questions……………………………………………………… 1.5 Methods of the study……………………………………………………… 1.6 Significances of the study………………………………………………… 1.7 Terminology used in the study…………………………………………… 1.8 Organization of the study………………………………………………… Summary……………………………………………………………………… CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………… 2.1 Language errors…………………………………………………………… 2.1.1 Definition of language errors…………………………………………… 2.1.2 Classification of language errors……………………………………… 10 2.1.3 Approaches to error correction………………………………………… 12 2.2 Teachers‘ corrective feedback…………………………………………… 16 2.2.1 Definition of teachers‘ corrective feedback…………………………… 16 2.2.2 Types of teachers‘ corrective feedback………………………………… 18 2.3 Learners‘ uptake………………………………………………………… 20 2.4 Issues in second language acquisition…………………………………… 23 2.4 Studies on corrective feedback in second language acquisition………… 24 Summary…………………………………………………………………… 29 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………… 30 3.1 Participants……………………………………………………………… 30 3.2 Data collection instruments……………………………………………… 33 3.3 Procedures………………………………………………………………… 37 3.3.1 Procedures of data collection…………………………………………… 37 3.3.2 Procedures of data analysis…………………………………………… 37 Summary……………………………………………………………………… 39 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS…………………………………………………… 40 4.1 An overview of students and teachers turns……………………………… 40 4.2 Two research questions…………………………………………………… 44 4.2.1 What patterns of corrective feedback occur in English speaking lessons 44 for second- year students in Hanoi Law University? 4.2.2 To what extent does that corrective feedback lead to students‘ uptake? 46 Summary……………………………………………………………………… 53 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION………………………………………………… 54 Summary……………………………………………………………………… 66 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION……………………………………………… 67 6.1 Brief summary of the findings…………………………………………… 67 6.2 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………… 70 6.3 Limitation of the study…………………………………………………… 73 6.4 Suggestions for further studies…………………………………………… 73 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………… 75 APPENDIX Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………… I Appendix 2…………………………………………………………………… II LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS ESL English as second language ELT English Language Teaching EFL English as a Foreign Language L2 Language T1, 2, Teacher 1, 2, Sts Students LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Frequency of Turns with Students Error, Teacher Feedback and Student Uptake in English- speaking periods of Pre-intermediate level Table 2: Frequency of Turns with Students Error, Teacher Feedback and Student Uptake in English- speaking periods of Intermediate level Table 3: Distribution of Total Corrective Feedback Types (of both pre-intermediate and intermediate level) Table 4: Distribution of Corrective Feedback of Pre-intermediate classes Table 5: Distribution of Corrective Feedback of Intermediate classes Table 6: Uptake Moves following Different Types of Feedback of both Preintermediate and Intermediate levels Table 7: Uptake Moves following Different types of Feedback (of Pre-intermediate level) Table 8: Uptake Moves following Different types of Feedback (of Intermediate level) Table 9: Number and Percentage of Feedback Turns leading to Repair Table 10: Number and Percentage of Repair attributed to each Feedback Type Table 11: Distribution of Repairs across Feedback Types and Error Types Figure 1: The Total for the entire Database of Pre- intermediate level Figure 2: The Total for the entire Database of Intermediate level CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces the study It begins with the presentation of the statement of the problem and rationale for the study Next, it presents the aims and scopes of the study as well as the research questions to which the study seeks to find answers This is followed by a brief description of methodology used in the present study Finally, the chapter concludes with a description of the organization of the thesis 1.1 Statement of Problem and Rationale for the Study The impact of corrective feedback on learners‘ L2 acquisition remains controversial in the second language acquisition (SLA) literature In fact, there has been some polarization of thought regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback, leading to different or even contradicting theories For example, DeKeyser (1993) states that corrective feedback is unnecessary to L2 learning In other words, corrective feedback does not lead to the acquisition of L2 However, scholars such as Brooks, Schraw, and Crippen (2002) and Mason and Bruning (2000), for example, disagree with DeKeyser, holding that feedback plays an important and crucial role in the language learning process Recently, there has been increasing empirical evidence that corrective feedback provided by teachers at least enables students to notice the gap between their interlanguage forms and the target language forms, thus helping them to restructure the inter-language grammar Additionally, corrective feedback from teachers also helps enhance students' meta- linguistic awareness (Panova and Lyster, 2002) Therefore, teachers' corrective feedback is of great importance in promoting student- generated repairs and in turn, language acquisition A literature review shows that researchers have been increasingly interested in examining the relationship between corrective feedback and uptake (Wai King Tsang, 2004) For example, negotiation of form has been shown to be able to elicit uptake and successful repair more effectively than 10 explicit correction Also it has shown that different types of feedback moves tend to function differentially according to different types of errors One issue related to corrective feedback, which has gained little agreement among researchers and scholars is which type of feedback, i.e., explicit or implicit, is more effective to learners‘ uptake For example, Carrol and Swain (1993) have suggested that learners would benefit more from direct, explicit corrective feedback, whereas other researchers, such as Lyster and Ranta (1997), Oliver (2000) and Oliver and Mackey (2003) suggest that learners learn better, when the feedback is more implicit It can be interpreted that while consensus has been reached regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback on students‘ L2 acquisition, whether explicit or implicit corrective feedback is more effective remains open This has led to confusion at the practical level As Lyster and Ranta (1997) points out that ―because of so many different approaches to feedback, second language teachers have trouble finding research that addresses practical issues of corrective feedback‖ (p 38) One of the research gaps regarding corrective feedback is that the majority of research on feedback on second language classrooms has been conducted either in the context of immersion programs (Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) or in English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms (Fanselow, 1977; Lyster & Panova, 2002) Unfortunately, few of any studies have been conducted at the University level In other words, little has been known about how adolescent EFL learners respond to different kinds of teachers‘ corrective feedback The situation is similar in Vietnam, where this research avenue seems to be unattractive to researchers Despite the efforts made by the researcher of this study, she was unable to identify any documented study on the relationship between teachers‘ corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake which is conducted on Vietnamese university EFL students This motivates the researcher to carry out the present study, which is an expansion of the one she conducted previously in a high school context The study 11 focused on the correlation between teachers‘ corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake in speaking lessons The number of participants was rather small as it focused only one level: elementary level, thus, the results, to some extent, could not reflect the behavior of a larger population at different levels For all those reasons, this study is a modest attempt to contribute to the common knowledge of the impact of corrective feedback on learners‘ L2 acquisition It also attempts to narrow the research gap in this area 1.2 Aims of Study This research aims to:  Find out the patterns of teachers' corrective feedback and learners' uptake in English speaking lessons for second- year students in Hanoi Law University  Examine the relationship between different kinds of teachers' corrective feedback and learners' uptake, so as to inform teachers of English in the context of Vietnamese university classrooms of how to enhance the effect of their corrective feedback  Identify the same and differences in the use of corrective feedback at two different levels 1.3 Scopes of the Study This study limits itself to the exploration of the types of corrective feedback that were commonly used by the teachers in the study and the relationship between different corrective feedback types on students' oral errors Thus, teachers' feedback on students' written errors is beyond the scope of this study Given the scope of the study, data for this study were collected from the observations of English speaking lessons taught to the second year students of preintermediate and intermediate levels at Hanoi Law University 12 Firstly, learners‘ outputs can be pushed to be modified by providing consistent feedback to signal clarification while delaying correction makes room for selfrepair (as suggested by Claudron 1977, 1968), and student- generated repairs, i.e self- and peer- repairs in contexts with a component of form- and- accuracy in addition to a focus on meaning More use may be, thus, made of negotiation feedback types other than recasts or explicit correction such as elicitation, metalinguistic feedback and repetition to elicit students‘ uptake and student- generated repairs In other words, teachers should make use of all types of corrective feedback, especially elicitation, clarification requests, meta- linguistic feedback and repetition to increase the rates of students‘ uptake and repairs Through using those techniques, teachers can achieve their goals of correcting errors and enhance students‘ inspiration of self- correcting in particular and self- study in general Specifically, teachers‘ use of negotiation techniques, to some extent, may result in long- term effects on students‘ process of second language acquisition This may open an interesting research avenue Secondly, teachers have to choose different types of feedback moves in response to different types of errors in order to ensure the most effective learners‘ uptake The findings of this study show that recasts and explicit corrections are suitable for phonological errors as they help teachers achieve their goals in such a short time but still are very effective Students themselves also like correct model for pronunciation as in fact, the most effective way of studying pronunciation is listening, imitating and repeating Moreover, negotiation facilitates grammatical and lexical repairs This finding parallels with Piea‘ idea (1994): ―Negotiation enables the learners to acquire grammar as a result of engaging in authentic use‖ Hence, when giving corrective feedback, teachers should take notice of types of errors to find out the most suitable and useful kinds of feedback, which can lead to the highest rate of students‘ uptake and repair 80 Thirdly, choice of teachers‘ corrective feedback types also depends on students‘ L2 proficiency level The participants of the study involved students of both preintermediate and intermediate levels show that classes with more high- level students of English should be provided with negotiation techniques such as elicitation, repetition and meta- linguistic feedback, etc because they may have a enough basic knowledge and linguistic resources to self- repair In contrast, classes with less advanced learners may have predisposed the teacher to focus on providing linguistic input via reformulation as those students may not have enough linguistic resources to understand as well to response to teachers‘ indication Thus, teachers working with those kinds of students may view recasts and explicit correction as a suitable strategy for providing exemplars of the target language Last but not least, the informal talk with four teachers of English teaching in preintermediate and intermediate classes being observed shows that the choice of types of correction also relies on specific grammar or lexis phenomena For new phenomena of grammar and lexis, recasts and especially explicit corrections are more favored as students may not yet deeply understand them By providing explicit correction, students have the change of revising new knowledge Thus, in this case, elicitation, meta- linguistic feedback, repetition, and especially clarification requests seem to have no impact on students Moreover, in such a case, the use of those methods is time- consuming However, for revised knowledge, it is better to use negotiation technique as it will elicit self- repair or peer- pair, which can have longterm effects on learners‘ second language acquisition 81 6.3 Limitations of the Study Due to time constraints, this study is not without limitations: Firstly, the research is a study for second- year students in English speaking lessons, which focuses only on one phenomenon in a specific University Thus, it is hard to generalize its findings to other universities and other contexts Secondly, the number of participants in this study is rather small Thus, the results, to some extent, cannot reflect the behavior of a larger population The third limitation concerns the methodology In the present study, only one instrument namely, classroom observation was used The researcher has not carried out survey questionnaire for students to get their views as well as their preferences for teachers‘ correction Thus, researcher cannot know whether teachers‘ ways of correction are perceived to be suitable or preferred by students Lastly, whether or not the effectiveness and substantial changes that corrective feedback can bring to the learners‘ language development over time is still a question of much controversial As this study is interpretive rather than experimental in nature, it has not been able to indicate whether corrective feedback can have long- term effect on students‘ language development 6.4 Suggestions for Further Studies This part is suggested for addressing the acknowledge limitations Firstly, they should be carried out in a larger scale with a greater number of observed classes To make it clear, observation across a wide range of levels and across different types of lessons at different universities over a long period of time 82 should be implemented, from which patterns of corrective feedback and their relationship with uptake can be revealed more clearly The results, therefore will be more generalized and to determine feedback types that most frequently lead to repair Secondly, further research should survey students‘ views on correction, from which suitable and effective ways of correction can be drawn to respond to learners‘ needs and preferences Thirdly, the present study shows the different levels of the effectiveness of different types of corrective feedback, more in-depth studies which test the effectiveness of the lesser used, but more effective feedback types identified in this study namely clarification requests, meta-linguistic feedback and elicitation should be conducted Moreover, further studies should be carried out in the form of ―experimental studies‖, which employ a control and an experimental group to empirically test the effects of different patterns of corrective feedback on learners‘ uptake For example, the experimental group will be provided with corrective feedback while the control group will not After a definite time of treatment, immediate and delayed tests will be carried out to find whether corrective feedback can bring about substantial and long-term changes to students‘ language development Lastly, since this study focuses on the observed interaction of teachers and students, without consideration for the generative conditions of the learning process (particularly teachers, knowledge, experience, teaching style, and judgment), further studies should be conducted, which would explore possible links between these generative-condition variables to the positive or negative impacts of various types of feedback 83 REFERENCES Allwright, D., & Bailey, K (1991) Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press Brown, H.D (1994) Principles of Language learning and teaching New York: Prentice Hall Regents Brooks, D W., Schraw, G P., & Crippen K J (2002) Performance-related feedback: The hallmark of efficient instruction Retrieved on 07/15/05 from http://dwb4.unl.edu/dwb/Research/JCE-2002-0504.pdf Calve, P 1992 ‗Corriger ou ne pas corriger, la n‘est pas la question‘, The Canadian Modern Language Review 48: 458-71 Carroll, S., & Swain, M (1993) Explicit and Implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386 Cathcart, R., and J Olsen 1976 ‗Teachers‘ and Students‘ Preferences for Correction of Classroom Errors‘, in J Fanselow and R Crymes (eds.), On TESOL ’76 (Washington: TESOL): 41-53 Chaudron, C (1977) A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners‘ errors Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46 Chaudron, C (1988) Second language classrooms New York: Cambridge University Press DeKeyser, R (1993) The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency Modern Language Journal, 77, 501-514 Doughty, C., & Varela, E (1998) Communicative focus on form In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 129-154) New York: Cambridge University Press Edge, J (1989) Mistakes and Correction London: Longman Ellis, R (1994) The study of second language acquisition Oxford: OUP 84 Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S (2001) Learner uptake in communicative ESL Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318 Ellis,R Loewen, S., & Erlam, R (2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339- 368 Fanselow, J (1977) The treatment of error in oral work Foreign Language Annals, 10, 583-593 Gass, S (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Gass, S., and E Varonis 1994 ‗Input, Interaction, and Second Language Production‘, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 283-302 Gass, S & Selinker, L (2001) Second language acquisition: An introductory course Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hammersley, M (Ed.) (1986) Controversies in classroom research Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press Harmer, J (2001) The practice of English language teaching London: Longman Harmer, P (2005) How and when should teachers correct? Research News: The Newsletter of t he IATEFL REsearch SIG, 15, 38-39 Henderickson, J M (1978) Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398 Krashen S (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Pergamon Krashen, S (1992) The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411 Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N (1990) Focus- on- form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448 Lumetta, J (2005) Feedback for learners: Effective techniques and strategies University of Illinois 85 Lyster, R., & Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66 Lyster, R (1998a) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms Language Learning, 48, 183-218 Lyster, R (1998b) Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81 Long, M H (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition In W.C Ritchie & T K Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp 413-468).San Diego, CA: Academic Press Loewen, S (2004) Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons Language Learning, 54(1), 153-188 MacKey, A., & Philp, J (1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recast, responses, and red herrings The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356 Mackey, A., Gass, S.M and McDonough, K 2000: How learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22: 471_97 Mason, B J., & Bruning, R (2000) Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us Retrieved on 07/15/05, from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html Medley, D M (1992) Structured observation In M C Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp 1310-1315) New York: Macmillan Oliver, R., & Mackey, A (2003) Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519–533 Panova, I., & Lyster, R (2002) Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom Pienemann et al 1981 (cited in Ellis, 1994) 86 Richard, J.C., & Platt J et H (1992) Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics Maylaysia: Longman Truscott, J 1996: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Language Learning 46: 327_69 Tsang, (2004) W.K Feedback and uptake in teacher- student interaction: an analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classroom City university of Hong Kong, 35 (2), 187- 209 Sheen, R (2000) Review: Doughty and Williams: Focus on Form in SLA-Part I Linguist List 11 1598 Retrieved February 22, 2002, from http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/11/11-1598.html Sheen, Y (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300 Snow, C (1977) Mother’s Speech Research: from insight to interaction Cambridge University Press Spada, N (1997) Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research Language Teaching 30(75): 73-85 Swain, M (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development In S Gass & C Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp 235-253) Rowley, MA: Newbury House Swain, M (1988) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68-83 Stubbs, M., & Delamont, S (1976) Explorations in classroom observation London, New York, Sydney, Toronto: Wiley Ur, P (2006) Accuracy and Correcting mistakes Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Van Lier, L (1988) The classroom and the language learner New York: Longman 87 White, L (1991) Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom Second Language Research, 7(2), 133-161 Waxman, H C., Tharp, R G., & Hilberg, R S (Eds.) (2004) Observational research in U.S classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press Young, S (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classroom across instructional settings Language Teaching Research, 8, (3), 263300 88 APPENDIX OBSERVATIONAL SCHEME Les Stu son den t turn Student error Gram matica l Teacher feedback Phono Lex Expl Re logical ical icit cas corre t ction 10 11 12 89 Met aling uisti c feed back Student uptake Clarifi Elicit Repe Wi cation ation tition th reques re t pai r Wit hou t repa ir APPENDIX EXAMPLES OF ERRORS, CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE FROM CLASS OBSERVATION Example 1: S: She had the best sales results of the team during the last five years (grammatical error) T: very good She has had (recast) S: and she is excellent at Polish and Russian (topic continuance) Example 2: S: He is very calm He moves and talks slow T: uhu, slowly (recast) S: yes, he moves and talks slow (topic continuance) Example 3: S: one conference room /kɒ nfarəns/ (wrongly pronunciation) T: one conference room /kɒ nfərəns/ (recast) S: one conference room /kɒ nfərəns/ (uptake- repair) Example 4: S: I want to have helpful colleagues /ˈkɒ lɪ dʒ / (wrongly pronunciation) T: we pronounce /ˈkɒ liˈɡ /, not /ˈkɒ lɪ dʒ / (explicit correction) S: oh, yes /ˈkɒ liˈɡ / (uptake- repair) Example 5: S: In order to getting a full refund, customers must send back goods… T: Excuse me? In order to getting or in order to get? (clarification request) S: in order to get a full refund,… (uptake- repair) 90 Example 6: S: The company is wanting to achieve record sales this year T: sorry, what tense we use? (elicitation ) DiS: Ah, the company wants to achieve record sales this year, so….(uptake- repair) Example 7: S: Luke is quite ambitious and does not want to be a sales assistant all his life In fact, he hopes to make a promotion very soon T: Do we say: ―make a promotion‖ in English? (meta-linguistic feedback) S: sorry, get a promotion (uptake- repair) Example 8: S: …………high promotion (lexical error) T: high promotion? (repetition with rising intonation) S: high promotion and…(uptake- needs repair) Example 9: S: She is doing a bath now, so she cannot answer the telephone (lexical error) T: Do we say: ―doing a bath‖ in English? (meta-linguistic feedback) S: yes, she is doing a bath, so… (uptake- needs repair) T: Doing a bath? (repetition with rising intonation) S: yes, she does a bath (uptake- different mistake) T: yes, she is having a bath, so… (recast) S: oh, yes, she is doing a bath (uptake- needs repair) Example 10: S: I think Barbara is the most suitable for the position because she has a very strong personality She is quite energy and confident….(grammatical mistake) 91 T: ok, quite energetic and… (recast) S: yes, she is quite energetic and confident She….(uptake- repair) Example 11: S: I vote for Barbara, who appears confidently during the interview….(grammatical mistake) T: appears confidently….? (repetition with high intonation) S: yes, she appears confidently and she has a good knowledge of…(uptake- needs repair) Example 12: S: He works hardly, which is important factor to…(grammatical mistake) T: what you mean by saying ―works hardly?‖ (meta-linguistic feedback) S: sorry, he works hard, which….(uptake- repair) Example 13: S: I don‘t like shopping online as we can‘t know the true quality of the production we are going to buy (lexical error) T: Do we say: ―the production‖ in this sentence? (meta-linguistic feedback) DifS: the true quality of the product we are going to buy (uptake- repair) Example 14: S: In my opinion, the main cause of stress at work is pressure /ˈprezə(r)/at work For example, you have to so many things at the same time and still… (phonological error) T: we pronounce /ˈpreʃ ə(r)/, not /ˈprezə(r)/ (explicit correction) S: yes, /ˈpreʃ ə(r)/ ( uptake- repair) Example 15: 92 S: I think the Long Beach Hotel best meets the requirements of the conference as this is an important event of our company This hotel offer us with a huge amount of activities (lexical error) T: good, a huge number of activities (recast) S: and the price is suitable for our budget…(topic continuance) Example 16: S: The most qualities and skills a good manager should have is to listen to others and to judge people‘s abilities T: Excuse me? (clarification request) S: are to listen to others… Example 17: S: To be a good manager, you need understand that there are… T: sorry, what‘s the verb? ( Elicitation) DifS: to be a good manager, you need to understand that…(uptake- repair) Example 18: S: Beside the advantages a relatively young manager has, he has to face so many challenges, one of that is his colleagues think he does not have enough experiences (grammatical error) T: one of that? (repetition with high intonation) S: yes, and he….(topic continuance) Example 19: S: I not like aggressive behavior Thus, if I knew a colleague criticized me, I will speak face to face with him and….(grammatical mistake) T: what tense you use in this sentence? (elicitation) DfS: I would speak face to face with him…(uptake- repair) 93 Example 20: S: One of the most factors contribute to successful marketing is a good and creative campaign… T: excuse me? (clarification request) S: one of the most factors that contributes to….(uptake- repair) Example 21: S: To make an effective presentation, you should find out as many as possible about your audience (lexical mistake) T: ok, good, find out as much as possible about…(recast) S: yes, and you should change your tone…(topic continuance) Example 22: S: According to me, three most important negotiating tips is: to be friendly, to listen carefully….(grammatical mistake) T: Do we say: ―three most… is‖ in English? (meta-linguistic feedback) S: oh, three most important negotiating tips are:….(uptake- repair) 94 ... Teacher Feedback and Student Uptake in English- speaking periods of Pre-intermediate level Table 2: Frequency of Turns with Students Error, Teacher Feedback and Student Uptake in English- speaking. .. the findings to see whether there were any differences in the use of corrective feedback and its relationship with learners‘ uptake in English speaking lessons of pre- intermediate and intermediate... corrective feedback and learners' uptake in English speaking lessons for second- year students in Hanoi Law University  Examine the relationship between different kinds of teachers' corrective feedback