Corrective Feedback Analysis

In this paper, I extracted five pieces of corrective feedbacks from the video clip. Various
styles of corrective feedback were utilized in the class according to the specific situation,
some of which were explicit and some of which were implicit.
The first segment
T: Ive got this. Whats this?
S: Pocket.
T: Wallet. (pat on his pocket)This is a pocket. (00:42)
It is a lexical problem that some students didnt know how to call the wallet and the
difference between pocket and wallet. The teacher employed explicit correction to give
students corrective feedback. He gave the correct answer directly and told students the real
meaning of pocket.
I think the corrective feedback here is quite useful because these two words are not
difficult to understand. He can use the things at hand to present to the students without an
extra explanation. Also, the misuse of the correct word may be because some students
didnt know the word wallet. So giving them the correct answer directly will be efficient.
If I were he, I might combine explicit correction with elicitation. After one student said
pocket, I would point to my pocket and say this is a pocket, and then wave the wallet in
my hand and say so this is a. It would give some time to the students who might have
seen wallet before, but just forgot it at that point. I am not quite sure about the level of the
students. If most of them seem not to know the word before, I would also write it down on
the blackboard.
The second segment
S: I am not sure. But I think that I didnt lost anything.
T: I havent.
S: I havent lost anything?
T: Good. (4:04)
It is a misuse of the simple present tense. The teacher employed explicit correction to
directly correct the students mistake and the student was able to utilize the structure in her
sentence afterwards. It is really a quick and efficient way to present the correct form to the
student, but I am kind of worried whether the student really got why she should use
havent lost instead of didnt lost. Even though she could keep the form in mind, she
might be confused about the nuances between these tenses. So if I were the teacher, I would
clarify the issue. Or I would use the metalinguistic cues to give corrective feedbackof
course it is based on the presupposition that the students have learned the simple past
tense and present perfect tense, so they can grasp my metalinguistic cues.
The third segment
S: But someones stolen something to me.
T: To me, or Stolen to me? Stolen f
S: From me?
T: Very good. (4:10)
This corrective feedback involves two types of correctionrepetition and elicitation.
After the student spoke stolen something to me, the teacher repeated the mistake
slowlyto me, stolen to me, to indicate there might be something wrong with the
expression. It seemed that the student realized she was wrong because she stopped to
think, but she couldnt generate the correct version. So the teacher provided more
information by just saying stolen, which meant that the problem might lie in the
following word. What interested me was he pronounced the first sound of the word from,
which gave the student more hint to come up with the correct answer. It is workable,
because the student spoke out from quickly, but I was considering whether the hint sound
would lead the student to think about the answer from another way, instead of focusing on
the different meanings of the prepositions.
I would use repetition and elicitation as well without giving any hint in the sound. I might
use gestures to suggest what to means (by removing hand closer to myself) and what
from means (by removing hand farther). I think it would be a better way to help them
understand the difference between from and to and come up with the correct
expression.
The fourth segment--
T: So whats the word that someone keeps everything at a certain place, you can say all
the things are orga
S: Organization.
T: That is the noun, but the adjective is
S1: Orga
S2: Organized
T: Organized. The things are organized. (5:32)
In this segment, the teacher utilized the metalinguistic cues to help students correct their
mistake, which is a lexical problem. When the students gave organization as a word to
describe things in order, the teacher explicitly pointed out that is the noun, but here an
adjective is needed. So students generated the adjective form according to the noun. I think
using metalinguistic cues in this situation is reasonable. Judging from the students
response, they had these words in mind. What the teacher did was to recall their knowledge
about these words. I think I would do the same in this situation.
The fifth segment
S: They must thinking
T: they must thinking? They must
S: Think?
T: Not thinking. Must
S: Think? (9:36)
The error is misuse of the modal verb, to be specific, using the simple verb form after the
modal. Repetition, elicitation and explicit correction were used in this situation. The teacher
first repeated the incorrect sentence to remind the student and then he stopped in the
middle of the sentence, waiting for the students response. After the student gave the
correct answer, he explicitly stated not thinking to emphasize on the structure and then
he did the elicitation again, until the student spoke out think with more certainty.
I would say this corrective feedback is quite effective because the mistake was more
about the structure. We can tell the student has learned how to use modal verb, or at least
she had the basic idea of how it should be like. So the teacher repeated her mistake and gave
her some space to generate the correct structure. And then he reiterated to make sure she
could remember it clearly. I think I would do it in a similar way.
Based on the above analysis, we can see the teacher really did a great job in selecting
various corrective feedbacks according to the situation. I would say the explicit corrective
feedback is quick and efficient and it is more applicable when there are some new
expressions that the students may not know or the teacher really wants to emphasize on
some specific structures. On the contrary, the implicit feedback will elicit more from the
students hopefully and it will work better when the students have got some prior
knowledge. However, there is no clear-cut answer when we should use one type and when
we should use another. It all depends on the nature of the error, the level of the students,
the students learning habit and so on.