Revisiting the Ambiguity of Recasts
نویسنده: Farrokhi، Farahman؛
تابستان 1384 - شماره 195 علمی-پژوهشی/ISC (42 صفحه - از 99 تا 140)
This article reports on an empirical investigation of the teachers’ correction of students’ spoken errors of linguistic forms in EFL classes, aiming at exploring the existing controversy in the literature regarding the ambiguity of recasts - a form of corrective feedback. More specifically, the focus of this study is to investigate why recasts might be taken simply as confirmation of meaning and non-corrective repetition rather than as a corrective reformulation. The database is drawn from transcripts of audio-recordings of 25 lessons from five teachers (five lessons from each teacher) totaling 31 hours and including 752 error correction exchanges. Analysis of the data suggested that ignoring the structural differences between various types of recasts and taking them as one single corrective feedback type might have given rise to two different views of recasts as to the extent to which recasts might be taken as feedback on form. Hence, recasts were divided into two distinct types of marked and unmarked ones. Uptake was taken as the criterion for measuring the effectiveness of recasts and the extent to which learners might ‘notice’ different types of recasts, though only at an observable verbal level. Findings indicate that the rate of uptake move following marked recasts is considerably higher than that of unmarked ones. The article concludes by arguing that marked recasts are less likely to be taken as confirmation of meaning rather than feedback on form. However, this possibility is much higher in unmarked recasts in which there is no added focus on the corrective reformulation to help the students recognise it as feedback on form.خلاصه ماشینی:
"If uptake is taken as a main immediate measure of the effectiveness of different types of feedback – as is the case in the current studies of error correction in the literature – the issue of the ambiguity of recasts might require re-interpretation. The third type of uptake move is repair, defined as the student’s production of the targeted feature in response to the teacher’s feedback when the teacher does not already provide the correct form. Uptake might have some form of self-correction by the students in response to the teacher’s attempt to deal with their non-target-like utterances (as in negotiated feedback), or might be the students’ repetition or acknowledgement of the corrected form (as in recasts and explicit correction). Uptake might have some form of self-correction by the students in response to the teacher’s attempt to deal with their non-target-like utterances (as in negotiated feedback), or might be the students’ repetition or acknowledgement of the corrected form (as in recasts and explicit correction). In contrast, some other researchers have argued that recasts are ambiguous and students may fail to notice the differences between their non-target-like utterances and the recasts, taking corrective reformulations as non-corrective repetitions (Aston 1986; Foster 1998; Lyster 1998a, 1998b; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Netten 1991). In contrast, recasts have sometimes been defined as corrective reformulations of students’ non-target-like forms, accompanied by some attention-getting elements to give the reformulation an added focus (see Chaudron, 1977,1988; Doughty and Varela, 1998; Nicholas et al."
- دریافت فایل ارجاع :
- (پژوهیار, , , )