This article focused on the investigation of the differences in the frequency of language learning strategy use by successful and unsuccessful first-year students of a Chinese university.. The study found that successful sudents used a wider range of learning strategies for EFL learning significantly more frequently than unsuccessful students. It was also found that the strategies often employed by the successful students are different from those often preferred by their unsuccessful peers. The former often used deep, L2-based, association, active participation, language use, positive-attitude taking and learning-process monitoring strategies that are likely to make more contributions to successful L2 learning while the latter tended to use surface, L1-based, word-level, rote memory and gesture strategies.
This research aimed to study the error treatment sequences, namely, learner error and teacher feedback in 4 classrooms taught by 2 native English speaking and 2 non-native English speaking teachers respectively. 12.3 hours of classroom interactions were analyzed using the correction analytic model comprising teacher feedback, student uptake and student repair. Results showed that error treatment sequences including recast tended to lead to high rate of students' no response in both Native and Non-Native teachers' classes; while those consisting of elicitation, clarification and repetition, seemed to be more effective as could be seen in high rate of students' self-repairs in both types of classrooms; and the error treatment sequence linked by explicit correction generated more repairs in Non-Native teachers' class. All these results may suggest that both Native and Non-Native teachers should avoid producing error treatment sequences including recast and try to initiate the sequences containing elicitation, clarification or repetition in order to trigger student repairs effectively.
Based on Lyster and Ranta (1997), this current study made a comparison between native and non-native English speaking teachers' corrective feedback to students' errors, and also between different teachers' feedback types and students' uptake. The database consisted of 738 minutes' or 12.3 hours' classroom observation, including two types of teachers, six types of corrective feedback and two types of student uptake. Results showed that recast was the most frequently used feedback type across all the teachers, which simultaneously led to low rate of learner repairs; non-native English speaking teachers provided overwhelmingly more feedback than native teachers, and they tended to use more recast; both native and non-native teachers preferred to use varied kind of feedback at similar distribution which might suggest that corrective feedback did not necessarily rely on teacher types with students of the same proficiency level; elicitation tended to be the most effective feedback type in both native and non-native teachers' class, which might indicate that feedback types which can trigger negotiation of form were effective no matter what types of teachers use them. The results suggested that teachers should avoid using recast and opt for elicitation for more effective learning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.