Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-fb4gq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:31:21.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Oral Corrective Feedback in Content-Based Contexts

from Part VI - Contexts of Corrective Feedback and Their Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Susan Ballinger
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

This chapter investigates oral corrective feedback (CF) in content-based contexts. Specifically, it examines how CF can play a unique and necessary role in these contexts as a means of integrating language into content instruction. However, based on studies showing teachers’ reluctance to use CF, this chapter also outlines how CF may come into direct conflict with other content-based pedagogical objectives. Owing to the great amount of diversity found among content-based contexts, this chapter considers both cross-context, CF-related issues that can inform all content-based programs as well as issues regarding CF’s use and effectiveness in specific contexts.

Keywords

Corrective feedbackcontent-based instructioncontent and language integrated instructionsecond language teacher trainingreactive instruction
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 539 - 558
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B. & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.Google Scholar
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 131–148.Google Scholar
Ballinger, S., Lyster, R., Sterzuk, A. & Genesee, F. (2017). Context-appropriate cross-linguistic pedagogy: Considering the role of language status in immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(1), 30–57.Google Scholar
Burger., S. & Chrétien, S. (2001). The development of oral production in content-based second language courses at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 84–102.Google Scholar
Cammarata, L. (ed.). (2016). Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Cammarata, L. & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different?’ Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.Google Scholar
Dafouz, E. & Camacho-Miñano, , M. (2016). Exploring the impact of English-medium instruction on university student academic achievement: The case of accounting. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 57–67.Google Scholar
Dafouz, E. & Smit, U. (2014). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual settings. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397–415.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F. & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. & Smit, U. (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and contentious issues. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. & Smit, U. (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 279–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fortune, T. & Tedick, D. (2015). Oral proficiency development of K–8 Spanish immersion students. Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 637–655.Google Scholar
Fortune, T., Tedick, D. & Walker, C. (2008). Integrated language and content teaching: Insights from the classroom. In Fortune, T. & Tedick, D. (eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 71–96). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. & Bastarrechea, M. (2017). CLIL and SLA: Insights from an interactionist perspective. In Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 33–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., & Linholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1): 3–33.Google Scholar
Helgerson, E. (2017). The effects of supporting target language use in immersion. Unpublished master’s thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC.Google Scholar
Hermes, M. (2007). Moving toward the language: Reflections on teaching in an indigenous immersion school. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), 54–71.Google Scholar
Hermes, M. & Kawai’ae’a, K. (2014). Revitalizing indigenous languages through indigenous immersion education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 303–322.Google Scholar
Hickey, T. (2007). Children’s language networks and teachers’ input in minority language immersion: What goes in may not come out. Language and Education, 21(1), 46–65.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N. (2006). Voice and biliteracy in indigenous language revitalization: Contentious educational practices in Quechua, Guarani, and Maori contexts. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 5(4), 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howatt, A. (1984). Language teaching traditions: 1884 revisited. ELT Journal, 38(4), 279–282.Google Scholar
Huang, J. (2006). Understanding factors that influence Chinese English teachers’ decision to implement communicative activities in teaching. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 3(4), 165–191.Google Scholar
Koike, D. & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2001). Bilingualism, immersion programmes and language learning in the Basque Country. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22(5), 401–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 367–375.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2007). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in English immersion classrooms at the primary level in Korea. English Teaching, 62(4), 311–334.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Han, Z. (ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindholm-Leary, K. & Genesee, F. (2014). Student outcomes in one-way, two-way, and indigenous immersion language immersion education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 165–180.Google Scholar
Llinares, A. & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–194.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271–283.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2007). Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 119–138). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153–188.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1987). Speaking immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 43(4), 701–717.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20(1), 51–80.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2017). Content-based language teaching. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 87–107). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2018). Content-based language teaching. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279–288.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J. & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English-medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariotti, C. (2006). Negotiated interactions and repair. VIEWS Vienna English Working Papers, 15, 33–41.Google Scholar
May, S. & Hill, R. (2005). Māori-medium education: Current issues and challenges. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based second language teaching. In Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35–63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milla, R. & García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskyan perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netten, J. & Spain, W. (1989). Student-teacher interaction patterns in the French immersion classroom: Implications for level of achievement in French language proficiency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 45(3), 485–501.Google Scholar
Nishimuro, M. & Borg, S. (2013). Teacher cognition and grammar teaching in a Japanese high school. JALT Journal, 35(1), 29–50.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., Sato, M., Ballinger, S. & Pan, L. (2019). Content and Language Integrated Learning classes for child Mandarin L2 learners: A longitudinal observational study. In Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 81–102). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pahissa, I. & Tragant, E. (2009). Grammar and the non-native secondary school teacher in Catalonia. Language Awareness, 18(1), 47–60.Google Scholar
Palmer, D., Ballinger, S. & Peter, L. (2014). Classroom interaction in one-way, two-way, and indigenous immersion contexts. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 225–240.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L (2016). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: in-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295.Google Scholar
Peter, L. (2014). Language ideologies and Cherokee revitalization: Impracticality, legitimacy, and hope. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(1), 96–118.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of second language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.Google Scholar
Potowski, K. (2007). Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Salomone, A. (1992). Immersion teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices: Results of a descriptive analysis. In Bernhardt, E. (ed.), Life in language immersion classrooms (pp. 9–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Oral peer corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar
Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14(1), 3–62.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future projects. In Cummins, J. & Davison, C. (eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 271–288). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. & Johnson, R. (1997). Immersion education: A category within second language education. In Swain, M. and Johnson, R. (eds.), Immersion education: International Perspectives (pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. & Zilmer, C. (2018). Teacher perceptions of immersion professional development experiences emphasizing language-focused content instruction. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 269–294.Google Scholar
Van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W. & Berry, A. (2017). Do we all share the same values on content and language integrated learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI:10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. & Kamana, K. (2011). Insights from indigenous language immersion in Hawai’i. In Tedick, D. J., Christian, D. & Williams Fortune, T. (eds.), Immersion Education: Practices, Policies, Possibilities (pp.36–57). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Yaghoubinejad, H., Zarrinabadi, N. & Nejadansari, D. (2017). Culture-specificity of teacher demotivation: Iranian junior high school teachers caught in the newly-introduced CLT trap! Teachers and Teaching, 23(2), 127–140.Google Scholar
Yang, J. (2016). Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level, and types of error. System, 61, 75–86.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×