Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study is based on the comparison between two Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts – in Madrid, Spain and in Hanoi, Vietnam – with a focus on teachers’ use of oral corrective feedback in classroom interaction at the primary school level. The model of corrective feedback (CF) developed by Lyster and Ranta (1997) and reproduced in Lyster and Mori (2006) was adapted for the analysis of teachers’ CF on errors of form and learners’ uptake. Participants of the study include three Spanish-native teachers in three bilingual schools in Madrid and four Vietnamese-native teachers in two bilingual schools in Hanoi, all at the primary school level. All classroom data was collected in CLIL natural-science classes in both settings. Results from the study showed that the overall CF patterns were very similar in both contexts with recasts as the most frequent CF type, followed by prompts and explicit correction. More specific differences were observed in the levels of uptake and repair following each type used by different teachers across the two contexts.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ammar, A., & Spada, N.
    (2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574. 10.1017/S0272263106060268
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060268 [Google Scholar]
  2. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D.
    (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. 10.1093/applin/amt011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009024549
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024549 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. 10.1093/applin/amu010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010 [Google Scholar]
  5. Devos, N. J.
    (2016) Peer interactions in new content and language integrated settings. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑22219‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22219-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Doughty, C.
    (1994) Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. InJ. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1993. Strategic interaction, 96–108. Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Doughty, C., & Varela, E.
    (1998) Communicative focus on form. InC. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 114–138. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y.
    (2006) Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600. 10.1017/S027226310606027X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X [Google Scholar]
  9. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S.
    (2001) Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00156
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00156 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2001) Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407–432. 10.2307/3588029
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588029 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gooch, R., Saito, K., &, Lyster, R.
    (2016) Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. Science Direct, 601, 117–127. 10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gumperz, J., & Berenz, N.
    (1993) Transcribing conversational exchanges. InJ. A. Edwards, Martin D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 91–121. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R.
    (2008) Conversation analysis, (2nd Ed.). Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Langford, D.
    (1994) Analysing talk: Investigating verbal interaction in English. Macmillan Education. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑23533‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23533-9 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. 10.1080/09571736.2014.889509
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889509 [Google Scholar]
  16. Llinares, A.
    (2015) Integration in CLIL: a proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–73. 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925 [Google Scholar]
  17. Loewen, S.
    (2002) The occurrence and effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lyster, R.
    (1998a) Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81. 10.1017/S027226319800103X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319800103X [Google Scholar]
  19. (1998b) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00039
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00039 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lyster, R., & Mori, H.
    (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300. 10.1017/S0272263106060128
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. 10.1017/S0272263197001034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lyster, R., & Saito, K.
    (2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. 10.1017/S0272263109990520
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M.
    (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. 10.1017/S0261444812000365
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mackey, A. & Philp, J.
    (1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01211.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Mackey, A., Gass, S. M. & McDonough, K.
    (2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497. 10.1017/S0272263100004010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004010 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.6018/ijes/14/1/151841
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/14/1/151841 [Google Scholar]
  27. Milla, Ruth & García Mayo, María del Pilar
    (2021) Teachers’ oral corrective feedback and learners’ uptake in high school CLIL and EFL classrooms. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 149–176. 10.35869/vial.v0i18.3368
    https://doi.org/10.35869/vial.v0i18.3368 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nhan, T.
    (2013) Promoting content and language integrated learning in gifted high schools in Vietnam: Challenges and impacts. The Internet Journal Language, Culture and Society, 381, 146–153. URL: aaref.com.au/en/publications/journal/
    [Google Scholar]
  29. O’Donnell, M.
    (2008) UAM corpus tool. www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ohta, A. S.
    (2000) Re-thinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. InJ. K. Hall & L. Verplaeste, (Eds.). The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction, 47–71. Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Panova, I., & Lyster, R.
    (2002) Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an Adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. 10.2307/3588241
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pérez-Vidal, C.
    (2009) The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (The second time around). InE. Dafouz, & M. C. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts, 3–16. Santilana Educacion/ Richmond Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Preacher, K. J.
    (2001) Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence. quantpsy.org
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ranta, L., & Lyster, R.
    (2007) A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. InR. DeKeyser, (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 141–160. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667275.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.009 [Google Scholar]
  35. Saito, K., & Lyster, R.
    (2012a) Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00639.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.x [Google Scholar]
  36. (2012b) Investigating the pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 387–398. 10.1002/tesq.25
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.25 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sheen, Y.
    (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300. 10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa [Google Scholar]
  38. Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R.
    (2011) Corrective feedback in language teaching. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 593–610. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203836507
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203836507 [Google Scholar]
  39. To, T. T. H.
    (2010) Learning through English: Insights from Vietnam. InR. Johnstone (Ed.), Learning through English: Policies, challenges and prospects. British Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tsang, W. K.
    (2004) Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. RELC Journal, 35(2), 187–209. 10.1177/003368820403500207
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820403500207 [Google Scholar]
  41. Vu, T. T. N.
    (2017) The Vietnamese agenda of adopting English as a medium of instruction. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 33(3), 53–65. https://js.vnu.edu.vn
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, W., & Li, S.
    (2021) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in American ESL and Chinese EFL classrooms: A comparative study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(1), 35–50. 10.1080/07908318.2020.1767124
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1767124 [Google Scholar]
  43. Williams, J.
    (2001) The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(01)00022‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00022-7 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error