Oral Corrective Feedback in the EFL Classroom. An Empirical Investigation of Forms- and Message-Focused Phases of EFL Lessons

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Oral Linguistic Errors and Mistakes and Different Error Types
2.2 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback
2.3 Factors which Influence the Treatment of OCF in the English Foreign Language Classroom
2.3.1 Phases of a Lesson
2.3.2 Oral Corrective Feedback Concerning Different Ages of the Learners
2.3.3 Teacher Preference Concerning OCF Types
2.4 Research Question and Hypotheses

3 Methodology
3.1 Informants of the Study and the Data Collection Procedure
3.2 The Employed Research Instrument
3.3 Data Handling
3.4 Methodological Strengths and Limitations

4 Results
4.1 The Extent of OCF Concerning Different Error Types in Forms- and Message- Focused Phases of a Lesson
4.2 The Usage of Different Feedback Types in Forms- and Message-Focused Phases of a Lesson
4.3 The Extent of OCF Concerning Different Ages of the Students in Forms- and Message- Focused Phases of a Lesson
4.4 The Usage of Different Feedback Types Concerning Different Ages of the Students in Forms- and Message-Focused Phases of a Lesson
4.5 The Extent of Teacher Preferences Concerning Different OCF Types in Forms­and Message- Focused Phases of a Lesson

5 Discussion
5.1 The Extent of OCF Concerning Different Error Types in Forms- and Message- Focused Phases of a Lesson
5.2 The Usage of Different Feedback Types in Forms- and Message-Focused Phases of a Lesson
5.3 The Extent of OCF Concerning Different Ages of the Students in Forms- and Message- Focused Phases of a Lesson
5.4 The Usage of Different Feedback Types Concerning Different Ages of the Students in Forms- and Message-Focused Phases of a Lesson
5.5 The Extent of Teacher Preferences Concerning Different OCF Types in Forms­and Message- Focused Phases of a Lesson

6 Conclusion

References

Appendices

Appendix 1: Error and Mistake Categories

Appendix 2: Oral Corrective Feedback Types, Examples and Their Advantages and Disadvantages

Appendix 3: Advantages and Disadvantages on OCF in General

Appendix 4: Studies Referred to in This Master Thesis

Appendix 5: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften

Appendix 6: Observation Sheet of the Pre-test and Its Modifications

Appendix 7: Observation Sheet

Appendix 8: Implicit OCF Strategies in Forms- and Message-Focused Phases

Appendix 9: Explicit OCF Strategies in Forms- and Message-Focused Phases

Appendix 10: Reformulations in Forms- and Message- Focused Phases

Appendix 11: Prompts in Forms- and Message- Focused Phases

Appendix 12: Contrast of the Distribution of Feedback Types Concerning Different Error Types in Phases that Focus on Forms and Message

Appendix 13: Absolut Numbers Concerning Age Differences and Feedback Types in Forms- and Message-Focused Phases

Appendix 14: Absolut and Relative Numbers Concerning Age Differences and Explicit and Implicit OCF Strategies in Forms- and Message-Focused Phases

Appendix 15: Absolut and Relative Numbers Concerning Age Differences and Prompts and Reformulations in Forms- and Message-Focused Phases

Appendix 16: Teacher Preferences Concerning Different Feedback Types in Forms­and Message-Focused Phases

Appendix 17: Absolut and Relative Numbers Concerning Teacher Preferences in Regard to Explicit and Implicit OCF Strategies in Forms-Focused Phases

Appendix 18: Absolut and Relative Numbers Concerning Teacher Preferences in Regard to Explicit and Implicit OCF Strategies in Message- Focused Phases

Appendix 19: Absolut and Relative Numbers Concerning Teacher Preferences in Regard to Prompts and Reformulations in Forms-Focused Phases

Appendix 20: Absolut and Relative Numbers Concerning Teacher Preferences in Regard to Prompts and Reformulations in Message-Focused Phases

List of Tables

Tab. 1 Classification of OCF Strategies According to Ranta & Lyster (2008, p. 152)

Tab. 2 Taxonomy of OCF Strategies According to Ellis (2009, p. 8) and Sheen and Ellis (2011, p. 594)

Tab. 3 Information on the Observed Classes of this Study

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Learner Errors and Types of Oral Corrective Feedback (adapted from Lyster & Ranta 1997, p. 44; Argüelles et al., 2019, p. 110)

Fig. 2 Codification of Feedback Types

Fig. 3 Distribution of All Errors Types (n = 592)

Fig. 4 Distribution of all Feedback Types (n = 592)

Fig. 5 Correction of Errors Concerning the Phase of the Lesson

Fig. 6 Distribution of All Error Types and Their Correction in Phases That Focus on Forms (n=347)

Fig. 7 Distribution of All Error Types and Their Correction in Phases That Focus on Message (n=241)

Fig. 8 Contrast of the Distribution of Feedback Types in Forms Focused and Message-Focuses Phases

Fig. 9 Correction of Errors Concerning the Grade and the Phase of the Lesson

Fig. 10 Age differences Concerning Different Feedback Types in Forms-Focused Phases

Fig. 11 Age differences Concerning Different Feedback Types in Message-Focused Phases

Fig. 12 Teacher Preferences Concerning Different Feedback Types in Forms- Focused Phases

Fig. 13 Teacher Preferences Concerning Different Feedback Types in Message-Focused Phases

List of Abbreviations

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Introduction

“The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one” (Hubbard, 1927, p. 170). This statement does not only refer to the behaviour of many people in their daily lives, it does also especially refer to students in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms who rather do not participate during lessons than risk making an error or a mistake as they are afraid of losing their face (cf. Decke-Cornill & Küster, 2015, p. 155). However, errors and mistakes are of high importance from a diagnostic point of view as they hint at the current level of students, their course of the learning process, their success or failure of their learning strategies as well as what type of support they might need (cf. Kieweg, 2007, p. 3; Vetter, 2007, p. 36; Haß, 2017, p. 355). And even further, students are also in need of feedback to check their own ability in the foreign language and not to consolidate erroneous grammatical structures, vocabs or an incorrect pronunciation (cf. Timm, 2009, p. 203). Hence, whenever an oral error or mistake occurs in the EFL classroom, teachers have to deal with the situation by deciding whether the specific error or mistake should be corrected or not and if so, how it should be corrected to support the learning process of the student without inhibiting him or her on an emotional level. Therefore, the topic of oral corrective feedback (OCF) is relevant for all EFL teachers and their daily practice in class. Studies concerning this topic as part of applied linguistics have their origins in 1977 when Craig Chaudron first examined reactions of the target language speaker to the second language learner's errors. Ever since, there has been a growing interest in the dealing with errors in the context of second or foreign language acquisition (cf. Havernek, 2002, p. 36). Although many studies exist in this field, there are only a few studies conducted in German schools. As these German studies rather investigated OCF in the Italian and Spanish foreign language classroom than in the EFL classroom (cf. Klepping & Königs, 1991; Lochtmann, 2002) or were rather concerned with students' feelings in the context of OCF than the actual correction by the teacher (cf. Havernek, 2002), further insights into the topic of OCF in German EFL classrooms were needed. Therefore, an empirical project has already been conducted by me during the practical semester in three classes of grade seven. As 30 hours of observation have not been enough to gain representative data and further factors that influence the way of giving OCF in forms- and message-focused phases of a lesson were not included in the examination, additional investigations in this field were required.

Therefore, this master thesis builds on the results of that study and aims again at answering the following guiding question by widening the sample size and investigating additional factors:

- In how far is oral corrective feedback given in forms- and message-focused phases in the EFL classroom?

To form a basis for the research, the theoretical background on the topic of OCF is presented in the second chapter which contains information on the distinction of oral linguistic mistakes and errors, on types of OCF as well as on situations in which it takes place, on OCF concerning different ages of the learners and on teacher preferences regarding OCF types. Based on that chapter, the research question and its sub-questions as well as relating hypotheses are presented in chapter 2.4. Further, the third chapter is concerned with the methodology used for this study containing information on the observed students and teachers, the data collection procedure, the employed research instrument, the data handling as well as methodological strengths and limitations. Afterwards, the results of this study are listed and described in chapter four and discussed in chapter five. The main outcomes of the whole study are summarised in a short conclusion, implications for the classroom are given as well as prospects for further investigations in this field based on limitations of this study are stated in chapter six.

2 Theoretical Background

This chapter contains information on oral linguistic errors and mistakes, different error and feedback types as well as factors which influence the dealing with OCF in the classroom.

2.1 Oral Linguistic Errors and Mistakes and Different Error Types

In the context of OCF on inaccurate spoken output of learners of a foreign language, several foreign language researchers and EFL academics differentiate between the terms ‘error’ and ‘mistake’. As there is no generally accepted definition for each of these terms, the most common definitions are presented in this chapter. According to Lewandowski (1990, II, p. 297 cited in Klippel & Doff, 2015, p. 198), both, ‘errors’ as well as ‘mistakes’, are deviations from the existing linguistic norm, contraventions of linguistic accuracy, linguistic rules or linguistic appropriacy as well as forms that can lead to misunderstandings or difficulties in communication. Based on that, Corder (1967, p. 167) already distinguished between ‘errors' and ‘mistakes' in 1967. ‘Errors' are faults that take place as a result of a lack of knowledge or competence. They occur systematically and reveal the actual learners' level at a specific stage. This definition is still valid and used by EFL academics such as Macht (1998, p. 353), Timm (2009, p. 205) and Grimm et al. (2015, p. 285). These academics add that errors are not recognised by the learner, on account of which they are likely to occur repeatedly.

In contrast, ‘mistakes' are defined by Corder (1967, p. 167) as a result of processing failures which occur unsystematically. He mentions that ‘mistakes' are of no significance to the process of language learning and further EFL academics add that this type of faults might only be performed once. As ‘mistakes' are recognised by the learner in many cases, they are often corrected by them. ‘Slips of the tongue' and ‘lapses' can belong to the category of ‘mistakes' as they are based on a weakness of performance (cf. Corder, 1967, p. 167; Macht, 1998, p. 353; Timm, 2009, p. 205; Grimm et al., 2015, p. 287). Haß (2017, p. 356) preponderantly agrees with these definitions but distinguishes ‘slips' from ‘mistakes'. He states that only mistakes point out a lack of performance. They might occur when a student has already understood the linguistic concept in general but needs more practice for a secure handling of it. ‘Slips' occur in case that students who have already understood a specific concept are inattentive while speaking (cf. ibid.). Kieweg (2007, p. 4) provides different definitions for both terms. He states that only ‘errors' represent deviations from the existing linguistic system, as well as contraventions of linguistic accuracy, rules and appropriacy, while ‘mistakes' are deviations from existing linguistic conventions within speech situations in terms of style. ‘Mistakes' refer, for instance, to the usage of inappropriate items, idioms or discourse organisation (see appendix (app.) 1).

By referring to linguistic correctness, the field of grammar, lexis and pronunciation can be distinguished in which linguistic errors¹ are likely to occur in the EFL classroom. The use of a wrong tense as well as the misuse of auxiliaries, of the active and passive, of relative clauses or of conditional clauses can be, for instance, categorised as grammatical errors while the misuse of prepositions and conjunctions as well as the usage of non-existing words or the wrong word in a specific context can be classified as lexical errors. Errors in pronunciation are made whenever wrong phonemes are uttered for a specific word (cf. Ministerium für Schule, 2007, pp. 32-33). A fourth error category ‘the unsolicited use of the first language (L1)' can be added according to Lyster and Ranta (1997, p. 45). This error can be recorded in German EFL classrooms whenever students use a German word within their utterance as an indication that they do not know or that they have currently forgotten the correct English translation (cf. Aranguiz & Espinoza, 2016, p. 108).

2.2 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback

OCF in the EFL classroom takes the form of a response of the teacher or students to an erroneous utterance of one student and it contains a correction or guidance for self­correction (cf. Ellis, 2009, p. 3; Saville-Troike, 2012, p. 115; Lyster et al., 2013, p. 1; Klippel & Doff, 2015, p. 199). To respond to the before mentioned learner error types, there are different OCF strategies, which were first identified through observational studies such as the ones conducted by Lyster and Ranta (1997, pp. 46-49) or Ellis (2009, p. 9) and are defined by several researchers as investigations in the field of OCF steadily grow. To avoid definitional fuzziness, the most recent and representative feedback strategies are presented in figure (fig.) 1 under the caption “teacher strategies”.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1 Learner Errors and Types of Oral Corrective Feedback (adapted from Lyster & Ranta 1997, p. 44; Argüelles et al., 2019, p. 110)

Explicit correction (1) is a direct and explicit reference to the committed error. This might take place by mentioning that in general an error has been committed, by hinting at the type of error that has been committed or by directly correcting the erroneous word or utterance (cf. Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 46; Timm, 2009, p. 214; Saville-Troike, 2012, p. 115; Pawlak, 2014, p. 136). Recasts (2) which are also often referred to as ‘implicit reformulation’ display the opposite of the previous mentioned OCF strategy as the committed error is not made overt to the student and the class. The teacher rather embeds a correction in his utterance by reformulating a part or the whole utterance of the student and by maintaining the original meaning of the student’s utterance (cf. Timm, 2009, p. 220; Pawlak, 2014, p. 136; Thaler, 2014, p. 318; Aranguiz & Espinoza, 2016, p. 109). Error repetition or echoing (3) as a third OCF strategy takes place whenever a student’s error or the whole erroneous utterance is repeated by the teacher. The error might be highlighted by specific intonation (cf. Pawlak, 2014, p. 137; Thaler, 2014, p. 318; Aranguiz & Espinoza, 2016, p. 109). Elicitation (4) refers to three techniques aiming at eliciting the correct form from the student. This might take place by repeating the student’s utterance up to the last correct word with raising intonation, by using a question to elicit correct forms or by asking the student to reformulate the utterance (cf. Pawlak, 2014, p. 129; Aranguiz & Espinoza, 2016, p. 109; Pedrazzini, 2017, p. 104). Metalinguistic feedback (5) includes specialist terminology used by the teacher to direct the attention of the learner to a specific rule of the foreign language. This OCF strategy does not provide the correct form but it is often connected with a form of explicit correction (cf. Pawlak, 2014, pp. 136-137; Pedrazzini, 2017, p. 104). A clarification request (6) as a sixth strategy of OCF indicates to the students either that the utterance was not well-formed or that the utterance has been misunderstood (cf. Grimm et al., 2015, p. 188; Maolida, 2017, p. 182; Pedrazzini, 2017, p. 104). Paralinguistic feedback or non­verbal ways (8) of OCF can be labelled as another feedback strategy (cf. Ellis, 2009, p. 9). Hereby, an error is indicated by using a gesture or mimicry (cf. Maolida, 2017, p. 182). Further, it is possible to use sounds (9) to point out that an error occured (cf. Macht, 1998, p. 362; Timm, 2009, p. 223; Scrivener, 2011, p. 289).²

According to Ranta and Lyster (2008, p. 152), OCF strategies can be categorised into reformulations or prompts (see table (tab.) 1). Reformulations provide learners with the correct reformulation of their erroneous utterance while prompts withhold correct forms and instead comprise a variety of signals, other than reformulations, that request some kind of self-repair from the learner (cf. Ranta & Lyster, 2008, p. 152).

Table 1 Classification of OCF Strategies According to Ranta & Lyster (2008, p. 152)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Another taxonomy of OCF strategies, which is presented in tab. 2, is based on the distinction between (a) explicit vs. implicit OCF strategies and (b) input-providing vs. output-prompting OCF according to Ellis (2009, p. 8) and Sheen and Ellis (2011, p. 594). Explicit OCF strategies refer to feedback moves that overtly point out that an error took place while implicit OCF strategies are given whenever the OCF move occurs without an overt indicator of an error occurrence during the course of interaction (cf. Aranguiz & Espinoza, 2016, p. 108). Analogous with Ranta's and Lyster's (2008, p. 152) distinction between reformulations and prompts, input-providing OCF is considered as OCF that provides learners with the correct form, whereas output-prompting takes place when the correction of the form is elicited from the learner (cf. Ellis, 2009, p. 8; Pedrazzini, 2017, p. 104). Therefore, input-providing error correction does not necessarily require the undertaking of a repair of the incorrect utterance, while this is the case when output­prompting OCF strategies are used. Output-prompting OCF strategies are also often referred to as the ‘negotiation of form' (cf. Ranta & Lyster, 2008, p. 153; Pawlak, 2014, p. 141).

Table 2 Taxonomy of OCF Strategies According to Ellis (2009, p. 8) and Sheen and Ellis (2011, p. 594)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

As also presented in fig. 1, in addition to these eight OCF strategies, further OCF types can be categorised concerning the strategy provider and the time of the correction. Peer feedback (7) can be initiated by the teacher by asking for instance whether anyone spotted an error or whether anyone is able to reformulate the erroneous utterance of his or her classmate. Further, it could also be offered by the students themselves in form of any of the before mentioned OCF moves. Apart from peer feedback, the student who made the erroneous utterance could also take over the part of the strategy provider by correcting himself / herself after the occurrence of the error (cf. Klippel & Doff, 2015, p. 201). Here, this is categorised as self-correction (12). Concerning the time of the correction, immediate OCF and delayed corrective feedback (10) are distinguished. While the former OCF move directly follows the student's erroneous utterance, the latter takes place at the end of a longer talk of a student, a student's poster presentation or in general at some time during the lesson without explicit reference to the specific student (cf. Timm, 2009, p. 223; Grimm et al., 2015, p. 188). It is also possible that no feedback (11) is given as might be useful in phases which focus on message (see chapter (chap.) 2.3.1). Examples of each of these types of OCF as well as their advantages and disadvantages are presented in app. 2.

2.3 Factors which Influence the Treatment of OCF in the English Foreign Language Classroom

Discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each OCF type individually, as presented in app. 2, is not sufficient to decide in which way OCF should be given in the EFL classroom. In general, opinions on the question whether OCF should be given at all are extremely divided. The most representative reasons for and against OCF are presented in app. 3. Nevertheless, as both sides offer valid arguments, teachers seem to be in a dilemma in terms of giving oral feedback. Hence, to meet students' affective and cognitive needs equally, an awareness of suitable situations for giving feedback is required. Therefore, teachers should be aware of various factors which interact with OCF effectiveness and hence interfere with the decision of giving feedback or not and if so, which type of feedback moves should be used. These factors might be the situation of the lesson, whether the focus lies on forms or on message, the age of the learners as well as teachers' preferences for certain OCF types (cf. Lyster et al., 2013, p. 30; Fan, 2019, p. 198). The way in which these factors influence the oral correction in the EFL classroom are described against the backdrop of previous research. An overview of all studies referred to is given in app. 4.

2.3.1 Phases of a Lesson

Two general foci of a phase during a lesson can be distinguished which meet different conditions in terms of OCF: phases that ‘focus on forms’ and phases that ‘focus on message’³ (cf. Timm, 2009, p. 214; Scrivener, 2011, p. 286; Klippel & Doff, 2015, p. 202).

Phases of a Lesson that Focus on Forms

Phases during a lesson which ‘focus on forms’ concentrate on deliberate grammar or vocabulary teaching which aims at the student’s understanding and accurate production of new grammatical structures or the new vocabulary in written and spoken English (cf. Graham & Parry, 2007, p. 19). This includes systematic phases of practice of these particular forms such as text-manipulation activities (cf. Pawlak, 2014, p. 248). In this context, English researchers agree that erroneous utterances that are related to the object of study should always and immediately be corrected (cf. Timm, 2009, p. 217; Scrivener, 2012, p. 286; Thaler, 2014, p. 318; Klipple & Doff, 2015, p. 202). This is based on the aspect that the student’s attention is maximally focused while and shortly after having uttered a sentence including a new form, on account of which this kind of “teachable moment” (Pawlak, 2014, p. 118) should not be missed by postponing corrective feedback (cf. ibid.). Further, several classroom-based studies conducted by for instance Carroll and Swain (1993), Ellis et al. (2006), Ammar and Spada (2006), Sheen (2007), Dilans (2010), Lyster and Saito (2010), Yang and Lyster (2010) and Yilmaz (2012) investigated the effectiveness of OCF on the acquisition of a variety of different grammatical and lexical forms and came up with the results that explicit OCF strategies as well as prompts are more effective than recasts. Further, there are only a few studies like the two studies by Saito & Lyster (2012a; 2012b) that investigated the role of OCF in the phonological second language (L2) development. These studies suggest that recasts can play a crucial role in this development but again explicit OCF strategies might be needed to ensure larger effects especially in difficult cases of the target language. Another study undertaken by Mackey et al. (2007) shows that explicit OCF strategies are in general more accurately perceived by students than implicit OCF strategies. And further studies such as the ones by Gitsaki and Althobaiti (2010), Aranguiz and Espinoza (2016) or Maolida (2017) that measured the effectiveness of different feedback strategies concerning their uptake by the students are in conformity with the before mentioned results. Based on all of these studies, Pawlak (2014, p. 127) concludes that OCF should be overt enough in forms-focused phases in order to be noticed by the learners. Nevertheless, a classroom-based study carried out by Pawlak and Tomczyk (2013), as well as computer-aided studies conducted by Loewen and Erlam (2006) and Sauro (2009) came up with the result that implicit OCF strategies like recasts might indeed not be more effective than explicit OCF strategies but at least, they can show the same effects. However, as uptake cannot guarantee in each way that a feedback strategy is effective and as most of the other studies based on pre- and post-tests concerning the intervention only focused on the acquisition of one grammatical, lexical or phonological feature, Sheen (2011, p. 165) argues that these results will not necessarily be representative of all of these linguistic features. Moreover, Thaler (2014, p. 318) states that a variation in the usage of feedback types is useful to address different learner types.

Phases of a Lesson that Focus on Message

In phases which ‘focus on message', a meaningful communication plays a significant role. In that case, language is not treated as an “object of study” (Long & Robinson, 1998, p. 18), as might be the case within the before mentioned forms-focused phases, but rather as a “medium of communication” (ibid.). This might be the case within oral presentations of students, discussions, simulations, role plays, creative writing tasks or any kind of conversation with a focus on a specific content (cf. Timm, 1998, p. 362; Pawlak, 2014, p. 118). Even though the slogan “message before accuracy” (Timm, 1998, p. 362) is generally widely accepted, which implies that OCF is reduced to a minimum, two types of errors should always be corrected in these phases: 1) errors which interfere with the comprehension of an utterance and might lead to a communicative breakdown and 2) errors which violate social conventions and norms (Wulf, 2001, p. 118). Timm (2009, p. 218), Scrivener (2011, p. 285), Thaler (2014, p. 317), Klippel and Doff (2015, p. 201) and Haß (2017, p. 355) agree that grammatical errors play a less significant part in contributing to these error types than the unsolicited use of the L1, lexical errors and errors in pronunciation as well as errors based on a lack of social and intercultural competence. Therefore, errors such as grammatical errors, slips of the tongue or errors which do only marginally affect the communication do not necessarily have to be corrected (cf. ibid.). Nevertheless, Timm (2009, pp. 217-218) and Grimm et al. (2015, p. 287) also state that some grammatical errors can be corrected if the risk of consolidation of this particular error is too high or if it occurs too frequently. Further, it is important to keep it transparent to the students when OCF is neglected to avoid confusion about expected, but not given OCF (cf. ibid).

Whenever OCF takes place in phases whose overriding focus is on meaning and communication, it is referred to as ‘focus on form' that implies “an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features [...] triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production” (Long & Robinson, 1998, p. 23). EFL academics' opinions on how feedback should be given in these phases are divided. Edge (1989, p. 37), Timm (1998, p. 316), Hedge (2000, p. 291), Scrivener (2011, p. 225), Pawlak (2014, p. 119) and Thaler (2014, p. 318), for instance, advocate to give delayed feedback following a communicative act of the students. Scrivener (2011, p. 225) and Thaler (2014, p. 318) advise teachers to note down common errors, to sum them up and to give compendious feedback afterwards or to create appropriate exercises for further lessons. By giving delayed feedback, the flow of communication is not interrupted, the focus on meaning remains and students who are likely being intimidated or discouraged from future participation are supported (cf. Scrivener, 2011, p. 225; Pawlak, 2014, p. 119). Further, Timm (1998, p. 316), Wulf (2001, p. 118) and Scrivener (2011, p. 227) mention that it is important to give students enough time for self-correction or to contingently use feedback types which foster student-generated repair such as prompts. Scrivener (2011, p. 227) categorises these types of feedback under the term ‘scaffolding' as they offer helpful strategies for students to create their own spoken structure. Timm (1998, p. 362) and Pawlak (2014, p. 132) also advocate recasts in these phases as they might be embedded in the conversation without obstructing the communicative flow and without devaluing the student's efforts. Moreover, using explicit correction during phases that focus on meaning is rejected by several researchers such as Seedhouse (2004, p. 153), Pawlak (2014, p. 249) and Grimm et al. (2015, p. 288). Nevertheless, Timm (1998, p. 362) states that it is possible for the teacher to whisper the correction explicitly to the student in a discreet and cooperative way.

[...]

---

¹ In this thesis, the terms ‘error' and ‘mistake' are treated as synonyms. Even though the distinction between these terms might be worthy from a theoretical point of view, it is difficult to decide within an observation as a researcher, and sometimes even as a teacher, whether a student's inaccurate spoken output is based on a lack of competence or performance if one refers to Timm's (2009, p. 205) definition (see chap. 2.1).

² The understanding of the presented OCF strategies corresponds to the ones used in the empirical project on which this study is based, even though information is added, or definitions are rewritten.

³ Following definitions of the two different phases of a lesson correspond to those given in the empirical project on which this study is based, even though information is updated or added.