Strategies of Metalinguistic and Recast Feedback during Oral Interactions

Estrategias de retroalimentación metalingüística durante las interacciones orales de estudiantes

  • Monica Raquel Tamayo Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Sangolquí, Ecuador.
  • Diego Cajas Universidad Nacional de Educación, Azogues, Ecuador
Keywords: corrective feedback, metalinguistic, oral interactions, recast, student uptake (en_US)
Keywords: retroalimentación correctiva, metalingüística, reformulación, respuesta del estudiante, interacciones orales (es_ES)

Abstract (en_US)

Corrective feedback has attracted much attention in recent years, this with a particular emphasis on meaning-focused language instruction. In order to compare the effectiveness of the strategies of metalinguistic and recast feedback on student uptake during oral interactions, an eight-week non-experimental study was conducted. This study comprised thirty participants distributed in two classes. One group of 16 students was exposed to metalinguistic feedback and the other group of 14 students to recast. The selected students were aged from 18 to 20 year-old and were attending the eighth course of the English Foreign Language Program in a public university in Ecuador for one semester. To compare the effectiveness of the two aforementioned feedback strategies, four target structures were adopted: omission of subject, auxiliary use in questions, subject-verb agreement, and reported statements. The structures emerged from a survey which was administered to a sample of EFL teachers from the Language Center of the university. The findings of the study revealed that learners who were exposed to metalinguistic feedback outperformed their counterparts who were exposed to recast feedback.

Abstract (es_ES)

La retroalimentación correctiva ha atraído mucha atención en los últimos años, con un énfasis particular en la enseñanza del lenguaje centrada en el significado. Con el fin de comparar la eficacia de las estrategias de retroalimentación metalingüística y de reformulación en la respuesta del estudiante durante las interacciones orales, se condujo un estudio cuasi experimental de ocho semanas. Este estudio comprendió treinta participantes distribuidos en dos clases. Un grupo de 16 estudiantes fue expuesto a la retroalimentación metalingüística y el otro grupo de 14 estudiantes a la de reformulación. Los estudiantes seleccionados tenían entre 18 y 20 años de edad y asistían al octavo curso del Programa de Inglés como lenguaje extranjera en una universidad pública en Ecuador durante un semestre. Para comparar la efectividad de las dos estrategias de retroalimentación mencionadas anteriormente, se adoptaron cuatro estructuras: omisión del sujeto, uso del auxiliar en preguntas, relación sujeto-verbo, reporte de oraciones. Las estructuras seleccionadas surgieron de una encuesta que se administró a una muestra de profesores de Inglés del Centro de Idiomas de la universidad. Los hallazgos del estudio revelaron que los estudiantes que estaban expuestos a la retroalimentación metalingüística superaron a sus compañeros expuestos a la retroalimentación de reformulación.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Monica Raquel Tamayo, Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Sangolquí, Ecuador.
Departmento de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales.


Asari, Y. (2012). Types of recasts and learners’ uptake. Dialogue, 10, 1-20.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46.

Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. The handbook of second language acquisition. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language

acquisition (pp. 589-630). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18-41.

Ferreira, A. (2007). A Study of feedback strategies in foreign language classroom and tutorials with implications for intelligent computer-assisted language learning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17, 389-422.

Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.

Johnson, B. (2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 3-13.

Katayama, A. (2007). Learners’ perceptions toward oral error correction. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT2006 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT

Lewis, M. (2002). Giving feedback in language classes. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.

Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411-452.

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating formfocused instruction in communicative contexts. New York, NY: Routledge.

Norris, J. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.

Petchprasert, A. (2012). Feedback in second language teaching and learning. US-China Foreign Language, 10(4), 1112-1120.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2). 129- 158.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235– 253) Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Westhoff, G. J. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 12(3), 52–57.

Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235-

How to Cite
Tamayo, M., & Cajas, D. (2017). Strategies of Metalinguistic and Recast Feedback during Oral Interactions. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(2), 165-176.
Published: 2017-08-04
Research Articles