This study investigated specific patterns of a reactive approach to form-focused instruction: namely, corrective feedback and its relationship to error types and immediate learner repair. The database is drawn from transcripts of audio recordings made in four French immersion class-rooms at the elementary level, totaling 18.3 hours and including 921 error sequences. The 921 learner errors were coded as grammatical, lexical, or phonological, or as unso-licited uses of L1. Corrective feedback moves were coded as explicit correction, recast, or negotiation of form (i.e., elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, or repetition of error).

A study investigated whether, when second language learners engage in second-language interaction, opportunities to comprehend and produce the second language are conditioned by their gender and/or the correspondence between their gender and that of the interlocutor. The interactions of a native speaker (NS) and a non-native speaker (NNS) in same- and cross-gender dyads were analyzed in four information exchange tasks. Subjects were 12 male and 20 female native speakers of American English and 17 male and 15 female native speakers of Japanese learning English as a Second Language, all at the low-intermediate level. Results did not show a clear-cut role for NNS gender as a discriminating factor in frequency of negotiated interaction and its associated opportunities for comprehension of input, feedback on production, and modification of output. What emerged from testing of hypotheses was a complex interaction of both gender and task type in providing and inhibiting these opportunities. The framework for coding data on negotiated interactions and a diagram of one of the tasks are appended, and a 52-item bibliography is included. (MSE) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *****************************t*****************************************

This issue of working papers focuses on the relationship between the mind and language. Papers include the

This study investigated the effects of teacher feedback on changes in the spoken language performance of a group of advanced learners of English in the Netherlands. Participants were medical researchers attending a course entitled English for Medical Congresses. The course included a sequence of speaking tasks and culminated in a conference. Tasks were graded, and feedback was designed to increase in complexity. A combination of written feedback and audio- and videotape recordings were used. The study examined whether students became aware of, and mastered, language problems identified in teacher feedback as well as problems not identified in feedback, and whether they were aware of changes in their language performance. Analysis of data from student surveys, written feedback, language logs, and audio and video recordings indicated that students ' perceptions of the value and effect of feedback were matched by real improvements in their spoken performance. The course outline, language log, and questionnaire are appended. (Contains 40 references.) (SM) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.

Goo and Mackey (this issue) outline several apparent design fl aws in studies that have compared the impact of different types of corrective feedback (CF). Furthermore, they argue that SLA researchers should stop comparing recasts to other types of CF because they are inherently different kinds of phenomena. Our response to their article addresses (a) the claim that the recast-learning relationship has been “settled,” (b) the misleading representation of our views on uptake, (c) the characterization of the CF comparison studies as being weak and invalid, and (d) Goo and Mackey’s recommendations concerning the most appropriate approach to investigating the effect of feedback on second language learning. We welcome this opportunity to address some of the arguments and claims made by Goo and Mackey (this issue). In their article, they criti-cally examine the methodological features of studies that have com-pared the effi cacy of recasts to other forms of corrective feedback (CF).

NOTE 38p.; For the complete volume in which this paper