Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 11:2 (2023) ► pp.148–172

CLIL in Spain and Vietnam

Different contexts, different patterns of corrective feedback

ORCID logo | Foreign Trade UniversityHanoi
| Universidad Autónoma de MadridMadrid
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.
Keywords: oral corrective feedback, content and language integrated learning (CLIL), CLIL in Spain, CLIL in Vietnam, classroom interaction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Oral corrective feedback in bilingual education
  • 3.The present study
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Methodology
      • 3.2.1Contexts, participants and data
      • 3.2.2Data collection and analysis
    • 3.3Results
      • 3.3.1Types of CF
      • 3.3.2Learner uptake and repair
    • 3.4Discussion
      • 3.4.1Types of CF
      • 3.4.2Learner uptake and repair
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.21014.ngu
References (43)
References
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (4), 543–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35 (3), 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devos, N. J. (2016). Peer interactions in new content and language integrated settings. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1993. Strategic interaction, 96–108. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 114–138. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (4), 575–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51 (2), 281–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (3), 407–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 60 1, 117–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J., & Berenz, N. (1993). Transcribing conversational exchanges. In J. A. Edwards, Martin D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 91–121. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis, (2nd Ed.). Polity Press.Google Scholar
Langford, D. (1994). Analysing talk: Investigating verbal interaction in English. Macmillan Education. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: a proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1), 58–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (2), 269–300. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 265–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46 (1), 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 338–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22 (4), 471–497. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 38 1, 146–153. URL: [URL]
O’Donnell, M. (2008). UAM corpus tool. [URL]
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Re-thinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. Verplaeste, (Eds.). The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction, 47–71. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an Adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 573–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2009). The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (The second time around). In E. Dafouz, & M. C. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts, 3–16. Santilana Educacion/ Richmond Publishing.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J. (2001). Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence. [URL]
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser, (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 141–160. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b). Investigating the pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (2), 387–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8 (3), 263–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 593–610. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
To, T. T. H. (2010). Learning through English: Insights from Vietnam. In R. Johnstone (Ed.), Learning through English: Policies, challenges and prospects. British Council.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29 (3), 325–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar