Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

EFL Teachers’ L1 backgrounds and the characteristics of their
feedback
Yoko Asari

Graduate School of Education, Waseda University
School of International Liberal Studies, Waseda University,
asari.y@aoni.waseda.jp

Abstract
This small-scale study investigated whether English teachers with different L1 backgrounds vary in theamount and nature of the implicit negative feedback they provide to NNSs during a communicativeinteraction. Data were collected from 10 native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) and 9 non-native
English-speaking teachers (non-NESTs). The findings indicated that teachers’ L1 does indeed affect theprovision of recasts: NESTs’ recasts tend to be segmented and stressed. These characteristics help learners toattend to the positive and/or negative evidence in recasts in order to identify and/or notice the gap. On theother hand, implicit negative feedback did not seem to be as user-friendly for non-NESTs: they left someerrors uncorrected or were unable to correct the errors successfully. While the usability of recasts fromstudents’ perspective has received abundant attention, it is also essential to examine recasts’ usability fromthe teachers’ standpoint. Although further research would be necessary to arrive at a more generalizableconclusion, the present study sheds light on the importance of considering teachers’ background as a factor
that affects CF.

Keywords
native English speaking teachers (NESTs), non-native English speaking teachers (Non-NESTs), recasts

1

Introduction

Over the past few decades, EFL lessons have become more communicative-oriented. More than ever before,teachers are expected to seek teaching methods and techniques that can advance learners’ L2 production
during teacher-learner/learner-learner interaction. One critical issue to consider is the kind of feedback
learners should receive in oral activities. Generally speaking, different types of corrective feedback (CF)have been known to lie on an implicit/explicit continuum (see Figure 1). While explicit CF is provided
overtly, implicit CF is generally provided non-overtly. Implicit CF allows for the interaction to beuninterrupted, learner-centered and meaning-focused, and for these reasons recasts in particular have become
one of many teachers’ most preferred types of CF in many communicative language lessons.

Figure 1: Explicit/implicit corrective feedback types

Despite the beneficial factors of recasts, studies that focus on learners’ noticing have pointed out some of
the unbeneficial factors of this form of feedback. Recasts are defined as “the teacher’s implicit provision of acorrect reformulation of all or part of a student’s ill-formed utterance” (Lyster and Ranta, 1997, p. 46-47).
Unlike more explicit types of feedback (e.g., metalinguistic clues and explicit correction), recasts are lessnoticeable and thus are ineffective in triggering successful learner-generated repair. As can be seen in
Example 1, learners may perceive recasts as non-corrective conversation continuations rather than as
negative feedback.

22

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Example 1 (Mackey and Philp, 1998, p. 344)
NNS:
What what they doing?
NS:
What are they doing?
NNS:
Yeah
NS:
They’re signing a contract
Given that triggering learners’ attention is crucial for corrective feedback to be effective, previous studies
have focused on examining recasts that take perceptual saliency into consideration. From these descriptive
studies, the findings revealed that some language instructors control their provision of recasting in such a
way that recasts may be delivered more explicitly. Ways to draw learners’ attention explicitly to thepositive/negative evidence include: the number of reformulation (e.g., Philp, 2003), adding cues to recasts(e.g., Asari, 2012), and segmenting (e.g., Lyster and Ranta, 1997). Such enhanced saliency helps to sensitize
learners to corrective aspects of the recasts and hence heighten the noticeability and effectiveness of recasts.
These studies provide evidence that the degree to which students benefit from recasts seems to depend on
how it is provided; thus, an additional variable that needs further investigation is the interlocutor. To date,there has been minimal attention on how different teachers with different L1 backgrounds vary in their usageof recasts. While a growing body of research has been done on recasts, it is conducted on dyads between anative speaker (NS) researcher and a non-native speaker (NNS) learner or on classroom interaction between
a NS teacher and NNS learners. However, given the deficiency of native English speaking teachers (NESTs),
non-native English speaking teachers (non-NESTs) are still the dominant group among those involved inJapan’s EFL education. The present study hopes to fill this critical gap by investigating whether teachers withdifferent L1 backgrounds differ in their usage of recasts.

2

Research Question

Consequently the research question addressed in the present study is:
Do non-NESTs and NESTs differ in the type and amount of recasts they provide to NNS learners?

3

Method3.1
Participants
The participants in this study were 10 NESTs teaching in a private language school in Tokyo and 9
Non-NESTs teaching in public/private middle/high schools in different areas of Tokyo and Kanagawa, Japan.
In this study, a NEST refers to someone who speaks English as his or her first language or has a near-native
command of it as a result of learning it as a second (as opposed to ‘foreign’) language. On the other hand, a
non-NEST refers to a user of English who does not belong to that category. These teachers were paired witha Japanese collaborator who played the role of the student.
3.2
Procedure
The research design was such that during the interaction (picture description task), the collaborator uttered
the same set of errors (including phonological, lexical, and morphoysntactic errors) to elicit teachers’ implicit
CF. A picture book Snow White was used for the picture description task (see Appendix A). The collaborator
produced a total of 34 sentences, of which 28 contained errors and six were well-formed sentences used as
distracters. The sentences are presented in Appendix B. The teachers were instructed to make any correctionthat they found necessary but not in the form of explicit corrections or metalinguistic clues. When theteachers provided different CF other than recasts (i.e., elicitations and clarification requests), the collaborator
repeated the original utterance until the teacher had to provide recasts (see Example 2). By doing so, theteachers were guided to provide the kind of recasts that provided the researcher with ample representationsof the recast tendencies of NESTs and non-NESTs. All the interactions were recorded on an IC recorder andtranscribed for analysis.
Example 2: Other CF with recast (from this study)
Collaborator:
The prince is sitting in the wall.
Teacher:
The prince is sitting… (Elicitiation)
Collaborator:
Sitting…
Teacher:On the wall. (Recast)Collaborator:
On the wall. The prince is sitting on the wall.

23

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

3.3
Coding3.3.1
Recast characteristics (Quality)
Error treatment sequences were categorized by a set of criteria formulated specifically for this study but
based partly on those presented in previous studies (Asari, 2012). The categories for different types of recasts
are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Recast characteristics
Segmentation
Segmented
Whole

The recast provides a partial recast of S: They surprise to see a girl.
the learner's utterance
T: They are surprised
The recast is an entire recast of the S: The birds is flying.
whole trigger utterance
T: The birds are flying.

Emphasis
Unstressed

Stressed

Intonation
Declarative

Interrogative

Combination
Cue plus recast

Approval plus recast
Other CF plus recast

Recast only

Linguistic item that is recast is not given S: She is scary.
atypical stress
T: She is scared.
Linguistic item that is recast is given S: The man held a knife.
atypical stress, through pitch, T: The man IS HOLDING a knife.
additional pausing and emphasis
The recast is provided with falling S: Glasses dwarf is the leader.
intonation as a declarative statement T: The dwarf wearing glasses isthe leader.
The recast is provided with a rising S: They looking at a house nearby.
intonation
as aninterrogative T: They are looking?
statement
The recast is provided
additional verbal signal

withan S: Snow White animal loves
T: Ah! Show White loves animals.

The recast is provided with a sign ofacknowledgment or approval
The recast is provided in combination
with other corrective feedback such as
elicitation, clarification requests, andrepetition.
The recast is provided without anadditional signal

S: There is seven birds.
T: Yes. There are seven birds.
S: The prince is sitting in the wall.
T: The prince is.
S: Sitting.
T: Sitting on the wall.
S: He is playing piano.
T: He is playing the piano.

3.3.2
Recast frequency (Quantity)
The teachers participating in this study were not obliged to correct the collaborator’s errors. If they chose notto correct or if they were not able to detect the error produced by the collaborator, the collaborator continued
onto the next utterance. Cases labeled in this study as ones without correction in fact include not only cases
without any reaction from the teacher (Example 4) but also cases in which a sign of approval (i.e., ‘uh huh’and ‘yes’) without correction is provided by the teacher (Example 3).
Example 3: Approval without correction (from this study)
Collaborator:
It dangerous.
Teacher:Yes. (Approval without correction)
Collaborator:
Snow White die and there is a funeral for her.
Example 4: No reaction (from this study)
Collaborator:
Snow White is dancing happy with the dwarfs.
Teacher:… (No reaction)
Collaborator:
He is playing piano.

24

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

4

Results

Table 2, 3, 4, and 5 display the frequency and the percentage of NESTSs’ and Non-NESTs’ responses to thecollaborator’s utterances. Tables 2 and 3 each show a breakdown of cases of feedback. As can be seen fromthe tables, NESTs provided CF more frequently than non-NESTs (81.79% and 43.25% respectively). As
indicated in Table 3, the results of non-NESTs’ interaction show that approximately 33% of the errors were
either completely ignored (15.48%) or approved without correction (17.46%). Of the 67.06% of the errorsthat were corrected, 35.50% of the recasts were provided incorrectly. That is to say, there were several
occasions where non-NESTs either did not properly correct the collaborator’s errors or gave utterances that
contained some kind of error. These instances were not subjected to further analysis.
The subcategorizations of the correct recasts are tabulated in Tables 4 and 5. As indicated in the tables,
NESTs used techniques that enhance explicitness such as stress (50.21%) and segmentation (49.34%) morethan non-NESTs (22.94% and 35.78% respectively). On the other hand, while NESTs rarely used recastswith a combination of other CF types (6.99%), 31.19% of the non-NESTs’ recasts were provided with other
implicit CF such as elicitation and clarification techniques. The results are discussed in the following section.
Table 2: [Quantity] Breakdown of cases of feedback: NESTs
Collaborator’s Utterances
Erroneous
Well-formed
No reaction
36(12.86%)38(63.33%)
Approval without correction
9(3.21%)
8(13.33%)
Correction
235(83.93%)3(5.00%)
Incorrect recasts
6(2.55%)*
3(5.00%)*
Correct recasts
229(97.45%)*0(0.00%)*
Others0(0.00%)
11(18.33%)
Total
280
60
Note: The percentages of these subcategories indicate the breakdown of cases included under the ‘Correction’ category,
not their proportion to the total number of responses.
Table 3: [Quantity] Breakdown of cases of feedback: Non-NESTs
Collaborator’s Utterances
Erroneous
Well-formed
No reaction
39(15.48%)20(37.04%)
Approval without correction
44(17.46%)17(31.48%)Correction
169(67.06%)3(5.56%)
Incorrect recasts
60(35.50%)*3(5.56%)*
Correct recasts
109(64.50%)*0(0.00%)*
Others0(0.00%)
14(25.93)
Total
252
54
*Note: The percentages of these subcategories indicate the breakdown of cases included under the ‘Correction’ category,
not their proportion to the total number of responses.

Table 4: [Quality] Breakdown of cases of feedback: NESTs
Collaborator’s Utterances
Erroneous
Well-formed
Segmentation
Segmented
Whole
Total
Emphasis
Stressed
Unstressed
Total
Intonation
Interrogative
Declarative
Total

25

113
116
229

(49.34%)(50.66)(100%)

03
3(0.00%)(100.00%)(100.00%)

115
114
229

(50.21%)(49.79%)(100%)

03
3(0.00%)(100.00%)(100.00%)

9
220
229

(3.93%)(96.07%)(100%)

03
3(0.00%)(100.00%)(100.00%)

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
Combination
Approval plus recast
Cue plus recast
Other CF plus recast
Recast only
Total

5
4
16
204
229

(2.18%)(1.75%)(6.99%)(89.08%)(100%)

000
3
3(0.00%)(0.00%)(0.00%)(100.00%)(100.00%)

Table 5: [Quality] Breakdown of cases of feedback: Non-NESTs
Collaborator’s Utterances
Erroneous
Well-formed
Segmentation
Segmented
Whole
Total
Emphasis
Stressed
Unstressed
Total
Intonation
Interrogative
Declarative
Total
Combination
Approval plus recast
Cue plus recast
Other CF plus recast
Recast only
Total

5

39
70
109

(35.78%)(64.22%)(100.00%)

1
2
3(33.33%)(66.67%)(100.00%)

25
84
109

(22.94%)(77.06%)(100.00%)

03
3(0.00%)(100.00%)(100.00%)

12
97
109

(11.01%)(88.99%)(100.00%)

03
3(0.00%)(100.00%)(100.00%)

16
4
34
55
109

(14.68%)(3.67%)(31.19%)(50.46%)(100.00%)

0
0
2
1
3

(0.00%)(0.00%)(33.33%)(66.67%)(100.00%)

Discussion

In terms of differences in the quality of recasts, the results revealed that NESTs used techniques to enhancethe degree of explicitness and salience of recasts more frequently than the non-NESTs. Specifically, NESTs
recasts tended to be stressed and segmented (see Example 5). Studies that examine the noticeability andeffectiveness of recasts (i.e., uptake and stimulated recall) have reported that high noticeability acts as astrong stimulus for language development. While recasts are sometimes difficult for learners to understand ascorrective, stressed recasts help them attend to the positive and/or negative evidence in recasts in order to
identify and/or notice the gap (e.g., Loewen and Philp, 2006). Furthermore, segmented recasts are onerous
for learners as positive evidence is more likely to be retained in learners’ working memory (WM) forcomparison between their interlanguage form (IL) and the target form (TL) than in the case of whole recasts(e.g., Asari, 2012). On the other hand, a technique the non-NESTs used more frequently than NESTs was theprovision of recasting with a combination of other CF types. While drawing on different CF prior to theprovision of recasts may give learners extra time to identify the error, this result must be interpreted withcaution as many of these cases were requests for repetition (see Example 6). This could be because theproficiency level of the non-NESTs may not be adequate for registering these errors. This is the point which I
turn to next.
Example 5
Collaborator:
NEST:
Example 6
Collaborator:
Non-NEST:Collaborator:

She have a bucket of water.
She HAS (Segmented and stressed)

She gives Snow White apple.
She… She gives [whispering to herself]…
Could you say once again? (Request for repetition)
She gives Snow White apple

26

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Non-NEST:Collaborator:

She gives Snow White an apple.
She gives Snow White an apple.

The results showed interesting differences in the quantity of recasts between Non-NESTs and NESTs –overall non-NESTs provided fewer recasts than NESTs. As compared to NESTs, Non-NESTs frequently gavea sign of approval to an ill-formed utterance as if it were a well-formed utterance. Cross-culturalconversational studies have reported that Japanese speakers use back channel responses, or “aizuchi”, more
frequently than people from other linguistic backgrounds (e.g., Yang, 2001). “Aizuchi” is used to show
listenership in conversation. According to Maynard (1993), there are six functional properties of backchanneling: 1) continuer; 2) display of understanding of content; 3) support and empathy towards the
speaker; 4) agreement; 5) strong emotional response; and 6) minor additions, corrections, or requests for
information. With an exception of the sixth point, aizuchi signals the current speaker to continue his/her talkwithout particularly pointing out that a mistake has been made. Learners may interpret an absence ofcorrection subsequent to an error as an indication that their message was accurately produced, andmisjudgment of this sort could lead to fossilization of errors (Vigil and Oller, 1976). Moreover, the mixtureof three kinds of approval, viz. (a) that which follows an error but does not correct it (Example 7), (b) thatwhich follows an error and corrects it in the form of a recast, and (c) that which follows a correct utterance(Example 7), can be a problem from an SLA perspective. As was discussed by Lyster (1998), suchinconsistency and ambiguity make it difficult for learners to detect IL/TL mismatches with respect to form,
and the corrective reformulations included in recasts may go unnoticed.
Example 7:
Collaborator:
Non-NEST:Collaborator:
Non-NEST:Collaborator:
Non-NEST:Snow White and the prince meets for the first time.
Alright. (Approval without correction subsequent an error)
The birds is flying.
Uh huh. (Approval without correction subsequent an error)
Snow White is in the forest.
Right. (Approval subsequent a correct utterance)

Example 8:
Collaborator:
Non-NEST:

They sad.
Yes, they look sad. (Approval with recast)

Finally, an especially striking attribute was the number of incorrect corrections, i.e. comments intended tobe corrections but are in fact wrong, given by the non-NESTs. Approximately one third of non-NESTs’corrections contained some kind of error (Example 9). Learners benefit from recasts provided by the teacher
during an interaction as learners can notice the gap between their IL and TL. Needless to say, this would only
work if the target language included in the recasts by the teacher is correct. The non-NESTs’ performanceseems to indicate that, in situations where teachers’ recasts are potentially problematic, CF types other thanrecasting should be chosen for learners’ language development.
Example 9
Collaborator:
Non-NEST:Collaborator:
Non-NEST:Collaborator:
Non-NEST:She poison apple make.
Poisoned. Or poisons.
She poison apple make.
Poisons.
She poisons apple make.
Yes.

The debate concerning the usability of recasts has focused on learners. When provided a recast, learners
must shift attention away from meaning and toward the particular linguistic structure that needs
reformulation (see Figure 2). Learners are expected to scan what he or she said prior to the recast and 1)
identify the mismatch between what he or she said and what he or she knows to be correct, 2) locate thelikely error and 3) reformulate it in the subsequent turn (Mackey et al., 2010). In fact, teachers providing
recasts pass through similar processes: When an error occurs, they must 1) identify the error, 2) search his/or
her databases to understand the reason for the error and 3) provide recasts, all while attending to the ongoing
conversation (see Figure 3). An automatized operation is required, and for non-NESTs this real-time process27

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

is as demanding as it is for learners. Given that recasts arguably could be dependent on teachers’ language
proficiency, it will be helpful for teachers’ professional development to focus on them as stakeholders in theclassroom, as well as on learners, when considering the usability of recasts.

Figure 2: Learners’ processes when receiving recasts

Figure 3: Teachers’ processes when providing recasts

6

Conclusions

This descriptive study was designed to investigate the differences in ways in which recasts are provided
between NESTs and Non-NESTs. The findings reveal that Non-NESTs were not as well equipped to provide
recasts to learners as NESTs. Although it is difficult to generalize the findings from this small-scale study, it
provides some evidence as to how teachers differ in their usage of recasts depending on their L1
backgrounds. Future research can look into teachers’ language proficiency level and how this can affect theirbeliefs and provision of recasts through a more qualitative approach (i.e., surveys and interviews) aimed at
discovering the reasons for the low frequency of recasting. Finally, degrees of difficulty in recasting for
non-NESTs in relation to learners’ error types were outside the scope of the present study, but it will be ofinterest in the future to investigate the possibility of the existence of a hierarchy of error types in terms of theextent to which they tax teachers’ ability to provide CF.
In Japan, traditional foreign language instruction has valued a more traditional pedagogy such as theaudiolingual method and the translation method. Unlike focus on form lessons, such lessons employ a more
explicit type of feedback. With the rise in demand for more communicative language instruction, this type of
research would help teachers to be more aware of their own limitations and of the importance of improving theirtechniques for error treating.
References
Asari, Y. (2012). Types of Recasts and Learners’ Uptake. Dialog, 10, 1-20.
Loewen, S. and Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, andeffectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
Lyster, R., and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form incommunicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A. and Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts,
responses and red herrings. Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., and Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified
output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60(3), 501-533.

28

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Maynard, S.K. (1993). Kaiwabunseki [Discourse Analysis]. Nichiegigo taisho kenkyu shirizu [Series ofcontrastive study of Japanese and English], Shibatani, K, Senkou, Y, and Kageyama, T (eds.). 2.
Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Philp, J. (2003). Constrains on “noticing the gap”: Non-native speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS
interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language
Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.
Vigil, N.A., and Oller, J.W. (1976). Rule fossilization: a tentative model. Language Learning, 26,281-195.
Yang, J. (2001). A study of backchannels used by Chinese learners of Japanese in telephone conversations –A functional comparison with native speakers of Japaneses. Nihongokyouiku, 111, 46-55.
Appendices
Appendix A: Picture description task

Appendix B: Collaborator’s utterances
1 There is seven birds
2 She have a bucket of water
3 She is cleaning the garden.
4 The prince is sitting in the wall.
5 Snow White and the prince meets for the first time.
6 The birds is flying
7 Snow White is in the forest.
8 The man held a knife.
9 He wore a hat with a feather.
10 Snow White is lost in the forest.
11 She is scary.
12 There are much animals around her.
13 They looking at a house nearby
14 Snow White animal loves
15 There are birds are blue flying in the sky.
16 She is cleaning.
17 The dwarf who is in front of him is tiring.
18 The dwarf which is in front of him is happy
19 Glasses dwarf is the leader.
20 They enter house.
21 They surprised to see a girl

29

Erroneous
Erroneous
Well-formed
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Well-formed
Erroneous
Erroneous
Well-formed
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Well-formed
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
ErroneousSelected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Snow White sleeping bed.
Snow White is dancing happy with the dwarfs
He is playing piano.
They are playing musical equipment
She poison apple make.
She has basket apple
She gives Snow White apple
It’s raining.
It dangerous
Snow White die and there is a funeral for her.
They sad.
The prince kissed Snow White.
They lived happily ever after.

30

Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Well-formed
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Erroneous
Well-formed