This two-part study aims to investigate teacher perceptions about providing oral corrective feedback (CF) to minority students of Latvian as a second language and compare the perceptions to the actual provision of CF in L2 Latvian classrooms. The survey sample represents sixty-six L2 Latvian teachers while the classroom observations involved 13 teachers of L2 Latvian from five minority schools in Latvia. The survey results show that all major types of oral CF were thought to be uniformly provided. The classroom observations, however, demonstrated a predominant provision of explicit, isolated recasts with the other types of feedback (explicit correction, elicitation, integrated recasts and repetition) present, yet trailing behind in terms of their use during classroom interactions.
AmmarA.SpadaN. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
2.
BasturkmenH.LoewenS.EllisR. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243–272.
3.
BatelaanP. (2002). Bilingual education: The case of Latvia from a comparative perspective. Intercultural Education, 3, 359–374.
4.
CathcartR.L.OlsenJ.E.W.B. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In FanselowJ.F.CrymesR.H. (Eds.), On TESOL ‘76 (pp. 41–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.
5.
DilansG. (2009). Russian in Latvia: An outlook for bilingualism in a post-Soviet transitional society. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 1–13.
6.
DilānsG. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 787–816.
7.
DilānsG.ZepaB. (2015). Bilingual and multilingual education in the former Soviet republics: The case of Latvia. In WrightW.BounS.GarciaO. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 630−642). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
8.
EllisR. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
9.
GassS.M.SelinkerL. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. 3rd edition). New York: Routledge.
10.
GooJ.MackeyA. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
KļavaG.KļaveK.MotivāneK. (2010). Latviešu valodas prasme un lietojums augstākās izglītības iestādēs: Mazākumtautību izglītības satura reformas rezultāti [Knowledge and use of Latvian in higher education: Minority education content reform results]. Rīga: Latviešu valodas aģentūra.
13.
LazdiņaS.ŠalmeA. (2008). Latviešu valodas apguve mazākumtautību izglītībā: Tendences, attīstība, ietekmes (with summary in English) [Learning Latvian in minority education: Trends, development, influences]. Rīga: LVAVA. Retrieved from: http://www.valoda.lv/downloadDoc_683/mid_725 (April2015).
14.
LeeE.J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217–230.
15.
LoewenS. (2013). The role of feedback. In GassS.M.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 24–40). New York: Routledge.
16.
LongM.H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
LysterR. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in second language acquisition, 20, 51–81.
18.
LysterR. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265–301.
19.
LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–426.
20.
LysterR.MoriH. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
21.
LysterR. (2015). The relative effectiveness of corrective feedback in classroom interaction. In MarkeeN. (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 213–228). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
22.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
23.
LysterR.RantaL. (2013). The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.
24.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
25.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
26.
MackeyA. (2007). Introduction: The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
MackeyA.GassS.McDonoughK. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
28.
MackeyA.Al-KhalilM.AtanassovaG.HamaM.Logan-TerryA.NakatsukasaK. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 129–152.
29.
MitchellR.MylesF. (2004) Second language learning theories. 2nd edition.London: Edward Arnold.
30.
MoselU. (2012). Morphosyntactic analysis in the field—A guide to the guides. In ThiebergerN. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork (pp. 72–89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
NassajiH. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511–548.
32.
NicholasH.LightbownP.M.SpadaN. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.
33.
PicaT. (2013). From input, output and comprehension to negotiation, evidence and attention. In del Pilar García MayoM.Junkal Gutierrez MangadoM.Martínez AdriánM. (Eds.), Con-temporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 49–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34.
PraulinsD. (2012). Latvian: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.
35.
Rūķe-DraviņaV. (1977). Four early stages in the development of L1 negation. Journal of Child Language, 4, 87–108.
36.
Rūķe-DraviņaV. (1978). Modifications of speech addressed to young children in Latvian. In SnowC.E.FergusonC.A. (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp. 237–253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
SauroS. (2007). A comparative study of recasts and metalinguistic feedback through computer mediated communication on the development of L2 knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA.
38.
SchulzR.A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343–364.
39.
SheenY. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
40.
SheenY. (2010). Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 169–179.
41.
SimardD.JeanG. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61, 759–785.
42.
SwainM. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In GassS.M.MaddenC.G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
