國內(nèi)外糾正反饋理論及研究成果表明教師糾正反饋的研究具有重要的研究價值，本書內(nèi)容是基于一項關(guān)于小學英語課堂中教師糾正反饋和學生接納的研究。這項研究以兩名小學英語教師與其所任教的兩個班級的學生（71名）作為研究對象，主要采用定性和定量的研究方法，其主要目標是了解糾正反饋在小學英語課堂中的應(yīng)用及學習者對教師糾正反饋的接納，即英語教師對學生課堂上語言錯誤所采取的對策以及學習者對其對策的反應(yīng)。具體來說，本研究通過課堂觀察去了解在實際課堂中教師如何處理學生的語言錯誤，以及學生對教師糾正反饋的接納情況，主要從學習者的錯誤、教師糾正反饋和學生接納來比較兩個英語課堂的糾正反饋以及學生接納的異同；除此以外，本研究還通過對師生的訪談了解師生對糾正反饋和接納的理解和認識，以及他們的上課內(nèi)容、課堂活動、上課模式以及上課感受；除了比較以外，本研究還發(fā)現(xiàn)學習者的錯誤、糾正反饋與學習者接納之間存在著依附關(guān)系。本研究的結(jié)論對教育學、教學研究和教師專業(yè)發(fā)展具有啟示意義。
本書分為七章。章是導論，提供了研究的背景資料和基本原理，并闡述了研究的總體目標、范圍、設(shè)計和方法。本章末尾提供了本書的結(jié)構(gòu)。第二章是文獻綜述，從本書中使用的術(shù)語定義開始，論證了形式焦點式語言教學、糾正性反饋和學習者接納研究的重要性，回顧了專門研究糾正性反饋和學習者吸收的實證研究，以不同角度和不同研究中得出的相似或不同的結(jié)果，指出了一個值得研究的知識缺口。第三章是方法論。這一章給讀者分享方法論上的決策實際過程，并展示了本書的發(fā)展軌跡。從對哲學立場的一般性討論轉(zhuǎn)向?qū)ρ芯吭O(shè)計的基本原理和研究中使用的數(shù)據(jù)收集和分析方法的詳細描述。本章還討論了研究過程中出現(xiàn)的倫理問題并對本研究的設(shè)計和實施質(zhì)量進行了評價。第四章是對研究結(jié)果進行定量分析。首先簡要地分析了課堂觀察數(shù)據(jù)的研究結(jié)果，主要是在形式焦點式語言教學的描述和分析過程中，對學習者的錯誤、糾正性反饋和學習者的理解進行了比較，了解兩個班級在形式焦點式語言教學方面的異同。第五章以定性數(shù)據(jù)處理的方式介紹了當前研究的主要發(fā)現(xiàn)。研究結(jié)果顯示，兩位教師對錯誤的處理方式都比先前的研究更具一致性。此外，研究數(shù)據(jù)還表明，一些糾正性反饋方法比其他方法更有可能鼓勵學習者吸收，這個結(jié)果與之前的一些反饋研究是一致的。此外，數(shù)據(jù)分析還顯示了學習者在教師提示下有糾正錯誤的能力。第六章為研究結(jié)果提供了可能的解釋，并將本研究結(jié)果與以往研究結(jié)果進行了比較。研究結(jié)果表明，當前研究的發(fā)現(xiàn)為支持和延續(xù)早期的發(fā)現(xiàn)提供了證據(jù)。第七章主要是闡述本研究的意義，解釋本研究如何對相關(guān)知識作出貢獻。同時也討論了本研究的局限性以及未來研究的總體思路，以期對該領(lǐng)域的研究有所裨益。

Previous research has suggested that corrective feedback has considerable potential for providing learners with significant L2 learning opportunities. It thus plays a beneficial role in L2 learning. This book examined corrective feedback and learner uptake in focus�瞣n�瞗orm instruction contexts in primary school EFL classrooms in China. This book examined the classroom interaction of two teachers and their learners （36 Grade 5 and 35 Grade 6）in 26 lessons to investigate the way in which these teachers spontaneously attended to form， and to determine the extent to which these Chinese young learners could and did subsequently demonstrate uptake in their production. Classroom observations transcripts， totalling 15.2 hours of classroom interaction， were analysed to determine ①the differences in the total number and distribution of learner errors， corrective feedback， and learner uptake between the two classes， ②to what extent learner errors， corrective feedback are related to learner uptake. In addition， individual interviews （approximately 8 hours） with both teachers and learners were carried out. This qualitative perspective was used to assist interpreting lesson transcripts in relation to the two points above.
The results demonstrate a difference in the total number of learner errors， even though the distribution of error types was similar between the two classes. Among all error types， grammatical errors occurred with the highest frequency， phonological errors came next， with lexical errors occurring with the lowest frequency. The evidence also indicates that both teachers attended to a similar percentage of learner errors with corrective feedback in spite of the varied number of learner errors. This suggests that both teachers were often willing to attend to form in communicative lessons. The results also reveal that lexical and phonological errors were more likely to receive attention from teachers than grammatical errors. Furthermore， This book provides evidence that the teachers relied extensively on recasts when attending to learner errors in lessons， lending support to the finding of previous studies that recasts as a corrective feedback were preferred by language teachers. This book provides evidence that both teachers often created opportunities for learner uptake to take place； accordingly， learners often actively corrected their errors when they were allowed to do so.
This book also indicates that grammatical errors were more likely to receive recasts， resulting in the lowest rate of learner uptake. Repetition requests and elicitation were more likely to attend to phonological errors that led to the lowest rate of needs�瞨epair. Explicit feedback and recasts were less effective at eliciting learner uptake than other corrective feedback. These results suggest that the teachers often take advantage of corrective feedback， creating opportunities for learners to correct errors， and learners are capable of correcting errors after a prompt. Such attention to form that provides learners with an opportunity to negotiate for form or meaning can potentially benefit L2 learning. This book concludes with implications for pedagogy， research and teacher professional development that are made based upon these findings.