Öğretmenlerin ve Öğrencilerin Farklı Dil Seviyelerinde Yanlış Düzeltimine İlişkin Tercihleri

Yanlışlar öğrenmenin vazgeçilmez bir parçasıdır. Öğrenciler öğrenirken yanlış yaparlar ve bu yanlışlar öğrencilerin dil ile ilgili hipotezlerini test ettiklerini gösterir. Bu bağ lamda, yanlışların öğretmenlere sağladığı bilginin öğrenme ve öğrenmenin düzenlenmesi açısından önemli olduğu değerlendirilmektedir. Yanlışların nasıl düzeltildiği ve bu konudaki öğretmen bilinci de dolayısıyla önem kazanmaktadır. Öğrencilerin yanlış düzeltimi ile ilgili tercihleri, dil seviyesi, dersin amacı yanlış düzeltiminde göz önünde bulundurulması gereken bazı faktörlerdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin ve farklı dil seviyelerindeki öğrencilerin yanlış düzeltim tercihlerini anlamaktır. Katılımcılar 242 öğ renci ve 5 İngilizce öğretmenidir. Çalışma için başlangıç ve alt-orta seviyede 5 saatlik ses kaydı yapılmış tır. Öğrencilerin dil seviyeleri American Language Course Placement Test ile ölçülmüştür (bkz. Tablo 1). Öğrencilerin tercihlerini öğrenmek için bir anket, öğretmenlerin tercihlerini öğrenmek için yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme kullanılmış tır. Araştırmanın sonuçları öğretmenlerin tercihleri ve yaptıkları arasında çeliş ki olduğunu ortaya koymuş tur. Yapılan kayıtlar sonucunda öğretmenlerin farklı dil seviyelerinde aynı düzeltme yöntemleri kullandıkları görülmüş, ancak öğretmenler görüşmede farklı dil seviyelerine iliş kin farklı düzeltme yöntemleri kullandıklarını belirtmişlerdir. Farklı dil seviyelerine iliş kin olarak, öğrencilerin yanlış  düzeltim tercihleri değişmektedir.

Turkish Teachers’ and Students’ Preferences of Error Correction in Different Levels of Proficiency

Errors are an inevitable part of learning. Students make errors during learning process and these errors show that students are actually testing their hypothesis about language. Therefore, how errors are corrected and teachers’ awareness about the issue is important. Students’ preferences, their level of language proficiency, object of the course are some factors that affect treatment of errors. This study aims to shed light on teachers’ and learners’ preferences on error correction in different levels of proficiency. The participants were 242 learners and five English teachers. Five sessions in beginner and low-intermediate classes were voice recorded. American Language Course Placement test was used to measure proficiency level of the students (see Table 1). A questionnaire was adopted to learn about students’ preferences on error correction and to learn about the preferences of instructors, semi-structured interviews were conducted. The results of the study show controversy regarding what teachers believe and do in practice. In the records, it was seen that teachers make use of similar correction techniques but the interview results indicated teachers believe different techniques should be used for learners with different proficiency levels. Regarding proficiency level, it was observed that students with different proficiency levels preferred different correction techniques.

Kaynakça

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Allwright, R.L. (1975). Problems in the Study of the Language Teachers’ Treatment of Learner Error.

Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (1996). Voices from the classroom: Qualitative research in second language education.

Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by principles. London: Longman.

Burt, M. & Kiparsky, C. (1975). Global and Local Mistakes in J. Schumann & N. Stenson (Eds.) New Frontiers in Second Language Learning.Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Cathcart,R.L.,& Olsen J.W.B. (1976). Teachers’ and Students’ Preferences for Correction of Classroom Conversation Errors. In J.F. Fanselow & R.H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 1976, pp.41-45. Washington, D.C:TESOL.

Chaudron, C. (1983). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Robinett & Schacter (Eds.), Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and related aspects, (pp. 428-445). The University of Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classroom: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers’ Priorities in Correcting Learners’ Errors in French Immersion Classes. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp.64-84). Rowley, M.A: Newbury House.

Chenoweth,N.A. Day, R.R , Chun,A.E., & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and Preferences of ESL Students to Error Correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, pp 79-87 doi:10.1017/S0272263100000310.

Corder, S.P. (1974). The significance of learner’s errors. J.C Richards (Ed.), Error analysis (pp. 19-24). United Kingdom: Longman.

Corder, S. P. (1967). The visual element in language teaching. London: Longmans, Green & Co.

Dekeyser, Robert, M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), pp.501-514.

Demirci, P. (2010). The effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on intake of past tense marker. (Master’s thesis). Hacettepe University, Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr

Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Volume 1). London: Sage Publications.

Dirim, N. (1999). Student reflections following teacher correction of oral errors. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.

Edge, Julian. (1997). Mistakes and correction (7th ed.). New York: Longman.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. London: Blackwell Publishing.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fielder, Clare (2011). Positive feedback in the english language classroom. Modern English Teacher, 20(4), 63-66.

Freeman, D. L. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Canada: Thomson Heinle.

Gass,S.M.,&Selinker,L.(2001).Second Language acquisition. London:Lawrence.

Gortari, T. (1998). Research on Error Correction and Implications for Teaching. The Bridge: From Research to Practice.

Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.

Huges,A. & Lascaratou, C. (1982). Competing Criteria for Error Gravity. ELT Journal,Vol.36,3,pp.175-82.

James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. London: Longman.

Klim, David Alexander (1994). A comparison of oral error treatment in university-Level ESL classes. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto, Retrieved from http:// www.metulibrary.com

Kul, Ş. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ and students’ preferences for error correction strategies in classroom conversation. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bilkent University, Ankara.

Kumar, R. (1996). Research methodology. A step-by-step guide for beginners. Australia: Sage Publications.

Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn010.

Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. Differential effects of different types of corrective feedback on L2 receptive skills: A speech perception training study. Language Learning, 66(3).

Lennane, B.M. (2007). Cross Cultural Influences on Corrective Feedback Preferences in English Language Instruction. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. McGill University, Canada.

Lennon, P. (1991). Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 180-196.

Lightbown, N.H.,& Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, pp.719-758.

Long, M. (1977). Second Language Acquisition and Task Based Language Teaching. Wiley, Blackwell.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in second language acquisition, 20, 37-66.

Mackey, A. & J. Philip (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal 82, pp.338-356.

McTear, M.F. (1975). Structures and Categories of Foreign Language Teaching Sequences. Working Papers in Language Teaching ClassroomResearch. University of Essex.

Murray, S. (1999). Correct me if I am wrong … Modern English Teacher, 8(3),pp. 43- 47.

Pomerantz, A., & Behr, B.J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. Teun A. van Dijk (Ed.) Discourse as social interaction (pp.64-91). Norfolk: Sage Publication.

Richards, J.C., & Lockhart,C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schulz, Renate A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-285.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol.24, pp.209-239.

Sheen, Younghee. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), pp.263-300.

Stern, H. H. (1991). Fundamental concepts of language teaching (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tatlıoğlu, M. (1994). Native speaker teachers’ and non-native speaker teachers’ preferences for error correction strategies in EFL discourse classes.(Unpublished Master’s thesis). Bilkent University, Ankara.

Tumposky, N.R. (1991). Student beliefs about language learning: A cross-cultural study. Applied Language Studies, 8 (1991), pp. 50–65.

Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language TeachingResearch.14(4), pp. 421-443. doi:101177/1362168810375365

Walker, J.L. (1973). Opinions of University Students About Language Teaching. Foreign Language Annals. Vol.7,pp. 102-105.

Kaynak Göster

APA Uyanıker, P . (2018). Turkish Teachers’ and Students’ Preferences of Error Correction in Different Levels of Proficiency . Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , (45) , 116-130 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/deubefd/issue/37880/326852