An investigation on the use of oral corrective feedback in Turkish EFL classrooms

Bu sınıf araştırması İngilizcenin yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği sınıflarda düzeltici dönüt uygulamalarını araştırmaktadır. Çalışmanın odak noktasını bu dönütlerin türleri, dağılımı ve hataların neden görmezden gelindiği oluşturmaktadır. Her biri 27 öğrenciden oluşan dört konuşma sınıfın toplam 12 ders saati video ile kayıt edilmiş ve bu sınıfların öğretmenleri ile çağrışım tekniğine dayalı görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar direkt düzeltme ve açıklayıcı düzeltmenin en çok kullanılan dönüt şekli olduğunu ve tecrübeli ve tecrübesiz öğretmenlerin dönüt uygulamalarının değişiklik gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Buna ek olarak, öğretmenlerin öğrencilerin yaptığı sözlü hataları bazen görmezden geldiğini ve bunun temel sebeplerinin dilbilimsel bilgi eksikliği, aktiviteyi bölmeme isteği, aynı hatayı düzeltmenin verdiği tükenmişlik ve öğrenciyi olumsuz etkilememe olduğu belirlenmiştir.

İngilizce"nin yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği sınıflarda sözlü düzeltici dönütlerin kullanımı üzerine bir araştırma

This classroom research study investigates corrective feedback implications in a sample of Turkish EFL classrooms. The types of corrective feedback, their distribution and the reasons of error ignorance were the foci. Four speaking classes in the English preparatory program of a Turkish state university were video-recorded for 12 hours in total and their teachers were interviewed through stimulated recalls. The video-recorded data were transcribed verbatim and the feedback types were identified based on the taxonomy of Lyster and Ranta (1997) and the interviews were analyzed through content analysis. The results demonstrated that recasts and explicit correction were the most widely used corrective feedback types, and experienced and novice teachers" preferences on corrective feedback type differed in recasts and clarification requests. It was also indicated that teachers sometimes ignored oral errors due to several reasons such as the lack of knowledge about the target item, unwillingness to intervene in the task or activity, tiredness of correcting the same error or paying attention not to affect students negatively.

PDF

___

Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. (1991). Focus on the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Büyükbay, S. (2007). The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
Cerit, Y. (2008). Students, teachers and administrators" views on metaphors with respect to the concept of teacher. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 6(4), 693-712.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chu, R. (2011). Effects of teacher"s corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English- majors college students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), 454-459.
Coskun, A. (2010). A classroom research study on oral error correction. Humanizing Language Teaching Magazine, 12(3).
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage: Thousand Oakes.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Doughty, C. (2001). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty and M. Long, (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). New York: Blackwell.
Doughty, C, & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction, In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 104-129). Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1-36.
Jabbari, A. A. & Fazilatfar, A. M. (2012). The role of error types and feedback in Iranian EFL classrooms. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 135-148.
Jacobs, G. M. & Farrell, S. C. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT Paradigm. RELC Journal, 34(1), 5-30
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effect on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press, San Diego.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861-878.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51(1), 265-301.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A., Polio, C. & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers" use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301-327.
Martinez, S. G. (2006). Should we correct our students" errors in l2 learning? Journal of Research and Innovation in the Language Classroom, 16, 1-7.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and Reformulation and their Relationship with Learner Repair in Dyadic Interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511-548.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-52.
Öztürk, G., & Gürbüz, N. (2014). Speaking anxiety among Turkish EFL learners: The case at a state university. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 1-17.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Pica, T., & Long, M. (1986). The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 85-98). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 80- 102.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 157-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Eds.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Touchie, H. Y. (1986). Second language learning errors: Their types, causes, and treatment. JALT Journal, 8(1), 75-80.
Ur, P. (2002). A course in language teaching: Theory and practice. UK: Cambridge University Press.