TYPES AND TIMING OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN EFL CLASSROOMS: VOICES FROM STUDENTS

Dil sınıflarındaki düzeltici sözlü dönütler son yıllarda çalışmaların odaklandığı önemli bir araştırma alanı haline gelmiştir. Bu kapsamda yapılan çalışmalar, genel olarak öğretmenlerin uygulamalarına odaklanmış olduğu için öğrencilerin bu uygulamalara yönelik algı ve düşüncelerinin araştırılmasına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu çalışma, İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin sözlü dönütlerin türü ve zamanlamasına yönelik algı ve tercihlerini irdelemektedir. Çalışmanın verileri kaydedilen sınıf gözlemleri, çağrışım tekniğine dayalı görüşmeler ve odak grup görüşmeleriyle toplanmıştır. Sözlü dönütlerin türleri Lyster ve Ranta (1997)'nın sınıflamasına göre belirlenmiş, görüşmelerden elde edilen nitel veriler ise nitel veri analizi ilkelerine bağlı kalınarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, öğrencilerin algılarının sözlü dönütlerin türlerine ve zamanlamasına göre önemli ölçüde değişiklik gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Öğrencilerin daha kolay ve anlaşılır buldukları için belirli dönüt türlerine karşı güçlü bir eğilim gösterdiği ve sözlerinin kesilerek yapılan düzeltmelerde pek rahat hissetmedikleri belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar ışığında, öğretmenlere sözlü dönütlerin kullanımı üzerine bazı önerilerde bulunulmuştur

İNGİLİZCE'NİN YABANCI DİL OLARAK ÖĞRETİLDİĞİ SINIFLARDA DÜZELTİCİ SÖZLÜ DÖNÜTLERİN TÜRLERİ VE ZAMANLAMASI ÜZERİNE ÖĞRENCİ GÖRÜŞLERİ

Oral corrective feedback in language classrooms has received considerable attention for the last few decades. However, most of the studies focus on teachers' practices, and how learners perceive these practices still needs investigation. Based on this, the current study examined the perceptions and preferences of EFL learners regarding the types and timings of oral corrective feedback (OCF). The data were collected through video-recorded observations, stimulated recall interviews and focus group interviews. Corrective feedback moves were identified based on a taxonomy and the data derived from the interviews were analyzed through qualitative content analysis. The results showed that students' perceptions varied considerably according to the types and timings of OCF provided by their teachers. They perceived recasts and clarification requests as ambiguous whereas they thought that meta-linguistic feedback was anxiety-provoking and difficult to comprehend. As for the timing, it was found that students did not feel comfortable when they were corrected with immediate feedback and the consecutive use of it by teachers discouraged students from speaking in a classroom atmosphere. In conclusion, the study put forward several suggestions for practitioners that could be taken into consideration while giving OCF to students

PDF

___

Allwright, R. L. (1975) Problems in the study of the language teacher's treatment of learner error. In M. K. Burt & H. C. Dulay (Eds). New Directions in Second Language Learning Teaching and Bilingual Education. Selected papers from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention, Los Angeles, March 1975. Washington, D.C. TESOL.
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4 ed.). New York, NY: th Addison Wesley Longman.
Büyükbay, S., & Dabaghi, A. (2010). The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 181-193.
Choi, S., & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43, 331-351.
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic errors and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 147-159.
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). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18-41.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
Grotjahn, R. (1991). The research programme: Subjective theories. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 187-214.
Kartchava, E. (2006). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target types. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428-452.
Katayama, A. (2007). Students' perceptions toward corrective feedback to oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9, 289-305.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice and second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217-230.
Lightbrown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-462.
Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In S. M. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp 24-40). New York: Routledge.
Long, M. H. (1997). 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). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
Lyster, L. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
Lyster, L., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah: Lawrance Erlbaum.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 169-178.
Moroishi, M. (2002). Recasts, noticing, and error types: Japanese learners' perception of corrective feedback. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, 5, 24-41.
Nassaji, H. (2009). The effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411-452.
Nassaji, H. (2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL classes. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 907-933.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459-481.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age difference in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119-151.
Panova, I., & Lyster, L. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on 'noticing the gap': Normative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners' perceptions, and second language development. System, 41, 472-483.
Rassaei, E., & Moinzadeh, A. (2012). Effects of recasts and metalinguistic corrective feedback on the acquisition of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 144-156.
Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79.
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. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schulz, R. (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.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.
Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Colombia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 1-21.
Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437-456.
Vann, R. J., Daisy E. M., & Frederick, O. L. (1984). Error gravity: a study of faculty opinion of ESL errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 427-440.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17, 78-94.
Zacharias, T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes towards feedback. RELC Journal, 38, 38- 52.
Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners' anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429-439.