Oral Corrective Feedback by EFL Teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
Oral corrective feedback by EFL teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo
Edith Hernndez Mndez Rosario Reyes Cruz Griselda Murrieta Loyo Universidad de Quintana Roo
Abstract This paper aims at analyzing the actual role of corrective feedback in the EFL classes in the English Language Program at Universidad de Quintana Roo. A second goal is to identify the corrective feedback techniques used by the EFL teachers in this program. For this, an exploratory study which integrated documentary and qualitative research was conducted. This article draws on research in second language acquisition (SLA) and language pedagogy in order to examine controversial issues relating to corrective feedback, such as its role in EFL classrooms and the techniques used by teachers. Five language instructors from the English language bachelors program at the Universidad de Quintana Roo were interviewed. The findings show that the type of correction mostly used by teachers is teacher correction. The techniques more frequently used are repetition of error, recasting, body language and metalinguistic feedback. However, they favor more implicit CF. It also seems that instructors target for oral corrective feedback is phonology and morphosyntax, but semantics and pragmatics are the most neglected areas. The provision of corrective feedback seems unsystematic, inconsistent and ambiguous.
Introduction Although the provision of corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom seems natural in the process of learning a language, the role that corrective feedback plays in the classroom and the attitudes language teachers have towards it have been not same through the years, or even from one teacher to another. On the other hand, in the theoretical ground, corrective feedback has also been an area of research and discussion in language acquisition and learning over the last decades, which has contributed to the debate about this issue. For the sake of clarity, one of the first definitions of corrective feedback is that of Chaudron (1977) who considers it as any reaction of the teacher which
Universidad de Quintana Roo Departamento de Lengua y Educacin http://fel.uqroo.mx - fonael@yahoo.com
240
clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner utterance. (p: 31). Other synonyms of corrective feedback more commonly used are error correction, negative evidence negative feedback. However, Han (2008) suggests that error correction implies an evident and direct correction, whereas corrective feedback is a more general way of providing some clues, or eliciting some correction, besides the direct correction made by the teacher. Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006) describe corrective feedback as follows:
Corrective feedback takes the form of responses to learner utterances that contain error. The responses can consist of (a) an indication that an error has been committed, (b) provision of the correct target language form, or (c) metalinguistic information about the nature of the error, or any combination of these. (p. 340).
Interestingly, the role of corrective feedback has been discussed from both theoretical and pedagogical grounds. While some language acquisition theories and second language methodologies encourage the use of corrective feedback, others disfavor its use. Some problems that have arisen with regard to the use of corrective feedback or its absence in the language classroom are a) the inconsistency, ambiguity, and ineffectiveness of teachers corrections (Allwright, 1975; Chaudron, 1977; Long, 1977); b) ambiguous, random and unsystematic feedback on errors by teachers (Lyster and Mori, 2006); c) acceptance of errors for fear of interrupting the communication; d) wide range of learner error types addressed as corrective feedback (Lyster and Ranta, 1997). In the context of Mexico, (Hernndez & Murrieta, 2009) observed very limited corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom, which is associated with problem C. These problems identified can be a reflection of the teachers training, perceptions, and attitudes regarding corrective feedback. Therefore, this exploratory study addressed in this paper aimed at analyzing the actual role of corrective feedback in the EFL classes in the English Language Program at Universidad de Quintana Roo. Additionally, a second goal is to identify the corrective feedback techniques used by the EFL teachers in this program. Our purpose is to explore the issue of corrective feedback in the teaching practice in
241
Mexico, and particularly at the Universidad de Quintana Roo, that will lead to further research. Since scarce research has been done with regard to corrective feedback (CF), teachers educators, teachers, pre-service teachers, and language learners can benefit with this paper as they can learn or reflect about the acquisition of a second or foreign language, and specifically, about the use of corrective feedback in their teaching practice. This is an exploratory study which integrated documentary and qualitative research. This article draws on research in second language acquisition (SLA) and language pedagogy in order to examine controversial issues relating to corrective feedback, such as its role in EFL classrooms and the techniques used by teachers. Five language instructors from the English language bachelors program at the Universidad de Quintana Roo were interviewed. They were chosen considering the different language levels they teach, and according to their availability and willingness to participate in this study. They are teachers with ages ranging from 25 to 40, and with a teaching experience from 4 to 10 years. All of them have a Masters program (two in Curriculum Design, one in Translation, one in Education, and one in Education and EFL teaching). The instrument used was a semistructured interview with 20 questions approximately. The interviews were recorded and analyzed considering variables such as: types of errors, the corrector, frequency of correction, CF techniques, perception of students attitudes, training, and individual differences. The paper is organized as follows: an overview of the theoretical and pedagogical perspectives regarding corrective feedback, and the different types of errors and corrective feedback are presented. Next, the findings are reported and discussed. Finally, the conclusions and suggestions make up the last section.
1.
The controversial role of corrective feedback in the foreign language
classroom Ellis (2009) highlight five main controversies concerning corrective feedback, which we reformulate in questions: does CF contribute to L2
242
acquisition? Which errors are to be corrected? Who should correct? (the teacher or the learner him/herself/) which type of CF is the most effective? And when is better to do CF? This paper will discuss the first three questions which cover the role of CF and the techniques or strategies used for CF. As previously stated, the view and value attributed to CF vary according to the method or approach being used by the teacher or their beliefs about correction in the language pedagogy. For example, within the audiolingual method, error correction played a very important role as both accuracy and fluency were emphasized. However, within the post-method era, according to Ellis (2009), language teaching methodologists do not prescribe overtly CF, but while some acknowledge the cognitive contribution it can make, other scholars warn instructors about the affective damage it can cause. Other methodologists use the dichotomy accuracy and fluency to place CF in the former. In the 1990s, some researchers began to assert that explicit grammar instruction, error correction, and/or a focus on form could promote SLA (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, 1993, 1994; Long, 1996; Schmidt, 1990, 1993, 1995). Loewen et al (2009) claim that the controversy concerning CF can be better understood in terms of meaning-focused instruction versus formfocused instruction. The former assumes that second language (L2) acquisition occurs unconsciously and implicitly like first language acquisition (L1).
Comprehensible input and a low affective filter in the learner are essential for language learning. Advocates of this view claim that overt attention to linguistic form is not needed, and also see corrective feedback as ineffective (e.g., Krashen, 1981; Newmark & Reibel, 1968; Schwartz, 1993; Terrell, 1977; Truscott, 1999, all cited by Loewen et al, 2009). Krashen (1982), one of its proponents, suggests that CF is useless and potentially harmful. Nevertheless, the meaning-focused instruction has been questioned with regard to its effectiveness. Research suggests that learners production shows grammatical inaccuracy even after years of exposure to the target language. This situation has been associated with a lack of noticing and practicing linguistic forms
243
on behalf of the learners. These findings suggest therefore that form-focused instruction can benefit language learners. Form-focused instruction (FFI) is defined by Ellis (2001:1) as any planned or incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic forms. This term, however, has been reinterpreted and some scholars distinguish between focus on forms and focus on form. The former refers to the:
[ ] division of the language according to lexis, structures, notions or functions, which are selected and sequenced for students to learn in a uniform and incremental way (Klapper & Rees, 2003: 288).
Within this type, there is obviously no communicative context. Conversely, focus on form favors attention to linguistic structures within the context of meaningfocused, communicative activities (Ellis, 2001; Long, 1991, 1996). Long claims that attention to meaning is not enough for acquisition to occur; some attention to form is needed. Further the notion of attention, Schmidt (1995, 2001) draws on the concept and importance of noticing as paramount in language acquisition. Learners must consciously notice input for L2 learning to occur. From this perspective, according to Kim (n.d.), corrective feedback seems to be beneficial to language learners as it stimulates noticing and triggers them to recognize the gap between their interlanguage and the target norm. This will consequently lead them to grammatical restructuring. Some other concepts closely related to these views of focus on form, and focus on meaning instruction are explicit and implicit corrective feedback, respectively. Ellis et al (2006) point out that in implicit CF there is no overt indicator that an error has been committed, whereas in explicit feedback types, there is. Schachter (1991 cited by El Tatawi, n.d.) classifies a grammatical explanation or overt error, or metalinguistic explanation in explicit feedback; and implicit correction includes, but is not limited to, confirmation checks, repetitions, recasts, clarification requests, silence, and even facial expressions that express confusion. It is precisely in next section where a brief description of the strategies for providing corrective feedback is presented.
244
2. Types of errors and types of corrective feedback 2.1 Error types When correcting, it is paramount to identify the type of error the learners make because it is not always the case teachers want or need to correct everything. Errors have been categorized by Mackey et al. (2000) and Nishita (2004 cited by Yoshida, 2008) as: (1) Morphosyntactic error. Learners incorrectly use word order, tense, conjugation and particles. (2) Phonological error. Learners mispronounce words (or we suggest it could also include suprasegmental errors). (3) Lexical error. Learners use vocabulary inappropriately or they codeswitch to their first language because of their lack of lexical knowledge. (4) Semantic and pragmatic error. Misunderstanding of a learners utterance, although there is not any grammatical, lexical or phonological errors.
2.2.
Participants in the corrective feedback
Considering the participant(s) in the corrective feedback interaction, there is the following possibilities: Self-correction is possible when the learner realizes that he has committed a mistake and repairs it by providing a correct form in place of the wrong one. Self correction seems to be preferred to correction provided by others: it is face-saving and allows the learner to play an active role in the corrective event. Peer correction occurs when one learner corrects another one. This kind of correction is appreciated for a number of reasons. Its most important advantages are the following: both learners are involved in face-to-face interaction; the teacher obtains information about learners current abilities; learners co-operate in language learning and become less teacher-dependent; peer correction does not make errors a public affair, which protects the learners ego and increases their self-confidence.
245
Teacher-correction. The person to correct the errors is the teacher. The teacher knows the problem and the solution, and can define and put things simply so that the student can understand the mistake. The student should trust and respect his/her place as a fluent speaker of English.
2.3.
Techniques used in corrective feedback
Recast involves the teachers reformulation of all or part of a students utterance, minus the error. Spada and Frhlich (1995; cited in Lyster and Randa 1997) also refer to such reformulations as paraphrase. Recasts are generally implicit in that they are not introduced by phrases such as You mean, Use this word, and You should say. However, some recasts are more salient than others in that they may focus on one word only, whereas others incorporate the grammatical or lexical modification into a sustained piece of discourse. Recasts also include translations in response to a students use of the L1. (Lyster and Randa, 1997). Clarification request: According to Spada and Frhlich (1995 cited in Lyster and Randa, 1997), indicates to students either that their utterance has been misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way and that a repetition or a reformulation is required. This is a feedback type that can refer to problems in either comprehensibility or accuracy, or both. A clarification request includes phrases such as Pardon me and, in French, Hein? It may also include a repetition of the error as in What do you mean by X? (Lyster and Randa, 1997). Metalinguistic feedback contains either comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the students utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form. Metalinguistic comments generally indicate that there is an error somewhere. Metalinguistic information generally provides either some grammatical metalanguage that refers to the nature of the error (e.g., Its masculine) or a word definition in the case of lexical errors. Metalinguistic questions also point to the nature of the error but attempt to elicit the information from the student (e.g., Is it feminine?). (Lyster and Randa, 1997)
246
Elicitation: According to Lyster this type of feedback refers to at least three techniques that teachers use to directly elicit the correct form from the student. First, teachers elicit completion of their own utterance by strategically pausing to allow students to fill in the blank as it were (e.g., Cest un . . . ). Such elicit completion moves may be preceded by some metalinguistic comment such as No, not that. Its a . . . or by a repetition of the error as in the following example: (1997) Repetition of error refers to the teachers repetition, in isolation, of the students erroneous utterance. In most cases, teachers adjust their intonation so as to highlight the error. (Lyster and Randa, 1997) Body Language does not use an oral response. With this type of error correction the teacher uses either a facial expression or a body movement to indicate the student what he/she said is incorrect. Among which, frown, head shaking, etc, were observed. (Shujen S. Yao, 2000)
3. Findings Below we report the data obtained from the interviews to instructors in the English Language Program at Universidad de Quintana Roo. For this, we have divided the information in different sections.
3.1. The importance of corrective feedback in learning a foreign language In particular, these teachers interviewed see corrective feedback to be used at the beginning of the learning process for two main reasons: beginners are less reluctant to correction than advanced learners, and secondly, because by using corrective feedback with beginners, fossilization can be prevented. They also agreed that CF ought to be used tactfully considering students attitudes toward corrective feedback. It seems these instructors see CF as a something that can damage the learners feelings and the process of learning if used very frequently and regardless the personality or emotions of the students. That is probably why
247
most of them try to get to know their students very well and find out who likes or dislikes receiving any corrective feedback. All the instructors agreed that if communication and meaning is the goal of an activity, then CF has no place. That is, they seem to be afraid of using CF for fear of interrupting the flow of communication in some activities and of inhibiting the learners participation. Accordingly, these instructors favor the use of more implicit CF techniques rather than explicit ones. Some teachers stated that CF can help learners to gain fluency and improve their speaking skill.
3.2 Types of errors When these teachers were asked about the types of errors they corrected, all of them thought about pronunciation, and particularly, they were talking about pronunciation of segments. Two teachers mentioned the correction of intonation in advanced levels. The next error types brought up by these instructors can be classified into morphosyntactic and lexical errors. Semantic and pragmatic errors were not mentioned.
3.3. Corrective feedback techniques With regard to the question of who corrects in the classroom, all teachers use self-correction, teacher correction and peer correction. Teacher correction is the most preferred one. It seems natural for everyone to correct and be corrected by the teacher, the expert and knowledgeable person. Self-correction was thought of as the set of strategies learners use to get rid of their errors by themselves, not at the moment of making the error, but as a subsequent step outside the classroom, and after having noticed the error. When self-correction, understood as the one that students make as uptake just after the error was made, was made clear to them, all teachers agreed they use it to some extent, but not very often. One teacher sees self-correction in the classroom as the best way of making corrective feedback.
248
Peer-correction is used cautiously by these instructors as learners personalities and relationships among them play a crucial role for the application of this technique. They see peer-correction as a technique that is depended on factors as learners attitudes towards their classmates, personalities, age, selfesteem, and so on. They suggest teachers must get to know their students very well before using correction between peers. As to the techniques used by the teachers interviewed, they reported: Body language. Recasts Repetition of error Metalinguistic feedback.
Although metalinguistic feedback was included as one technique used, the instructors made it clear that they dont use it directly and individually, that is, they take notes of the errors learners made during an activity and at the end of such a task, the instructors, addressing the whole class, explain the problem of the error and give examples. They rarely use metalinguistic feedback to refer to a learners error in particular. Some of them emphasized the fact that this technique was employed only when students find it difficult to understand why and what the error was about. For complicated or difficult issues, these instructors said to favor the metalinguistic feedback. Repetition of error and recasts were the techniques most declared. These teachers think that implicit corrective feedback is better as learners emotions are not affected. In addition, communication is not inhibited as they let students speak, and the correction is such as indirect that learners do not feel any harm from the correction provided. While the techniques mentioned by these teachers seem varied, the problem observed is, rather than the techniques themselves, the unsystematic and ambiguous way of providing corrective feedback. Through the interviews, teachers agreed that some techniques, such as recast and repetition of error can be ambiguous and that some students do not even notice the correction. However,
249
they still insisted on using these techniques over metalinguistic corrective feedback, or more explicit ways of CF. Moreover, these instructors never brought up any plan or way of organization regarding CF. None said anything about following a plan on how to correct what and when. We could infer teachers correct any type of mistake (phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical) based only on the criterion of how much they were affecting the meaning of the message to be conveyed. Errors could then be interpreted as those that indeed prevent communication, but it seems there are other minor errors that are neglected.
3.4 Effectiveness of corrective feedback These teachers acknowledge that metalinguistic feedback is effective, but they claim the implicit techniques for CF are more pertinent and tactful because you consider your students styles, attitudes and personalities. Teachers seem very concerned with learners emotions and are afraid of causing them anything that may de-motivate them from learning the language.
4. Conclusions Oral corrective feedback in the English Language Program at Universidad de Quintana Roo plays an important role in the teaching of English as a Foreign Language as it is used frequently in the classroom by the teachers interviewed. However, the provision of CF seems inconsistent, ambiguous and unsystematic. There is a need for teachers to provide CF clear enough to be perceived by learners as such. Although teachers do employ different techniques for CF, they seem more concerned with the learners feelings and emotions and are afraid of de-motivating them. However, these perceptions can be understood as a need to provide CF in a more systematic and consistent way. Teachers should not correct every error, or neglect all of them. They need to use techniques that are effective and that allow for time and opportunity for repair. Teachers agreed that their students do ask for CF and accept correction. So the question to think about is whether teachers intentions overlap with the learners attitudes and emotions.
250
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 References Aljaafreh, A. & J. Lantolf. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483. Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teachers treatment of error. In M. K. Burt & H. D. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL 75: New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education (pp. 96-109). Washington, D.C.: TESOL. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). El Tatawy Mounira ( no date )Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Teachers college. Columbia University. Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91113. Ellis, R. (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2001). Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Language learning, 51:Supplement 1, 391-. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 1, 3-18. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368. CUP: USA. Han, Z.H. (2008, November). Error correction: Towards a differential approach. The Fourth QCC Colloquium on Second Language Acquisition. New York, New York. Video. Hernndez, E. y Murrieta, G. (2009). La enseanza de la pronunciacin en las clases de ingls. En Reyes, M.R. Coordinadora. Creencias, estrategias y pronunciacin en el aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras. Universidad de Quintana Roo. Kim, J.H. Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 2. Teachers College, Columbia University Klapper, J. & Rees, J. (2003). Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language learning context. Language teaching research, 7, 285-314. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Institute of English. Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thomson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., and Chen, X. (2009). The modern language Journal,93,1, 91-104.
251
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 Long, M.. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. A., & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL '77. Teaching and learning English as a Second Language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 278-94). Washington, D.C.:TESOL. Reprinted in Robinett, B. W., & Schachter, J. (ed.), Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and related aspects (pp. 446-65). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993. Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & B. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300. Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., Nakatsukasa, K. (2007) Teacherss intentions and learners perceptions about corrective feedback on the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language learning and teaching, 1, 1, 129-152. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 1-64). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Schmidt, R. (1990).The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers choice and learners preference of corrective feedback types. Language awareness, 17, 1, 78-93.
Biodata Dra. Edith Hernndez Mndez. Licenciatura en Lengua Inglesa en la Universidad Veracruzana, Maestra en Enseanza del espaol como lengua extranjera por la Universidad de Alcal de Henares, Maestra y Doctorado en Lingstica Hispnica por la Ohio State University. Especialidad: adquisicin de lenguas, enseanza y aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras, estudios variacionistas. Contacto: edith@uqroo.mx Dra. Mara del Rosario Reyes Cruz. Licenciatura en Lengua Francesa en la Universidad Veracruzana, Maestra en Psicopedagoga en la Universidad de la Habana, doctora en educacin internacional por la Universidad Autnoma de Tamaulipas. Especialidad: teora de la educacin, creencias pedaggicas, uso de tecnologa
252
Contacto: rosreyes@uqroo.mx Mtra. Griselda Murrieta Loyo. Licenciatura en lengua inglesa (rea de concentracin Traduccin) y lengua francesa por la Universidad Veracruzana y maestra en Lingstica y Lenguas por la Universidad de Manchester, Inglaterra. Especialidad: lenguas en contacto: lenguas criollas, bilingismo, preservacin de lengua materna, estrategias de aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras Contacto: grises@uqroo.mx
253

Oral Corrective Feedback by EFL Teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oral Corrective Feedback by EFL Teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0

Oral corrective feedback by EFL teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo

The controversial role of corrective feedback in the foreign language

Participants in the corrective feedback

Techniques used in corrective feedback

Universidad de Quintana Roo Departamento de Lengua y Educacin http://fel.uqroo.mx - fonael@yahoo.com

Universidad de Quintana Roo Departamento de Lengua y Educacin http://fel.uqroo.mx - fonael@yahoo.com

You might also like