JOURNAL 2
Perceptions of Oral Errors and Their Corrective Feedback: Teachers vs. Students
Elżbieta Tomczyk
Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Kalisz, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Ploland
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 924-931, September 2013
The current study was undertaken to investigate the perception of errors during speaking activities as well as corrective feedback from both teachers and students perspective, and to check what techniques are used by teachers in or-der to repair erroneous forms created by their students. The researcher also aimed at exploring the actual decisions that are made in the classroom by the teachers and find some similarities and differences with the previously stated beliefs.
The participants of the study were 43 secondary school teachers and 250 learners of English as a foreign language, who filled out questionnaires and were observed in real-life situations occurring in the language classroom. As regards the decision-making process and corrective feed-back, the analysis of the data revealed both differences and similarities in the opinions of the two groups of respondents in comparison with the actual classroom conditions, which indicate that correcting students’ erroneous forms is a complex issue meriting further investigation and consideration.
In order to make the study more comprehensive, the researcher decided to select two methods of data collection, namely: questionnaires and observations. The collected data were subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analysis taking into account the belief that the amalgamation of the qualitative and quantitative approaches can be beneficial when conducting classroom-oriented research (Brumfit & Mitchel, 1990).
One of the objectives of the present study was to investigate the opinions about oral errors which affect the later decisions involving corrective feedback. The collected results of both the teacher‟s and the students‟ questionnaires were analysed and compared focusing mostly on similarities and differences between them.
On the basis of the data, the importance of corrective feedback seems to be unquestionable, since the majority of both teachers and students (81.4% of the teachers and 92.8% of the learners) agreed that errors have to be corrected. According to the teachers, a learner needs to receive the information of their errors, so that he or she does not commit the same error repeatedly in the future. What is more, corrective feedback helps teachers in controlling students‟ utter-ances and it also improves the effectiveness of them. It must be highlighted that students should be aware of their erro-neous forms, since in many cases error correction motivates to work on their deviant forms and, as a consequence, make a progress. As a result, the teachers use corrective feedback rather often, namely 55,8% of them declared to do that frequently. The learners answered similarly to the teachers, stating that the most crucial argument in favour of corrective feedback is that errors have to be eliminated as soon as possible, before the habit-formation takes place and wrong forms become part of the students’ interlanguage.
The study makes clear that corrective feedback is considered to be a crucial part in the language learning, and it is even expected by most students. In addition, the majority of both teachers and learners declare grammatical and pronunciation errors as the ones which seem to be the most crucial as far as error correction is concerned. The findings also reveal that it is a teacher who is regarded as a competent, non-erring and ultimate authority, as a result, he or she is supposed to provide corrective feedback whenever deviant forms occur. Although peer correction and self-correction have many benefits and the majority of teachers declare to promote these types of correction in the classroom, the students seem not to appreciate them and they expect their teachers to rectify what they do not know. It has also been proved that contrary to immediate correction, which is usually regarded as disruptive or even irritating, delayed correction is used the most frequently by teachers, in spite of the fact that it is not as beneficial as it might be seen, since learners’ processing mechanisms are less likely to be activated. Among many techniques that might be used in providing corrective feedback, teachers tend to use explicit forms of indicating the appearance of errors, for instance by means of gestures and mimes, or by using a rising tone.
From students’ perspective, the best option on giving corrective feedback is not only indicating that a student has committed an error, but also reintroducing rules or a definition for the wrongly used item. The study demonstrates that students might react to corrective feedback in a number of ways, however, the findings reveal that learners usually feel content when they receive corrective feedback, which prevents them from committing the same errors in the future.
Selasa, 13 Desember 2016
JOURNAL 1:
Error Correction Strategies for the Classroom Oral Proficiency Used By Jordanian Teachers at Secondary Level
Abeer Al-Ghazo (Assistant Professor, TEFL)
Ajloun National University (Ajloun, Jordan)
E-mail: fares.abeer@yahoo.com, Published: October 02, 2016
The aim of the present study was to explore the Jordanian EFL teachers' error correction strategies for the classroom oral proficiency at secondary level. And the keywords of this study are: Oral error correction, Teachers, Students and Correction strategies. In the field of EFL, there have been some efforts to study the corrective feedback in English as Foreign Language （EFL）classrooms. EFL students' oral proficiency should be corrected. Correcting students’ oral language errors is a complex aspect of foreign language teaching.
Error correction (EC) helps teacher to determine their classroom teaching practices and their teaching methodology to improve their students' oral proficiency. To measure the learners' level of oral proficiency in the language, they should be assessed regularly to suggest proper solution, and then enhance their performance in learning the English language. EC is considered to be one of the important parts of teaching/ learning process.
Lyster and Ranta indicate different types of error treatment, or corrective feedback, with student responses to that feedback, or “learner uptake” (1997, p. 40). They identified six types of feedback teachers used Explicit correction: indicating that the student’s utterance was incorrect, the teacher provides thecorrect form. Recast: indicating that the student’s utterance was incorrect, the teacher implicitly reformulates the student’s error, or provides the correction. Clarification request: the teacher indicates that the message has not been understood or that the student’s utterance contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or a reformulation is required. Met linguistic clues: the teacher provides comments or information related to the formation of the student’s utterance. Elicitation: the teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking many questions. Repetition: The teacher repeats the student’s error and tries to draw student’s attention to it (pp.46-48).
This study attempts to answer the following question: What are the main error correction strategies used by teachers at secondary level to develop the classroom oral proficiency?
The generalization of the results of the study is limited by these factors:
1. This study is conducted on female EFL Jordanian teachers in Ajloun Directorate of Education in the academic year 2015/2016. Therefore, the generalizability of the results of this study is applicable to similar populations only.
2. The number of the participants of the study (40 teachers) is relatively small.
For the purpose of obtaining information needed to achieve the objectives of the study, the researchers used the Teacher's Preference Elicitation Questionnaire. The Questionnaire was adapted from Michael (2007) to elicit the types of oral corrective feedback that teachers use to correct their students' oral errors, grammatical and pronunciation errors. To guarantee the validity of the questionnaire, a number of TEFL specialists in Jordanian universities will assess it. The reliability of the questionnaire was measured by administering 20 ones to 20 female and male teachers who were chosen from outside the participants of the study for the second time after two weeks from collecting the questionnaires which were administrated earlier.
To answer the question, the researchers calculated means for error correction strategies for the classroom oral proficiency used by teachers at secondary level.
Techniques Means Description
Recast 4.25 Very good
Explicit Correction. 3.48 Very good
Repetition of Error 3.48 good
Elicitation. 3.72 good
Metalingustic Feedback. 3.99 Very good
Clarification Request 3.68 good
Denial. 2.34 acceptance
Questioning (Peer Correction 3.59 good
Questioning (Self Correction) 2.94 acceptance
Ignorance 1.49 poor
Total 3.296
As Table reveals, teachers used all types of oral corrective feedback with a mean. Meta linguistic feedback, recast, elicitation, instructions and questioning (Peer-correction) were reported to be the most used types of oral corrective feedback.). We can notice the big gap between the use of denial and ignorance and other strategies. The usage of recast by teachers might be that strategy may encourage slow learners to continue speaking without explicitly correcting their error.
Requesting and questioning (Peer-correction) were also highly used as they had means of (3.68) and (3.59) respectively. This could focus on teachers' desire to increase students' participation by using request and questioning (peer-correction). By this way Learners learn how to correct each other errors in face-to-face interaction in a safe environment. As the table shows, self correction, ignorance and denial strategies have the lowest usage in this category.
Based on the findings of the study, teachers favor corrections of language errors; and they did not neglect any of the errors and treated errors immediately using different strategies. These strategies give teachers clear pictures about their classroom practices on how they correct their students’ oral errors .On other words, it enables teachers to arrive at their own judgments as to what works and what does not work in their classrooms. Moreover, it can narrow the gap between teacher’s imagined view of their own teaching and reality.
Error Correction Strategies for the Classroom Oral Proficiency Used By Jordanian Teachers at Secondary Level
Abeer Al-Ghazo (Assistant Professor, TEFL)
Ajloun National University (Ajloun, Jordan)
E-mail: fares.abeer@yahoo.com, Published: October 02, 2016
The aim of the present study was to explore the Jordanian EFL teachers' error correction strategies for the classroom oral proficiency at secondary level. And the keywords of this study are: Oral error correction, Teachers, Students and Correction strategies. In the field of EFL, there have been some efforts to study the corrective feedback in English as Foreign Language （EFL）classrooms. EFL students' oral proficiency should be corrected. Correcting students’ oral language errors is a complex aspect of foreign language teaching.
Error correction (EC) helps teacher to determine their classroom teaching practices and their teaching methodology to improve their students' oral proficiency. To measure the learners' level of oral proficiency in the language, they should be assessed regularly to suggest proper solution, and then enhance their performance in learning the English language. EC is considered to be one of the important parts of teaching/ learning process.
Lyster and Ranta indicate different types of error treatment, or corrective feedback, with student responses to that feedback, or “learner uptake” (1997, p. 40). They identified six types of feedback teachers used Explicit correction: indicating that the student’s utterance was incorrect, the teacher provides thecorrect form. Recast: indicating that the student’s utterance was incorrect, the teacher implicitly reformulates the student’s error, or provides the correction. Clarification request: the teacher indicates that the message has not been understood or that the student’s utterance contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or a reformulation is required. Met linguistic clues: the teacher provides comments or information related to the formation of the student’s utterance. Elicitation: the teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking many questions. Repetition: The teacher repeats the student’s error and tries to draw student’s attention to it (pp.46-48).
This study attempts to answer the following question: What are the main error correction strategies used by teachers at secondary level to develop the classroom oral proficiency?
The generalization of the results of the study is limited by these factors:
1. This study is conducted on female EFL Jordanian teachers in Ajloun Directorate of Education in the academic year 2015/2016. Therefore, the generalizability of the results of this study is applicable to similar populations only.
2. The number of the participants of the study (40 teachers) is relatively small.
For the purpose of obtaining information needed to achieve the objectives of the study, the researchers used the Teacher's Preference Elicitation Questionnaire. The Questionnaire was adapted from Michael (2007) to elicit the types of oral corrective feedback that teachers use to correct their students' oral errors, grammatical and pronunciation errors. To guarantee the validity of the questionnaire, a number of TEFL specialists in Jordanian universities will assess it. The reliability of the questionnaire was measured by administering 20 ones to 20 female and male teachers who were chosen from outside the participants of the study for the second time after two weeks from collecting the questionnaires which were administrated earlier.
To answer the question, the researchers calculated means for error correction strategies for the classroom oral proficiency used by teachers at secondary level.
Techniques Means Description
Recast 4.25 Very good
Explicit Correction. 3.48 Very good
Repetition of Error 3.48 good
Elicitation. 3.72 good
Metalingustic Feedback. 3.99 Very good
Clarification Request 3.68 good
Denial. 2.34 acceptance
Questioning (Peer Correction 3.59 good
Questioning (Self Correction) 2.94 acceptance
Ignorance 1.49 poor
Total 3.296
As Table reveals, teachers used all types of oral corrective feedback with a mean. Meta linguistic feedback, recast, elicitation, instructions and questioning (Peer-correction) were reported to be the most used types of oral corrective feedback.). We can notice the big gap between the use of denial and ignorance and other strategies. The usage of recast by teachers might be that strategy may encourage slow learners to continue speaking without explicitly correcting their error.
Requesting and questioning (Peer-correction) were also highly used as they had means of (3.68) and (3.59) respectively. This could focus on teachers' desire to increase students' participation by using request and questioning (peer-correction). By this way Learners learn how to correct each other errors in face-to-face interaction in a safe environment. As the table shows, self correction, ignorance and denial strategies have the lowest usage in this category.
Based on the findings of the study, teachers favor corrections of language errors; and they did not neglect any of the errors and treated errors immediately using different strategies. These strategies give teachers clear pictures about their classroom practices on how they correct their students’ oral errors .On other words, it enables teachers to arrive at their own judgments as to what works and what does not work in their classrooms. Moreover, it can narrow the gap between teacher’s imagined view of their own teaching and reality.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)