YABANCI DİL KAYGISI VE ÖĞRENİCİLERİN SÖZLÜ DÜZELTİCİ GERİBİLDİRİM İNANIŞLARININ DİL YETERLİLİK DÜZEYİ ODAKLI İNCELENMESİ

Year 2020, , 1178 - 1193, 02.06.2020

Vasfiye Geckin

https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020..-654340

Abstract

Dil başarı seviyesinin, yabancı dil kaygısı ve öğrenicilerin sözlü iletişimdeki düzeltici geribildirim inanışları üzerindeki rolü hakkındaki çalışmalar kesin bir sonuca ulaşmamıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce’nin öğretildiği bir bağlamda, dil seviyesinin, yabancı dil kaygısı ve öğrenicilerin sözlü düzeltici geribildirim inançları üzerinde etkisi olup olmadığını araştırmaktır. Katılımcılar üniversitedeki hazırlık sınıflarından seçkisiz örneklem üzerinden seçilmiş dört faklı dil seviyesindeki gruplardan oluşmaktadır. Ölçek olarak Yabancı Dil Sınıf Kaygı Ölçeği (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986) ve Düzeltici Geribildirim İnanç Ölçeği (Fukuda, 2004) uygulanmıştır. Her iki ölçek toplamda 204 kişi tarafından cevaplanmıştır. Grup içi ve gruplar arası anlamlı farklılıkları test etmek için bir seri tek faktörlü varyans analizi ve Bonferroni düzeltmesi yapılmıştır. Dört seviye grubu yabancı dil kaygısı ve sözlü düzeltici geribildirim tercihleri açısından anlamlı bir şekilde ayrışmaktadırlar. Alt dil seviyesindeki öğreniciler, açıklama talebi isteği, söyletim ve üstdilsel geribildirimi üst dil seviyesine sahip öğrenicilerden daha olumlu değerlendirmişlerdir. Yapılan yanlışları düzelten kişiler açısından, dil seviyesinin herhangi anlamlı bir etkisi görülmemiştir, fakat tüm gruplar hata düzeltici mekanizma olarak öğretmeni ve kendilerini daha güvenilir olarak değerlendirmişlerdir. Bu çalışma eğitim öğretim dili İngilizce olan yüksek başarı gruplarından oluşan Türkiye’deki bir devlet üniversitedeki hazırlık okulu öğrenicilerinin dil yeterliliklerinin kaygı ve geribildirim tercihlerine etkisine odaklanan birkaç kapsayıcı çalışmadan (örn., Tercan & Dikilitaş, 2016; Uyanıker, 2018) biridir. 

Keywords

dil kaygısı, sözlü düzeltici geribildirim, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenenler

Thanks

I would like to thank Gönül Tuğba Akdağ, Melike Yılmaz Baştuğ, Yeşim Erdoğru, Anna Maria Ivan, Elifcan Ata Kıl, Çağdaş Kalafat, David Albachten, Özlem Tuna, Feyza Çeliktaş, Neil Warrington, Seçil Baran, Ian Fitzmorris, Gökçe Kuruçay Aydın, Joslynn Merkel and Bekir Ateş for their help in data collection and of course Boğaziçi University School of Foreign Languages students who volunteered to take part in the study.

INVESTIGATING FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND LEARNER BELIEFS IN SPOKEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK WITH A FOCUS ON LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Abstract

Research on the role of language proficiency on foreign language anxiety and learner corrective feedback beliefs in oral practice has not reached conclusive results. This study investigates whether level of proficiency affects foreign language anxiety and learner beliefs about spoken corrective feedback in an EFL context. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling. A total of 204 participants, who were all tertiary level university learners of English from four different proficiency groups, responded to two scales: Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986) and Corrective Feedback Belief Scale (Fukuda, 2004). A series of one-way ANOVA analyses and Bonferroni adjusted post-hoc corrections were run to test significance between and within groups. The four proficiency groups were statistically different from each other in terms of foreign language anxiety and spoken corrective feedback preferences. The findings revealed that the learners with a low proficiency level appreciated immediate feedback, but those with a higher level of language proficiency preferred delayed feedback. Clarification requests, elicitation and metalinguistic feedback were rated more positively by the beginner group than the other groups. In terms of the choice of correctors, language proficiency did not play a role; however, all the groups valued teachers as the main agents of correction. This study is one of the very few comprehensive studies (e.g., Tercan & Dikilitaş, 2016; Uyanıker, 2018) focusing on the role of language proficiency in anxiety and feedback preferences of high achiever tertiary level learners of English who will pursue their undergraduate studies in an English medium public university in Turkey.

Keywords

language anxiety, oral corrective feedback, EFL learners

References

• Abrar, M. (2017). An investigation into Indonesian EFL university students’ speaking anxiety. Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 4 (2), 221-248.
• Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011). Exploring the teachers’ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency. International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology, 1859-1868.
• Ay, S. (2010). Young adolescent students' foreign language anxiety in relation to language skills at different levels. The Journal of International Social Research, 3 (11), 83-92.
• Aydemir, O. (2011). A Study on the changes in the foreign language anxiety levels experienced by the students of the preparatory school at Gazi University during an academic year. (Published master’s thesis). University of Gazi, Ankara, Turkey.
• Aydın, B. (2001). A study of sources of foreign language classroom anxiety in speaking and writing classes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Balemir, S. H. (2009). The sources of foreign language speaking anxiety and the relationship between proficiency level and the degree of foreign language speaking anxiety. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
• Batumlu, Z. D., & Erden, M. (2007). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Yüksek Okulu hazırlık öğrencilerinin yabancı dil kaygıları ile İngilizce başarıları arasındaki ilişki. [The relationship between foreign language anxiety and English achievement of Yıldız Techinical University School of Foreign Languages preparatory students]. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3 (1), 24-38.
• Çağatay, S. (2015). Examining EFL students’ foreign language speaking anxiety: The case at a Turkish state university. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 648-656.
• Çetinkaya, G., & Hamzadayı, E. (2015). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretim sürecinde sözel düzeltme geribildirimleri: öğretmen ve öğrenci yeğleyişleri [Oral corrective feedbacks in Turkish as a foreign language teaching process: teachers’ and students’ preferences]. Turkish Studies- International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 10 (3), 285-302.
• Dalkılıç, N. (2001). An investigation into the role of anxiety on students' success in second language learning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
• Elaldı, Ş (2016) Foreign language anxiety of students studying English Language and Literature: A Sample from Turkey. Educational Research and Reviews, 11 (6), 219-228.
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1 (1), 3-18.
• Ferreira, A., Moore, J.D., & Mellish, C. (2007). A study of feedback strategies in foreign language classrooms and tutorials with implications for intelligent computer-assisted language learning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17, 389-422.
• Fidan, D. (2015). Learners’ Preferences of Oral Corrective Feedback: An Example of Turkish as a Foreign Language Learners. Educational Research and Reviews, 10 (9), 1311-1317.
• Fukuda, Y. (2004). Treatment of spoken errors in Japanese high school oral communication classes. (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, San Francisco, USA.
• Genç, Z.S. (2014). Correcting spoken errors in English language teaching: Preferences of Turkish EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Education and Science, 39 (174), 259-271.
• Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onhema, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 143–162.
• Hashemian, M. & Mostaghasi, H. (2015). Oral Corrective Feedback Preferences in Iranian L2 Learners with Different Proficiency Levels. English Language Teaching, 2 (3), 1-19.
• Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
• IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
• Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43 (1), 74-93.
• Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85 (4), 549-566. Li, S. (2017). Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 143-157). NY: Routledge.
• Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels. System, 34(3), 301-316.
• Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: how it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271-283.
• Luo, H. (2014). Foreign Language Speaking Anxiety: A Study of Chinese Language Learners. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 15, 99-117.
• Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
• Martin, S. & Alvarez Valdivia, I. M. (2017) Student feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 1-15.
• Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on ‘Noticing the gap’: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 (1), 99-126.
• Renko, K. (2012). Finnish EFL Learners’ perceptions on errors, corrective feedback and foreign language anxiety. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
• Saito, Y., & Samimy, K. K. (1996). Foreign language anxiety and language performance: A study of learner anxiety in beginning, intermediate and advanced-level college students of Japanese. Foreign Language Annals, 29 (2), 239-251.
• Surakka, K. (2007). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in an EFL classroom. (Published master’s thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
• Tercan, G. & Dikilitaş, K. (2016). EFL students’ speaking anxiety: a case from tertiary level students. ELT Research Journal, 4 (1), 16-27.
• Tianjian, W. (2010). Speaking anxiety: more of a function of personality than language achievement, Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33 (5), 95-109.
• 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.
• Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 532-548.