ANA DİLE BENZER ETKİLEŞİM İÇEREN YABANCI DİL OLARAK İNGİLİZCE DERSLERİNDE SÖZLÜ HATALARA MÜDAHALE

Yıl 2013, Sayı: 9, 61 - 83, 01.06.2013

Mehmet Boyno Eyyup Akıl Ferhat Dolaş

Öz

Yabancı dil öğrenme, kelime ve gramer bilgisinden ziyade ana becerilerde yeterlilik gerektirmektedir. Konuşma sırasında bir çok hata ortaya çıkmaktadır. Mevcut çalışma şu sorulara cevap bulmayı amaçlamıştır; 1 Öğretmenler anlamamı yoksa yapıyamı odaklanmatadır? Sınfta gerçekleşen etkileşim ne ölçüde anadilde iletişime yakın? 2 Sınıfta ne tür sözlühatalara odaklanılmktadır? Hatalar ne zaman düzeltilmektedir? Ne tür düzeltmeler yapılmaktadır? Çalışmamızda üç tip öğretmeni dikkate aldık: anadili İngilizce olan, ikinci dili İngilizce olan ve yabancı dili İngilizce olan öğretmenler. Her bir öğretmenin dokuzuncu sınıflara olan kırkar dakikalık derslerini kaydettik. Daha sonra, elde edilen verileri analiz ettik. Bulgular, anadile yakın etkileşim sağlayan öğretmenlerin sıralamasının anadili İngilizce olan, ikinci dili İngilizce olan ve yabancı dili İngilizce olan öğretmen şeklinde olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca, öğretmenler hata türleri ve bu hataları düzeltme tarzlarına göre çeşitlilik göstermişlerdir. AnahtarKelimeler: sözlühatatürleri, sözlühatalaramüdahale, anadileyakın, yabancıdilolarakİngilizce, sınıfetkileşimi

Anahtar Kelimeler

sözlühatatürleri, sözlühatalaramüdahale, anadileyakın, yabancıdilolarakİngilizce, sınıfetkileşimi

ORAL ERROR TREATMENT IN EFL CLASSES WITH NATIVE- LIKE INTERACTIONS

Öz

Foreign language learning requires competences in the main skills more than vocabulary and grammar. Many errors occur in speaking. The present study aims to answer the following research questions: 1 Do teachers focus on meaning or form? And to what extent are the interactions in the classrooms native-like? 2 What types of oral errors are focused on in the classrooms? When are they treated? What types of correction are supplied? We took into consideration three sorts of teachers: native, second language and foreign language speaker teachers. We audio-recorded each teacher‟s three 40-minute English classes for 9th Graders. Following this, we analyzed the transcriptions of the data gathered. The study reveals that the ranking of the teachers having native-like interactions is as the native, second language, and foreign language speaker. Also, the ranking of the teachers are in variety when the type of errors and that of correction are in question

Anahtar Kelimeler

types of oral errors, oral error treatment, native-like, EFL, classroom interaction

Kaynakça

• Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (1994). Focus on the language classroom, CUP, Glasgow.
• Bruton, A. &Samuda, V. (1980). “Learner and Teacher Roles in the Treatment of Oral Error in Group Work”, RECL Journal, 2, 49 - 63.
• Chastain, K. (1976). Developing Second Language Skills: Theory to Practice, Rand McNally College Publishing Company, Chicago.
• DePorter, B. &Hernacki, M. (2000). Quantum Thinking: Creative Thinking, Planning and Problem Solving, Learning Forum Publications, Oceanside, California, USA.
• Freiermuth, M. R. (1998). “L2 Error Correction: Criteria and Techniques”,The Language Teacher. Available: (On-line http: //langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/sep/freiermuth.html)
• Hampl, M. (2011). Error and Error Correction in Classroom Conversation: A Comparative Study of CLIL and Traditional Lessons in Austria, Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Vienna.
• 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.
• Jimenez, J. (2006).“Corrective Feedback in EFL university classrooms: A Case Study at an Italian university”, Linguistica e Filologia, 23, 45 – 89.
• Karaata, C. (1999). Developing the Speaking Skill of the Students at Samanyolu Private High School, Unpublished MA Thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Kivela, S. (2008). Pupils‟ Oral Errors and Teachers‟ Practices on Error Correction, Unpublished MA Thesis, Maaliskuu.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. OUP.
• Lee, J. (2002). “Gender effect on error treatment in university ESL classrooms”, Electronic Magazine of Multicultural Education [online], http://www.eastern.edu/publications/emme/2002fall/lee.html> (2), 16
• Mings, R. C. (1993). “Changing Perspectives on the Utility of Error Correction in Second Language Acquisition”,Foreign Language Annals, 26 (2), 171-77.
• Mntambo, N. (1995). A Case Study of Oral Linguistic Error-Treatment in Second Language Classrooms Where English is The Medium of Instruction, Unpublished MA Thesis, Rhodes University.
• Mosbah, G. A. (2007). Treatment of Classroom Oral Errors: A Comparative Study Between Native and Non-Native Speaking Teachers, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leicester.
• Park, H.-S. (2010). Teachers‟ and Learners‟ Preferences for Error Correction, Unpublished MA Thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
• van Patten, B. (1992). “Second Language Acquisition Research and Foreign Language Teaching”, ADFL Bulletin,Part 2. 23 (3), 23-27 Available http//www.adfl.org./adfl/bulletin/V23N3/233023.htm) (On-line
• Richards, J. C. (1991). The Context of Language Teaching, CUP, Glasgow.
• Selinker, L. (1972). “Interlanguage”. IRAL;10, 219-231.
• Shehadeh. (1999). “Repair work and language learning”,FORUM. 37 (4), 2.
• Taipale, P. (2012). Oral Errors, Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in an EFL Setting, Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Jyväskylä.
• Yang, C. (2010). Oral Errors, Corrective Feedback, and Learner Uptake in Elementary School Classrooms, Unpublished MA Thesis, National Pingtung University of Education.