Analysis and Treatment of Oral Errors in Language Classrooms: A case from EAL Context

Abstract

This study focuses on types and frequency of learner errors in a speaking class offered at a foreign language education department in Turkey. The types and rate of feedback provided by the teacher, the distribution of feedback for each type of learner error were observed, and the relation between types of feedback and uptake rate were also investigated within the scope of this study. By following a case study methodology and through non-participant observation, 400 minutes of classroom audio were obtained for the data collection process. For the analysis of data, the recordings were transcribed and subjected to coding and frequency analysis. Error Treatment Sequence framework, proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997) was followed throughout this study. The findings indicated that grammatical and phonological errors were the most frequently observed error types. Furthermore, explicit feedback was found to be the most recurring type of feedback throughout the data. Analysis showed that for the treatment of lexical errors, recasts and clarification requests were utilized while for the correction of phonological errors explicit and metalinguistic feedback were provided. Moreover, clarification requests and metalinguistic feedback were found to be the highest uptake and repair generators.

Keywords

• EAL,Learner Errors,Error Treatment,Types Of Errors,Types Of Feedback,Uptake

References

1. Allwright, D. & Bailey K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. (1996). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Argüelles, L. G., Méndez, E., & Escudero, M. D. P. (2019). EFL teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback: A case study. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 21(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n1.69508.
4. Ataş, U (2013). Analyzing learner errors and teacher treatments to errors in language classrooms. Unpublished manuscript, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
5. Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200.
6. Busch, D. (2010). Pre-service teacher beliefs about language learning: The second language acquisition course as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 318-337.
7. Büyükbay, S. (2007). The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
8. Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers' and students' preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In J. Fanselow, and R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '76 (pp. 41-53). Washington, DC: TESOL.

9. Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers’ priorities in correcting learners’ errors in French immersion classes. In R. R. Day (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, (pp. 64-84.)
10. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Corder, P. (1974). Error analysis, techniques in applied linguistics. The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, 3, 122-153.
12. Coskun, A. (2010). A classroom research study on oral error correction. Humanizing Language Teaching Magazine, 12(3), 1-12.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
14. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
15. Ellis, R. (1994). Instructed second language acquisition. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
16. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
17. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & S. Loewen (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.
18. Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(04), 575-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X.
19. Erdogan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 1(2), 265-266.
20. Esmaeili, F., & Behnam, B. (2014). A study of corrective feedback and learner's uptake in classroom interactions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(4), 204-212.
21. Fakazlı, Ö. (2018). Exploring the use of oral corrective feedback in Turkish EFL classrooms: A case study at a state university. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(6), 2177-2187. doi: 10.24106/kefdergi.2971
22. Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10, 583-593.
23. Genc, Z. (2014). Correction spoken errors in english language teaching: Preferences of Turkish EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Education and science, 39(174), 259-271.
24. George, H. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Newbury House Publishers, INC.
25. Gooch, R., Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 60, 117-127. doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007
26. Gürbüz, A., & Yalçın-Tilfarlioğlu, F. (2017). Proposing a syllabus design for oral classes on teachers' and students' perceptions of modified output. Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(12), 2209-2216
27. Harmandaoğlu-Baz, E., Balçıkanlı, C. & Cephe, P. T. (2016). Perceptions of English instructors and learners about corrective feedback. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 54-67. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.166782
28. Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: necessary but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467-494.
29. Kamiya, N., & Loewen, S. (2014). The effectiveness of intensive and extensive recasts on L2 acquisition for implicit and explicit knowledge. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 205-213.
30. Karaazmak, F. (2018). The effects of a grammar error correction session on language learners’ success. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 10(1), 61-70.
31. Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2015). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 35-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000194.
32. Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2017). Can corrective feedback on second language speech perception errors affect production accuracy? Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 371-393. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
33. Li, S. (2014). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 68(2), 196–198. doi: 10.1093/elt/cct076
34. Li, S. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. In E. Kartchava, & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 143-157). New York, NY: Routledge.
35. Li, S. & Vuono, A. (2019) Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
36. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37. Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00465.x.
38. Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping conditions, On TESOL ‘77, (pp. 278-293). Washington, DC: TESOL.
39. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
40. Lyster, R. (1998) Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
41. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302.
42. Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013) State of the art article: Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Langauge Teaching 46(1), 1-40.
43. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 407-453). New York: Oxford University Press.
45. Margolis, D. P. (2019). Assessing assumptions of classroom-situated oral error feedback research. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 3(1), 109-130.
46. Mosbah, G. A. (2007). Treatment of Classroom Oral Errors: a Comparative Study Between Native and Non-native Speaking Teachers. Published Doctoral Dissertation.
47. Özmen, K. S., & Aydın, H. Ü. (2015). Examining student teachers’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: Insights from a teacher education program in Turkey. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(12). 141-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n12.10
48. Öztürk, G. (2016). An investigation on the use of oral corrective feedback in Turkish EFL classrooms. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 22-37.
49. Petchprasert, A. (2012). Feedback in second language teaching and learning. US-China Foreign Language, 10, 1112-1120.
50. Roothoft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.012
51. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
52. Seferoğlu, G. (2008). Insights from Turkish learners of English on the nature of corrective feedback in classroom ınteraction. New Educational Review, 16, 101-111.
53. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research 8(3), 263-300.
54. Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
55. Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research. (5th ed.) London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd.
56. Simhoney, J. & Chanyoo, N. (2018). A comparison of corrective feedback used in international and EFL contexts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 9(3), 573-582.
57. Surakka, K. (2007). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in an EFL classroom. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Languages, Finland.
58. Taipale, P. (2012). Oral Errors, Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in an EFL Setting. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Jyväskylä.
59. Taşdemir, M. S., & Yalçın-Arslan, F. (2018). Feedback preferences of EFL learners with respect to their learning styles. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1481560. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1481560
60. Vasquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers' awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421-443.
61. Winne, P. H., & Butler, D. L. (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T. Husen and T. Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education: Student cognition in learning from teaching (2nd ed., pp. 5738-5745). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.