YABANCI DİL İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ SÖZLÜ GERİ BİLDİRİM UYGULAMALARI

Öz

Bu çalışma son sınıf İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik uygulamaları esnasında sınıf ortamında sözlü geri bildirim uygulamalarını araştırmıştır. Bu çalışmanın katılımcıları bir devlet üniversitesinin, İngilizce Öğretmenliği programında eğitim gören son sınıf 10 öğrencisi ile aynı üniversitenin Edebiyat Fakültesi, İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı öğrencilerinden Eğitim Fakültesinde hafta sonları öğretmenlik sertifikası programına devam eden 10 öğrenci olmak üzere kurayla seçilen toplam 20 öğretmen adayıdır. Sınıf gözlem metoduyla toplanan veriler, yirmi dersin video kayıtlarından oluşmaktadır. Çalışma üç önemli sonuç ortaya çıkarmıştır. Birincisi, hem eğitim fakültesi hem de edebiyat fakültesi öğrencileri yapılan İngilizce sözel dil hataların mahiyetine dikkate almadan oldukça fazla sözlü geri bildirim uygulamalarına başvurmaktadır. Bir diğer deyişle, katılımcılar, öğrenci hatalarının anlamı bozup bozmadığına bakmadan her türlü hataları düzeltmeye çalıştıkları görülmüştür. İkinci olarak, katılımcılar dilbilgisi (%98) ve kelime (%82,8) ile ilgili hatalar üzerine odaklanmışlardır. Son olarak, öğretmen adaylarının sözlü geri bildirim teknikleri ile ilgili tercihlerine gelince, öğretmen ve öğrenci, ve öğrenci ile öğrenci arasında bir etkileşim kurmaya imkan sağlamayan doğrudan düzeltme (%92,9) en çok tercih ettikleri teknik olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sözlü geri dönüt stratejileri
• İngilizce öğretmen adayları
• öğremenlik uygulamaları
• öğretmen eğitimi

TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES

Öz

This study investigated pre-service ELT and Turkish EFL teachers’ actual oral corrective (hereafter, OCF) practices in the classroom during their practicum. The participants of the study were twenty final-year students, who were selected randomly, with ten senior students from the English Language Teaching (hereafter, ELT) department of the Faculty of Education and ten senior students from the English Language and Literature Department (hereafter, ELL), who were taking both their courses at the Department of the Faculty of Letters during weekdays and teacher training courses at the ELT Department at Faculty of Education at the weekends, state university. Classroom observational data have been gathered through video recordings of twenty lessons. The study revealed three important results. First, both ELT and non-ELT pre-service teachers tended to employ excessive use of OCF strategies regardless of the nature of students’ erroneous utterances. In other words, they did not take into consideration whether the errors impeded the communication or not. Second, the participants targeted, for the most part, grammar (98%) and vocabulary (82.8%) errors. Finally, the participants preferred the explicit correction method (92.9%) which is a way of input-providing, not output-providing that

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Oral corrective feedback strategies
• pre-service EFL teachers
• practicum classes
• teacher training

Kaynakça

1. Referans1 Altan, M. Z. (2012). Pre-service EFL teachers’ beliefs about foreign language learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 481-493. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2011.643399
2. Referans2 Arslan, R. Ş. (2013), Enhancing Non-Native Prospective English Language Teachers’ Competency in Sentential Stress Patterns in English, Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 34(2), 183-195
3. Referans3 Ammar. A., & Spada, N. (2006). “One Size Fits All? Recasts, Prompts, and the Acquisition of English Possessive Determiners”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574. https://doi: 10+10170S0272263106060268
4. Referans4 Bitchener, J. (2005). The Effect of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205, https://doi: doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
5. Referans5 Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The Value of Written Corrective Feedback in Migrant and International Students, Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
6. Referans6 Borg, S. (2003). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: A Review of Research on What Language Teachers Think, Know, Believe, and Do, Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. https://doi: 10.1017/s0261444803001903
7. Referans7 Borg, S. (2009). Language Teacher Cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 163-171).
8. Referans8 Britton, J. (1970). Language and Learning: The importance of speech 10 children’s development, Harmondsworth: Penguin

9. Referans9 Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.), New York: Pearson Education.
10. Referans10 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. https://doi: 10.1177/1362168810365239
11. Referans11 Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in second language acquisition, 15(3), 357-386.
12. Referans12 Chavez, M. (2006). Classroom-language Use in Teacher-led Instruction and teachers’ Self-classroom, TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
13. Referans13 Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Referans14 de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555.
15. Referans15 Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the Role of Recasts in SLA, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600. https://doi: 10.1017/S027226310606027X
16. Referans15 Ellis, R. et all. (2006). Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060141
17. Referans16 Ellis, R. (2006). “Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA perspective”, TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. https://doi: 10.2307/40264512
18. Referans17 Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Referans18 Ellis, R. (2009). A Typology of Written Corrective Feedback Types, English Language Teaching Journal, 63(2), 97-107. . https://doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023
20. Referans19 Gass, S. M. et al., (2007). Input, Interaction, and Output in Second Language Acquisition, In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.)”, Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, (pp. 175-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
21. Referans20 Gass, S. M. (1997). Input Interaction and the Second Language Learner, Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Referans21 Gutiérrez, P. D., & Villanueva, A. S. (2006). La ex-residencia del Presidente Pedro Montt Montt en la comuna de Independencia: condición patrimonial, estado actual y argumentos para su conservación. Revista de Urbanismo, (15), ág-3.
23. Referans22 Han, Z. (2008). “On the Role of Meaning in Focus on Form. In Z. Han (Ed.)”, Understanding Second Language Process, (pp. 45-79). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
24. Referans23 Harmer, J. R. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.), London: Longman.
25. Referans24 Hedge, T., (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Referans25 Kırgöz, Y. & Ağçam, R., (2015). Teachers’ Perceptions on Corrective Feedback in Turkish Primary Schools, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 574-581
27. Referans26 Kagan, S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational leadership 47(4), 12-16.
28. Referans27 Kagan, D. M. (1992a). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65-90.
29. Referans28 Kagimoto, E., & Rodgers, M. (2008). Students’ perception of corrective feedback. JALT 2007 Conference Proceedings (pp.868–879). Tokyo, Japan: JALT
30. Referans29 Kayaoğlu, M. N., & Çaylak, N. (2013). What is needed for correct pronunciation: a model or a concern? Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 269-290.
31. Referans30 Krashen, (1985).The Input Hypothesis: Issues And Complications. Longman group.
32. Referans31 Legutke, M., & Schocker-v Ditfurth, M. (2009). School-based experience. In Burns, A. & Richards, J.C. (Eds.) The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.209–217.
33. Referans32 Li, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback In SLA: A Meta-Analysis, Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365, https://doi:10.1111/J.1467-9922.2010.00561.X
34. Referans33 Long, M. H. (1983). Native Speaker/Non-Native Speaker Conversation and the Negotiation of Comprehensible Input, Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
35. Referans34 Long, M. H. (1985). Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 377-93).
36. Referans35 Long, M. H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, (Pp. 413-468).
37. Referans36 Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction concerning error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language learning, 51, 265-301.
38. Referans37 Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional Feedback And Instructional Counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. https://doi:10.1017/S0272263106060128
39. Referans38 Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
40. Referans39 Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral Feedback in Classroom SLA, Studies In Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi:10.1017/S0272263109990520
41. Referans40 Lyster, R. (2004). Differential Effects of Prompts and Recasts in Form-Focused Instruction”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. https://doi:101017S0272263104043025
42. Referans41 Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
43. Referans42 Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007), Interaction Research in SLA: A Meta-analysis and Research Synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction In Second Language Acquisition: A Collection Of Empirical Studies, (Pp. 407-446). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Referans43 Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30 (4), 459-477. https://doi:10.1016/S0346-251X (02)00049-0
45. Referans44 Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35– 66.
46. Referans45 Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). “Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development: Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings?”, The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.
47. Referans46 McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (2018). Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 1-11.
48. Referans47 Nassaji, H. (2011), Immediate Learner Repair and its Relationship with Learning Targeted Forms in Dyadic Interaction, System, 39(1), 17-29.
49. Referans48 Nicholas, H. et al., (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.
50. Referans48 Nishita, M. (2004). Recasts and repair in the teaching of small groups. ASAA E-journal of Asian Linguistics & Language Teaching, 7(7), 1 - 13.
51. Referans49 Oyler, C. J. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations during teacher-led read-alouds of information books. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 149-160.
52. Referans50 Öztürk, E. Ö. (2019). Beliefs and practices of Turkish EFL teachers regarding oral corrective feedback: a small-scale classroom research study, The Language Learning Journal, 47:2, 219-228, https://doi: 10.1080/09571736.2016.1263360
53. Referans51 Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom, TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. https://doi:10.2307/3588241
54. Referans52 Pica, T. (1994). Research on Negotiation: What Does it Reveal about Second-language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes?, Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
55. Referans53 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. Doi:10.1017/S0272263103000044
56. Referans54 Ranta, L. & Lyster, R.( 2007 ). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser(Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141 – 160 ).
57. Referans55 Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.)”, Cognition and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 3-32).
58. Referans56 Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms Across Instructional Settings, Language Teaching Rh, 8(3), 263- 300.
59. Referans57 Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the Relationship Between Characteristics of Recasts and Learner Uptake, Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392. Doi:10.1191/1362168806lr203oa
60. Referans58 Sheen, Y (2007). The Effect of Corrective Feedback, Language Aptitude and Learner Attitudes on the Acquisition of English Articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction In Second Language Acquisition (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61. Referans59 Swain, M. K. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
62. Referans60 Swain, M. K. (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour Of H.G. Widdowson, (Pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Referans61 Swain, M. K. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Pp. 471-484).
64. Referans62 VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to Form and Content in the Input: An Experiment in Consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301. https://doi:10.1017/S0272263100009177
65. Referans63 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of the Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press
66. Referans64 Wertsch, J. V. (1990). The Voice of Rationality in Sociocultural Approach to Mind. From L. C. Moll, Ed, Vygotsky, And Education: Instructional Implications And Applications Of Sociohistorical Psychology, Cambridge University Press.
67. Referans65 Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series).
68. Referans66 Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of Form-Focused Practice and Feedback on Chinese EFL Learners’ Acquisition of Regular and Irregular Past Tense Forms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235-263. https://doi:10.1017/S0272263109990519
69. Referans67 Yüksel, D, et al., (2021). Teachers’ beliefs and practices about oral corrective feedback in university EFL classes. Int J Appl https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12336