Corrective feedback and learner uptake in an EFL classroom

Yıl 2019, , 75 - 90, 30.05.2019

Rabiye Bahar Tamerer

https://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.539534

Öz

This study, aims to find out the instances of
different kinds of corrective feedback and learner uptake that are occurred
during the interactions between the students and the teacher in an EFL
classroom. More specifically, the study tries to find out which corrective
feedback type is occurred more and which corrective feedback type leads to more
learner uptake during classroom interactions. In order to answer these
questions, an observational study was conducted in an EFL classroom with 10
nonnative students whose age were between 17 and 18 and a nonnative teacher who
had one year of experience in teaching. The classroom interactions between the
students and the teacher were recorded by the researcher during the
observation. After the observation, audio recording was transcribed and
analyzed by using a combination of COLT Part B (Spada and Fröhlich, 1995) and
Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) error treatment sequence as a framework. The findings
revealed that there was a strong tendency in the use of recasts (52%) as corrective
feedback during classroom interactions and the corrective feedback type that
led to more learner uptake was clarification request (100%). While the first
result of the study is similar to, the second result which is about learner
uptake, differs from the previous research in the literature (Lyster and Ranta,
1997). However, the current study was limited to small sample size, limited age
rage, proficiency and time and it is merely observational. Investigating
learners with different ages, proficiency levels, and larger samples with
longer studies appear to be fruitful for future research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corrective feedback, Learner uptake, EFL classroom

Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğretilen bir sınıfta düzeltici geri bildirim ve öğrenci edimsel çıkarımı

Öz

Bu çalışma, yabancı dil olarak
İngilizce öğretilen bir sınıfta, öğretmen ile öğrenci arasındaki etkileşimler
sırasında meydana gelen farklı türdeki düzeltici geri bildirimleri ve öğrenci
edimsel çıkarımlarını tespit etmeyi hedeflemektedir. Daha detaylı belirtmek
gerekirse, çalışma sınıf içi etkileşim sırasında hangi düzeltici geri bildirim
türünün daha fazla ortaya çıktığını ve hangi düzeltici geri bildirim türünün en
çok öğrenci edimsel çıkarımına yol açtığını bulmaya çalışmaktadır. Bu soruları
cevaplamak adına, ana dilleri İngilizce olmayan ve 17-18 yaş aralında 10
öğrenci ve ana dili İngilizce olmayan ve bir yıllık öğretim tecrübesi olan bir
öğretmen ile yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğretimi yapılan bir sınıfta
gözlemsel bir çalışma yapılmıştır. Gözlem sırasında öğrenciler ve öğretmen
arasındaki etkileşim araştırmacı tarafından kayıt altına alınmıştır. Gözlem
sonrasında, video kaydı kâğıda dökülmüş ve COLT Bölüm B (Spada and Fröhlich,
1995) ve Lyster ve Ranta’nın (1997) hata değerlendirme sıralamasının
kombinasyonu baz alınarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, sınıf içi etkileşimler
sırasında düzeltici geri bildirim olarak yeniden biçimlendirmenin (recast –
%52) kullanımında yüksek bir eğilim olduğunu ve en çok öğrenci edimsel
çıkarımına yol açan düzeltici geri bildirim türünün açıklama talebi
(clarification request - %100) olduğunu göstermiştir. Araştırmanın ilk sonucu
daha önceki çalışmalarla benzerlik gösterirken, öğrenci edimsel çıkarımı ile
ilgili olan ikinci sonuç literatürdeki önceki çalışmalardan farklılık
göstermiştir (Lyster and Ranta, 1997). Yine de, bu çalışma küçük örneklem
büyüklüğü, belirli yaş aralığı ve belirli yeterlilik seviyesi ve zaman
bakımından sınırlıdır ve sadece gözlemsel bir çalışmadır. Farklı yaş grubu ve
yeterlilik düzeyindeki öğrencileri, daha uzun süreli ve örneklemi büyük
gruplarla incelemek gelecekte yapılacak olan çalışmalar için faydalı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Düzeltici geri bildirim, Öğrenci edimsel çıkarımı, Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce sınıfı

Kaynakça

• Annett, J. (1969). Feedback and human behavior. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1).
• Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(2), 339.
• Esmaeili, F., & Behnam, B. (2014). A study of corrective feedback and learner's uptake in classroom interactions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(4), 204-212.
• Fakazlı, Ö. (2018). Exploring the Use of Oral Corrective Feedback in Turkish EFL Classrooms: The Case at a State University. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(6), 2177-2187.
• Fan, N. (2019). An Investigation of Oral Corrective Feedback in an ESL Listening and Speaking Class. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(1), 197-203.
• Fanselow, J. F. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign language annals, 10(5), 583-593.
• Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the development of second languages. Mahwah, NI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, 175-199.
• Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(02), 200-215.
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
• Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and complications. London, England: Longman.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Harlow: Longman.
• Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
• Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in second language acquisition, 12(04), 429-448.
• Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536-556.
• Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 2(1), 39-52.
• Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(01), 37-66.
• Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 265-302.
• Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
• Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in second language acquisition, 21(4), 557-587.
• Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
• Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 133-164.
• Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2, 593-610.
• Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
• Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT--Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme: Coding Conventions and Applications. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing.