Türkiye'deki İngilizce öğretmenlerinin düzeltici geri bildirimle ilgili inanç ve uygulamalarının belirlenmesi

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 25, 1103 - 1119, 21.12.2021

Zehra Çoban Banu İnan Karagül

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1037126

Öz

İkinci Dil Edinimi (İDE) ile ilgili yapılan son çalışmalar, öğretmenlerin inançları ile ikinci dil öğretiminde sözlü düzeltici geribildirim sınıf uygulamaları arasında belirgin bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Her ne kadar birçok deneysel ve sınıf çalışması düzeltici geri bildirimin ikinci dil edinimi için faydalarını gösterse de, buna oranla çok az araştırma öğretmenlerin inançları ve uygulamaları arasındaki sözlü düzeltici geri bildirim açısından ilişkisini incelemiştir. Bu betimsel çalışma, anadilin Türkçe olduğu bir ortamda Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğretimi sınıflarında öğretmenlerin sözlü düzeltici geri bildirimle ilgili ifade ettikleri inançları ve sınıf içi uygulamaları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Veriler, Türkiye'de bir vakıf üniversitesinde çalışan on İngilizce öğretmeninin ders gözlemleri, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve senaryo tabanlı hata düzeltme simülasyonu yoluyla toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, öğretmenlerin çoğunun sözlü düzeltici geri bildirim farkındalığına sahip olduğunu ve öğrencilerin duygusal durumlarını olumsuz etkilemekten kaçınmak için uygun bir şekilde verildiği zaman öğrenciler için yararlı olduğuna inandıklarını göstermiştir. Eğitmenlerin çoğu, en etkili düzeltici geri bildirim stratejisi olarak ortaya çıkarmayı (Elicitation) belirtmiş olsa da, örtük doğası nedeniyle en sık kullanılan geri bildirim türü olarak yeniden düzenleme (Recast) gözlemlenmiştir. Bu bağlamda, sonuçlar öğretmenlerin sözlü düzeltici dönütle ilgili ifade ettikleri inançları ile gerçek uygulamaları arasında tutarsızlıklar olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Sınıfta düzeltilen hata türleri de öğretmenlerin belirtilen inançlarından sapma göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Düzeltici dönüt, İngilizce, öğrenci hataları, öğretmen inançları

Unravelling the beliefs and practices of EFL teachers related to corrective feedback in Turkey

Öz

Recent studies in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) have shown that there is an apparent relationship between teachers' beliefs and their classroom practices of oral corrective feedback in second language teaching. Even though many experimental and classroom studies show that it is beneficial for second language acquisition, relatively little research has explored the relationship between beliefs and practices of teachers in terms of oral corrective feedback. This descriptive study aims to examine the relationship between teachers' stated beliefs and their practices about oral corrective feedback in classrooms in a Turkish EFL setting. The data were collected through classroom observations of ten EFL teachers working at a preparatory language school of a privately funded university in Turkey, semi-structured interviews and scenario-based error correction simulation. The results showed that most of the teachers have an awareness of oral corrective feedback and believe that it is useful for students when provided appropriately to avoid touching learners' affective states negatively. Recasts were observed as the most frequently employed feedback type because of its implicit nature, even though most of the instructors reported elicitation as the most effective corrective feedback strategy. In this respect, the results revealed inconsistencies between teachers' stated beliefs and their actual practices about oral corrective feedback; that is, the types of errors corrected in the classroom also showed deviation from the teachers’ stated beliefs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corrective feedback, EFL, learner errors, teacher beliefs

Kaynakça

• Agudo, J. (2014). Beliefs in learning to teach: EFL student teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, 27, 209–362.
• Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language learner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ammar, A., &Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
• Bai, B., Yuan, Y. (2018). EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices about pronunciation teaching. ELT Journal, 73(2), 134-143.
• Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243–272.
• Bell, T. (2005). Behaviors and attitudes of effective foreign language teachers: Results of a questionnaire study. Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 259–270.
• Bohlke, D. (2014). Fluency-oriented second language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton & M. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, fourth edition (pp. 121–135). Boston, MA.: Heinle Cengage.
• Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
• Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39, 370–380.
• Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: improved situated designs over statistics. System,38(3), 491–8.
• Burt, M. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 53-63.
• Dilans, G. (2015). Corrective feedback in L2 Latvian classrooms: Teacher perceptions versus the observed actualities of practice. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 479–497.
• Dong, Z. (2012). Beliefs and practices: A case study on oral corrective feedback in the teaching Chinese as a foreign language (TCFL) classroom. MA thesis, Arizona State University, US.
• Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction. London: Longman.
• Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 249–360). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Gaitas, S., & Martins, M. A. (2014). Relationships between primary teachers’ beliefs and their practices in relation to writing instruction. Research Papers in Education, 30(4), 492–505.
• Gurzynski-Weiss, L. K. (2010). Factors influencing oral corrective feedback provision in the Spanish foreign language classroom: Investigating instructor native/nonnative speaker status, second language acquisition education, & teaching experience. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University, US.
• Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
• Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398.
• Hsiang, T. P., Graham, S., & Yang, Y. (2020). Teachers’ practices and beliefs about teaching writing: A comprehensive survey of grades 1 to 3 teachers. Reading and Writing, 33, 2511-2548.
• Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467–494.
• Jensen, M.T. (2001). Corrective feedback to spoken errors in adult ESL classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
• Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., &Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 1–20.
• Kamiya, N. (2016). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 206–219.
• Kartchava, E. (2006). Corrective feedback: Novice ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices. MA thesis, Concordia University, Canada. 24.
• Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Kurbaniyova, M., &Feryok, A. (2015). Language teacher cognition in applied linguistics research: Revisiting the territory, redrawing the boundaries, reclaiming the relevance. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 435-449.
• Kuzborska, I. (2011). Links between teachers’ beliefs and practices and research on reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(1), 102-128.
• Long, M. (2006). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. Long (Ed), Problems in SLA (pp.75-116). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51 – 81.
• Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
• Lyster, R., &Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
• Lyster, R., Lightbown, P., &Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s ‘What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 457–467.
• Mardali, J., Siyyari, M., & Lu, X. (2019). English teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary: The case of teaching experience. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1-33.
• Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
• Nassaji, H., &Kartchava, E. (2017). The role of corrective feedback:Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives. In H. Nassaji& E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning,(ix-xv), Routledge.
• Neuendorf, K.A (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ölmezer-Öztürk, E. (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.
• 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.
• Panova, I., &Lyster, R.(2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573 – 595.
• Patton, M. W. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. (2015). Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers’ cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication. System, 55, 111–122.
• Ranta, L., Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. (Ed.), Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
• Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65–79.
• Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343–364.
• Sepehrinia, S., &Mehdizadeh, M. (2016). Oral corrective feedback: teachers’ concerns and researchers’ orientation. The Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 483–500.
• Spada, N., &Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
• Spada, N., &Lightbown, P. M. (2009). Interaction research in second/foreign language classrooms. In A. Mackey& C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction (pp. 157 – 175). London: Routledge.
• Truscott, J. (1999). ‘What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 55: 437-56.
• Uysal, H. H., &Bardakçı, M. (2014). Teacher beliefs and practices of grammar teaching: Focusing on meaning, form or forms?South African Journal of Education, 34(1), 1-16.
• Vasquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421–443.
• 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.
• Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.