The role of feedback in the english language teaching at the faculty of foreign languages

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Department of Foreign Languages

The role of feedback in the english language teaching at the faculty of foreign languages

Tatiana A. Bunina



Introduction

Since the 20th century, English became a universal tool for international communication. The growing importance of the English language was the trigger for careful investigation of second language (L2) teaching. Scholars examined various approaches trying to figure out which one works best for acquisition. Naturally, close attention was also paid to the issue of feedback.

Feedback is considered to be an integral component of L2 learning theories.

In both behaviorist and cognitive theories of language learning feedback is presented as a beneficial technique. Structural and communicative approaches to language teaching define feedback as «a means of fostering learner motivation and ensuring linguistic accuracy» (Ellis, 2009, p. 3). Feedback can be subdivided into two major categories - positive and negative. Negative feedback includes another type called corrective feedback (CF), which represents a main concept of the current paper.

The issue of CF has received a considerable amount of attention over the past decades, thus many researchers put forward their own definitions of CF. Lightbown and Spada (1999, p. 171-172) stated that corrective feedback represents any indication of learners' incorrect use of target language. Ellis (2006, p. 28) concisely defined CF as «responses to learner utterances containing an error». He also highlighted that the process of correction includes, firstly, informing the learners about errors and secondly, providing the right answer and explanations.

Many L2 instructors find the need to provide correction to their students of all proficiency levels. Naturally, the usage of feedback techniques in the modern L2 classroom is almost inevitable (Ellis, 2009). Unfortunately, correction might not only promote but also harm acquisition, therefore the choice of correcting strategy plays a pivotal role in the process of L2 learning. In other words, to benefit from CF, teachers need to be aware of various strategies, and to know how to implement them in the classroom. Correction is an effective tool in ESL teaching, however its potential might be unlocked only if a teacher takes into consideration additional factors such as students' language level, age, social status, and cultural background. In other words, both linguistic and extralinguistic factors should be analyzed before deciding on a specific type(-s) of correction. Therefore we suggest that choosing the right feedback strategy might contribute to the whole educational process.

Researchers point out that students appreciate correction, especially when it is provided by the instructor (Harmer, 2007). Additionally, learners expressed a need for the clear assessment criteria that would promote their understanding of CF. Without understanding of erroneous tasks it becomes only harder for students to gain new knowledge, especially when it comes to the L2 learning.

Some scholars expressed criticism towards error correction expressed (Krashen 1982; Truscott, 1996, 1999), nevertheless the proponents of CF argue that it can promote L2 learning. A considerable amount of researches was performed to support the positive effects of CF (Russell & Spada, 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Li, 2010; Lyster& Saito, 2010), therefore there is solid evidence that CF promotes acquisition.

Despite the apparent benefits of CF implementation, the issue of correction does not receive much attention among Russian scholars. As the result, only limited information about CF practices is presented. Not many Russian instructors take advantage of the CF strategies for correcting students' oral and written productions, relying only on the previously seen standard practices such as clarification request, recasts, direct and indirect correction. The ability to use CF strategies could be a valuable tool that would encourage L2 teachers to provide relevant comments on learners' outputs, and to fulfill the potential of their students.

Furthermore, there have rarely been any attempts to investigate and analyse the perception of the CF among all participants of the educational process. We suggest that raising awareness among Russian teachers may have significant benefits such as improvement of their feedback techniques and a better understanding of the CF functions.

Therefore, the purpose of the study is to provide an overview of the primary CF classifications, and to examine the general attitude of teachers and students towards correction. Thus, the object of the study is corrective feedback in L2 teaching, and the subject is the ESL students' and teachers' attitude towards different corrective feedback strategies.

The dual aims of this paper are (a) to examine the ways in which teachers at the linguistic department of the Higher School of Economics give oral and written feedback to their ESL students and (b) to understand the attitude of both teachers and students towards various corrective feedback practices.

Having identified the key aims of the research, it is now possible to outline the primary tasks of the study:

1. To study the principal classifications of the oral and written CF

2. To analyze the existing body of research on the topic and outline the general tendencies in the instructors' and learners' attitude towards CF in L2 teaching

3. To conduct a survey to identify what CF are preferred by teachers and students of the linguistic department of HSE

4. To suggest what CF could be used by teachers to promote L2 acquisition in order to meet students and teacher's expectations

The hypotheses presented in the paper are that (a) students and instructorsprefer CF initiated by a teacher and (b) consider implicitCFto be an effective tool in L2 learning. The above-stated hypotheses are based on the fact that students appreciate correction (Roothooft& Breeze, 2016) and consider teacher feedback to be the most significant component in the process of learning (Lyster et al., 2013; Ellis &Shintani, 2013; Zhang & Rahimi, 2014).

The current paper employs both empirical and analytical research methods. It analyzes the literature on the topic of CF and conducts a survey in form of a questionnaire.

The theoretical significance of this work is defined by the fact that no Russian scholars investigated the attitude of students and teachers towards CF, therefore the current study will add to the existing body of knowledge about feedback.

The practical significance of the current research consists in the identification of the most widespread and preferable CF strategies implemented at the linguistic department of HSE. It shouldn't be automatically assumed that students know what type of correction is the most advantageous for them, nevertheless we suggest that the information about learners' preferences may help teachers to improve their CF practices.

The findings from the study will illustrate the general perception of the corrective feedback at HSE linguistic department as well as reveal the basic principles of giving CF. The results of the study may be useful for L2 instructors who want to improve their CF practices and would like to gain a more accurate understanding of linguistic students' feedback preferences.



Chapter 1. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

In this part of the research we are going to provide a definition of corrective feedback. A literature review will be conducted in order to identify the main

approaches to correction and outline the primary classifications of oral and written CF.

The natural process of error-making is an inevitable part of second language acquisition (SLA). It should be emphasizes that the current paper adopts the distinction made by Hedge (2000) who suggested that errors are caused by gaps in knowledge, while mistakes occur because of non-linguistic factors. Errors identify the aspects that need improvement and also provide an opportunity to track a progress in the target language. However, to understand why and where exactly an error was made a feedback on erroneous tasks must be given. Feedback can be divided into two major categories - positive and negative. Corrective feedback constitutes one type of the negative feedback. The primary aims of corrective feedback is to accentuate the errors and to provide an explanation, thus contributing to L2 learning.

This paper will focus on research in second language acquisition and language pedagogy in order to ascertain the role of feedback in second language teaching and to examine various controversial issues related to it.Thus, the dual objectives of the theoretical part of the study are (a) to provide information about the origin and development of the feedback theories and (b) to examine the main classifications of oral and written CF.

1.1 Formative assessment & feedback

Feedback is considered to be an inevitable component of formative assessment (Brookhart, 2008). The main aim of formative assessment is to provide both teachers and students with information about an individual's performance in relation to group's learning objectives. According to Brookhart (2008, p.1), formative assessment might help students to identify what skills they need to develop and what future actions are needed to achieve their goals.

The teacher's ability to give good feedback is one of the most significant skills for formative assessment implementation. Nevertheless, there are also other factors that may influence the process. For instance, some of the formative assessment skills consist in establishment of clear learning goals, which then may help students to formulate new objectives and action plans on their own.

Formative feedback may be seen as dual phenomenon that addresses cognitive and motivational aspects. The cognitive factor is represented by information that students receive about their progress in learning. Hence, cognitive factor is closely connected with understanding of future actions in an educational process. The motivational factor is based on students' feelings of confidence and control. In other words, motivational factor develops when students know what to do, when, and how (Brookhart, 2008 p.2).

Scholars still don't have an unambiguous and universal definition of feedback, thus it is only natural that its key components are hard to identify. Schute (2008) pinpoints that good feedback delivers information that can be used by a learner, which means that an individual is able to understand teacher's comments. Another principal aspect lies in the fact that even well-intentioned feedback may be harmful and destructive, therefore a careful attention must be paid to the nature of feedback and the contest in which it is provided.

Feedback is an essential part of assessment because it is able to represent constructive criticism as an effective tool for performance improvement. To fulfill the potential of the students, the teacher should create an environment where errors are seen as a part of the learning process. To put it another way, students need to understand that learning is impossible without practice.



1.2 The origin of feedback theories

The origin of the first feedback studies is closely connected with behaviorism, a psychological perspective developed by such prominent scientists as Pavlov, Watson, Torndike, and Skinner. According to the behaviorism theory, learners' actions and behavior can be modified with the help of stimulus and response. The final result of implementation of the behaviorism learning theory is the formation of a required behavioral pattern, thus the achieved results can be noted and analyzed.

Nowadays more and more educational researchers tend to move away from behaviorist theories that emphasize stimulus-response connections (Brookhart, 2008 p.3). With the further analysis of the feedback phenomenon the role of the student has come into notice. The information given in form of the feedback is significantly influenced by the student's individual perception, that is based on experience, motivation, and prior knowledge. Thus, the student's objective is not to respond to stimulus but to make meaning from tasks and learning activities. This complex process was called self-regulation. According to Bandura (1991), self-regulation system serves as the basis for purposeful action, and it is only natural that learning cannot occur without deliberate and meaningful actions.

With the development of the communicative approach to language teaching (CLT), students' errors are no longer referred to as imperfections (Gass&Selinker, 2008). According to the CLT, the ultimate aim of L2 learning is an ability to communicate usingthe target language, thus the process of acquisition is realized by the means of communicative tasks and activities. Communicative approach puts more emphasis on fluency in comparison with accuracy, therefore students' errors are considered to be a natural part of learning.



1.3 Positive and negativefeedback

Being grounded on the behavioral theory, feedback subdivides into positive and negative. Positive feedback is viewed as “positive reinforcement”, while the negative type functions as “punishment” (Brookhart, 2008 p.3). Both positive reinforcement and punishment may influence learning, however the ways of implementation and learning outcomes might be significantly different. The current paper focuses on the issue of corrective feedback, nevertheless we find it crucial to provide an overview of both positive and negative forms.

Positive feedback confirms that a student's response to an activity is correct by providing comments such as “yes”, “well done” etc. (Ellis, 2009). According to Hattie and Timperley (2007, p.98) this type of feedback could be also referred to as praise. Hyland & Hyland (2001 p.186) proposed the following definition of praise: “an act which attributes credit to another for some characteristic, attribute, skill, etc., which is positively valued by the person giving feedback”. One the one hand, pedagogical theory emphasizes the importance of positive feedback because it provides additional support to the student and encourages future learning (Nunan, 1991). Ellis (2009) highlighted that positive feedback can reinforce students' motivation, thus promoting the learning sustainability.

SLA theory, on the other hand, views positive feedback as a controversial technique because of its correction component.For instance, the teacher's phrase «Good» does not always indicate that the student's output is correct. Moreover,positive feedback move might be followed by correction or modification of the student's answer (Ellis, 2009). Since positive feedback is not specific it doesn't indicate what exactly was correct or accomplished, therefore it may lead to ambiguity.

Nunan (1995), Brown (2000), and Ur (2006) put forward a theory that there are two primary types of feedback - positive and negative. Negative feedback is unambiguously aimed at correction as it emphasizes that the student's output is linguistically deviant. Ur (2006 p.257) investigated both positive and negative feedback. He suggests that positive type serves as an encouragement, nevertheless negative feedback can provide constructive criticism and, if given in a supportive manner, don't lead to discouragement. Hyland & Hyland (2006) highlighted that despite paying a careful attention to negative feedback phenomenon, SLA researchers and language educators still cannot reach an agreement on what errors to correct, when to correct them and how.

It should be noted that while some scholars and language educators do not make any distinctions between such terms as negative and corrective feedback, others treat them as close in meaning yet separate. For instance, Ellis (2009 p.3) pinpointed that corrective feedback, the key concept of the current paper, represents one subtype of negative feedback. According to Sheen (2004 p.264) CF is an umbrella term that encompasses both explicit and implicit forms of negative feedback. A careful attention to the main differences between the terms will be paid in the next section of this paper.

1.4 Definition and components of CF

There are three coexisting terms often used as alternatives - correcting feedback, negative feedback and negative evidence. Some researchers point out that the differences between the terms are minor. Nevertheless, we believe that their distinction is needed because it may prevent future ambiguity and confusion.

Negative feedback is aimed at informing students of their errors. The main objective of the teacher consists in emphasizing that there are errors without specifying why the answer is wrong. On the contrary, corrective feedback identifies learners' errors and explains how they can be corrected. While the term negative feedback refers to the cognitive psychology, CF is frequently used in language teaching. Both negative and corrective feedback are more connected with teachers' actions.

Another term is called negative evidence. It is mainly used in the field of psycholinguistics. In contrast to corrective and negative feedback, negative evidence lies in the perspective of learners.

In the current work the term corrective feedback will be used to identify the teachers' reaction on the learner's erroneous tasks.As it was previously mentioned, CF represents one subtype of negative feedback. Corrective feedback can be identified as a «response to a learner utterance containing a linguistic error» (Ellis, 2009 p.3). The repairsare usually initiated by the teacher or peers and are aimed at correction.

According to Ellis, Loewen, &Erlam (2006) there are three main components of the response:

1.Indication of an error

2.Introduction of the correct form

3.Metlinguistic information about type and nature of an error

The components can be used separately or combined together depending on the corrector's choice.

According to Ellis & Sheen (2006) CF episode encompasses three basic components: trigger, feedback move, and uptake. Scholars emphasized, that uptake can be optional. For example:

S1: How have you done this summer?

T: What? (teacher asks for clarification)

S1: How have you done this summer holidays?

T: Ah, what have you done? (recast)

S2: What have you done (2^nd student uptakes the correction)

Naturally, CF episodes can be not only simple, but also complex e.g. involving different corrective and triggering moves.

In some cases the process of correction may be more complex when a phrase is subdivided into fragments. This approach is aimed to provide a better understanding of the errors:

Learner: I will travelled to Moscow on next year (Trigger)

Teacher: I will travelled (Feedback)

Learner: I will travel (Uptake)

Teacher: on next year? (Repeated feedback)

Learner: next year (Uptake)

Teacher: Yes, that is correct, it should be next year (Strengthen)

1.5 Role of CF

The attempts to define the role of feedback in knowledge and L2 acquisition provoked heated debates. Different educational methods put forward their own views on correction. According to Ur (1996), the role of correction can vary depending on the method. For instance, according to the audiolingual theory corrective feedback serves as punishment, thus it may hinder the learning process (Ellis, 2009). Humanistic methods accept only positive feedback as it helps to create a positive self-imageof the student while skill-learning theory emphasizes that learners should be given a feedback to understand their development in the target language (Ur, 1996, p. 243).

Ur (1996) pointed out that there is a need for correction in L2 teaching, however the role of the feedback should not be overestimated because it doesn't always help to eliminate errors. With the process of corrective feedback investigation, its positive influence became evident (Mackey, 2007), however this work seeks to analyze various viewpoints. This section of the paper will be dedicated to the overview of different opinions presented on the issue of corrective feedback.

Being an opponent of correction theories, Krashen (1982) claimed that CF impedes the learning process. He suggested that error correction has such negative consequence as a usage of simple constructions instead of complex ones to avoid possible mistakes (Krashen, 1982 p.74-75). Despite the general skepticism about CF, Krashen acknowledged that correction focused on simple rules can be effective because it may help students to monitor their output.

Another point highlighted by Krashen is that error correction only deals with the learned knowledge and has no influence on the acquired knowledge. His view was supported by VanPatten who believed that error correction is ineffective in the process of language learning (VanPatten, 1992). However, almost a decade later, VanPatten has changed his view. He highlighted that implementation of CF in the form of negotiating for meaning can lead to a better understanding of errors (VanPatten, 2003).

Truscott (1996, 1999, 2007) argued that correction of the student's written production might contribute to the elimination of errors in the further works, nevertheless it doesn't influence the overall grammatical accuracy. In other words, correction of the student's written output doesn't lead to L2 acquisition. Ferris (1999) opposed the Truscott's view highlighting that correction is inevitable in the process of L2 learning. She emphasized that the efficacy of correction depends on its quality. To put it another way, if corrective feedback is clear and logical it would promote acquisition.

According to Harmer (1983 p.44) it is crucial to differentiate between fluency and accuracy work. He believed that when students take part in a communicative activity aimed at fluency the teacher should not interrupt learners to point out that there is an error. Nevertheless, Harmer acknowledged that CF can be implemented in accuracy work. His approach corresponds with teacher's own views on CF (Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis 2004).

Investigating the issue of written and oral corrective feedback, researchers put forward a theory that correction may result in L2 acquisition (Sheen, 2007; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008). Nevertheless, some scholars have a different opinion on CF, thus the role of feedback still debatable (Ellis, 2009).

It should be noted that despite the considerable amount of research on the issue of feedback, there are hardly any general conclusions (Shute, 2008). Having performed several meta-analyses, some scholars described collected feedback data as inconsistent and controversial (Azevedo & Bernard, 1995; Kluger &DeNisi, 1996). At the same time, it was widely cited that feedback facilitates learning and performance (Bandura, 1991; Fedor, 1991; Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). Only a few works reported that feedback has a negative effect or no influence on learning (Kluger &DeNisi, 1996; Mory, 2004).

At the present time there is increasing evidence that CF contributes to the process of second language learning (Bitchener et. al, 2005; Ellis, Loewen, &Erlam, 2006).According to Ellis (2009), nowadays researchers and language educators acknowledge the possible cognitive contribution that CF can make. SLA researchers hold the opinion that corrective feedback can promote language acquisition, thus the research focus has switched from figuring out if CF works to careful examination of the corrective feedback types and their efficacy.

In addition, corrective feedback is a part of the learning process that helps students to gain a detailed understanding of their progress and performance. One of the distinctive features of feedback is that it contains information that can contribute to learning, therefore the content of feedback must be well-structured and manageable.

Finally, Brookhart (2008) highlighted that there are no universal strategies that will suit every individual's needs.

The current work accepts the view that CF can promote acquisition, hence its implementation in L2 classroom is considered to be beneficial.

1.6 Oral Corrective Feedback

The current work examines feedback that is given in both oral and written forms. Differences in the format determine different approaches to correction. Naturally, there are various ways in which correction can be provided. In this part of the study we will examine the main correcting strategies defined in the classifications proposed by Lyster&Ranta (1997; 2007) and Ellis (2009). Lyster and Ranta focused more on the oral productions, while a classification put forward by Ellis is considered to be more universal(Sanavi&Nemati, 2014).

Oral corrective feedback (OCF) can be defined as the teacher's reaction on the student's erroneous oral productions.

Investigating the issue of oral feedback, Ranta&Lyster (2007) distinguished two main types - reformulation and prompt. Reformulation includes another two subtypes - recast and explicit correction, while prompt encompasses elicitation, metalinguistic clue, clarification request, and repetition.

Recast

The recast consists in teacher's repetition of the student's erroneous oral production but in the correct form; the student then repeats the corrected variant. In the case of recast, correction takes place almost immediately after an incorrect utterance was produced. For example:

S: I went to Saint Petersburg three times

T: You have been in Saint Petersburg three times. (a phrase by corrector that then is repeated by the learner)

Long (1996; 2006) emphasized that corrective feedback provided in the form of recasts helps students not only to notice their errors but also to build form-meaning connections, thus promoting L2 acquisition. He claims that recasts don't impede the flow of communication, therefore this strategy might be beneficial in the process of L2 learning. Nevertheless, other researchers opposed this standpoint by suggesting that recasts bring ambiguity into correction, and that their efficacy in lower as compared to prompts (Lyster, 2004). Additionally, a number of studies revealed that the most common CF strategy are recasts (Oliver and Mackey, 2003; Sheen, 2004).

Explicit correction

Explicit form of correction consists in indicating student's errors and providing the right variant. For example:

S: in 6 p.m.

T: No, in 6 p.m. is incorrect, at 6 p.m. We say “I usually havedinner at 6 p.m.”

In contrast to explicit correction, recast aims at restating correctly the wrong language form without clarifying what errors were made.

The next major category of oral feedback classification is called prompts. It consists of elicitation, metalinguistic clue, clarification requests, and repetition.

Elicitation

Elicitation is characterized by the usage of pauses, that are made to attract student's attention to an erroneous part of an oral production. Sanavi&Nemati (2014) highlighted that the implementation of elicitation teaching in written form is impossible without some modifications. The teacher repeats the correct part of the learner's production and uses intonation to emphasize that the student should continue it.

For example:

S: At the moment I arrived she made a dinner

T: At the moment I arrived…?

Metalinguistic clue (so-called paralinguistic signal)

The nature of metalinguistic clue is closely connected with implicit correction. Special verbal and non-verbal signals are used by the teacher to emphasize the error, however the instructor doesn't correct it.

For instance:

S: Last year I make a project

T: Uses gestures to show that this action was done in the past e.g. waves a hand to emphasize the order of actions and tenses

This CF strategy can also be represented by metalinguistic comments and questions, e.g. This noun needs an article; Do we need an article here?

Clarification request

The distinctive feature of this approach is the usage of questions which indicate that the teacher didn't understand the student's linguistic output.

For example:

S: How do we prefer home?

T: What do you mean by that?

Repetition

To attract the student's attention to the erroneous part of the production the teacher repeats the learner's output emphasizing the error with the help of intonation and stress.

For example:

S: I have did it before my mother came

T: I have DID it

Having discussed the primary classification of OCF, we can point out that oral feedback subdivides into (a) explicit and implicit (Carrol &Swain, 1993; Aljaafreh&Lantolf, 1994); (b) input-providing and output prompting (Lyster, 2004; Ellis, 2006).

Ellis (2009) proposed the following taxonomy that is aimed at identifying the principle forms of oral CF:

Table 1. Forms of oral corrective feedback. Adapted from Ellis (2009).

	Implicit	Explicit
Input-providing	Recast	Explicit correction
Output-prompting	Repetition Clarification request	Elicitation Metalinguistic clue (paralinguistic signal)

The survey conducted by Ellis et al. (2006) revealed that both implicit and explicit types of CF can promote L2 acquisition, nevertheless explicit correction is considered to be more effective.

1.7 Written corrective feedback

Ellis (2009) put forward the classification of CF that can be used to describe various approaches to the correction of written productions. He pointed out that written corrective feedback (WCF) subdivides into six major types - direct, indirect, focused/unfocused, metalinguistic, reformulation, electronic feedback.

Direct

The core function of direct feedback is to provide the correct variant to the learners, therefore is could be used for the students who have low level of proficiency (Eslami, 2014). Direct feedback may be advantageous for such category of learners because they usually don't have enough knowledge to recognize and correct their errors. The main drawback of direct feedback is based on the student's minimal processing of the erroneous production, therefore this technique has a limited contribution to the long-term learning (Ellis, 2009). Another disadvantage of this technique lies in the fact that direct feedback is time-consuming for teachers. (Ferris & Roberts, 2001)

Indirect

Indirect written CF indicates that there is an error in the student's linguistic output without providing a correct form (Ellis, 2009). Indirect feedback on written tasks might state the category of an error (e.g. lexical, grammatical etc.), however students should perform the actual correction by themselves. Being proponents of indirect correction, Ferris & Roberts (2001) claimed that it enables learners to reflex on their errors, hence promoting cognitive processing.

Metalinguistic

The essence of metalinguistic is represented by two key forms - error coding and brief grammatical description. In the case of error coding, teacher marks erroneous parts of the student's work using special codes to identify the kind of an error (e.g. gr. for grammar; WO for word order). Before implementing this technique, the instructor should ensure that students are familiar with the codes and their meaning (Sanavi&Nemati, 2014). Another form of metalinguistic feedback consists in the enumeration of the errors in the learner's written production, and is followed by the brief explanation of the erroneous parts at the end of the task.

Focused and unfocused

Ellis (2009) highlighted that depending on the focus of the feedback it is possible to distinguish between focused and unfocused correction. Naturally, unfocused feedback seeks to correct all types of errors in a piece of writing, e.g. lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistic. In the case of focused feedback the instructor focuses on the specific aspects and ignores other errors.

Electronic feedback

Electronic feedback is characterized by the usage of an electronic software by the students. This type of CF can provide students with the correction that they need.

Reformulation

The nature of reformulation lies in the teacher's reconstruction of the student's erroneous output aimed at making it more native-like. The main idea of reformulation is not only to reshape the form but to make students' productions more natural. The study conducted by Sanavi&Nemati (2014) provide additional support for reformulation. Their findings revealed that all six CF strategies have a positive impact on students' writing abilities, however reformulation is proved to be the most effective.

Ellis (2009) pointed out that such CF strategies as electronic feedback and reformulation are not so common in L2 classroom. We suggest that electronic feedback is not so widespread in Russia, hence it might be unfamiliar to the vast majority of participants. The current research will not include this correcting strategy in the questionnaire to focus on more widespread techniques.

Summing up the information about the written type of corrective feedback we can distinguish between its principle forms. According to Ellis (2009), written corrective feedback has six major categories - direct, indirect, metalinguistic, focused/unfocused, reformulation, and electronic. He also pinpointed that such techniques as direct, indirect, metalinguistic and focused/unfocused feedback are the most frequently used in L2 teaching (Sanavi&Nemati, 2014).

Naturally, the correction of students' written productions takes time and much effort, thus there is an evident need for effective CF strategies.



1.8 Timing

Timing plays a pivotal role in the process of correction and may positively influence the learning process. According to the time of provision corrective feedback in L2 classroom falls into two major categories - immediate and delayed.

Immediate type can be defined as correction in the process or right after the accomplishment of a task. In other words immediate correction may be referred to as a real-time feedback. This type of timing is mostly used for the correction of the student's oral productions, however its implementation in the written form is also possible (e.g. right after the completion of a quiz).

A case study conducted by Argu?elles et. al (2019) revealed that the vast majority of EFL teachers prefer delayed CF provision over immediate one in case of oral correction. The main reason for such trend is the teachers' belief that interruptions may cause intimidation and inhibition. Counter to the participants' views, Sheen (2011) emphasized that an immediate correction might be beneficial to L2 students because of the positive cognitive effect on the learning. Mackey (2007) also put forward a theory that CF can be the most effective if provided in context and immediately after the student made an error.

The essence of delayed feedback lies in the correction that occurs after some time (Shute, 2008). Naturally, delayed CF can be used for the correction of students' oral and written productions. Ellis (2009) emphasized that written corrective feedback is given not immediately because teachers need to collect the works and respond to them, thus it is possible to claim that written CF is delayed. The proponents of delayed feedback suggest that this approach is advantageous to the learners as it allows to encode the correct information with no interference (Kulhavy& Anderson, 1972). According to Harmer (1983), the teacher should not interrupt the learners who are taking part in a communicative activity, because it has a negative influence on fluency.

The issue of feedback timing provoked heated debates. Many scholars made attempts to identify the effects of immediate and delayed CF on the learning process, however no final conclusions were reached (e.g. Clariana, 1999; Jurma& Froelich, 1984). Dabaghi (2006) pointed out that nowadays there is no solid evidence that one type correction is more beneficial than the other. Therefore, this paper is aimed at identifying what timing is seen by learners as preferable.

1.9 The choice of correcting strategy

Naturally, the choice of CF strategy depends on a corrector. The current work is dedicated to the issue of teacher-initiated corrective feedback, thus we will examine the primary correcting techniques implemented by EFL instructors. Additionally, this section of the paper will try to outline the students' general attitude towards CF and its provider.

Scholars point out that L2 instructors should pay attention to the students' opinion about the CF strategies implemented in the classroom (Lee, 2005). According to Faqeih (2015), the teachers' and learners' attitudes towards different CF techniques might significantly influence their results. Nevertheless, only limited amount of researches were conducted in order to understand CF preferences of both sides of the learning process.

On the basis of provider it is possible to distinguish between two main types of feedback - self-correction and other-initiated CF. Some scholars claim that students firstly should be given an opportunity to perform correction by themselves, and then, if it is needed, to ask other learners to give CF (Hedge, 2000). This technique is seen as beneficial because it puts a premium on students' output, thus promoting acquisition (Lyster, 2004; Ferris, 2006). Nevertheless, self-correction is not always possible, especially for the students with low level of proficiency. The reason for this lies in the fact that learners need to possess enough knowledge to correct their erroneous outputs.

Notwithstanding the fact that self-correction cannot be implemented in every task and for every student, it functions as an inevitable component of CF strategies, such as metalinguistic clue, clarification request, elicitation, and indirect feedback. According to the research conducted by Yoshida (2010) both L2 learners and teachers pointed out that such CF strategies as clarification request and elicitation are more effective in comparison with recasts. The respondents expressed an opinion that the techniques which include a self-correction component work best for L2 acquisition, because they give students confidence in their knowledge. Learners claimed that instructors need to spend a considerable amount of time on explanation, thus allowing students to correct errors on their own. The study by Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) revealed the similar results, stating that both instructors and L2 students prefer CF in form of elicitation and metalinguistic followed by a detailed explanation of the errors.

Proponents of teacher-initiated CF put forward a theory that it has a positive influence on acquisition, hence playing a pivotal role in the process of L2 learning (Ellis, 2009). Studies revealed that students appreciate teacher's feedback.

Zhang et al. (2010) performed their research using questionnaire aimed at identifying differences in teachers' and students' preferences for CF. Scholars asked the respondents about who should take a role of a CF initiator and what correcting techniques should be implemented. The results illustrated that L2 learners want instructors to provide CF instead of receiving peer-initiated feedback. Besides, L2 students expressed a strong preference for explicit CF. Conversely, instructors used various CF strategies basing their choice on the specific type of an error. The scholars emphasized that L2 learners are not opposed to the peer CF, however they feel that correction given by instructors is more beneficial(O'Brein, 2004). Additionally, the results demonstrated that learners would like to receive more correction because it is seen as a key component of progress in the target language.

The process of correction can be referred to as a complex phenomenon because it encompasses various factors. The teacher's decision about the type of feedback is primary based not only on the type of the task but also on the corrector's perception of the student's personal traits.What is more, the teacher's choice of CF strategy is significantly influenced by the theory of teaching and knowledge about various types of correction. Besides, speaking about students' features that may influence their perception of CF, one should mention individual learning styles (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). Many researchers proposed their explanations of learning styles, for instance, Felder & Silverman (1988) definedthis them as “characteristics and preferences of individuals in the processes of receiving, remembering and processing knowledge”. Learning styles determine the way a person perceives and processes information, thus the usage of various CF techniques might enable students to receive correction in the form they prefer.

According to Ellis (2009), some teachers are not sure which strategies can be considered effective, therefore the correction is based on their own understanding of good CF. As a consequence sometimes L2 teachers automatically adopt the way of correction implemented by their instructors or colleagues.

Many SLA researchers made attempts to identify which CF strategy works best for the process of L2 acquisition. Long (1996; 2006) claimed that recasts help to create form-meaning connections because this CF technique includes the correct form of the linguistic output and is provided in a context. At the same time Seedhouse (1997; 2004) pointed out that direct, explicit correction marks errors as minor and not embarrassing, therefore this CF type should be given preference. Being an opponent of the recasts, Lyster (1998; 2004) argued that they can often be ambiguous, e.g. it is not always clear for the learners if they are being corrected or not. Furthermore, he emphasized that output-prompting strategies help students to strengthen control over partially learned linguistic forms.

In order to shed some light on the issue of CF strategies, Russel and Spada (2006) performed meta-analysis of researches that focused on the effects of various correcting techniques on acquisition. The results of the analysis revealed that CF has a high efficacy in promoting acquisition, nevertheless scholars could not identify the relative effectiveness of CF strategies because of the insufficient number of studies complying with the requirements of the meta-analysis. At the same time the research conducted by Ellis et al. (2006) demonstrated that both implicit and explicit CF contribute to the L2 acquisition, however the efficacy of explicit feedback is generally higher than of the implicit type.

According to the recent studies focusing on the issue of oral CF (Lyster, 2004; Ammar & Spada, 2006), output-prompting strategies work better than input-prompting (recasts). Both studies emphasized that it is possible to find out what oral CF strategies are the most efficient in general, nevertheless the results may vary depending on a context and learners' individual features. Speaking about written CF, there is no solid evidence what type of correction is the most beneficial. The scholars who investigated the issue of WCF pinpointed that the vast majority of L2 learners participated in the study preferred reformulation over other CF techniques (Sanavi&Nemati, 2014). Besides, their experimental study revealed that learners who received CF in form of reformulation outperformed other participants.

Basing on the interactionist view of CF, Ellis (2009) put forward the primary principles for correcting learners' errors:

1. CF promotes L2 learning, thus teachers should not avoid correction in fluency and accuracy tasks.

2. Teachers should identify the students' attitude towards correction and inform them about the positive effects that CF has.

3. Focused CF tends to be more effective as compared to unfocused CF, therefore teachers should establish targets for correction in every lesson.

4. Students need to know that they are given correction, hence teachers' corrective intentions and moves should be clear.

5. Teachers should adjust their correcting strategies to the needs of an individual student, therefore it is crucial for teachers to be able to implement various CF techniques.

6. Both immediate and delayed CF are considered to be effective, however teachers need to explore what timing works best for the needs of their students. While oral CF might be not only immediate, but also delayed, written correction is almost inevitably delayed.

7. Teachers should provide learners with some space after the corrective move because they need to uptake the correction. Ellis pinpoints, that it is not required for students to provide the correct output.

8. Teachers need to be ready to correct a particular error several times to help the student to achieve self-regulation. In other words, to enable the student to recognize and correct this specific error by themselves.

9. Teachers should control the level of students' anxiety caused by CF in order to adjust their correcting strategies and avoid the possible debilitating effect.

The principles of correction proposed by Ellis (2009) serve as the basis for the practical part of the current paper.



Chapter 2. Methodology and Findings

This section of the research is aimed at identifying the L2 learners' and instructors' preferences for the particular CF techniques. To achieve that goal, we are going to perform a survey in form of a questionnaire.

2.1 Participants

82 bachelor students and 7 teachers of the HSE linguistic department took part in the survey. The participation was voluntary, and the data was collected anonymously. Besides, all learners study foreign languages and intercultural communication at the Higher School of Economics. The study sample consists of 1-4 year students and L2 teachers, therefore the participants have different proficiency level of English. The first language of all students and teachers is Russian.

2.2 Methodology

The primary aim of the proposed study is to identify the attitude of both EFL teachers and students of the HSE linguistic department towards corrective feedback. The work seeks to analyse the existing body of research on the issue of L2 students' and instructors' CF preferences. In order to do it, we need to pay careful attention to the different approaches to CF, its main components and types. Furthermore, it is essential to outline the general perception of CF role in the process of L2 learning. To achieve that, a multi-method research design will be applied.

Quantitative data collection was performed in the form of the survey. We created a questionnaire for both categories of participants. Then, the questionnaire was distributed to the participants via the Internet (Google Forms) and in printed form. In this part of the research teachers and students were asked to express their attitude towards different types of CF and their influence on academic performance.

Qualitative method was implemented in form of the analysis of the previous researches on the issue of CF and their results. This approach is aimed at gaining a better understanding of the feedback classifications and factors that determine the choice of CF strategies.

2.3 Questionnaire for learners

This section of the study focuses on the questionnaire created for the students. The questionnaire consists of nine closed-type questions. In some cases students can choose one or two options from the list, or express their opinion using the Likert scale. It should be noted that the definition of CF proposed by Ellis (2009) was presented to the participants at the beginning of the questionnaire to avoid ambiguity and confusion. Additionally, examples of correction are provided in the section describing specific OCF techniques, however the exact terms were not presented to the participants. In the tables the name of each OCF and WCF strategy is given in italics.

The questionnaire can be divided into the following sections:

1. General questions aimed at identifying the year of study and English proficiency level

2. Questions about CF (the role in acquisition, initiator, individualization)

3. Questions about the particular oral CF strategies

4. Questions about the particular written CF strategies

The data obtained in the first section might help to reveal the differences in attitude towards CF among various categories of learners. In other words, this information can be used to identify if there any interconnection between the English proficiency level and CF preferences. The second section focuses on the general questions about the role of CF in L2 learning. Additionally, it seeks to identify to what extent CF should be individualized and who should be an initiator of feedback. Further on, the third section takes a closer look at the participants' preferences for oral correction including OCF strategies and timing. Similarly, the data from the last section brings into notice the students' choice of written CF strategies.

Section 1. General questions.

Year of study	1. 1st 2. 2nd 3. 3rd 4. 4th
English proficiency level	1. A1-A2 2. B1 3. B2 4. C1 5. C2

Section 2. Questions about CF

The choice of corrector
Corrective feedback is a response to a learner utterance containing a linguistic error. It can be provided by teachers or peers. Choose the variant that you prefer.	1. Teacher-initiated 2. Peer-initiated
The role of CF in acquisition
To what extent do you agree with the phrase "Corrective feedback provided by a teacher promotes L2 learning"?	(Likert scale) 1. Completely disagree ...

Подобные документы

• Intensification of learning a foreign language using computer technology

  Theoretical foundation devoted to the usage of new information technologies in the teaching of the English language. Designed language teaching methodology in the context of modern computer learning aid. Forms of work with computer tutorials lessons.
  
  дипломная работа [130,3 K], добавлен 18.04.2015
  

• Oral conversational topics on business English language

  Recommendations about use of a text material and work with expressions. Rules of learning and a pronunciation of texts taking into account articles, prepositions and forms of verbs. The list of oral conversational topics on business English language.
  
  методичка [50,8 K], добавлен 15.02.2011
  

• Teaching English Grammar

  The Importance of grammar. A Brief Review of the Major Methods of Foreign Language Teaching. Some General Principles of Grammar Teaching. Introducing new language structure. The Most Common Difficulties in Assimilating English Grammar. Grammar tests.
  
  курсовая работа [47,2 K], добавлен 28.12.2007
  

• Methods of teaching English language

  Comparative teaching methodologies. Effective ways and techniques of teaching a foreign language. Role plays as a method of teaching. Comparative characteristics of modern techniques of teaching english. Grammar translation method. Communicative approach.
  
  дипломная работа [71,9 K], добавлен 18.04.2015
  

• Communication The Exchange of Information

  The nature of speaking and oral interaction. Communicative approach and language teaching. Types of communicative exercises and approaches. Games as a way at breaking the routine of classroom drill. Some Practical Techniques for Language Teaching.
  
  дипломная работа [72,3 K], добавлен 21.07.2009
  

• Methods of foreign language teaching

  Description of the basic principles and procedures of used approaches and methods for teaching a second or foreign language. Each approach or method has an articulated theoretical orientation and a collection of strategies and learning activities.
  
  учебное пособие [18,1 K], добавлен 14.04.2014
  

• The origin and history of the English language

  History of English language and literature. The progress of English literature in early times was slow, will not seem wonderful to those who consider what is affirmed of the progress of other arts, more immediately connected with the comforts of life.
  
  курсовая работа [27,2 K], добавлен 14.02.2010
  

• The formation of the foreign language teacher's general competence in the context of the Common European Framework

  Development of harmonious and competent personality - one of main tasks in the process of teaching of future teachers. Theoretical aspects of education and competence of teacher of foreign language are in the context of General European Structure.
  
  контрольная работа [12,2 K], добавлен 16.05.2009
  

• Is teaching an art or is it a science?

  Aims, methods and techniques of teaching the foreign languages. Methods of foreign language teaching and its relation to other sciences. Pronunciation as for a perfect imitation of a native speaker. The ways of explaining the meaning of the words.
  
  реферат [19,0 K], добавлен 25.12.2012
  

• Theory of foreign language teaching

  Methods of foreign language teaching and its relation to other sciences. Psychological and linguistic prerequisites for foreign language teaching. Aims, content and principles language learning. Teaching pronunciation, grammar, speaking and writing.
  
  курс лекций [79,6 K], добавлен 13.03.2015
  

• Professional sea English language

  Acquisition of skills of oral and written speech in sphere of professional sea English language. Communication at sea. The basic classes of ships. Parts of a ship and her measurement. Pilotage and pilots. Buoys and beacons. Tides and tidal streams.
  
  учебное пособие [4,9 M], добавлен 20.02.2012
  

• The use of the linguacultural texts in teaching undergraduate degrees

  Information about the language and culture and their interpretation in the course of a foreign language. Activities that can be used in the lesson, activities and role-playing games. The value of the teaching of culture together with the language.
  
  курсовая работа [128,2 K], добавлен 15.10.2011
  

• My English Studies

  Today it is quite evident that everyone should know at least one foreign language. Knowing one or more foreign languages makes it possible to get acquainted with different ways of thinking, to understand a new civilisation.
  
  топик [5,4 K], добавлен 13.05.2002
  

• The origin of language

  Some facts about origin of language. Literature is important, because it is subservient to all objects, even those of the very highest concern. Religion, morality, liberty and government, fame and happiness, are alike interested in the cause of letters.
  
  курсовая работа [28,9 K], добавлен 14.02.2010
  

• History of english language

  The old Germanic languages, their classification and principal features. The chronological division of the History of English. The role of the Wessex dialect. The Norman Conquest and its effect on English. The Germanic languages in the modern world.
  
  контрольная работа [34,7 K], добавлен 17.01.2010
  

• Foreign language classroom

  Culture in the Foreign language classroom. Cross-cultural communication. The importance of teaching culture in the foreign language classroom. The role of interactive methods in teaching foreign intercultural communication: passive, active, interactive.
  
  курсовая работа [83,2 K], добавлен 02.07.2014
  

• Gender discourse in modern English and Russian belles-letters

  Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies. Belles-letters style as one of the functional styles of literary standard of the English language. Gender discourse in the tales of the three languages.
  
  дипломная работа [3,6 M], добавлен 05.12.2013
  

• Intercultural communication of Russian and English languages

  Loan-words of English origin in Russian Language. Original Russian vocabulary. Borrowings in Russian language, assimilation of new words, stresses in loan-words. Loan words in English language. Periods of Russian words penetration into English language.
  
  курсовая работа [55,4 K], добавлен 16.04.2011
  

• The problem of polysemy in the English language

  Theoretical problems of linguistic form Language. Progressive development of language. Polysemy as the Source of Ambiguities in a Language. Polysemy and its Connection with the Context. Polysemy in Teaching English on Intermediate and Advanced Level.
  
  дипломная работа [45,3 K], добавлен 06.06.2011
  

• History of the English language expansion in the world

  History of the English language, its causes and global distribution. His role in global communication between peoples and as a major business. Comparison of British and American dialects. Proof of the importance of their various teaching for pupils.
  
  курсовая работа [119,7 K], добавлен 26.06.2015
  

• главная
• рубрики
• по алфавиту
• вернуться в начало страницы
• вернуться к началу текста
• вернуться к подобным работам