A Classroom Research Study on use of Oral Corrective Feedback at an EFL University

Seçkin Can*, Aysegül Daloglu**
* Department of English Language Teaching, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
** Department of Foreign Language Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Periodicity:January - March'2022
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.12.1.18365

Abstract

This study aims to investigate which types of errors lead to which types of corrective feedback and their distribution in university preparatory school speaking classes. Discourse analytic principles were used to analyze the learners' errors and types of oral corrective feedback in communicatively oriented speaking classes. The frequency and distribution of error types and corrective feedback are examined. Three instructors teaching English speaking courses at B1 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in different classes participated in the study. The data, consisting of six videotaped lessons, were transcribed for coding and analysis according to the system proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997). First, four error types and seven types of corrective feedback were coded and then, the relationship between the feedback type and error type was examined. The results showed that the most commonly used feedback type is recast. This is followed by a translation and explicit correction. Metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, clarification requests, and repetitions are not common feedback types. Looking at the relationship between the type of corrective feedback and the type of error, grammatical errors were the most common type, but were corrected the least. On the other hand, lexical errors were the least frequent but were the most frequently corrected error type.

Keywords

Error Correction, Feedback, EFL Learners, Oral Corrective Feedback.

How to Cite this Article?

Can, S., and Daloglu, A. (2022). A Classroom Research Study on use of Oral Corrective Feedback at an EFL University. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 12(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.12.1.18365

References

[1]. Alamri, B., & Fawzi, H. (2016). Students' preferences and attitude toward oral error correction techniques at Yanbu University College. English Language Teaching, 9 (11), 59- 66.
[2]. Braidi, S. M. (1995). Reconsidering the role of interaction and input in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 45, 141-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-770.1995.tb00965.x
[3]. Büyükbay, S. (2007). The Effectiveness of Repetition as Corrective Feedback, (Doctoral dissertation, Bilkent Universitesi (Turkey)).
[4]. Coskun, A. (2010). A classroom research study on oral error correction. Humanizing Language Teaching Magazine, 12(3), 1-12.
[5]. Değirmenci, N., & Aydin, S. (2017). Foreign language teachers' perceptions of error correction in speaking classes: A qualitative study. The Qualitative Report, 22(1), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2584
[6]. Diab, R. L. (2007). Error correction and feedback in the EFL writing classroom: comparing instructor and student preferences. English Teaching Forum, 44(3), 172-185.
[7]. Duff, P. A., & Li, D. (2004). Issues in Mandarin language instruction: Theory, research, and practice. System, 32(3), 443-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.05.001
[8]. El Tatawy, M. (2002). Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8M90858
[9]. Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X
[10]. Jabbari, A. A., & Fazilatfar, A. M. (2012). The role of error types and feedback in Iranian EFL classrooms. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 135-148.
[11]. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
[12]. Kubota, M. (1991). Corrective feedback by experienced Japanese EFL teachers. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 5(1), 1-25.
[13]. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[14]. Lee, J. (2007). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in English immersion classrooms at the primary level in Korea. English Teaching, 62(4), 311-334. http://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.62.4.200712.311
[15]. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
[16]. Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51-81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319800103X
[17]. Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.
[18]. Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51(1), 265-301.
[19]. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner up take: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.
[20]. Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511-548.
[21]. Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learner's preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
[22]. 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.
[23]. Panova, I. and R. Lyster (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 572-595.
[24]. Park, I. (2012). Asking different types of polar questions: The interplay between turn, sequence, and context in writing conferences. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 613-633.
[25]. Richards, J. C., & Rogers T. S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[26]. Sert, O. (2017). Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity. System, 70, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.008
[27]. Simard, D., & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers' use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners' attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759-785. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00656.x
[28]. Stagg Peterson, S., & McClay, J. (2010). Assessing and providing feedback for student writing in Canadian classrooms. Assessing Writing, 15, 86-99.
[29]. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of HG Widdowson, 125-144.
[30]. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
[31]. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
[32]. Tsang, W. K. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. RELC Journal, 35(2), 187-209.
[33]. Uyanıker, P. (2018). Turkish Teachers' and Students' Preferences of Error Correction in Different Levels of Proficiency. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (45), 116-130.
[34]. White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied linguistics, 12(4), 416-432. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.4.416
[35]. Yang, Y. (2009). Feedback and uptake in Chinese EFL classrooms: In search of instructional variables. Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(4), 1-22.
[36]. Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.