Instructors’ Use of Oral Feedback in Korean University English Classes
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The study shows how teachers at a Korean University gave oral corrective feedback during different classroom activities. The participants are shown five videos of authentic teaching situations. The situations progress from controlled teacher-student activities to less controlled student to student activities. The participants are asked to write down how they would respond to the students if they were in their class. There are fifty-one participants, forty-five native English speaking instructors and six Korean speaking instructors from the General English Language Program (GEL). The participants’ responses are coded according to definitions created by Lyster and Ranta (1997). An additional two codes, “No Correction” and “Note and Do Later” were added after preliminary analysis of the responses. The most common method used is a” Recast,” where the teacher repeats the student’s utterance with the correction. The results of the study show the majority of the participants change their method of correction according to the activity. The majority of the participants progress from using “Recasts” and “Metalinguistic” methods during to the teacher to student activities to using “No Correction” or “Note and Do Later” during the student to student activities. There are two significant associations between the degrees of the participants and the methods of correction in Videos one and two. The participants indicate that they understand their students expect feedback on their errors. The majority state that the students’ level of proficiency affect their method of error correction.
Abstract
The study shows how teachers at a Korean University gave oral corrective feedback during different classroom activities. The participants are shown five videos of authentic teaching situations. The situations progress from controlled teacher-student activities to less controlled student to student activities. The participants are asked to write down how they would respond to the students if they were in their class. There are fifty-one participants, forty-five native English speaking instructors and six Korean speaking instructors from the General English Language Program (GEL). The participants’ responses are coded according to definitions created by Lyster and Ranta (1997). An additional two codes, “No Correction” and “Note and Do Later” were added after preliminary analysis of the responses. The most common method used is a” Recast,” where the teacher repeats the student’s utterance with the correction. The results of the study show the majority of the participants change their method of correction according to the activity. The majority of the participants progress from using “Recasts” and “Metalinguistic” methods during to the teacher to student activities to using “No Correction” or “Note and Do Later” during the student to student activities. There are two significant associations between the degrees of the participants and the methods of correction in Videos one and two. The participants indicate that they understand their students expect feedback on their errors. The majority state that the students’ level of proficiency affect their method of error correction.
참고문헌 (48)
- Alemán, A., "Theimpact of oral corrective feedback on the participation of students in advanced Intensive English II groups 05, from the Bachelor in English Teaching, and 09 from the Bachelor in Modern Languages at the Foreign Language Department, at the University of El Salvador SemesterI 2017", Doctoral, pp.2017
- Allwright, D., "Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers" (1991), Cambridge University Press
- Akakura, M., "Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge", Language Teaching Research, 16(1), pp.9~37 (2012)
- Aouiche, F., "Attitudes and preferences of self-repair and corrective feedback of oral production in classroom: A corpus-based study: The case of second year LMD students at the University of “Frères Mentouri” Constantine", Revue Sciences Humaines, (48), pp.43~59 (2017)
- Brooks, N., "Language and Language Learning" (1960), Harcourt, Brace and World
- Brown, D., "The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2classroom: A meta-analysis", Language Teaching Research, 20(4), pp.436~458 (2016)
- Bruton, A., "Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work", RELC Journal, 11(2), pp.49~63 (1980)
- Burt, M. K., "New Frontiers in second Language Learning", pp.71~80 (1974), Newbury House Publishers
- Chaudron, C., "A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors", Language Learning, 27(1), pp.29~46 (1977)
- Chomsky, N., "A review of Verbal Behaviour by B. F. Skinner", Language, 35(1), pp.26~58 (1959)
- Chomsky, N., "Reflections on Language" (1975), Pantheon Books
- Demir, Y., "Exploring native and non-native EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback practices: An observational study", Brock Education Journal, 26(2), pp.111~129 (2017)
- Ellis, R., "Corrective feedback and teacher development", L2 Journal, 1(1), pp.3~18 (2009)
- Ellis R., "Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy" (2012), Wiley Blackwell
- Ferris, D. R., "Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues", pp.81~104 (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Holley, F. M., "Imitation and correction in foreign language learning", The Modern Language Journal, 55, pp.494~498 (1971)
- Howell, D. C., "Statistical methods for psychology" (2006), Thomson
- Junqueira, L., "Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers’ corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher", Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), pp.181~206 (2013)
- Krashen, S., "Principles and practice in second language acquisition" (1982), Pergamon Press
- Krashen, S., "Language education: Past, present and future", Relc Journal, 39(2), pp.178~187 (2008)
- Krashen, S., "The essential contributions of formal instruction in adult second language learning", TESOL Quarterly, 9(2), pp.173~183 (1975)
- Krashen, S., "The natural approach" (1983), Pergamon Press
- Eva Kartchava, "Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices", Language Teaching Research (2018), SAGE Publications[DOI]
- Lee, I., "ESL learners’ preference in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching", System, 25(4), pp.465~477 (1997)
- Lee, A. H., "The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2speech perception", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), pp.35~64 (2016)
- Li, S., "The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target", Language Teaching Research, 18(3), pp.373~396 (2014)
- Li, S., "Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning", pp.143~157 (2017), Routledge
- Lyster, R., "Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms", Language learning, 48(2), pp.183~218 (1998)
- Lyster, R., "Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(10), pp.167~184 (2013)
- Lyster, R., "Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms", Language Teaching, 46, pp.1~40 (2013)
- Maggi, M. R. T., "EFL teachers’ corrective feedback and its effect on learners’ error repair in speaking", REVISTA CIENTÍFICA AXIOMA, (16), pp.96~104 (2017)
- Mings, R. C., "Changing perspectives on the utility of error correction in second language acquisition", Foreign Language Annals, 26(2), pp.171~179 (1993)
- Pedrazzini, L., "Dealing with students’ errors: oral corrective feedback in the Italian EFL classroom", Altre Modernità, Speciale, (04), pp.98~117 (2017)
- Rahimi, M., "Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers’cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication", System, 55, pp.111~122 (2015)
- Rassaei, E., "Recasts, “Field dependence", independence cognitive style, and L2development”, 2015, pp.19(4), 499~518
- Rivers, W. M., "Comprehension and production in interactive language teaching", The Modern Language Journal, 70(1), pp.1~7 (1986)
- Roothooft, H., "The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs", System, 46, pp.65~79 (2014)
- Savignon, S., "Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign-Language teaching" (1972), The Center for Curriculum Development, Inc
- Selinker, L., "Error Analysis", pp.31~54 (1972), Longman Group Limited
- Sepehrinia, S., "Oral corrective feedback: teachers’ concerns and researchers’ orientation", The Language Learning Journal, 46(4), pp.483~500 (2018)
- Sepehrinia, S., "Studies on oral error correction: Do they provide counterevidence against nativist arguments?", The Language Learning Journal, pp.1~17 (2017)
- Shi, G., "Attitudes towards error correction, corrective moves and their effects in college English classrooms in China", International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 5(2), pp.32~39 (2017)
- Storch, N., "Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research", International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), pp.29~46 (2010)
- Svanes, I. K., "Connecting feedback, classroom research and Didaktik perspectives", Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(3), pp.334~351 (2017)
- Tavakoli, M., "Differential effects of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate", Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), pp.247~259 (2018)
- Terrell, T. D., "A natural approach to second language acquisition", The Modern Language Journal, 61(7), pp.325~337 (1977)
- Yu, S., "Understanding linguistic, individual and contextual factors in oral feedback research: A review of empirical studies in L2 classrooms", Educational Research Review (2018)
- Zhai, K., "Effects of corrective feedback on EFL speaking task complexity in China’s university classroom", Cogent Education, 14(8), pp.54~72 (2018)