EFL TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THEIR FEEDBACK-PROVIDING PRACTICES ACROSS LEARNERS’ PROFICIENCY LEVELS

Karimi, Mohammad Nabi; Asadnia, Fatemeh

doi:10.22099/jtls.2015.3582

ارتقاء رتبه مجله علوم و فناوری ایران-شاخه مهندسی عمران از رتبه Q3 به Q2

مجله علوم و فن‌آوری ایران شاخه مهندسی برق دانشگاه شیراز (IEEE3) ۵۴ ساله شد

تعداد نشریات	24
تعداد شماره‌ها	851
تعداد مقالات	7,575
تعداد مشاهده مقاله	13,413,765
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله	11,580,455

	EFL TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THEIR FEEDBACK-PROVIDING PRACTICES ACROSS LEARNERS’ PROFICIENCY LEVELS
Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills)
مقاله 2، دوره 34، شماره 2، مهر 2015، صفحه 39-68 اصل مقاله (207.69 K)
نوع مقاله: Research Paper
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2015.3582
نویسندگان
Mohammad Nabi Karimi^* ¹؛ Fatemeh Asadnia²
¹Kharazmi (Tarbiat Moallem) University, Tehran, Iran
²Kharazmi University, Department of Foreign Languages
چکیده
The present study investigated EFL teachers’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback (CF), their CF-provision practices across elementary and intermediate levels, and their beliefs-practices correspondence. To this end, the researchers conducted a semi-structured interview with the teachers and went on an overall forty-hour observation of their classrooms across both levels. The findings revealed that there was a significant difference in the teachers’ employment of CF strategies across the two levels with more frequent presence of explicit correction, elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification request, and repetition at elementary level. Moreover, it was demonstrated that the teachers did not differentiate in their focus on morpho-syntactic, phonological, and lexical errors at both levels. The results further highlighted some areas of belief-practice mismatch in teachers’ sensitivity to students’ errors, their employment of different CF strategies, use of explicit and implicit CF, application of immediate and delayed CF, correction of global and local errors, focus on different linguistic targets, and reliance on self, peer, and teacher correction. The paper concludes with some pedagogical implications.
کلیدواژه‌ها
CF strategies؛ Elementary؛ intermediate؛ linguistic targets؛ belief-practice correspondence

مراجع
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574. Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers' stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282-295. Basturkmen, H., Loewen,S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243-272. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and teacher education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. Dilans, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 787-815. Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C. (2013). The short-term effects of individual corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. System, 41, 25-37. Ekembe, E.E. (2014). Interaction and Uptake in Large Foreign Language Classrooms. RELC Journal, 45(3), 237-251. Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18-41. Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339-360). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18. Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 339-368. Elwood, J.A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan, System, 42, 333-343. Ene, E., & Upton, T.A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL Composition, System, 46, 80-95. Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127-165. Hancock, M., & McDonald, A. (2013). English Result. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465-492. Johnson, K.E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (1), 1-18. Kim, J., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 269-297). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, A.H., & Lyster, R. (2015). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, doi: 10.1017/S027226311500019. Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 111-137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, Sh. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 (2), 309-365. Li, Sh. (2014). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 68 (2), 196-198. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010).Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013).Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46 (1), 1-40. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39, 451-467. Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452. Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of feedback timing on second language vocabulary learning: Does delaying feedback increase learning? Language Teaching Research, 19 (4), 416-434. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. Ranta, L., & R. Lyster (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive Psychology (pp.141-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79. Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 21-31. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006).The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp.133–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Feedback training in classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 97 (3),611-633. Saito, K. (2013). Re-examining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development: The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 1-29. Saito, K, (2015).Variables affecting the effects of recasts on L2 pronunciation development. Language Teaching Research, 19 (3), 276-300. Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012a). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /®/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595-633. Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012b). Investigating the pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 385-396. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 201-234. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer. Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.593-610). New York: Routledge. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110-119. Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2 communication. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 591-610. 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. Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles, System, 41, 691-705. Yilmaz, Y. (2015). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, doi: 10.1017/S0272263115000212. Yoshida, R. (2008a). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525-541. Zhang, L.J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective Feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429-439.
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 5,323 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 4,443

پیوندهای مفید

اخبار و اعلانات

آمار

EFL TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THEIR FEEDBACK-PROVIDING PRACTICES ACROSS LEARNERS’ PROFICIENCY LEVELS