Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Peer Review Process

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Journal Metrics

Guide for authors

Forms

Terms & Conditions

Reviewers2021

member publons

The process of Reviewing

Reviewers2019

Reviewers2020

Oral Corrective Feedback Preferences in Iranian L2 Learners with Different Proficiency Levels

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Shahrekord University

2 M.A. in TEFL, Shahrekord University

Abstract

As far as making errors is an indispensable part of L2 learning process, appropriate and pertinent corrective feedback (CF) is a significant medium for L2 teachers to prevent their learners’ errors from getting fossilized and assist them progress along with their L2 learning process. There are various factors contributing to the efficacy of CF, but proficiency level is of paramount importance. In this study, various oral CF types preferred by L2 learners at intermediate, upper-intermediate, and advanced levels of proficiency were considered. For this purpose, 20 participants were selected for each level. Different types of oral CF were identified, and their distribution in relation to the proficiency levels of the learners was determined. After conducting chi-square tests and comparing the significance values with respect to their preferred CF types, it is observed that the most significant CF types among the intermediate participants were paralinguistic signals and clarification requests. Moreover, for the upper-intermediate participants, recasts and repetition were the most frequent and significant types of CF that assisted them to reformulate their utterances. Finally, with regard to the advanced participants, the results pointed out that as they became more proficient in terms of their linguistic threshold, they would show no significant positive or negative attitudes towards any certain type of CF for treating their errors. The findings suggest that L2 teachers should adjust CF types and correction techniques to their learners’ proficiency levels and provide proper types of CF that can foster a more productive learning milieu to enhance learning quality and speaking ability.
 

Keywords

References
Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011). Exploring the teachers’ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency. Procedia ˗ Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859-1868.
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46-60.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing. System, 41(2), 257-268.
Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28, 90-98.
Farrokhi, F. (2003). A context-based study of varieties of corrective feedback in EFL classrooms [doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved April 02, 2013, from www.irandoc.ac.ir
Ferreira, A., Moore, J. D., & Mellish, Ch. (2007). A study of feedback strategies in foreign language classrooms and tutorials with implications for intelligent computer-assisted language learning systems. Retrieved September 20, 2014, from http://arnetminer.org/viewpub.do?pid=1232692
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572.
Han, J., & Jung, J. (2007). Patterns and preferences of corrective feedback and learner repair. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23, 243-260.
Havranek, G. (1999). The role of corrective feedback in foreign language learning. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/iaa/Department/ gh_correction.htm
Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback.  Eurosla Yearbook, 1(1), 99-122.
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form of –te i (ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54(2), 311-394.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects of L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1-36.
Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A teacher’s choices. TESL CANADA Journal, 27(2), 31-50.
Kim, J. H. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-24.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14, 112-127.
Lee, J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
Lightbown, P. (2001). Input filters in second language acquisition. In S. Foster-Cohen, & A. Nizegorodcew (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook 1 (pp. 79-97). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448.
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271-283.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2007). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357-371.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A., & Philip, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom. In J. K. Hall, & L. Verplaetse (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oladejo, J. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair-work. Language Learning, 50, 119-151.
Panove, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (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.
Rydahl, S. (2005). Oral feedback in the English classroom, teachers’ thoughts and awareness. Retrieved July 14, 2014, from http://kau.divaportal.org/smash/get /diva2:6576/ FULLTEXT01
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139-161.
Schachter, J. (1981). The hand signal system. TESOL Quarterly, 15(2), 125-138.
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., & 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.
Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 1-21.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson international edition: Pearson.
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, 187-209.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7, 133-161.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics and control and communication in the animal and the machine. Boston: MIT Press.
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691-705.
Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies
Volume 2, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
August 2015
Pages 19-1
Files
History
  • Receive Date: 05 April 2016
  • Accept Date: 05 April 2016
Share
How to cite
Statistics