Effects of Corrective Feedback on Second Language Pronunciation Development

Author(s):  
Kazuya Saito
2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. James Hartshorn ◽  
Norman W. Evans ◽  
Emily Allen Tuioti

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-209
Author(s):  
Laia Canals ◽  
Gisela Granena ◽  
Yucel Yilmaz ◽  
Aleksandra Malicka

Online language courses that rely on asynchronous teacher-learner communication face a practical problem when it comes to the provision of immediate corrective feedback by the teacher in oral interaction tasks. In this learning context, learners can still communicate synchronously and record their interaction without the teacher being present, but feedback by the teacher will be delayed in time. Research indicates that the effectiveness of feedback decreases as the time between the error and the correction increases and that immediate feedback is more effective (Arroyo & Yilmaz, 2018; Shintani & Aubrey, 2016). In this exploratory study conducted at an online university, we implemented a novel type of feedback we referred to as delayed immediate corrective feedback (DICF) and analyzed second language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions regarding its effectiveness and usefulness. Our goal was to assess the feasibility of implementing this type of feedback in our context and, ultimately, in other contexts where communication between teachers and learners takes place asynchronously. DICF was provided by teachers orally via screencast video. Learners and teachers’ perceptions were collected via two separate questionnaires. The results showed that teachers and learners responded positively to DICF and several potential benefits were identified. Les cours de langue en ligne qui s’appuient sur la communication asynchrone enseignant-apprenant rencontrent un problème pratique quand vient le temps de fournir de la rétroaction corrective immédiate par l’enseignant lors des tâches d’interaction orale. Dans ce contexte d’apprentissage, les apprenants peuvent toujours communiquer de manière synchrone et enregistrer leur interaction sans que l’enseignant soit présent, mais la rétroaction de l’enseignant sera décalée dans le temps. La recherche indique que l’efficacité de la rétroaction diminue au fur et à mesure que le temps entre l’erreur et la correction augmente, et que la rétroaction immédiate est plus efficace (Arroyo & Yilmaz, 2018; Shintani & Aubrey, 2016). Dans cette étude exploratoire menée auprès d’une université en ligne, nous avons mis en place une nouvelle forme de rétroaction, que nous avons appelée rétroaction corrective immédiate retardée (RCIR), et nous avons analysé les perceptions des apprenants de langue seconde et des enseignants quant à son utilité et à son efficacité. Notre objectif était d’évaluer la faisabilité de mettre en place ce type de rétroaction dans notre contexte, et par extension, dans d’autres contextes où la communication entre apprenants et enseignants se passe de manière asynchrone. La RCIR a été fournie oralement par des enseignants à l’aide de vidéos d’écrans. Les perceptions des apprenants et des enseignants ont été recueillies dans deux questionnaires distincts. Les résultats ont montré qu’apprenants et enseignants ont réagi à la RCIR de manière positive et plusieurs avantages potentiels ont été identifiés.


2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neomy Storch ◽  
Gillian Wigglesworth

The literature on corrective feedback (CF) that second language writers receive in response to their grammatical and lexical errors is plagued by controversies and conflicting findings about the merits of feedback. Although more recent studies suggest that CF is valuable (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007), it is still not clear whether direct or indirect feedback is the most effective, or why. This study explored the efficacy of two different forms of CF. The investigation focused on the nature of the learners’ engagement with the feedback received to gain a better understanding of why some feedback is taken up and retained and some is not. The study was composed of three sessions. In session 1, learners worked in pairs to compose a text based on a graphic prompt. Feedback was provided either in the form of reformulations (direct feedback) or editing symbols (indirect feedback). In session 2 (day 5), the learners reviewed the feedback they received and rewrote their text. All pair talk was audio-recorded. In session 3 (day 28), each of the learners composed a text individually using the same prompt as in session 1. The texts produced by the pairs after feedback were analyzed for evidence of uptake of the feedback given and texts produced individually in session 3 for evidence of retention. The learners’ transcribed pair talk proved a very rich source of data that showed not only how learners processed the feedback received but also their attitudes toward the feedback and their beliefs about language conventions and use. Closer analysis of four case study pairs suggests that uptake and retention may be affected by a host of linguistic and affective factors, including the type of errors the learners make in their writing and, more importantly, learners’ attitudes, beliefs, and goals. The findings suggest that, although often ignored in research on CF, these affective factors play an important role in uptake and retention of feedback.


1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patsy M. Lightbown ◽  
Nina Spada

The developing oral English of approximately 100 second language learners (four intact classes) was examined in this study. The learners were native speakers of French (aged 10–12 years) who had received a 5-month intensive ESL course in either grade 5 or grade 6 in elementary schools in Quebec. A large corpus of classroom observation data was also analyzed.Substantial between-class differences were found in the accuracy with which students used such English structures as progressive -ing and adjective–noun order in noun phrases. There was some evidence that these differences (which were not correlated with performance on listening comprehension tests) were due to differences in teachers' form-focused instruction. These findings are discussed in terms of current competing views of the role of form-focused instruction in second language learning.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document