A Study of Corrective Feedback in Integrated English Classrooms

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 825
Author(s):  
Xiaoling Liu ◽  
Liqiao Peng
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
English Classrooms ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Metalinguistic Feedback ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Phonological Errors ◽  
Lexical Errors ◽  
Error Types

The study is designed to explore the main CF types frequently used by teachers in Integrated English classrooms, whether CF types are related to learner error types and whether there is a discrepancy in acceptability of CF types between teachers and students. Based on the analysis, the major findings are obtained as follows: (1) teachers frequently used recast and elicitation in Integrated English classrooms, which occupied 37.1% and 22.3% respectively; (2) CF types were related to learner error types. Teachers in Integrated English Classrooms adopted recast and explicit correction more frequently to deal with phonological errors, elicitation to correct lexical errors, metalinguistic feedback to do with grammatical errors and explicit correction to treat pragmatic errors; (3) there exists discrepancy in acceptability of CF types across different errors between teachers and students in Integrated English classrooms. Teachers accepted elicitation most to deal with lexical, grammatical and pragmatic errors while students accepted explicit correction to correct these errors. The study results bring implications for teachers to make use of CF to improve the pedagogical effects and help students produce more comprehensive output for the language acquisition development.

Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 524-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Icy Lee
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Educators ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Position Paper ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Less Is More ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Recommendations For Action ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Giving Feedback

AbstractIn different parts of the world second language (L2) teachers devote a massive amount of time to giving feedback on grammatical errors in student writing. Such written corrective feedback, which is unfocused and comprehensive, is fraught with problems for both teachers and students. Nonetheless, it remains a prevalent practice in many L2 contexts. In this position paper, I argue that more written corrective feedback is not better, but instead less is more. After presenting the problems emanating from comprehensive written corrective feedback, I argue for a focused approach to written corrective feedback and examine its benefits for teachers and students. Through discussing five impediments to the implementation of focused written corrective feedback, I scrutinize and refute the counter-claims, and bolster my overall argument in support of focused written corrective feedback. I conclude the position paper with recommendations for action for teachers, teacher educators and researchers.

scholarly journals Immediate Uptake of Phonological Corrective Feedback in Language Learning and Retention

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Amin Naeimi ◽  
Mahnaz Saeidi ◽  
Biook Behnam
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Metalinguistic Feedback ◽  
Error Treatment ◽  
Learner Uptake ◽  
Phonological Errors

As language learners’ phonological errors have attracted substantial attention, error treatment strategies have become an indispensable part of teachers’ repertoire. Research has found positive effects for corrective feedback on language learner uptake; however, the effect has not been proved to be sustained over time. This quasiexperimental study sought to explore whether uptake can reflect language learning and retention through measuring the effectiveness of three common types of oral corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ phonological errors. Fifty-four male intermediate-level learners received a nine-session treatment in the form of recast, elicitation, and metalinguistic feedback during story retelling tasks. Results of comparing and correlating uptake with posttest scores revealed that while recast was found to be the most effective feedback in inducing correct uptake, it was metalinguistic feedback that proved to be the most conducive in learning and retention. Besides, there was no significant relationship between the learners’ scores in uptake and their learning and retention in any groups. This suggests that EFL learners’ immediate reactions to teachers’ input-providing or output-prompting correction could not be a reflection of language development, and more consistent and continuous long-term assessment of the success of corrective feedback has to be envisaged in language teaching methodologies.

scholarly journals The Effect of Oral Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback on Learners’ Knowledge of Pronoun among Iranian EFL Learners

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 672
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Azimi Amoli
Keyword(s):  
Language Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Metalinguistic Feedback ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Grammatical Judgment ◽  
The Impact

A great number of language learners claims that they are unable to produce the foreign language accurately without any grammatical errors at the end of their language course. In this study, the impact of oral metalinguistic corrective feedback, among various types of corrective feedback, on learners’ pronoun accuracy was considered. The participants were 74 EFL learners (46 females, 28 males) studying English at Safir English language institutes in Tehran. In order to homogenize the learners, Key English Test (KET) test was given to them. 60 learners were selected for the study and 14 learners were removed. Participants were randomly divided into two groups. One group received metalinguistic feedback and the other group received explicit correction feedback. Grammatical judgment test was used as a pretest and posttest. Eight reading passages from “Select Readings” were another instrument that was used for training through jigsaw task in this study. Then t-test was run to check the significance of the mean difference between pretest and post-test of groups. The results show the priority of experimental group (which received oral metalinguistic feedback) on control group (which received explicit feedback).

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback as Perceived By Teachers and Students of a Public University in Vietnam

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 152
Author(s):  
Đàm Mỹ Linh
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Public University ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Depth Interview ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
English Major ◽  
Handling Practices ◽  
Two Sides ◽  
Insight Into

The current study investigates the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on five different aspects of writing (grammar, language use, mechanic use, content and organization) as perceived by teachers and English-major sophomores in a Vietnamese public university. Specifically, it provides an insight into the effectiveness of this feedback pattern as perceived by the teachers and their students. To fulfill the stated aims, this research utilizes two main instruments, namely questionnaire and in-depth interview. The data from the questionnaire was analysed using statistical procedures. Meanwhile, the data from the interviews was processed using qualitative analysis. With regards to the findings, teachers and students agree that given feedback suits students’ understandability, but somewhat exceeds their self-correction ability. Teachers and students’ perceptions match on the efficacy of indirect WCF for the treatment of grammatical errors and its inefficacy for the betterment of content. Both parties also remain neutral about the correction efficiency of this feedback pattern regarding lexical and mechanical errors. Finally, organization is the aspect on which the perceptions between two sides mismatch the most. Teachers and students also share several reasons in accounting for their perceptions. The findings implicate that changes should be made to feedback-giving practices of teachers and feedback-handling practices of students to enhance the effectiveness of indirect WCF.

scholarly journals A Comparative Study of the Impact of Metalinguistic Feedback and Explicit Correction on the Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 132
Author(s):  
Yazdan Azizi Khah ◽  
Majid Farahian
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Performance ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
English As Foreign Language ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
Metalinguistic Feedback ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Writing Assignment ◽  
The Impact

<p>The present study aimed at investigating the impact of two different strategies of providing written corrective feedback on English as foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing performance. To achieve this goal, sixty EFL learners who participated in the study were assigned into two groups. Throughout the period of the study, two techniques of written feedback, metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction feedback were put into practice as the treatment. The first writing assignment was used as the pretest and the last writing assignment was the posttest. To determine the proficiency level of the participants, A Nelson English Proficiency Test was used. The result of the paired t-tests showed that the writing performance of two groups improved; however, the independent t-test was performed between the posttests of the two groups indicated that the group with metalinguistic feedback had greater improvement than the group which received the explicit correction feedback. The findings suggest that providing teacher corrective feedback is effective in reducing EFL learners’ grammatical errors and improves their writing achievement.</p>

scholarly journals The Impact of Teacher Corrective Feedback on EFL Student Writers’ Grammatical Improvement

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Kanyakorn Sermsook ◽  
Jiraporn Liamnimitr ◽  
Rattaneekorn Pochakorn
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Student Writers ◽  
Writing Improvement ◽  
English Writing ◽  
Writing Class ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Efl Students ◽  
The Impact

This paper aims to provide information about teacher corrective feedback that would be helpful for EFL students’ writing improvement. It focuses on feedback provided to correct grammatical errors made by student writers as the author finds that this type of errors can obstruct the effectiveness of students’ pieces of writing and may result in written miscommunication. Both direct and indirect teacher feedback types are discussed. Some pedagogical suggestions have been made based on the findings. It is hoped that this review article can help teachers and students in a writing class achieve the goal of producing grammatically correct English writing assignments.

scholarly journals Comparative Error Gravity: Toward a Cross Linguistic Theory

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathaniel Lotze
Keyword(s):  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Negative Transfer ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Functional Equivalence ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Teacher And Student Perceptions ◽  
Lexical Errors ◽  
Arabic Speaking ◽  
Comparative Error

Negative transfer is a difficulty for Arabic-speaking students of English. This study juxtaposes eight categories of Arabic-to-English transfer errors with equivalent and near-equivalent errors in Arabic. It compares their error gravity as rated by teachers and students to discover whether there are any differences between teacher and student perceptions that might inform teaching practices. It is also the first step toward a cross-linguistic theory of comparative error gravity based on the functional equivalence approach to translation. It finds that teachers tend to perceive grammatical errors as graver than mechanical or lexical errors, with most differences in perception appearing to stem from cultural background. Among students, there is very little consensus, in line with previous studies. This study concludes that teachers and students might benefit from a better understanding of both their own tendencies in perceiving errors and those of the other party in the learning process. It also recommends the development of a full-fledged theory for moving between languages for the purpose of studying error gravity comparatively in languages other than Arabic.

Does EAP writing instruction reduce L2 errors? Evidence from a longitudinal corpus of L2 EAP essays and reports

2017 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Crosthwaite
Keyword(s):  
Error Correction ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
English For Academic Purposes ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Grammatical Error ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Data Points ◽  
Class Instruction ◽  
Lexical Errors

AbstractDespite the efforts exerted on error correction by teachers and students during English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses, the literature is split about whether such instruction succeeds in reducing grammatical and lexical errors in student writing. In this study, a longitudinal corpus of essays and reports collected at three key data points along a tertiary EAP course (pre-course, immediate post-course and final assessment) totalling 205,682 words was annotated for 12,996 errors across 10 grammatical and lexical error types. The results, including a mixed-effects linear model, showed a general significant decline in the number of errors produced over the duration of the course. However, closer examination revealed that the frequencies of the majority of individual lexical and grammatical error categories remained unchanged over time, despite specific out-of-class instruction on these errors as well as numerous occasions where teachers provided written corrective feedback. The overall usefulness of the error correction feedback and instruction resulting from the EAP course in question therefore remains inconclusive, although students and other stakeholders may still call for the inclusion of such feedback and instruction on EAP curricula.

scholarly journals Incidental Corrective Feedback by Classroom Teachers and Uptake by Bilingual Elementary Students in Teacher-Learner Interactions

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-67
Author(s):  
Richel Langit-Dursin
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Students ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Classroom Teachers ◽  
High Uptake ◽  
Feedback Type ◽  
Metalinguistic Feedback ◽  
Lexical Errors ◽  
Clarification Request ◽  
The Relationship

The study investigated (1) the relationship between corrective feedback types and errors by bilingual elementary students in speaking; (2) corrective feedback type that leads to high uptake; (3) uptake commonly made by bilingual elementary students in response to incidental corrective feedback; and (4) perspectives of elementary classroom teachers and bilingual young learners on the provision, frequency, and timing of corrective feedback. The qualitative and quantitative research involved classroom teachers from grades 1 to 5 and bilingual elementary students. A total of 20 classroom teachers and 362 elementary students able to speak English, Bahasa Indonesia, and Chinese from a school implementing an international curriculum participated in the research.  The study revealed that (1) different corrective feedback types, namely recast, explicit correction, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, and elicitation were not specifically linked with phonological, grammatical, and lexical errors in speaking; (2) recast led to high uptake in the form of incorporation but not student-generated repair; (3) repetition was the most common type of uptake by bilingual elementary students; and (4) classroom teachers and elementary students wanted teachers to correct errors and give delayed error correction but have different perspectives on the frequency of doing it. For classroom teachers, learners’ errors have to be corrected all the time but for students, errors have to be corrected sometimes. Peer application of corrective feedback and repeated error by another student are new kinds of uptake based on the results of the classroom-based research.

Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback

2001 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 99-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gertraud Havranek ◽  
Hermann Cesnik
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Verbal Intelligence ◽  
Learner Characteristics ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Subsequent Test ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
Lexical Errors ◽  
Comprehensive Study

The findings from a comprehensive study on oral corrective feedback show that the success of such feedback as measured in a subsequent test is affected by its format, the type of error corrected, and certain learner characteristics. The most successful format of correction, both for the learners receiving the feedback and for their peers, is feedback successfully eliciting self-correction in practice situations. Among the least successful formats for both groups are recasts without further comments or repetition by the corrected learner. The type of error corrected most successfully differs for the two groups. Those corrected learn most from the correction of their grammatical errors and least from correction of pronunciation errors. Peers score best on pronunciation items and gain least from correction of lexical errors. Of the learner characteristics taken into consideration, verbal intelligence, relative proficiency (within levels at school or university), and the learners’ attitude towards correction proved to be most influential.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document