Assessing Writing in French-as-a-Foreign-Language: Teacher Practices and Learner Uptake

Formative assessment and adaptive instruction have been focus areas in Norwegian educational policy for more than a decade. Writing instruction in the language subjects is no exception; assessment of writing should help the learners improve their writing skills and, thus, feedback must be adapted to the individual learner’s needs. The present study aims to shed light on the relations between teacher feedback practices and learner uptake in French-as-a-foreign-language upper secondary classes in Norway. Using material from a longitudinal corpus of learner texts, including teacher feedback (the TRAWL corpus), the study investigates the written feedback practices of three L3 French teachers, and explores whether any signs of uptake can be identified in 27 learners’ new pieces of writings. The findings show that although the teachers followed best practice principles for formative assessment and written corrective feedback, less than half of the students showed any signs of uptake in subsequent pieces of writing. With one exception, these were students with an intermediate-high to very high proficiency level in French. The study emphasises the importance of strategies that could encourage learners to use the feedback they receive, thus moving the centre of attention from teacher practices to learner activities.

The Use of L1 and the TL in Focus on Form and Its Impact on Uptake, Noticing and Language Development

<p>Since Long's (1991) coinage of the term focus on form (FonF) to refer to brief attention to form in a meaning-oriented classroom, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on the role of FonF in second language learning. Evidence from this research supports the beneficial effects of FonF on learner noticing and language development (e.g. Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001a; Loewen, 2005; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey, 2006). However, some other aspects of FonF, especially in an English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) setting, have received less attention. For example, it has been widely observed that in EFL settings where the teacher and learners usually share the first language (L1), teacher use of L1 to correct learners' errors is frequent (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; Crawford, 2004; Gabrielatos, 2001; Macaro, 2001; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). The effect of L1 versus the target language (TL) use on second language learning in the language classroom has long been an issue of concern for both teachers and researchers (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; E. Chau, 2007; Crawford, 2004; Gabrielatos, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). However, choice of the language of form-focused episodes (FFEs) by EFL teachers has received little attention in the FonF research literature. This research study investigates teacher use of L1 and the TL in FonF in an EFL setting in Vietnam and its impact on learner uptake, noticing and language development. The research consists of two studies: an observational/descriptive study followed by an experimental study. The observational study sought to identify general patterns of teacher use of L1 and the TL during FFEs in EFL classes through a close analysis of FFEs occurring in EFL classes in two private language institutions in Vietnam. Twelve class sessions across two proficiency levels with six Vietnamese EFL teachers were observed, audio-recorded and analysed. The results revealed that the amount of FonF and uptake in this setting was similar to amounts reported in other research although there was wide variation across the six class groups and the two proficiency levels. Over 18% of the teacher feedback moves were in L1, although again there was wide variety across classes and proficiency levels. When the L1 Vietnamese teachers gave explicit information to learners in multi-move FFEs, particularly on morphosyntax and lexical FFEs, they were more likely to use L1. These findings informed the experimental study which explored the relationship between the use of L1 and the TL in FFEs and learner uptake, noticing and language development. In this study, three interactive dyadic tasks were performed by individuals from two groups of learner participants with the researcher as interlocutor. Learners from one group received feedback in L1 (n= 20), learners from the other group in the TL (n=23). The analysis revealed that, overall, the amount of uptake was similar between the two groups, suggesting that choice of the language of FonF does not influence learner uptake. Furthermore, the results for noticing and learning suggest that the language of FonF (L1 or the TL) does not strongly influence learning outcomes. By shedding light on teacher use of L1 and the TL in FonF and how this affects uptake, noticing, and learning, this research increases our understanding of the efficacy of FonF in the under-researched setting of non-native English teachers teaching in an EFL context.</p>

The Use of L1 and the TL in Focus on Form and Its Impact on Uptake, Noticing and Language Development

<p>Since Long's (1991) coinage of the term focus on form (FonF) to refer to brief attention to form in a meaning-oriented classroom, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on the role of FonF in second language learning. Evidence from this research supports the beneficial effects of FonF on learner noticing and language development (e.g. Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001a; Loewen, 2005; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey, 2006). However, some other aspects of FonF, especially in an English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) setting, have received less attention. For example, it has been widely observed that in EFL settings where the teacher and learners usually share the first language (L1), teacher use of L1 to correct learners' errors is frequent (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; Crawford, 2004; Gabrielatos, 2001; Macaro, 2001; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). The effect of L1 versus the target language (TL) use on second language learning in the language classroom has long been an issue of concern for both teachers and researchers (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; E. Chau, 2007; Crawford, 2004; Gabrielatos, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). However, choice of the language of form-focused episodes (FFEs) by EFL teachers has received little attention in the FonF research literature. This research study investigates teacher use of L1 and the TL in FonF in an EFL setting in Vietnam and its impact on learner uptake, noticing and language development. The research consists of two studies: an observational/descriptive study followed by an experimental study. The observational study sought to identify general patterns of teacher use of L1 and the TL during FFEs in EFL classes through a close analysis of FFEs occurring in EFL classes in two private language institutions in Vietnam. Twelve class sessions across two proficiency levels with six Vietnamese EFL teachers were observed, audio-recorded and analysed. The results revealed that the amount of FonF and uptake in this setting was similar to amounts reported in other research although there was wide variation across the six class groups and the two proficiency levels. Over 18% of the teacher feedback moves were in L1, although again there was wide variety across classes and proficiency levels. When the L1 Vietnamese teachers gave explicit information to learners in multi-move FFEs, particularly on morphosyntax and lexical FFEs, they were more likely to use L1. These findings informed the experimental study which explored the relationship between the use of L1 and the TL in FFEs and learner uptake, noticing and language development. In this study, three interactive dyadic tasks were performed by individuals from two groups of learner participants with the researcher as interlocutor. Learners from one group received feedback in L1 (n= 20), learners from the other group in the TL (n=23). The analysis revealed that, overall, the amount of uptake was similar between the two groups, suggesting that choice of the language of FonF does not influence learner uptake. Furthermore, the results for noticing and learning suggest that the language of FonF (L1 or the TL) does not strongly influence learning outcomes. By shedding light on teacher use of L1 and the TL in FonF and how this affects uptake, noticing, and learning, this research increases our understanding of the efficacy of FonF in the under-researched setting of non-native English teachers teaching in an EFL context.</p>

Oral Corrective Feedback Strategies and Learner Uptake in EFL Setting

<p>This study investigates the strategies of oral corrective feedback applied by senior teachers in EFL speaking classes. It is to shed light on whether those strategies used are effective to lead the repair uptake. Additionally, it is to find out the attempts done by the learners to repair their errors. This study applies a qualitative method that uses classroom observations as the technique for collecting the data. The data are taken from speaking classes taught by three senior teachers in three universities. The study reveals that the corrective feedback strategies of correct forms elicited were effective to lead to repair uptake. Those were elicitation, clarification request, repetition, and metalinguistic cue. Related to uptake, the learners attempted to achieve well-formed sentences by the process of Needs Repair to Repair uptake. It involved the same errors and acknowledgment for Needs Repair and incorporation, repetition, and self-repair for repair uptake. It is recommended that teachers apply the correct form elicited corrective feedback strategies to correct learners’ erroneous forms and provide the uptake since it is the learning process.</p><p>Keywords: Oral Corrective Feedback strategies, Learners’ uptake, Repair, Needs Repair </p>

Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic vs. formulaic errors

An extensive number of corrective feedback (CF) studies have examined learners’ errors with grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling (non-formulaic forms) and established an association between learners’ uptake of CF and their second language development. However, learners’ errors with formulaic sequences (FSs) comprising idioms, collocations, lexical bundles, and compounds (formulaic forms) have received scant attention in CF research. This study investigated any associations among formulaic vs. non-formulaic errors, CF types, uptake, and successful uptake rate by drawing on the audio-recordings of 36 hours of primarily meaning-oriented teacher–learner interactions in three advanced English as a foreign language classes. The findings demonstrated that learners made more errors with FSs, whereas CF was provided significantly more often for their non-formulaic errors. Learners’ non-formulaic and formulaic errors were treated significantly more frequently through recasts and elicitations, respectively. Uptake and successful uptake rate was significantly higher when CF was provided for learners’ formulaic errors than non-formulaic ones, which could be explained by relatively greater saliency, significance, and noticeability of FSs. The findings of log-linear analyses indicated that uptake and successful uptake rate varied depending on formulaic vs. non-formulaic foci of errors and CF types.

Negotiation of meaning and negotiation of form in Chinese EFL classroom discourse

In recent decades, numerous empirical studies have been conducted on negotiation of meaning and negotiation of form, but few have focused on examining the distinction between the two negotiation types. This qualitative study aims at distinguishing the two negotiation types by analyzing teacher-student dyadic interaction. Three English teachers and their students from a university in China participated in the study. The classroom interaction between the teachers and their students was recorded over 11 weeks, and the data analyzed for the present study totaled 13 hours and 50 minutes. Results indicate that (1) in terms of teacher intentions, the two negotiation types differ considerably: whereas negotiation of meaning is conversational and didactic in function, negotiation of form is solely didactic; (2) regarding retrieval processes and types of learner uptake, the two negotiation types differ slightly except for when negotiation of meaning is didactic in function. The findings thus reveal some issues to address regarding the function of negotiation of meaning.