CC BY-ND
130
Journal of Language & Education
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2015
Teacher Corrective Oral Feedback in the Classroom
Nasy Inthisone Pfanner
B.O.RG Dornbirn-Schoren
The article reports on a study of teacher corrective oral feedback in Iris Becker Elementary School, a public school serving pupils from kindergarten-5th grade in Dearborn, Michigan. Some researchers claim that teacher corrective oral feedback is beneficial to L2 learning while others discard its merit. This study is an attempt to explore this topic further with young learners. The method used in the study included one classroom observation. The participants included one mainstream classroom teacher and about 25 students. The results show high teacher corrective oral feedback.
Keywords: corrective feedback, error treatment, oral feedback, English as Second Language, second language acquisition
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the different types of corrective oral feedback and determine which types lead to student repair and which types do not lead to student repair. Results obtained in this experiment can help educators make better decisions regarding the use of corrective oral feedback.
Literature review
Corrective feedback (CF) is defined as “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner utterance” (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 574). The notion that learners may need negative evidence such as error feedback or explicit instruction has presently lead to the eminence of CF studies in English as a Second Language (ESL) and other L2 education contexts (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 573). The reasons for studying CF include claims about the significance
Nasy Inthisone Pfanner was born in Laos, but grew up in the United States. She has also lived and studied in Germany. She earned her Masters degree in German Language and Literature from Arizona State University in Tempe, USA and her Masters degree in Education from the University ofMichigan in Ann Arbor, USA. She is currently teaching English at B.O.RG Dornbirn-Schoren, a secondary school in Vorarlberg, Austria.
E-mail: [email protected]
of negative feedback in grown-ups (Ellis, 2004, p. 236). According to Doughty and Williams (1998) the role of CF in the process of learning a foreign language is still much debated (Lochtman, 2002, p. 272) and opinions on the purpose of CF can be very mixed or split (Han,
2002, p. 1).
Researchers such as Hendrickson (1978) and Lars-en-Freeman (1981) made the following claims about errors and corrections: 1) errors are a natural result of the communication development skills, 2) correction distracts the learner’s attention from the communicative task, 3) correction forces the learner to focus on the form instead of the meaning and 4) correction activates the learner’s affective filter, which blocks learning. These assumptions lead teachers to ignore errors in classrooms (Han, 2002, p. 2). A study by Doughty (1994) on CF found that the teacher gave approximately half of the feedback to students’ incorrect utterances (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 576). Theoretically speaking, corrective feedback is capable of advancing the learning process, but that is not always true in practice (Han, 2002, p. 9). Doughty and Varela (1998), Lightbown (1991), Lightbown and Spada (1990) and White (1991) considered CF as having little importance in the classroom. Some research showed that early form-focused instruction might make it harder rather than easier for learners to discover the underlying structure of the target language and it has been suggested that form-focused instruction and CF can lead only to temporary and/or superficial changes in learner performance (Lightbown and Spada, 1993, p. 206).
46
TEACHER CORRECTIVE ORAL FEEDBACK IN THE CLASSROOM
Researchers such as Higgs and Clifford (1982) and Hammerly (1987) argued that L2 learners exposed to natural language acquisition or communicative language teaching without error correction and form focus will eventually stop learning. Some SLA researchers, such as Bley-Vroman (1986), White (1991) and Schwartz (1993) considered CF to be necessary for second language learning. Dekeyser (1994) and Schmidt (1994) regarded CF as an essential element of explicit teaching that tries to make the learner be aware of the formal features of the input and help them see the difference between these features and those in their own interlanguage. Chaudron (1988) claimed that for most learners, CF may be the most successful source of improvement in target language development (Han, 2002, p. 7). Swain (1995) stated, “An additional effect of CF may be the enhancement of learners’ metalinguistic awareness” (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 574). Han (2002) acknowledged CF as especially indispensable in classroom SLA (p. 24). Evidence from previous studies showed that CF seems to advance learning (Aljaafreh and Lantolf, 1974, p.466).
Corrective feedback is classified into six types: 1) explicit correction, 2) recasts, 3) clarification requests, 4) metalinguistic feedback or clues (as stated in Gibbons, 2006, p. 52), 5) elicitation, and 6) repetition of error (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 576), all of which were the focus of this research. While most corrective oral feedback does fall into the above categories they do not cover all types of oral feedback.
1. Explicit Correction: It refers to the explicit provision of the correct form and generally is needed for treating learning problems that are categorized as error (Han, 2002, p. 14). As the teacher provides the correct form, he/she clearly indicates that what the student had said was incorrect. Carroll and Swain (1974 cited in Aljaafreh and Lantolf, 1974, p. 466) demonstrated that learners who received explicit correction overall are superior on experimental assignments than the learners who received implicit feedback. Example of explicit correction:
S: The day. . . tomorrow, (lexical error)
T:Yes. No, the day before yesterday, (explicit correction) (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 584).
2. Recasts: Recast involve the teacher’s reformulation of student’s entire speech or some of it without the error (Lyster and Ranta, 1997, p. 46). Long (1996) defined recasts as implicit CF that reformulates/builds an incorrect/incomplete speech clearly, parallel to the type of recasts used by caregivers in a child’s first language acquisition (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 582). Recasts also include translations in response to a student’s use of the LI (Lyster and Ranta, 1997, p. 47). Recasts are by and large implicit and are not presented by such phrases “You mean,” “Use this word,” and “You
should say.” Some recasts focus on one word, however, some combine the grammatical or lexical modification as part of discourse. Recasts do not promote immediate learner repair (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 577). Example ofRecast:
S:. . . I looking for my pen.
T: You are looking for your pen. (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 575).
3. Clarification Requests: based on Spada and Frohlich (1995) clarification requests indicate to students that their speech has been misjudged by the teacher or that the speech is somehow incorrect and needs a reiteration or a reformulation. Clarification requests can deal with problems in either understanding or accuracy, or both (Lyster and Ranta, 1997, p. 47) and often seek clarification of the meaning as well (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 583).
S: I want practice today, today, (grammatical error)
T: I’m sorry? (clarification request) (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 583).
4. Metalinguistic Feedback or Clues: In this type of feedback, the teacher asks questions or offers comments or information connected to the formation of the student’s utterance without supplementing the correct form. For example, the teacher may say, “Do we say it like that?” “That’s not how you say it in French,” and “Is it feminine?”
S: Euhm, le, le elephant. Le elephant gronde. “Uhm, the, the elephant. The elephant growls.”
(multiple errors)
T: Est-ce qu’on dit le elephant? “Do we say the elephant?”
(de Gortari and Tedick, 1998, p. 2).
5. Elicitation: It concerns with the methods that teachers use to acquire the correct form out of the student. There are three methods of elicitation: the teacher 1) allows for “fill in the blank,” stops and allows the learner to finish the teacher’s speech i.e., “No, not that. It’s a... ”, 2) invites an open question “How do we say X in French?”, and 3) requires a reformulation of the incorrect speech (Lyster and Ranta, 1997, p. 48). Elicitation is further illustrated in the example below:
T: OK. Did you like it?
S: Yes, yes, I like it.
T:Yes,I. . .?
S: Yes, I liked it.
T: Yes, I liked it. (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 575).
6. Repetition of Errors: It refers to the teacher’s reiteration without connection to the student’s incorrect speech. For the most part, teachers adapt their articulation to emphasize the mistake (Lyster and Ranta, 1997, p. 48). For example, the teacher repeats the error below:
S: Le. . . le girafe? (gender error) “ T h e... t h e giraffe?”
T: Le girafe? “The giraffe?”
47
NASY INTHISONE PFANNER
(de Gortari & Tedick, 1998, p. 2)
In a study by Lyster and Panova (2002) with a database of 1,716 student turns and 1,641 teacher turns the feedback types used were distributed as follows: 1) explicit correction 2%, 2) recasts roughly 77%, 3) clarification requests 11%, 4) metalinguistic feedback or clues 5%, 5) elicitation 4%, and 6) repetition of error 1% (p. 586). Similarly, Scott (2008), a University of Auckland graduate with a double major in English and Linguistics and contributing writer of SuitelOl. com, an interactive online magazine on 400 subjects for over 10 years wrote, “In a normal one hour lesson, a teacher will approximately use 55% recast feedback, 14% elicitation feedback, 11% clarification feedback, 8% metalinguistic feedback, 7% explicit correction, and 5% repetition feedback.”
Lyster and Ranta (1997) reasoned that metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, clarification requests, and repetition allow more learner participation than
Table 1 MEAP results
Iris Becker State Average
Reading: Grade 3 97% 86%
Grade 4 71% 85%
Grade 5 86% 82%
Writing: Grade 3 74% 57%
Grade 4 45% 45%
Grade 5 60% 59%
Math: Grade 3 97% 90%
Grade 4 93% 86%
Grade 5 94% 74%
Table 2 Ethnicity
Iris Becker State Average
White 99% 70%
African American <1% 20%
Table 3 Eligibilityforfree or reduced-price lunch
Iris Becker State Average
85% 37%
Source: MI Dept. ofEducation, 2007-2008
recasts and explicit correction do (Lyster and Panova, 2002, p. 577). Scott (2008) stated that recasts and explicit correction do not lead to repair because they already provide correct forms to learners.
Research methodology
This study includes a classroom observation to determine which types lead to student repair and which types do not lead to student repair. This method was chosen because it offered an opportunity to see firsthand interaction between teachers and students during a regular lesson.
Student body
To better understand the student body, their academic strength and social economic status the students’: 1) Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) results (scale: % at or above proficient), 2) ethnicity, and 3) eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch is compared to the state average.
Observation procedure
During the observation the class was working on the story of Brothers and Sisters by Ellen B. Seni-si. The teacher discussed the story with the students, walked around the classroom, asked many questions and the students actively participated by raising hands to give answers. Some students participated more than others, but the teacher also asked the students who did not raise their hands to participate. Overall, the class had an active discussion of Brothers and Sisters and all students were involved (see table below). The observer sat in the back of the classroom, took notes and recorded the teaching on a cassette player. The students were not bothered nor paid any attention to the observer. The teacher had a good classroom management and there was no disciplinary problem. Later in the evening, the recording was transcribed and compared to the notes taken.
Results
Some types of feedback were classified as acknowledgement, where the teacher acknowledges what the student has said and as non-corrective repetition, where the teacher simply repeated what was correctly stated (Gibbons, 2006, p. 52). Some of the feedback falls into more than one category i.e., number 6 is both non-corrective repetition and acknowledgement. It was
48
TEACHER CORRECTIVE ORAL FEEDBACK IN THE CLASSROOM
Table 4
Iris BeckerElementarySchool Observation
feedback types student response teacher feedback context
1 — (I didn’t hear) XXX (unintelligible) families helping one another discussing Brothers and Sisters
2 non-corrective repetition, acknowledgement pictures ofbrothers and sisters you see pictures ofbrothers, yes discussing what is in the book
3 non-corrective repetition, acknowledgement they look like they are mad at each other okay, they look like they’re mad at each other discussing pictures of children who don’t seem happy
4 non-corrective repetition, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback/clues they look like they are having fun they look like they are having fun, what are they doing discussing various pictures where the children play together
5 clarification requests it looks like it’s the mom how can you tell this is the mom discussingpage 129
6 non-corrective repetition, acknowledgement they help they help one another, okay discussing what brothers and sisters do
7 clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback/clues her mom is having a baby how can you tell her mom has ababy discussingpage 130
8 non-corrective repetition, recasts the same baby is growing older oh, this is the same baby growing older and older discussing a baby that gets older
9 recasts it doesn’t matter how old you are, you have to help and share huh, this is all about sharing and helping discussingpage 133
10 non-corrective repetition they are different families taking care of one another uh ha, they are different families discussing the different families in the book
11 non-corrective repetition, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback/clues they go from newborn, to a toddler to teenager wow, they grow from newborn, to a toddler to teenager, what’s a newborn discussing the different stages of a person’s life
49
NASY INTHISONE PFANNER
feedback types student response teacher feedback context
12 recasts it’s a baby that just born or couple of days old so well say just to about probably to six weeks describing the term “newborn”
13 clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback/clues it’s a timeline why are we using a timeline teacher and para-professionals put a timeline on the board with pictures of people from newborn to senior citizens
14 recasts, metalinguistic feedback/clues it showing from baby and what happens it’s showing a chronology of age from how we go from newborn until we get older discussing the timeline of a person’s life
15 non-corrective repetition photos they’re photographs talking about the types of pictures in the book
16 recasts, acknowledgement I think they are real alright, the pictures are of real people discussing the types of photographs
17 recasts true narratives about a lot of things these are just vignettes of lots of things talking about the different families in the photos
18 elicitation people get mad but not forever so do you think we are talking about the same persons, sometimes they don’t get along, but you are not mad forever, because you are families discussing how some families get mad at each other
19 recasts, elicitation you take care ofbrothers and sisters you should take care of them, now who takes care of whom discussing the role of brothers and sisters
20 clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback/clues mom takes care of the baby if he cries is it only moms job to take care of the baby discussing the role of brothers and sisters
21 recasts sometimes brothers and sisters sometimes it’s the job of brothers and sisters or discussing the role of brothers and sisters
22 acknowledgement dads okay
23 non-corrective repetition the older takes care of the younger the older takes care of the younger discussing the role of brothers and sisters
24 clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback/clues twins mean they are alike what do you mean alike, how are they alike, in which way discussing the meaning of the word twin
50
TEACHER CORRECTIVE ORAL FEEDBACK IN THE CLASSROOM
feedback types student response teacher feedback context
25 recasts same hair they have the same hair cut discussing similarities of twins
26 recasts they are born at the same time born at the same time, when you are twins you are born at the same time, you don’t have the same hair color, but if they look alike they are identical twins discussing that identical twins are born at the same time
27 explicit correction but they don’t do the same things no, they don’t have to do the same things discussing that identical twins don’t have to do the same things
28 recasts I have friends, they are identical twins and I can’t tell them apart it’s hard to tell identical twins apart discussing how identical twins look similar
29 acknowledgement they can have different hair cuts that’s one way discussing how to distinguish identical twins
30 acknowledgement have name tags that’s an idea discussing how to distinguish identical twins
31 acknowledgement have different clothes that would help discussing how to distinguish identical twins
32 recasts bracelets oh name bracelets discussing how to distinguish identical twins
33 recasts birthmarks oh, birthmarks, even though they are twins some of them may have birthmarks and some of them may not, but unless it is visible on the face or something discussing how to distinguish identical twins
34 non-corrective repetition, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback/clues adopted adopted, I was hoping someone would pick up this word, what does it mean discussing adopted children
35 recasts my mom has this baby, she took it to the foster house and someone came and took the baby so they adopted the baby, they make it their own discussing adopted children
51
NASY INTHISONE PFANNER
feedback types student response teacher feedback context
36 recasts you can’t get a baby then you adopt yeah, there are a lot of reasons why people adopt a baby, some people can’t have a baby or some people would like to have more babies then they decide to adopt, most of the times people can’t have babies and would love to have a baby, there are lots of people who are orphans, who don’t have a home because their pass away or whatever, they need a home discussing adopted children
37 acknowledgement, clarification requests, elicitation if you’re adopted and people ask if you are brother and sister you say yeah yeah, but legally what does the word become, are you born from the same mom and dad discussing adoption
38 clarification requests how do they fit what do you mean
39 clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback how do they fit in the house which house, the orphanage, it’s usually a huge place and they can take a lot of them discussing orphanage
40 clarification requests unintelligible these are adopted how can you tell
41 acknowledgement, non-corrective repetition it’s under the picture right, it’s under the picture noticing the wording under the pictures
42 explicit correction can a child go where he wants togo no, if the child is not an adult, it’s up to the agency and the people involved only when you are an adult, this is when you are 18 and older can you say where you want to go, that is an interesting question discussing a child’s legal rights
43 elicitation newborn what kind of a word is that, thinking grammar discussing vocabulary
44 clarification requests a compound word compound word, why is this a compound word discussing grammar
45 metalinguistic feedback more than one word it has “new” and “born” put together discussing grammar
52
TEACHER CORRECTIVE ORAL FEEDBACK IN THE CLASSROOM
feedback types student response teacher feedback context
46 explicit correction, elicitation a toddler a toddler is a bit older, what comes after a newborn discussing age chronology
47 metalinguistic feedback, elicitation the baby how old do you think is a baby, a baby goes about six weeks to a year and a half, 6-8 months discussing age chronology
48 non-corrective repetition to make them laugh to make them laugh discussing how it is fun to have a baby
49 acknowledgement, recasts you can grab them and hug them right you can hug them, but you have to be gentle and careful discussing how it is fun to have a baby
50 clarification requests she pays attention to the baby does that mean she loves you less discussing how a mother spend more time with the baby
51 non-corrective repetition, clarification requests they’re wearing different bracelets oh they are wearing different bracelets, why do you think that they are wearing different bracelets discussingpage 135
52 metalinguistic feedback younger oh, the older takes care of the younger, that’s not old, older like you having a younger brother or sister discussing the younger and older person
53 non-corrective repetition, elicitation the big sister is taking care of the little sister taking care of the little sister, how old do you think the sister is, what age discussing the role of brothers and sisters
54 recasts it’s hard to be younger because your bigger sister can do more things so this is about younger and older discussing the younger and older person
55 clarification requests it’s like a bumblebee does it mean that he is like an animal trying to get the meaning of the word “pest”
56 non-corrective repetition it’s like bothering him yes, it’s annoying, he bothers him, he bothers him discussing the problems with brother and sisters
57 non-corrective repetition she’s mean with me mean with you talk about a child whose sister annoys him
58 non-corrective repetition, recast fight they fight, they argue, they get mad at one another discuss how even adults fight
53
NASY INTHISONE PFANNER
Percentage of Feedback
Figure 1. 58 Teacher Corrective Oral Fedback.
Note: Explicit correction has 0.05 % and is too small to show up on the graph.
considered whether to categorize some feedback as elaboration, where according to Gibbons, the student is encouraged to go into detail with what he/she has said, but it was decided not to because they could fall more into the category of clarification requests.
The findings from the data show that there were 58 teacher oral feedback points in approximately one hour of observation, equaling to almost 1 feedback point per minute. The breakdown of the types of feedback is as follows (see Figure 1 above): 3 explicit correction, 20 recasts, 16 clarification requests, 18 metalinguistic feedback or clues, 7 elicitation (all were “invite an open question method” and none were “fill in the blank” or “requires a reformulation of the incorrect speech”), 0 repetition of error, 15 non-corrective repetition and 11 acknowledgement. Although there were only 58 feedback points produced by the teacher, the breakdown shows 90 feedback points because some feedback was classified as more than one category. There were similarities between these findings and that of previous research (e.g., Lyster and Panova, 2002; Scott, 2008; Esmaeili, 2014), namely, recasts made up the highest percentage with 34%.
Limitation
The data collection was limited to one observation with one teacher in one classroom, thus making it impossible to draw a conclusion to the second and third research questions: what kinds of corrective oral feedback lead to student repair and what kinds of corrective oral feedback do not lead to student repair. The corrective oral feedback in this classroom was made regarding content, not language. Therefore, to compare these data with the data of previous research where the data were collected from language classes would be problematic.
Suggestions
It would be valuable to replicate and expand this study in a longitudinal research. Longitudinal research is necessary to see the consistency of the corrective oral feedback. Lightbown (2000) stated that to verify the success of CF in learners’ interlanguage progress, researchers need to display that any effect is durable (Sheen, 2004, p. 266). This research could be expanded to include observations in schools with higher social economic status and with various student populations. Previous CF studies have not been investigated in the real school context, but rather in the context of a laboratory setting with NS-NNS dyads, for example, Carroll and Swain (1993), Leeman (2003), Long et al. (1998) which is unlike a classroom setting (Sheen, 2004, p. 267-268). Such research could help to understand whether these findings are typical of classroom feedback or if they are similar to other classroom teacher feedback regardless of the social economic status and racial background.
The findings of this research on teacher corrective oral feedback are only a scratch of the surface and we are still far from comprehension of how feedback plays a role in the L2 learning process (Aljaafreh and Lan-tolf, 1994, p. 466).
References
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994, Winter). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (4), 465-483. de Gotari, B. & Tedick, D. J. (1998, May). The bridge: From research to practice. Research on error correction and implications for classroom teaching. ACIE Newsletter, 1 (3), 1-4.
Ellis, R. (2004). Editorial. Language Teaching Research, 8,235-239.
Esmaeili, F. (2014, July). A study of corrective feedback and learner’s uptake in classroom interactions. In-
54
TEACHER CORRECTIVE ORAL FEEDBACK IN THE CLASSROOM
ternational Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3 (4). Retrieved April 6, 2015 from http:// www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/ view/1165/1172
Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Student, teachers, and researchers. New York, NY: Continuum, 256.
Han, Z. (2002, June). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 33 (1), 1-31.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 15 (2), 205-220.
Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 233
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction
in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal ofEducationalResearch, 37, 271-283.
LysterR. & Panova, I. (2002, Winter). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL QUARTERLY, 36 (4), 573-595.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20,37-66.
Scott, E. (2008, Sept. 5). Corrective feedback in the language classroom: How to best point out language mistakes. Retrieved April 15, 2009 from http ://languagestudy. suitelOl. com/article.cfm/ correctivefeedbackinthelanguageclassroom.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language TeachingResearch, 8,263-300.
55
