University students involved in a study led by Sinclair and Cleland (2006) revealed that less than half of the scholars bothered to collect their assessment feedback. The results suggest that students are indifferent towards feedback, but research shows other variables discussed below play a role in the lack of engagement seen. Categorical and/or judgmental responses and lack of timeliness or guidance for improvements needed are major problems students face when dealing with feedback (Ferguson, 2011; Weaver, 2006; Housnsell, McCune, Hounsell, and Litjens, 2008). When these dissatisfying issues continue students can become frustrated or disinterested, which in turn can lead to a decrease in motivation to collect feedback. Additionally, when students expected grade doesn’t align with the actual grade received, students may feel there is no need to check feedback (Wojtas, 1998).
There are several types of feedback which may be appropriate to be utilised for example specific response, goal directed, immediate delivery and etc. Other than that, they also serve different functions (Black & William, 1998). There are two main functions of feedback, namely directive and facilitative. Directive feedback notifies the student of what need to be fixed or revised. Such feedback is more specific than facilitative feedback because it provides comments and suggestions to assist students in their own revision and conceptualization.
It is a generic term which disguises multiple purposes which are often not explicitly acknowledged. Feedback as a strong external stimulus providing positive or negative reinforcement to behavior. Correction is a key component of the traditional definition of feedback where the role of feedback is to ‘put things right’ by taking a corrective action. Feedback must include identification of errors or misunderstanding, but highlights the role of diagnosing problems with the feedback analysis. This links with the benchmarking role where feedback identifies a gap between what is understood/has been demonstrated and the standard of performance expected.
The role of oral corrective feedback (CF) in language acquisition has been a highly controversial issue. Whereas some believe that exposing learners to naturally occurring samples of a target language is the only way to develop second language, others argue that error treatment is harmful rather than helpful (Krashen 1982; Schwartz1993; Truscott 1999). Lewis (2002) classified the purposes for oral CF in four categories: 1) it provides learners with advice about learning and it also helps them to acquire some kind of language input as they might learn new vocabulary and structures in context, 2) it provides information for both teachers and students as it paves ways for teachers to describe their learners’ language, and for learners to be assessed
So, this paper reports a qualitative and quantitative study where it investigated whether the type of feedback given to the 53 adult migrant students on three types of error resulted in improved accuracy in new pieces of writing over a 12 week period. However, the quantitative methodology was just used to ensure the validity and the accuracy of the qualitative data. So, the question addresses for this study is about to what extent does the type of corrective feedback on linguistic errors determine accuracy performance in new pieces of writing? In order to get the data, the main method used for collecting and gathering the data for this study was a comparison case study in which pre-test and post test, conference session were used for the qualitative method and accuracy’s measurement (quantitative). The researcher wanted to make a comparison whether which group has bigger percentage in making errors and which group has fewer errors.
What were the consequences of [activity] etc.? 2.4 Different Types of Corrective Feedback Although majority of language teachers resort to providing correct form of grammatical error and this has become one of the most popular technique among them (Hendrickson, 1990), it is usually recommended that teachers also test other techniques rather than solely relying on a single technique. The first classification of different kinds of feedback was offered by Brown (2007), based on the works of Williams (2005), Ellis (2001), and Panova and Lyster (2004). It is worth to take a short glance at this category: Recast: an implicit type of corrective feedback which reforms or expands the erroneous utterance in an unnoticeable manner. Learner: I lost my road.
Implicit correction practices also involve writing down the errors to be corrected later on and/or providing oral feedback in oral communication activities. With regards to the best suggested practices, the most recurrent one in written and oral discourse is to provide first implicit error treatment and if this fails then turn to explicit. Explicit error treatment is considered by authors
And similarly, Saville-Troike (2006, p. 110) defined corrective feedback as “a type of interaction which can enhance second language acquisition by making nonnative speakers aware that their usage is not acceptable in some way and it provides a model for correctness”. There are many researchers that give different types of corrective feedback but the most integral and comprehensive categorizations of corrective feedback has been supplied by Lyster and Ranta (1997) that classified corrective feedback into six categories, which are explicit correction, recast, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, and clarification request. The researchers defined six types of corrective feedback including: Recast - According to Lyster and Ranta (1997, p.46), recast defined as “the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance, minus the error”. “Recasts are generally implicit in that they are not introduced by phrases such as “You mean,” “Use this word,” and “You should
Error treatment is not always easy for the teachers because the errors are infinite. So the errors have analyzed here through Corder’s plausible reconstruction. Under this theory, the thirty samples were collected of the errors in speaking English and found many grammatical errors besides misinformation, omission, inherent difficulty, erroneous input etc. To overcome these mistakes, the teachers, researchers and institutions should take proper steps to make the students active and motivated in learning and speaking English. In this article we have analyzed various problems on speaking English at undergraduate level in university of Bangladesh.
According to Sharma(1980s) ‘error analysis can thus provide a strong support to remedial teaching”, he added that during the teaching program, it can reveal both successes and failures of the program. Duley et al(1982) mentioned that the term “error” to refer to a systematic deviation from a selected norm or set of norms. Corder (1974) suggests the following steps in EA research: 1) Collection of a sample of learner language 2) Identification of errors 3) Description of errors 4) Explanation 4) Evolution of errors. Explaining the explanation errors, Ellis(2001,57-59 )claims that errors can be categorized according to psycholinguistics process ,into two types : 1. Inter lingual