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
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).
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
MPPZ1113 LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY ASSIGNMENT 1: CRITICAL REVIEW ON ‘THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON ESL STUDENT WRITING’ PREPARED BY: KHAIRON NISA BINTI SHAFEEI MATRIC NO: MPP141104 SUBMITTED TO: DR. MOHD HILMI BIN HAMZAH DATE OF SUBMISSION: 30th OCTOBER 2014 Summary A research was conducted by John Bitchener, Stuart Young and Denise Cameron with the topic of the research on The Effect of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing. The purpose of this study is to find out whether the types of corrective feedback help the post-intermediate ESOL students to improve their writing skill. In order to check the effectiveness of using these types of corrective feedback, the researchers began conducting
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.
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.
Over the years, a number of studies on corrective feedback has been performed which provided the teachers with multiple implications. However, those implications still do not answer how to correct errors. What makes it ambiguous are students’ expectations, which appear not to match the theory. As it was mentioned in the previous chapter, corrective feedback may have a detrimental influence on students’ self-esteem and motivation, however, it was demonstrated that majority of them is in favour of error correction. It is stated, for example, in Hajian, Farahani and Shirazi (2014) that in case of written corrections, students expect that all their mistakes will be corrected.
Introduction For the purpose of this assignment, the writer will evaluate individual and group feedback methods, explore the responsibilities of a facilitator when providing feedback and discuss the preferential feedback method of facilitating groups in her place of work. Feedback Feedback is the information conveyed by a facilitator, either verbally or in written form, which communicates their perceptions of an individual or group’s behaviour (www.iirp.edu, 2017). Individual Feedback A facilitator may choose to provide individual feedback, either in verbal or written form, which focuses on particular individuals within a group. The focus of this feedback can relate to the skills, behaviours, attitudes and knowledge an individual within a group articulates (www.hbr.org, 2017). The situations where implementing individual feedback may be useful is where other members within the group are not being affected by the behaviour of one individual and have no contribution to offer, or when the facilitator wants to help an individual member to receive group feedback
Receptive skill According to the website of Teaching English - British Council, receptive skill means “The receptive skills are listening and reading because learners do not need to produce language to do these, they receive and understand it. These skills are sometimes known as passive skills. They can be contrasted with the productive or active skills of speaking and writing.” Amir Hossein Torabian, Marlyna Marosb, and Mohd Yasin Mohd Subakirc states that “It is indicated the existence of a positive relationship between these two variables.” In a study, they assessed that "The findings in the first and the second tables are supported by Al-Amor's (2006) study which assessed the productive and receptive collocational knowledge of Saudi EFL learners but there existed one major difference. The results of Al-Amor’s study showed that there was a lack of collocational knowledge among the subjects as manifested by their poor performance on the collocational test. Our findings in this respect are in complete agreement with the findings of Al-Amor’s.
SF is a type of feedback initially proposed in Ypsilandis (2002) and its aim is to assist the learner at an early stage offering him more clarifications or explanations on the initial learning material and thus further assist him in the comprehension of it and further facilitate vocabulary retention in short and long-term memory. In Ypsilandis (2014) major research attempts on corrective and supportive feedback are cited and the author further examines experimentally the effectiveness of various kinds of supportive feedback strategies in vocabulary retention in a preliminary repetitive study which included three small size/scale experiments conducted in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Ypsilandis (2014) findings indicated no statistically significant difference in vocabulary retention among the feedback strategies tested (except one) in typical adults. In Ypsilandis studies the variable typical/non-typical development was not taken into consideration because this variable was typically not considered in most language learning experiments Thus, this study aims at contributing to both second/foreign language learning and learning disabilities fields by extending the SF research to both typically developing children and children with learning