Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy: Comparing Perceptions and Practices on the Teachers’ and Learners’ Parts

Fahimeh Ashja Nazarloo, Massoud Yaghoubi-Notash

Abstract


An advantage of the communication-based instruction in an EFL situation is prioritizing fluency and meaning negotiation though of course at the cost of accuracy. Researchers have, therefore, found feedback on the learners’ erroneous utterances quite appealing so that form can be attended to against the wider backdrop of meaning-focused involvement in communication. This present study qualitatively and quantitatively sought to investigate the teachers’ and intermediate learners’ perceptions as well as the teachers’ practices concerning corrective feedback types, sources of feedback, and types of grammatical errors that occur and need to be attended to during the classroom conversations. The study was conducted in two private language institutes in Tabriz, Eastern Azerbaijan Province, Iran. The instructional materials were Top Notch course books. For the purpose of the study, 6 teachers and 60 EFL learners were focused on. First, the classes of 6 teachers were observed. Then, the teachers and learners completed a questionnaire on corrective feedback. The results indicated that learners showed strong agreement toward using explicit feedback. On the contrary, teachers usually neglected the learners’ grammatical errors at the classroom to maintain the flow of interaction. Another important finding about sources of feedback was that teachers and learners preferred teacher correction to peer correction or self-correction. Finally, both teachers and learners expressed strong agreement about feedback on serious grammatical errors during conversation though the former tended to agree more with the feedback on less serious and frequent grammatically erroneous utterances.

Keywords


Correction Feedback, Explicit, Grammatical Accuracy, Practice, Perception

Full Text:

PDF

References


Al-Fake, A. M., & Siddiek, A. G. (2013). Techniques used by teachers in correcting students’ oral errors in an Omani boy’s school. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3, 1770-1783.

Amador, Y. A. (2008). Learner attitude toward error correction in a beginners’ English class. Revista Comunicación, 17(1), 18-28.

Asmara, T. (2015). Learners’ perceptions of teacher written feedback commentary in an ESL writing classroom. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 3, 38-53.

Braidi, S.M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/ nonnative-speaker interaction. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.

Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect, 3, 57-66.

Calsiyao, I. (2015). Corrective Feedback in Classroom Oral Errors among Kalinga Apayao State College Students. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 3, 394-400.

Carrol, S. (2001). Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Corder, S.P. (1976). The significance of learners’ errors. 1RAL, 5, 161-170.

De Mello Paiva, K. (2011). Brazilian English as foreign language teachers’ beliefs about grammar-based feedback on L2 writing (Master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa). Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal., 1, 3-18.

Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18-41.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30,419-432.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-68.

Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (Eds.) (2005). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.

Khatib, M. & Derakhshan, A. (2011). A complementary-compensatory approach to teaching focus on form/S in EFL/ESL classrooms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(7), 865-874.

Khorshidi, E., & Rassaei, E. (2013). The effects of learners’ gender on their preferences for corrective feedback. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 1, 71-83.

Kivelä, S. (2008). Pupils’ oral errors and teachers’ practices on error correction: A classroom study. University of Tampere, School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies [online], Retrieved August, 2018 from http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uta-1-17859.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Liao, M., & Wang, H. (2009). Perception differences of EFL teachers and students in grammar instruction and error correction. English Teaching and Learning, 1, 101-146.

Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153-188.

Loewen, S. & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2knowledge. In A. Mackey (Eds.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.361-376). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.

Mendez, E., and Cruz, M. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. PROFILE, 14(2), 63-75. Bogota, Colombia.

Park, G. (2010). Preference of corrective feedback Approaches perceived by native English teachers and Students. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7, 29-52.

Renko, K. (2012). Finish EFL learners’ perceptions on errors, corrective feedback and foreign language anxiety (Master’s thesis), University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved 21 August, 2018 from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789.

Rassaei, E. & Moinzadeh, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of three types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of English Wh-question forms by Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 97-106.

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593-610). New York: Routledge.

Sung, K., & Tsai, H. (2014). Exploring student errors, teachers' corrective feedback, learner uptake and repair, and learners' preferences of corrective feedback. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 37-54.

Suwangard, N. (2014). Grammatical error correction and retention in EFL students in Thailand. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19, 51-58.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.4p.47

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2018 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies  

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.