Students’ Attitudes towardsCorrective Feedback in the Second

Language Classroom

Louise RyanB.A. (Mod.) Computer Science, Linguistics and a

LanguageFinal Year Project April 2012Supervisor: Dr. John Harris

School of Computer Science and StatisticsOReilly Institute, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Permission to Lend

I agree that the Library and other agents of the College may lend or copythis thesis upon request.

i

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project is entirely my own work and that it has not been submitted

as an exercise for a degree at this or any other university

______________________________________________ ________________________

Name Date

ii

Acknowledgements

Firstly I would like to thank Dr. John Harris, my project supervisor,for all of his help and input along the way.

I would also like to thank Dr. David Singleton, who inspired my lovefor linguistics and helped me with my project along the way.

A special thank you to Ms. Katrin Eberbach, my German lecturer,and Ms. Mary Kelly from the French Dept., whose help was invaluable ingathering participants for my study.

Thank you also to Dr. Carl Vogel, the CSLL course director, whoseguidance throughout my years in college is greatly appreciated.

A huge thank you to all my family and friends who have supportedand helped me when needed, and left me alone when told.

And a final thank you to all of the participants of my study, withoutwhom I would have no study.

iii

List of Figures

1 Table illustrating Implicit, Explicit, Input–Providing and Output–Prompting forms of feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2 Example of a Likert Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 Table illustrating who students would rather be corrected by 464 Table illustrating when students prefer to be corrected . . . . 475 Table showing what errors students prefer to have corrected . 486 Table showing which type of corrective feedback students prefer 507 Table illustrating the percentage distribution of preferences

regarding recasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 Table illustrating the percentage distribution of preferences

regarding no correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 Table illustrating the percentage distribution of preferences

regarding no correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5310 Table illustrating the percentage distribution of preferences

regarding no correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

iv

Abstract

This paper details an experiment that explores the reasons whystudents of French and German at third level education prefer certaintypes of corrective feedback. It sets out the background regarding whatcorrective feedback is and where it fits into second language learning.It was seen in the results that the students preferred recasts above allthe other types of corrective feedback since they are not embarrassedby the correction in front of their peers. There are a few other reasonsthat were mentioned such as they gain positive reinforcement from itand therefore it builds their confidence and that it is not a rude orabrupt form of feedback. It was found that the students disliked nocorrection since they feel that they will not learn if their mistakes arenot corrected.

v

Contents

Declaration i

Permission to Lend i

Acknowledgements iii

List of Figures iv

Abstract v

1 Chapter 1Introduction 21.1 Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Chapter 2Error Analysis and Corrective Feedback 42.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 Error Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2.1 Error Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.2.2 Interlanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2.3 Teaching as a Cause of Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.2.4 Controlled Performances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.2.5 Error Analysis and Second Language Acquisition . . . 122.2.6 Criticisms of Error Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3 Errors and Mistakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.4 What is Corrective Feedback? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.5 Different Categories of Corrective Feedback . . . . . . . . . . 142.6 Implicit and Explicit Corrective Methodologies . . . . . . . . 212.7 Positive and Negative Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 Chapter 3Error Correction and Second Language Acquisition 26

4 Introduction 274.1 Where Error Correction fits into in Language Learning . . . . 27

4.1.1 First Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.1.2 Second Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.2 Tailored Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294.3 A Comparison of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback . . . 304.4 Input, Output, Noticing and Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

vi

5 Chapter 4Motivation for Present Study 365.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375.2 Preferences for Certain Types of Corrective Feedback . . . . . 375.3 Timing of Corrective Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385.4 Present Study : Experimentation and Methodology . . . . . . 39

5.4.1 The Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.4.2 The Use of 1st and 4th Year Students . . . . . . . . . 405.4.3 The Use of German and French Students . . . . . . . 405.4.4 Reasons for Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415.4.5 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425.4.6 The Use of a Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6 Chapter 5Students Preferences with regard to Corrective Feedback 446.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456.2 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456.3 Who the students preferred to be corrected by . . . . . . . . 456.4 When the students preferred to be corrected . . . . . . . . . . 476.5 What types of errors the students wanted corrected . . . . . . 486.6 The types of Corrective Feedback preferred by the students . 496.7 The reasons behind the students preferred types of corrective

feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

7 Chapter 6Conclusion 567.1 Suggestions for further studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

8 Bibliography 58

A Appendix I 63

B Who the students preferred to be corrected by 64

C When the students preferred to be corrected 65

D What types of errors the students preferred to have cor-rected 67

E Which types of corrective feedback were preferred by thestudents 69

F Main reasons given by students for their preferences 71

G Summary of the Reasons Given by Students 73

vii

H Appendix II 79

I Questionnaires 79I.1 German Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80I.2 French Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

1

1 Chapter 1Introduction

1.1 Aims

The aim of this project is to examine the reasons behind the preferencesthat students have regarding the ways in which they are corrected in an orallearning situation when learning a second language. I am hoping to see,firstly that the students prefer metalinguistic clues and elicitation ratherthan recasts and explicit correction when being corrected. Secondly I amhoping that the reasons behind the students preferred methods relate to thefact that they feel they retain more readily the information they are givenin reference to their errors. I am also looking into whether or not there is adifference between the feedback types that students of German prefer andthe feedback that French students prefer. Finally I am hoping to see thatstudents prefer to be corrected for all errors that they make when speakingin class and that they prefer the feedback to be immediate rather than givento them in a separate dedicated grammar session.

1.2 Overview

This paper is divided into six main chapters. Chapter 2 will deal with erroranalysis, the beginnings of corrective feedback and what corrective feedbackactually entails. I will then move on to chapter 3 which delves more intowhere error correction actually fits into second language acquisition.

Chapter 4 will then look at the motivation for the present study in theform of a review of what has been done previously in the field and it willalso look at how the present study came about and how the experimentwas carried out. The results of the experiment will be reviewed, analysedand discussed in chapter 5, drawing also on previous studies mentioned inchapter 4 to facilitate the analysis and discussion of the results.

The final chapter, chapter 6, summaries the project, draws conclusionsgiven the results of previous studies as well as the results that the presentexperiment yielded and provides suggestions for future work in this area.

1.3 Motivation

I chose to embark on this project because of my love for languages andmore specifically how people learn them. As a second language learner inthird level I find it very important that we are corrected appropriately byour teachers and I think that it is crucial that, as language students, we are

2

aware of the ways in which our errors are corrected in the classroom. Thisawareness should help us to improve our learning experience.

3

2 Chapter 2Error Analysis and Corrective Feedback

4

2.1 Introduction

During the course of this chapter I will give the definition and backgroundto what corrective feedback is, how we can classify the different approachesto correcting a learner, what the function of corrective feedback in secondlanguage acquisition and second language research is. I will also be address-ing the issues of how methods of correction can differ depending on whetherthe correction is taking the form of oral or written, what the teacher’s per-spective of error correction is and I will also touch on the issue of peercorrection.

Firstly I shall give a brief overview of Error Analysis since I feel that thisgives a good background to the foundations of corrective feedback and whyteachers correct errors at all. The section on error analysis also encompasseselements regarding the strategies that learner’s employ in order to learn thetarget language and also to communicate in the target language. I will alsogo into a small bit of detail regarding interlanguage and its significance inboth error analysis and corrective feedback. Secondly, I will illustrate the 7different types of corrective feedback that there are, give examples of howthey function in a classroom situation and spell out some of the advantagesand disadvantages of each of these types. I will then attempt to group thesetypes of corrective feedback under both implicit and explicit feedback andpositive and negative evidence and show the difference between these twosets of distinction.

2.2 Error Analysis

Error Analysis has a significant role to play in the Error Correction fieldof study. With a view to discussing and examining this role, I shall firstillustrate how and why Error Analysis came about.

Error Analysis has been called a weak version of Contrastive AnalysisHypothesis, which is a hypothesis that was derived from the idea that thehabits that the subject acquires when learning one task can have an effecton the learning of a new task. This behaviourist view on habits in languagelearning brought about the idea that if the two tasks in question were similarthe habits that were acquired during the first task would positively transfer,or possibly even facilitate the second task.

So if both tasks were of a language learning nature, i.e. if the firsttask was learning a first language or acquiring a second language, and thesecond task was the learning of (another) second language, the habits thatthe learner had amassed during their previous language learning would thenhelp them with their current task. When this view was applied to language

5

learning research, the assumption was made that “individuals tend to trans-fer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meaningsof their native languages and culture to the foreign language and culture”(Lado 1957, p.2). This transference of parts of speech from one language toanother is called interference.

In order to study and analyse this assumption in closer detail ContrastiveAnalysis was born. By definition, Contrastive Analysis is a comparativestudy of two languages that seeks to determine any points of conflict thatarise within the lexicons, including vocabulary, sentence structure and mor-phology of the languages in question. These points of conflict are thereforethe most likely sources of interference that a learner is going to encounterwhen learning the language. The objective of the Contrastive Analysis stud-ies was that teachers could look at the results of the studies and then usewhat the studies found and the recommendations of the studies to help themfocus their teaching efforts on dealing with the conflict points that were men-tioned in the analysis, with a view to minimising potential interference.

At this stage, it must be noted that most of, if not all, studies that wereconducted under the heading of Contrastive Analysis were done by usingonly Indo-European languages. Therefore it can be said that there is ahuge flaw in the way that the studies were carried out. The flaw being thatthe languages that were compared and contrasted against each other, e.g.English and Spanish or German and English, were already quite similar invarious ways. This means that the languages were nearly predisposed tofind areas where transfer between the two would be possible.

If we take German and English for example, both being of the Ger-manic language family, they have an enormous amount of vocabulary sim-ilarities and also phrase structure is generally the same. What I mean byphrase structure here is the way in which some noun phrases, adjectivephrases and verb phrases are constructed in a homogeneous way. For ex-ample in English we have articles that we can place before nouns, and thesame is true for German.

English: the dog (definite article)German: der Hund (masculine definite article) (translation: thedog)

In looking at these examples, we can see from a Contrastive Analysisperspective that a native English speaker learning German would encounterdifficulties with the gender aspect of articles in German. Namely they wouldhave a problem with the fact that in German nouns have genders, just likein French, Spanish and many other languages.

6

However, if we were to take Chinese and compare it with either Englishor German in relation to articles, we would find a huge gap in the languagessince Chinese does not have articles in its lexicon. So when looking atContrastive Analysis, we have to be cautious in dealing with the conclusionsthe studies came to since the languages studied by the researchers werelanguages that are more likely to have room for the transfer of rules, formsand meanings between them, seeing as they are all Indo-European in nature.

Error Analysis then originated as a result of claims that errors in learninga second language steamed from the influence that the native tongue of thespeaker holds over the second language. The feedback that was gleanedfrom the studies conducted by contrastive analysts fuelled these claims. Inhindsight, these claims came quite later than expected. One might be ableto go so far as to suggest that perhaps these claims about the errors that areencountered by teachers (and indeed parents) only came about as a resultof the failure of Contrastive Analysis to produce any concrete findings. Anempirical study showed that those errors found in second language learnerswere not influenced by their native tongue, and so Error Analysis cameabout.

Linguists saw the need, after the results of this study, to examine andprobe into why language learners make certain mistakes. They saw thatresults of such analysis could possibly show how language is learned by ahuman and perhaps give them an insight into the processes that are involvedin language learning in the complex network of the brain. Littlewood seesthat there is a continuum between first language acquisition and secondlanguage acquisition, with the differences between them being explainedin terms of the differences in the learning experience. Learners of secondlanguages were found to have similar, what are deemed, ‘developmental’errors to those encountered by children when learning their first language.

The fact that not all the differences between the native tongue and thetarget language lead to error and that not all errors made by languagelearners are due to the influence of their native tongue led to the well-deserved liberation of error analysis from contrastive analysis and, hence, tothe death of predictive contrastive analysis (Whitman and Jackson, 1972).

After some research into errors it was found that the second languageacquisition process is one of induction. Rules are internalised in the braininto the language lexicon via a process of hypothesis formation and testing.If any flaws are found in these hypotheses, then they are modified to eitherinclude an exception to the rule, or to change the rule altogether. Forexample, when children are learning English as their first language they

7

sometimes will form a rule for past tense by seeing that most past tenseconjugations of verbs are post fixed with –ed and so they will say utterancessuch as

“Daddy and I goed to the shop today after school.”

Where the child formed a rule that in the majority of cases would bea perfectly sound rule to have, but there are exceptions. In this case theperson the child is talking to might correct them with the correct past tenseform of ‘to go’ which is of course ‘went’ not ‘goed’. The idea of this is thatthe child would pick up on the correction and insert an exception to therule regarding the past tense in their hypothesis about the language. Thiswill not always happen immediately however. It is a very grey area whentalking about child first language acquisition. It has been said that childrenmust be at a receptive age which can vary from child to child, otherwisethey will resist the correction provided by their caregivers until such a timewhen they are ready to perceive and receive corrections to their language.

2.2.1 Error Types

In the English language there are an infinite amount of errors that onecan make when speaking and indeed writing. With the goal of placingthem into a quasi-ordered framework, we can categorise most of them underInterlingual and Intralingual.

Interlingual errors are cross-linguistically based, meaning that interfer-ence from another language, most likely the native tongue, has a significantimpact on the formation of the internal rules and sentences that you pro-duce. According to Littlewood interlingual errors are ones that are dueto transferring rules to the target language from the mother tongue. Forexample, a native German speaker who is learning English might say

“I go with my friend into the town.”“Ich gehe mit meinem Freund in die Stadt”

which is a direct translation from German, word for word.

Intralingual errors on the other hand are developmentally based and “showas they process the language, similar to those utterances produced by a childlearning its first language” (Littlewood, 1984) (see also Mahmoud, 2011 andBrown, 2000). The majority of these types of errors can be attributed toovergeneralization.

8

Generalisation is a major component when learning a language. It makesit easier for us to learn words because you can categorise them into variousword groups and link them through association. This strategy is fundamen-tal to the way we view the world, it helps to make sense of what is aroundyou when you can file words that are associated with one another underthe same heading. Overgeneralization is what happens when you apply aninternalised rule to too many items and your utterances become convolutedand strange or just wrong as a result. Your predictions about a certain rulecan be wrong for two reasons.

1. The rule does not apply to the item, therefore an exception to the rulemust be made.

2. The item is in the wrong category altogether, so you reallocate theitem into a different existing category or create a new rule.

The example that was given in the previous section about the child whoover generalized the rule regarding the formation of the past tense in Englishapplies here when you think of a learner of English as a second languageinstead of a child learning its first language.

2.2.2 Interlanguage

The term ‘interlanguage’, although coined by Selinker in 1972, has beenused, examined and modified in various ways over the years. We have in-terlanguage theory, pedagogy of interlanguage, just to name a few. Forthe purposes of this paper I will be focussing on interlanguage as a way ofillustrating the systematicity of interlanguage, namely the ways in whichinterlanguage can help us to show that the errors that learners make arenot random but systematic, and the interlanguage of a learner can also tellus something about where the learner is in terms of the language learningprocess.

The interlanguage of a learner of a second language is the form of thetarget language that the learner has in their mind. It is not yet, and maynever be, the same as the language form that a native speaker of the targetlanguage has. It is essentially the learner’s approximation of the targetlanguage with regard to the forms, rules and meanings etc. that they haveacquired thus far.

James (1998) describes the two ways in which we can interpret theterm interlanguage. Firstly we can see it as the “abstraction of learner lan-guage, the aggregate of forms, processes and strategies that learners resort

9

to...[when] tackling an additional language.” (James, 1998, p.7) This is thesense of interlanguage that I will be exploring here in this section. The sec-ond idea of interlanguage is however worth mentioning. James says interlan-guage can also be referred to as “any one of a number of concretizations...ofthe underlying system.” (James, 1998, p.7) It is said that this second inter-pretation of interlanguage is linked with the idea of fossilization.

“Fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules andsubsystems which speakers of a particular native language willtend to keep in their interlanguage relative to a particular [targetlanguage], regardless of age and instruction” (Selinker, 1972, p.215).

It has been said in the relevant literature that fossilization is onlydesired when the forms that are being fossilized are correct and accuratein terms of the target language. That means that fossilization should onlyoccur when the rules and forms in the learner’s interlanguage relating to thefossilization are synonymous with the rules and forms in the target language.Therefore meaning that if any rules or form that is not the same as thosein the target language, then the fossilization of those rules or forms wouldlead to incorrect speech of the learner in the target language.

Again, interlanguage, as we are taking it here in this paper, refers tothe systematic way in which the learner acquires rules, forms and meaningsassociated with the target language. It is the process which a learner goesthrough, step by step, in order to gain native or near-native competencein the target language. The interlanguage of a learner presents a uniqueopportunity to the learner as well as to the teacher in terms of analysing howclose to native-like your language skills are. The learner can benefit hugelyfrom their awareness of their own interlanguage, in that they are then ableto notice the difference, or ‘notice the gap’, in their own knowledge of thetarget language, and hopefully might be able to review and repair the rulesand forms themselves.

It has been said that some rules and forms of words that are containedwithin the interlanguage of a learner are only incorrect when comparedwith those forms and rules in the target language, but when taken withinthe context of the interlanguage, they are completely valid. (James, 1998)With this in mind, we must then consider the implications of viewing theutterances produced by the learner as erroneous or not, since to the learner,they are valid formations. However, if the goal of the teacher is to enable thelearner to produce accurate and fluent constructions, then of course, whena learner utters and phrase that is non-native or non-target like, then thelearner should be corrected.

10

With a view to enhancing the learner’s interlanguage to the pointwhere it reaches near-native, so to enable the learner to produce sentencesthat are near-native like in competency and comprehension, we shall take thestance in this paper that the learner’s interlanguage should be constantlyupdated with the corrected forms that they learn through the process oferror correction.

2.2.3 Teaching as a Cause of Errors

It has been claimed in the relevant literature that teaching can actuallybe one of the sources where learner’s erroneous forms stem from.

Firstly it has been seen that, when the student has had formal in-struction in the target language, some errors can be a direct result of faultyteaching or materials. This can be attributed as a special case of overgen-eralization whereby the teacher being incompetent or the materials beingincomplete or wrong, the student infers something that is wrong from thelesson. Therefore the student will over generalise etc. until he or she iscorrected.

A problem also arises when there is a mismatch between teacher’sintentions and learner’s perceptions regarding corrective feedback. This canunfortunately render corrective feedback ineffective as a tool for languagelearning (Han 2001, Roberts 1995). Han (2001) says that teachers generallyorientate their feedback on the basis of a “hunch” and the feedback that thelearner then receives is not necessarily what they require for the developmentof their interlanguage. With this in mind, we can see that teachers need tobe vigilant and careful when it comes to the provision of feedback, sincethere can be dire effects to the student’s interlanguage if the feedback is notgiven correctly.

2.2.4 Controlled Performances

Another source of errors that stem from teaching, are those linked with‘controlled performance’. The student can appear to have a certain degree ofcompetence in the target language when speaking in a classroom situation,but fail to produce a coherent sentence when they are placed in differentenvironment.

This is a result a ’controlled performance’ by the student. This occurswhen the student does not have the fundamental understanding of the tar-get language, its grammar and the structure of sentences, as they may havedisplayed in the classroom, but rather that the student has constructed var-ious sentences as a means to show their competence, highlight the specific

11

items present in the syllabus and generally give the impression that theyunderstand what they are saying. When the student is placed in the uncon-trolled environment and asked to produce a sentence that does not adhereto what was being taught in the classroom, their strategy becomes exposed.Thus showing that the student has failed to grasp the basic concepts of thetarget language. There can be many reasons for this.

With regard to ‘controlled performances’ by students it should bestated that writing is one of the most highly controlled environments that alearner can find themselves in. Writing allows the learner to have much moreopportunity to correct and reflect on what they are saying. It is extremelydifficult, then, to expose uncontrolled performances in writing, which canbe beneficial to the learner, in terms of gaining a higher mark on an exam,but can also be bad for the student since the teacher then assumes that thelearner has a firm grasp on the concepts displayed in the writing, when itmight not be the case at all.

On a related note, controlled and uncontrolled performances are verydraining on the human brain, especially when it comes to speaking in aforeign language, especially when endeavouring to speak freely. From per-sonal experience, it is very tiring to speak in a foreign language since all ofyour cognitive powers are focussed on self-monitoring what you are saying,i.e. consistently checking grammar, syntax, morphology, on trying to pro-cess what you are about to say next as well as what someone else is sayingto you. This can all get too much for the brain sometimes, so we have whatare called prefabricated phrases and pause covers. These are phrases suchas “You know what I mean?” or “Sure we’ll see how it goes.” that we useevery day, are formed already so we do not need to think about them, thusgiving our brains a few seconds to catch up, and they also have the addedbonus of making you sound more native-like.

2.2.5 Error Analysis and Second Language Acquisition

In the late 1960s much of the research into first language acquisition wasfuelled by Chomsky’s Theory of Language Acquisition. In this theory heclaims that children are predisposed to acquire language (Nativism) andtherefore, this inbuilt language faculty would enable them to not just imitateinput that they are given, but rather to induce rules about language fromthe input.

In recent years, however this view has been debated and the majorityof the researchers who study language learning now claim that althoughinput may be an essential part of the language learning process (Krashen),there are many different dimensions to language learning, such as learner

12

output (Swain) and their noticing of the errors they make when producingspeech and writing in the target language (Schmidt).

Error Analysis has been a huge and integral part of this revolutionin the way of thinking about language learning. Error Analysis can helpteachers to recognise the errors that students are making and therefore theycan help the student to overcome those errors and bring the students inter-language structures closer to a more target-like structure. It probes into thesignificance of leaners errors and returns fully armed with reasons as to whycertain errors occur in the brain. Results such as these will help to greatlyimprove language teaching skills.

Thanks to Error Analysis the learner is no longer seen as a passive re-cipient of language. Learners now play a very active role in language learningwhereby they generate various hypotheses about their target language, testthose hypotheses and hone them down until they are near perfect. Theserefined rules enable the learner to speak with an almost native-like compe-tence.

2.2.6 Criticisms of Error Analysis

There are three main criticisms when it comes to Error Analysis. Thefirst one being that no account is taken of what it is that learners are doingright. This is quite true and I would agree that it is needed in order toreally get to grips with what processes are ticking over in the brain whilethe student is trying to learn the language. Another criticism is that it isoften difficult to locate the source of an error. This is also true but I feelthat if we can make a good enough guess at the source of the problem itmay be able to be sorted out. The final criticism is that Error Analysis failsto isolate all areas of difficulty due to the problem of avoidance. Again thisis true and I can agree that there should be some measures taken to ensurethe least amount of avoidance possible when trying to analyse the problem.

2.3 Errors and Mistakes

Before we go on to explain what is meant by Corrective Feedback, it mustfirst be noted that a distinction between errors and mistakes exists. Firstly,errors involve a gap in the learner’s interlanguage. It means that the learnerdoes not have enough knowledge of the target language to produce fluentsentences. Secondly, with mistakes we have the situation where the learnerdoes not have a gap in their interlanguage but merely made a ‘slip’ duringtheir utterance.

13

The easiest way to define this distinction is that adult native speakersof a given language can make mistakes, as can learners of that language.However adult native speakers cannot make errors since their knowledgeof their own language is complete, whereas learners of that language canindeed make errors when speaking in the target language due to a gap intheir knowledge of the language.

During the rest of this paper, the term ‘error’ will be used to refer to bothmistakes and errors which learners of a target language make.

2.4 What is Corrective Feedback?

There are many ways that we can define corrective feedback but in generalwe can say that it is the way in which teachers or native speakers of thetarget language correct the errors made by learners of the target language.Lightbown and Spada (1999) define corrective feedback as

“Any indication to the learners that their use of the target lan-guage is incorrect. This includes various responses that the learn-ers receive. When a language learner says, ‘He go to school everyday’ corrective feedback can be explicit, for example, ‘no, youshould say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes he goes to school everyday’, and may or may not include metalinguistic information, forexample, ‘Don’t forget to make the verb agree with the subject’.” (p. 171 –172)

This is the view we will be taking with regard to corrective feedbackduring the course of this paper.

2.5 Different Categories of Corrective Feedback

Corrective feedback can be divided into different categories depending onwhich way the teacher decides to correct the student. There are six differentways that Lyster and Ranta (1997) classified the corrective methods thatteachers employ, with the addition of no feedback to make it seven ways.I will define what each of the methods of correction are and I will also tryto give the possible advantages and disadvantages for each of them. Theseseven headings can then in turn be placed under either implicit or explicitfeedback and we can also classify those seven types of corrective feedbackas either positive or negative feedback. Putting the seven different typesof corrective feedback into both of these (implicit/explicit and positive/negative) distinctions is a difficult task to say the least. There is muchdebate among linguists and researchers alike as to which category a certaintype of correction should be placed into.

14

First, before we get to the debate of what type of correction should gounder what heading, I will provide an example of each methodology, wherepossible, in use in a classroom situation and then go on to describe themethod of correction that teachers employ when correcting their students.It must be noted that these methods can equally be used by care giverswhen teaching a child their first language but for the purposes of this paper,I will be viewing them from the perspective of a teacher and a student in asecond language learning environment.

None

From the name, we can gather that this approach is when the teacherignores the student’s error completely. For obvious reasons this method iscondoned neither by teachers nor by researchers. The only small but relevantadvantage for this method is that the student avoids the embarrassment ofhaving their utterance corrected in front of his peers. This “saving face” ideacan actually play a huge role in the student’s reactions to the corrections thatare provided for them by their teacher. We will see more about this laterwith other methods of corrective feedback. The indisputable disadvantageof this methodology is that the student does not realise that he has made anerror and will therefore go on using the incorrect form without knowing thatit is wrong. This then leads to anything from mild to severe communicationbreakdown when he is speaking to a peer or a native speaker in the targetlanguage.

Explicit Correction

With this method of correction, the teacher corrects the student’s con-struction by explicitly stating that the utterance was incorrect with a firm“No”. The teacher then follows this explicitness with the provision of acorrected form of the utterance.

Student: He walk the dog — Teacher: No, he walks the dog

The big advantage with this method over the previous one is that thestudent instantly recognises that the form they provided was incorrect. Thestudent also has the opportunity to learn from the form provided by theteacher by way of contrasting the incorrect form with the corrected model.However, generally with this method, it has been seen that the student maynot retain the corrected form that was provided for them. This is due tothe fact that they may not internalise the form either at all or in the correctway, meaning that they hear the corrected form but they don’t modify theirhypothesis about that particular rule to the incorporate the new information.

15

One of the worst things about this method of correction is that sincethe teacher gives the corrected form, there is no chance for the student totry and work out why their form was incorrect in the first place. This lack ofunderstanding can lead also to the non-internalisation of the corrected formbecause if the student does not understand the reason why their utterancewas incorrect then they have no grounded way of modifying their hypothesis.For instance, if a learner overgeneralised the ‘–ed’ ending rule for creatingthe past tense form of verbs in English and said in class “I goed to the shop.,if the teacher only corrects the utterance without offering the explanationthat the past tense of ‘go’ is ‘went’ and that it is an exception to the rule, thestudent may think that the corrected form is something completely differentand go on overgeneralising the ‘–ed’ rule. The next section will provide moredetail on this major disadvantage of recasting.

Recasts

This method is very similar to the previous one, explicit correction, inthat the teacher also recasts the student’s construction into its correct formand provides this correction for the student. The major difference thoughis that with recasts the teacher does not explicitly state to the student thattheir initial utterance was incorrect. That the student has the opportunityto compare and contrast their incorrect form with the corrected form that isprovided for them by the teacher is an advantage here too, but the differencein the explicitness means that since the teacher is not openly criticising thestudent’ construction, the student ‘saves face’ among his peers.

Student: He walk the dog — Teacher: He walks the dog, yes.

The disadvantages associated with recasts really are massive draw-backs and are very condemning of the method as a whole. While somepeople are firm advocates of the methodology, many people have pointedout the huge flaw in the use of recasts. I touched on this fact when explain-ing the disadvantages that explicit correction entails. The huge failure thatis connected to recasts is that since there is no explicit indication that thestudent has made an error, there is much potential for ambiguity. Firstly,the student may think that the teacher is simply reinforcing what they saidwith repetition, hence leading to the fact that the student may not havenoticed the error. The idea that noticing plays a big role in the process ofsecond language acquisition was first proposed by Schmidt in 1986. Therewill be a more detailed discussion of this hypothesis in the next chapter, butsuffice to say that the hypothesis says that if the learner notices the error,they then are able to notice the gap in their own knowledge of the targetlanguage and hopefully can subsequently see that they must modify the rulethey have in their interlanguage regarding this form.

16

Another major problem with the use of recasts is that if they areused inconsistently, i.e. if they are being “used in the same way as non–corrective repetition” (Lyster, 1998, p.74), this also causes confusion amongthe students since they are not sure what context the recasts are being used,and are therefore more likely to miss that the teachers are correcting theirutterance. Non–corrective repetition is a method that teachers use to keepthe learner’s attention focussed on the topic being discussed, whereby theyprovide additional information or, in this case, confirmation.

Given the weight of the disadvantages associated with recasts, there havebeen a number of solutions given by the advocates of recasts, those whobelieve that recasts can be advantageous as a method of correction, to rectifythe method itself and to give it back its value as a method. Han (2002b)suggests that if recasts are used consistently as a corrective methodology,then they can be a useful tool. This is an obvious solution to the problemof inconsistent use of recasts and given the results that the consistent use ofrecasts yields a higher rate of uptake among the learners, it is proven to bea viable solution.

Doughty & Varela (1998) suggest that the use of, what they term,“corrective recasting” can help with the confusion and ambiguity. “Correc-tive recasting” is a method whereby the teacher first repeats the student’sutterance with the error, sometimes with increasing intonation over the er-ror and sometimes not, and then provides the corrected form afterwards inthe form of a recast. Again, this method seems to be feasible solution tothe noticing problem since it draws the learner’s attention and focus to theerror with the provision of the both the incorrect form and the correctedmodel. Philp (2003) had a native speaker knock twice on the table after therecast was provided to the non-native speaking students. This resulted inlearners noticing 60-70% of the recasts provided.

The conclusion I can draw from the evidence provided is that recastsonly work effectively when they are accompanied by a signal or some kind ofindication that the recast has been provided. This signal or indication cancome in the form of a knock or something equally noticeable, or perhaps inthe form of something more subtle, such as rising intonation over the erroror a paralinguistic clue, such as a gesture or facial expression.

Clarification Request

In this method, the teacher seeks to correct the student’s error by try-ing to elicit self-generated correction from the student, whereby the student

17

attempts to correct themselves, rather than the corrected form being imme-diately provided by the teacher. More precisely, the teacher says somethingto the student such as “I’m sorry? ” or “I don’t understand ” after thestudent has and hope that the student will notice that they made an errorand will correct themselves.

Student: He walk the dog — Teacher: I don’t understand– Student: He walks the dog

As with recasts, the student also has the advantage of avoiding the em-barrassment of being corrected by the teacher in front of their peers. Theconsiderable advantage of methods such as this is that since the student doesnot get the corrected form immediately from their teacher, the student thenhas a chance to try and come up with the correct form themselves. Thisself-repair has been shown to increase the uptake of corrections in studentsin comparison with explicit correction and recasts.

However, it is a clear disadvantage given the nature of the form thatthe correction takes that the student may not see that the teacher is trying toillicit a correction from them, but that merely the teacher did not hear themwhen they spoke. This, along with recasts, is another method of correctionthat does not properly address the issue of the learner noticing that theymade an error in their utterance. One may think that if this method wereused consistently, as was suggested with recasts, that the student might thennotice the error. For instance, a suggestion I might make would be if theteacher always says “I’m sorry? ” for the errors and “Sorry, I didn’t hearyou. ” for the genuine cases. However there are no studies that I haveread that back up my suggestion but I hope that the benefits that would begained by perhaps using this method are clear.

Metalinguistic Clues

This is a method whereby the teacher asks the student a question abouttheir incorrect utterance in order to illicit self-repair. As with the clarifica-tion requests, the student is motivated into generating the corrected formby themselves, without the teacher immediately provided the correct form.

The questions can be in the form of

“Does that form of the verb agree with the subject? ”“Are you sure you are using the correct tense there? ”

Student: He walk the dog —Teacher: Does that form of the verb go with the subject?

18

One of the good things about this method is that because the teacher asksa question that centres on the error, it aids the student in locating the errorand then hopefully the student will use the hint provided by the teacher inthe question to reformulate their utterance. Also, since the teacher does notprovide the correct form, the student is then prompted to think about thecorrect form and therefore there is more of a chance that the new, correctform will be learned.

Although in order for this practice to work properly in a classroomsituation, the learner is required to have some linguistic knowledge. Forinstance if the teacher asks the student “Does that verb form agree with thesubject? ” it is actually quite a linguistically loaded question. Firstly, thestudent must know what verbs and subjects are, and secondly they mustunderstand the notion of agreement among subjects and verbs, and thirdlythey must know what the ‘form of a verb’ entails. To us, as linguists, thismight seem to be a perfectly understandable question, but to a student whohas no knowledge of any of these concepts, then the question is lost on him.

Another problem with this method is that if the student does not under-stand that he has provided an utterance that was incorrect then he mightnot understand that he must correct the form. This means that accordingto the interlanguage of the student, he has not provided anything incorrectand will therefore not understand that the part of their utterance that theteacher is highlighting is incorrect. In line with this problem is that theteacher may hone in on the wrong element of the sentence. For example ifthe student says “I went to the zoo tomorrow ” and the teacher focuses onthe fact that the student should have said “yesterday ” rather than “tomor-row ”, but the student actually wanted to say “I will go to the zoo tomorrow”, this serves to only confuse the learner more.

Also, along the same vein, if the teacher sometimes uses a metalinguis-tic clue as a method of reinforcement, i.e. to make sure the student knowsthat they did provide the correct form or is trying to make sure the studentis not guessing, then confusion arises when the method is used as a way ofcorrecting the student. The ambiguity of the use of the metalinguistic cluewould then elicit confusion among the students as a whole. Finally, we canalso say that another disadvantage of this method of correction would bethat if the student cannot come up with the correct form, he faces a hugeamount of embarrassment. This can arise due to lack of understanding ofwhat the correct form should be on the student’s part or due to a gap inthe student’s knowledge concerning linguistic information about a sentenceor parts thereof.

19

Elicitation

We now come to elicitation, and it must be said first of all that it is some-times difficult to distinguish between metalinguistic clues and elicitation.Essentially the difference is that elicitation generally provides the studentwith questions that require more than a “Yes ” or “No ” answer, such as

“What form does the verb usually take when the noun is 3rdperson singular? ”“What gender is ‘sister’ in German? ”

Student: He walk the dog —Teacher: How do we form the 3rd person form of verbs in En-glish?

It is clear to see that with elicitation the advantages and disadvantagesare generally the same with the method being good because it promotesself-generated repair from the learner, which in turn increases the rate ofuptake in the learner. Again the big problem with this method of correctionis that it presumes linguistic knowledge on the part of the learner, which ifnot present, renders this method useless and a waste of time.

Repetition

With this method, the aim of the teacher again is to try to illicit self-generated repair from the student by the teacher repeating the incorrectutterance and placing emphasis on the error by raising the intonation oftheir voice over the error and generally by turning the incorrect utteranceinto a question.

“We walk around the city today? ”

Student: He walk the dog – Teacher: He walk the dog?

A clear advantage of this method is that the emphasis that the teacherplaces on the part of the learner’s utterance that contains the error helpsthe learner to identify the problematic piece of their construction. Alsosince the teacher generally forms a question out of the student’s utterancethis aids in the learner’s noticing that they made an error. Similarly withthe previous two methodologies, the disadvantage here comes in the form ofembarrassment. So if the student cannot provide the correct form that theteacher is seeking, the student then ‘loses face’ in front of their classmates.

20

Given these seven distinctions between the various methodologies thatteachers use in order to facilitate the correction of a learner’s error in aclassroom situation, we can now attempt to group these into categories.Firstly, I shall try to categorise the seven types under the headings of implicitand explicit correction and secondly I shall undertake to categorise the sameseven types under positive and negative feedback. These are not as easytasks as we shall see in the coming sections.

2.6 Implicit and Explicit Corrective Methodologies

The words implicit and explicit are not synonymous with indirect anddirect in this context, as one might think. However there are more subtlemeans and ways that we use to help us to define exactly what implicit andexplicit feedback convey.

Using the types of corrective feedback named above, we can dividethese into two categories, namely implicit and explicit feedback. There is anongoing debate as to what section we can place certain types of correctivefeedback. For instance, I would intuitively place metalinguistic feedbackunder the heading of implicit feedback, given it does not overtly indicatethat an error has been made to the learner, but Ellis (2010) claims thatmetalinguistic feedback is actually classified as explicit feedback, since it il-lustrates that an error has been made through the use of the specific questionregarding the erroneous component of the utterance in question.

However with one of the types, it is quite obvious which category theywould fall in to. Given the nature of the method of explicit correction, i.e.that there is an overt indicator in the teacher’s response, ‘No’, we can easilyplace this method of correction under the heading of explicit feedback. Withthe rest of the types of corrective feedback, they have been all placed underthe heading of implicit feedback, but, as I will show, it is possible to arguethat they do not in fact belong to this category.

Firstly we have recasts. There is a vast amount of debate that surroundsthe idea of recasts so I will only address certain elements of this debate thatare relevant to this paper. To begin I will cite Chaudron (1977) and Fanselow(1997) who argue that recasts can create potential ambiguities because of theindirectness of recasts, as Chaudron (1988) says, recasts can be seen as either“negative (correcting) or positive (agreeing)” (p.145). This means that thelearner can interpret the teacher’s recasts as just a simple repetition of whatthey said and will therefore see this as an agreement from the teacher, orthe learner can interpret the recast as what it is intended to be, a correction.This ambiguity between the different uses of recasts is very problematic forlearners. As Lyster (1998a) notes, recasts are being “used in the same way

21

as non-corrective repetition” (p.74) or agreeing. Non-corrective repetitionis a method used by teachers to keep the learner’s attention focused on thetopic that is being discussed in the class by providing additional information,or in this case, confirmation.

This dual use of recasts for very different purposes causes much con-fusion among students, and also has the noxious effect of reducing the rateat which the student will notice or recognise when the teacher is using re-casts in the corrective way. There have been a few proposals from variousresearchers as to the best way to go about rectifying this situation and hope-fully shortening the scope for ambiguity and confusion among the studentsof a language class. Doughty & Varela (1998) suggest a methodology theycall “corrective recasting”. They say that this method of recasting could po-tentially reduce the ambiguity of recasts for learners by first providing thelearner with a repetition of the incorrect construction, so as to draw their at-tention to the error they made, and then follow this repetition with a recast.This method seems to have great potential success since it indicates wherethe error is to the learner and then provides the recast for contrast. Philp(2003) make the suggestion in her study that accompanying the recast withsome form of gesture could potentially increase the rate of noticing amongthe learners. In her research, she devised a classroom situation in whichthe native speaker teacher would knock on the table twice after providingthe recast so as to help in indicating to the students that a recast had beenprovided. The rate of learner’s noticing the recast was 60-70%.

Therefore, given these arguments, we can see that although recastshave been traditionally placed in the implicit feedback category, it can beargued that they really belong in the explicit section. Since we can draw theconclusion from the suggestions of Doughty & Varela, Philip and Han, thatfor recasts to work they have to be used consistently and without ambiguity,either by corrective recasting or clear indication to the student that theymade an error and where the error was through rising intonation over theerror or paralinguistic clues (gesture, raised eyebrows). Recasts seem to onlywork effectively and properly if accompanied by an indicator to show thelearner that their utterance was incorrect. A solution that has been proposedby quite a few researchers, including Ellis (2007, keynote speech to CELEA)is to classify each of the types of feedback that were given by Lyster & Ranta(1997) under the headings of input-providing and output-prompting as wellas utilizing the implicit/explicit distinction to create a solid taxonomy ofcorrective feedback. The input-providing and output-prompting headingsare fairly self explanatory. Firstly, with input-providing we would classifythose methods which supply the learner with the input they need for thecorrection. Secondly, output-prompting methods are those which promote

22

Implicit Explicit

Input–Providing Recasts Explicit Correction

Output–Prompting Repetition, Clarifi-cation Requests

Metalinguistic clues,Elicitation

Figure 1: Table illustrating Implicit, Explicit, Input–Providing and Output–Prompting forms of feedback

the learner’s use of production or output in order to correct the mistake.

Given the figure above, we can see that since recasts are arguably animplicit form of corrective feedback, and are also a type which providesthe correction for the learner, we classify them under implicit and input-providing. Similarly with elicitation and metalinguistic clues, since they are,for the sake of argument, explicit forms of feedback as well as promptingthe learner to provide output during the correction process, we can say thatthey are both explicit and output-prompting forms of corrective feedback.

2.7 Positive and Negative Evidence

In Long (1996), he defines the difference between positive and negativeevidence as positive evidence being evidence that provides learners with con-structions that are acceptable in the target language and negative evidencebeing evidence that informs the learner of what is not acceptable as a con-struction in the target language. What we mean by evidence, as used in thiscontext, is the correction methods that the teacher of the target languageuses to show the student that their utterance was incorrect.

On a side note, just to be clear, the term ‘negative evidence’ is usedinterchangeably with ‘negative feedback’ and ‘corrective feedback’. Eventhough there is a difference between the terms, they are all used to refer tolearner’s non-native like speech.

The use of negative evidence can be provided either before the incor-rect use of the target structure occurs (called a pre-emptive strategy) or itcan be used after the fact to indicate that the utterance was non-native like(called a reactive strategy)

Long (1996) also states that recasts can be a good tool that teacherscan use to draw the learner’s attention to the error the learner made intheir construction. Given this assumption, he concludes that recasts are abetter method of corrective feedback and are therefore better than positive

23

evidence. However, I have issue with this conclusion, seeing that firstly it cansometimes be possible to also classify recasts as positive evidence since thereis no explicit indication to the learner that their utterance was incorrect asthere is with the use of the word ‘no’ in explicit feedback. However, forthe purposes of this paper, we will take it that recasts fall into the negativefeedback category. Secondly, I personally feel that given the evidence thatthere is for first language learners benefiting from recasts (Long 1996) I cansee how learners of their native tongue could learn from recasts. I howeverdisagree with this conclusion with regard to learners of a second languagethough, as I feel that while recasts may well promote the production of thecorrect form in the short term in the learner, however, without the knowledgeas to why their construction was incorrect, recasts are an unsuitable methodof correction. This lack of understanding by the learner would not enablethe corrected form provided by the recast to be retained in the long termwhich would ultimately render the correction useless and a waste of time.

So we come to the question of what form of negative evidence has the besteffect on language learning. If we take Ellis’ (1997) definition of two distinctcategories that acquisition of a language in general can be differentiatedinto, namely

1. learning and internalising new word forms

2. increasing the learner’s control over the word forms that are alreadyinternalised.

We can then use these two sections to make it easier to answer the ques-tion as to what type of negative evidence should be used when supplyinglearners with corrections. So if we take the first section, we can show thatexplicit feedback and recasts would be the most useful forms of correctivemethodologies that teachers can use when teaching a beginners or low in-termediate class. This can be substantiated by the fact that we can equatethe learning of new forms in a second language to a small child learning thenew forms of their first language.

With respect to second language learners that are only in their begin-ning stages of acquiring their second language, it can therefore be suggestedthat perhaps recasts and explicit feedback are more suited to learning a newlinguistic form in the second language and can sometimes be used in provid-ing a model for the learner to compare and contrast the form they providedwith the recast from the teacher, to “notice the gap” in their knowledge.

Whereas in contrast to that, we can suggest that maybe feedbacksuch as clarification requests, are better used when the student is seeking

24

to gain more control over the forms they already know, i.e. more advancedlearners. I say this because, as a second language learner myself, I feel thatif I was to receive a recast or explicit feedback from my teacher I would notbenefit from it as much as I would if the teacher had corrected me usinga metalinguistic clue. This is because I have a firm command of the basicunderlying structures of most constructions in the target language but Istill get confused when it comes to the more complex structures. The use ofone of the forms of corrective feedback (or negative evidence) that explainswhy the utterance was erroneous, such as elicitation, by the teacher wouldthen help me to clarify why I made the mistake I did in my own mind andhopefully would then lead to a reformulation of my hypothesis that governsthat structure in the target language.

In conclusion, we can see that negative evidence (or corrective feed-back) can have a positive effect on the ways in which learners acquire asecond language.

25

3 Chapter 3Error Correction and Second Language Acqui-sition

26

4 Introduction

In this chapter I shall illustrate how corrective feedback fits into languageacquisition, both in relation to first and second languages. The main focuswill be on second language acquisition since it is more relevant to the presentstudy. I will then briefly discuss the idea of tailoring corrective feedback foreach individual student.

After this I will go on to discuss the differences and similarities thatcan become evident when contrasting the correction of spoken errors withwritten errors, so the ways and methodologies that teachers use when cor-recting the student when they speak in class and then those that they em-ploy when correcting a student’s written work. Finally, I will explain fourhypotheses that are relevant to the present study, namely the Input Hypoth-esis, the Output Hypothesis, the Noticing Hypothesis and the InteractionHypothesis.

4.1 Where Error Correction fits into in Language Learning

Given that there is still an ongoing debate as to whether corrective feed-back has any real place in language learning at all, I am going to err onthe side that is of the opinion that it is needed when learning a language.The main arguments that are relevant to this paper that concern this de-bate are firstly, that corrective feedback should be avoided when aiming forfluency in the learner. This means that when the aim of the teacher is topromote fluency rather than accuracy in the learner’s speech, then correc-tion should be avoided. Harmer (1983) says that the teacher should avoidinterrupting the learners when they are engaged in a communicative activityto correct them. However if the aim of the teacher is to prompt accuracyin the learner’s speech, then corrective feedback can be beneficial. Long(1996) says that corrective feedback when used to negotiate meaning canhelp learners notice their errors.

The main advocate against the use of corrective feedback at all isKrashen who feels that corrective feedback puts learners on the defensive(1982). Which he feels may then lead to learners over thinking what they aregoing to say, or simply saying nothing at all. There have been many studiesdone on the other hand that give no grounding to what Krashen claimsabout the inability of corrective feedback to be useful. (Ellis 1997,2001,Corder 1967, Han 2001 etc.)

27

4.1.1 First Language Acquisition

The main focus of this section will be on the place of error correction insecond language acquisition but I will provide a brief overview of its role infirst language acquisition here.

To start we have a study by Brown & Hanlon (1970) that showed caregivers rarely used explicit feedback when correcting the child’s utterances.To back this up, Long (1996) says that the findings from the studies thathe has seen, that the findings so far are insufficient to prove that negativeevidence is necessary for first language acquisition. However, in reference toimplicit feedback, Long also says that for learners of their native language,recasts are seen as an effective method to draw the child’s attention to thecontrast.

In summary, we can say that recasts are the most effective and mostused form of feedback when it comes to the acquisition of a native language.Feedback can be a useful tool here since it provides the child with a correctionas well as positive input.

4.1.2 Second Language Acquisition

With regard to the role of corrective feedback in second language acquisi-tion there is still a debate as to whether or not corrective feedback is effectiveat all, as was said before. The Input Hypothesis, proposed by Krashen (1982and 1985) denies that corrective feedback has an effect on second languageacquisition. With the Input Hypothesis, Krashen is saying that if you pro-vide learners with input that is just beyond their competency level, thenthey will pick up the underlying structures. Therefore he suggests that oralcompetency does not have to be taught directly, but rather it will emergeonce the learner acquires enough input so as to produce comprehensibleinput.

This argument against the use of corrective feedback when learning asecond language is the main argument against the effectiveness of using cor-rective feedback in classrooms. Other arguments include Ellis et al. (2001)commented in their study saying that the uptake of student-initiated formon focus episode (FFE) was higher than the teacher-initiated form becausethe forms that teachers place attention on may not reflect the gaps in thelearner’s knowledge of the target language. Although it must be noted thatthis argument is not against the provision of feedback entirely, since Ellisis a champion of corrective feedback, the findings of this study are merelyintended to suggest that teachers should be more cautious when providingfeedback to their students.

28

This means that although we can see the advantages of error correctionin second language learning, there is reason to say that correction in somecases may not be helpful. In a case where the correct form provided bythe teacher is not the form that the student intended, the student will getconfused.

Also we can think of cases where the correction provided by theteacher, although being correct, does not show the student why they werewrong. Essentially, in cases like this, the teacher needs to understand whythe student made the error in order to provide a more accurate correction.For example, the student may well understand the way that verbs are formedin the third person singular, but thought that the subject was in fact in thepolite plural form, as can sometimes be the case with German “sie” and“Sie” respectively.

However the advocates for the effectiveness of corrective feedback greatlyoutnumber those who argue against. For example, Ellis (2007, keynotespeech to CELEA) says that corrective feedback bridges the gap betweensecond language researchers and teachers. This implies that corrective feed-back is what brings second language research to the teachers. Clearly thisis a huge advantage, seeing as how teachers need to know what researchin being done in the area of language learning if they are to advance andimprove their teaching skills at all.

According to sociocultural theory, corrective feedback must reflect areal need on the part of the learner. What is being said is that if thelearner can self-correct, then corrective feedback is not needed. Socioculturaltheory also claims that one type of corrective feedback is not inherently moreeffective than another type. This, as the relevant research has shown, istrue. Corrective feedback must be highly flexible and adaptive to individuallearner needs if it is to be useful at all. Seeing as it is adaptable to learner’sneeds in the way that there are various ways in which correction can begiven to the learner. Error correction plays a big part in the role of theinterlanguge (Selinker 1972) of the learner. We have seen this in the waythat correction of errors can help the learner to rethink their interlanguagein terms of their hypotheses about certain forms in the target language.

4.2 Tailored Feedback

Given that Han (2002a) wants to provide learners with tailored feedbackby the teachers having an in depth knowledge about each student’s linguisticbehaviours and trying to understand their errors, it seems that the notionof fine–tuning corrective feedback to the individual needs of the learner isa wonderful idea in theory, but in practise however, it is not feasible as a

29

methodology. Firstly, since, in the Irish school system at least, the learner’steacher changes from year to year. Secondly, although the size of the classesvaries across the country and within each school, they are generally too bigfor the teacher to be able to access each learner individually and to get toknow them and their learning process in the way that is suggested in theliterature (Han 2001, 2002a). Both of these factors combine in such a wayas to make it improbable that the method of fine–tuning corrective feedbackfor each student will be adopted successfully, if adopted at all, on a largescale, such as in the education system. The only way that I personally cansee this way of dealing with learner errors is on a one–to–one or maybe evena class of five or so students. If the student teacher ratio is any higher thenI feel that it would be a waste of resources and time in trying to embracethis method.

4.3 A Comparison of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback

Much of the material that I have come across regarding the topic of correc-tive feedback has been focussed on written feedback. Since, as Ellis (2010)states, written corrective feedback is explicit no matter how it is intended tocome out, we can safely say that there is no need to address the distinctionof implicit and explicit feedback in written corrective feedback, as we didwith oral feedback.

“Written [corrective feedback] is invariably explicit regardless ofhow it is provided (i.e., learner writers will know immediatelythat whatever marks or words they see written on their textconstitute corrections).”(Ellis, 2010, p.338)

Given the above claim by Ellis, we can clearly see that all written feedbackis explicit since the learner will always be aware that any writing on theirtext will be a correction or a suggestion for improvement. It is thereforeimpossible for the teacher to provide implicit feedback when correcting astudent’s written text.

Ellis also says that a major difference is that written corrective feed-back is always delayed whereas oral corrective feedback is generally immedi-ate, with some exceptions. In Doughty (2001) she claims that oral correctivefeedback is effective only because it occurs so soon after the error occurs,in what she calls the ‘window of opportunity’ in which the learner is ableto connect form to meaning. One of the main similarities between oral andwritten feedback is the notion of focussed and unfocussed feedback. Fo-cussed feedback is where the teacher is selective about the types of errorsthey choose to correct. For instance, the teacher may choose to only focustheir feedback on the topic that is currently being addressed in class, for

30

example, adjectival endings. In doing so, the teacher will ignore any othererror that the student makes so as to ensure adequate uptake of the topicat hand, in this case adjectival endings. However if the teacher chooses anunfocussed approach, they will endeavour to correct all of the mistakes thatthe learner makes.

As one can imagine, there are advantages and disadvantages to bothof these approaches. Firstly, we have the idea of disrupting the flow of com-munication and this mainly pertains to oral feedback. It has been said in therelevant literature that focussed oral corrective feedback greatly decreasesthe chance of disruption in the flow of communication in the classroom. Itis easy to see that if the teacher were to only focus on one type of error ata time, the students would be able to speak more freely. However, if themethod chosen by the teacher was that of unfocussed feedback, there is amuch higher chance that there will be a breakdown in conversation. If theteacher chooses to focus their corrections on all of the errors made by thelearners, then any utterance with two or more errors in it would mean thatthe conversation would have to be halted for a number of minutes, whichwould lead to a severe divergence from the topic of conversation.

In relation to written corrective feedback, the focussed and unfocussedapproaches also have their advantages and disadvantages. Focussed feed-back enables the teacher to hone in on the errors that are made in whatis being taught at the moment. This focussing of feedback facilitates theteacher’s ability to correct the students’ work thoroughly, since they wouldhave the time to spend on each text received that would normally be takenup by correcting every single mistake. However the obvious disadvantageto focussed feedback is that all of the errors the learners make with regardto other elements of the language would be ignored until such a time whenthe teacher chooses to focus on that particular topic. Again, although unfo-cussed feedback would mean that this neglect would not happen and all ofthe learner’s errors would be corrected. This however has implications forthe teacher and for the quality of the feedback sometimes. For instance, ifthe teacher has 50 texts to correct in one night, they will not have the timeto correct all of the texts to a high standard. This can lead to inconsistenciesin corrections made by the teacher but it can also mean that the studentdoes not get the quality of the corrections that they deserve.

Another quasi similarity between the methods that are employed by teach-ers when providing both written and oral corrective feedback is, as cited inMartinez Esteban and Roca de Larios (see Murphy & Roca de Larios (2010)p. v), the use of models. In terms of oral feedback, these models are providedin the form of recasts. The learner can then compare and contrast the model

31

provided by the teacher and use the information contained in the differencebetween their utterance and the model to repair the gap in their knowledge.With regard to written feedback however, the way in which models or sam-ple texts are used is different. In their study, Martinez Esteban and Rocade Larios showed the students some models or sample texts and then askedthe students to rewrite their original essays based on the information theygleaned from these models. It was then hoped that the learners would seethe holes in their use of the language given the forms in the model and usethe sample text as a guide to promote self-repair and self-editing of theirown texts as well as the filling of the gaps in their knowledge.

It was shown in the results of this study that there was an improvementin terms of accuracy. It was noted however that some of the time the placeswhere the error was identified, the students just omitted the mistake ratherthan correcting it. This is perhaps due to the students knowing it was wrongbut not why or how they could correct it.

4.4 Input, Output, Noticing and Interaction

The Input Hypothesis put forward by Krashen in 1984 states that for anyleaner of a second language, given their linguistic knowledge of the targetlanguage, i, the learner can then move from i to i+1 by understanding inputthat contains i+1. That is, the learner can move forward in their linguisticknowledge and hence move their interlanguage a stage closer towards near-native like competency when they are provided with input that containslinguistic information that they can learn from.

However it must be noted that the input provided for the learner mustbe comprehensible. That is to say that the input must not leap forwardsto such a degree that the learner cannot understand or comprehend what isbeing said. The input must be of such a form that it encompasses what thelearner already knows about the target language but pushes the boundariesof this knowledge just a small bit further. For example, a beginner learnerof English with knowledge of a sentence structure such as “My car is big andblue.” Should not be provided with input such as “Shakespeare’s writingsare sometimes claimed to be overtly descriptive.” Since they generally wouldnot understand most of what is trying to be said. Instead they should beprovided with input that builds on their knowledge such as “Your car isbigger and bluer than my car.”. Thus providing the learner with input theyknow already but introducing the concepts of comparison and gradation ofadjectives.

The controversial element to this hypothesis is that Krashen claimsthat since input plays such a pivotal role in the acquisition of a language,

32

there is no need to correct the learner’s utterances. He claims that compre-hensible input is all that a learner needs to correct the internalised rules intheir interlanguage.

While I can see where Krashen is coming from on this point, I disagreewith him in this respect. It is clear that a learner needs comprehensible inputthat pushes their knowledge of the language to help them acquire new formsin the target language but I feel that a learner also needs to be correctedin some way when they make a mistake when speaking, especially if thiserror leads to a serious communication breakdown. This is because theleaner may well understand the input they are given but may not noticethat their speech does not reflect the rules and forms that are containedwithin the input that has been provided for them. In this way, learnersneed correction if they are to learn properly and efficiently. It is clear thatthe acquisition of a second language is incomplete if the learner is unableto produce any output, or speech, in the target language. This is where theOutput Hypothesis comes in.

Merrill Swain put forward the idea of an Output Hypothesis in 1985. Theidea behind this hypothesis is that the learner can test the hypotheses oftheir interlanguage and then the learner also has the opportunity to noticethe gap in their knowledge while speaking and it is then hoped that thelearner would modify their own output to reflect this gap.

“Modified, or reprocessed, output can be considered to repre-sent the leading edge of a learner’s interlanguage.” (Swain 1995p.131)

The idea of comprehensible output is that the learner would be pushedto convey a message that is just beyond their ability to produce. This issimilar to the idea of comprehensible input in that the learner is striving toproduce something that is equivalent to i+1 with regards to their actuallyability, i. Given that the output hypothesis also has the element of noticingabout it, we can also link it to the Noticing Hypothesis that was proposedby Schmidt in 1990.

The Noticing Hypothesis as presented by Schmidt claims that learners of agiven target language cannot begin the process of acquiring a new linguisticitem in that language without first noticing it. In other words a learnermust be aware of a new linguistic item, e.g. plural endings, before they canstart to incorporate it into their interlanguage. Essentially the learner mustnotice in the input that is provided for them, that there is a gap concerninga certain linguistic item or that the input is not what was expected givenwhat they know about the language already. To take from an example given

33

earlier, an early learner of English must notice that “goed” is not the correctpast tense form of “go”, but “went” is the correct form. Therefore, sincethey have noticed that their rule regarding the formation of the past tensein English is ill-formed, they will hopefully modify their rule to encompassthe new exception to the rule that they have noticed.

Noticing is the basis for many of the ways in which corrective feed-back is used in the classroom. It has been shown over and over again that ifthe learner does not notice that the form they provided was erroneous andthat the teacher trying to correct that form, then the learner will not gainanything from this correction. Corrective feedback can be seen as a triggerfor learners noticing the gap in their knowledge. For instance explicit cor-rection prompts learners to notice the gap by overtly focussing the learner’sattention on the error they have made.

The question is though, how does implicit feedback draw the learner’sattention to the mistake? The main solution to that question is that implicitfeedback offers contrastive evidence to the learner by providing them withthe corrected form of the erroneous utterance they provided. The learnercan then identify the differences between the incorrect and correct forms,thereby providing the learner with a contrast between the two structures.

In 1985, Long put forward an Interaction Hypothesis which builds onKrashen’s idea that comprehensible input is a vital component of languagelearning. Long agreed with Krashen’s hypothesis but he decided to focuson how exactly one could make the input comprehensible. Long states thatinteraction, whether it is in the form of a conversation or a dialogue, is anexcellent opportunity for a learner to negotiate the meaning of their out-put to the point where it is comprehensible by their interaction partner(s).Essentially, the idea of the Interaction Hypothesis is that learners get thechance to receive comprehensible input from the people they are interactingwith (usually a teacher or native speaker) and therefore the learner will inturn produce comprehensible output and both parties will reach a point ofmutual understanding.

In an effort to reach the desired level of mutual comprehension, theteacher or native speaker can use certain methods. For example, sometimesthey can use linguistic simplification, comprehension checks (Do you under-stand?), clarification requests or self-repetition/paraphrasing. The relevantresearch has shown that these modifications that are made during interac-tion with a learner aid in comprehension, and therefore aid learning.

34

Long modified his theory in 1996 to include a greater emphasis on theimportance of corrective feedback during interaction. This means that whenthe learner and the teacher or native speaker are negotiating for meaning, theteacher has a chance to use corrective feedback to help with the developmentof the interlanguage of the learner.

35

5 Chapter 4Motivation for Present Study

36

5.1 Introduction

During the course of this section, I will endeavour to examine and illustratethe studies that have come before mine. I will primarily be focusing on thestudies that are relevant to the present study in the way that they centreon corrective feedback in classroom situations or how student’s perceive thefeedback they receive when they are in the process of acquiring their secondlanguage.

I should mention at this stage that the majority of studies that notonly I will be looking at here, but also the majority of studies that havebeen done in this area are when English is the second or foreign languagethat is being examined.

5.2 Preferences for Certain Types of Corrective Feedback

In a study done by Panova & Lyster (2002), it was revealed that theparticipants had a clear preference for implicit types of reformulation, recastsand translation. Therefore, showing a dislike for other types of feedback thatwould generate self-repair. It was noted though that the rates of uptake andimmediate repair by the learners was relatively low. The learners were adultlearners of English.

In a study done by Yohanna Abarca Amador on learner’s attitudes in2008, it was shown that the learners preferred methods that involved thembeing told explicitly what their mistake is, they also preferred being cor-rected by their teacher as opposed to their peers and that they liked it whenthey had a chance to repeat the corrected model provided by the teacher.The participants in this study were 23 college students who were beginnerlearners of English. Zacharias’ 2007 study also showed that students preferthe feedback they receive from their teacher, rather than feedback from theirpeers, as they deem it more accurate, valid and trustworthy.

In sum, studies have shown that students are in favour of corrective feed-back, especially when it comes to grammar correction. It has also beenshown that learners prefer the teacher to correct their errors. This is mostlikely because learners can only self correct if they possess the linguisticknowledge necessary to perform the correction. As Corder terms, learnerscan only correct their ‘mistakes’ and not their ‘errors’, since the correctedform of the error may not yet be part of their interlanguage, and thereforethe learners require the teacher’s input so they can hopefully acquire thenew form.

37

The obvious solution to this is to employ a 2-stage corrective method-ology. Firstly the teacher should try and illicit self-correction in the studentand if that fails, then the teacher should provide the corrected form

5.3 Timing of Corrective Feedback

Ellis (2007, keynote speech to CELEA) states that the choice regardingwhether to correct learners’ errors immediately or to delay such correctioncomes down to whether the activity is accuracy-based or fluency-based. Im-mediate correction is proposed for the former and delaying correction issuggested for the latter.

Drever says, in her paper (unpublished) that there are advantages anddisadvantages to any timing when it comes to corrective feedback. Firstly,with immediate feedback, we encounter the problem of interrupting the flowof conversation of the learner and may negatively affect the learner’s con-fidence. (Vigil and Oller 1976, cited in Drever). However when delayingfeedback, it is clear that the more time that elapses between committingthe error and getting the correction for it, the effectiveness of the correctionwill decrease exponentially. Holley and King (1971) state that delaying thefeedback might be necessary if the error is common to the whole class. Iagree with this on some level, but still feel that it might be more beneficialif the correction is provided immediately for the student when the error ismade. Then if it is noticed by the teacher that the error is persistent amongthe students of the class, then perhaps it should be addressed more fully ina separate grammar session.

Barbetta, Heward, Bradley, and Miller (1994) concluded from theirstudy of five students with developmental disabilities that immediate errorcorrection produced better performance than delayed. While we cannotaccurately compare these results with a study in which the participants didnot have developmental disabilities, we can glean some insight into student’sperformance regarding the timing of feedback from this.

It may seem like an obvious conclusion though, to say that of coursethe sooner the feedback is provided, the better the student will perform.However, despite all of the studies that have been done in this area, it issaid that it is not possible to arrival at any general conclusion regardingwhether it is more beneficial to delay correction or to correct immediately.(Vahdani Sanavi & Mirsaeedi, 2008). This claim is disputed by studies andpapers done by Clariana, Wagner and Roher Murphy (2000) and Kulik andKulik (1988). The results of the former study (cited in Hattie 2007) showthat immediate feedback is more beneficial for tasks that are simple butdelayed feedback proved better for those tasks that were more difficult, and

38

therefore required a larger amount of processing by the learner. The latterstudy showed that in classroom activities, immediate feedback was morebeneficial for the learners.

Given these results, I find it difficult to dispute a fact that has beenascertained by several studies, immediate feedback is more beneficial in gen-eral than delayed feedback in classroom situations.

5.4 Present Study : Experimentation and Methodology

This chapter outlines the way in which I carried out my experiment, thereasons behind the variables that I chose to include in my study and I willalso discuss the details of my experiment in great depth.

5.4.1 The Experiment

Building on the background that was established in chapter 2 and incor-porating the overview of the studies that was provided in chapter 3, theexperiment that I decided to undertake was an examination and an explo-ration into the reasons why students prefer certain types of feedback overothers. In a study done in 2007 by Akemi Katayama, she recommended inthe conclusion that research should be done with regard to the reasons as towhy students prefer certain types of feedback over others and also whetherculture plays a part in preferences.

“One recommendation is research that addresses the reasons forthe students’ preferences for particular correction methods aswell as their preferences for classroom error corrections of dif-ferent types of errors. Another recommendation is investigatingcross-cultural differences to find out whether learners’ percep-tions differ across cultures.”(Katayama, 2007, p. 300)

Given this recommendation, I decided that I would investigate the reasonsbehind students’ preferences and see whether culture has an influence onpreferences. With the restrictions I had regarding this study, given that Iam still an undergraduate, and therefore have very strict time constraints, Ihad to compromise in some areas. The main adjustment I had to make wasthat in my endeavour to research the differences between cultures, I decidedthat I would question both students of German and students of French inthe hope that the cultural differences of the languages in question mightshow up in the results of the experiment. However for the reasons behindthe learner’s preferences towards corrective feedback I did not have to makemany adjustments except that I could not afford the time to observe theclass to supplement their answers in the questionnaire as I would have likedto.

39

5.4.2 The Use of 1st and 4th Year Students

In his paper, Ellis (2010) states that “[i]ndividual learner factors includeage, language aptitude, memory, learning style, personality, motivation, lan-guage anxiety, and learner beliefs.” It is these learner factors, specificallyage and language aptitude, that influenced me to make the decision to selectparticipants that are in their 1st year and those that are in their 4th year ofcollege. Ellis also claims that these factors have been largely ignored when itcomes to research regarding corrective feedback, students’ uptake and howeffective corrective feedback is.

This neglect also motivated me towards endeavouring to investigate ifsome of these factors have an influence on the types of corrective feedbackthat is preferred, on the reasons that they prefer a certain method of cor-rection and also on the errors that they would like the teacher to correct.For instance, given the large distance in language aptitude between the twogroups, namely the 1st and 4th year students, we might see that perhapsthe less advanced students might find recasts and other more direct forms offeedback more useful, or maybe, given their average ages, they may in factnot like explicit feedback at all since they feel embarrassed in front of theirpeers when being corrected so directly.

Again with the more advanced students, it might been seen that theyare more inclined towards methods of correction that promote autonomouscorrection since they are more focussed on gaining a firm command of thelanguage and already have the basics firmly set in their minds. As was saidin chapter 2, regarding the distinction that Ellis (1997) made between twotypes of acquisition, we can then say that the more advanced learners shouldbe more inclined to want to increase their control over the word forms thatare already internalised, given that they theoretically should have a greaterproficiency in the target language than the less advanced students.

5.4.3 The Use of German and French Students

As was stated before, German and French were chosen to investigate theclaim that there could be a difference in the preferences of the studentsthat depends on the cultural variables between the languages. These twolanguages were also chosen since in Trinity College Dublin, where this ex-periment is being carried out, it is required that you must have studied thelanguage in secondary school beforehand if you are to be accepted into acourse with that language. This is not the case for other languages in thecollege.

40

For instance, it is possible to begin one’s study of Spanish, Italian andRussian in Trinity College Dublin without having studied it previously. Onemight however point out that Irish is also of the category that German andFrench fall into, being a language that you must have studied before enteringthe course. This is true but given the numbers in the Irish Department, itseemed as though there would be a better chance of getting a larger numberof participants if the French and German students were chosen over Irishstudents.

It was also felt that the structure of both French and German as alanguage and also the structure of the courses that the students themselvesundertake while attending Trinity College Dublin were broadly similar, moreso than the structure of Irish and the Irish course. This similarity in thestructure of French and German will hopefully help in the correlation of thedata that will be obtained from the present study.

5.4.4 Reasons for Preference

The reasons for students’ preferences with regard to the types of feedbackthey receive from a teacher or native speaker is an area that has not yetbeen thoroughly explored. In the research I carried out for this project, Idid not find any study or paper that it attributed to finding out the reasonsbehind students’ preferences with respect to oral feedback. Though therehave been studies done, especially in the past ten years that focussed on thereasons behind students’ preferences for written corrective feedback. Thisis not to say that there have been no studies done in the domain of oralfeedback reasoning however, just that if studies have been done, they arelimited and few.

James (1998) posed the idea that students might indeed have a prefer-ence towards the various kinds of corrective feedback that they see as “non-threatening”. In this case, non-threatening indicates the way in which theteacher administers the feedback. For example, some types of feedback havebeen seen as threatening because of their inherent severity such as explicitcorrection and the overt use of the word “No.” in that correction process.Many of studies done regarding the reasons behind students’ preferences forwritten corrective feedback have demonstrated that students like feedbackthat gives them a chance to correct their own mistakes, but have indicatedthat types of feedback that explicitly indicate where the error is in the sen-tence are also preferable. This is because, as Amrhein & Nassaji (2010) statein their study, students see corrective feedback as something that should beprovided for them by the teacher. Students feel that the onus should be onthe teacher to provide adequate feedback for them in order for the studentsthemselves to be able to improve their language skills.

41

To sum up, there have been no studies that I have been able to locateregarding the reasons why students have certain preferences towards vari-ous kinds of oral corrective feedback. However we can speculate given thestudies done with regard to written corrective feedback that students mayhave an inclination towards explicit correction since they feel that it is theresponsibility of the teacher to correct their language, although there is acontrast in that students also like having the opportunity to self-correct.

5.4.5 Methodology

I am basing my questionnaire on a similar study done by Katayama (2007)in which she conducted research into the preferences of students in relationto corrective feedback. The questionnaire consisted of both factual and at-titudinal questions and it was anonymous. I modified my questionnaire tosuit my needs. Firstly I moved the section where students were asked for areason in Katayama’s study, from when they would like to be corrected towhy they prefer certain types of correction. Secondly, I did not feel that theexplanations of the error types were well formed enough so I added in moredetail. Finally I removed the need to give both grammatical and pronun-ciation examples, instead I gave mostly grammatical examples since all theparticipants are adult non-beginner learners of the respective languages.

I chose the sample group by simply, in the case of German, handingthe questionnaires out to the students during class time and requesting thatthey place the finished questionnaires in a box. In the case of French, I wasinstructed to leave the blank questionnaires with an empty box where thestudents could return their completed questionnaires. The location of thequestionnaires and the box, together with a request to fill in a questionnairewas sent out to the first and fourth year students of French via email. Thusthe sample of participants is not strictly random.

5.4.6 The Use of a Questionnaire

I chose to utilize a questionnaire to obtain the data needed for my experi-ment for various reasons. Firstly, given that I have limited financial and timeresources, seeing as I am still an undergraduate student in college, a ques-tionnaire was the most beneficial to me in terms of time management andcost-effectiveness. Secondly the quantitative nature of questionnaires wasvery appealing in terms of the data I needed to collect and how I needed thedata to be collected. Since quantitative methodologies allow the researcherto be scientific and objective in obtaining the data and because quantitativemethods are concerned with the cause and effect of social phenomena, theidea of using a questionnaire appealed to my research. The use of a question-naire also allowed me to test my hypothesis about the reasons why students

42

Figure 2: Example of a Likert Scale

have a certain preference towards different types of corrective feedback. Italso meant that I could use the same method of collecting data on both firstand fourth year students, without their age affecting the results in a waythat was not foreseen. The data is gathered in a standardised way thanother methods so the method itself is more objective than interviews as isthe data collected. The use of a Likert scale for many of the questions meantthat any statistical analysis that I need to perform on that data would bemade easier. Data obtained from a Likert scale question is also easier togeneralise than other methods of data collection.

A Likert scale is a scale which is generally made up of five gradationpoints; one in the middle, one at each extreme and one between the middleand each extreme. For example, a typical way of constructing a Likert scalewould be one that assesses whether a participant agrees or disagrees with astatement. We would then have something like:

There was also an opportunity for me to ask open ended questionsabout the reasons why the participant chose an answer. This is the mainpart of the experiment since the reason that I am carrying out this researchis to ascertain the reasons behind students’ preferences for certain types ofcorrective feedback. I endeavoured to make the space where the participantcould answer these questions as limited as possible to ensure concise answers.The ability to use open-ended clarification questions meant that I gathereddata from the participants that was freely written and hopefully objective.

43

6 Chapter 5Students Preferences with regard to CorrectiveFeedback

44

6.1 Introduction

During the course of this chapter, I will explore the results that wereobtained from the present study with regard to corrective feedback. I willbegin by outlining who the participants of the experiment were, then I willgo on to explain the results of the study. Firstly I will show the resultsregarding who the students prefer to be corrected by, secondly I will moveon to discuss when the students like to be corrected. Then thirdly we willsee what types of errors the students prefer to have corrected and then I willtalk about the types of corrective feedback that are preferred and dislikedby the students. Finally then I will explore the reasons behind the choicesthat the students made with regard to their preferred types of correctivefeedback.

6.2 Participants

As was stated before, the aim of the experiment was to gather informationfrom first and final year students of German and students of French, both asa second or foreign language. There were 29 respondents in total, 6 of thesewere students of French and 23 were students of German. The distributionbetween the various years were, for French, 3 from first year and 3 fromfourth year, and 14 first year German students and 9 fourth year Germanstudents.

6.3 Who the students preferred to be corrected by

In this section we will see evidence of who the students prefer to be cor-rected by. The options that were put to the students were their teacher,their peers and a native speaker. The figure below (figure 3) illustrates theaverage score that the students gave to each of the options presented tothem. It must first be noted that the lower the score, the higher the prefer-ence, since, as you can see in Appendix B, the Likert scales were constructedin such a way that number one was the best and number 5 was the worst.

So we can see from figure 3 that the students preferred to be correctedby their teachers on average. This was the expected result, given what hasbeen said in the literature. In the section on students preferences for certaintypes of corrective feedback (Chapter 4, Section 1) we saw that studentspreferred to be corrected by their teachers since they felt that the feedbackthey got from their teachers was more accurate than the feedback given bytheir peers or by native speakers. Unfortunately there was no part in thequestionnaire associated with the present study that assessed whether thiswas in fact the reason behind the results from the present study. However,given the evidence from the studies done previously, we can see that the

45

Figure 3: Table illustrating who students would rather be corrected by, onaverage. Note that the smaller the number, the higher the preference.

reason would most likely be that they felt the teachers feedback was themost accurate.

It is clear also that feedback from their peers might not be desirablesince it is assumed that their peers are at the same language level as thestudents themselves, and would therefore not be a reliable source of correc-tions, given that their peers are more susceptible to being inaccurate withany correction they provide. The embarrassment factor may also be an el-ement as to why students do not wish to be corrected by their peers, sincethe student doesn’t want to be seen as lacking in language skills in front oftheir peers. Peer correction is very blunt in the way that it directly conveysto the student that they are not as proficient as the peer that is correctingthem. This would adversely affect the student’s confidence in their languageskills.

The reason as to why the students would prefer to be corrected bytheir teacher over being corrected by a native speaker is uncertain, since thenative speaker should be able to correct the learner’s language just as well asa teacher since they should possess the same level of language ability. Onepossible reason for this is that the native speaker will not be able to explainwhy the student’s erroneous utterance was incorrect. As we will see later,(and indeed in the final summary table in Appendix A), students like to beinformed of the reason and an explanation as to why their own constructionwas incorrect.

In Appendix A there is a more detailed breakdown of the scores givenwith relation to this section.

46

6.4 When the students preferred to be corrected

This section illustrates the times in which the students prefer to be cor-rected. The options presented to the students in the questionnaire werewhether they wanted all the errors they made while speaking in class cor-rected, whether they wanted just the errors that made their sentence diffi-cult to understand corrected, and whether they wanted their errors to becorrected in a separate dedicated class rather than immediately when theymade the mistake.

Figure 4: Table illustrating when students prefer to be corrected, on average.Note that the smaller the number, the higher the preference.

While there was an overall preference towards the students wantingall their errors to be corrected, it was closely followed by wanting only theerrors that made their sentence difficult to understand having a nearly equalaverage but with higher standard deviation. This means that there wasmore debate over correcting only errors that made their sentence difficult tounderstand and a more unanimous result for correcting all errors.

Interestingly, while the students were less inclined to want a separateclass in which to correct their errors, there was a marked difference in theresponses given by the French and German students. As you can see in figure3, the German students were overall more in favour of having a separateclass than the French students. These results, although they must be takenwith a pinch of salt, since the response rate from the French students wassignificantly lower than that of the German students, provide evidence forthe idea that since German is a much more rigid language, with referenceto grammar, it is likely that the German students felt that a dedicated classwould help them more than the French students. Seeing as in second andthird level education in Ireland, there seems to be more of a focus put on

47

grammar rules when learning German than when learning French, this couldbe a factor in that result.

When setting out to conduct this study, my hypothesis regarding thiselement of the questionnaire were that the fourth year students would bemore conscious about the errors they make, seeing as they should have moreof a propensity to ensure that their language skills are honed and succinct,since they, in theory, would like to be as native or near–native like as possible.However, given the results of this section of the present study, we can seethat there is no significant difference between the first and fourth years giventhe averages displayed in figure 3. This shows that both first and fourthsyears are equally conscious of the errors they make when speaking in thetarget language.

In Appendix A there is a more detailed breakdown of the scores givenwith relation to this section.

6.5 What types of errors the students wanted corrected

Within this section we will see what types of errors that the studentswanted corrected when they are speaking in the target language. The op-tions given to the students were grammar mistakes, pronunciation mistakes,correcting their choice of vocabulary and correcting the idiomatic expres-sions they use.

Figure 5: Table showing what errors students prefer to have corrected, onaverage. Note that the smaller the number, the higher the preference.

Taking the evidence provided in figure 5 above, we can see that thereis a high tendency towards students preferring their grammar to be cor-

48

rected over the other options provided. It was the highest scoring overallon average, but also across languages and years. German students over-all preferred grammar more than the French students, whereas the Frenchstudents had more of a tendency towards the other three options more sothan their German counterparts. Fourth year students had a much higherpreference towards having their grammar and pronunciation corrected thanfirst year students with the first years preferring that they have their choiceof vocabulary and idiomatic expressions corrected more than fourth yearstudents.

The probable reason for German students preferring to have theirgrammar corrected is that German is a more grammar–orientated languagethan French, as was also pointed out in the previous section. However, con-cerning the first year/fourth year divide with regard to higher preference,this could be attributed to the fact that the fourth year students alreadyhave a high command of the language in terms of vocabulary and idiomaticexpressions, a higher command than the first year students. This wouldthen lead to them not requiring that their vocabulary choice and idiomaticexpressions are corrected as often as their grammar and pronunciation. Con-versely with the first year students, they are looking to gain more controlover their use of language in terms of their diversity within the language,and so require that they are corrected when they use idiomatic expressionsincorrectly or when their choice of vocabulary isn’t native like.

In Appendix A there is a more detailed breakdown of the scores givenwith relation to this section.

6.6 The types of Corrective Feedback preferred by the stu-dents

In this section we provide evidence of the types of feedback that arepreferred by students. In the questionnaire through which the data wasgathered for the present experiment, we provided the participants with anexplanation of the type of corrective feedback, an example of how it mightbe used in a classroom situation (in the relevant target language),a Likertscale on which to rate the teaching practice and a section for providing areason as to why they chose the answer they provided.

49

Figure 6: Table showing which type of corrective feedback students prefer,on average. Note that the smaller the number, the higher the preference.

In figure 6 above, we can see that overall students preferred type ofcorrective feedback is recasts on average. Again, we must remember that thelower the number, the higher the preference. Also, we must take into accountthat the number of participants is quite small (n=29) and the number ofFrench students is very low within that number (n=6). In figure 7 below, wecan see the percentage breakdown of the scores given to recasts. We can seethat the majority of French overall and first years overall have both givenrecasts the mark “Good” (which is the second highest mark) and similarlythe majority vote from the fourth years and the German students overallwent to “Great” (which is the highest mark). It was rated “Good” on thewhole by the students, with just a 10% majority over “Great”.

50

Figure 7: Table illustrating the percentage distribution of preferences re-garding recasts

The type of feedback the students chose as the worst was, as expected, nocorrection. We can see from figure 8 below that an overwhelming majority ofthe students (51.7%) voted no correction as “Terrible” (the lowest mark inthe Likert scale). This was expected since studies have shown that studentsare in favour of corrective feedback in general. It should be noted howeverthat fourth year students, both in French and German, were less inclinedto mark it as “Terrible” but rather as “OK”, or moreover, “Bad”. We shallsee later that the reason for this is because the students felt that sometimesif you correct the student for small mistakes or during presentations, it canhinder the student’s confidence when speaking in the target language.

51

Figure 8: Table illustrating the percentage distribution of preferences re-garding no correction

In Appendix A there is a more detailed breakdown of the scores givento other types of corrective feedback with relation to this section.

6.7 The reasons behind the students preferred types of cor-rective feedback

This is the most important section in the results part of this paper. Herewe have the reasons that students give for giving preference to one type offeedback over another. I will provide a summary of the major recurringthemes within the answers provided by the participants in the questionnairein relation to the most liked and the least liked types of corrective feedback.A summary of the rest of the recurring themes with regard to the rest ofthe types of corrective feedback will be provided in Appendix A, along witha complete table of all the answers given, verbatim.

Firstly we have the reasons that students do not like no correction.We can see the main reasons given by the students in figure 9. These areall what we might expect the reasons to be such as

“The student must learn from their mistakes.”

so there is no real surprise here. I do however feel that it should be notedthat many students, mostly fourth year students, came up with situationswhere no correction may be used. The most prevalent situation that came upwhen analysing the results was when the student only made a small mistake,because if the student is corrected all the time by the teacher, even for very

52

small mistakes or “slips”, the student’s confidence would be hindered andhence they would be less inclined to speak in class. The students also notedthat if a learner is giving a presentation to the class, they should never becorrected until possibly afterwards. This is most likely because the learner’sflow of thought would be interrupted, but also, since this seems to be arecurring theme in the answers provided, that the student would face hugeembarrassment in front of their peers.

Figure 9: Table illustrating the percentage distribution of preferences re-garding no correction

With the recasts being the most preferred, I was quite surprised at thisresult. I had hypothesised that there would be more of a preference amongthe fourth year students for a type of correction that promoted self–learning,since they should be at the stage of acquirement of the target languagewherein they want to refine and hone their language skills. It would havebeen thought that methods of corrective feedback that promote self correc-tion would be the preferred option for more advanced learners such as thefourth year language students. On average I would say that by fourth yearin third level education, the students would have had at least seven to tenyears experience with the language in question, and so they would thereforehave a very good command of the target language.

However, as the data shows, they are more inclined towards receivingrecasts but not because it is the lazy way out of receiving a correction. Theparticipants said that they prefer recasts as a form of correction because thestudent is

“. . . not embarrassed when they are corrected in class.”

Throughout the answers given for all types of corrective feedback,there was a huge emphasis placed on the confidence and embarrassment ofthe student. If the participant perceived the form of feedback as a possiblesource of embarrassment for the learner, it was then condemned as either“OK” or“Bad”. This displays a heightened sense of “being afraid of whatother people think”, as it were. The students, although mostly well pastthe age of awkwardness in the sense that most of them are in either in theirlate teens or in their early to mid twenties, showing that even as an adult,people have an acute awareness of how they are perceived by their peers.

53

What also came through in the reasons why students may not like recastswas that the learner might not notice the correction. So we can see from thisthat even though the majority of the participants are not linguistics students,they seem to know about the importance of noticing that the learner madean error. This suggests a heightened sense of awareness surrounding theissues and problems language learning. Even though most of them havemore than likely never heard of the Noticing Hypothesis, they seem to knowintuitively that it poses a problem to language learners when the learnerdoes not notice that they made an error. This is a very interesting findingthat has been gleaned from this study.

Figure 10: Table illustrating the percentage distribution of preferences re-garding no correction

With regard to the other types of corrective feedback, it was seen thatmetalinguistic clues were the second most preferred, with explicit correctionbehind that, elicitation coming fourth, clarification request being fifth andfinally repetition being the second least preferred method of feedback. Themain reasons for the like or dislike of these methods can be found in Ap-pendix A. In sum however, it was found that in general the reasons givenfor liking a certain method of corrective feedback were that

• It promotes self–correction which leads to better learning by the stu-dent.

• The student is not embarrassed.

• The location of the error is indicated to the student.

It is ironic that although these are the most popular reasons given forpreferring one method over another, the students still rated recasts as thebest method. Seeing as though the only reason from the list given above isthat this means that the student is not embarrassed says a lot about thementality of the student population. It could be said that although theylike having the opportunity to self–correct and that they see the benefit ofbeing able to correct themselves and learn from their mistakes, they valuetheir own ego and their own pride over effective learning. We can see thisthrough the main reasons given for the disapproval ratings of certain types

54

of corrective feedback. The top three reasons that students gave when givingthe method of corrective feedback a bad rating were

• The student might feel embarrassed or belittled

• The reason for the error is not explained by the teacher

• The method of correction is rude or abrupt or condescending

Given that these are the reasons that a lot of the participants gave forrating a method of correction as “OK”, “Bad” or “Terrible”, backs up whatwas said previously about how students are very concerned with their ownpride and ego.

55

7 Chapter 6Conclusion

In summary, we have found out firstly that these students prefer to becorrected by their teachers and not by their peers or by native speakers.We have also seen that secondly different languages and different levels oflanguage learning (i.e. first and fourth year students) place varying emphasison what types of errors they would like to have corrected for them by theteacher. Thirdly we saw that the students who took part in this study wouldprefer that all of their errors be corrected immediately but that there was aslight inclination among the German students to have their errors correctedin a separate dedicated class.

The most important finding of this study is that students preferredmethod of correction is recasts since the leaner is not embarrassed when theteacher utilises this form of feedback and the correct form is provided forthe learner. They also said that the positive reinforcement for the leanerthat came with recasts was a potential confidence booster for the learner.Also importantly, it was found that students do not like it when their errorsare not corrected since they feel that they will never learn if they are notcorrected and they will develop bad speaking habits if not corrected.

It was unfortunate for this experiment that there was such a small partic-ipant number. Since the number was so small it is not possible to generaliseany of the results found here in this paper.

7.1 Suggestions for further studies

I would have liked to explore the potential differences between the reasonsbehind the preferences that were given by the French students and the Ger-man students. Further study is needed regarding this aspect of correctivefeedback since the cultural differences or indeed simply the linguistic differ-ences between the languages may indeed play a role in the types of feedbackthat are preferred by students of different languages. It would also be inter-esting to see if there is a difference between students of an Indo–Europeanlanguage and a non–Indo–European language, such as Finnish or Japanese.

One modification that I would have liked to have made to my studyupon reflection is that I would have asked the participants for reasons fortheir choices for every question in the questionnaire. This way, we wouldbe able to see if there is any correlation between why the students prefercertain types of corrective feedback and why they prefer being corrected bytheir teacher or why they prefer to be corrected immediately.

56

There was an aspect missing from the present study that, had it beenincluded, may have shed some light on the reasons behind the student’spreferences towards certain kinds of corrective feedback. If there had been aquestion or a testing element that ascertained the student’s linguistic back-ground and their own level of confidence within the classroom, we couldthen see if

• The participant had prior knowledge of the Noticing Hypothesis orany knowledge of language learning or error correction.

• If the participant classifies himself as a shy or timid person within aclassroom situation, would they then be more inclined to worry aboutthe embarrassment factor of any of the types of corrective feedback.

In conclusion, although there were some interesting findings gleanedfrom the present study we cannot generalise them on the basis of too smalla sample size for the experiment. This however shows that there are in-teresting and insightful results to be found from studies such as these. Itis recommended that further studies are done that have a larger sample sothat we may be able to see if there are any similarities between the findingsof this study and the findings of other studies done along a similar vein.It is also recommended that if conducting a similar study to this, that theresearcher should take the suggestions in the previous section into accountsince they may help to untangle the reasons that students provide for theirpreferences.

57

8 Bibliography

58

Amador, Y. A. (2008) Learner Attitudes toward Error Correction in a Beginners English Class.

Communicaión, Vol. 17, No. 1, p.18-28

Amrhein, H. R. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers

prefer and why?. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95-127.

Barbetta, P. M., Heward, W. L., Bradley, D. M., & Miller, A. D. (1994). Effects of immediate and

delayed error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students with

developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 27, 177–178

Brown, H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman

Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In

J. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors.

Language Learning, 27, 29 - 46.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Clariana, R. B., Wagner, D., & Roher Murphy, L. C. (2000). Applying a connectionist description of

feedback timing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 5–21.

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied

Linguistics, 5, 161-170.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration and

Processing. University of Nottingham. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Publishers, New Jersey.

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and

second language acquisition (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),

Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Drever, M. (Unpublished). Interactional corrective feedback in first language (L1) and

second/foreign language (L2) acquisition and learning: does it have the same effect? Training and

Development Agency for Schools, UK

El Tataway, M. (2002). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition. Teachers College,

Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, Vol. 2, No. 2

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis R. (2007) Key Note Speech to CELEA. Unpublished.

Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A Framework for Investigating Oral and Written Corrective Feedback.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2010, 32, 335– 349.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Leaner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.

Language Learning, 51, 281-318.

59

Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and

Teaching, Bristol, UK, Multilingual Matters (with S Loewen, C Elder, R Erlam, J Philp and H

Reinders).

Fanselow, J. F. (1997). Postcard realities. In C. P. Casanave & S. R. Schecter (Eds.), On becoming a

language educator (pp. 157-172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Han, Z-H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 582-599.

Han, Z-H. (2002a). Rethinking of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC

Journal, 33, 1-33.

Han, Z-H. (2002b). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL

Quarterly, 36, 543-572.

Harmer, J. (1983). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Longman.

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research. Vloume

77, No. 1, p. 81-112

Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. (1971) Imitation and correction in foreign language learning. The

modern language journal, 8, 494-498

Hyun Kim, J. (2005). Issues of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition. Teachers

College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No. 2

James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use. London: Longman

Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL Students’ Preferences toward Correction of Classroom Oral

Errors. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, 289 – 305.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York:

Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. New York: Longman.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational

Research, 58(1), 79–97.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: applied linguistics for language teachers Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Littlewood, W.T. (1984). Foreign and second language learning: language-acquisition research and

its implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. (1985). Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory. In Gass, S.; Madden, C. Input in

second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. pp. 377–393

60

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie

& T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic

Press.

Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse, Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.

Lyster,R.,& Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form

in communicative classrooms. SSLA, 20, 37–66.

Mahmoud, A. (2011) The Role of Interlingual and Intralingual Transfer in Learner-Centred EFL

Vocabulary Instruction. Arab World English Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 3, p.28-49

Murphy, L & Roca de Larios, J. (2010) Feedback in Second Language Writing: An Introduction.

International Journal of English Studies, 10, i-xv.

Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002) Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL

Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 36, Issue 4, p. 573-595.

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Non-native speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-

NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.

Roberts, M.A. (1995) Awareness and the Efficacy of Error Correction. In Richard Schmidt (Ed.)

Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. University of Hawaii.

Sanavi, R. V. & Mirsaeedi, K. (2008) Error Treatment Predicament: Negotiated Corrective

Feedback. English Language Teaching Conference. Iran

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,

11, 128-158.

Schmidt, R. W., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second

language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn:

Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between pedagogy and

interaction. Language Learning, 47, 547-583.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231.

Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Swain, M. (1985) Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and

Comprehensible Output in its Development, in S.M. Gass and C.G. Madden, (Eds.), Input in Second

Language Acquisition, Newbury House Publishers, Rowley, M.A.

Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26, 281-

295.

Whitman, R. L. & Jackson, K. L. (1972) The Unpredictability of Contrastive Analysis. Language

Learning, Vol. 22, Issue 1, p.29-41 61

Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC journal, 38

(1), 38-52

62

A Appendix I

63

B Who the students preferred to be corrected by

Teachers

Peers

64

Native Speakers

C When the students preferred to be corrected

All Errors

65

Only Errors that make sentence difficult to understand

Prefer errors to be corrected in a separate class

66

D What types of errors the students preferred tohave corrected

Grammar

Pronunciation

67

Choice of Vocabulary

Idiomatic Expressions

68

E Which types of corrective feedback were pre-ferred by the students

Clarification Request

Elicitation

69

Explicit Correction

Metalinguistic Clues

70

Repetition

F Main reasons given by students for their pref-erences

Explicit Correction

Clarification Requests

Metalinguistic Clues

71

Repetition

Elicitation

72

G Summary of the Reasons Given by Students

Explicit Correction – Summary of Answers Given

1 Simple mistake - simple correction. In my experience it works when the mistake is as simple as this. It doesn't lead to embarrassment or confusion as it's so simple.

1 - 1 written on board after, would be better 1 relaxed teaching style 1 mistakes must be corrected or else student won't learn, stands out when you say 'no' 1 difficult to improve language skills if you do not learn from mistakes 2 Important to understand difference between singular and plural 2 Important factor to grasp in a language 2 Ensures mistakes are dealt with early on and good for understanding language

altogether 2 Memorable or inspiring to help avoid mistakes in future 2 Using No is blunt, could start with something nicer. rest is fine 2 - 2 sentence changes meaning 2 addressed the issue and stressed the correct version, perhaps could have asked

student if they understood why it was wrong 2 helps when corrected immediately 2 standard in university 3 Too direct, student feeling belittled or silly, sense of agitation on teacher's behalf. 3 abrupt on part of teacher 3 shouldn't use No when correcting a student 3 Depends on the quality of student's German. teacher might be excused for using No 3 - 3 would work better in a one-to-one context but it's difficult to learn in a class where

you are the focus of attention when it comes to error correction and you tend to forget what is said

3 Ok for advanced class, but for beginners, need to explain why 3 simply stating the correct way of saying something does not explain the source of the

error - it doesn't prevent it from happening again 3 - 4 - 4 time wasted by explicitly going over mistakes 5 Principle is fine

Recasts – Summary of Answers Given

1 Even less embarrassment as it's like ordinary discourse with a native speaker, you might repeat, yet it still gets the point across.

1 - 1 Alerts the student to the error, but subtly. Might also promote confidence in the

student. 1 Doesn't embarrass the student and the correct answer is still given 1 Positive reinforcement helps and doesn't undermine learner, they will also learn that it

sounds right 1 acknowledges the student's effort and is nice about it 1 - 1 possibly mightn't sink in as much 1 same as explicit but more encouraging 2 Positive reinforcement helps 2 Doesn't make self conscious people feel so bad as it's less direct, but on the other

hand, it could be missed 2 If it happens many times, it becomes boring and easy to ignore 2 - 2 student mightn't notice difference between model and own utterance 2 won't shake the student's confidence 2 not so harsh 2 correct form is shown 2 succinct and to the point 2 not directly drawing attention 2 more encouraging 2 student hears correct form 3 might miss the recast 3 better because more neutral, better for others and not person involved 3 should have explained why 3 if not listening, student will not pick up on error 3 reinforces confidence in the learner but does not highlight or explain the mistake 3 weaker students will not notice this form of correction and will therefore not learn

from it 4 student mightn't notice difference between model and own utterance

73

Clarification Request – Summary of Answers Given

1 Great way of getting the student to realise what they know or don't know. However I think it should only be done when the student seems relaxed enough to not feel 'victimised'

1 Let's you correct yourself 1 Student learns more by figuring it out and feels better because they knew the correct

answer 1 it allows the student to figure out the error for themselves 1 better because it offers opportunity to self correct 2 Finding an alternative way to make themselves understood by the student while

maintaining the TL is positive 2 Very good because it leaves the learner to figure out the mistake - learn from figuring

it out for themselves. But at the same time - it may lead to crossed wires - learner might think the teacher hasn't heard and will repeat - embarrassment

2 Student might not formulate the correct answer 2 could be off-putting for small mistakes 2 gives the student time to think about his answer again 2 better because it offers opportunity to self correct 2 same as recast 2 good that it makes learner aware of mistake and makes him think critically but saying

"excuse me?" does not point towards the wrong part of the sentence 2 student gets to correct mistakes independently 3 acceptable in cases only when grammar is incomprehensible, but if snappy, the

student might feel intimidated 3 depends on student's level of language and if they are able to recognise the error or

not 3 can confuse the student and come across as rude 3 - 3 not always clear to student, may help pronunciation but not grammar 3 - 3 seems unclear and might be considered rude by the student 4 - 4 - 4 makes student feel insecure if they are not sure what the mistake is 4 annoying 4 rude 5 implies that teacher did not hear, not that the utterance is incorrect and sounds

slightly rude - -

74

Metalinguistic Clues – Summary of Answers Given

1 engages the learner with what they are saying - may limit fluency if a learner is constantly worrying about gender or tense etc. but it is important to be aware and again - figuring it out for yourself - it sticks!

1 This is correct 1 Helpful for less advanced students but clarification request is better for college

students so that they have to think more 1 makes student think about what they've said, as long as it isn't sarcastic 1 points towards error but still makes student think 2 Good, but seems limited to what kind of errors it can be applied to 2 - 2 Student could guess and not understand the reason why 2 makes student think about mistake and gives them an opportunity to correctly answer

the question 2 - 2 promotes self-learning 2 thinking, self correction 2 good because neutral and offers a limit and opportunity to self correct 2 - 2 - 2 addresses the issue without giving the answer and still makes them work 2 sometimes could confuse the student but better than no correction 2 it makes the student think directly about his mistake and he is therefore more likely to

learn from it 2 logical 2 nice way of correcting 3 Corrects the student but could be seen as condescending 3 makes student aware of possible grammatical error, will make student aware of

grammatical structure in future 3 it is subtly implicit but perhaps could be addressed differently 4 confusing and misleading for learners 4 too sarcastic 4 bit condescending 4 belittles and mocks 4 student put on the spot - ridiculous question

75

No Correction – Summary of Answers Given

3 Sometimes, the message and simply saying something instead of nothing is the most important thing

3 Depends on situation - if mistake is persistent, it's bad/terrible method. However if it's a once off a slip up, then it's grand. It might only serve to disrupt the learners fluency and knock their confidence

3 sometimes it's best to encourage the student to talk 3 may be good depending on context, but depends on the subject of the class/tutorial

and working format 3 depending of level of error, might be best to stop student when he speaks 4 Depends on the gravity of the error but a teacher should be correcting big errors as

much as possible 4 Only positive thing is that it might encourage the student to keep talking in class.

Without correction the student will develop bad speaking habits 4 depends on how bad the sentence is 4 student will continue to make the mistake if not corrected 4 small error ok to ignore, big error, cannot ignore 4 Student learns nothing and repeats the mistakes out loud. However during

presentations etc. student should not be corrected 4 you won't learn from it 4 teachers should always correct when possible otherwise they're not doing their job 5 - 5 no way to know the student made a mistake, student thinks their niveau is better than

it is 5 - 5 learn from mistakes 5 might as well stay at home 5 student will continue to make the mistake if not corrected 5 student needs to learn from their mistakes 5 - 5 obvious reason 5 student will never discover the error 5 student will continue to think that phrase is correct 5 teacher is required to teach the student - this includes correcting his mistakes 5 student doesn't learn 5 not helping anyone 5 student doesn't learn

76

Elicitation – Summary of Answers Given

1 reformulation doesn't necessarily mean that first response was incorrect so could be good

1 allows student to restructure their answer in a better way 2 depends on whether student realises he's being asked a question 2 encouraging student 2 polite and offers the student a chance to think 2 - 2 - 2 looks good 2 makes the student think about and then learn from mistake 2 - 2 makes student think about correct answer in detail 2 conveys that the student has made a mistake and encourages him/her to rethink the

sentence 2 not sure why, but it is good 2 student gets to independently correct error 3 Makes the student reconsider and then (hopefully) self-correct…good if it works! 3 If student lacks confidence then this may cause the student to panic and make more

mistakes. But if the student is confident then they might not mind being put on the spot like that

3 student might repeat mistake 3 - 3 student can correct stupid mistakes by trying a second time 3 helps you to realise your mistake 3 student may not realise the mistake 3 student gets put on the spot slightly 3 not as effective and somewhat more personal 3 might confuse the student 3 - 4 Repeating just means saying the same thing again. Could be confusing; not clear if the

teacher didn't hear or wants reformulation 4 Doesn't really help the learner - they might not understand what the issue is

- -

77

Repetition – Summary of Answers Given

1 Same reasons as 1 and 2 [less embarrassment on part of student and like conversing with native speaker)

1 - 1 you will remember the correct answer 2 problems with guessing, but does allow the student to think about it 2 nips mistakes in the bud 2 allows student to correct own mistake and move on with sentence 2 promotes self-learning 2 student realises mistake and knows where mistake was 2 worse than elicitation because it makes it more clear that there is an error 2 allows student to correct mistake once they become aware of it 2 makes sure the student is aware of the word that was incorrect 2 sometimes the student might not know why her made the error 2 mistake is clear 3 again, self-correction is positive 3 It gives the answer whilst sounding a little condescending at the same time 3 Again, depends on student again. Could also come across as mocking without meaning

to, which could greatly damage the student's confidence and eagerness in the future 3 sometimes disconcerting 3 - 3 neither helps nor hinders the student 3 - 3 - 3 student realises mistake quickly but is put on the spot 4 sounds quite rude 4 makes student feel stupid and doesn't bring enough attention to the mistake 4 seems a bit angry 5 mean and not supportive 5 comes across as very harsh and negative - repeats and reinforces wrong words which

means incorrect version will then sound familiar to the student and therefore inferred as correct

5 belittling and mocking

78

H Appendix II

I Questionnaires

79

I.1 German Questionnaire

Page 1 of 14

Final Year Project

Louise Ryan

Questionnaire

GERMAN - JF

80

Page 2 of 14

This project is about student attitudes towards the corrective feedback they

receive from their teacher when they speak in class.

Corrective feedback is the way in which the teacher corrects the phrase or

sentence you say when in class.

In this questionnaire I am asking you about your preferences as to which kind

of feedback you prefer and why you like or dislike a certain type.

There is no right or wrong answers here, all I need is your honest opinion on

these practices.

Page 3 of 14

Gender: _____________________

How long have you stayed in a German speaking country?:

________________________________________________________________

Do you speak German outside of class?:

________________________________________________________________

Do you want to improve your German speaking skills?:

________________________________________________________________

81

Page 4 of 14

The first set of questions deal with general

issues related to the correction of spoken

errors during German language class.

Please indicate your answer by circling the

appropriate answer.

82

Page 5 of 14

1. I want my teachers to correct my errors when speaking German.

2. I want my teachers to correct all the errors I make when speaking

German.

3. I think teachers should only correct the errors that make my sentence

difficult to understand.

4. I want my teachers to explain my errors during a later dedicated

grammar session and not immediately in class when I make the mistake.

5. I want my classmates to correct my errors.

6. I want native German speakers to correct my errors.

83

Page 6 of 14

This section concerns which specific errors or

categories of errors you feel need to be

addressed when speaking in language class.

Please indicate your answer by circling the

appropriate answer.

84

Page 7 of 14

I want my teachers to correct me when I make a mistake in each of the

following aspects of German

Grammar I would like my grammar corrected

Pronunciation I would like my pronunciation corrected

Vocabulary choice I would like my choice of vocabulary corrected

Idioms I would like my idiomatic expressions corrected

85

Page 8 of 14

In the section you will see a number of

practices that teachers adopt in respond to

errors they encounter when a student is

speaking in German. Please rate each of the

following classroom practices of teaching as

individual methods.

Please indicate your answer by circling the

appropriate answer.

86

Page 9 of 14

1) Explicit Correction

The teacher clearly that the student’s utterance was incorrect, the teacher

then provides the correct form for the student.

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

2) Recast

Without directly indicating that the student’s utterance was incorrect, the

teacher reformulates the student’s sentence so that it is correct.

S: “Ich habe zwei Brüder. Seine Namen ist Mark und Luke.“

T:“Nein, Ihre Namen sind Mark und Luke.”

S: “Ich habe ein Katze und ein Meerschweinchen.”

T: “Eine Katze und ein Meerschweinchen. Ja, gut“

87

Page 10 of 14

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

3) Clarification Request

Instead of the teacher providing the correct form, the teacher uses phrases

like “Excuse me?” or “I don’t understand” to indicate (i) that he/she has not

understood the student or (ii) there some mistake was made. The student is

then implicitly prompted to think about the sentence and thereby provide the

correct form.

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

S: “Ich habe in die Stadt gehen.”

T: “Bitte?”

S: “Ich bin in die Stadt gegangen.”

88

Page 11 of 14

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

4) Metalinguistic Clues

Without providing the correct form, the teacher poses questions or provides

comments or information related to the form of the sentence that the student

uttered. This is intended to steer the student towards the reason why the

sentence was incorrect in the hope that the student will then provide the

correct form.

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

5) No Correction

Teacher ignores the student’s error.

S: “Ich habe einen Schwester und ihr Name ist Lucy.”

T: “Ist Schwester maskulin?“

89

Page 12 of 14

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

6) Elicitation

Different from number 4, this involves the teacher directly eliciting the correct

form from the student by asking questions (“Wie sagen wir X auf Deutsch?”)

or pausing to allow the student to complete their sentence (“Es ist ein…”).

Teacher can also ask the student to reformulate the utterance as in the

example below. The questions generally require more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’

answer.

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

S: ”Ich ging mit meinen Freunden in der Kino.”

T: “Sag es nochmal.“

90

Page 13 of 14

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

7) Repetition

Teacher repeats the student’s error and adjusts their intonation upwards on

the incorrect word or phrase to bring student’s attention to it.

Your view of this teaching practise is that is is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

S: “…das Hund.”

T: “Das Hund?”

91

Page 14 of 14

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE!

YOU CAN DROP THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE INTO THE

BOX AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS OR IF YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE

IT HOME WITH YOU TO COMPLETE, THERE WILL BE A BOX

PROVIDED IN ROOM ____

IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE, I

WOULD BE GRATEFUL IF YOU COULD DROP THE BLANK

SURVEY INTO THE BOX

92

I.2 French Questionnaire

Page 1 of 14

Final Year Project

Louise Ryan

Questionnaire

FRENCH- JF

Page 2 of 14

This project is about student attitudes towards the corrective feedback they

receive from their teacher when they speak in class.

Corrective feedback is the way in which the teacher corrects the phrase or

sentence you say when in class.

In this questionnaire I am asking you about your preferences as to which kind

of feedback you prefer and why you like or dislike a certain type.

There is no right or wrong answers here, all I need is your honest opinion on

these practices.

93

Page 3 of 14

Gender: _____________________

How long have you stayed in a French speaking country?:

________________________________________________________________

Do you speak French outside of class?:

________________________________________________________________

Do you want to improve your French speaking skills?:

________________________________________________________________

94

Page 4 of 14

The first set of questions deal with general

issues related to the correction of spoken

errors during French language class.

Please indicate your answer by circling the

appropriate answer.

95

Page 5 of 14

1. I want my teachers to correct my errors when speaking French.

2. I want my teachers to correct all the errors I make when speaking

French.

3. I think teachers should only correct the errors that make my sentence

difficult to understand.

4. I want my teachers to explain my errors during a later dedicated

grammar session and not immediately in class when I make the mistake.

5. I want my classmates to correct my errors.

6. I want native French speakers to correct my errors.

96

Page 6 of 14

This section concerns which specific errors or

categories of errors you feel need to be

addressed when speaking in language class.

Please indicate your answer by circling the

appropriate answer.

97

Page 7 of 14

I want my teachers to correct me when I make a mistake in each of the

following aspects of French

Grammar I would like my grammar corrected

Pronunciation I would like my pronunciation corrected

Vocabulary choice I would like my choice of vocabulary corrected

Idioms I would like my idiomatic expressions corrected

98

Page 8 of 14

In the section you will see a number of

practices that teachers adopt in respond to

errors they encounter when a student is

speaking in French. Please rate each of the

following classroom practices of teaching as

individual methods.

Please indicate your answer by circling the

appropriate answer.

99

Page 9 of 14

1) Explicit Correction

The teacher clearly that the student’s utterance was incorrect, the teacher

then provides the correct form for the student.

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

2) Recast

Without directly indicating that the student’s utterance was incorrect, the

teacher reformulates the student’s sentence so that it is correct.

S: “J’ai deux frères. Il s’appelle Mark et Luke.”

T:“Non, Ils s’appellent Mark et Luke.”

S: “J’ai une chat.”

T: “J’ai un chat. Oui, super bien.”

100

Page 10 of 14

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

3) Clarification Request

Instead of the teacher providing the correct form, the teacher uses phrases

like “Excuse me?” or “I don’t understand” to indicate (i) that he/she has not

understood the student or (ii) there some mistake was made. The student is

then implicitly prompted to think about the sentence and thereby provide the

correct form.

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

S: “Nous sommes allés à la ville demain.”

T: “Pardon?”

S: “Nous irons à la ville demain.”

101

Page 11 of 14

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

4) Metalinguistic Clues

Without providing the correct form, the teacher poses questions or provides

comments or information related to the form of the sentence that the student

uttered. This is intended to steer the student towards the reason why the

sentence was incorrect in the hope that the student will then provide the

correct form.

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

5) No Correction

Teacher ignores the student’s error.

S: “Il nettoie son tortue.”

T: “Est-ce que la tortue masculine?”

102

Page 12 of 14

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

6) Elicitation

Different from number 4, this involves the teacher directly eliciting the correct

form from the student by asking questions (“Comment disons-nous x en

français?”) or pausing to allow the student to complete their sentence (“Il

est…”). Teacher can also ask the student to reformulate the utterance as in

the example below. The questions generally require more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’

answer.

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

S: ”Je suis Irlande.”

T: “Pouvez-vous répétez cela s’il vous plait?”

103

Page 13 of 14

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

7) Repetition

Teacher repeats the student’s error and adjusts their intonation upwards on

the incorrect word or phrase to bring student’s attention to it.

Your view of this teaching practise is that it is

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why you gave this answer?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

S: “…une chien.”

T: “Une chien?”

104

Page 14 of 14

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE!

YOU CAN DROP THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE INTO THE

BOX AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS OR IF YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE

IT HOME WITH YOU TO COMPLETE, THERE WILL BE A BOX

PROVIDED IN ROOM ____

IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE, I

WOULD BE GRATEFUL IF YOU COULD DROP THE BLANK

SURVEY INTO THE BOX

105