Novitas-ROYAL,
2008, Vol.: 2 (2), 120-137[i].
ERROR
CORRECTION:
AN
INDICATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING
Abstract: The aim of this study was to explore the
effects of form-focused instruction and feedback type on learning. The learners
in treatment group received corrective feedback in the form of prompts,
including clarification requests, repetitions, elicitations, and
meta-linguistic clues while the learners in the control group received the same
instruction as the experimental group without any kind of feedback. The
participants were assigned different tasks in order to use the aimed structures
during the 15 treatment sessions (30 hours). The analysis of the data done
through correlation coefficient and t-test indicated the outperformance of the
participants in experimental group over the performance of the participants in
control group.
Key words: Corrective
feedback, prompt, teachability hypothesis, consciousness-raising.
Özet: Bu çalışmanın amacı yapı odaklı öğretimin ve dönüt türünün öğrenme
üzerindeki etkilerini belirlemektir. Deney grubundaki öğrencilere hatalarına
dair düzeltici dönütler verilmiştir. Bu dönütler; yönlendiriciler, ifadelerin
daha netleştirilmesinin istenilmesi, tekrarlatmalar, öğrenciden cevabın
alınması ve dilötesi ipuçları şeklinde sağlanmıştır. Ancak, kontrol grubuna
aynı eğitim verilmesine rağmen, bu geribildirimlerin hiçbiri sağlanmamıştır. 15
oturumluk (30 saat) uygulama süresince, katılımcılara hedeflenen dil yapılarını
kullanmaları için farklı sınıf içi görevler verilmiştir. Korelasyon katsayısı
ve t-test aracılığı ile yapılan veri analizi sonuçları, deney grubundaki
katılımcıların kontrol grubundakilere oranla daha başarılı olduğunu
göstermektedir.
Anahtar kelimeler: Düzeltici dönüt, yönlendirici,
öğretilebilirlik varsayımı, bilinç yükseltme.
1. INTRODUCTION
Research on second-language acquisition over the
past two decades has been a proliferation of quasi-experimental and experimental
studies that address the effectiveness of various instructional treatments in
L2 classrooms as well as in library settings (Norris and Ortega, 2001). The question of whether or not grammar should
be taught has been persistently debated in the fields of language pedagogy and
second language acquisition. Moreover, the topic of error correction in the
second language (L2) classroom tends to spark controversy among both language
teachers and L2 acquisition researchers. Teachers may have very strong views
about error correction, based on their own previous L2 learning experiences, or
they may be more ambivalent, particularly if they have been following the
debate among L2 researchers on the topic.
Regarding
feedback as the indication of consciousness-raising, Long and Robinson (1998)
emphasized on the role of creation of input salience. They explained that
‘flagging’ target items such as highlighting, underlining, and rule-giving can
be some examples of consciousness-raising activities. They continued that in this way you can
direct the learner’s attention. However,
they argue that attempting to correct errors may not result in
consciousness-raising. Consciousness-raising shows some respect for the
learner’s internal syllabus, but the content of the external syllabus is still
the L2, and the sequencing and timing problems with synthetic syllabi remain.
They continued that focus on form, in the important sense of how the learner’s
attentional recourses are allocated at a particular moment, may be achieved
pedagogically by materials designed by the teachers.
One of the
important foci of current SLA research is the examination of cognitive
processes in second language learning. To Mackey (2006) attention and awareness
have been identified as two cognitive processes that mediate input and L2
development through interaction. Various sorts
of interactions in second language classrooms are promoted by form-focused
instruction. Focus on form has been defined by Long (1998 cited in Mackey 2006)
as interactional moves directed at raising learner awareness of forms. Doughty
and Williams (1998) express that form-focused techniques (in the forms of error
correction and giving feedback) are likely to be the most useful. When the form in focus is an important
carrier of the meaning in focus, learners do benefit from the dual focus on
forms and meaning (Lightbown 1998, p. 192).
Van
Lier (1996) criticizes both behaviorist and nativist perspectives which ignore
the concept and at the same time argues that awareness involves much more than
the narrow kind of grammatical consciousness raising activities about which we
have been hearing a lot lately. He
contends that awareness entails a broader perspective on language, such as the
role of language in society, language variation and linguistic tolerance and
the relation between language and thought.
Further and perhaps more importantly, awareness involves consciousness
of the why and how of the learning process. As Krashen (1982) claims that
formal instruction has little effect on SLA and the explicit knowledge for the
accumulation of meta-linguistic knowledge cannot be converted into implicit
knowledge. Nevertheless,
consciousness-raising was advocated by Ellis (1994) as an alternative to
practice for two reasons:
1)
Consciousness-raising does not need to involve production by the learner.
2) It does not run up against
teachability hypothesis because it is directed at explicit knowledge.
Furthermore,
teachers may be confronted with students’ opinions about error correction since
students are on the receiving end and often have their own views of if and how
it should happen in the classroom. Given these widely varying views, what is a
teacher to do?
Hence,
based on the significance attributed to raising the learners’ consciousness
through error correction, the present paper tries to investigate the effects of
prompts (as a kind of error correction) on the language learners’ language
ability specifically on their writing skills. To this end, a study research was
conducted at a language school in Tehran. The initial population of the
research was divided into two groups of experimental and control. The control
group did not receive any kinds of feedback. After reviewing the literature on
the corrective feedback, the method of the research study, the results and the
data analysis will be discussed. Finally, some pedagogical implications will be
proposed.
2. FEEDBACK FOR LEARNING
Ellis
(1994) emphasizes that in consciousness-raising activities the learners are not
expected to produce the target structure, only to understand it by formulating
some kind of cognitive representation of how it works. Practice is aimed at developing implicit
knowledge of the rule. However,
consciousness-raising is directed only at explicit knowledge. Rutherford (1984) argues that
consciousness-raising provides a logical way of avoiding many of the
pedagogical problems that arise from the teachability hypothesis. It is not surprising; therefore, that it has
received considerable attention in language pedagogy.
One
of the ways which has been found effective in consciousness-raising is error
correction. According to Ellis (1994),
feedback serves as a general cover term for the information provided by
listeners on the reception and comprehension of messages. He points out that given the amount of
research that has been devoted to error treatment; the lack of studies that
have investigated its effect on acquisition is disappointing.
Effective
learning can be seen, according to Askew and Lodge (2000), as a virtuous cycle,
where effective learning promotes effective learning processes, the distinction
between a process and an outcome decreases.
Effective learning is usefully described in terms of its outcomes and
its processes. Walter (2004) argues that effective learning involves processes
such as:
- Making
connections about what has been learnt in different contexts;
- reflecting
on one’s own learning and learning strategies;
- exploring
how the learning contexts have played a part in making the learning
effective;
- setting
further learning goals; and
- engaging
with others in learning.
Therefore,
effective learning requires feedback, and the mere repetition of tasks by students
is not likely to lead to improved skills. Learning often takes place best when
students have opportunities to express ideas and get feedback from their peers.
But for feedback to be most helpful to learners, it must consist of more than
the provision of correct answers. Feedback ought to be analytical, to be
suggestive, and to come at a time when students are interested in it. And then
there must be time for students to reflect on the feedback they receive, to
make adjustments and to try again.
3.
HISTORY OF THE RESEARCH ON FEEDBACK IN SLA
Askew
and Lodge (2000) note that the relationship between learning and teaching is
being viewed as a dynamic process, rather than a one-way transmission of
knowledge. They continue that learning
is supported by a whole range of processes, one of which is feedback. Gipps (1995) emphasizes in Askew (2000) that
feedback is a crucial feature of teaching and learning processes and it is one
element in a repertoire of connected strategies to support learning. Lyster and
Ranta (1997) developed an observational scheme which describes different types
of feedback teachers give on errors and also examines student uptake—how
students immediately respond to the feedback.
This scheme was developed in French immersion classrooms where second
language students learn the target language via subject-matter
instruction. They developed their scheme
by observing the different types of corrective feedback provided during
interaction in four French immersion classrooms with 9-11 year-old
students. Lyster and Ranta found that
all teachers in the content-based French immersion classes they observed used
recasts more than any other type of feedback. Indeed, recasts accounted for
more than half of the total feedback provided in the four classes. Repetition of error was the least frequent
feedback provided in the four classes. They also found that student uptake was
least likely to occur after recasts and more likely to occur after
clarification requests, meta-linguistic feedback, and repetitions. Furthermore, elicitations and meta-linguistic
feedback not only resulted in more uptake, they were also more likely to lead
to a corrected form of the original utterance.
Since Lyster and Ranta reported their findings, several other
observation studies of the type of corrective feedback provided in second or
foreign language classrooms have been carried out. Some of them report similar results—that
recasts are the most frequently occurring type of feedback provided by teachers
and that they appear to go unnoticed by learners. However, others report that learners do
notice recasts in the classroom.
There
has been considerable interest in corrective feedback in SLA on both
theoretical and pedagogical grounds. On the theoretical side, there has been a
debate over whether corrective feedback, which is a type of ‘negative
evidence’, is necessary, or even beneficial, for language acquisition. Krashen
(1982) who argues against corrective feedback claims that positive evidence
alone is sufficient for learners to acquire a second language and Truscott
(1998) points out that negative evidence has no use and may even have a harmful
effect on inter-language development. Those who advocate corrective feedback on
the other hand, argue that negative evidence plays a facilitative and perhaps
even crucial role in acquisition (Toth, 2006).
Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis claims that implicit negative
feedback, arising from negotiation for meaning, provides an opportunity for
learners to attend to linguistic form. Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis
suggests that negative feedback helps learners to notice the gap between
inter-language forms and target forms, and noticing the gap has been
hypothesized to assist inter-language development. From the pedagogical standpoint, corrective
feedback has been the focus of a number of inquiries into classroom teaching
and learning (Lightbown, 2003). The earliest studies in the 1970s present
purely descriptive findings of teachers’ error treatment in a variety of classroom
settings. One common finding among these
earlier studies is that teachers’ error correction occurs frequently,
irrespective of pedagogical focus and classroom setting (Fanselow, 1977;
Hendrickson 1978 cited in Sheen 2004). These studies, however, also reveal that
teachers’ provision of corrective feedback is often arbitrary, idiosyncratic,
ambiguous and unsystematic, which in turn invites the question as to whether
error correction in the classroom is of much value.
Uptake is a term
used to describe learners’ responses to the provision of feedback after either
an erroneous utterance or a query about a linguistic item within the context of
meaning-focused language activities. Some researchers argue that uptake may
contribute to second language acquisition by facilitating noticing and pushing
learners to produce more accurate linguistic forms. Loewen (2004) investigated
the occurrence of uptake in 32 hour of meaning-focused lessons in 12 English as
a second language classes in Auckland.
Loewen examined the characteristics of incidental focus on form
predicted uptake and successful uptake.
His research results indicated that incidental focus on form can result
in the noticing of linguistic items and in the production of successful uptake
during meaning-focused interaction; nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether
uptake facilitates L2 learning.
Trofimovich and
Gatbonton (2006) discuss the role of a repeated experience with L2 speech and
an explicit focus on its form-related properties from information-processing
and pedagogical perspectives. The
results of their study indicated that both repetition and focus on form have
measurable benefits for L2 speech processing, lending validity to those
approaches to teaching pronunciation that include repetition and involve focus
on form. They concluded that, the
discussion of repetition and focus on form showed that one need not cast L2
pronunciation learning as a rote, meaningless, and largely teacher-driven
process. Instead, as Ellis (2002) aptly
put it, L2 pronunciation learning, and perhaps other aspects of L2 learning as
well, can be conceptualized in the context of mindful repetition in an
engaging communicative context by motivated learners.
Nassaji (2007)
investigated the usefulness of two major types of interactional feedback
(elicitation and reformulation) in dyadic interaction. The focus was on the
different ways in which each feedback type is provided and their relationship
with learner repair. The participants were
42 adult intermediate English as second language learners and two native
English teachers performing dyadic task-based interactions. He chose six different reformulation subtypes
and five different elicitation subtypes, differing from one another in feedback
salience, and the degree to which they pushed the learner to respond to
feedback. Analysis of data on output accuracy following feedback showed that
both reformulation and elicitation resulted in higher rates of accurate repair
when they were combined with explicit intonational or verbal prompts compared
with less explicit prompts or no prompts. One of the main questions in this
study concerned the relationship between feedback and learner repair. The
results showed that learners successfully modified their output about one third
of the time following reformulations and elicitations in general (34% and 31%,
respectively). Nassaji focused that this rate of repair for reformulation is
low. Gass, Mackey, Ross-Feldman, (2005) argue that within the context of SLA,
negotiation for meaning and feedback facilitate language acquisition. They emphasize that the factors beneficial
for L2 learners arising from interaction are said to include receiving
comprehensible input and interactional feedback. The corrective feedback which was studied in
the current research was also evidenced and consequently confirmed Nassaji’s
results of higher rate of accurate repairs after verbal prompts which will be
discussed in the following sections.
4. CONSCIOUNESS-RAISING AND L1 USE
Levin (2003)
argues that using the L1 in the classroom may facilitate L2 acquisition. Given
the need for a more informed understanding of the role of the L1 in L2
learning, Scutt and Fueute (2008) designed a study to examine how students use
the L1 when they are asked to work collaboratively on form-focused tasks. The findings from this study indicated that
learners use the L1 even when they appear to be operating exclusively in the
L2. The students’ reflections from the
stimulated recall sessions indicated that when they are required to use the L2
during a collaborative consciousness-raising, form-focused task, they talk to
themselves in the L1 as they translate the text, recall grammar rules, review
the task, and plan what to say in the L2.
In addition, the findings suggested that exclusive use of the L2 during
consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks may impose cognitive demands on
learners that may have a negative impact on the allocation of cognitive
resources for the task. In particular,
exclusive use of the L2 during this type of task appears to inhibit
collaborative interaction, hinder the use of meta-talk, and impede natural
learning strategies. By contrast, use of the L1 for these kinds of tasks may
reduce cognitive overload, sustain collaborative interaction, and foster the development
of meta-linguistic terminology. In fact, the use of the L1 appears to be a
natural and spontaneous cognitive strategy, which suggests that it may be
futile to prevent learners from using the L1 during consciousness-raising
tasks. This study offers evidence that learners’ two languages function in
tandem to complete a consciousness-raising, form-focused task when they are
permitted to use the L1.
5.
CONTEXT FOR ERROR CORRECTION AND SOME KINDS OF COMMON FEEDBACK
Loewen
(2007) emphasizes on the clarification of the context in which error correction
occurs. Second language instruction can be conceptualized as falling into two
broad categories: meaning-focused instruction and form-focused (Ellis,
2001).
Long (1996)
points out that meaning-focused instruction is characterized by communicative
language teaching and involves no direct, explicit attention to language form.
The L2 is seen as a vehicle for learners to express their ideas. In contrast, form-focused instruction
generally treats language as an object to be studied through discrete lessons
targeting specific grammatical structures and rules. Long (1996) argues that such instruction can
be called an isolated approach because attention to language form is isolated
from a communicative context. Error
correction in this context is often used to ensure that learners accurately use
what they have just been taught; however, this is not the type of error
correction currently receiving so much interest. Instead, the context for error correction that
has received considerable attention during the past decade involves an
integrated approach to language instruction, incorporating attention to
language structures within a meaning-focused activity or task. Loewen suggests
a method for achieving an integrated approach to provide error correction while
learners are using the language to communicate. Thus, learners’ attention is
drawn to the connection between language form and meaning at the crucial
moments when they need to use the forms to convey their intended meaning.
Doughty (2001) argues that such timing is optimal for learners to learn to use
the language fluently and accurately.
Generally,two kinds of feedback have been identified: Explicit
corrective feedback, which according to Kim (no date) can prompt learners to
notice the gap by directly and overtly drawing their attention to the incorrect
form they have made; and implicit
corrective feedback (e.g., confirmation checks, clarification requests, and
recasts) which aims at inducing learners to detect the disparity between their
inter-language and the target language. Different techniques are used in
explicit and implicit feedback.
Recast, is a
method that has received considerable attention recently. A recast, to Lightbown and Spada (2006), correctly
reformulates a student’s incorrect utterance while maintaining the central
meaning of the utterance. The following
example provided by Loewen (2007):
S: when I was soldier, I used to wear the balaclava
T: and why did you wear it,
S: for protection from the cold or for another
reason
S: just wind,
uh protection to wind and cold
T: protection from
S: uh, from wind and cold
T: right, okay, not for a disguise
Here, the teacher and student are talking about the
student’s army experiences. While doing so, the student uses the wrong
preposition. The teacher provides the correct form (a recast), and the student
repeats the correct form. After this
brief attention to grammatical form, the conversation returns to the primary
goal of communication. There are several
reasons why recasts are favored by some researchers. First, they are relatively
implicit and unobtrusive, and thus do not generally interrupt the flow of
communication. In fact, recasts often
serve the dual purpose of a clarification request and a correction, and thus
fit quite naturally into the conversation. However, this unobtrusiveness, which
is promoted by some, is said by others to be a disadvantage. Loewen (2007) believes that recasts are so
implicit that learners often fail either to notice them or to perceive their
corrective intent. Researchers who
dislike recasts tend to favor prompts or elicitations as a type of
feedback. In prompting, the teacher does
not provide the correct form but rather attempts to get the student to
self-correct. The following example shows how prompt is used for the purpose of
corrective feedback:
S: yeah, in,
in India she began to feel sick and she went to doctor said the doctor in
India, but that doctor said it, it is not so serious
T: it, not it is, the doctor said it
S: doctor said, uh, it w-, it was not serious
T: mhm
The teacher,
instead of providing the correct form in a recast, draws attention to the error
and then attempts to elicit the correct form.
In this instance, the student is able to self-correct and provides the
correct verb form. Loewen continues that
proponents of prompting argue that in this way more attention may be drawn to
the linguistic form and, therefore, the possibility of learners noticing the
correction becomes greater. In addition,
Lightbown and Spada (2006) argue that trying to get students to correct
themselves involves them in deeper mental processing and thus may have a
greater impact on learning. While such a
claim may be true, it is also necessary for learners to have some latent
knowledge of the structure for them to be able to self-correct. If the
grammatical structure is entirely new or the vocabulary word is unknown, no
amount of prompting will draw out the structure. Another type of error correction is the
provision of meta-linguistic information regarding the error.
S: uh didn’t work well, it must be rippded
T: so you
need a noun now
S: it must be rippded
T: it must be a rip off
S: it must be a rip off
The student
makes an error; the teacher tells the student what type of word is needed. The student repeats the error and this time
the teacher provides a recast, which is then adopted by the student. Several recent studies have found that such
explicit attention to form can be beneficial for learning. With this method it
is more certain that the learners will notice the correction; however, there is
also the risk that the communicative nature of the class will be
disrupted. While the previous paragraphs
have considered the teacher’s response to a student’s error, it is also
important to consider the student’s response to the feedback, often called
uptake. Again, perhaps not surprisingly,
there is controversy regarding the importance of uptake. Some researchers argue that it is not
important for students to produce the correct forms themselves once they have
been corrected. In fact, in the case of
recasts, they argue that such uptake may be mere parroting of the form provided
by the teacher. Others, drawing on Swain’s (1995 cited in Leowen 2007) Output
Hypothesis, argue that it is beneficial for students to be stretched to produce
language that is somewhat beyond their current ability. Furthermore, uptake may be an indication that
the teacher’s correction has been noticed by the learner. Additionally, some error correction methods,
such as prompting, make uptake a very necessary and essential component of the
interaction. Loewen (2005) found that successful uptake was one of the main
predictors of students’ subsequent accurate test scores. Thus, it seemed that
students benefited from producing the correct forms.
Second language
acquisition researchers have claimed that feedback provided during
conversational interaction facilitates second language acquisition. A number of
experimental studies have supported this claim, connecting interactional
feedback with L2 development. Researchers have suggested that interactional
feedback is associated with L2 learning because it prompts learners to notice
L2 forms. Mackey (2006) explored the
relationships between feedback, instructed ESL learners’ noticing of L2 form
during classroom interactions and their subsequent L2 development. Interactional feedback was provided to
learners in response to their production problems with questions, plurals, and
past tense forms. He assessed the
learners’ noticing through on-line learning journals, introspective comments
while viewing classroom videotapes, and questionnaire responses. This research has suggested there may be an
association between noticing and learning for one of the forms under
investigation, and has pointed to the role of noticing as a potential mediator
in the feedback-learning relationship. In particular, this study has provided
evidence that noticing and L2 development may be connected in terms of development
of question forms. It should be kept in mind, however, that this does not imply
that other forms of more explicit instruction are less or equally beneficial.
6. The study
Given the
importance of giving feedback and raising the learners’ consciousness and the
outcomes in language learning, the following research question was raised:
- Does
corrective feedback in the form of prompt affect the linguistic accuracy
of Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability at the upper-intermediate level
of language proficiency, comparing with another group receiving no
feedback?
In order to investigate and answer the question, the
researcher conducted a study. The
subjects were 32 female Iranian EFL learners, who were studying at upper-intermediate
level, at Kish language school in Tehran. The subjects were initially put into
two groups of experimental and control.
Prior to the onset of the experiment the subjects took the placement
test and they were at about the same level of proficiency. The study was
carried out during the regular class hours at the language school with the
regular and common materials for both groups.
6.1. Instruments
To explore the
answer to the research question the researcher applied the following instruments:
1.
Nelson proficiency test (Fowler and Coe, 1976) for advanced level in which the
two structures of as if / as though and non-defining relative clauses
were inserted.
2.
Pre/post tests of writing ability to investigate the learners’ improvement after
receiving feedback.
3.
Some pictures for the learners to describe in order to use the selected
forms.
6.2. Procedure
Initially to
make sure that subjects were not familiar with the selected structures, all of
them (both experimental and control groups) took the Nelson proficiency
test. Due to the fact that the
researcher intended to investigate the effects of feedback on the learners’
writing ability, a pretest of writing was taken. The subjects were assigned to write about a
picture given to them. They were asked
to use the above mentioned structures.
Their writing papers were corrected by three raters including the
researcher. All class interactions in experimental class were audio-taped. In both classes, the subjects were taught the
same materials the only difference was that control class didn’t receive any
kinds of feedback.
The first lesson
was about describing pictures in which the subjects were supposed to use the
structures: Look + adjectives, look like + nouns, and look as if / though + a
clause. After giving instructions they
started to practice. The subjects were all given pictures of different painters
to describe. In case of any mistakes,
different kinds of corrective feedback in the form of prompts including:
Clarification, requests, repetition, elicitation and meta-lingual clues were
given. Some parts of the interactions between the teacher and the students were
transcribed:
T: Sara, please describe your picture.
S: In my picture there is a girl she looks as if
poor….
T: (the teacher interrupts her), what do we use
after look as if, Sara?
S: Oh sorry, yes, a clause, …the little girl looks
as if she is a poor girl…..
T: Very good. Go on.
The researcher used a meta-lingual clue in order to
help the learner to correct her sentence.
Different kinds of prompts were used by the researcher:
T: Now, you Maryam talk about your picture.
S: My picture is about a couple in the boat in the
sea. …..they look happy couple….
T: (the teacher interrupted her) Sorry, look..?
S: Yes… they look happy…
T: Good, go on.
Classroom
interactions in the experimental class all went on in this way and they were
all audio-recorded. In control class,
the subjects were given the same pictures and tasks but the only difference was
that they did not receive feedback on their mistakes or errors. At the end of the treatment the learners in
both groups were assigned to write about the topic given to them and were asked
to use the selected structures. The writing papers were corrected by the same
three raters.
7. DATA ANALYSIS
To investigate
the research question that whether corrective feedback in the form of prompt
affects the linguistic accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability at the
upper-intermediate level of language proficiency, comparing with another group
receiving no feedback, the researcher conducted a study at a language school
with 16 female learners in experimental group and 16 female learners in control
group. The writing pretest was taken and
to make sure that their scores were reliable indication of their ability in
writing, three raters including the researcher corrected the papers. To assure
that the subjects’ scores in writing pretest and post test are reliable
estimate of their ability and to explore the consistency of the scores the
inter-rater reliability of the scores was assessed through Cronbach Alpha and
correlation of the scores of the three raters was estimated by Pearson
correlation through SPSS. The raters’
scores were significantly correlated at the 0.01 level. Table 1 shows the
results of the inter-rater reliability of the raters’ scores for the pre and
post tests in experimental and control groups.
Table
1. Inter-rater reliability of the raters’ scores in pretest and posttest of
writing in experimental and control groups.
|
Raters |
Reliability Cronbach Alpha (Pre test) |
Reliability Cronbach Alpha (Post test) |
|
Rater 1 & 2 |
.96 |
.95 |
|
Rater 2 & 3 |
.97 |
.94 |
|
Rater 1 & 3 |
.97 |
.93 |
As table 1 shows, the inter rater reliability assessed
using Cronbach’s Alpha, ranged between .93-.97, and it indicates high agreement
between the raters’ scores.
The treatment started by giving students in
experimental group different kinds of prompts while working on their regular
materials in regular class hours. However, the learners in control group didn’t
receive any kinds of corrective feedbacks. After the treatment the subjects in
both groups were assigned a writing test and they were asked to use the
selected structures. The writing posttests were corrected by the same three
raters. The inter-rater reliability of the scores was estimated and the results
are also shown in table 1.
In order to compare the subjects’ scores in
experimental and control groups after the treatment, a T-test was applied.
Since every subject had three scores, the mean score for each subject was
calculated and they were used in the T-test. The T-test applied to compare the
subjects’ performance before and after the treatment results in significant and
high correlations of the scores. The results were shown in table 2.
Table 2. T-test comparing the means
of experimental and control group writing posttest.
|
group |
N |
mean |
SD |
SEM |
df |
T O |
TC |
SIG. |
|
control |
16 |
69.8125 |
6.5331 |
1.6333 |
30 |
3.745 |
2 |
.000 |
|
experimental |
16 |
79.1667 |
7.5591 |
1.8898 |
|
|
|
|
To answer the research question, we can refer to the
results shown in table 2. As it is shown in the table, the mean score of the control
group is 69.81 and that of the experimental group is 79.16 which indicate the
out performance of the writing test scores of the experimental group after the
treatment. The observed t-value, according to data analysis shown in table 2,
is more than the T-critical.
Consequently, there is a significant relationship between the control
and experimental groups. That is, the writing scores in post tests in two
groups have significant difference after the treatment and the mean in
experimental group is significantly bigger than the mean of control group. This
confirms the impact of using prompts as the corrective feedback in experimental
group. (See appendix A for the graphs)
8. CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS
By no means
implicit and explicit choice of the learner or the language to be taught as the
starting point in course design remains one of the most critical. To Long and
Robinson (1998) L2 is broken down into words and collocations, grammatical
rules, phonemes, intonation and stress patterns, structures, notions, or
functions. These items are sequenced for
presentation as models to learners in linear, additive fashion according to
frequency, valence, and difficulty.
Synthetic syllabi, according to Long and Robinson (1998), are still used
in most classrooms. The learners’ role
is to synthesize the piece for use in communication. Synthetic syllabi together
with the corresponding materials, methodology and classroom pedagogy lead to
lessons with a focus on forms. Therefore, form-focused instructions according
to the literature and the results of the present study are of significant value
and effective in language classes.
Schmidth (1990) in the exploring the role of
consciousness in L2 learning adopts the view that the importance of unconscious
learning (Krashen’s acquisition) has been exaggerated. He argues, instead, learners have to pay some
kind of attention to language forms in order for acquisition of accuracy.
Consciousness-raising is one term, according to Andrews (2007), which has come
to the fore in relation to reassessment of the role of consciousness-raising
and explicit knowledge of grammar in L2 acquisition. Rutherford and Sharwood
Smith (1985) believe that consciousness-raising activities are activities which
are on a continuum range from the intensive promotion of conscious awareness
via the articulation of pedagogical rules through to simply exposing the
learner to special grammatical phenomena.
Regarding the subjects’ satisfaction with being informed of their
mistakes observed by the researcher in this study, language teachers are
suggested to try to increase the learners’ attention to any kinds of the forms
which will definitely improve their fluency and accuracy.
Andrews (2007)
confirm that consciousness-raising or indeed any structuring of language input
for pedagogical purposes places significant demands on the L2 teacher’s
language awareness. Accordingly,
consciousness-raising tasks are designed to cater primarily to explicit learning. In other words, they are intended to develop
awareness at the level of understanding (Ellis 2003, p. 162). Thus, the designed outcome of a
consciousness-raising task is awareness of how some linguistic features
work. He points out that the rational
for the use of consciousness-raising tasks draws on the role of explicit
knowledge as a facilitator for the acquisition of implicit knowledge. Ellis (2003) continues that implicit
methodological techniques involve providing feedback. There have been found different ways of
providing feedback. According to the current study results any kinds of
corrective feedback is effective. However, the language instructors might be
responsive to the learners’ personality traits and attempt to adjust their
feedback kinds with the language learners.
In the present
study, the researcher studied feedback given in the form of prompts. The researcher applied different techniques
to correct the learners’ errors. During the treatment the students expressed
their feelings that they enjoyed being corrected and they were extremely
satisfied with the treatment. The
results and statistical analysis of this study revealed the significant effects
of feedback in the forms of prompts on language ability which in this research
had been realized on the subjects’ writing skill. In control group the class material was the
same but the subjects did not receive any corrective feedback. Since the system in that language school is
not based on explicit error-correction, the researcher was not in trouble and
didn’t do the research by breaking the ethical rules. However, the results of
this current research or many others might be a good indication of probable
changes in the current instructional methods in this and other language
schools.
Actually, the
current study examined teacher feedback and learner uptake and the learners’
subsequent repairs. One common finding among all studies on corrective feedback
and so this study is the emphasis on correction as an indication of
consciousness-raising. Given the results of the current research, teachers are
to help learners to do their best and this requires the teachers to provide the
learners with form-focused instruction and feedback on errors. In case of
errors which are frequently shared among the learners in a class, it is of value
to draw the learners’ attention to those errors and bring them to their
attention. This study confirms Lightbown (1998)’s emphasis on the beneficial
results of stopping the communicative activity in a class for a few seconds and
make the focus on form quite explicitly and draw the learners’ attention on
forms not meaning in this situation. It can be helpful to suggest that noticing
the mismatch between learner utterances and target utterances can be a step
toward acquisition.
REFERENCES
Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge: CUP.
Askew, S., & Lodge, C.(2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops-linking feedback
and learning. In S. Askew (Ed.) (pp. 1-17). Feedback for learning. London:
Routledge / Falmer.
Doughty,
C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and second language acquisition (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: CUP.
Ellis,
N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with
implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143– 188.
Ellis,
R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Ellis,
R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused
instruction and second language learning (pp.1-46). New York: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language
acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, W. S., & Coe, N. (1976). Nelson
English language tests. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldmann, L.
(2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language
Learning, 55 (4), 575-611.
Kim, J. H. (no date). Issues of corrective feedback
in SLA. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 1-24.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Second language acquisition and second
language learning. New York: Prentice Hall.
Levine,
G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target
language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study.
Modern Language Journal, 87, 343–364.
Lightbown,
P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
177-195). Cambridge: CUP.
Lightbown, P. M. (2003). SLA research in the
classroom/SLA research for \the classroom. Language Learning 28, 4-13.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How
languages are learned. Oxford: OUP.
Loewen,
S. (2007). Error correction in second language acquisition. Clear News, 11 (2),
1-7.
Loewen,
S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language
Learning, 54 (1), 153-188.
Long,
M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. R. & T. J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego : Academic Press.
Long,
M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on forms: Theory, research, and
practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition (pp. 15-42). Cambridge: CUP.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective
feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition. 19 (1), 399-432.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and
instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27 (3). 405-430.
Nassaji,
H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner
repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57 (4), 511-548.
Norris,
J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference?
Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction
and second language learning (pp. 157-213). New York: Blackwell.
Rutherford,
W. (1984). Language universals and second language acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Rutherford,
W., & SharWood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal
grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6 (3), 274-282.
Schmidt,
R. (1990). The role of consciousness in
second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-46.
Scutt,
V. M., & Fueute, M. J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the
L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern language
journal, 92 (1), 100-113.
Sheen,
Y. H. (2004). Classrooms across instructional settings: Corrective feedback and
learner uptake in communicative. Language Teaching Research. 8 (3), 263-300.
Toth,
P.D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language
acquisition. Language Learning, 56 (2), 319-385.
Trofimovich,
P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in processing L2
Spanish words: Implications for pronunciation instruction. The Modern
Language Learning, 90 (4), 519-535.
Truscott,
J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second
Language Research, 14 (2), 103-135.
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language
curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman.
Walter,
T. (2004). Teaching English language learners. London: Longman.
Appendix A
Bars. The diagram indicating the changes
from pretest to post test.
