Corrective Feedback in Learning Interaction: Integration of Surface Strategy Taxonomy

The article aimed to determine the types of errors found in classroom learning interactions at (Perguruan Tinggi Keagamaan Islam) PTKI Metro, to analyze the strategies used in correcting student errors in classroom learning interactions at PTKI Metro and to know the aspects of Surface Strategy Taxonomy which was found in classroom learning interaction errors at PTKI Metro. In analyzing the data, the researchers used the theory of Dalton-Puffer (2007) which was used to find out and describe the types of common student errors in the interaction of learning English in the classroom. Then, using the theory offered by Mendez at al (2010) which is applied to analyze the types of lecturer strategies in correcting student errors in learning. The researcher also analyzed the linguistic aspects of the taxonomy category in the student's errors using the theory of Dulay, Burth, and Krhashen (1982). The results show that the corrective feedback strategies used by lecturers at PTKI Metro City were Explicit Correction, Recast, Clarification Request, and Metalinguistic Feedback. And this study also classifies the types of errors based on the Aspects Surface Strategy Taxonomy on learning interactions in the classroom.

Effects of task repetition with written corrective feedback on the knowledge and written accuracy of learners with different prior knowledge of the structure

Previous task repetition studies have largely overlooked the second language learners’ development of linguistic knowledge as well as written accuracy. Furthermore, sufficient attention has not been paid to the role of written corrective feedback (WCF) in task repetition to reinforce attention to form. Moreover, studies exploring task repetition effects on learners with different prior knowledge of the target structure are rare. This study attempted to bridge these lacunas. Seventy-nine upper-intermediate learners in Iran were divided into four groups: task repetition with no feedback (TR), task repetition with metalinguistic feedback (TR+M), task repetition with direct feedback (TR+D), and task repetition with mixed direct metalinguistic feedback (TR+DM). All groups performed an error correction test that measured explicit knowledge, an elicited imitation test that tapped automatized explicit knowledge, and a picture-cued written production test that measured written accuracy. Participants performed a dictogloss task and received WCF before repeating the same task. Subsequently, they performed another dictogloss task with different content. Results revealed that the +Prior Knowledge learners in the TR+DM group gained explicit knowledge and proved slightly better than the TR+D regarding written accuracy. None of the groups, however, could develop automatized explicit knowledge.

Effect of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback on Learners’ Oral Accuracy in English Speaking Lessons

Corrective feedback plays a vital role in contributing to the success of English language teaching and learning at all levels owing to its essential functions in developing learners’ English capacity. However, the ongoing debate on how effective corrective feedback is still remains controversial among educational scholars. This empirical study examined the effects of teachers’ corrective feedback on learners’ English oral accuracy at a higher education institution. The study used a before-and-after approach with the involvement of 47 law major sophomores at lower intermediate level who were divided into control and experimental groups. Specifically, the experimental group included two batches, including 16 participants companions receiving the explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback, and 15 learners provided with recast and clarification requests. In addition, there were 16 participants in the control group who were given no form of corrective feedback during English speaking lessons. The results indicate that the efficacy of corrective feedback is clearly acknowledged thanks to the contrastive analysis of the outcome in the learners' performance on the post-tests. In particular, the results of the explicit corrective feedback slightly outweighed the results of the control group receiving implicit feedback in terms of improving learners’ accurate usage of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. The findings emphasise the importance of teachers’ corrective feedback in helping students improve their English competency.

Am I Promoting Feedback Cycle and Sociomaterial Learning?

This study employed practitioner inquiry to determine whether feedback cycle and socio-material learning was promoted through the provision of written corrective feedback (WCF). The context of study was the final draft submitted in an academic writing course for arts and social science students. The practitioner inquiry was shaped by mixed methods, through the quantitative (categorisation) and qualitative (analytical) examination of WCF. The categorisation of WCF was guided by a feedback typology and the extent of learning opportunities. A total of 309 instances of WCF were found across 55 final drafts. Indirect and metalinguistic feedback on Content and Language was frequent. Furthermore, most of the WCF was restricted to the final essay, with minimal expansive opportunities for students to extend their learning beyond this writing course. In the subsequent analysis of the WCF, this study concluded that feedback was provided for the purpose of keeping track of work done. To really promote a feedback cycle or sociomaterial learning, writing instructors should consider improving students’ feedback literacy skills.

A Study of Corrective Feedback in Integrated English Classrooms

The study is designed to explore the main CF types frequently used by teachers in Integrated English classrooms, whether CF types are related to learner error types and whether there is a discrepancy in acceptability of CF types between teachers and students. Based on the analysis, the major findings are obtained as follows: (1) teachers frequently used recast and elicitation in Integrated English classrooms, which occupied 37.1% and 22.3% respectively; (2) CF types were related to learner error types. Teachers in Integrated English Classrooms adopted recast and explicit correction more frequently to deal with phonological errors, elicitation to correct lexical errors, metalinguistic feedback to do with grammatical errors and explicit correction to treat pragmatic errors; (3) there exists discrepancy in acceptability of CF types across different errors between teachers and students in Integrated English classrooms. Teachers accepted elicitation most to deal with lexical, grammatical and pragmatic errors while students accepted explicit correction to correct these errors. The study results bring implications for teachers to make use of CF to improve the pedagogical effects and help students produce more comprehensive output for the language acquisition development.

Usos de la preposición “a”: procesamiento cognitivo en la corrección de errores en aprendientes de ELE

This study examines experimentally processing response time (rt) (Jiang 2012) of two types of written corrective feedback (WCF) in the treatment of errors of preposition a in the values of date, manner, and its use as a direct object marker. The researched types of WCF are Direct, and Indirect Written Metalinguistic Feedback (DWMF and IWMF, respectively) whose rt are analyzed according to its effectiveness and subjects’ variables of proficiency (Levels A2 and B1), and mother tongue (German, French, and English). Main findings include greater rt generated by IWMF, manner, and date. The latter also presents a cognitive load increase in level B1. Additionally, rt also appears to be affected by mother tongue, with the lowest cognitive load in English L1, and the greatest in German and French. This study contributes with evidence that indicates the complexity of WCF processing, particularly for the treatment of preposition a related errors.

The Effect of Oral Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback on Learners’ Knowledge of Pronoun among Iranian EFL Learners

A great number of language learners claims that they are unable to produce the foreign language accurately without any grammatical errors at the end of their language course. In this study, the impact of oral metalinguistic corrective feedback, among various types of corrective feedback, on learners’ pronoun accuracy was considered. The participants were 74 EFL learners (46 females, 28 males) studying English at Safir English language institutes in Tehran. In order to homogenize the learners, Key English Test (KET) test was given to them. 60 learners were selected for the study and 14 learners were removed. Participants were randomly divided into two groups. One group received metalinguistic feedback and the other group received explicit correction feedback. Grammatical judgment test was used as a pretest and posttest. Eight reading passages from “Select Readings” were another instrument that was used for training through jigsaw task in this study. Then t-test was run to check the significance of the mean difference between pretest and post-test of groups. The results show the priority of experimental group (which received oral metalinguistic feedback) on control group (which received explicit feedback).

Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy

This study investigated the intensity and efficacy of automated corrective feedback (CF) in a tutorial CALL (computer-assisted language learning) environment during form-focused drills as compared with those of instructor CF on free writing in the classroom. The English simple past tense, a previously learned target structure, was selected as the target structure. A hundred and fifty-two Chinese intermediate learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) were randomly assigned to six groups and completed three writing tasks: a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest. The six groups included two automated feedback groups (direct correction on an error-correction test and metalinguistic feedback on an error-correction test), two feedback-on-writing groups (direct correction and metalinguistic feedback), a group who completed the error-correction test with no feedback, and a control group who participated in none of the interventions. The results showed that the error-correction test provided the participants with more intensive CF exposure than the writing task. However, the groups that received CF in the writing task were the only groups that performed better than the control in subsequent written production. Post hoc analyses of the production data revealed that the metalinguistic-feedback-on-writing group’s improvement could be attributable to error avoidance.

Negotiation of Form Among the Displaced

This chapter presents a mixed-methods study of error sequences in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom comprised of refugees from multiple countries to answer the question: What does the negotiation of feedback look like among displaced, preliterate learners? Teacher-student dialogue at an international language learning centre was recorded and coded, totalling 12.5 hours of data. A total of 146 error sequences consisted of a learner error, followed by the teacher's feedback and the student's uptake. Results show that when content errors occurred among this population, elicitation, feedback that many scholars suggest is the most effective form, is not as effective as metalinguistic feedback. The reasons for this difference are consequently explored. Findings also indicate that certain types of feedback (metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, clarification request) lead to self-repair better than others (recast, explicit correction).