Retroalimentación correctiva del docente de inglés como idioma extranjero y su efectoen la reparación de errores del estudiante en interacciones orales

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español (España))
Published: Oct 5, 2017
Keywords:
corrective feedback, metalinguistic, recast, students` errors, oral interactions

Main Article Content

Mónica Raquel Tamayo Maggi
Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Sangolquí-Ecuador.
Diego Christian Cajas Quishpe
Universidad Nacional de Educación UNAE, Azogues-Ecuador.

Abstract

This exploratory study was carried out in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom at a Higher Education Institution in Ecuador. The objective was to investigate whether corrective feedback (CF) can improve grammatical accuracy in students' oral interactions and what type of CF is most effective in producing correctly constructed statements. The 18-week study involved twenty-eight participants in two classes. Each class received a specific CF, thus, the group 1 metalinguistic and the group 2 reformulation. The results of a series of consecutive tests (9) revealed that the provision of the two types of CF led to a significant correction of statements produced by students in specific linguistic structures. The remarkable performance of the group of students with whom the metalinguistic CF was practiced indicated the effectiveness of this one on the CF of reformulation. The findings of this study suggest that language teachers should use more metalinguistic feedback for the treatment of EFL students' errors when interacting orally.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Tamayo MaggiM. R., & Cajas QuishpeD. C. (2017). Retroalimentación correctiva del docente de inglés como idioma extranjero y su efectoen la reparación de errores del estudiante en interacciones orales. AXIOMA, (16), 96-104. Retrieved from https://axioma.pucesi.edu.ec/index.php/axioma/article/view/487
Issue
No. 16 (2017): Magazine of teaching, research and social projection of the PUCE-SI
Section
INVESTIGACIÓN

Con la finalidad de contar con un tipo de licencia más abierta en el espectro que ofrece Creative Commons, a partir de diciembre de 2022 desde el número 27, AXIOMA asume la Licencia Creative Commons 4.0 de Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Tanto el sitio web como los artículos en sus diferentes formatos, reflejan esta información.

Hasta el mes de noviembre de 2022 con el número 26, la revista AXIOMA asumió una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Los artículos contenidos en cada número hasta el 26, cuentan con esta licencia y su descripción se conserva en el portal de nuestra revista.

 

Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas
CC BY-NC-ND

Ver el Resumen de la licencia | Ver el Código legal

Al respecto explicamos que los artículos científicos  presentados al Comité Editorial de la Revista Científica “Axioma” deben ser inéditos y originales; sin haber sido publicados o sometidos a revisión en otras revistas o publicaciones técnico-científicas en cualquier idioma. El Comité Editorial se reserva el derecho de rechazar o aceptar los materiales enviados para su publicación.
 
La presentación de los artículos científicos a la Revista “Axioma” conlleva:
 
- Que han sido aprobados por las autoridades responsables de la institución donde se efectuó la investigación y por todos los coautores (si los hay).
 
- Cuando el artículo científico es aceptado para su publicación, la revista “Axioma”, asume los derechos para editar y publicar en índices nacionales e internacionales o bases de datos con fines académicos y científicos, no comerciales, respetando los derechos de autoría.

 

AXIOMA- Revista Científica de Investigación, Docencia y Proyección Social

References

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Lan-guage Writing, 17(2), 69-124.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Evan, N., Hartshorn, J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university matriculated ESL learners. System, 39, 229-239.
Ferreira, A., Moore, J. & Mellish, C. (2007). A Study of Feedback Strategies in Foreign Language Classroom and Tutorials with Implications for Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning Systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, (17) 389- 422.
Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime ...?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (edit), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. (224-255). MA: Blackewell Publishing Ltd.
Gass, S. &. Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. An introductory Course. Third Edition. New York: Routledge.
Lewis, M. (2002). Giving Feedback in Language Classes. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Langua-ge Center.
Long, M. (1990).The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOLQuar-terly, 24(4), 649-666.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams(Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University.Naeini J. (2008). Error Correction: an indication of consciousness-raising. Novitas Royal, 2(2), 120-140.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51 – 81
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), pp. 1–40. doi: 10.1017/S0261444812000365.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010b). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Se-cond Language Acquisition, 32(2) 265-302. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990520
Naeini J. 2008. Error Correction: an indication of consciousness-raising. Novitas Royal, 2(2), 120-140.
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL clas-sroom. TESOL Quarterly, (36), 573-595.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge University Press.
Singh, K. (2007). Quantitative social research methods New Delhi: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9789351507741
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidl-hofer (eds). Principles and practice in the study of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soori, A., Janfaza, A., & Zamani, A. (2012). The impact of teacher feedback on grammar and content of the performance of the EFL students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 32(1), 84-96.
Tabatabaei, O. 2011. Feedback Strategies in Foreign Language Reading Classes. Asian Culture and History, 3(5), 59-70.
Vahdani Sanavi, R. & Nemati, M. (2014). ‘The Effect of Six Different Corrective Feedback Strate-gies of Iranian English Language Learners ́ IELTS Writing Task 2’. SAGE Open..Recupe-rado de http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/2158244014538271
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235-263. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519