EFL teachers’ corrective feedback and its effect on learners’ error repair in speaking

Contenido principal del artículo

Mónica Raquel Tamayo Maggi
Diego Christian Cajas Quishpe

Resumen

Este estudio exploratorio se realizó en un curso de Inglés como Lengua Extranjera (EFL) en una Institución de Educación Superior en Ecuador. El objetivo fue investigar si la retroalimentación correctiva (CF) puede mejorar la precisión gramatical en las interacciones orales de los estudiantes y qué tipo de CF es más efectiva para producir enunciados correctamente construidos. El estudio de 18 semanas involucró a veintiocho participantes distribuidos en dos clases. Cada clase recibió un CF específico; así, el grupo 1 metalingüístico y el grupo 2 reformulación. Los resultados de una serie de pruebas consecutivas (9) revelaron que la provisión de los dos tipos de CF condujo a corregir significativamente los enunciados producidos por los estudiantes en estructuras lingüísticas específicas. El notable desempeño del grupo de estudiantes con los que se practicó el CF metalingüístico indicó la efectividad de éste sobre el CF de reformulación. Los hallazgos de este estudio sugieren que los profesores de idiomas deben utilizar más la retroalimentación metalingüística para el tratamiento de los errores de los estudiantes de EFL cuando se interactúa oralmente.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Detalles del artículo

Cómo citar
Tamayo MaggiM. R., & Cajas QuishpeD. C. (2017). EFL teachers’ corrective feedback and its effect on learners’ error repair in speaking. AXIOMA, (16), 96-104. Recuperado a partir de https://axioma.pucesi.edu.ec/index.php/axioma/article/view/487
Sección
INVESTIGACIÓN

Citas

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