İngilizcenin Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğretildiği Sınıflarda Sözlü Düzeltici Dönütlerin Kullanımının Araştırılması: Bir Devlet Üniversitesinde Durum Çalışması

Year 2018, Volume: 26 Issue: 6, 2177 - 2187, 15.11.2018

Özlem Fakazlı

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2971

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu sınıf araştırması, ana dili İngilizce olmayan bir İngilizce
öğretmeninin İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilere nasıl düzeltici
dönüt sunduğunu araştırmaktadır. Daha detaylı bir şekilde, bu çalışma öğrencilerin
yaptığı dil hatalarını ortaya çıkarmayı, öğretmenlerin bu hatalara hangi tür
düzeltici dönüt verdiğini ve öğrencilerin bu dönütleri kavrama düzeylerini
ortaya çıkarmayı hedeflemiştir. Veri, ses kaydı kullanılarak toplanmış; bu veri
öğrencilerin hata türlerini, öğretmenin verdiği düzeltici dönüt türlerini ve
öğrencilerin kavrama oranlarını bulmak için detaylı bir şekilde analiz
edilmiştir. Sonuçlar; dil bilgisi hatalarının en çok yapılan, sözcüksel
hataların en az yapılan hata türü olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca, çalışma direkt
düzeltmenin en çok kullanılan düzeltici dönüt türü olduğunu, açıklama isteği
türünün de en az tercih edilen dönüt türü olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Verilen
tüm düzeltici dönütlerin de öğrenciler tarafından yüzde yüz oranla kavrandığı
ve dönütlerden sonra öğrencilerin hatalarını başarılı bir şekilde düzelttikleri
görülmüştür.

Keywords

Hata düzeltme, sınıf araştırması, sözlü düzeltici dönüt

Exploring the Use of Oral Corrective Feedback in Turkish EFL Classrooms: A Case Study at a State University

Abstract

This classroom-based research investigated how a
non-native teacher of English provided corrective feedback to Turkish EFL
learners. More specifically, the study aimed to identify language errors
produced by the students, corrective feedback types employed by the teacher, and
students’ uptake rate following the provided feedback. The data were collected
through audio-recording, transcribed, and analyzed in detail for the type of
learner errors, type of teacher feedback, and rate of learner uptake. The results
revealed that grammatical errors were found to be the most produced error type,
and lexical errors were found to be least produced error type. The study also
indicated that recast was the most frequently preferred, and clarification
request was the least frequently preferred corrective feedback type by the
teacher. It was also found that all feedback types led to successful correction
of erroneous utterances of the students with 100% learner uptake rate. 

Keywords

Error correction, classroom-based research, oral correc-tive feedback

References

• Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh,S. (2011). Exploring the teachers’ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859- 1868.
• Ajideh, P., & FareedAghdam, E. (2012). English language teachers’ corrective feedback types in relation to the learners’ profi-ciency levels and their error types. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 2(8) & 2(9), 37-51.
• Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. (1991). Focus on the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brown, D. B. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson.
• Büyükbay, S. (2007). The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback type. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Bilkent University, Ankara.
• Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic gener-alizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
• Celce- Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. New York : Newburry House.
• Choi, S., & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), 331-351.
• Chu, R. (2011). Effects of teacher’s corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English-majors college students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), 454-459.
• Coskun, A.(2010). A classroom research study on oral error correction. Humanizing Language Teaching Magazine, 12(3).
• Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
• Doughty, C. (1994). Finetuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J. Alatis (Eds.), Strategic interac-tion and language acquisition: Theory, practice, and research. GURT 1993 (pp. 96-108). Washington: Georgetown Univer-sity Press.
• Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
• Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Iwashita,N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1-36. Fotos, S.S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2), 323-351.
• Klimova, B. (2015). The role of feedback in EFL classes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 172 – 177.
• Krashen, S. (1981a). Second language acquisition and language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford :Pergamon Press.
• Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A teacher’s choices. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 31-49.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principals in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lee, E.J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230.
• Lightbown, P. M, & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
• Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271-283.
• Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of Form, Recasts, and Explicit Correction in Relation to Error Types and Learner Repair in Im-mersion Classrooms. Language Learning, 51 (1), 265–301.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
• Mackey, A., & Philip, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.
• Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (4), 519-533.
• Öztürk, G. (2016). An investigation on the use of oral corrective feedback in Turkish EFL classrooms. Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), 22-37.
• Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 80-102.
• Schmidt, R (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
• Suzuki,M. (2005). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-21.
• Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English arti-cles. In A. Mackey (Eds.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisiton: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp.301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. The Modern Language Journal, 61(7), 325-337.
• White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the class-room. L2 Research, 7, 133-161.
• Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses: A taxonomy and its relevance to foreign language curriculum develop-ment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Yin, R.K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
• Yoshida, R. (2010). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93.