Student’s Preferences of Corrective Feedback: A Case Study

Akhmad Hairul Umam

Abstract


Students who learn second language or a foreign language will do a lot of errors during the learning process. In this case, instructors (teachers) have responsibility to repair the errors in order to prevent them doing the same errors at another occasion and make them closer to acquiring the target language. This research study examines the learners’ preferences of corrective feedback as well as to investigate the reasons of corrective feedback’s choices made by learners toward their language learning. The researcher modifies the scenario-based questionnaire which was constructed based on Lyster and Ratna’s (1997) typology of corrective feedback (CF) for the purpose of collecting data from learners’ preferences of corrective feedback types. The participants participated in this study are 30 learners of university students selected through purposive sampling. The results of the study indicated that language learners preferred direct CF more than indirect CF with the percentage Recast 27%, Explicit Correction 23%, Clarification Request 13%, Metalinguistic 10%, and Repetition 7%. This study has implications for teachers, learners, and material developers to pay attention in providing appropriate technique which is well accepted by EFL learners.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brown, H. Douglas. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman.

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386.

Carpenter, H., Jeon, K., Mac Gregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Recasts and repetitions: Learners’ interpretations of native speaker responses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 209-236.

Chaudron, Craig. (1988). Second Language Classrooms. Research on Teachin and Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Diab, R. L. (2006). Error correction and feedback in the EFL writing classroom:Comparing instructor and student preferences. English Teaching Forum, 44(3), 2-13.

Ellis, Rod. (2003). Second Language Acquisition. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.

TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.

Han, Z. H. (2002). Rethinking of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 33(1), 1-34.

Katayama, Akemi. (2007). Japanese EFL Students’ Preferences toward Correction of Classroom Oral Errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), Conference Proceedings, 298-305.

Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language (pp. 111-137). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Development, 60(2), 309-365.

Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedbackin SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.

Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.

Lyster, Roy & Ranta, Leila. (1997) Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classroom. SSLA, 20, 37-66. USA: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error type and learner repair I immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.

Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237-253.

Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453-498.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 321-341.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37, 66.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.

Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 109-148.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESLclassroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.

Rahimi, Afsaneh & Dastjerdi, HosseinVahid. (2012). Impact of Immediate and Delayed Error Correction on EFL Learners’ Oral Production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (1),45-54. Retrieved on October 24, 2012




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30870/aiselt.v3i3.11111

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
PROCEEDING AISELT (Annual International Seminar on English Language Teaching) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyright @ Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa [Untirta]. All rights reserved.

View My Stats