Corrective feedback preferences of primary school and university students

Revista Arbitrada Interdisciplinaria Koinonía

View Publication Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Corrective feedback preferences of primary school and university students
Preferencias de retroalimentación correctiva de estudiantes de primaria y universidad
 
Creator Cubukcu, Feryal
Aksak, Kubra
 
Subject Education Sciences
Elicitation; recasts; corrective feedback.
Ciencias de la Educación
Obtención; refundiciones; retroalimentación correctiva.
 
Description Corrective feedback has attracted more and more attention as it has an important place in language teaching and learning process (Kim, 2004). In this respect, Sheen and Ellis (2011) define corrective feedback as “the feedback that learners receive on the linguistic errors they make in their oral or written production in a second language (L2)” (p. 593). The main aim of this study is to investigate the most and the least corrective feedback types preferred by primary school and university students. The participants of the study determined by the convenience sampling method comprise 50 primary school and 50 university students. Students are required to mark the feedback types they prefer when they make errors. The results indicate that recasts and asking direct questions are the most favored feedback types chosen by students despite the proficiency level gap.
La retroalimentación correctiva ha atraído cada vez más atención, ya que ocupa un lugar importante en el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje de idiomas (Kim, 2004). A este respecto, Sheen y Ellis (2011) definen la retroalimentación correctiva como "la retroalimentación que los alumnos reciben sobre los errores lingüísticos que hacen en su producción oral o escrita en un segundo idioma (L2)" (p. 593). El objetivo principal de este estudio es investigar los tipos de retroalimentación correctiva más y menos preferidos por los estudiantes de primaria y universitarios. Los participantes del estudio determinados por el método de muestreo de conveniencia que comprenden 50 alumnos de primaria y 50 universitarios. Los estudiantes deben marcar los tipos de comentarios que prefieren cuando cometen errores. Los resultados indican que los cambios y las preguntas directas son los tipos de comentarios más favorecidos elegidos por los estudiantes a pesar de la brecha en el nivel de competencia.
 
Publisher Fundación Koinonía
 
Contributor

 
Date 2020-03-01
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Artículo evaluado por pares
 
Format text/html
application/pdf
 
Identifier http://fundacionkoinonia.com.ve/ojs/index.php/revistakoinonia/article/view/668
10.35381/r.k.v5i9.668
 
Source Revista Arbitrada Interdisciplinaria Koinonía; Vol. 5, Núm. 9 (5): Enero - Junio. 2020; 489-507
Revista Arbitrada Interdisciplinaria Koinonía; Vol. 5, Núm. 9 (5): Enero - Junio. 2020; 489-507
2542-3088
2542-3088
10.35381/r.k.v5i9
 
Language spa
 
Relation http://fundacionkoinonia.com.ve/ojs/index.php/revistakoinonia/article/view/668/html
http://fundacionkoinonia.com.ve/ojs/index.php/revistakoinonia/article/view/668/pdf
/*ref*/Amiri, M. (2016). Types of errors and corrective feedback used among Iranian EFL learners of elementary and advanced levels: a comparative study. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 2(4), 1523-1547.
/*ref*/Astia, M. (2018) Corrective feedback in English class. Indonesian Journal of Language Teaching and Linguistics, 3(3), 111-122.
/*ref*/Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (3), 357-386.
/*ref*/Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3- 18.
/*ref*/Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
/*ref*/Fu, T. & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, (6)1, 159–181.
/*ref*/Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell.
/*ref*/Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
/*ref*/Golshan, M. (2013). Corrective feedback during communicate tasks: Do recasts, clarification requests and explicit correction affect EFL learners’ second language acquisition equally? European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 559-572.
/*ref*/Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 (1), 1-36.
/*ref*/Khani, P. M. & Janfeshan, K. (2017). The role of feedback:Metalinguistic and elicitation on pronunciation achievement of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 35(1), 38-50.
/*ref*/Kim, J. H. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1–24.
/*ref*/Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
/*ref*/Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37-63.
/*ref*/Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(04), 429 - 448.
/*ref*/Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.Ritchie & B. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
/*ref*/Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.
/*ref*/Lyster, R. (1998). Recast, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
/*ref*/Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
/*ref*/Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 338–356.
/*ref*/Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 573-595.
/*ref*/Rassaei, E. & Moinzadeh, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of three types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of English wh-question forms by Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 97-107.
/*ref*/Sanz, C. & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54 (1), 35-78.
/*ref*/Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching& Curriculum Center.
/*ref*/Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
/*ref*/Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593-610). New York, NY: Routledge.
/*ref*/Schwartz B. (1993). On explicit and implicit data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147-163.
/*ref*/Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass and C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
/*ref*/Tamayo, M. R., & Cajas, D. (2017). Strategies of metalinguistic and recast feedback during oral interactions. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(2), 165-176.
/*ref*/Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17 (1), 78-93.
 
Rights Copyright (c) 2020 Feryal Cubukcu, Kubra Aksak
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
 

Contact Us

The PKP Index is an initiative of the Public Knowledge Project.

For PKP Publishing Services please use the PKP|PS contact form.

For support with PKP software we encourage users to consult our wiki for documentation and search our support forums.

For any other correspondence feel free to contact us using the PKP contact form.

Find Us

Twitter

Copyright © 2015-2018 Simon Fraser University Library