Abstract

An advantage of the communication-based instruction in an EFL situation is prioritizing fluency and meaning negotiation though of course at the cost of accuracy. Researchers have, therefore, found feedback on the learners’ erroneous utterances quite appealing so that form can be attended to against the wider backdrop of meaning-focused involvement in communication. This present study qualitatively and quantitatively sought to investigate the teachers’ and intermediate learners’ perceptions as well as the teachers’ practices concerning corrective feedback types, sources of feedback, and types of grammatical errors that occur and need to be attended to during the classroom conversations. The study was conducted in two private language institutes in Tabriz, Eastern Azerbaijan Province, Iran. The instructional materials were Top Notch course books. For the purpose of the study, 6 teachers and 60 EFL learners were focused on. First, the classes of 6 teachers were observed. Then, the teachers and learners completed a questionnaire on corrective feedback. The results indicated that learners showed strong agreement toward using explicit feedback. On the contrary, teachers usually neglected the learners’ grammatical errors at the classroom to maintain the flow of interaction. Another important finding about sources of feedback was that teachers and learners preferred teacher correction to peer correction or self-correction. Finally, both teachers and learners expressed strong agreement about feedback on serious grammatical errors during conversation though the former tended to agree more with the feedback on less serious and frequent grammatically erroneous utterances.

Highlights

  • Dealing with the erroneous structures and forms emerging in the learners’ language during language instruction can be of high interest to ESL/EFL practitioners

  • The results indicated that learners showed strong agreement toward using explicit feedback

  • Teachers usually neglected the learners’ grammatical errors at the classroom to maintain the flow of interaction. Another important finding about sources of feedback was that teachers and learners preferred teacher correction to peer correction or selfcorrection. Both teachers and learners expressed strong agreement about feedback on serious grammatical errors during conversation though the former tended to agree more with the feedback on less serious and frequent grammatically erroneous utterances

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Dealing with the erroneous structures and forms emerging in the learners’ language during language instruction can be of high interest to ESL/EFL practitioners. This calls for a special attention to feedback as a pivotal instructional concern. According to Ellis (2006), corrective feedback is a kind of reaction to the learners’ erroneous utterances. The other type of instruction that sounds more plausible is focus-on-form which improves both the learners’ fluency and accuracy. According to Ellis (2003), the concentration on form in wider context of communication is called methodological focus on form. Corrective feedback can be a kind of methodological focus on form that can improve the learners’ accuracy by both positive and negative evidence. The most important taxonomy of corrective feedback has been presented by Lyster and Ranta (1997) that classified corrective feedback into six categories including: explicit correction, recast, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, and clarification request

Objectives
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.