Teaching Experience and Views of Pronunciation Formative Assessment

Hassan Qutub

doi:10.5296/ijl.v13i5.19144

Abstract

The current study aimed at investigating the differences between novice and expert Arab EFL teachers in their views of providing pronunciation corrective feedback to their students. Four teachers were recruited for the study. Two novice teachers and two experienced teachers. Both groups of teachers were interviewed about their views of providing pronunciation corrective feedback. Interview data analysis revealed the existence of six major differences between novice and experienced teachers in their views of pronunciation corrective feedback. These differences included timing, frequency, considering students’ proficiency level, considering the skill being taught, focus on form and/or meaning, and the range of pronunciation corrective feedback techniques used. Further suggestions included incorporating a pronunciation corrective feedback component in teacher development as well as professional training programs.

Highlights

Language learning is viewed as an interactive process in which teachers assist learners to maximize learning outcomes (Gass & Mackey, 2007)
Interview data analysis revealed the existence of six major differences between novice and experienced teachers in their views of pronunciation corrective feedback
It is evident that corrective feedback represents a useful tool that is used to modify both teaching and learning; corrective feedback has attracted the focus of many methodologists as well as second language acquisition (SLA) researchers (e.g., Ellis, 2009; Li, 2010; Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Lyster, 1998; Sheen, 2004)

Summary

Introduction

Language learning is viewed as an interactive process in which teachers assist learners to maximize learning outcomes (Gass & Mackey, 2007). Formative assessment is defined by Black and Wiliam (1998) “as encompassing all those activities undertaken by teachers, and/or by their students, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning www.macrothink.org/ijl 160. CGI was examined in a research project by Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, and Loef (1989) in which they concluded that students who were taught by CGI teachers, achieved remarkably better results compared to other students This was followed by a growing interest in the literature to investigate the effectiveness of formative assessment on students’ achievement. Wiliam (2011) notes that even summative evaluation procedures can be used formatively, and he provides an example of a teacher who did not score one of the tests that she gave to her students Instead, she divided them into groups and asked them to work together in order to arrive at the best possible answers. In trying to clear the ambiguity of the distinction between formative and summative evaluation, Wiliam and Black (1996) claim that it is meaningful to view the distinction in terms of the way that assessment data is used, and not the way in which the assessment is conducted

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion