Transcript Oral Corrective Feedback during ELL Academic Conversations

Oral Corrective Feedback
during ELL Academic
Conversations
Anne Niemi
MATSOL Conference
May 8, 2014
Oral Corrective Feedback
• When non-native English speakers make a marked
statement, what feedback should they receive in an
educational setting?
• Do we ask them to repeat? Tell them what type of mistake
they made? Correct it for them?
• At what age is feedback best absorbed and applied?
• What type of feedback is most advantageous for language
teachers to integrate?
• 30 years of research
• diverse populations of participants
• diverse languages
First: Recognizing the
Dissonance
• In order to be meaningful, ELLs must notice the
difference between their original utterance and that of
the recast (Lyster & Saito, 2010)
Student : I has finish the homework
Teacher: I have finished the homework
•
If unnoticed, no healthy degree of “stress” “tension” “clash”
• Just noticing the dissonance is not enough
• “Noticing triggers only the first two levels of awareness…of the formal properties of
target forms, but not the second level…awareness…of developing an explicit
representation of the target form,” (Lyster & Saito, 2010)
Reasonable Feedback Complexity
• Feedback needs to be of
• manageable length
• contain a “reasonable” dissonance
I has finish my homework yet
A response that highlights 3 differences of the marked speech would
be difficult for learners to digest; thus, these longer recasts yield
lower scores on post-tests that ask learners to recall the correct
forms (Loewen & Philp)
Types of Speaking Errors
Grammar
Lexical
Phonological
•metalinguistic issues
•He buy a lot of food
•I put it on table
•incorrect word for
intended context
•sound of phonemes
We have homework?
Do We have
homework?
I am very scary
I am very scared
dat vs. that
he’s vs. his
In immersion classrooms, study showed “learners repaired 62%
of their phonological errors, 41% of their lexical errors, and only
22% of their grammatical errors” (Lyster, 1998)
Positive Feedback
Negative (Corrective)
Feedback
In Writing:
Explicit correction
Frontloading
Recast
Pre-teaching
Elicitation
Oral Positive Feedback:
Clarification request
Emphasis/stress
Repetition
Body language
Metalinguistic Cue
(Lyster, 1998)
• Explicit Correction
• Recast
• Elicitation
“Since you said ‘I’ you need to change ‘has’ to ‘have’”
“I have finished the homework”
“Have you finished the homework already or do you have to finish the
homework?”
• Clarification Request
“I’m confused, did you finish the homework in the past?”
• Repetition
“I has finished the homework?”
• Metalinguistic Cue
“Try it in present perfect tense with the correct participle”
Corrective Feedback
Which of the 6 types is most advantageous in terms of promoting
long-term, habitual, native-like speech?
Prompts (highlight the Error) Recasts (give the correct answer
Elicitation
Metalinguistic Cues
Clarification request
Repetition
ELLs are forced to negotiate more of
their own language use because teachers
are not giving the answer
“withholding phenomenon” (McHoul,
1990)
Explicit correction
Better because ELL receives both
negative and positive feedback from the
teacher’s modeling of correct forms
Arguments for Prompts
“Prompts aim to improve control over already-internalized
forms by providing opportunities for ‘pushed’ output…to
move interlanguage development forward…learners
benefit more from being pushed to retrieve target
language forms than from merely hearing the forms in the
input,” (Lyster & Saito, 2010; Swain, 1985)
“learners remember information better when they take an
active part in producing it, rather than having it provided
by an external source,” (Lyster & Saito, 2010; Clark,
1995).”
Recasts---may be better for beginners?
What’s missing in the research?
• How do form focused and meaning focused corrective
feedback prompts impact academic writing?
• studies use immediate and delayed post-tests
• error recognition and correction
• better results in delayed post-tests
DeKeyser: Skill Acquisition Theory
“entails a gradual transition from effortful use to more
automotive use of target language forms, brought about
through practice and feedback in meaningful contexts,”
(Lyster & Saito, 2010; DeKeyser, 2003, 2007)
Non-Verbal Corrective
Feedback in the ESL Classroom
• “Thick skin” mentality
• make goals of corrective feedback transparent
• praise ability to form new habits
• everyone will be prompted
• Metalinguistic Cues: Why not make them non-verbal?
1) Pointing to signs in the classroom during academic
conversations
2) Adding and removing signs to highlight forms that should be
used during different genres of conversations
Non-Verbal Corrective
Feedback in the ESL Classroom
When self-correcting begins to occur…
• Clarification request: hand motion
Do/Does
Have/Has + PERFECT
Who
What
+S/+ES
Where
When
Why
How
Is there/ Are there
Content Prompt: “How has Socrates’ ideas about
justice impacted the U.S. government today?”
Metalinguistic Cue Sign: Have/Has + PERFECT
Language Expectations: Students will use the
present perfect tense to make oral arguments about
events that occurred in the past but have a current
presence
Follow up writing activity: A written argument
paragraph
Content Prompt: Whole group KWL Chart on
Genes & DNA
Metalinguistic Cue Signs:
Do/Does
Who What, Where, When, Why, How
Language Expectations: Students will form
questions orally in the present tense
Follow up writing activity: Writing questions for
the author of a non-fiction text on sticky notes as
they read
Content Prompt: Predicting what will happen in a
short story
Metalinguistic Cue Signs:
Subordinate conjunctions
; __________ ,
Language Expectations: Students will use
subordinate conjunctions to imply causes and
effects in the plot of a fiction text
Follow up writing activity: Writing an essay about 3
examples of forshadowing from short story
Non-Verbal Corrective Feedback in the
SEI Classroom
• While students are obtaining content knowledge
and vocabulary, there is a continued stress on
metalinguistic forms and accuracy throughout
their school day in all of their classrooms.
Anne Niemi
• [email protected]
• Thank you!
References
Clark, S. (1995). The generation effect and the modeling of associations in memory.
Memory & Cognition vol. 23, 442–455.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In M. Long & C. Doughty
(Eds.), Handbook
of second language acquisition, 313–348. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied
linguistics
and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R, Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback
and the
acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 28, 339–
368.
Hu, G. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and
contributing
factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development vol. 24, 290–318.
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the Adult English L2 Classroom:
Characteristics,
McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk.
Language in Society vol. 19,
349–377.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in
classroom and pair work.
Language Learning vol. 50, 119–151.
Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback
in child ESL classrooms.
Modern Language Journal vol. 87, 519–533.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of
comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition, 235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA.
Studies in Second Language