نیاز به تصحیح ایرادهای ساختاری فراگیران زبان درحرفه آموزش امری بدیهی است، اما معلمان اغلب از مقدار ویاحتی چگونگی تصحیح کردن مطمئن نیستند.به رغم اینکه تحقیقات گوناگونی مبنی بر تأثیرگذاری انواع شیوه های گوناگون تصحیح خطاهای دستوری صورت گرفته، عملا پژوهشهای کمی دراین زمینه وجوددارندکه نقش تصحیح خطاهای دستوری را ازطریق عملکرد متوالی فراگیران موردبررسی قرارداده باشند. هدف اصلی این تحقیق این بودکه آیا دو شیوه تصحیح، ضمنی یا رفع اشکال مستقیم، میتواند یادگیری دستور زبان انگلیسی برای فراگیران فارسی زبان در سطح متوسط را افزایش دهد. هدف دیگر تحقیق حاضر این بود که کدامیک از شیوه های تصحیح، ضمنی یا رفع اشکال مستقیم، به پیشرفت دانش دستوری زبان آموزان ایرانی مقطع متوسط کمک می کند. علاوه براین، دوروش رفع اشکال ضمنی، اعلانی وپرسشی، تحت بررسی قرارگرفتند بدین منظور که زبان آموزان ایرانی مقطع متوسط کدامیک از شیوه های رفع اشکال ضمنی را ترجیح می دهند توسط معلم استفاده شود .پنجاه نفر از دانش آموزان پسر زبان انگلسی مقطع متوسط کانون زبان ایران در شعبه یزد در این تحقیق شرکت کردند. آنها به دوگروه رفع اشکال مستقیم و غیرمستقیم تقسیم شدند. قبل ازاینکه فرایند متوالی ارائه بازخورد تصحیحی آغاز شود در ابتدا یک پیش آزمون اجرا شد وسپس در پایان دوره آموزش، یک پس آزمون اجراگردید. روش اجرای آزمون ومحتوای آن برای هردو گروه رفع اشکال مستقیم و غیر مستقیم یکسان بود. تنها تفاوت درانجام تصحیح اشکالات گرامری دانش آموزان درحین آموزش بود. بدین صورت که اشتباهات گروه رفع اشکال مستقیم بصورت آشکارا، اما اشتباهات گروه رفع اشکال ضمنی بطور ضمنی اصلاح شد. نتایج حاصل از این تحقیق نشان داد که اولا هر دو شیوه تصحیح، ضمنی و رفع اشکال مستقیم، به پیشبرد دانش دستوری فراگیران به یک نسبت کمک نموده اند و مقایسه بین عملکرد دستوری دو گروه نشان داد که تفاوت معنی داری بین استفاده از رفع اشکال مستقیم وغیرمستقیم وجودندارد. بررسی درصدهای دوروش رفع اشکال ضمنی، اعلانی وپرسشی، نشان داد که فراگیران رفع اشکال پرسشی را بر اعلانی ترجیح داده اند. یافته های این تحقیق نشان می دهد که استفاده از بازخورد تصحیحی آشکار وضمنی مفیدبوده و فرایند یادگیری قواعد دستوری یک زبان جدیدراآسان تر می کند.
کلمات کلیدی: بازخوردتصحیحی, دانش دستوری, رفع اشکال ضمنی اعلانی, رفع اشکال ضمنی پرسشی, رفع اشکال غیرمستقیم, رفع اشکال مستقیم
Table of Contents
Title Page
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………….…….VI
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………X
List of Figures………………………………………………………………….……X
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………XI
Chapter One: Introduction
Preliminaries……………………………………………………………………….2
Statement of Problem ……………………………………………………………..3
The Significance of the study………………………………………………..…….4
Objectives of the Study……………………………………………..……………..5
Research Questions and Hypotheses…………………..…………………………..5
Definition of the Key Terms…………………….…………………………………6
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Introduction………………………………………………………………………10
Errors and Mistakes….……………………………………………………………11
Types of Errors to Be Corrected………………………………………………12
The Best Time for Error Correction……………………………………….…19
Teacher-, Peer-, or Self-Correction…………………………………….…….23
Corrective Feedback from Different Viewpoints…………………………..…….26
Positive Perspectives on Corrective Feedback………………………….……28
Negative perspectives on Corrective Feedback……………………………….33
Types of Corrective Feedback………………………………………..………….36
Overt Correction……………………………………………………….……..42
Recasts…………………………………………………………………….….49
Declarative and Interrogative Recasts………………………………….58
Advantages and Disadvantages of Recasts……………………………..59
Uptake…………………………..………………………………………………..63
Final Remarks……………………………..……………………………………..65
Chapter Three: Method
Introduction……………………………………………………………..………..69
Setting and Participants………………………………..…………………………69
Instruments………………………………..………………………………………70
Procedures……………………………………..…………………………………71
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………….…73
Design……………………………………………………………………..……..73
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Results
Introduction…………………………………………..…………………………..75
Results…………………………………………..………………………………..75
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, and Conclusion
Introduction……………………………..………………………………………..84
Summary…………………………………………………………………………84
Discussion……………………………………………………………………..…86
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..89
Pedagogical Implications………………………..……………………………….90
Limitations of the Study……………………………..……………………………92
Suggestions for Further Research……………………..…………………………93
References…………………………………………………………………………95
Appendices……………………………………………………………………….118
Appendix A: Test of Grammar…………………………………………………119
Appendix B: Reliability Calculation……………………………………………122
Appendix C: Consent form……………………………………………..………125
List of Tables
Title Page
Table 2.1 Twelve Descriptive Studies of Classroom CF in Ascending Order of CF Moves per Hour…………………………………………………………………….57
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for the Participants’ Homogeneity in the Pre-test..75
Table 4.2 Independent Samples t-test for the Homogeneity of the Recast and Overt Correction Groups………………………………………………………………….76
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for the Overt Correction Group….……………….76
Table 4.4 Paired Samples t-test for the Overt Correction Group……..……………77
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics for the Recast Group…………….………………..78
Table 4.6 Paired Samples t-test for the Recast Group……………..………………78
Table 4.7 Group Statistics for the Recast and Overt Correction Groups……..……79
Table 4.8 Independent Samples t-test for the Overt Correction and Recast Groups79
Table 4.9 Percentages of the Responses……………………………………………81
Table 4.10 Chi-square Test Results……………..…………………………………81
List of Figures
Figure 2.1………………………………………………………………………..…52
Abstract
The need to make corrections is inherent in the teaching profession, but teachers are often unsure as to how much to correct, or even how to go about it. Although a large body of research examined the effectiveness of certain types of error treatment methods, there has been little research done to investigate the efficacy of different types of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ grammar accuracy through eliciting repeated performances. The main objective of the study was to see if two types of corrective feedback, overt correction and recast, could help Iranian EFL learners’ grammar achievement at the intermediate level. The study was also an attempt to see which of these two types of corrective feedback could lead to a better grammar achievement. In addition, two methods of recast, declarative and interrogative, were under investigation to figure out which method of recast Iranian EFL learners at the intermediate level preferred to be used by instructors. Fifty male EFL students studying at the intermediate level at the Iran Language Institute, Yazd branch, Iran, took part in this study. They were divided into two groups who received corrective feedback through overt correction and recast. A pre-test was administered at the beginning before the consecutive process of corrective feedback provision started, and a post-test was given at the end when the process finished. The procedure of test administration and the content was the same for both overt correction and recast groups. The only difference was in the treatment, in which the errors of the overt correction group were corrected overtly, but the errors of the recast group were corrected implicitly. The results of the study indicated that both overt correction and recast as two types of corrective feedback could help Iranian language learners at the intermediate level develop their grammar knowledge over the instruction. Between-groups comparison revealed that there was no significant difference between the overt correction and recast groups with regard to their grammar performance. Additionally, a survey was conducted to explore the participants’ preferable type of recast, declarative or interrogative. A careful consideration of the percentages of declarative and interrogative recast choices showed a significant preference for interrogative recasts by the group receiving recasts in their class. The findings of this study suggested that both overt correction and recast are equally beneficial and might facilitate the process of grammar acquisition by Iranian EFL learners at the intermediate level.
Keywords: Corrective Feedback, Declarative Recasts, Grammar Knowledge, Interrogative Recasts, Overt Correction, Recasts.
Chapter One
Introduction
Preliminaries
Error correction of both oral and written mistakes occupies a prominent place in English Language Teaching (ELT) literature and continues to be a divisive issue. In the past, the consensus was that errors of any kind were bad. While reading aloud in class, students would have every pronunciation mistake corrected on the spot. In written work, all mistakes would be shown, very seriously put in red ink. Offering an answer in class often risked losing face and sometimes being reprimanded for being lazy if the answer was incorrect. More recently, however, in English language classrooms, there has been a shift in attitude to errors. Errors are regarded as indicators that learners are experimenting with a language, or testing out a new language hypothesis, or progressing in general.
Correction is called for in any ELT class since learners consider correction as a source of improvement (Chaudron, 1988, as cited in Celce-Murcia, 2001), but it is the teacher who determines the most proper time for correction, the
best type of it and whether to correct or not. Teachers can exploit the errors that a learner makes to show him the current state of his English and to determine the content of future practice. There are different types of correction (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Brown, 2007): overt/ explicit/ direct (Brown, 2007), implicit/ indirect (Richards & Schmidt, 2002), peer-correction (Paulston & Bruder, 1976), self-correction (Swain, 1985), clarification request, repetition, recast, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation (Brown, 2007). According to Brown (2007, p. 379), “corrective feedback includes responses to learners’ produced utterances which repair or call attention to their errors”.
Although there are different points of view towards error correction and the type of feedback we can give to treat errors, teachers are responsible to provide learners with feedback on even the most persistent of errors, but if they do not, fossilization becomes inevitable.
It is also known that the acquisition of grammar is a gradual process. What teachers teach and what students learn are not always directly linked. So, we cannot put our expectations too high about the complete disappearance of learners’ errors soon after receiving our feedback.
The current study focuses on two correction methods: overt correction (explicit correction) and recasts (reformulation). In addition, two types of recasts (i.e. declarative and interrogative) will be examined. Declarative recasts are the ones based on which the recast is provided with falling intonation as a declarative statement, and interrogative recasts is a recast provided with rising intonation as a question.
Statement of Problem
There is disagreement among second and foreign language researchers over the extent and the type of feedback that maybe useful in second language acquisition. It has long been assumed by foreign language teachers and by researchers working in the area of corrective feedback that corrective feedback provision by teachers helps students to acquire correct linguistic forms and structures. As a result, they are concerned with discovering the most effective ways of providing corrective feedback so that students improve their grammar knowledge. Therefore, a lack of total agreement on the type of feedback given to students by teachers can be observed in English language classes. Additionally, language learners usually have different viewpoints on the type of feedback they receive from their teachers. While some students prefer to be corrected directly by their teachers, others are more comfortable with indirect corrections done by teachers. That is why language instructors sometimes face the dilemma of how to correct their students’ language problems.
Although a great body of research has been done on corrective feedback (Russell, 2009; Sauro, 2009; Büyükbay & Dabaghi, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Abadikhah & Ashoori, 2012; Lyster & Ranta, 2013; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013 ) and its role on learning a new language, only a few studies have attempted to directly investigate whether learners who receive overt correction on their errors are able to improve their grammar performance compared with those who receive recasts (Dabaghi, 2006; Shirazi & Sadighi, 2012).
فرم در حال بارگذاری ...
