Oral corrective feedback workshop


Published on

Published in: Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Oral corrective feedback workshop

  1. 1. Corrective Feedback for Spoken Errors with Paul Gregory Quinn paul.quinn@utoronto.ca www.paulgquinn.wordpress.com 1
  2. 2. Questionnaire:Individual Completion 2
  3. 3. Questionnaire:Small Group Discussion 3
  4. 4. Questionnaire:Whole Group Discussion 4
  5. 5. A Brief History of SLA Research 5
  6. 6. ♪ All you need iscompre hensible i nput. ♪ ♪ 6
  7. 7. SLA research has shown:• 1) exposure to comprehensible input is not enough to lead to complete acquisition of a language• 2) instruction is a more efficient method of language learning than exposure alone• 3) corrective feedback facilitates grammatical development 7
  8. 8. Corrective Feedback Types Input Provision Output Pushing•Recasting •Prompting•Explicit Correction (Ellis, 2006) 8
  9. 9. Input Providing: Recasting too. Yeah, me ust Ij T hat’s why a me said the s thing. v ery I am ed. b or I am very boring. 9
  10. 10. Input Providing: Explicit Correction Now I am very ou ”, Y m embarrassing, I mean ing “I a or y, t “b sa embarrassed. No to d”. ve bore ha ry ve I am very boring. 10
  11. 11. Output pushing: Prompting Okay, I very I am… boring. I am very Okay , do you bored. want to tr y again? I… I am very boring. 11
  12. 12. Thank You. 12
  13. 13. Related Reading• Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.• 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.• Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.• Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161-9.• Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19(1), 18-41.• Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.• Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. 13
  14. 14. Related Reading Continued• Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.• Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-479.• Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719-758.• Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.) Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141-160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.• Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J.M. Norris and L. Ortega (Eds), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 133– 164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.• Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300. 14