Feedback m.cheraghi

Feedback In SLA
M.Cheraghi Shehni

Feedback In SLA
Overview
Interface
Theoretical Rationale for Error Correction
The notion of feedback
Feedback and language acquisition
Issues of corrective feedback in SLA
Types of feedback
Corrective feedback and uptake
Conclusion

Feedback In SLA
 Interface
According to Gass (1997), language learners have access to two types of input:
- positive evidence
- negative evidence (negative feedback and corrective feedback)
Positive evidence, informs the learner of what is acceptable in the target
language and contains “the set of well-formed sentences to which learners
are exposed” .

Feedback In SLA
 Interface
Negative evidence, provides the learner with information about the
incorrectness of an L2 form or utterance and is often realized through the
provision of corrective feedback in response to the learner’s non target like L2
production.

Feedback In SLA
Think about it
 Interface
A big question mark on the top of TEFL practitioners’
head is:
To provide learners with only positive evidence
or
To expose them to negative evidence

Feedback In SLA  Interface
Some schools of thought like :
Behaviorism
Considered errors as taboos in their discourse and
believed that they should be immediately corrected by
the teacher.
(Brown, 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards &Rodgers, 2001)
Nativistism and rationalism
To provide learner with only positive evidence.
Gass, (2003)

Feedback In SLA
 Interface
Interactionism:
To devote a critical role to negative evidence .
Gass, (2003)
CLT advocators:
Created a balance between what Audio linguists and
Cognitivists do and suggested that an error must be
viewed as evidence of learners‘ linguistic development,
not as a sin to be avoided.

Feedback In SLA
 Theoretical Rationale for Error
Correction
Krashen Input Hypothesis(1982, 1985):
He affirms any knowledge consciously learned through
explicit instruction cannot have a significant impact on
L2 acquisition.
(1982, 1985; as cited in Kim, 2004)
He repudiates any discernable effects of corrective
feedback in SLA.

Feedback In SLA
Correction
Swain’s (1985, 1995) Output Hypothesis:
Output opportunities in L2 development, can help
learners to make and test hypotheses about linguistic
correctness and to develop metalinguistic knowledge of
how the L2 works.
(Kowail & Swain, 1994; as cited in Kim, 2004)

Feedback In SLA
Correction
Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 1995, 2001):
Ascertain the benefits of corrective feedback regarding
the facilitative role it has in drawing learners’ attention to
form.
Corrective feedback ( CF),acts as stimulus, triggering
learners to identify the gap between their erroneous
utterance and the target form.

Feedback In SLA
Correction
The updated interaction hypothesis Long (1996):
Corrective feedback provides direct and indirect
information about the grammaticality of the utterances
as well as additional positive evidence which may
otherwise be absent in the input.

Feedback In SLA
 The notion of feedback
The notion of feedback has for some time been used in relation to linguistic
communication, in a general.
The reason is:
FB focuses attention on the systematic organizational role of unnoticed
linguistic mechanisms and constituents like the little words "mm","yeah" and
"eh".
Bateson (1972)

Feedback In SLA  Feedback and language acquisition
In relation to acquisition we have following themes:
The relative weight of NFB:
Study of feedback phenomena is relatively novel both in
linguistics in general, and in relation to language
acquisition.
Complexity:
based on "simple comes before complex", NFB can be
used to claim, which is easy to remember or easy to
pronounce comes before NFB which does not have
these qualities.

SL and TL influence:
Is to get reliable and relatively complete descriptions of
the NFB systems in SL and TL and relates to variation
of spoken languages in Both.
Structural categories:
A taxonomy of structural categories, which contains
such categories as simple primary FB morphemes, e.g.,
"yes", "no" and "mm", or in combination: reduplications,
repetitions, etc.

Functions:
The development of more complex types of FB will
partly be determined by the interaction of the acquisition
of the TL FB system with the acquisition of other parts
of the TL system.
For example:
The acquisition of modals like certainly is probably
jointly determined by their use for FB purposes and by
their use as modal adverbials.

Activity and interaction:
A number of possible questions concern the
relationship between type of activity, type of interaction
and NFB.
Lyster and Ranta (1997)

Feedback In SLA
 Issues of corrective feedback in SLA
Issue 1: Learners’ Noticing of Corrective Feedback
- Corrective Feedback as a Trigger for Learners’ Noticing of Gaps
- Learners’ Noticing and the Extent of Explicitness of Corrective Feedback
- Direct Measure of Learners’ Noticing of Corrective Feedback
Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1990, 1995, 2001)

Feedback In SLA
Issue 2: Mismatches between Teachers’ Intentions and Learners’
Interpretation
- Learners’ Internal Systems
- Fine-tuning Corrective Feedback
( Han, 2001; Roberts, 1995; Zamel; 1985)

Feedback In SLA
Issue 3: Roles of Different Type of Implicit Corrective Feedback: Self-
generated Repairs vs. Recasts
- Types of L2 Acquisition
- Learners’ Immediate Incorporation of Feedback

Feedback In SLA
 Corrective feedback and SLA
A Review of Major Studies
Early studies on this issue on its
application and efficacy.
(Brock et al., 1986; as cited in Kim, 2004; Chaudron, 1977,
1986; Chun, Day,Chenoweth, & Luppescu, 1982)
Recent studies yield positive evidences for its usability
and effectiveness.
(Carroll, Roberge, & Swain, 1992; Carroll & Swain, 1993; Ellis, Basturkmen,
& Loewen, 2001; Long et al., 1998; Oliver, 1995, 2000).

Feedback In SLA
 Corrective feedback and SLA
A Review of Major Studies, in case of
Early studies:
Efficacy of corrective feedback has been only assessed
in terms of the learners’ immediate responses to the
feedback.
( Briadi, 2002; Ellis et al., 2001; Morris, 2002; Oliver, 1995, 2000)

Feedback In SLA
 Types of Corrective Feedback
Definition :
The term “treatment of error” may simply refer to “any
teacher behavior following an error that minimally
attempts to inform the learner of the fact of error”.
Chaudron (1988)
Any response to learner utterances containing error
which is intended to correct the learner's erroneous
utterance.
Ellis (2006)

Feedback In SLA
Definition :
An utterance in a learner’s language is deviant and that a
change or a correction is needed to make it more target-
like.
Profozic (2013)

Feedback In SLA
Corrective feedback has two modes:
Explicit:
Explicit feedback overtly identifies the error and provides
a metalanguage explanation.
Lyster & Ranta, (1997)
Note: Metalanguage is language that describes language, and metalanguage corrective
feedback is an example of what is unacceptable in the target language referred to as
negative evidence
(Sheen &Ellis, 2006)

Feedback In SLA
Corrective feedback has two modes:
Implicit:
Implicit feedback does not overtly identify the error, rather
it implicitly suggests an error has been committed.
Lyster, Saito & Sato, (2013)

Feedback In SLA
Feedback can occur in two main ways:
1- Oral :
- Evaluative feedback
- Corrective feedback
- Descriptive feedback
- Interactional feedback
- Motivational feedback.
Tunstall & Gipss (1996), Lyster & Ranta (1997), Cullen (2002), and Mackiewicz & Thompson (2013)

Feedback In SLA
Feedback can occur in two main ways:
2- Written:
- Meaning-focused feedback
- Positive feedback
- Form-focused feedback

Feedback In SLA
Most influential classification of CF types for the L2 :
1- Explicit correction
2 – Recasts (Implicitly)
3 - Prompts (previously “Negotiation of Form”) :
- Clarification Requests
- Metalinguistic feedback
- Elicitation
- Repetition (Implicitly)
Lyster & Ranta (1997,2002)

Feedback In SLA
1- Explicit correction
The teacher supplies the correct form and
clearly indicates that what the student had
said was incorrect.
Example:
Students: He listens and gives some
advices.
Teacher: Not advices, some advice
Types of Corrective Feedback

Feedback In SLA
2 - Recasts
The teacher implicitly reformulates all or
part of the student’s utterance.
Example:
S: There was fox.
T: There was a fox
(Sheen 2007)

Feedback In SLA
3 – Prompts
Include a variety of signals, other than
alternative reformulations, that push
learners to self-repair :
Elicitation
Metalinguistic clues
Clariﬁcation requests
Repetition

Feedback In SLA
Elicitation :
The teacher directly elicits a reformulation
from the student by asking questions such
as “How do we say that in French?”
Or by pausing to allow the student to
complete the teacher’s utterance,
Or by asking the student to reformulate his
or her utterance.
S: My father cleans the plate.
T: (Excuse me), he cleans the _____?
S: Plates?
Lightbown & Spada (2013)

Feedback In SLA
Metalinguistic clues.:
The teacher provides comments or
questions related to the well-
formedness of the student’s utterance
such as “We don’t say it like that in
English.”
S: We look at the people yesterday.
T: What’s the ending we put on verbs
when we talk about the past?
S: /e-d/

Feedback In SLA
Clariﬁcation requests:
The teacher uses phrases such as
“Pardon?” and “I don’t understand”
following learner errors to indicate to
Students, their utterance is
ill-formed in some way and a
reformulation is required.
T: How often do you wash the dishes?
S: Fourteen.
T: Excuse me? (Clarification Request)
S: Fourteen.
T: Fourteen what? (Clarification Request)
S: Fourteen for a week.
T: Fourteen times a week? (Interrogative Recast)
S: Yes. Lunch and dinner.

Feedback In SLA
Repetition :
The teacher repeats the student’s ill-
formed utterance, adjusting intonation
to highlight the error.
( Rising, in most cases)
S: have three new toy.
T: Three new toy?
S: We is…
T: We is?

Feedback In SLA
Explicit correction Supplied by TEACHER
Recasts
Prompts:
Clarification requests
Metalinguistic feedback Supplied by STUDENT
Elicitation
Repetition

Feedback In SLA
Taxonomy of CF strategies
Explicit Implicit
Input-providing explicit correction confirmation check
recast
Output-prompting metalinguistic elicitation request for
clarification repetition
Adapted from Ellis (2009)

Feedback In SLA

Feedback In SLA
Uptake defined:
What learners claim to have learned from a particular lesson.
(Slimani, 1992; see also Allwright, 1984)
Student’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and
constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw
attention to some aspect of the student’s initial utterance.
Lyster & Ranta(1997)

Feedback In SLA
Uptake can be in the form of :
Repair
student produces a sentence that shows the feedback has
been heard and results in a correct sentence.
Needs repair
There is an indication that the student has noticed the
teacher’s feedback, but the error is not corrected.
No uptake
The conversation continues with no indication that the
student has noticed the feedback.

Feedback In SLA
 Corrective feedback and uptake
RECASTS
Used the most by teachers in the content-based L2
classrooms (emphasis is on meaning),
BUT
lead to the smallest % of uptake from Ss… Why?

Feedback In SLA  Corrective feedback and uptake
Recasts => IMPLICIT
Require complex processing
Double challenge: keep focus on meaning AND form
= taxing on information processing system
(VanPatten, 2004)
Ambiguous - Ss may think that T is responding to
the content, not form, of their utterance
(Lyster, 1998)
Ss do not necessarily notice recasts (esp., low-
proficiency ones)
Philp(2003)

All in All,
- Currently SLA researchers strongly believe in error correction and
corrective feedback.
(Ellis,2006)
- Comparing the effects of different types of interactional feedback is
theoretical interest because they arguably provide different types of
linguistic evidence (positive or negative) and engage learners in
different levels of cognitive processing (e.g., cognitive comparison in
working memory in the case of recasts versus retrieval from long-term
memory in the case of prompts).

All in All,
- Explicit correction clearly provides both negative and positive evidence.
- prompts provide only negative evidence whereas recasts provide
positive evidence and negative evidence.
- Negative evidence that prompts provide, their eﬀectiveness can be
explained through skill acquisition theory, which entails a gradual
transition from eﬀortful use to more automatic use of target language
DeKeyser (2003,2007)
Feedback In SLA

All in All,
-Implicit feedback involves students in the correction process, engages
them cognitively and assists them in provoking thoughts on how to use
the correct form, helps them to become autonomous learners.
- Classroom context and individual difference have to be taken into
account in analysis of the effectiveness of recasts. It focuses on how
assistance from a teacher or a more expert peer can help learners
exceed their current level of development ( based on sociolinguistics).
(Rassaei, 2014)
Feedback In SLA

To Conclude,
Recasts are the most frequent feedback type in the classroom.
(Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sheen, 2004)
Recasts facilitate SLA.
(Han, 2002; Mackey & Philp, 1998)
Different types of feedback have differential impact on SLA, explicit
feedback is more effective than implicit feedback.
(Ellis et al., 2006)

To Conclude,
Prompts work better than recasts.
(Ammar & Spada, 2006; Lyster, 2004)
The occurrence of uptake varies in different contexts,
(Lyster & Mori, 2006)
and is constrained by the characteristics of feedback.
(Loewen & Philp, 2006)
Feedback In SLA

Feedback In SLA
References
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York: Ballantine Books.
Braidi, S. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/non-native speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1-42.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., & Swain, M. (1992). The role of feedback in second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalization. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173-198.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Leaner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction, In C. J. Doughty, M. L Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 104-129). Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kim, J.H. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), p.1-24.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned 4th edition-Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Oxford university press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37, 66.
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive
psychology (pp. 141-160). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, F. A. (2002). Negotiation and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 395-404.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459-481.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age difference in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119-151.
Profozic, M. N. (2013). The effectiveness of corrective feedback and the role of individual difference in language learning: A classroom study. Germany: Peter Lang.
Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 417-431.
Tunstall, P. & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher Feedback to Young Children in Formative Assessment: A Typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389-404

Feedback m.cheraghi

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Feedback m.cheraghi

Similar to Feedback m.cheraghi (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Feedback m.cheraghi