Yıl: 2022 Cilt: Sayı: 24 Sayfa Aralığı: 127 - 139 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.29029/busbed.1037181 İndeks Tarihi: 07-11-2022

TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES

Öz:
This study investigated pre-service ELT and Turkish EFL teachers’ actual oral corrective (hereafter, OCF) practices in the classroom during their practicum. The participants of the study were twenty final-year students, who were selected randomly, with ten senior students from the English Language Teaching (hereafter, ELT) department of the Faculty of Education and ten senior students from the English Language and Literature Department (hereafter, ELL), who were taking both their courses at the Department of the Faculty of Letters during weekdays and teacher training courses at the ELT Department at Faculty of Education at the weekends, state university. Classroom observational data have been gathered through video recordings of twenty lessons. The study revealed three important results. First, both ELT and non-ELT pre-service teachers tended to employ excessive use of OCF strategies regardless of the nature of students’ erroneous utterances. In other words, they did not take into consideration whether the errors impeded the communication or not. Second, the participants targeted, for the most part, grammar (98%) and vocabulary (82.8%) errors. Finally, the participants preferred the explicit correction method (92.9%) which is a way of input-providing, not output-providing that promotes selfcorrection and interaction between the teacher and the students, and among students.
Anahtar Kelime:

YABANCI DİL İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ SÖZLÜ GERİ BİLDİRİM UYGULAMALARI

Öz:
Bu çalışma son sınıf İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik uygulamaları esnasında sınıf ortamında sözlü geri bildirim uygulamalarını araştırmıştır. Bu çalışmanın katılımcıları bir devlet üniversitesinin, İngilizce Öğretmenliği programında eğitim gören son sınıf 10 öğrencisi ile aynı üniversitenin Edebiyat Fakültesi, İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı öğrencilerinden Eğitim Fakültesinde hafta sonları öğretmenlik sertifikası programına devam eden 10 öğrenci olmak üzere kurayla seçilen toplam 20 öğretmen adayıdır. Sınıf gözlem metoduyla toplanan veriler, yirmi dersin video kayıtlarından oluşmaktadır. Çalışma üç önemli sonuç ortaya çıkarmıştır. Birincisi, hem eğitim fakültesi hem de edebiyat fakültesi öğrencileri yapılan İngilizce sözel dil hataların mahiyetine dikkate almadan oldukça fazla sözlü geri bildirim uygulamalarına başvurmaktadır. Bir diğer deyişle, katılımcılar, öğrenci hatalarının anlamı bozup bozmadığına bakmadan her türlü hataları düzeltmeye çalıştıkları görülmüştür. İkinci olarak, katılımcılar dilbilgisi (%98) ve kelime (%82,8) ile ilgili hatalar üzerine odaklanmışlardır. Son olarak, öğretmen adaylarının sözlü geri bildirim teknikleri ile ilgili tercihlerine gelince, öğretmen ve öğrenci, ve öğrenci ile öğrenci arasında bir etkileşim kurmaya imkan sağlamayan doğrudan düzeltme (%92,9) en çok tercih ettikleri teknik olmuştur.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Altan, M. Z. (2012). Pre-service EFL teachers’ beliefs about foreign language learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 481-493. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2011.643399
  • Arslan, R. Ş. (2013). Enhancing non-native prospective english language teachers’ competency in sentential stress patterns in English, Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 34(2), 183-195 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/articlefile/ 114518
  • Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and the acquisition of english possessive determiners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574. https://doi: 10+10170S0272263106060268
  • Bitchener, J. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205, https://doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback in migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240738605_The_value_of_written_corrective_feedback_for_migrant_a nd_international_students
  • Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do, Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. https://doi: 10.1017/s0261444803001903
  • Borg, S. (2009). Language Teacher Cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 163-171). Cambridge University Press.
  • Britton, J. (1970). Language and Learning: The importance of speech 10 children’s development. Harmondsworth: Penguin Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
  • Busch, D. (2010). Pre-service teacher beliefs about language learning: The second language acquisition course as an agent for change, Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 318-337. https://doi:10.1177/1362168810365239
  • 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. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44487637
  • Chavez, M. (2006). Classroom-language Use in Teacher-led instruction and teachers’ Self-classroom, TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ745668
  • Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507438.pdf
  • de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01246.x
  • Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in SLA, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575- 600. https://doi: 10.1017/S027226310606027X
  • Ellis, R. et all. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060141
  • Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective”. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. https://doi: 10.2307/40264512
  • Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023
  • Gass, S. M. et al., (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition, In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, (pp. 175-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  • Gass, S. M. (1997). Input Interaction and the Second Language Learner, Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Gutiérrez, P. D., & Villanueva, A. S. (2006). La ex-residencia del Presidente Pedro Montt Montt en la comuna de Independencia: condición patrimonial, estado actual y argumentos para su conservación. Revista de Urbanismo, (15), ág-3. https://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?q=Guti%C3%A9rrez,+P.+D.,+%26+Villanueva,+A.+S.+(2006).&hl=tr&as _sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
  • Han, Z. (2008). On the role of meaning in focus on form. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding Second Language Process, (pp. 45-79). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Harmer, J. R. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.). Longman.
  • Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford University Press.
  • Kırgöz, Y., & Ağçam, R. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions on corrective feedback in Turkish Primary Schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 574-581 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282555642_Teachers'_Perceptions_on_Corrective_Feedback_in_Turkis h_Primary_Schools
  • Kagan, S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational leadership, 47(4), 12-16. https://doi: 10.12691/education-3-9-9
  • Kagan, D. M. (1992a). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65-90. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701
  • Kagimoto, E., & Rodgers, M. (2008). Students’ perception of corrective feedback. JALT 2007 Conference Proceedings (pp.868–879). Tokyo, Japan: JALT https://www.academia.edu/1237716/Students_perceptions_of_corrective_feedback
  • Kayaoğlu, M. N., & Çaylak, N. (2013). What is needed for correct pronunciation: A model or a concern? Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 269-290. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1060386.pdf
  • Krashen, (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and complications. Longman Group Limited.
  • Legutke, M., & Schocker-v Ditfurth, M. (2009). School-based experience. In Burns, A. & Richards, J.C. (Eds.) The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge University Press. pp.209–217.
  • Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis, Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365, https://doi:10.1111/J.1467-9922.2010.00561.X
  • Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input, Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126
  • Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 377-93). Rowley, MS: Newbury House.
  • Long, M. H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
  • Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction concerning error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language learning, 51, 265-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00019.x
  • Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional Feedback and Instructional Counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128
  • Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
  • Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
  • Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. https://doi.org/101017S0272263104043025
  • Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Benjamins.
  • Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007), Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies, (pp. 407-446). Oxford University Press.
  • Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X (02)00049-0
  • Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NSNNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 9922.00210
  • Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development: Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings?. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356. https://doi.org/10.2307/329960
  • McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (2018). Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.07.003
  • Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate Learner Repair and its Relationship with Learning Targeted Forms in Dyadic Interaction. System, 39(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.4.3
  • Nicholas, H. et al. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00172
  • Nishita, M. (2004). Recasts and repair in the teaching of small groups. ASAA E-journal of Asian Linguistics & Language Teaching, 7(7), 1 - 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/la429.0
  • Oyler, C. J. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations during teacher-led read-alouds of information books. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 149-160. https://www.academia.edu/865076/Sharing_authority_Student_initiations_during_teacher_led_read_alouds_of_in formation_books
  • Öztürk, E. Ö. (2019). Beliefs and practices of Turkish EFL teachers regarding oral corrective feedback: A small-scale classroom research study. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 219-228. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09571736.2016.1263360
  • Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241
  • Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?, Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x
  • Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “Noticing the Gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99-126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000044
  • Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awarenesspractice- feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141 – 160). Cambridge University Press.
  • Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-63). University of Hawaii Press.
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
  • Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms Across Instructional Settings, Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263- 300. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
  • Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake, Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr203oa
  • Sheen, Y (2007). The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of english articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction In Second Language Acquisition (pp. 301-322). Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. K. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Swain, M. K. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson, (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. K. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of the Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press.
  • Wertsch, J. V. (1990). The voice of rationality in sociocultural approach to mind. From L. C. Moll, Ed, Vygotsky, and Education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge University Press.
  • Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge University.
  • Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of Form-Focused Practice and Feedback on Chinese EFL Learners’ Acquisition of Regular and Irregular Past Tense Forms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235-263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519
  • Yüksel, D, Soruç, A., & McKinley, J. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs and practices about oral corrective feedback in university EFL classes. Int J Appl https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12336
APA Köroğlu H, Kayaoğlu M (2022). TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. , 127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
Chicago Köroğlu Hayrettin,Kayaoğlu Mustafa Naci TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. (2022): 127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
MLA Köroğlu Hayrettin,Kayaoğlu Mustafa Naci TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. , 2022, ss.127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
AMA Köroğlu H,Kayaoğlu M TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. . 2022; 127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
Vancouver Köroğlu H,Kayaoğlu M TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. . 2022; 127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
IEEE Köroğlu H,Kayaoğlu M "TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES." , ss.127 - 139, 2022. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
ISNAD Köroğlu, Hayrettin - Kayaoğlu, Mustafa Naci. "TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES". (2022), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.1037181
APA Köroğlu H, Kayaoğlu M (2022). TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (24), 127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
Chicago Köroğlu Hayrettin,Kayaoğlu Mustafa Naci TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , no.24 (2022): 127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
MLA Köroğlu Hayrettin,Kayaoğlu Mustafa Naci TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol., no.24, 2022, ss.127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
AMA Köroğlu H,Kayaoğlu M TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2022; (24): 127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
Vancouver Köroğlu H,Kayaoğlu M TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2022; (24): 127 - 139. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
IEEE Köroğlu H,Kayaoğlu M "TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES." Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, , ss.127 - 139, 2022. 10.29029/busbed.1037181
ISNAD Köroğlu, Hayrettin - Kayaoğlu, Mustafa Naci. "TURKISH EFL PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK PRACTICES". Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 24 (2022), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.1037181