learner perceptions of feedback on spoken errors in foreign language learning context
DESCRIPTION
LEARNER PERCEPTIONS OF FEEDBACK ON SPOKEN ERRORS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXT. Presenter : Nguyen Thu Hong Email: [email protected]. Ho Chi Minh City, 29 August 2013. Error and error correction. Introduction. Different viewpoints - role of CF and error correction strategies - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
PETROVIETNAMPETROVIETNAM UNIVERSITY
LEARNER PERCEPTIONS OF FEEDBACK ON SPOKEN ERRORS
IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXT
Presenter: Nguyen Thu HongEmail: [email protected]
Ho Chi Minh City, 29 August 2013
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Error and error correction
2
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Introduction Different viewpoints - role of CF and error
correction strategies This paper: review the current theories report on a research project: learner attitudes to CF
in EFL context.
3
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Main content
1 Literature review2 Research design3 Results and discussion4 Conclusion and implications
4
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Literature review
Different viewpoints on
Whether to correct: Truscott (1999) vs. Seliger (1975), Hendrickson (1978), Lyster, Lightbown and Spada (1999), Schulz (2001)
When to correct: Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis (2004), Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005), Brown’s (2009), Yoshida (2010)
How to correct: Lyster (2001), Panova and Lyster, (2002), Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009) Sheen and Ellis (2011), Lyster and Mori (2006)
What to correct: Burt (1975), Krashen (1982)
Who correct: Truscott, Nguyen
5
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Literature Review Learners’ perceptions dissimilar to teachers’ A lack of studies on Vietnamese intermediate-level
adult learners
6
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Research design
Survey questionnaire for investigation: Should learner errors in English be corrected? When should errors be corrected? Which learner errors should be corrected? How should learner errors be corrected? Who should correct errors made by learners?
Further explanations
7
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Research Design Context and participation: Context: FLC, PVU Participants: 26 students at intermediate level of English
proficiency (4-4.5 IELTS), aged 19-20
8
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Results and Discussion
Responses on whether errors should be corrected
This result agree with Hendrickson’s (1978) Ellis’ (2009) suggestions
9
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Results and Discussion
Responses on when errors should be corrected
Teachers should take into account the students’ sensitivity, self-esteem and individual identity when giving CF.
10
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Results and Discussion
Responses on which learner errors should be corrected
11
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Results and Discussion
Responses on which learner errors should be corrected
Errors in all language areas should all be treated. The priority of a certain type of errors may vary according to the context.
12
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Results and Discussion
Responses on how errors should be corrected
13
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Results and Discussion
Responses on how errors should be correctedThis finding is consistent with Lasagabaster’s and Sierra’s (2005) proposal that the most efficient corrections are supposed most likely to occur when more time and longer explanations are utilized.
14
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Results and Discussion
Responses on who should correct the errors
The fact that students proposing mistakes should be corrected in various ways is in line with Lasagabaster’s and Sierra’s (2005) and Ellis’ (2009) suggestion.
15
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Results and DiscussionResponses on who should correct the errors
Only some participants admitting the role of peer correction. This supports Truscott’s (1999) the negation of the role of peer correction but opposes Nguyen’s (2013) findings in her recent research where she observes that “Feedback is the type of peer scaffolding noted by most of the students, and it is also the type they highly appreciated.” (p.69).
16
Nguyen Thu Hong – PetroVietnam University
Conclusion and implications The students have different viewpoints Flexibility on teacher’s part to cope with different
demands and teaching/learning contexts. Teachers communicate to learners Future research: a larger sample in other EFL
contexts, other research methods, other issues.
17
