1887
image of How do learners engage with oral corrective feedback on lexical stress errors?
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study explored the affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement of 18 Iranian EFL learners with oral corrective feedback on lexical stress errors. The data were collected using questionnaires, pretests, posttests, and interviews. The questionnaire responses showed that the participants held various perceptions about direct feedback. Additionally, the pretest and posttest results indicated that the learners with positive perceptions about direct feedback had significant lexical stress accuracy gains. Also, the students who viewed direct feedback favorably showed positive affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement with it. These learners, for instance, frequently reviewed the provided feedback and used cognitive resources when utilizing it. In contrast, the students with negative perceptions about direct feedback showed negative engagement with it. The findings suggest that learners’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement can determine the working of feedback. Also, students’ perceptions seem to filter the feedback they receive, thereby helping shape how they engage with feedback.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.19010.sae
2020-03-24
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Sprouse, R. A.
    (2018) Negative versus positive transfer. InJ. I. Lionitas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp.1–6). Wiley- Blackwell: NJ, USA. 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0924
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0924 [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, A. V.
    (2009) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00827.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J.
    (2005) Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379–397. 10.2307/3588486
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588486 [Google Scholar]
  4. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I.
    (2007) A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380. 10.1093/applin/amm041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm041 [Google Scholar]
  5. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G.
    (1998) Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393–410. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00047
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00047 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C.
    (2013) The short-term effects of individual corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. System, 41, 25–37. 10.1016/j.system.2013.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ellis, R.
    (2010) Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349. 10.1017/S0272263109990544
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ferguson, C. A.
    (1957) Word stress in Persian. Language, 33(2), 123–135. 10.2307/410724
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410724 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gooch, R., Saito, K., & Lyster, R.
    (2016) Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 60, 117–127. 10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hahn, L. D.
    (2004) Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 201–223. 10.2307/3588378
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588378 [Google Scholar]
  11. Han, Y.
    (2017) Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133–142. 10.1016/j.system.2017.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Han, Y., & Hyland, F.
    (2015) Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Jodaie, M., Farrokhi, F., & Zoghi, M.
    (2011) A comparative study of EFL Teachers’ and intermediate high school students’ perceptions of written corrective feedback on grammatical errors. English Language Teaching, 4, 36–48. 10.5539/elt.v4n4p36
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p36 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kang, O.
    (2010) Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38, 301–315. 10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R.
    (2015) The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 35–64. 10.1017/S0272263115000194
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000194 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L.
    (2015) The effectiveness of second language pronunciation Instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345–366. 10.1093/applin/amu040
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu040 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lesley, T., Sandy, C., Hansen, C., & Zukowski, J.
    (2005) Interchange Passages placement evaluation package (3rd ed.). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, S.
    (2013) Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 68, 196–198. 10.1093/elt/cct076
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct076 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.
    (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. 10.1017/S0272263197001034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lyster, R., & Saito, K.
    (2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302. 10.1017/S0272263109990520
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M.
    (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40. 10.1017/S0261444812000365
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K.
    (2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. 10.1017/S0272263100004010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004010 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mahjani, B.
    (2003) An instrumental study of prosodic features and intonation in modern Farsi (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Edinburgh, UK.
  24. Pickering, L.
    (2006) Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 219–233. 10.1017/S0267190506000110
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190506000110 [Google Scholar]
  25. Richards, J. C.
    (2004) Interchange 2 (3rd ed.). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Saito, K.
    (2013) Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 1–29. 10.1017/S0272263112000666
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000666 [Google Scholar]
  27. Saito, K., & Lyster, R.
    (2012) Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00639.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Saito, Y., & Saito, K.
    (2017) Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 21, 589–608. 10.1177/1362168816643111
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816643111 [Google Scholar]
  29. Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
    (2016) Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 217–240. 10.1017/S0142716414000502
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000502 [Google Scholar]
  30. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2010) Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334. 10.1017/S0272263109990532
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532 [Google Scholar]
  31. Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W.
    (2006) Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effects of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 1-30. 10.1017/S0272263106060013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060013 [Google Scholar]
  32. Vojdanoska, M., Cranney, J., & Newell, B. R.
    (2010) The testing effect: The role of feedback and collaboration in a tertiary classroom setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(8), 1183–1195. 10.1002/acp.1630
    https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1630 [Google Scholar]
  33. Zheng, Y., & Yu, S.
    (2018) Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24. 10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.19010.sae
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/aral.19010.sae
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error