Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication

Abstract

This article reports on a case study that examined the evolving thoughts and beliefs about corrective feedback of graduate students in applied linguistics, who were enrolled in a semester-long second language acquisition (SLA) course. Working in groups, the graduate students (students in an MA-TESL program, and doctoral students in a related program; a combination of practicing and prospective language teachers), conducted a partial replication of Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study of corrective feedback in some of their own ESL classes. The present study was designed to discover the extent to which graduate students’ participation in this classroom-based research replication would contribute to a re-examination of their ideas, thoughts, or beliefs about corrective feedback. The replication project was conceptualized by the researchers as serving as a bridge between formal research and practical inquiry (Richardson, 1994). Analysis of multiple data sources (e.g. questionnaires, journal entries, a group interview) indicated that a number of students’ ideas about error correction shifted throughout the semester. In particular, after participating in the research replication project, many students’ comments revealed a decreased emphasis on the affective dimension of error correction, and a more sophisticated understanding of corrective feedback, as well as an appreciation for the relationship between corrective feedback, student uptake, and error type. In addition to themes of shifts in awareness about the complex nature of corrective feedback, the analysis further identified possible changes in future teaching practice, different attitudes toward research, and the appropriation of terminology pertaining to teaching.

Keywords

corrective feedback language teacher education teacher beliefs research replication practical inquiry reflective practice

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Borg, S. ( 2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. ( 1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, M. ( 1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 9-26.

Doughty, C. & Varela, E. ( 1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-38). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Egi, T. ( 2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511-37.

Freeman, D. ( 1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 27-45.

Freeman, D. ( 2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1-13.

Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. ( 1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397-417.

Johnson, K. ( 1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a Second Language teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 439-52.

10.

Kagan, D. ( 1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65-90.

11.

Kennedy, M. ( 1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26, 4-12.

12.

Leeman, J. ( 2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 111-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Lortie, D. ( 1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

14.

Lyster, R. & Mori, H. ( 2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance . Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.

15.

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. ( 1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.

16.

McDonough, K. ( 2006). Action research and the professional development of graduate teaching assistants. Modern Language Journal, 90, 33-47.

17.

Mackey, A. , Polio, C. , & McDonough, K. ( 2004). The relationship between experience, education, and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301-27.

18.

Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. ( 2004). Second language learning theories. 2nd edition. London: Hodder Arnold .

19.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Leech, N.L. ( 2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron? Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 41, 233-49.

20.

Patton, M.Q. ( 2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Richardson, V. ( 1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-10.

22.

Russell, J. & Spada, N. ( 2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language teaching and learning (pp. 133-64). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

23.

Schön, D.A. ( 1983). The reflective practitioner. New York : Basic Books.

24.

Sheen, Y. ( 2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300.

25.

Sheen, Y. ( 2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-92.

26.

Stake, R.E. ( 1998). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Stake, R.E. ( 2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd edition (pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Truscott, J. ( 1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes . Language Learning 46, 327-69.

29.

Truscott, J. ( 1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review 55, 437-56.

30.

Woods, D. ( 1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Yin, R.K. ( 2003). Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd edition. Applied social research methods series: Volume 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

32.

Zeuli, J.S. & Tiezzi, L.J. ( 1993). Creating contexts to change teachers’ beliefs about the influence of research, report #93-1. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning . Retrieved from: http://ncrtl.msu.edu/http/rreports/html/rr931.htm (June 2010).