Nonverbal behavior and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms

Abstract

Nonverbal behavior is an area of recent interest in second language acquisition (SLA). Some researchers have found that teachers’ nonverbal behavior plays a role in second language (L2) learners’ learning. Furthermore, corrective feedback during L2 interaction can also be facilitative of L2 development; however, little is known about how nonverbal behavior accompanies teachers’ corrective feedback. The current study investigated teachers’ nonverbal behavior in corrective feedback during 48 observations (about 65 hours of recordings) of nine classrooms for English as a second language (ESL). The results indicated that teachers used a variety of nonverbal behavior in their corrective feedback, including hand gestures (specifically iconics, metaphorics, deictics, and beats), head movements, affect displays, kinetographs, and emblems. Specific nonverbal behaviors that commonly occurred in the observations were nodding, head shaking, pointing at an artifact, and pointing at a person.

Keywords

Corrective feedback gesture L2 teaching nonverbal behavior second language acquisition

I Introduction

The role of corrective feedback in second language acquisition has generated considerable research, as evidenced by several recent meta-analyses (Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Russell & Spada, 2006). Although there is general consensus that corrective feedback can be beneficial for second language (L2) learning, there is still considerable debate regarding the characteristics of feedback that may enhance its effectiveness (e.g. Goo & Mackey, 2013; Lyster & Ranta, 2013). One characteristic that has been largely overlooked, however, is the nonverbal component of feedback (Gullberg, 2010; McCafferty, 1998). The current study addresses this lacuna by examining the ways in which nonverbal behavior may accompany verbal feedback.

The importance of corrective feedback is based on several theoretical assumptions. The first is the interaction hypothesis (Gass, 1997; Gass & Mackey, 2007; Long, 1991, 1996), which argues that providing L2 learners with opportunities to communicate in the target language is crucial. The second, related assumption is that focus on form, namely brief attention to linguistic form within a larger communicative context (Long, 1991, 1996), can facilitate learning. Finally, the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1995, 2001) argues that L2 learning is primarily a conscious process. As a result, pedagogic activities, such as focus on form and corrective feedback, which increase the salience of linguistic items, may be more effective for L2 learning (Norris & Ortega, 2000).

Indeed, the level of explicitness necessary for corrective feedback to be effective is a primary issue in feedback research. Some researchers (e.g. Long, 2007) argue that implicit feedback is more effective, while others (e.g. Lyster, 1998) argue that implicit feedback may be too ambiguous to be effective, and that more explicit types of feedback are needed. Although some types of feedback, such as recasts, may be considered naturally more implicit than other types, such as metalinguistic feedback (Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006), it is also acknowledged that specific feedback characteristics may make feedback more or less salient to learners. Thus, for example, studies investigating the explicitness of recasts have examined features such as the number of changes made in the recast, the length of the recast and its intonation (Loewen & Philp, 2006; Sheen, 2006).

Recent meta-analyses of corrective feedback studies (Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007) have found positive effects for corrective feedback. For example, Li (2010) in his synthesis of 33 classroom and laboratory based studies of corrective feedback found that explicit feedback was more beneficial short term, while the effectiveness of implicit feedback was better maintained over time. Furthermore, the effects of feedback were less evident in classroom contexts than in the laboratory. Similarly, Lyster and Saito’s (2010) review of 15 classroom studies found corrective feedback to be effective, with prompts, in which the teacher elicits the correct form from the learner, being more effective than recasts or explicit feedback. Finally, Mackey and Goo (2007) investigated the effects of task-based interaction, which often included corrective feedback. Their meta-analysis of 28 studies showed both short term and long term effects, with vocabulary benefiting more than grammar on immediate posttests. In sum, corrective feedback can be beneficial for L2 acquisition; however, certain variables may have a moderating effect.

II Nonverbal behavior in general

Nonverbal behavior is an overarching term that has often been used to refer to various behavioral elements of communication, such as facial expressions, eye movements, and body postures (e.g. Hall, Coats & Labeau, 2005; Jungheim, 2001). Another term that has been frequently used in the field is ‘gesture’. Although some researchers (e.g. Sime, 2006) restrict gesture to movements of the hands, the arms, and sometimes the head, other researchers use gesture to also refer to movements of other body parts. Lee (2008), for example, subsumes nodding, eye contact, facial expressions, and other body movements in the notion of gesture. Gesture in this sense is similar to nonverbal behavior. In the present study, teachers provided corrective feedback accompanied by a variety of bodily movements that were not restricted to a particular body part; consequently, the more inclusive term ‘nonverbal behavior’ is used.

Nonverbal behavior or gesture is co-expressive with speech (McNeill & Duncan, 2000); thus, they are two modalities of expressing meaning. When speech and nonverbal behavior express the same meaning, nonverbal behavior parallels speech; when nonverbal behavior conveys information that is not in speech but is nonetheless in the speaker’s thoughts, nonverbal behavior complements speech (Stam, 2006). The tight integration between nonverbal behavior and speech is also evident in the temporal synchrony between the two (Kelly, Manning & Rodak, 2008). That is, they temporally overlap and combine to reveal meaning that is not captured in one modality alone (McNeill, 1992).

In previous corrective feedback studies, the object of inquiry has been verbal discourse, and yet nonverbal behavior is acknowledged to be an important element of human communication (Bancroft, 1997; Goldin-Meadow & McNeill, 1999; Gullberg, 2006; Pennycook, 1985). Goldin-Meadow (1999: 419) observes that ‘gesture serves as both a tool for communication for listeners, and a tool for thinking for speakers.’ For both first language (L1) (e.g. Morrel-Samuels & Krauss, 1992; Riseborough, 1981) and L2 (e.g. Olsher, 2008) speakers, gestures facilitate retrieval of words from memory; for listeners, they facilitate comprehension of a spoken message (Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005). In language acquisition, nonverbal behavior can play an important role, because it can help capture attention, provide redundancy, or engage more senses by grounding speech in the concrete, physical experience (Hostetter & Alibali, 2004). It has been proposed that ‘both the cognitive aspects and the communicative functions of gesticulation … should be considered in interpersonal and intrapersonal communication’ (Lee, 2008: 172).

III Studies of L2 teachers’ nonverbal behavior

In recent years, nonverbal behavior has received increasing interest in research on second language acquisition (SLA) (e.g. McCafferty & Stam, 2008). One domain of investigation has been the different types of nonverbal behavior produced by L2 teachers (e.g. Allen, 2000; Lazaraton, 2004). In an observational study, Allen (2000) analysed the nonverbal behavior of a high school Spanish teacher in six 55-minute class sessions. A variety of nonverbal behavior was observed, including emblems (e.g. cupping the hand behind the ear to indicate listening problems), illustrators (e.g. wagging the index finger quickly back and forth to emphasize the importance of a date), affect displays (e.g. biting the finger to demonstrate nervousness), regulators (e.g. quickly opening and closing the finger in front of the mouth to demand louder speech), and so on. Allen’s study revealed the richness of teacher nonverbal behavior in the L2 classroom, and she argued that more such studies are crucial for understanding what the teaching act involves.

In a microanalytic study, Lazaraton (2004) examined the nonverbal behavior of a teacher of English as a second language (ESL) in an intensive English program. Three 50-minute focus-on-form classes were videotaped. The videotape excerpts were transcribed and analysed according to the teacher’s speech, hand gestures, and other nonverbal behavior that accompanied unplanned explanations of vocabulary that arose incidentally during the lessons. Results suggested that the teacher used a variety of hand gestures (e.g. turning palms and pointing) and other nonverbal behavior (e.g. nodding and acting) in her vocabulary explanations. Lazaraton contended that nonverbal behavior is a fundamental aspect of the teacher’s pedagogical repertoire and that hand gestures and other nonverbal behavior are forms of input that must be considered in classroom-based SLA research.

Another domain of research on L2 teachers’ nonverbal behavior relates to its function. In a recent study, Belhiah (2013) investigated the functional role of gesture in definition talk. With a fine-grained analysis of an ESL teacher’s hand gestures accompanying his verbal explanation of new words, Belhiah identified three major functions of gesture: reinforcing the meaning of verbal utterances; disambiguating the meaning of lexical items; and establishing gestural cohesion across turns at talk. Similarly, Smotrova and Lantolf (2013) examined the function of gesture when teachers were explaining English words to their students. With a detailed analysis of two excerpts from two English as a foreign language teachers’ instructional conversations with students, the researchers found that the teachers integrated gesture into their talk to remediate and improve students’ understanding and that students signaled their improved understanding by replicating the teachers’ gestures.

As has been mentioned, in SLA there is a considerable amount of literature on L2 teachers’ corrective feedback; however, very few studies have investigated teachers’ nonverbal behavior in their feedback to students. One exception is Davies’ (2006) small-scale study examining the effect of paralinguistic focus on form on learners’ production of uptake by comparing implicit episodes with body language (a term Davies uses in his report) to those without body language. He found that episodes with body language tended to result in more learner uptake while those without body language tended to lead to more topic continuation.

In a study of classroom interaction, Faraco and Kida (2008) examined the impact of teacher nonverbal behavior, notably gestures (including hand and body movement) and gaze, on students’ L2 learning. By analysing conversational exchanges involving problematic segments, the researchers found that the effect of teacher’s nonverbal behavior could be both positive (e.g. the teacher’s gaze directed at either individual learners or the whole group allowed the class to distinguish who a learning sequence was addressed to) and negative (e.g. when the teacher abandoned mutual gaze with a learner to soften the act of correction, the learner might misinterpret the teacher’s avoiding of eye contact as a demand for confirmation).

Both Davies and Faraco & Kida have explored the role of teachers’ nonverbal behavior during interaction and feedback; however, their studies are limited in scope and sample size. In contrast, the present study examined eight teachers’ nonverbal behavior in their corrective feedback during classroom interaction.

IV Research question

Based on the literature review, the current study focused on the following research question: What nonverbal behaviors accompany teachers’ corrective feedback during classroom interaction in nine ESL university-level classrooms?

V Method

The current study involved the observation and descriptive analysis of teachers’ corrective feedback in multiple ESL classrooms in a North American context.

1 Teaching context

The study occurred in an intensive English program at a large university in the USA. The program is designed to help students learn communicative and academic skills that are necessary in daily life and academic work. The types of classes observed ranged from beginning to intermediate levels and included the following topics: integrated listening and speaking (n = 4), integrated reading and writing (n = 2), academic reading (n = 2), and grammar (n = 1). The topics in the classes were decided by the teachers according to their own course syllabi and teaching objectives. Each class lasted 50 to 100 minutes. In each class, learners were involved in a wide variety of communicative activities, including summarizing texts and stories, discussing reading and listening materials, comparing answers to assignments, and performing information gap activities. In addition, some classroom activities had a greater linguistic focus, allowing learners to practice targeted linguistic forms in slightly more structured contexts such as grammar games or vocabulary exercises.

2 Participants

A total of eight teachers and nine intact classes participated in the study, with one teacher teaching two parallel classes. Seven teachers were English L1 speakers, and one teacher was a Spanish L1 / English L2 speaker. Six teachers were female and two were male. Their teaching experience varied from 1.5 to 37 years, with an average 10.3 years. At the time of the research, four teachers held MA degrees in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages; two held elementary and middle school teaching certificates; one had a Teaching English as a Foreign Language certificate; and still another one was working on her MA degree.

A total of 117 students consented to participate in the study. Fifteen students chose not to participate and were excluded from the study. The participating students, with an average age of 20.4, came from a variety of L1 backgrounds, including Chinese (n = 57), Arabic (n = 33), Korean (n = 20), Japanese (n = 5), Russian (n = 1), and Bambara (n = 1). Their length of English study ranged from 5 to 11 years, with an average of 7.3 years. The majority had been in the USA for around 6 months. Only a few had been in the country for 12 months or more. Most of the students were enrolled in the intensive English program to improve their English either to qualify for admission to regular American academic institutions or to return to their home country for further career development.

3 Procedure

Data collection started four weeks into the semester. After an initial visit to each class to introduce the study, the first author conducted four to six observations in each class, resulting in a total of 48 observations and 65 hours of recordings. Data collection in each class occurred over a period of three to four weeks. During the observations, the first author served as a non-participant observer in the classroom, monitoring the recording instruments and taking notes. A Sony digital voice recorder with a clip-on microphone attached to the teacher was used to record the oral exchanges in the classrooms, and a Sony high definition video camera with a built-in speaker was set up in a location that the teacher suggested was convenient and unobtrusive. Generally the camera was located in the back or side of the classroom. It would have been useful for the purposes of the study to employ more than one camera to capture different views of the teacher and students in interaction. However, such an arrangement was considered to be overly intrusive and distracting.

4 Data analysis

The first author listened to the recordings and identified all corrective feedback episodes where there was attention to vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, spelling, etc. A corrective feedback episode was defined as a sequence beginning with a student’s erroneous utterance followed by teacher feedback and ending with the learner’s reaction to the teacher’s feedback where applicable (Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001; Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Episodes where a student self-corrected an error and episodes where a student error was not addressed by the teacher were excluded. The first researcher then transcribed all the episodes, after which she listened to the recordings for a second time to check if all corrective feedback episodes had been correctly identified and transcribed. Teachers’ nonverbal behaviors in their corrective feedback were then identified and coded. In order to ensure the reliability of coding, a second rater who specialized in SLA coded 11.5% of the data. The percentage of agreement for the coding of teachers’ nonverbal behaviors was 87.9%.

The operationalization of teachers’ nonverbal behaviors was based on McNeill’s (1992) five-phase description of gesture. Thus, the coding of nonverbal behavior encompassed any of the following five phases: preparation, prestroke hold, the stroke itself, poststroke hold, and retraction. The stroke itself was obligatory for identification of nonverbal behavior, while the other four phases were optional. Nonverbal behaviors that were not relevant to the question under discussion (e.g. quick nods by the teacher to address an unrelated student question) and nonverbal behaviors that were not particular to a feedback episode (e.g. the teacher habitually touches his eyeglasses throughout his lessons) were excluded. The nonverbal behaviors identified were then further coded by adapting the categories described in Allen (2000) (and based on work by Burgoon, Buller & Woodall, 1989; Ekman & Friesen, 1969). Altogether, there were five general categories: hand gestures, head movements, affect displays, kinetographs, and emblems. In addition, feedback episodes containing more than one of the categories were identified as containing multiple types of nonverbal behavior. When the same type of nonverbal behavior occurred more than once in the same episode, it was counted only once.

Given the richness of nonverbal behavior articulated by the hand, hand gestures were further coded into iconics, metaphorics, deictics, and beats following McNeill’s (1992) gesture classification scheme. In the rest of the article, we will refer to the specific types of hand gestures rather than hand gestures in general. It is important, however, to note that sometimes iconicity, metaphoricity, deixis, and temporal highlighting were present in the same gesture, and it was hard to slot such a multi-feature gesture into only one category. On such occasions, we adopted McNeill’s (2005) dimensional interpretation of gestures, and coded a multiple dimensional gesture according to the saliency of dimensions.

a Iconics

Iconic gestures use the hands and arms to present images of concrete entities and/or actions. The form of the gesture and/or its manner of execution embodies the picturable aspects of semantic contents (McNeill, 1992). In Example 1, taken from the current data set, the class is describing people in a picture. A learner uses an inappropriate word ‘remove’ to describe the hoeing action of a man working in a field. In addition to verbal explanation, the teacher uses a gesture to illustrate the correct word to the learner. This gesture depicts a concrete action and it is performed by the hands and arms. It was therefore coded as iconic (for the verbal and nonverbal transcription key, see Appendix 1).

(1) T:

Ok, what’s this guy doing?

Biy:

He’s remove the plant.

[He might be taking off the bad plant, hoeing]. It’s called hoeing. And he’s BH, with curled fingers to form a holding shape, move together in a diagonal line. working on agriculture.

b Metaphorics

Like iconics, metaphorics also present imagery. However, they present the images of abstract concepts rather than concrete entities. An example described by McNeill (1992) involves a speaker appearing to hold an object to illustrate holding an idea, memory or some other abstract ‘object’. In Example 2, the teacher is helping the learner with her word choice while expressing the idea of abandoning a baby. When providing the right word, the teacher hand gestures the concrete action of throwing away an object. However, different from Example 1, the teacher is not trying to convey the physical action of throwing away a baby, but the concept of leaving the baby and not taking care of it. This gesture was therefore coded as metaphoric.

(2) Sho:

She’s eighteen and she already has a baby and then she throw away the baby.

Now when you say throw away, she [abandons the baby]?

RH throws toward the right with palm open and fingers stretched.

Sho:

[Yeah], abandons the baby.

Nods.

c Deictics

Deictic gestures involve pointing with the finger or other body parts. These gestures can index both concrete and abstract entities. In the current study, most deictic gestures fall into the former type. In Example 3, the teacher is explaining the pragmatic aspect of the imperative. While doing so, she first points at herself and then at the learner to show when it is appropriate to use the imperative. These gestures were therefore coded as deictic.

(3) Bia:

Tell me the homework.

Just tell me the homework? Not if you want to be polite. Like

[I] can say to

RPF points at self.

[you] tell me the home work. You can’t say to me tell me the homework.

RPF points at Bia.

Bia:

(Writes in book)

d Beats

Beats are movements of the hand(s) up and down or back and forth that mark time along with the rhythm of speech. Beats often signal the temporal locus in speech of something the speaker feels is important with respect to the larger discourse (McNeill, 1992). In Example 4, the teacher is correcting the learner’s erroneous subject–verb agreement. While stressing the word ‘was’, he also moves his right hand up and down throughout the whole sentence. The verbal stress and nonverbal stress work together to highlight the correct form.

(4) Ye:

I were-

[I was, were is plural].

RH repeatedly moves up and down.

Ye:

Yeah, I was doing my homework.

e Head movements

Although head movements can sometimes be considered extensions of hand gestures (McNeill, 2005), all head movements in our data involved nodding, shaking the head, or tilting the head to one side. In Example 5, the teacher is trying to prompt the learner to provide the correct form of a sentence. While giving verbal information to the learner, the teacher first shakes her head to indicate that the learner’s utterance is erroneous and then nods to confirm the learner’s correct production. Since both movements are related to the head, the nonverbal behavior in this episode was coded as head movements.

(5) Mato:

Is it rain tomorrow?

Is it rain tomorrow? Your grammar [is not good]. Is it– Shakes head

Nass:

Is it may?

Future future future.

Mato:

Is it going to rain tomorrow?

Is it [going to rain tomorrow]? Future, be going to. Is it going to rain tomorrow?

Nods.

f Affect displays

Affect displays are nonverbal movements that reveal emotions such as happiness, sadness, fear, distrust, etc. (Allen, 2000). In the present study, the most typical affect display involved facial expressions. Teachers sometimes used facial expressions to confirm or disconfirm learners’ L2 production or to show that they had problems understanding what learners were saying because of a problematic utterance. In Example 6, the teacher appears unable to understand the learner’s utterance due to non-target-like pronunciation. In four out of five teacher turns, he shows a puzzled look on his face, which, together with his short utterances, pushes the learner to repeat his utterance four times.

(6) Cadi:

Is there agency adoption? /eɪˈdʒənsi/

[Uh?]

Frowns and looks at Cadi with eyes open.

Cadi:

Agency. /eɪˈdʒənsi/

[Uh?]

Frowns and looks at Cadi with eyes open.

Cadi:

Agency. /eɪˈdʒənsi/

[A–]

Frowns and looks at Cadi with eyes open.

Cadi:

Agency. /eɪˈdʒənsi/

…

Still frowns and looks at Cadi with eyes open.

Cadi:

A-

Lai:

Agency. /ˈeɪdʒənsi/

Ok, the adoption agency. /ˈeɪdʒənsi/

Cadi:

Yeah.

g Kinetographs

Kinetographs occur when one uses the entire body to mime the various acts that people perform (Allen, 2000). In the present study, we identified teachers’ bodily actions which involved multiple body parts as kinetographs. Kinetographs differ from other types of nonverbal behavior (e.g. iconics and metaphorics) in that the articulator of the nonverbal behavior is not restricted to hands or arms. In Example 7, the teacher is correcting a learner’s problematic pronunciation of ‘smile’. While doing so, he acts as if he were surprised by the learner’s utterance by straightening his back, tilting his head, and opening his eyes. This action involves the teacher’s back, head, and eyes. It was therefore coded as kinetograph.

(7) T:

What did I do?

Mei:

Smile. /smel/

Rus:

Smile. /smaɪl/

[Smell?↑]

Back straightens, head tilts backward, and eyes open.

Class:

(Laughs)

Rus and Fu:

Smile. /smaɪl/

Smile. Ok. /smaɪl/

Mei:

(Lowers head and covers face with right hand)

h Emblems

Emblems are movements that are conventionalized and culture specific (Gullberg, 2006). A typical culturally proscribed hand gesture is putting the thumb and the index finger into a circle. In many Western cultures, this means ‘ok’ and ‘good’, whereas in some East Asian countries, it means ‘money’. In Example 8, learners had previously been told that ‘while’ is a better word than ‘when’ to connect two progressives. In this episode, the learner attempts to use ‘when’. The teacher explains to him why he should use ‘while’ instead of ‘when’. While doing so, the teacher puts up his left pointing finger and middle finger in a commonly used and understood American emblem indicating ‘two’.

(8) Tab:

When I was writing to my friend-

While.

Tab:

While?

We have [two] progressives right? They are happening at the same time.

Left pointing finger and middle finger put up and separated, with the thumb over the ring finger and the little finger.

Tab:

I was writing to my, my friend while the spider was climbing the tree.

i Multiples

Sometimes teachers used more than one type of nonverbal behavior in the same episode. In these cases, the feedback episodes were included in the multiples category. In addition, the different types of nonverbal behavior were coded individually. In Example 9, the teacher uses two types of gestures, metaphoric gesture (demonstrating ‘pressure’) and deictic gesture (pointing at the board) when correcting the learner’s inappropriate use of the word ‘force’. The type of nonverbal behavior in this episode was categorized as multiple and the two individual nonverbal behaviors were further coded as metaphoric and deictic respectively.

(9) Ara:

In Saudi Arabia, they force their children to marry at 20.

They force them?

Ara:

Not force, like [push].

RH moves forward with palm open and fingers stretched.

They [pressure them].

BH move forward with palms open and fingers stretched.

Ara:

They [pressure them].

Nods slightly

[This is] the idea of

Left hand points at board over the shoulder without turning around.

[pressure].

RH moves forward with palm open and fingers slightly curled.

Ara:

Yeah, I’m sorry.

VI Results

After the corrective feedback episodes were coded, the raw frequencies and percentages of each category of nonverbal behavior produced by the teachers were tabulated. For ease of explanation, the two parallel classes taught by the same teacher will be presented as C1 and C2.

Table 1 shows that out of 507 corrective feedback episodes, 60.2% contained teachers’ nonverbal behavior. In seven of nine classes, the teachers produced nonverbal behaviors in more than half of the episodes, with the teachers in Classes 7 and 8 generating the most (75.9% and 85.1%, respectively). The percentages of nonverbal behaviors in the feedback of the teachers in Classes 1 and 6, although relatively lower, are still close to 50% (43.6% and 44.0% respectively).

Table 1.

Frequency of nonverbal behavior in teachers’ corrective feedback (by class).

Class	Total number of FEs	Number of FEs with teacher nonverbal behavior	Percentage of FEs with teacher nonverbal behavior
C1	39	17	43.6
C2	30	16	53.3
C3	59	42	71.2
C4	67	40	59.7
C5	82	46	56.1
C6	25	11	44.0
C7	29	22	75.9
C8	47	40	85.1
C9	129	71	55.0
Total	507	305	60.2
Mean	56.3	33.9	60.4
Range	104	60	41.5
SD	33.3	19.2	14.2

Note. FE = feedback episodes.

Table 2 shows that compared with other types of nonverbal behavior, multiples occurred most frequently (32.1%, mean = 10.89, range = 28, SD = 8.33). When the multiples category was further coded into other specific types, the most frequent ones were head movements (32.2%, mean = 16.33, range = 26, SD = 8.28) and deictics (27.2%, mean = 13.78, range = 27, SD = 8.33), followed by iconics (11.8%, mean = 6.00, range = 17, SD = 5.20) and beats (10.5%, mean = 5.33, range = 21, SD = 6.42).

Table 2.

Frequency of types of nonverbal behavior with multiples further coded (by class; percentages are given in parentheses).

Class	Multiples	Hand gestures				HM	AD	Kinetographs	Emblems
		Iconics	Metaphorics	Deictics	Beats
C1	4 (24)	0 (0)	2 (8)	6 (25)	3 (12)	12 (50)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)
C2	8 (50)	4 (13)	2 (6)	7 (22)	1 (3)	13 (41)	3 (9)	0 (0)	2 (6)
C3	7 (17)	4 (8)	1 (2)	19 (36)	0 (0)	22 (42)	6 (13)	0 (0)	1 (2)
C4	12 (30)	9 (15)	1 (2)	18 (30)	8 (13)	20 (33)	0 (0)	1 (2)	3 (5)
C5	13 (28)	5 (8)	1 (2)	18 (29)	7 (11)	29 (46)	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (5)
C6	1 (9)	2 (17)	0 (0)	2 (17)	3 (25)	3 (25)	1 (8)	1 (8)	0 (0)
C7	7 (32)	3 (9)	4 (12)	10 (30)	3 (9)	9 (27)	1 (3)	1 (3)	2 (6)
C8	17 (43)	10 (16)	1 (2)	15 (23)	2 (3)	25 (39)	9 (11)	2 (3)	0 (0)
C9	29 (41)	17 (15)	14 (12)	29 (25)	21 (18)	14 (12)	6 (5)	4 (4)	10 (9)
Total	98 (32)	54 (11)	26 (6)	124 (22)	48 (11)	147 (32)	27 (6)	9 (2)	21 (4)
Mean	10.9	6.0	2.9	13.8	5.3	16.3	3.0	1.0	2.3
Range	28	17	14	27	21	26	9	4	10
SD	8.3	5.2	4.3	8.3	6.4	8.3	3.2	1.3	3.1

Notes. HM = head movements; AD = affect displays.

Given that qualitative approaches can provide much needed gestural information (Gullberg, 2010), the researchers also noted specific nonverbal behaviors that commonly occurred in the observations, namely, nodding, head shaking, pointing at an artifact, and pointing at a person.

1 Nodding

Nodding was the most frequent head movement. It took two forms: nodding repeatedly or nodding forcefully only once. For example:

(10) Jea:

A. In the south of California, the supply of restaurants is dwindling. /ˈdwaɪndlɪŋ/

Is what?

Jea:

Dwindling? /ˈdwɪndlɪŋ/

Dwindling. [Yes, that’s correct]. Dwindling. /ˈdwɪndlɪŋ/

Nods.

Jea:

Ok, dwindling. /ˈdwɪndlɪŋ/

(11) Fa:

They came back in the evening and noticed that the milk was disappeared.

The milk [had] disappeared.

One big nod.

Fa:

Had disappeared.

In Example 10, when the learner tentatively gives the pronunciation of the word ‘dwindling’, which she mispronounced earlier, the teacher moves her head up and down repeatedly to confirm the learner’s hypothesis. In Example 11, the learner uses the wrong auxiliary for the perfect tense of ‘disappear’. As the teacher stresses the right auxiliary ‘had’, she moves her head down forcefully without repeating the act. It seems that in the first case the teacher nods to confirm a student utterance while in the second case the teacher nods to help emphasize an important word in her discourse. Such functions of nodding can also be found in Example 5.

2 Head shaking

Head shaking is another head movement participating teachers frequently generated. An analysis of the episodes with this type of head movement indicates that it is almost unanimously a way for teachers to disconfirm a student utterance. In Example 5, the teacher disconfirms the learner’s L2 production ‘Is it rain tomorrow.’ Below is another example:

(12) Lyb:

[Like loosen the soil. Remove the soil].

BH, in a slightly cupped shape, move up and down toward the middle.

Move the soil?

Lyb:

[Loosen]

BH, in a slightly cupped shape, move up and down toward the middle.

[like eh exchange].

RH makes circles.

[Not loosen]. Mm, yeah they need to [tear the soil].

Shakes head RH makes a half-circle.

Lyb:

[Yes].

Nods.

(Writes on paper)

In this example, the learner uses a few inappropriate verbs to describe an act. After she gives the word ‘loosen’, the teacher shakes her head as she verbally rejects the student’s lexical choice. Shaking the head is therefore a nonverbal disconfirmation of the learner’s utterance.

3 Pointing at an artifact

On many occasions, teachers extended either of their hands (and arms) and pointed with either the whole hand or the index finger to a specific object, a direction, or a specific item of interest on the blackboard, in the textbook, a handout or a notebook. Below is an example:

(13) T:

What are some of the symptoms of the cold? A cold?

Joah:

Weather.

No, I’m talking about a cold like (Writes on board). Not cold, but [a] cold,

RH plunges down.

like the sickness. So if you have a cold, some of your symptoms might be like your throat hurts. You have [a sore throat]. Or maybe you’re sneezing. Or

RPF Points at throat.

maybe your lungs feel congested. [It’s difficult to breathe]. So these are all

RPF Points at chest.

symptoms.

In this example, the teacher is explaining one meaning of the word ‘cold’, which the learner misunderstands for another meaning. While giving him feedback, the teacher first points at her throat and then her chest, two specific body parts.

4 Pointing at a person

Another type of deictic gesture is pointing at a person. In many cases, this person is the addressee or the student(s) the teacher is specifically talking to. In Example 3, for instance, when the teacher points at the student as she says ‘you’, she is actually addressing the student. Below is another example:

(14) Luo:

Those aren’t toys, are they?

Ira:

Are those.

Luo:

Are they? Are those? Are they?

He said ‘are those’, ‘are they’. What do you, what do [others] say?

RPF points at other students and moves in a horizontal line.

Ira:

Are those.

Are those? Can you, can you use ‘those’ in a tag?

Xin and Luo:

No.

Ira:

No, are they.

(Nods) No, you can’t say ‘those’. You call them ‘they’.

Luo:

(Nods)

Xin:

Yeah.

In this example, the teacher points at a group of students after she addresses them as ‘you’ and then specifies ‘you’ as ‘others’. The group that is pointed at is the students who are supposed to provide an answer to the teacher’s question.

In some cases, the person the teacher points at does not necessarily index the addressee. In Example 3, when the teacher points at herself as she says ‘I’, she is not addressing herself but simply indicating which person she is talking about. Below is another example:

(15) Cadi:

While he was studying at the ELC, he was playing basketball.

<While he was studying>, but [he] still is. That’s when we can’t use the past

RPF points at Cadi’s partner.

because [he is still studying and he still is playing basketball]. That’s present.

RH repeatedly moves up and down.

Cadi:

(Nods)

In this example, the learner uses past tense for an act that his partner is still continuing. While referring to the partner in his feedback, the teacher points at the partner. In this case, the partner is not the addressee, but simply a person that is in the conversation.

In summary, nonverbal behavior occurred in all participating teachers’ corrective feedback, with head movements, deictic gestures, and iconic gestures occurring most frequently. Moreover, there are a few specific nonverbal behaviors that occurred frequently.

VII Discussion

Our research question asks what nonverbal behaviors accompany teachers’ corrective feedback during classroom interaction in nine ESL university-level classrooms. The initial analysis of the data revealed that teachers produced nonverbal behavior 60.2% of the time during their corrective feedback. This rate of nonverbal behavior is higher than that of Davies’ (2006) study (42 out of 88 occasions, with a percentage of 47.7) but lower than that of Lazaraton’s (2004) study (14 out of 18 occasions, with a percentage of 77.8). All three studies examined different types of teacher nonverbal behavior. The differences among the three could have resulted from the different contexts and types of discourse. In Davies’ study, the analysis of nonverbal behavior was mainly situated in implicit feedback episodes (i.e. episodes with recasts and clarification requests). In the present study, however, nonverbal behaviors accompanying more explicit types of feedback, such as overt prompts or metalinguistic explanations (Ellis et al., 2006), were also identified. In Lazaraton’s study, the data came from a teacher’s vocabulary explanations of concrete actions. In such lessons, teachers could easily use nonverbal cues. In the current study, however, correction of lexical items comprised only a portion of the data. There were many occasions where the teachers explained abstract concepts such as grammar rules, presumably lowering the overall frequency rate of teacher nonverbal behavior. Indeed, future research should investigate the types of nonverbal behaviors that are associated with corrective feedback targeting different aspects of language.

A further analysis of the data showed that participating teachers used various nonverbal behaviors in their corrective feedback, including iconics, metaphorics, deictics, beats, head movements, affect displays, kinetographs, emblems, and multiples. The variety, in addition to the frequency, of nonverbal behavior observed in the study lends support to Lazaraton’s (2004: 107) observation that ‘nonverbal behavior is a fundamental aspect of TE’s [teacher’s] pedagogical repertoire’. Teachers’ nonverbal behavior is a form of input to learners; and it ‘may … play an important role … to learners for comprehension as well as for learning’ (Gullberg, 2006: 115). To ignore teachers’ nonverbal behavior, then, is to ignore this important part of teachers’ input. Furthermore, investigating the occurrence and effectiveness of various types of nonverbal behaviors, in this case those that accompany corrective feedback, can potentially improve pedagogical practices if teachers make adjustments to their teaching. For example, the inclusion of iconic or metaphoric nonverbal behavior may increase the saliency of feedback. Likewise, the use of deictics may help draw individual learner’s attention to their own linguistic errors.

In terms of the frequency of different types of nonverbal behavior, the multiples category has a frequency rate of 32.1, higher than that of all the other types of nonverbal behavior by themselves. This result suggests that participating L2 teachers often used more than one type of nonverbal behavior in their corrective feedback. When the multiples category was further coded into the other types of nonverbal behavior, the most frequent type is head movements (32.2), followed by deictics (27.2) and iconics (11.8). It is not surprising that head movements, especially nodding or shaking head, would have a relatively higher frequency rate. In the L2 classroom, learners often produce non-target-like language or attempt to test their language hypotheses (see Swain, 1995, 2005). In such instances, teachers often nod or shake their head to confirm or disconfirm learners’ language production, thereby either respectively affirming the learner’s linguistic hypothesis or providing negative evidence regarding the incorrect nature of the learner’s utterance. Both actions can provide learning opportunities. Additionally, teachers may use these head movements to help emphasize what they were saying, in an effort to make the feedback more salient and to aid acquisition. With regard to deictic gestures, sometimes the teachers pointed at a specific object, a direction, or a specific item of interest on the blackboard, in the textbook, a handout or a notebook. Other times they pointed at a student they were addressing, fulfilling the other-regulation function of deictics in the L2 classroom (Allen, 2000) and increasing the chances that a specific student might notice the correction provided to his or her own linguistic errors. Still other times teachers pointed at a person who was present and referred to in their discourse. Given the variety of contexts where pointing occurred, it is natural that it was one of the most frequent nonverbal behaviors.

As for iconic gestures, although the frequency rate is much lower than that of head movements and deictic gestures, it is much higher than that of other types of nonverbal behavior such as metaphoric gestures. Metaphoric gestures present abstract ideas or concepts that may be difficult to embody. In contrast, iconic gestures present concrete objects or actions that may be easier to represent with gesture. Consequently, teachers may use iconic gestures more easily to provide additional input and information about problematic language items, which can facilitate L2 learning (e.g. Lazaraton, 2004).

Looking at Tables 1 and 2, one will find that the frequencies and types of nonverbal behavior vary from class to class and teacher to teacher. This variation may have resulted from the varied courses observed in the study. Although all classes involved communicative activities, the teachers and students resorted to different types of nonverbal behavior as needed. For example, a grammar teacher frequently used deictic gestures to show present, past, and future when explaining verb tense, whereas a reading teacher used many iconic gestures to explain the verbs in an article that students had read. The frequency and variety of the teachers’ nonverbal behavior were therefore largely decided by the nature of the classes that the teachers taught and the teaching materials they used in class.

VIII Conclusions

To sum up, this study examined teachers’ use of nonverbal behavior during corrective feedback. It was found that teachers produced a variety of nonverbal behavior when correcting learners, and the frequency of different types of nonverbal behavior varied. The most typical ones are nodding, shaking head, pointing at an artifact, and pointing at a person.

The results of the present study point to the potential significance of nonverbal behavior in SLA and L2 classrooms. It is believed that ‘in order to improve teaching, we must first have an adequate description of the teaching act’ (Allen, 2000: 169). The present study provides further evidence that nonverbal behavior is an important facet of L2 teachers’ teaching act. It is therefore a research area that merits attention alongside teachers’ verbal input to learners. A description of the teaching act without a depiction of teachers’ nonverbal behavior is not complete. Consequently, our understanding of the teaching act will not be complete either.

Given the pervasiveness of nonverbal behavior by teachers during corrective feedback, more studies are needed to investigate related issues; for example, learners’ ability to interpret teachers’ nonverbal feedback, learners’ response to teachers’ nonverbal feedback, the level of teachers’ awareness of their own nonverbal behavior, and the degree to which teachers’ nonverbal behavior is amenable to change.

Finally, it should be pointed out that this study has its limitations. First, the study was conducted in a large mix of courses, and the participating teachers were quite different in teaching experience. These differences made it hard to interpret the variation of the occurrence of nonverbal behavior observed in the study. Also, we only focused on the more observable nonverbal behaviors in the data. Other types of nonverbal behavior, gaze, for example, were not examined. A careful look at such nonverbal behaviors might shed new light on the issue at hand. Furthermore, the current study did not examine the connection between teachers’ nonverbal feedback and learners’ subsequent learning, even though we would hypothesize that corrective feedback accompanied by nonverbal behavior could be more salient, resulting in more learner uptake and, more importantly, greater L2 acquisition. Despite such drawbacks, we hope that our research about how nonverbal behavior occurs with corrective feedback can serve as a step for future research in this important area of SLA.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Acknowledgements

This study is part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation. She is grateful to Lynn Fendler, Charlene Polio and Thomas Bird for their continuous support and encouragement during the whole study. Both authors also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on early versions of the paper.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allen

L.Q.

(2000). Nonverbal accommodation in foreign language teacher talk. Applied Language Learning, 11, 155–176.

Bancroft

W.J.

(1997). Nonverbal communication: How important is it for the language teacher? Mosaic, 4, 3–12.

Belhiah

(2013). Using the hands to choreograph instruction: On the functional role of gesture in definition talk. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 417–434.

Burgoon

Buller

D.B.

Woodall

W.G.

(1989). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: Harper & Row.

Davies

(2006). Paralinguistic focus on form. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 841–855.

Ekman

Friesen

W.V.

(1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.

Ellis

Basturkmen

Loewen

(2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.

Ellis

Loewen

Erlam

(2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.

Faraco

Kida

(2008). Gesture and the negotiation of meaning in a second language classroom. In: McCafferty

S.G.

Stam

(Eds.), Gesture: Second language acquisition and classroom research (pp. 280–297). London: Routledge.

10.

Gass

(1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Gass

Mackey

(2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Goldin-Meadow

(1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 419–429.

13.

Goldin-Meadow

McNeill

(1999). The role of gesture and mimetic representation in making language the province of speech. In: Corballis

M.C.

Lea

S.E.G.

(Eds.),The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution (pp. 155–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Goo

Mackey

(2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.

15.

Gullberg

(2006). Some reasons for studying gesture and second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 103–124.

16.

Gullberg

(2010). Methodological reflections on gesture analysis in second language acquisition and bilingualism research. Second Language Research, 26, 75–102.

17.

Hall

J.A.

Coats

E.J.

Labeau

L.S.

(2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924.

18.

Hostetter

A.B.

Alibali

M.W.

(2004). On the tip of the mind: Gesture as a key to conceptualization. In: Forbus

Gentner

Regier

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 589–594). Chicago, IL: Erlbaum.

19.

Jungheim

N.O.

(2001). The unspoken element of communicative competence: Evaluating language learners’ nonverbal behavior. In: Hudson

Brown

J.D.

(Eds.), A focus on language test development (pp. 1–34). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.

20.

Kelly

S.D.

Manning

S.M.

Rodak

(2008). Gesture gives a hand to language and learning: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology and education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 1–20.

21.

Lazaraton

(2004). Gesture and speech in the vocabulary explanations of one ESL teacher: A microanalytic inquiry. Language Learning, 54, 79–117.

22.

Lee

(2008). Gesture and private speech in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 169–190.

23.

(2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.

24.

Loewen

Philp

(2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.

25.

Long

(1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In: De Bot

Ginsberg

Kramsch

(Eds.), Foreign language research in crosscultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins.

26.

Long

(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie

W.C.

Bhatia

T.K.

(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

27.

Long

(2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Lyster

(1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.

29.

Lyster

Ranta

(1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.

30.

Lyster

Ranta

(2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.

31.

Lyster

Saito

(2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.

32.

Mackey

Goo

(2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: Mackey

(Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

33.

McCafferty

S.G.

(1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech. Applied Linguistics, 19, 73–96.

34.

McCafferty

S.G.

Stam

(2008). Gesture: Second language acquisition and classroom research. New York: Routledge.

35.

McNeill

(1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought? Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

36.

McNeill

(2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

37.

McNeill

Duncan

S.D.

(2000). Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In: McNeill

(Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 141–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Morrel-Samuels

Krauss

R.M.

(1992). Word familiarity predicts temporal asynchrony of hand gestures and speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 615–662.

39.

Norris

J.M.

Ortega

(2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.

40.

Olsher

(2008). Gesturally enhanced repeats in the repair turn: communication strategy or cognitive language-learning tool?In: McCafferty

S.G.

Stam

(Eds.), Gesture: Second language acquisition and classroom research (pp. 109–130). London: Routledge.

41.

Pennycook

(1985). Actions speak louder than words: Paralanguage, communication, and education. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 259–282.

42.

Riseborough

(1981). Physiographic gestures as decoding facilitators: Three experiments exploring a neglected facet of communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 172–183.

43.

Russell

Spada

(2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In: Norris

Ortega

(Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp.133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

44.

Schmidt

(1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. In: Schmidt

(Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (technical report no. 9) (pp. 1–64). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.

45.

Schmidt

(2001). Attention. In: Robinson

(Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Sheen

(2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.

47.

Sime

(2006). What do learners make of teachers’ gestures in the language classroom? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 211–230.

48.

Smotrova

Lantolf

J.P.

(2013). The function of gesture in lexically focused L2 instructional conversations. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 397–416.

49.

Stam

(2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 145–171.

50.

Sueyoshi

Hardison

(2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55, 661–699.

51.

Swain

(1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook

Seidlhofer

(Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

52.

Swain

(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In: Hinkel

(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.