Corrective feedback episodes in oral interactiona comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom

  1. Milla Melero, Ruth
  2. García Mayo, María del Pilar
Revista:
IJES: international journal of English studies

ISSN: 1578-7044

Año de publicación: 2014

Volumen: 14

Número: 1

Páginas: 1-25

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6018/IJES/14/1/151841 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: IJES: international journal of English studies

Resumen

El presente trabajo versa sobre la retroalimentación correctiva (Sheen, 2011), un tema ampliamente investigado en las últimas décadas, y el contexto de instrucción. Se observó y grabó la interacción oral de una clase intacta de treinta alumnos y dos profesores de inglés como lengua extranjera (ILE), asignatura más centrada en la forma, y de aprendizaje integrado de lenguas y contenido (AICLE; Dalton-Puffer, 2011), orientada hacia el significado. La unidad de análisis utilizada fueron los episodios de retroalimentación correctiva (CFE � por sus siglas en inglés- Lyster, 1994). Los resultados muestran diferencias en tipo, cantidad y modo de los CFE entre los dos contextos. Aunque no se encontraron diferencias significativas en la respuesta de los alumnos en ILE y AICLE, el análisis cualitativo de los datos indicó que la actitud de los profesores con respecto a la retroalimentación correctiva influyó en la posterior respuesta de los alumnos a la misma. En el trabajo se sugieren líneas de trabajo para futuras investigaciones sobre la retroalimentación correctiva, la respuesta y el contexto de instrucción

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
  • Basterrechea, M. & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners (pp. 25–43). In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second Language Interaction in Diverse Educational Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Carroll, S. (1997). The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage (pp. 73–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.
  • Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.
  • Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers’ priorities in correcting learners’ errors in French immersion classes. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn. Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 64–84). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
  • Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562.
  • Dabaghi, A. & Bastkurmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37, 82–98.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: from practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
  • De Graaff, R., Koopman, G.J., Anikina, J, & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624.
  • Doughty, C. J. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J. Alatis (Ed.), GURT 1993: Strategic interaction (pp. 96–108).Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Ellis, R. Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and theacquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
  • Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue cannadienne des langues vivantes, 66, 877–905.
  • Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155–182.
  • García Mayo, M.P. (2011). The relevance of attention to L2 form in communicative classroom contexts. ELIA, 11, 11–45.
  • García Mayo, M.P. & Villarreal Olaizola, I. (2011).The development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque-Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research 27(1), 129–149.
  • Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output. An overview. AILA Review 19, 3–17.
  • Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14 (2&3), 112–127.
  • Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT Journal 64(4), 367–375.
  • Lázaro Ibarrola, A. & García Mayo, M. P. (2012). L1 use and morphosyntactic development in the oral production of EFL learners in a CLIL context. International Review of Applied Linguistics 50 (2), 135–160.
  • Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(4), 285–312.
  • Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271–28
  • Lochtman, K. (2007). Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse (pp. 119–138). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.
  • Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Long, M. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty and J. William (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–442.
  • Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students‘ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.
  • Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
  • Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
  • Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
  • Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
  • Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA. A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
  • Mackey, A., Gass, S. and McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
  • Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A. & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perception about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(10), 129–152.
  • Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.
  • MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES-Project: Tools for analyzing talk (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE- The European Dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. Public Services Contract DG EAC: European Commission, Brussels.
  • Martínez Adrián, M. & Gutierrez Mangado, J. (2009). The acquisition of English syntax by CLIL learners. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. C. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning (pp. 176–196). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Moore, P. (2011). Collaborative interaction in turn-taking: A comparative study of European bilingual (CLIL) and mainstream (MS) foreign language learners in early secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(5), 531–549.
  • Nassaji, H. (2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL classes. The Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue cannadienne des langues vivantes, 66, 907–933.
  • Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
  • Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481.
  • Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.
  • Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on noticing the gap: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS- NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
  • Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.
  • Russell V.J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Schachter, J. (1981). The hand signal system. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 125–138.
  • Schmidt, R. (1990) The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
  • Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
  • Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer.
  • Sierra, J., Gallardo del Puerto, F. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Good practices and future actions in CLIL: Learning and pedagogy. In J. M. Sierra, F. Gallardo del Puerto & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in european contexts (pp. 317–339). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 73–87.
  • Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.
  • Spada, N. & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching Research.
  • Syndicate, U.C.L.E (2001). Quick Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
  • 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, 235–263.
  • Yoneyahm, A. (1982). The treatment of learners’ errors by novice EFL teachers. Bulletin of the College of Education, Human and Social Sciences, 23, 85–94
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet