Corrective Feedback Methods Used by a Native English Speaker Teacher and a Non-Native Teacher
Corrective Feedback Use of a Native English Speaker Teacher and a Non-Native Teacher
INTRODUCTION
The importance and benefits of corrective feedback have been debated in many aspects in SLA field. Most of the teachers take correcting errors as their responsibility. There is no doubt that the first aim of corrective feedback is to make students aware of their mistakes so that they can correct. The way teachers carry out this progress may differ from eachother hence I dedicated this paper to find out differences or similarities in correcting feedback patterns of a native English teacher and a non-native English teacher lecturing at University of Kocaeli ELT Department. After observation , I asked them their opinions about students’ mistakes and corrective feedback so as to understand dynamics that effect the type and rate of Corrective feedback they give.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Corrective feedback is called any reaction from teachers to students’ “non-nativelike use of the target language” indications.(Kim, 2004)The approaches towards corrective feedback differ.Rezaei, Mozaffari&Hatef, 2011 summarize these approaches; some schools of thought like Behaviorism considered errors as taboos in their discourse and believed that theyshould be immediately corrected by the teacher (Brown, 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards &Rodgers, 2001)while others claimed that error correction was not only unnecessary, but also harmful to language learning(Krashen, 1981a;1981b). With the emergence of communicative approaches, error correction underwent aradical shift (Nicholas, Lightbown, &Spada, 2001; Russell, 2009). CLT advocates created a balance betweenwhat Audiolinguists and Cognitistvists do and suggested that an error must be viewed as evidence of learners 'linguistic development, not as a sin to be avoided. CLT advocates recognized the need for fluency and thisallows teachers to leave some errors uncorrected.Nevertheless, currently SLA researchers strongly believe
INTRODUCTION
The importance and benefits of corrective feedback have been debated in many aspects in SLA field. Most of the teachers take correcting errors as their responsibility. There is no doubt that the first aim of corrective feedback is to make students aware of their mistakes so that they can correct. The way teachers carry out this progress may differ from eachother hence I dedicated this paper to find out differences or similarities in correcting feedback patterns of a native English teacher and a non-native English teacher lecturing at University of Kocaeli ELT Department. After observation , I asked them their opinions about students’ mistakes and corrective feedback so as to understand dynamics that effect the type and rate of Corrective feedback they give.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Corrective feedback is called any reaction from teachers to students’ “non-nativelike use of the target language” indications.(Kim, 2004)The approaches towards corrective feedback differ.Rezaei, Mozaffari&Hatef, 2011 summarize these approaches; some schools of thought like Behaviorism considered errors as taboos in their discourse and believed that theyshould be immediately corrected by the teacher (Brown, 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards &Rodgers, 2001)while others claimed that error correction was not only unnecessary, but also harmful to language learning(Krashen, 1981a;1981b). With the emergence of communicative approaches, error correction underwent aradical shift (Nicholas, Lightbown, &Spada, 2001; Russell, 2009). CLT advocates created a balance betweenwhat Audiolinguists and Cognitistvists do and suggested that an error must be viewed as evidence of learners 'linguistic development, not as a sin to be avoided. CLT advocates recognized the need for fluency and thisallows teachers to leave some errors uncorrected.Nevertheless, currently SLA researchers strongly believe
References: Kim, J. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition,Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 4(2), 1. “Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective.Second Language Research, 7” Lyster, R Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., &Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective feedback in sla: Classroom practice and future directions,International Journal of English Linguistics,1(1), 1.