Oral Corrective Feedback during ELL Academic Conversations Anne Niemi MATSOL Conference May 8, 2014

Oral Corrective Feedback When non-native English speakers make a marked statement, what feedback should they receive in an educational setting? Do we ask them to repeat? Tell them what type of mistake they made? Correct it for them? At what age is feedback best absorbed and applied? What type of feedback is most advantageous for language teachers to integrate? 30 years of research diverse populations of participants diverse languages

First: Recognizing the Dissonance In order to be meaningful, ELLs must notice the difference between their original utterance and that of the recast (Lyster & Saito, 2010) Student : I has finish the homework Teacher: I have finished the homework If unnoticed, no healthy degree of “stress” “tension” “clash” Just noticing the dissonance is not enough “Noticing triggers only the first two levels of awareness…of the formal properties of target forms, but not the second level…awareness…of developing an explicit representation of the target form,” (Lyster & Saito, 2010)

Reasonable Feedback Complexity Feedback needs to be of manageable length contain a “reasonable” dissonance I has finish my homework yet A response that highlights 3 differences of the marked speech would be difficult for learners to digest; thus, these longer recasts yield lower scores on post-tests that ask learners to recall the correct forms (Loewen & Philp)

Types of Speaking Errors Grammar Lexical Phonological •metalinguistic issues •He buy a lot of food •I put it on table We have homework? Do We have homework? •incorrect word for intended context I am very scary I am very scared •sound of phonemes dat vs. that he’s vs. his In immersion classrooms, study showed “learners repaired 62% of their phonological errors, 41% of their lexical errors, and only 22% of their grammatical errors” (Lyster, 1998)

Negative (Corrective) Feedback Positive Feedback Negative (Corrective) Feedback In Writing: Frontloading Pre-teaching Oral Positive Feedback: Emphasis/stress Body language Explicit correction Recast Elicitation Clarification request Repetition Metalinguistic Cue (Lyster, 1998) I has finish the homework

I has finish the homework Explicit Correction “Since you said ‘I’ you need to change ‘has’ to ‘have’” Recast “I have finished the homework” Elicitation “Have you finished the homework already or do you have to finish the homework?” Clarification Request “I’m confused, did you finish the homework in the past?” Repetition “I has finished the homework?” Metalinguistic Cue “Try it in present perfect tense with the correct participle”

Prompts (highlight the Error) Recasts (give the correct answer Corrective Feedback Which of the 6 types is most advantageous in terms of promoting long-term, habitual, native-like speech? Prompts (highlight the Error) Recasts (give the correct answer Elicitation Metalinguistic Cues Clarification request Repetition Explicit correction Better because ELL receives both negative and positive feedback from the teacher’s modeling of correct forms ELLs are forced to negotiate more of their own language use because teachers are not giving the answer   “withholding phenomenon” (McHoul, 1990)

Arguments for Prompts “Prompts aim to improve control over already-internalized forms by providing opportunities for ‘pushed’ output…to move interlanguage development forward…learners benefit more from being pushed to retrieve target language forms than from merely hearing the forms in the input,” (Lyster & Saito, 2010; Swain, 1985) “learners remember information better when they take an active part in producing it, rather than having it provided by an external source,” (Lyster & Saito, 2010; Clark, 1995).” Recasts---may be better for beginners?

What’s missing in the research? How do form focused and meaning focused corrective feedback prompts impact academic writing? studies use immediate and delayed post-tests error recognition and correction better results in delayed post-tests But what if the learner is asked to write a paragraph, or a more unbound post-test assignment after specific language forms are targeted with oral corrective feedback?

DeKeyser: Skill Acquisition Theory “entails a gradual transition from effortful use to more automotive use of target language forms, brought about through practice and feedback in meaningful contexts,” (Lyster & Saito, 2010; DeKeyser, 2003, 2007) How can teachers assess the automaticity that happens at the end of this “transition” with effective teaching? In “meaningful contexts”?

Non-Verbal Corrective Feedback in the ESL Classroom “Thick skin” mentality make goals of corrective feedback transparent praise ability to form new habits everyone will be prompted Metalinguistic Cues: Why not make them non-verbal? 1) Pointing to signs in the classroom during academic conversations 2) Adding and removing signs to highlight forms that should be used during different genres of conversations

Non-Verbal Corrective Feedback in the ESL Classroom When self-correcting begins to occur… Clarification request: hand motion

Do/Does Have/Has + PERFECT +S/+ES Who What Where When Why How Is there/ Are there

Content Prompt: “How has Socrates’ ideas about justice impacted the U Content Prompt: “How has Socrates’ ideas about justice impacted the U.S. government today?” Metalinguistic Cue Sign: Have/Has + PERFECT Language Expectations: Students will use the present perfect tense to make oral arguments about events that occurred in the past but have a current presence Follow up writing activity: A written argument paragraph Connecting oracy to writing…students use more academic vocabulary and now, targeted grammar forms

Content Prompt: Whole group KWL Chart on Genes & DNA Metalinguistic Cue Signs: Do/Does Who What, Where, When, Why, How Language Expectations: Students will form questions orally in the present tense Follow up writing activity: Writing questions for the author of a non-fiction text on sticky notes as they read

Content Prompt: Predicting what will happen in a short story Metalinguistic Cue Signs: Subordinate conjunctions ; __________ , Language Expectations: Students will use subordinate conjunctions to imply causes and effects in the plot of a fiction text Follow up writing activity: Writing an essay about 3 examples of forshadowing from short story

Non-Verbal Corrective Feedback in the SEI Classroom While students are obtaining content knowledge and vocabulary, there is a continued stress on metalinguistic forms and accuracy throughout their school day in all of their classrooms. Imagine how that could increase the rate of native-like speaking habits for ELLs?

Anne Niemi anne_niemi@bedford.k12.ma.us Thank you!

References Clark, S. (1995). The generation effect and the modeling of associations in memory. Memory & Cognition vol. 23, 442–455. DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 313–348. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R, Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 28, 339– 368. Hu, G. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and contributing factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development vol. 24, 290–318. Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the Adult English L2 Classroom: Characteristics, Explicitness, and Effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal. vol. 90, issue IV. Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol. 20, 51–81. Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning vol. 48, n°2, 183–218. Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Interactional Feedback as Instructional Input: A synthesis of Classroom SLA Research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition vol. 1, issue 2, 276- 296.

McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society vol. 19, 349–377.  Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning vol. 50, 119–151.  Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal vol. 87, 519–533.  Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition, 235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.  Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol. 15, 165–179.  Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, vol. 11, 129–158.  Takashima, H. & Ellis, R. (1999). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction, 173– 188. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  White, J. & Ranta, L. (2002). Examining the interface between metalinguistic task performance and oral production in a second language. Language Awareness vol. 11, 259–290. Yang, Y. & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past-tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol. 32, 235–263.