How do learners engage with oral corrective feedback on lexical stress errors?
Effects of learner engagement on the working of corrective feedback
This study explored the affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement of 18 Iranian EFL learners with oral corrective
feedback on lexical stress errors. The data were collected using questionnaires, pretests, posttests, and interviews. The questionnaire
responses showed that the participants held various perceptions about direct feedback. Additionally, the pretest and posttest results
indicated that the learners with positive perceptions about direct feedback had significant lexical stress accuracy gains. Also, the
students who viewed direct feedback favorably showed positive affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement with it. These learners, for
instance, frequently reviewed the provided feedback and used cognitive resources when utilizing it. In contrast, the students with negative
perceptions about direct feedback showed negative engagement with it. The findings suggest that learners’ affective, behavioral, and
cognitive engagement can determine the working of feedback. Also, students’ perceptions seem to filter the feedback they receive, thereby
helping shape how they engage with feedback.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Background
- 1.2Effects of OCF on L2 pronunciation accuracy
- 1.3Learners’ engagement with feedback
- 1.4Target structure: Lexical stress
- 1.5The present study
- 2.Methodology
- 2.1Operationalization of variables
- 2.2Study context, participants, and participant selection
- 2.3Data collection instruments
- 2.4The tutoring sessions: OCF on lexical stress errors
- 2.5Data collection and data analysis
- 3.Findings and discussion
- 3.1The learners’ questionnaire responses
- 3.2Learners’ pretest and posttest lexical stress accuracy
- 3.3The effects of learner engagement with feedback on the efficacy of direct OCF on lexical stress errors
- 3.3.1Patterns of Learner Engagement with Feedback for the Favorable Group: Bita, Mina, and Peji
- 3.3.2Patterns of learner engagement for the unfavorable group: Amin, Sara, and Ziba
- 4.Conclusion
-
References
References (33)
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Sprouse, R. A. (2018). Negative versus positive transfer. In J. I. Lionitas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–6). Wiley- Blackwell: NJ, USA.
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 931, 46–60.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 391, 379–397.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2007). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 291, 359–380.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 481, 393–410.
Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C. (2013). The short-term effects of individual corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. System, 411, 25–37.
Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 335–349.
Ferguson, C. A. (1957). Word stress in Persian. Language, 33(2), 123–135.
Gooch, R., Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 601, 117–127.
Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 381, 201–223.
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 691, 133–142.
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 301, 31–44.
Jodaie, M., Farrokhi, F., & Zoghi, M. (2011). A comparative study of EFL Teachers’ and intermediate high school students’ perceptions of written corrective feedback on grammatical errors. English Language Teaching, 41, 36–48.
Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 381, 301–315.
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2015). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 381, 35–64.
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation Instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 361, 345–366.
Lesley, T., Sandy, C., Hansen, C., & Zukowski, J. (2005). Interchange Passages placement evaluation package (3rd ed.). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Li, S. (2013). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 681, 196–198.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 191, 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 265–302.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 461, 1–40.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 221, 471–497.
Mahjani, B. (2003). An instrumental study of prosodic features and intonation in modern Farsi (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Edinburgh, UK.
Pickering, L. (2006). Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 261, 219–233.
Richards, J. C. (2004). Interchange 2 (3rd ed.). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Saito, K. (2013). Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 351, 1–29.
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 621, 595–633.
Saito, Y., & Saito, K. (2017). Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 211, 589–608.
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 371, 217–240.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 303–334.
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effects of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 1-30.
Vojdanoska, M., Cranney, J., & Newell, B. R. (2010). The testing effect: The role of feedback and collaboration in a tertiary classroom setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(8), 1183–1195.
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 371, 13–24.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Hua, Congchao
2023.
Pronunciation assessment of learners, by learners, and for learners: Effects, validity and reliability, and learners’ perception.
Language Teaching Research
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.