Approaches to corrective feedback in EFL classroom

Fan Renshui

Abstract：Feedback provision has always been considered as an important classroom activity in second language learning literature. According to Chaudron， corrective feedback was defined as： 'any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms， disapprovingly refer to， or demands improvement of the learner utterance'. （Chaudron， 1977， p.31） To put it simply， 'CF refer to utterances that indicate to the learner that his or her output is erroneous in some way.' （Nassaji， 2010）. This article aims to discuss oral corrective feedback in English language learning classroom and try to illustrate answers of the changing attitudes towards learner errors as well as the different approach of oral corrective feedback.

Key word：Approaches；corrective；EFL classroom

中圖分類號：G648 文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼：B文章編號：1672-1578（2018）12-0022-02

The attitudes towards errors and corrective feedback in terms of language learning have changed significantly from the past years. From the view of cognitive and psycho-linguistic perspectives， errors can contribute to second language development （Schmidt， 1990； Swain， 1995； Long， 1998）. The errors learners produced will contribute to teachers' corrective feedback， and this can induces learners noticing the gap between erroneous and correct form of target language （i.e. inter-language）. In the inter-language view， Corder （1967） and Sklinker （1972） through observations came up with conclusion that learner's errors actually play a significant role in language learning process.

As UG theory proposed by Chomsky in 196os， however， he strongly argued that erroneous utterance language learner produced were not necessary to be corrected， because language learning mainly rely on people innate parameter and principles settings （i.e. Language Acquisition Devices）， under this setting， however the languages are correct or not， they would be able to trigger self-correct. Under this nativist's views， Chomsky also believe that language acquisition only need positive evidence， which offering learners information of what is possible in a given language， so that trigger the innate setting. Whereas negative evidence （overt corrective feedback） was usually provided in a negative way by telling learners what is not possible in a given language， therefore it was considered as played no or minor role in language learning （Chomsky， 1966； Griffiths， 2008； Nassaji and Fotos， 2010）.

Contrast with Chomsky， there are still many researchers illustrated that errors were an indication of learning， learners are actually making progress （Oliver， 1995； Bartram and Walton，1991）. At least reveal learners are trying to apply the language they learned， although it is not yet correct. In other words， making errors is a way that learner trying to test hypotheses， investigate the systems of the target language （Corder， 1981； Sheen， 2011）. To know whether learners' hypotheses of target language are correct or not， learner do need both comprehensible input and teacher's corrective feedback providing （Nassaji and Fotos， 2010）.

Factors influence the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback

There are many factors should be take in to account when teachers providing corrective feedback. Firstly， whether the correction is appropriate to the lesson at that moment. In other words， errors that lie with the very point of the lesson should be dealt with （Bartram and Walton， 1991）. For example， in a grammar-focused class， teacher should pay more attention to grammatical errors， whereas a pronunciation problem of particular word and other unrelated errors could be noted down and correct afterwards.

Secondly， the aim of the conducted activities should be considered. If the activity in class is accuracy-oriented speaking exercises， then students may expect to be completely accurate all the time， in this case， teachers' overtly corrective feedback should be provided for learners to getting accurate.

Last but not the least， it is essential to know the 'learnability differences varies from person to person' （Corder， 1988， p.95）. Errors produced repeatedly by particular learners for reasons， some learners understand and remember the corrective feedback from the teacher， whereas some of them keep producing the same erroneous point several times， and that really frustrated teachers from time to time. Therefore， based on these varieties among learners， corrective feedback should be supplied in different ways.

Oral corrective feedback techniques

In comprehensive corrective feedback literature， the techniques used in learners' communicative errors can be divided into implicit correction and explicit correction.

Explicit feedback emphasis on output prompting， in this case learners are given the overtly clues of correction， they are literally pushed to self-correct. The explicit corrective feedback can carry out in direct correction （e.g. No， it's X， not Y.）， direct elicitation （i.e. Pause， question the incorrect form or ask learner reformulate） and meta-linguistic corrective feedback （metalanguage clues）. In terms of explicit correction， both learner's erroneous utterance and corrective form will be indicated clearly by the teacher. The advantages of this overtly correction is corrections can be noticed by learners， and lead to learner' uptake and self-repair. The meta-linguistic feedback is usually considered quite effective because it 'provides the learners correct forms together with meta-linguistic comments.' （Sheen， 2011） For example， 'You should say XX， here you need present tense.' The teacher can also offer the explanation why it is so. But too many explicit corrective feedback provided in classrooms may cause demotivated and embarrassed of the learner， they may lose confidence in front of other peers.

While implicit corrective feedback strategies are also known as 'gentle correction' （Harmer， 2001） which focus on input providing， including recasts （or reformulation）， clarification requests， elicitation， repetition， meta-linguistic clues. Recasts are frequently used to correct learner errors in classroom. Without indicating incorrect forms overtly， the teacher provides a reformulation of the learner's erroneous utterance， for example， 'S： How weight are you？ T： You mean how much do I weigh？ （Sheen， 2011， p.3）. Most studies showed this method was the most frequently used by teacher in classroom， as this type of correction provide corrected input， that is positive feedback， and that may contribute to short term learning if the corrections can be identified by learners.

Another implicit corrective feedback strategy for promoting self-repair of the learner is elicitation. It can be carried out by repeating part of the learner has said up to the point where the error occurs. （e.g. once upon a time， there…）. However， the using of elicitation requires learners' cognitive ability and higher language proficiency. Otherwise the learner may confuse where they made errors as the error may beyond the boundary of their knowledge. The teacher can also show the incorrectness by repeating what the learner said and stress the intonation of wrong utterances， this type of correction called repetition or echoing. Similarly， this strategy aims to provide hints for learners there is something wrong， but the disadvantage of repetition is the clues are too non-salient for learner to notice.

Conclusion

In conclusion， making errors are helpful for language learners because errors show the evidence of learner's progress. A good language learner is not the one who makes very few mistakes when using the new language， but the one who have courage to afford the risks of testing the language. The error learners produced demonstrate that they are trying to organize what they want to say， although the assumption is not yet correct. To deal with errors， the teacher should always sensitive and the learner's individual differences should be taken into account. For effectiveness of corrective feedback， the explicit correction works well than implicit ones， for a long-term benefit of learning， the implicit correction combine with the explicit one might work better than using individually. Finally， more explicit correction should be offered only when implicit corrective feedback is fail perceived by learners， the teacher should always try to provide prompts for learners to self-repair.