KURDISH SECONDARY STUDENTS PERFORMANCE IN
LEARNING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Degree
Acronyms
CF Corrective Feedback
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ESL English as a Second Language
FLC Foreign Language Correction
ICEEP International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology
LPLA Logical Problem of Language Acquisition
SLA Second Language Acquisition
TEFL Teaching English as a Second Language
TESOL Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages
The Role of Oral Self Correction to Enhance Kurdish Secondary Students Performance in Learning English as a Foreign Language
1. Introduction
The motivation for choosing oral self-correction as the subject of this essay is from my experience teaching secondary school Kurdish students English as Foreign Language (EFL). Therefore the context addressed in this essay is the role of oral self-correction for secondary school students in EFL classes in a non-native English language. Secondary school students are from 16 to 17 years old. Amrhein and Nassa (n.d.) have described how starting in the 1970s “research has questioned the value of error correction” pertaining to English as a Second Language (ESL) especially to ESL writing: since then “the literature on L2 learning has continuously shown varying positions regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback on errors” (p. 96). In 1977 the concept of self-correction was the subject of an article by Schedgloff, Jefferson and Sacks title, “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation” marking the beginning of serious research on the subject of oral self-correction in the, fields of linguistics, foreign language education and language acquisition.
In 1982 Stephen D. Krashen published a still classic book titled Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) where he describes Monitor (error) Theory and its relationship to learning.“Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our utterance, after is has been produced by the acquired system. This can happen before we speak or write, or after (self-correction)” (Krashen 1982, p. 15). Krashen (1982) makes a point that self-correction is the opposite of “other correction or correcting someone else’s output” (p. 105).
Meanwhile Ellis (1994) has discussed the concepts of self-correction in learning. Ellis noted that (a) when non-natives are speaking to other non-natives or (b) during native speaker and non-native conversations the strategy of self-correction is preferred. (1994, p. 262) Ellis reported that other research has demonstrated that native speakers have a tendency to not correct non-native mistakes unless there is a factual error. Native speakers only rarely correct non-native speakers when language errors are made. (1994, p. 262) Therefore self-correction in daily oral interactions would seem to be not only very important but also necessary. Learning about motivational factors for primary school students and how important a role their self-consciousness may play in preventing them from self-correcting in corrective situations. Lightbown and Spada (2006, p. 67) have noted in a survey of adult learners of a second foreign language in America that the students were dissatisfied with the “absence of attention to language form, corrective feedback, or teacher-centred instruction.” Each of these complaints suggests not only a need for self-correction but also a motivation for using self-correction.
Self repair is considered the umbrella category for self-correction and self-editing which may mean using pauses, reformulations and/or false-starts. (Doughty and Long, 2003)
“According to the research, basic repair structure consists of a three-step sequence: the production of the trouble source, the initiation of the repair, and the completion of the repair. Both the initiation and the repair can be made by either the trouble source or another party” Lin, 2009, p. 1).
Self-corrective feedback in oral situations is when partners engage in face-to-face interactions, such as practicing a conversation. In a face-to-face oral interaction when the learner shares a self-repair for a verbal error without a verbal cue from their speaking partner they have self-corrected. In general, corrective feedback has been considered the role of the teacher in the classroom. However the ability of a student to self-correct may be more helpful in a classroom situation.
1.2 Research question
The research question is ‘Is self-correction better than other types of feedback according to the published literature’? Differing opinions exist on the best way to correct learners. This paper seeks to explore the place of oral self-correction for EFL secondary students in a non-native English speaking country. Moreover, the advantages and disadvantages of oral self-correction will be investigated. A literature review has been done to explore these issues so they can be used in the practice of enhancing or hindering Kurdish EFL secondary students in Iraq.
2. Literature Review
Vivian Cook is a professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Newcastle in the United Kingdom who has written a textbook on second language learning and teaching which is now in its fourth edition. Cook (2008) has explained that “central to the idea of interaction is what happens when it goes wrong – the organization of repair” (p. 167). Bialystok has noted that learning abilities are unique to each learner. Obviously the dynamics of evaluating language attributes like self-correction are complex from the theoretical organization of repair to the personal experiences and talents of each learner. Therefore a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of correction feedbacks can be a challenge.
This controversy has reached a point of negotiated agreement on some points but debates still remain on how self-correction is to be motivated in face-to-face interactions. One type of correction is elicitation (in the form of a prompt) which can vary in degrees from being implicit to explicit. Panova and Lyster (2002) suggest there are three suitable corrective feedbacks in the category of elicitation when corrective communication is face-to-face. Those are (a) ask the learner to repeat the mistake in order to make the necessary corrections, (b) ask the learner open ended questions until the correction has been made or (c) pause long enough for the learner to self-correct. Lyster and Mori (2006) have suggested that prompts are useful. Prompts are a way of encouraging a student to self-correct by pausing or in another appropriate way. Prompts can be anything that indicates to the student that a correction is needed. Prompts that invite self-correction include “elicitation, a meta-linguistic clue, a clarification request, and repletion” (Lyster and Mori, 2006, p. 13) A long pause allowing the learner to self-correct can be very effective.
2.3.1 Monitor Theory
In 1982 Stephen D. Krashen published a still classic book titled Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) where he describes Monitor (error) Theory and its relationship to learning.“Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our utterance, after is has been produced by the acquired system. This can happen before we speak or write, or after (self-correction)” (Krashen 1982, p. 15). Krashen (1982) makes a point that self-correction is the opposite of “other correction or correcting someone else’s output” (p. 105).
Meanwhile Ellis (1994) has discussed the concepts of self-correction in learning. Ellis noted that (a) when non-natives are speaking to other non-natives or (b) during native speaker and non-native conversations the strategy of self-correction is preferred. (1994, p. 262) Ellis reported that other research has demonstrated that native speakers have a tendency to not correct non-native mistakes unless there is a factual error. Native speakers only rarely correct non-native speakers when language errors are made. (1994, p. 262) Therefore self-correction in daily oral interactions would seem to be not only very important but also necessary. Learning about motivational factors for primary school students and how important a role their self-consciousness may play in preventing them from self-correcting in corrective situations. Lightbown and Spada (2006, p. 67) have noted in a survey of adult learners of a second foreign language in America that the students were dissatisfied with the “absence of attention to language form, corrective feedback, or teacher-centred instruction.” Each of these complaints suggests not only a need for self-correction but also a motivation for using self-correction.
2.3.3 Sociocultural
Rod Ellis (2012) has citied an important study the research from the researchers Aljaafreh and Lantolf from 1994 who carried out sociocultural study of Corrective Feedback (CF); their research on EFL writing ability “demonstrated the advantages of fine—tuning the feedback to enable learners to gradually achieve self-regulation” (p. 10). Lockhart (2007) published research which resulted in a comparison of feedback types from a group of 394 participants; initiations to self-correct were reported at 47 percent measured by test comprehension and 2.3 percent in relation to grammar exercises. (Lockhart, 2007, p. 280) The largest amounts under the text comprehension were 29.1 percent for elicitations, 17.2 percent meta-linguistic feedback, 0.7 percent clarification and for repetitions 0 percent. (Lockhart, 2007, p. 280) For the feedback types were measured for recasts 39.6 percent of the time and for explicit corrections for 13.4 percent of the time. (Lockhart, 2007, p. 280) The disadvantage is especially prominent due to some researchers, such as Long (1996), consider that FLC analysis does not necessarily recognize recasts as meaningful but instead as pseudo-recasts which are similar to explicit corrections. (Lockhart, 2007, p. 281) Lyster amd Ranta (1997) also point out another disadvantage in terms of repetition because simply repeating a teacher’s corrective feedback “does not necessarily imply that the feedback has been noticed or understood as such” (p. ) . On the other Lockhart (2002) has commented that recasts could are more successful than uptake and other strategies but only serious when the recast was not due to repetition of the teacher’s
A consideration of the duration of time passing for learners can be useful as a measurement for best practices for teaching. Errors are an integral part of learning how to speak a foreign language; a student must make mistakes before speaking properly. Self-correction is the method of a learner correcting an error on their own. Self-correction is also called self-repair or re-formulation. Self-correction leads to a type of fragmentation because learner’s engaged in self-correction stop speaking to think and they may fill in the silence with repetitive phrases such as ‘I mean. . ., Just a moment . . .’ or something similar or fillers such as “er, eh, ahh, like . . . “ (Rabab’ab, 2012, ). Ghaleb Rabab’ab from the Humanities and Social Science Department at Alfaisal University in Saudi Arabia researched the oral discourse repair strategies of German and Jordanian students learning EFL. The methodology for his research project was to measure the “frequencies and percentage of self initiation self-repair and repetition strategies” (Rabab’ab, 2013, p. 126). His results demonstrated that the two types of repair (a) repetition and (b) self-initiated repair were used by both the European (German) and Arabic (Jordanian) students. There were differences though between the two groups in terms of the frequency; “the Jordanian learners utilized significantly more repetition and self-initiated repair strategies in the story retelling and task when compared to the German learners’ performance” (Rabab’ab, 2013, p. 129). Professor Rabab’ab (2013, p. 129) makes an interesting suggestion of a variable that could be at play, the Jordanian’s produced about twice as many words as the Germans “which could be attributed to mother tongue influence, since Arabic is described as a verbose language.” The researcher noted that repetition was used as a postponement strategy in order to think of the corrected item but the amount of time was not measured or alluded to in his journal article in English Language Teaching. (Rabab’ab, 2013, p. 129).
Ali S. Azar, a professor of Applied Linguistics shared a paper on the research he did on the subject of students’ attitudes towards self-correction in the classroom at the Third International Conference (2012) on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEP) in Antalya, Turkey,. Thirteen undergraduate students of TEFL at the Islamic Azad University in Iran were participants in a survey to learn about their attitudes and perceptions on correction feedback. Azar (2012, p. 43) reported that the participants had “strongly positive attitudes toward correction of all errors by their teacher (but) they preferred correction of phonology and grammar errors more than others and they would rather self-correct” when given a choice. Researchers at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran also found that Persian “EFL learners prefer self-correction to teacher and peer correction when they themselves notice a mistake in their utterances” (Pishghadam, Hashemi, and Kermanshahi, 2011, p. 957).
Macaro (2003) has offered a summary of self-correction research resulting in a consensus that teachers should not interrupt the self-correction process but allow the student time to reformulate the error into a corrected form. Lyster, Saito, and Sato (2013, p. 14) have a table describing reformulation as both Implicit and Explicit. When reformulation is implicit the student’s attempts to “resolve a communication breakdown” and when it is explicit the reformulation may take place without any communication breakdown having occurred. (Lyster, Saito, and Sato, 2013, p. 14) Therefore self-correction in the form of reformulation can enhance communication whether or not a communication breakdown has occurred. On the other hand, a conundrum for teachers is called the “logical problem of language acquisition (LPLA)” ( p. 938). The concept refers to the finding that children do not necessarily pay any attention to input of corrective feedback of parents or teachers. Although the learning of language differs between young children, older children and adults, the concept is an important reminder that input is not enough. The general possibilities support the concept that self-corrective behaviour is the learner’s own capabilities to repair an error.
4. Implications
Although many studies have been conducted the results are usually based on a fast response time by the learner. Therefore allowing a long pause has not been adequately researched. The ability to be motivated to self-correct and to do so with confidence could improve learning time and perhaps even retention of knowledge. Although all the possible implications cannot be addressed the effect on how oral self-correction can help EFL students more easily accumulate knowledge and more successfully use the knowledge in real life situation will be great benefit to the learner.
5. Conclusion
The prompts that teachers use to motivate oral self-correction in EFL learners do not seem to be as necessary in the older students (secondary school age and above) discussed here. The reviewed research suggests that learners are comfortable to use self-correction and in many cases prefer self-repair to other types of correction feedback. No published research studies on the use of oral self-correction by Kurdish secondary ESL students in Iraq were found. The effect of pause/waiting time has not been investigated; the attitudes and abilities of Kurdish secondary school students towards self-correction has not been done. Therefore this area of research needs to be pursued.
Bibliography
Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J., 1994. Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, pp. 456-483.
Azar, A,S., (2012) Iranian EFL Learners’ Attitudes toward Correction of Oral Errors. ICEEPSY 2012 Abstract Book, October 10–13, 2012, Antalya, Turkey, p. 43, Third International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY), www.iceepsy.org.
Bialystok, E., 1978. A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, pp. 69–83.
Cook, V., 2008. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. 4th ed. London: Hachette UK Company,
Doughty, C. and Long, M.H., eds., 2003. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ellis R., 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., 1997. SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., 2005. Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., 2008. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., 2012. Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford :Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellis, R. 2012. A principled approach to incorporating second language acquisition research into a teacher education programme. 7th International ELT Research Conference: Philosophical Perspectives in ELT Research. Cannakale, Turkey, April 27-18, 2012. (Plenary talk).
Gass, S.M. and Mackey, A., eds., 2011. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Hinkel, Eli, 2005. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lightbown P.M. and Spada, N., (2006). How Languages are Learned, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lockhart, K., 2002. Oral Corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. Chap. 3. International Journal Education Research, 37, pp. 271-283.
Loewen S. and Reinders, H. 2011. Key concepts in second language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Lu, J., 2009. Self-repair in Oral Production by Intermediate Chinese Learners of English. Teaching English for a Second or Foreign Language (TESL-EJ), [online] 13(1), pp. 1-7. Available from http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej49/a1.html [20 May 2013]
Lyster, R., 1998a. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Leaning, 511, pp. 265-301.
Lyster, R., Saito, K. and Sato, M., 2013. Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), pp. 1-40.
Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N., 1993, 1999. How Languages are Learned, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macaro, E., 2003. Teaching and learning a second language: a review of recent research. London: Continuum.
Mitchell, R. and Myles F., 2004. Second Language Learning Theories, London: Arnold.
Ortega, L., 2009. Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder.
Norris, J.M. and Ortega, L., eds., 2006. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pishghadam, R., Hashemi, M.R., and Kermanshahi, P.R., 2011. Self-correction among Iranian EFL Learners: An Investigation into their preferences for corrective feedback. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), pp. 957-962.
Ritchie, W.C. and Bhatia, T.K., eds., 2009. The new handbook of second language acquisition. Bingley: Emerald.
Robinson, R. and Ellis, N., eds., 2008. Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Spolsky, B., 1989. Conditions for Second Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Patten, B., 2010. Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. Continuum.
