SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2014 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 174

Correcting Spoken Errors in English Language Teaching: Preferences of Turkish EFL Learners at Different Proficiency Levels

İngilizce Öğretiminde Sözlü İletişim Hatalarının Düzeltilmesi: Farklı Dil Düzeylerindeki Türk Öğrencilerin Tercihleri

Zübeyde Sinem GENÇ
Pages
259–271
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results obtained were discussed in terms of the contributions to the findings in the field of teaching English as a foreign language.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Understanding the process of correcting spoken errors in language classrooms is quite important because there is always the risk of disturbing the flow of communication and the risk of decreasing motivation and willingness of students to communicate in the target language.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, significant differences were observed between low and high-level students regarding the types of spoken errors, the time, ways and source of corrective feedback.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results obtained were discussed in terms of the contributions to the findings in the field of teaching English as a foreign language.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Understanding the process of correcting spoken errors in language classrooms is quite important because there is always the risk of disturbing the flow of communication and the risk of decreasing motivation and willingness of students to communicate in the target language. The proficiency level of language learners is an important factor on their anxiety and self-confidence in oral communication. For this reason, insights about the preferences of students at different proficiency levels will help implementing more successful corrective feedback sessions in teaching any foreign language. This study investigated the preferences of Turkish learners of English about the correction of spoken errors. Data collected from students at two different proficiency levels revealed that both groups of students preferred receiving corrective feedback for spoken errors. However, significant differences were observed between low and high-level students regarding the types of spoken errors, the time, ways and source of corrective feedback. The results obtained were discussed in terms of the contributions to the findings in the field of teaching English as a foreign language.

Özet

Yabancı dil sınıflarında sözlü iletişim hatalarının düzeltilmesi konusunun anlaşılması oldukça önemlidir, çünkü öğrencilerin yabancı dilde konuşma isteklerini azaltma ve konuşma akışını kesme tehlikesi vardır. Öğrencilerin dil düzeyi, sözlü iletişim sürecindeki endişeleri ve özgüvenleri açısından önemli bir faktördür. Bu nedenle, öğrencilerin bu konudaki tercihleri hakkında görüşe sahip olmak, yabancı dil sınıflarında daha başarılı hata düzeltme deneyimlerinin yaşanmasına yardımcı olacaktır. Bu çalışma, İngilizce dilini yabancı dil olarak öğrenen Türk öğrencilerin sözlü iletişim hatalarının düzeltilmesi ile ilgili tercihlerini incelemiştir. Farklı iki dil düzeyindeki öğrencilerden elde edilen veriler, her iki öğrenci grubunun konuşurken yaptıkları çıkarmıştır. Bununla beraber, dil düzeyleri farklı öğrenciler arasında, hata düzeltmenin sıklığı, zamanı, düzeltilen hata türleri, düzeltme yöntemi ve kim tarafından düzeltildiği konularında anlamlı farklar olduğu gözlenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçların, İngilizce dilinin yabancı dil olarak öğretilmesi alanındaki bulgulara olan katkıları tartışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GENÇ, Z. S. (2022). Correcting Spoken Errors in English Language Teaching: Preferences of Turkish EFL Learners at Different Proficiency Levels. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 174, 259–271. https://ajindex.com/articles/497432

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
  2. Bang, Y. (1999). Reactions of EFL students to oral error correction. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 3, 39-51.
  3. Birdsong, D. & Kassen, M. A. (1988). Teachers' and students' evaluations of foreign language errors: A meeting of minds? Modern Language Journal, 72, 1-12.
  4. Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students' preferences for error feedback options and responses. Modern Language Journal, 79, 194-211.
  5. Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, 417-446.
  6. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of L2 Writing, 12, 267-296.
  7. Chenowth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of ESL students to error correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 79-87.
  8. Daloglu, A. & Isık Tas, E. (2007). İngilizce ögrenenlerin ihtiyaç ve eksikliklerinin degerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 32 (145): 64-78.
  9. DeKeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501- 514. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. SSLA, 27, 305-352.
  10. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227- 275. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 243-272.
  11. Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback EFL writing. System, 21, 193-204.
  12. Fukuda, Y. (2003). Error treatment in oral communication classes in Japanese high schools. Unpublished Master's Thesis. San Francisco State University, San Francisco. Han, Z. H. (2001). Integrating corrective feedback into communicative language teaching. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5, n: 3. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294.
  13. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical a