Journals / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

Exploring the Gap between Instructors’ and Learners’ Preferences about Error Correction in ELT

İngilizce Öğretiminde Öğretim Elemanı ve Öğrencilerin Hata Düzeltme Tercihlerindeki Boşluğu Keşfetme

Pages
116–146
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)

It is concluded that there is clear divergence of attitudes between the instructors and students on how teaching practices should be tailored to meet students’ needs and preferences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:For successful learning, meeting the expectations of language instructors and learners is indispensable.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research was carried out with 9 English instructors and 150 university students studying English at preparatory classes of Gaziantep University.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is concluded that there is clear divergence of attitudes between the instructors and students on how teaching practices should be tailored to meet students’ needs and preferences.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

For successful learning, meeting the expectations of language instructors and learners is indispensable. Taking this into consideration, this study attempts to identify the preferences and expectations of adult EFL learners as to error correction. The research was carried out with 9 English instructors and 150 university students studying English at preparatory classes of Gaziantep University. Data were collected through observation, interviews with the instructors and learners as well as a questionnaire that was conducted to the both parties. The data has been analysed to identify which strategies the students perceived to be the most effective. The findings show that although the instructors and students agree on some strategies such as immediate feedback on recurring oral and written errors, they tend to be incongruous about a more frequent and immediate corrective response from the instructor as well as the learners’ role and responsibilities in correcting themselves and their peers. It is concluded that there is clear divergence of attitudes between the instructors and students on how teaching practices should be tailored to meet students’ needs and preferences. In this sense, the identification and moderation of different expectations will practically benefit both sides, reinforcing classroom teaching and learning.

Özet

Başarılı bir öğrenme için, dil öğreticilerinin ve öğrenenlerin beklentilerini karşılamak vazgeçilmezdir. Bunu dikkate alarak, bu çalışma yetişkin EFL öğrencilerinin hata düzeltme konusundaki tercihlerini ve beklentilerini belirlemeye çalışmaktadır. Araştırma, Gaziantep Üniversitesi’nde 9 öğretim elemanı ve hazırlık sınıflarında İngilizce okuyan 150 üniversite öğrencisiyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler gözlem yoluyla toplanmış, öğretim elemanları ve öğrencilerle yapılan görüşmelerin yanı sıra hem öğretim elemanlarına hem de öğrencilere yönelik bir anket yapılmıştır. Veriler, öğrencilerin hangi hata düzeltme stratejilerini en etkili bulduklarını belirlemek için analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışmayı, katılan öğrenci sayısı nedeniyle daha geniş bir bağlamda uygulamak zor olsa da, bulgular, öğrencilerin hata düzeltme tercihlerinin daha iyi anlaşılması açısından önemli bilgler sağlamaktadır. Bulgular, öğretim elemanı ve öğrencilerin, tekrarlanan sözlü ve yazılı hatalara ilişkin anında geri bildirim gibi bazı stratejiler üzerinde hemfikir olmalarına rağmen, öğretenlerin daha sık ve yanlışları derhal düzeltmelerinin yanı sıra, öğrencilerin kendileri ve akranlarını düzeltmedeki rolleri ve sorumlulukları konusunda uyuşmazlıklar olduğunu göstermektedir. Öğrencilerin ihtiyaçlarını ve tercihlerini karşılamak için uygulamaların öğrencilere nasıl uyarlanması gerektiği konusunda, öğretim elemanları ve öğrenciler arasında belirgin bir farklılığının olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, sınıftaki öğretme ve öğrenme faaliyetlerini güçlendirerek, farklı beklentilerin tanımlanması ve ölçülmesi pratik olarak her iki tarafa da fayda sağlayacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAVAK, V. I. (2022). Exploring the Gap between Instructors’ and Learners’ Preferences about Error Correction in ELT. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 116–146. https://ajindex.com/articles/576654

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Alamri, B., & Fawzi, H. (2016). Students’ preferences and attitude toward oral error correction techniques at Yanbu University College, Saudi Arabia. English Language Teaching, 9(11), 59–66. https://doi. org/10.5539/elt.v9n11p59. Amalia, Z. D. H., Fauziati, E., & Marmanto, S. (2019). Male and female students’ preferences on the oral corrective feedback in English as Foregin Language (EFL) speaking classroom. Humaniora, 10(1), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v10i1.5248
  2. Anggraeni, W. (2012). The characteristics of teacher’s feedback in the speaking activities of the grade nine students of SMP N 2 Depok (Undergraduate Thesis). Yogyakarta: Yogyakarta State University. Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: what do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127.
  3. Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage. Behroozi, B., & Karimnia, A. (2017). Educational context and ELT teachers’ corrective feedback preference: Public and private school teachers in focus. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(2), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.18869/ acadpub.ijree.2.2.10. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principle of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Cathcart, R. L., & Olsen, J. E. W. B. (1976). Teachers' and students' preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In J. Fanselow & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 76. Crymes, Washington, D.C.: TESOL. Cestone, M.C., Levine, R.E. & Lane, D.R. (2008). Peer assessment and evaluation in team based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 116, 69–78.
  4. Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E. & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of nonnative speakers to corrective feedback. Studies of Second Language Acquisition 6, 79-87.
  5. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
  6. Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th Edition). California: SAGE Publications. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elçin, Ö., & Öztürk, G. (2016). Types and timing of oral corrective feedba