Presentation on theme: "Oral Production and Error Correction Amongst Arab Learners of English"— Presentation transcript:
1 Oral Production and Error Correction Amongst Arab Learners of English Haifaa Faqeih, PhD Student &Dr Emma Marsden, Lecturer in Second Language EducationUniversity of YorkContact: &
2 Summary of studyExperiment comparing effectiveness of different corrective feedback techniques:Recasts v metalinguistic information v oral-tasks-only groupArabic L1Learning English modals: must, can, willPre Intermediate learnersPhase 1: ESL in UK language institutePhase 2: EFL in Saudi university
3 Previous studies: recasts effective Definition: “reformulation of a learner’s utterance by altering one or more incorrect forms therein while retaining semantic content” (Révész 2009)Supporting effectiveness:Leeman 2003; Doughty 2001; Doughty & Varela 1998; Leeman 2003; Long 1996; Ohta 2000; Oliver 1995; Egi 2007; McDonough & Mackey 2006; Sheen 2006; Ellis et al 2006.But effectiveness depends on range of factors:e.g.: proficiency, length of recast, number of changes, target form, prior experience of participants to error correction, attitudes to error correction, working memoryTheoretical support & accounts:Interaction hypothesis (negotiation of meaning, timely intervention)Noticing the gapPrimingImplicit learning from positive evidenceInduction of explicit knowledge e.g. helps in explicit hypothesis formulation and testing?
4 Gaps we aim to address Tasks done by control group Different contexts Ellis et al 2006; Sheen 2006 did not have a task+test control groupDifferent contextsUK ESL (oral interaction + error correction normal) versusSaudi EFL (little oral interaction + proactive metalinguistic info.)Sheen 2004 investigated contexts, but learning not measuredMost CF studies done in contexts where oral interaction fairly normal.Metalinguistic information onlyEllis repeated error + information; Sheen recast + informationthough prosody not controlled
5 Gaps we aim to address New linguistic feature: English modals *cans go, *can goes, *can going, *will can goNNS teacher with groupecological validityMeasures not always used in previous studies:Uptake during interaction + achievement + attitudesDelayed post tests (7 weeks)Time & communicative pressuresOral production testTimed grammaticality judgement test
6 The Study Phase 1: Saudis learning English in York, ESL Recast (10); Metalinguistic (8); Control (6)Randomly assigned (not matched)Phase 2: Saudis learning English in Saudi, EFLRecast (20); Metalinguistic (20); Control (20)
7 Intervention 3 hours Oral interaction tasks over 4 sessions, over 2 weeksOral interaction tasksEliciting English modals: can, must, willTask design:outcome clearmeaning focussedPair & group & teacher/student
9 Example of intervention, eliciting “can” and “can’t” Have a conversation with your friend about whether you can do the activities shown on your cards & find out what s/he can do.You then have to talk to the group about what your friend can and can’t do.Flip forwardsBasketballTractorTennis
10 Error correction during oral production Recast groupStudent: He cans go on holidayTeacher: He can go on holidayMetalinguistic groupTeacher: You must not change the modal – modals do not agree with the subjectControl groupTeacher: and your next picture?
11 Outcome measures Pre, post and delayed post test (7 weeks) ALL back to same instructor between post & delayed postTimed grammaticality judgement testTimings from natives + 20%Participants corrected incorrect items3 warm-up, 9 correct, 9 incorrect, 9 correct fillers, 9 incorrect fillersSeparate analyses for grammatical & ungrammatical items (Ellis, 2005)Written Gap fill11 items, 6 fillersOral production7 tasksPictures eliciting advice, explanations, suggestionse.g. Use the picture prompts to tell John what the rules are if he wants to go to the Mosque [for must]Not same as format as interventionSuppliance in Obligatory ContextInterlanguage scoring
13 Gap fill results Table: P values in paired Wilcoxon tests pre – post pre – delayedpost – delayedMetalinguistic<.05. <.05.798Recast.324ControlANOVA not significant so no paired tests
14 Results: Grammaticality Judgement test Overall (grammatical + ungrammatical target items): No differences between conditionsthough paired tests do look significant…Correct items: no differences between conditionsSo, incorrect items…
15 Results: Grammaticality Judgement test Incorrect items
16 Incorrect items in GJT pre – post pre – delayed post – delayed Metalinguistic(8)<.05.236Recast(10).214.091Control(6)Friedman ANOVA not significant so no paired tests
17 Results: Oral production Pre-postMean raw oblig contextsprepostMetalinguistic<.053142Recast.0863338Control.6862735
19 Overall Patterns: Explicit knowledge??? Yes, both R & M made gains on gapfill & incorrect items on GJTEllis, 2005But, after GJT and gapfill all participants were asked whether they knew what the test was testingNobody thought modals had been tested!
20 Overall patterns: Implicit knowledge?? No, neither made gains on correct items on GJTBut yes, M, and R to lesser extent, made gains in oral productionM accessed explicit knowledge during oral production? It had become automatised?R needed more consolidation to induce knowledge sufficiently to access it during oral production? Delayed tests will tell…Ellis et al found gains only at delayed post test on implicit measures
21 Implications to date Demonstrates importance of … Tentatively: Need for control group + task group: gains, but no sig. self-induced attention to form or incidental or implicit learningNeed for different measures: explicit v implicit knowledgeNeed for delayed post tests: recasts lead to raised awareness for processing future exemplars?Tentatively:Noticing at level of understanding more reliably beneficial, in short term at leastRecast group may have induced explicit knowledge
22 Next stepsAnalyse uptake & delayed post test oral production & attitudinal dataPhase 2 in Saudi ArabiaAll conditions innovative in that context:M group: Normally, metalinguistic info provided proactivelyR group: Normally, very few oral recastsControl task-only group: Normally, little oral task workSheen 2004 found uptake greater in FonF type contextsWe could findlearners interpret recasts as CF and benefit from metalinguistic because FonF normalAll, including control, groups benefit equally because the effect of the oral interaction is so markedOR no group benefits because oral interaction, recasts and reactive metalinguistic info are ‘not normal’
23 Thank you for listening Thank you for listening. Study funded by a Saudi post-graduate scholarship
24 ReferencesEllis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A Psychometric Study, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172Ellis, R., Loewen, Sh., and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28,Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classroom instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263.Sheen, Y.(2006) Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences, and the acquisition of English Articles by Second Language Learners. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Nottingham.