Ronald Salmond Jr_ SLA(LK4SLA UK) (SPR 13-14)

Guidelines for Enhancing Instructor Issued Corrective Feedback and Methods

for Training Students to Deliver Beneficial Corrective Feedback during
Collaborative Language Tasks.

Abstract

Research conducted within multiple English and non-English face-to-face language
learning environments concludes that instructors are predominately inclined to use
recasts as corrective feedback (hereafter CF) when compared to other forms.
(Lyster and Ranta, 1997) Additional studies comparing the effectiveness of various
CF types found that recasts comprise 70% off all instructor provided CF although
this form has been found to be the most ineffective in triggering learner noticing,
uptake and repair. (Lightbown and Spada, 1990; Ajideh and FareedAghdam, 2012)
This article aspires to encourage language teachers to avoid defaulting to recasts as
the primary form of CF deployed within communicative language and task based
learning environments by providing a tool for aligning alternate explicit and implicit
CF types with the targeted language form and task type in a range of scenarios.
Furthermore, to maximize the time learners spend engaged in collaborative
activities and enhance the quality of learner interaction, this article seeks to assist in
reducing the amount of lesson time instructors allocate for issuing CF by providing a
tool for aligning CF type with the targeted language form and task type while also
suggesting methods for training learners to provide quality CF when working on
collaborative tasks in a communicative and task based learning environment.

Rationale for Igniting Question
For some time now, perhaps decades, there has been a strong push towards
the implementation of constructivist principals and pedagogy within the classroom.
At the start of the 2009 academic year the Abu Dhabi government rolled out its 10
year strategic plan for education reform in the United Arab Emirates. Aside from the
usual rhetoric referencing the construction of state of the art schools equipped with
the latest high tech facilities and affordable education for all lay the central
component of the reform plan, student attainment of 21st century skills gained from
working collaboratively in student centered learning environments. Naturally, as is
routine with most proposals, these lofty aspirations presented in such matter of fact

form with assured certainty of success have proven to be much harder to achieve in
real life and substantial challenges arose when it came time to enact processes to
achieve set objectives.
Accordingly, this work is of the opinion that the most prominent issues in
need of modification are instructors lack of diversity when selecting CF type and
students inability to deliver coherent, beneficial CF in peer activities. For many
educators, providing useful corrective feedback that prompts a learners
psycholinguistic ability to identify their error and attempt to correctly rephrase
their construction may be one of the more difficult processes to activate within the
communicative language classroom. Interacting with novice language learners
possessing less than rudimentary skills often times results in the issuance of explicit
and implicit corrective feedback that falls far outside of their language capacity,
rendering the feedback unintelligible and effectively useless. (Lyster and Ranta,
1997) In spite of these challenges, there are numerous benefits to using implicit and
explicit CF in the language classroom. Prompts push learners to correct their
utterances, leading to increased potential of uptake and repairs that are student
generated, while with intermediate to higher level learners metalinguistic CF has
the effect of serving as a catalyst for triggering noticing so that learners are more
aware of the gap between what was said and the target norm, thereby facilitating
the acquisition of implicit knowledge (Ammar and Spada, 2006; Ellis et al. 2006;
Lyster, 1998). Furthermore, metalinguistic CF does not impede the pace and
structural integrity of content during discourse. Rather, it creates a moment where
the learner is able to pause to focus on the targeted form and as a result, learners

develop the awareness needed to spur the process of noticing so that in the event of
repair, knowledge of form is embedded and students become more proficient at
using this form in communicative contexts. (Ellis et al. 2006)
In light of these positives, studies indicate that the majority of language
teachers default to issuing recasts more than any other form of negative CF and
though research concludes that unmarked recasts rank among the most ineffective
forms of CF for inducing repair, teachers unaware of this fact are likely to continue
deploying marked and unmarked recasts for a variety of erroneous learner
constructions. (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Ellis et al. 2006; Ajideh and FareedAghdam,
2012) Spada and Lyster posit that implicit feedback such as unmarked recasts have
the potential of being ambiguous as they are easily misinterpreted as either
confirmation or disconfirmation of the correctness of a learners construction due to
their inability to notice errors and fill the gaps in their construction. (Lyster, 1998;
Ammar and Spada, 2006; Carpenter et al. 2006) The effects of indecipherable
feedback are far reaching and can overtime increase learner anxiety and frustration,
creating a learning environment where morale, motivation and achievement are
low.
Surprisingly, overuse of unmarked recasts can also bear consequences for
intermediate and higher ability language learners as a lack of varied CF form
diminishes the benefits of explicitness and possibly hinders the triggering of
noticing which catalyzes the psycholinguistic processes that lead to uptake and
repair. The sole issuance of unmarked recasts to intermediate and higher level
learners deprives them the opportunity to condition and hone cognitive and

metacognitive strategies for language acquisition as the benefits of more

challenging, repetitive and thorough CF may initialize triggering for complex higher
level tasks and afford learners the opportunity to develop, concretize, and embed
their experiences with receiving a range of CF as input. (Swain, 1985; Sato and
Lyster, 2012) In instances where CF is comprehensible, learners interpret this input
and negotiate internally or with an interlocutor using cognitive and metacognitive
strategies to produce modified output. (Swain, 1985) In agreement with Swains
output hypothesis (1985), constructivist theory (Bruner, 1960), socio-cultural
theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and Krashens comprehensible input theory
(Krashen,1985), repeated interaction with implicit and explicit CF offers learners
limitless opportunities to experiment with language by trialing new constructions
and attempts at repairs then internalizing these experiences by shifting previously
distal and proximal content to their present knowledge within the zone of proximal
development. (Vygotsky, 1978) Perhaps the greatest possible benefit provided by
implicit and explicit CF aligned to target language tasks is the eventual
strengthening of learners cognitive skills, swifter psycholinguistic processing and
the development of implicit knowledge. As a result of this hypothesis, this work
serves to provide methods and a tool to assist educators and learners in the
provision of implicit and explicit corrective feedback forms matched to the target
language foci and learner abilities most likely to be represented within a meaning
focused language classroom utilizing collaborative and task based instructional
approaches. (Tedick and de Gortari, 1998)


ZPD and Differentiated Corrective Feedback
While recasts and other forms of CF tend to have increased effect as learners
transition from the stages of beginner, intermediate and highly skilled, within the
context of a language classroom comprised of mixed ability learners, it is vitally
necessary that CF is calibrated to fall within or at greatest length, a half step outside
a learners zone of proximal development. (Vygotsky, 1978) According to Schmidt
(1990), noticing is paramount to knowledge acquisition and in order to trigger
noticing CF must be sufficiently explicit. (Russell and Spada, 2006) In
teacher/learner and learner-to-learner interaction, applying Krashens input
hypothesis model to the process of issuing CF exposes the necessity that instructors
and learners provide CF (input) that is comprehensible enough for learners to
recognize their error and construct modified metalinguistic output that
demonstrates an attempt at repair. Model 1 suggests that CF is calibrated to match a
learners ability in order to fall within at least one of the categories of van Liers
expanded model of ZPD (van Lier, 1996; Walqui, 2006) (model 1). Basic,
intermediate and higher ability learners in meaning focused social learning
environments are exposed to the frequent emotional, social and cognitive
interchanges occurring in conversation and are likely to engage with language tasks
similar to those featured in model 1. Referring to this model when planning, issuing
teacher provided CF and training students to select and provide varying CF forms
serves to enhance the efficacy of collaborative interaction between learners as these
activities produce metalinguistic reflection (Vygotsky ,1978; Tudge, 1992). In fact, it

is in the midst of these collaborative scenarios that learners become aware of their
inability to source the words or apply the methods required to transform thoughts
into words using the target language. (Swain, 1985) In similar fashion, the rigors of
psycholinguistic processing and repeated practice repairing utterances enables
learners to develop self monitoring and produce output demonstrative of language
acquisition. (Swain, 1985) As consequence of the aforementioned factors, language
teachers should refer to this model in planning and instruction to assist in the
selection and application of the most effective CF forms for each task type.
As delineated by model 2a, in communicative tasks requiring learner
interaction with similar level peers, marked recasts, negotiated feedback and
elicitation are CF types that may prove effective in helping learners to produce
repaired content. (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Tedick and de Gortari, 1998; Ajideh and
FareedAghdam, 2012) Tasks and activities located within this sector are likely to be
carried out between two or more non-native speakers and research suggests this
grouping prompts learners to produce utterances at a higher rate as they are less
anxious and more willing to experiment with new language forms and the issuance
of CF more when working in groups composed of non-native speakers as opposed to
non-native learner /native speaker or non-native learner / instructor groupings.
(Vygotsky 1978; Tudge, 1992; Ajideh and FareedAghdam, 2012; Sato and Lyster,
2012) Learners also have a higher tendency to self correct when interacting with
other learners in contrast to native speakers. (Sato and Lyster, 2012) For this
reason, eliciting learner CF preference during collaborative activities and training
students on when and how to deliver quality marked recasts, negotiated feedback,

and elicitation could be beneficial in improving the quality and quantity of modified
output produced during communicative learning tasks.
Examining the same sector (interaction with equal peers) of model 2b
suggests the use of clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback and repetition in
place of the oft issued marked and unmarked recast when focusing on collaborative
tasks identical to those discussed in model 1 for lower ability learners.
Acknowledging an error and summoning the vocabulary, phonological awareness,
grammatical and lexical knowledge to repair an incorrect construction can prove
quite challenging, if not impossible for some basic language learners not yet
developed enough to clearly understand the meaning of a recast or even pinpoint
the error in a longer marked recast. At this ability level (model 2b), clarification
requests and repetition are more appropriate in collaborative activities as they
press both learners to compile their shared knowledge in the form of experimental
constructions where new vocabulary and rephrasing of lexical segments are trialed.
(Swain, 1985; Sato and Lyster, 2012) At the occurrence of a lexical error, a
clarification request combined with body language signaling a misunderstanding
may be enough to trigger noticing and prompt a speaker to rephrase by substituting
an alternate word. If the error is phonological, repetition serves as a prodding
mechanism for engaging noticing and encouraging speakers to clarify their
constructions by either re-pronouncing a mispronounced word or rephrasing
incomprehensible utterances with clarity and greater precision. Further
examination of both corrective feedback scaffolds for higher and lower ability
language learners should provide assistance for teachers desiring to utilize more

effective implicit and explicit CF forms in response to learners phonological, lexical,

and grammatical errors. Furthermore, teachers could moderate a workshop focused
on improving student understanding of the purpose and use of CF. Working
together, students and the instructor could model and trial delivering varied CF
types within a range of form focused tasks and use each scaffold as a guide.
While some may argue that basic learners will gain minimal formative skills
from the experience of receiving training and practice generating CF due to their
lack of meta-language, vocabulary, phonological awareness and knowledge of
grammar, lexicon and syntax. In meaning based communicative learning
environments the focus is more on comprehension than correctness of form so the
experiences of interpreting CF, and developing familiarity with the reception of
varied types of CF and some notion of how to respond serve as valuable exercises
that kick start noticing and activate the processes involved in repairing
metalinguistic output and constructing coherent phrases in the target language.
Similar to an athlete developing muscle memory from repeated sets of a particular
exercise, repetition of these metacognitive processes provide language learners
with a set of communicative and cognitive skills while also producing memories of
communicative scenarios and language learning experiences that are eventually
stored within the resourcefulness and self-access sector of van Liers modified ZPD
model. (Swain, 1985; van Lier, 1996; Walqui, 2006; Sato and Lyster, 2012)
Essentially, for lower and higher ability language learners, the rigors of enduring
beneficial and slightly incomprehensible (too challenging) implicit and explicit
negative CF serve to finesse and expand a learners ZPD by bringing difficult

language tasks and incomprehensible feedback within their cognitive reach.

Certainly the total sum of these benefits outweigh any doubts that a learners
language inexperience and knowledge deficiencies in the areas of grammar, lexicon,
vocabulary and phonological awareness will cripple their ability to effectively
deliver varied CF forms as peer and group evaluative criticism in communicative
language tasks. Nor should it hinder the ability of learners to comprehend varied CF
forms issued by the instructor.
Delivering Differentiated CF within the Context of Instructional Practice in the
United Arab Emirates and other Gulf States
A key component of Abu Dhabis strategic education reform promotes the
development of student centered collaborative learning environments, which is a
positive, especially since as an ethnic group, Arabs are innately social and display a
strong preference for oral communication and collaborative activities. Unarguably,
the Arabs of the Gulf States are culturally attuned to working in closely knit social
units and display a strong preference against working individually. Despite the fact
that Arab students prefer and are accustomed to functioning in highly social
contexts, rote memorization and lecturer dominated instruction have long been the
practices for disseminating and absorbing educational content. What can be
observed in educational environments as a result of this occurrence, are students
who work cohesively in collaborative groups but find it nearly impossible to issue
constructively critical observations and provide useful feedback for peer generated
content. Clearly, this is an area requiring improvement and given the
aforementioned factors, there is vast potential for the implementation of both

differentiated CF scaffolds. Continuous professional development training Arabic

and English language instructors on the use of CF scaffolding would assist in
improving their ability to select and deliver CF types most appropriate for triggering
noticing and prompting uptake for language learners. Utilizing these scaffolds as
instructional tools purposed with imparting a language acquisition strategy for use
by struggling language learners may assist in improving the inability of students to
provide comprehensibly beneficial CF in group communicative exercises. Therefore,
this work strongly recommends that language teachers in meaning based
communicative language environments consider utilizing these differentiated CF
scaffolds in planning and during instruction. Furthermore, if time permits, training
learners on the meaning, purpose and specifically, methods for delivering CF during
collaborative language tasks may assist in the maintenance of constructivist social
learning environments and improve the language acquisition skills of each learner.

10

APPENDIX
*See attached document titled Appendix_SLA Diagrams for Intervention
References
Ajideh, P. & FareedAghdam, E., 2012. English Language Teachers Corrective Feedback Types in
relation to the Learners' Proficiency Levels and Their Error Types. academians.org, 2(September),
pp.3751. Available at: http://www.academians.org/Articles/Agust%26September3.pdf [Accessed
June 5, 2014].

Ammar, A. and Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in
second language acquisition, 28(04), pp.543--574.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. 1st ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Carpenter, H. et al., 2006. Learners Interpretations of Recasts. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28(02), pp.209236. Available at:
http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0272263106060104.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition
of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(02), pp.339--368.

Krashen, S., 1981. Second language acquisition. Second Language Learning. Available at:
http://sdkrashen.com/content/books/sl_acquisition_and_learning.pdf [Accessed June 5, 2014].

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative
language teaching. Studies in second language acquisition, 12(04), pp.429--448.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. ( 1997 ). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37 66.

Lyster, R. ( 1998 ). The ambiguity of recasts and repetition in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51 81.

Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2
grammar. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, pp.133--164.

Sato, M. & Lyster, R., 2012. Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, pp.591626. Available at:
http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0272263112000356 [Accessed June 6, 2014].

SCHMIDT, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1. Applied Linguistics,
[online] 11(2), pp.129-158. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Accessed 2 Jun.
2014].

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language
acquisition (pp.235 253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Tedick, D. and de Gortari, B. (1998). Research on error correction and implications for classroom
teaching. ACIE Newsletter, 1(3), pp.1--6.

11


Tudge, J. (1992). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications
for classroom practice. Cambridge University Press.

van Lier, L. (1996) Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity.
London: Longman.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.


Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), pp.159--180.

12