Presenters:Agung Diah Wulandari // Ardiansyah // Eka Uliyanti // Paula Kristanti

Exploring Learners’ Negotiation of Meaning and Corrective Feedback

Introduction

What do learners need to be successful in L2 learning?

- They need to have meaningful and comprehensible L2 input in its message (Krashen, 1981). - They need to be given corrective feedback for their comprehending in the message (Long, 1996). - Input does not become intake for language learning unless it is noticed (Schmidt, 1990).

What will learners do when they have difficulties in understanding each other?

According to Tarone & Swierzbin (2009), learners pretend to understand while expecting further clarification or they can possibly negotiate the meaning.

What is negotiation of meaning?

Negotiation is an effort conducted by the L2 learner in order to get better communication / clearer input by improving the communication with the language source (Tarone & Swierzbin, 2009).

What is the main characteristic?

Pica (1996) speaks about the main characteristic of negotiation of meaning:“It alters the structures of interaction between two or more interlocutors as they engage in social discourse” (p.2).

Furthermore, Pica (1996) adds that:“This takes place as one interlocutor lets other know that something is not clear or has not been understood” (p.2).

Interactional Modification

Long (cited in Samar & Shayestefar, 2009) proposes the functions of interactional modification: •to make input understandable•to give corrective feedback•to adjust their interlanguage production / output

Corrective Feedback

Long states that Corrective Feedback is indication which is given to a learner in order to let him know that his L2 linguistic expression is incorrect (cited in Tarone & Swierzbin, 2009)

Summary of Previous StudiesLyster and Mori (2006)

Method: conducted a study examining recasts, prompts, and explicit oral error correction in two different instructional settings, French

immersion classrooms in Canada and Japanese immersion classrooms in the United States

Result: Recasts were the most common form of oral feed-back, followed by prompts and explicit correction in both instructional settings

Vasquez and Harvey (2010)

Method: a case study that examining the evolving thoughts and beliefs about corrective feedback of graduate students in applied

linguistics in a second language acquisition (SLA) course.

Result: many students’ comments revealed a decreased emphasis on the affective dimension of error correction, and a more

sophisticated understanding of corrective feedback, as well as an appreciation for the relationship between corrective feedback, student

uptake, and error type.

Devi (2014)

Method: classroom observation and interview

Result: Recast is the most frequent strategy employed since it is considered more appropriate by the teacher.

Method of AnalysisLibrary researchSource of Data The data will be taken from transcript of the interview from learners (Question task).

Data collection technique will be conducted by way of:

1. Watching the videos 2. Reading the transcript 3. Identifying the data 4. Highlighting the data from the transcript 5. Listing them

RecastR : more easy. I l l feel, to learn... I : I So you said it’s easier now.

Explicitation RequestR : The teacher he are, not interact in, speak, or, with, eh eh students.I : He doesn’t interact. You should say ‘he doesn’t ’.

Prompts

Clarification RequestsJ : Does, his head hurt?I : I’m sorry, what?2. ElicitationJ : It was like require in my school ...I : Require. How do we say that?MetalinguisticR : But now, in the fourth, s, s, s, week, is more easy.I : You need –ER on the of ‘easy’ to make the comparative formRepetitionJ : It was like require in my schoolI : It was like require?

Types of Corrective Feedback (Tarone & Swierzbin, 2009)

Analysis Line

Interactional Modification Target Reformulation Corrective Feedback Uptake

Rodrigo 19 R Yes. Yes, y,y your class, eh, is wha- what time? (with fillers) Seeking help What time is his class? RecastWhat time is his class? Yes

I Uh, what time is his class? (repetition of input)

R What time is his class, yes (clarification)

27 R Oh, OK. Uh in, is, is t today, is is, cold? Is winter? (with fillers) Seeking help It’s winter in Minessota Recast No repair

I Yeah. It's winter. It's winter in Minessota (clarification)

Antonio 7 I He's from Somalia Repetition of input Clarification request

A Somalia. Oh. That's really intersesting. Eh What is, what is he? fillers Repetition

I What did you say? What is he? (repetition of input)

A What is he? (clarification)

I He's a student (clarified)

46 A Why, he, say stop? Repetition of input Why did he stop?Clarification request

I Why, why what? (repetition of input)

A Why, this guy, say, the uh, s-stop? (clarification+fillers)

Chun 1 C Is the man is a student? (clarification) Unclear input is he a student? Recast

I Yes, he is a student (clarified) 32 C Oh yeah. Hitchhike. And is that way work? Is that way work? Unclear input Dows the way work? Recast yeah (no repair)

I Does that way work? (repetition of input)

C Yeah

Xue 10 X What, what do, what does he do? unclear input Recast

I He has to go to school. He's late for school (repetition of input)

X So, he is a student? (clarification)I He's a student (clarified)

16X It seems, like, he wants to hike, hi-, hi-, hi-. What, what he is doing? (with fillers) Seeking help

he wants to hitchhike Recast yeah, hitchhiking

I He's hitchhiking (repetition of input)

X Yeah, Hitchhiking (clarification)I Hitchhiking, right (clarified)

Catrine 14 C Is he mad? (clarification) seeking help is he upset? Recast

I He's upset. He's kind of upset with himself (clarified)

19 C What is he, is he running? (clarification) unclear inputis he running after bus? Recast

I Yeah he's running after the bus (clarified)

Jeanne 9 J Oh, so he seems really tired. Does, his head hurt? unclear input Clarification request

I I'm sorry, what? Repetition of input J His head hurt? (clarification)

I Oh, his head hurts (clarified)44 J Oh. What he's going to do? Seeking help Recast (No repair)

I Ah, he's going to hitchhike

J OK. Is he going to run? (clarification)I No, he's going to hitchhike (clarified)

Analysis

Findings and Discussion

Based on the Question Task from 6 learners:

-Rodrigo got recasts as the corrective feedback from the interviewer

-Antonio got clarification request and repetition as the corrective feedback

-Chun got recasts as the corrective feedback from the interviewer

-Xue got recasts as the corrective feedback from the interviewer

-Catrine got recasts as the corrective feedback from the interviewer

-Jeanne got clarification request and recast as the corrective feedback from the interviewer

Conclusion

• Most of the learners start the negotiation of meaning by seeking help + unclear input

• Recast is the most frequent corrective feedback employed by the interviewer

ReferencesDevi, A.P. (2014). Teacher’s corrective feedback on students’ spoken errors in an EFL classroom. The 61st TEFLIN International

Conference, UNS Solo, 1127-1130

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of second language

acquisition, 2(2), 413-468.

Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2),

269–300.

Pica, T. (1996). Do second language learners need negotiation? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 34(1), 1-21.

Samar, R.G. & Shayestefar, P. (2009). Corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Learner negotiation strategies and uptake. Journal of

English Language Teaching and Learning, 52 (212), 108-134

Schmidt, R.W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11: 58-129.

Tarone, E. & Swierzbin, B. (2009). Exploring learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vasquez, C. & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language

Teaching Research, 14(4), 421–443