People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research Larbi Ben M’hidi University-Oum El Bouaghi
Faculty of Letters and Languages Department of English
Investigating Teachers’ Attitudes towards the Impact of Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback on Enhancing English as a Foreign Language Students’ Grammatical Accuracy
Case study of English as a Foreign Language Teachers of Middle Schools at the level of Oum El Bouaghi District
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Language Sciences and Teaching English as a Foreign Language
By: Manar BOUMAHDJOUR
Supervisor: Mrs. Samira ARROUF
Examiner: Dr. Mokhtar Hamadouche
2016-2017 Dedication In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate This work is dedicated: To my parents, God bless them. To my brother ‘Oussama’ and pretty sisters ‘Rayan’ and ‘Chaima’. To all my family, friends and everyone who was, in one way or another, part of my academic career.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, praise be to Allah the Almighty for blessing me and giving me the strength and willingness to complete this work.
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Mrs. Samira Arrouf, without whose patience, endless support, guidance and precious advice, this work would never been accomplished. I really appreciate her efforts and time spent in reading my thesis and correcting my mistakes.
Special thanks go to my examiner Dr. Mokhtar Hamadouch. I am truly grateful to him, for advising me and accepting to read and evaluate my dissertation.
I would like also to acknowledge middle school teachers of Oum El Bouaghi district, for their agreement to be part of my research; I appreciate their help and cooperation.
I owe great gratitude to all my teachers, from primary school to university, who contributed in developing my linguistic skills by correcting me whenever I make a mistake or an error.
ii
Abstract
Grammar is considered as a crucial component of the process of learning the language.
English as a foreign language learners face many difficulties in acquiring this linguistic aspect. These grammatical difficulties lead students to make many errors, especially when they speak in the classroom. The current study sought to investigate teachers’ viewpoints towards the effectiveness of using explicit oral corrective feedback (EOCF) to boost EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy. A total of 54 middle school teachers of Oum El Bouaghi district provided the relevant data. A descriptive method was conducted using a questionnaire as the main instrumentation to answer our research question: What are teachers’ attitudes towards the impact of explicit oral corrective feedback on enhancing
EFL students’ grammatical accuracy? The results gained point out teachers’ desire to correct oral grammatical errors. Although, the majority of them prefer to use implicit oral corrective feedback in doing so, almost all of the subjects believe that explicit oral corrective feedback has a positive effect in enhancing EFL students’ grammatical accuracy.
iii
List of Abbreviations and Symbols
% Percentage
½ Half
⅓ One Third
CF Corrective Feedback
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ESL English as a Second Language
L2 Second Language
LP Language Pedagogy
N Number of Teachers nº Number of Middle Schools
OCF Oral Corrective Feedback
Q Question
SCT Sociocultural Theory
SLA Second Language Acquisition
Vs. Versus
iv
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure1 Sampling Method 30
Figure2 Teachers’ Gender 35
Figure3 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Importance of Grammatical
Accuracy in Speaking English 40
Figure4 Teachers’ Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback 48
Figure5 Teachers’ Correction of Oral Grammatical Errors 50
Figure6 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Explicit OCF on
Improving Students’ Grammatical Accuracy 62
v
List of Tables
Table Page
Table1 A Classification of CF Categories 15
Table2 Population of the Study 27
Table3 Sample of the Study 31
Table4 Teachers’ Gender 34
Table5 Teachers’ Degree of Education 35
Table6 Teachers’ Teaching Experience 36
Table7 Teachers’ Perceptions of Teaching Grammar in EFL Classes 37
Table8 Teachers’ Reasons of Teaching Grammar in EFL Classes 37
Table9 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Importance of Grammatical
Accuracy in Speaking English 40
Table10 Teachers’ Reasons behind the Importance of Grammatical
Accuracy in Speaking English 41
Table11 Teachers’ Assessment of Students’ Grammatical Accuracy
when Speaking in the Classroom 42
Table 12 Possibility of Making Oral Grammatical Errors 43
Table13 Students’ Frequency of Making Oral Grammatical Errors 44
Table14 Types of Students’ Oral Grammatical Errors 45
vi
Table15 Teachers’ Perceptions of OCF 47
Table16 Teachers’ Reasons for the Importance of OCF 48
Table17 Teachers’ Correction of Oral Grammatical Errors 50
Table18 Types of Grammatical Errors that Teachers Correct 51
Table19 Corrector of Students’ Oral Grammatical Errors 52
Table20 Teachers’ Frequency of Using OCF 53
Table21 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Mode of Correcting Grammatical
Errors 54
Table22 Teachers’ Perceptions of Implicit OCF Types 55
Table23 Teachers’ Perceptions of Explicit OCF Types 56
Table24 Teachers’ Perceptions of Metalinguistic Comments 57
Table25 Teachers’ Perceptions of Explicit Correction 58
Table26 Teachers Perceptions of Elicitation 59
Table27 Teachers’ Perceptions of Correction Timing 60
Table28 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Explicit OCF on
Improving Students’ Grammatical Accuracy 62
Table29 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Degree of the Effectiveness
of Explicit OCF in Enhancing Students’ Grammatical Accuracy 63
vii
Table of Content
Title Page
General Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Aim of the Study 2
Research Question and Hypothesis 2
Research Methodology 3
Structure of the Study 3
Chapter One: Theoretical Background
Section One: Grammatical Accuracy
Introduction 6
1.1.1. Grammatical Accuracy 6
1.1.1.1. Defining Grammar 6
1.1.1.2. The Importance of Teaching Grammar in EFL Classes? 7
1.1.1.3. Defining Accuracy 8
1.1.1.4. The Role of Grammatical Accuracy in Speaking English 9
1.1.2. Grammatical Errors in EFL Context 9
1.1.2.1. Errors vs. Mistakes 9
1.1.2.2. Why do EFL Learners Make Grammatical Errors? 10
Conclusion 11
Section Two: Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback
Introduction 13
1.2.1. Corrective Feedback 13
1.2.2. Oral Corrective Feedback 14
1.2.2.1. Definition of Oral Corrective Feedback 14
1.2.2.2. Types of Oral Corrective Feedback 14
1.2.2.2.1. Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback 15
viii
1.2.2.2.1.1. Recasts 15
1.2.2.2.1.2. Clarification Requests 15
1.2.2.2.1.3. Repetition 16
1.2.2.2.2. Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback 16
1.2.2.2.2.1. Explicit Correction 16
1.2.2.2.2.2. Metalinguistic Comments 17
1.2.2.2.2.3. Elicitation 17
1.2.2.3. When to Give Oral Corrective Feedback 18
1.2.2.3.1. Immediate Oral Corrective Feedback 18
1.2.2.3.2. Delayed Oral Corrective Feedback 19
1.2.2.4. Who Provides the Oral Corrective Feedback in the Classroom? 19
1.2.2.4.1. Self-Correction 19
1.2.2.4.2. Peer-Correction 20
1.2.2.4.3. Teacher Correction 20
1.2.3. Should Learners be Given Oral Corrective Feedback? 21
1.2.4. Previous Studies on Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback and Learners’ 22 Grammatical Accuracy Conclusion 23
Chapter Two: The Practical Framework
Introduction 26
2.1. Choice of the Method 26
2.2. Sample of the Study 26
2.3. Description of the Questionnaire 32
2.4. Analysis of the Questionnaire Results 34
2.5. Synthesis of the Questionnaire Results 64
Conclusion 65
General Conclusion 67
ix
Limitations of the Study 68
Suggestions for Further Research 68
References 70
Appendix
Résumé
ملخص
x
General Introduction
Speaking a foreign language fluently without making errors is really difficult task that needs much more time and a lot of intensive work to be acquired. Grammar, in particular, is an integral part of this difficulty, because it consists of rules and structures differ from one language to another. Yet, speaking accurately is a skill that students should not dispense with when they communicate in formal situations such as speaking with their teacher and classmates in the classroom. Therefore, students need to be guided and provided with the right information about the target grammatical form in order to be able to speak the target language correctly without fearing of making errors.
1
Statement of the Problem
In most cases, Algerian EFL learners, especially middle school students, make many grammatical errors when they speak in the classroom, because speaking is very difficult skill. This difficulty is due to many reasons, such as, students did not use to speak English when they were kids, either at home or at primary school. Besides, this skill requires spontaneity; it occurs at the presence of the listener and cannot be edited or modified. Yet, speaking is very important, because it is the first skill that should be acquired and used to communicate in the classroom. Moreover, it is the only way that can be used in order to participate during the class.
Hence, students should be provided with the right knowledge, using the appropriate technique to improve their performance without damaging their motivation and willingness to learn English. Explicit oral corrective feedback is one of the main techniques suggested by second language acquisition (SLA) researchers and applied by EFL teachers in order to help the students to get rid of the erroneous use of grammar while speaking English.
Aim of the Study
The current study is undertaken to investigate teachers‟ attitudes towards the effectiveness of using explicit oral corrective feedback to enhance EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy.
Research Question and Hypothesis
Research Question
This research is guided by the following question:
What are teachers‟ attitudes towards the impact of explicit oral corrective feedback on enhancing EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy?
2
Research Hypothesis
In order to conduct the present study it is hypothesized that:
Teachers have positive attitudes towards the effect of explicit oral corrective feedback in developing EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy.
Research Methodology
In order to investigate the current study, a descriptive research method is conducted.
The sample consists of 70 EFL teachers of middle schools at the level of Oum El Bouaghi district, to represent all the EFL teachers of middle schools at the same district.
For the sake of answering the research question, a questionnaire is relied on to collect the data. The questionnaire is given to EFL teachers who teach at the level of middle schools in Oum El Bouaghi district, for the sake of investigating their perceptions of the effectiveness of Explicit Oral Corrective feedback in enhancing EFL Students‟
Grammatical accuracy.
Structure of the Study
The research consists of two main chapters. The first chapter tackles the theoretical background; it is divided into two sections: the first section deals with the main points related to grammatical accuracy, namely definition of grammar and its importance in EFL curriculum, definition of accuracy and its role in speaking English and the main reasons behind EFL students‟ misuse of grammar. The second section is about explicit oral corrective feedback, starting by definition of oral corrective feedback, types of oral corrective feedback in general and explicit oral corrective feedback in specific, timing, source of correction. After that, it investigates whether or not EFL learners should be given oral corrective feedback in the classroom. Then, it tackles the main studies that have tested
3 the relationship between explicit oral corrective feedback and students‟ grammatical accuracy.
The second chapter is related to the practical framework. It deals mainly with the analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire‟s findings.
4
Chapter One: Theoretical Background
Section One: Grammatical Accuracy
Title Page
Introduction 6
1.1.1. Grammatical Accuracy 6
1.1.1.1. Defining Grammar 6
1.1.1.2. The Importance of Teaching Grammar in EFL Classes? 7
1.1.1.3. Defining Accuracy 8
1.1.1.4. The Role of Grammatical Accuracy in Speaking English 9
1.1.2. Grammatical Errors in EFL Context 9
1.1.2.1. Errors vs. Mistakes 9
1.1.2.2. Why do EFL Learners Make Grammatical Errors? 10
Conclusion 11
5
Introduction
In the process of learning a foreign language, speaking accurately is an important skill that should be shed light on. In the case of Algerian EFL students, speaking English accurately, without making grammatical errors is somehow difficult task and very important at the same time. Therefore, this section tackles the most important issues related to grammar, starting by its definition and role in EFL classes. Then, it defines accuracy and its significance in speaking English. Later on, it attempts to analyze the main reasons behind the erroneous use of English grammar while speaking in the EFL classes, concluding with an answer to an important question: How can we reduce the EFL grammatical errors and, therefore, enhance their grammatical accuracy?.
1.1.1. Grammatical Accuracy
1.1.1.1. Defining Grammar
Grammar is a difficult and complex aspect in learning a language, since it “is conscious knowledge; it is knowing about the language according to a particular descriptive model”
(Tabbert, 1984, p. 39). Thornbury (1999) defines it as “a description of the rules for forming sentences, including an account of the meanings that these forms convey” (p.13).
Celce-Murcia and Hilles (1988) claim that “we can think of language as a type of rule- governed behavior. Grammar, then, is a subset of those rules which govern the configurations that the morphology and syntax of language assume” (p.16). The same idea is shared by Harmer (1987), who believes that grammar is how words are changed to have different forms and functions, and how are grouped to create different sentences with different types. In more structural point of view, Alexander (as cited in Arrouf, 2009) defines the term „grammar‟ as “a combination of morphology and syntax which together make up the system of language” (p. 32). Making the learners aware of how grammar
6 works is very helpful to convey meaningful and effective messages. Supporting this idea,
Batstone (as cited in Arrouf, 2009) believes that syntax and morphology are the two major components of grammar, and with the contribution of these components, language users can create and form meaningful expressions. In the light of these definitions, it is obvious that knowing individual words alone is not enough to communicate effectively, but using grammar enables the speaker to express him/herself freely and correctly without losing face.
1.1.1.2. The Importance of Teaching Grammar in EFL Classes?
Grammar is an important issue that teachers cannot dispense with while teaching the language. This shifts our attention to ask an important question: Why should grammar be taught in EFL classes? In other words, what does make grammar very important and needed to be included in the EFL curriculum?
There is no doubt that grammar is one of the bases of any language; but it is, unlike vocabulary and other linguistic aspects, very complex and difficult to be learnt too. In spite of its complexity and difficulty, having the grammatical competence enables the speaker to communicate effectively (Canal & Swain, as cited in B. Kumar, P. Kumar, & Sagar, 2015).
Moreover, grammar skills contribute in organizing and combining words to create meaningful sentences and messages (Mart, 2013). A clear example is given by Tabbert
(1984) to illustrate the importance of learning grammar for understanding the target language system and structure as:
it is frequently pointed out that students confuse lie and lay, do not choose who and
whom correctly, say infer instead of imply, mismatch subjects and verbs, mix up
pronoun reference, use double negatives, etc., and that these mistakes are evidence
of their need to study grammar. (p.39)
7
Adding to that being grammatically competent helps to speak and write accurately without making errors. Azar (2007) explains the usefulness of grammar teaching as “it helps learner discover the nature of language, i.e., that language consists of predictable patterns that make what we say, read, hear and write intelligible” (p.2). Furthermore, grammar is essential for the learner to get rid of the confusion between his native and target language, i. e., the learner will not be affected by his mother tongue‟s system while learning the target language as a result of negative transfer. In addition to that, grammar has a crucial role in helping the student to distinguish the different parts that create a language such as nouns, verbs…etc (Mart, 2013).
In a word, grammar is too broad concept and has a variety of functions. It is how we convey our thoughts using the linguistic elements to feat the real world. Hence, “Without grammar, we would have only individual words or sounds, pictures, and body expressions to communicate meaning. Grammar is the weaving that creates the fabric” (Azar, 2007, p.2)
1.1.1.3. Defining Accuracy
The concept of accuracy is defined in a variety of ways. Generally speaking, accuracy is about how much the language produced by the speaker corresponds with the target language (Skehan, as cited in Ellis, 2008). Brown (2001), on the other hand, believes that being accurate means, being “clear, articulate, grammatically and phonologically correct”
(cited in Arrouf, 2009, p.85). For him, accuracy deals with the correctness of the sentence or utterance structure. Besides, Johnson (as cited in Arrouf, 2009) relates accuracy to syntactic, phonetic, semantic and lexical correctness. In short, being accurate, and especially while speaking, is being linguistically correct. Unlike fluency, which focuses only on meaning, accuracy gives much more importance to form especially grammar,
8 which in turn results in meaningful utterances and, therefore achieving oral proficiency.
B.P.Kumar, P.V. Kumar, and Sagar (2015) stated, “accuracy is the most important along with fluency. Fluency can be developed by communicative centered approaches but accuracy can only be learnt by knowing and use of proper grammar” (p. 187).
1.1.1.4. The Role of Grammatical Accuracy in Speaking a Foreign Language
Speaking is a vital skill to communicate with people, although, it is considered as the most complex, difficult and challenging of all skills; giving the fact that when speaking, we do not have the time to think about what we are saying, or to change what we have just said (Bailey, n. d.). Speaking is an oral skill that consists of fluency and accuracy. The former refers to the degree of speaking the language spontaneously, fast and confidently without hesitation or sudden stops to think and look for the words to use, while the latter, which is the most important and the focus of the present study, refers to the degree of speaking the language appropriately and correctly to feat what people actually say when they use it (Bailey, n. d.). Grammatical accuracy has a great effect in helping the learner to develop his speaking skills. In other words, using the language correctly is very crucial for students‟ oral proficiency (Suanders & O‟Brien, as cited in Wang, 2014). Besides,
Iwashita, Brown, McNamara & O‟Hagan (2008) consider accuracy as one major factor that contributes in developing oral proficiency. In addition to that, speaking grammatically accurate is very helpful for EFL learners to express themselves correctly without fearing of making errors or hesitating, which causes fluency destruction and, therefore, loosing face.
1.1.2. Grammatical Errors in EFL Context
1.1.2.1. Errors vs. Mistakes
To know what we are focusing on, it is very crucial to define the term „errors‟ and make a distinction between errors and mistakes. The term „errors‟ refers to the systematic
9 misuse of a language. It is defined as “the defective forms of utterances which appear regularly in the learners‟ language” (Giri, 2010, p. 54). Errors are completely different from mistakes. On one hand, mistakes refer to the performance slips, i. e., the failure to use the target system perfectly (Brown, as cited in Fang & Kue-mei, 2007). They are irregular and appear occasionally in the learners‟ performance (Giri, 2010). On the other hand, errors refer to inadequate competence, in which there is a deviation from the adult grammar of native speaker (Brown, as cited in Fang & Kue-mei, 2007). They are considered as a violation of the language norms, and they appear regularly and frequently when the learner is using the target language (Giri, 2010).
1.1.2.2. Why Do EFL Learners Make Grammatical Errors?
Making errors is a necessary part of learning a foreign language. It gives an idea about the learner‟s level and development in the process of learning the target language. These errors may be the result of many causes. Richards (1970) distinguishes two main sources of errors: Interlanguage, and interlingual and developmental errors.
a- Interlanguage Errors: These errors are because of the effect of the learner‟s mother tongue on his target language.
b- Intralingual and Developmental Errors: Intralingual errors refer to “the general characteristics of rule learning” (Richards, 1970, p. 5), while developmental errors
“illustrate the learner attempting to build up hypotheses about the English language from his limited experience of it” (Richards, 1970, p. 5).
Interlanguage and developmental errors, according to Richards (1970), consist of four types and reasons. They are:
10
●Over-generalization: The learner learns one rule, or form and apply it in all situations. E.g., he can sings, it is accurs. Over-generalizition is associated with linguistic burden reduction, redundancy reduction and the overlearning of a structure.
●Ignorance of Rule Restriction: The learner uses a given rule in cases where it is not applicable. E.g., the man who I sow him (rule of subjects in structures with „who‟)
●Incomplete Application of Rules: The learner does not develop the linguistic system to produce meaningful structures. He stops learning the entire rules at a given stage. E.g., the teacher asks „What does he ask his mother?. The student responds „He ask his mother for the address‟.
●False Concepts Hypothesized: The student creates an idea based on his misunderstanding of the target language rules. E.g., he uses „is‟ as a marker to express the present „He is speaks French‟.
Conclusion
In a word, grammatical accuracy is very important for EFL students, not only to write correctly, but also to speak and communicate effectively. Hence, in order to minimize and enhance learners‟ grammatical accuracy, SLA researchers have suggested some techniques to do so. In the following section, we tackle explicit oral corrective feedback as one important technique applied in Language pedagogy to contribute in enhancing EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy.
11
Chapter One: Theoretical Background
Section Two: Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback
Title Page
Introduction 13
1.2.1. Corrective Feedback 13
1.2.2. Oral Corrective Feedback 14
1.2.2.1. Definition of Oral Corrective Feedback 14
1.2.2.2. Types of Oral Corrective Feedback 14
1.2.2.2.1. Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback. 15
1.2.2.2.1.1. Recast 15
1.2.2.2.1.2. Clarification Requests 15
1.2.2.2.1.3. Repetition 16
1.2.2.2.2. Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback 16
1.2.2.2.2.1. Explicit Correction 16
1.2.2.2.2.2. Metalinguistic Comments 17
1.2.2.2.2.3. Elicitation 17
1.2.2.3. When to Give Oral Corrective Feedback 18
1.2.2.3.1. Immediate Oral Corrective Feedback 18
1.2.2.3.2. Delayed Oral Corrective Feedback 19
1.2.2.4. Who Provides the Oral Corrective Feedback in the Classroom? 19
1.2.2.4.1. Self-Correction 19
1.2.2.4.2. Peer-Correction 20
1.2.2.4.3. Teacher Correction 20
1.2.3. Should Learners be Given Oral Corrective Feedback? 21
1.2.4. Previous Studies on Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback and Learners‟ Grammatical Accuracy 22 Conclusion 23
12
Introduction
This section provides a theoretical framework about corrective feedback in general and explicit oral corrective feedback in specific. It starts by the main definitions given by specialists of the domain. Then, it tackles the various types, timing, and sources of oral corrective feedback. Later on, it attempts to highlight the main perspectives towards its role in EFL classes, and whether or not learners should be given oral corrective feedback.
At the end, the main studies that have examined the effect of explicit oral corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy are tackled.
1.2.1. Corrective Feedback
Giving feedback is the most controversial issue in language pedagogy (LP) and second language acquisition (SLA) as well. It is considered as the information used by the learner in order to develop his inter-language. Hattie and Timperley (2007) offered a more comprehensive definition of feedback. For them it is “information provided by an agent…regarding aspects of one‟s performance or understanding” (p.81).
Feedback can be either positive or negative. According to Ellis (2009), the former means that the learner is doing well while performing an activity; while the latter indicates that the student‟s linguistic form or meaning is incorrect. For him “it is corrective in intent”
(p.3). Therefore, “the term corrective feedback may be referred to as negative feedback, negotiated help or error correction” (Calsiyao, 2015, p.395). According to Ortega (2009), corrective feedback makes the learners aware of their grammatical misuse. Moreover, Ellis reported that corrective feedback, “takes the form of a response to a learner utterance containing a linguistic error” (p.3). J.Russell and Spada (2006) also agree in that, for them it is “any feedback provided to a learner, from any source, that contains evidence of learner error of language form. It may be oral or written, implicit or explicit.” (p.134). Ellis,
13
Loewen and Erlam (2006), shading light on the main components of corrective feedback, argue that it:
Takes the form of responses to learner utterances that contain an error. The responses can
consist of (a) an indication that an error has been committed (b) provision of the correct
target language form, or (c) metalinguistic information about the nature of the error or any
combination of these. (p.340)
1.2.2. Oral Corrective Feedback
1.2.2.1. Definition of Oral Corrective Feedback
Generally speaking, oral corrective feedback deals with the correction of the linguistic errors made by learners in their speech while interacting during the class. It is “the teachers‟ responses to learners‟ erroneous utterances” (Lyster, Saito &Sato, as cited in
Fungula 2013, p.3). Brookhart (2008) indicates that oral corrective feedback is different from written corrective feedback in terms of the time and the place in which the correction is made. According to him, oral corrective feedback:
Involves all the word choice issues that written feedback does but it also includes
some unique issues…you need to speak to the student at a time and a place in
which the student is ready and willing to hear what you have to say. (p.47)
1.2.2.2. Types of Oral Corrective Feedback
Concerning the issue of oral corrective feedback types is somehow controversial in terms of its systematic classification. Lyster and Ranta (1997) provided six types of oral corrective feedback, and Ellis (as cited in Ellis, 2013) classified them into two broad categories: implicit and explicit, input-providing and output-prompting corrective feedback as shown in the following table:
14
Table 1. A classification of CF categories (Ellis, as cited in Ellis, 2013)
Implicit Explicit
Input-providing Recasts Explicit correction
Output- Repetitions Metalinguistic prompting comments Clarification requests Elicitation
1.2.2.2.1. Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback
In implicit oral corrective feedback, the teacher tries to get the student‟s attention without telling him\her that he\she has made an error and without breaking the communication flow as well. Under this category, Ellis (as cited in Ellis, 2013) distinguishes three sub-types:
1.2.2.2.1.1. Recasts
Recasts involve the reformulation of the student‟s utterance minus the error.
Therefore, it is, according to V. Russel (2009), “when a teacher or other more knowledgeable peer repeats a learner‟s incorrect utterance, but replaces the error with the correct form” (p.22). For example, the learner may say, “I went there two times”. The teacher replies, “You‟ve been. You‟ve been there twice as a group?” (Ellis, 2009, p. 9).
1.2.2.2.1.2. Clarification Requests
When the learner makes an error, the teacher asks him for clarification because of the misunderstanding of what just have been said. Ellis (2013) reported that in clarification
15 requests “the teacher indicates that a learner utterance has been misunderstood or is ill- formed in some way” (p.7). For example, the learner says, “What do you spend with your wife?” The teacher, then, asks for clarification by saying “What?” (Ellis, 2009, p. 9).
1.2.2.2.1.3. Repetition
As the name suggests, in repetition “the teacher repeats the student‟s erroneous utterance with or without emphasis on the erroneous part” (Ellis, 2013, p.7). Therefore, the teacher can change the intonation by raising his tone when pronouncing the erroneous utterance, or by putting more emphasis on it to attract the learner‟s attention. For instance, the learner may say: “I will showed you”. The teacher repeats the same utterance, but with a rising intonation when pronouncing the erroneous word (showed) by saying: “I will
SHOWED you”. The learner, then, restates the utterance correctly, “I‟ll show you” (Ellis,
2009, p.9).
1.2.2.2.2. Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback
Explicit oral corrective feedback makes the learner aware of his/her error. Ellis et al.
(2006) argue that in explicit corrective feedback, there is an overt indicator that an error has been committed. For them “explicit types of feedback not only make the corrective force clear to the learner but also give clues as to the exact location of the error” (Ellis et al.,2006,p.342).According to Ellis(as cited in Ellis, 2013), explicit oral corrective Feedback includes three sub-types as well .
1.2.2.2.2.1. Explicit Correction
When the teacher corrects his student‟s errors, “the feedback is direct in the sense that the main illocutionary force of the utterance is to draw the learners‟ attention to a specific grammatical error” (Ellis, 1997, p.78). So, explicit correction does not only attract the
16 learner‟s attention to the error, but provides him/her with the correct input as well.
Therefore, it is “an utterance that provides the learner with the correct form while at the same time indicating an error was committed” (Ellis, 2008, p.228). As mentioned in Lyster et al. (2013), explicit correction provides the learner with positive linguistic evidence, which is defined by Gass (as cited in Lyster et al., 2013) as an “information about what is possible in language, provided through exposure to target exemplars in the input”, and negative evidence, which is the “information about what is not possible in the language, usually provided through explanation or correction” (Gass, 1997, as cited in Lyster et al.,
2013). For example, the learner may say “On May”. The teacher corrects him “Not on
May, In May. We say it will start in May” (Ellis, 2009, p. 9).
1.2.2.2.2.2. Metalinguistic Comments
Metalinguistic comments provide only negative evidence. When the learner makes an error, “the teacher comments on or questions the well-formedness of the learner‟s utterance without explicitly providing the correct form” (Ellis, 2009, p.7). In other words, the teacher asks the student a question about his/her utterance, in most cases, it requires him to respond with Yes/No answers, i.e., it asks for confirmation or rejection for the erroneous utterance. For example, the learner says, “men are clever than women”. The teacher provides him with a comment saying, “you need a comparative adjective”. (Ellis, as cited in Lyster & Saito, 2010, p. 280).
1.2.2.2.2.3. Elicitation
The teacher asks questions, reformulates the student‟s utterance, or he makes a pause and lets the student to continue the utterance. Ellis (2009) defines elicitation as a repetition of the correct part of the student‟s utterance with a rising intonation to signal that the student should complete it. According to him (2013) “The teacher (1) elicits completion of
17 hi/her own utterance, (2) uses a question to elicit the correct form, (3) asks a student to reformulate his/her utterance” (p.7).For example the learner says “I‟ll come if it will not rain”. Here the teacher tries to elicit the correct form by saying: “I‟ll come if it ….? (Ellis,
2009, p. 9).
As have been mentioned before, oral corrective feedback can be input-providing or output-prompting. For explicit oral corrective feedback, explicit correction provides the learner with the input, i.e. it contains a provision of the correct form, whereas, elicitation and metalinguistic comment are output-prompting, i.e. they indicate the ill-formed utterance of the learner through either providing metalinguistic information or without explanation (Lyster& Saito, 2010).
1.2.2.3. When to Give Oral Corrective Feedback
With respect to the timing of oral corrective feedback provision, although there is a less interest on this issue, researchers tend to have different attitudes towards the effect of oral correction time on learner‟s learning process and development. While some of them argue that immediate corrective feedback is more effective and efficient, others support delayed corrective feedback because it is not harmful and does not break the classroom interaction.
1.2.2.3.1. Immediate Oral Corrective Feedback
Immediate oral corrective feedback takes place during the learning process. It can be defined as a correction that occurs “right after a student has responded to an item or problem” (Shute, 2007, p.15). Immediate oral corrective feedback, according to Shute
(2007), is said to be helpful for the acquisition of procedural skills, verbal materials, in addition to some motor skills. Moreover, Harmer (as cited in Harmer, 2007) reported that while 38 per cent of the students preferred to be corrected after the task had been completed, 62 per cent of them preferred the correction to be at the moment of speaking.
18
1.2.2.3.2. Delayed Oral Corrective Feedback
Delayed oral corrective feedback occurs after the learner has finished his speech. This type of correction “may occur minutes, hours, weeks, or longer after the student completes some task or test” (Shute, 2007,p.15). Shute (2007) assumes that delayed feedback is supported by the hypothesis of interference-preservation given by Kulhavy and Anderson
(1972), which “asserts that initial errors do not compete with to-be- learned correct responses if correct information is delayed. This is because errors are likely to be forgotten and thus cannot interfere with retention” (Shute, 2007, p.15). Researchers, who support delayed corrective feedback, argue that it is more efficient especially in communicative tasks giving the fact that “teachers should not interrupt students in mid-flow to point out a grammatical, lexical or pronunciation error, since to do so interrupts the communication and drugs an activity back to the study of language form or precise meaning” (Harmer,
2007, p.143).
1.2.2.4. Who Provides Oral Corrective Feedback in the Classroom?
There are three main sources of oral corrective feedback applied in the EFL classrooms.
1.2.2.4.1. Self-Correction
If the student is provided with implicit corrective feedback in form of clarification or repetition, or explicit corrective feedback in form of metalinguistic comments or elicitation, which leads him to self-repair, then, it is required from him to correct his error by himself. In this technique, “the student corrects the error in response to teacher feedback that did not supply the correct form” (Ellis, 2008, p.806). Although self-correction is claimed to be helpful for the student, since it enables him to recognize his errors, correct them and, therefore, store the correct input without forgetting it, it may contain many
19 problems, such as, the majority of students prefer to be corrected by their teachers and students can make the correction only if they own the target information. Moreover, in the case of implicit corrective feedback, for instance, students cannot recognize that they have made a linguistic problem (Ellis, 2009).
1.2.2.4.2. Peer-Correction
When a student makes an error or he cannot respond to the teacher correction, another student can make the correction or respond to the teacher correction. This is what referred to by Ellis (2008) as a peer-repair, when “a student other than the student who produced the error corrects it in response to teacher feedback” (p.806). This way of correction should
“be applied tactfully, so that the student who originally made the mistake will not feel humiliated” (Amara, 2015, p.62). According to Edge (as cited in Amara, 2015), peer correction is very useful for learners to learn from each other. It also, encourages the learners‟ cognitive skills when they listen and think about the language. In addition to that, it helps the teacher to be familiar with and aware of his students‟ abilities, especially if all the class is involved in the correction.
1.2.2.4.3. Teacher Correction
This technique is the most frequent in EFL classrooms, and almost all the studies that tackled corrective feedback types were teacher correction geared. When the student, either the one who made the error or his peers, did not respond to the corrective feedback, then the teacher becomes the responsible one for the error correction. Ellis (2008) offers a more comprehensive explanation, for him “when students are involved in accuracy work, it is part of teacher‟s function to point out and correct the mistakes the students are making. We might call this „teacher intervention‟- a stage where the teacher stops the activity to make the correction” (p.806).
20
1.2.3. Should Learners be Given Oral Corrective Feedback?
Growing attention, in SLA and LP, has been given to whether or not learners should be given oral corrective feedback. Actually, conflicting arguments given by researchers to prove their attitudes. Nativists, on one hand, such as Chomsky in his theory „Universal
Grammar‟ argues that corrective feedback is of no use in L2 acquisition, rather, it is a source of negative evidence (Ellis,2010). Truscott (as cited in Purnawarman, 2011) also, claims that corrective feedback has no significant role in L2 learning, especially grammar correction, for him it is “significantly harmful” (cited in Purnawarman, 2011, p.15).
On the other hand, Interactional-cognitive Theory (e.g., Long, 1996; Schmidt, 1994;
Swain, 1985) and Sociocultural Theory (SCT) (e.g., Aljaafreh & Lantof, 1994) argue that corrective feedback is very efficient for L2 acquisition, since it helps students to recognize language form and meaning and, therefore, enhance their linguistic development and be able to perform effectively (Ellis,2010). Furthermore, Ellis (2005) believes that oral corrective feedback is very important for the enhancement of learners‟ L2, as it helps them to know which form they should not use in their utterances and how different is their utterances from the target language form. According to him it is helpful not just for those who make errors and receive feedback, but for all the students as well. A similar claim is provided by Hendrickson (1978) in his implication for the question of whether or not students‟ errors should be corrected, which indicates that error correction improves learners‟ proficiency in the target language rather than keeping them uncorrected.
Moreover, Lyster and Saito (2010) suggest three meta-analyses have proved the contribution made by corrective feedback to develop accuracy (Lyster& Saito, 2010;
Mackey& Goo, 2007; Spada& Russell, 2006). Another important factor to consider is learners‟ attitudes towards corrective feedback. Many descriptive studies have proved that most of learners prefer to be corrected, such as the study of Cathcart and Olsen (as cited in
21
Hendrickson, 1978) who found that ESL learners, they have investigated, preferred to be provided with correction to their misuse of language by their teacher, and their desire to be corrected was found stronger than teachers‟ expectation. Thus, L2 classrooms cannot dispense with oral corrective feedback, teachers can apply it systematically and carefully.
Similarly, Lyster (1998c) in his description of immersion teachers, confirms that they “are still able to bring language form back into focus without breaking the flow of interaction, by briefly engaging in the negotiation of form with students and then continuing to interact with them about content” (p53).
1.2.4. Previous Studies on Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback and Learners’
Grammatical Accuracy
In the light of the previous contradicted perspectives about the issue of oral corrective feedback in the domain of SLA, researchers have realized these theoretical perspectives in empirical studies. Since the focus of the current study is the effect of one type of Oral corrective feedback, which is explicit oral corrective feedback, on one linguistic aspect, which is grammatical accuracy; this section is undertaken to tackle the main studies that have investigated the relationship between these two variables.
Generally, different studies reported mixed results about this issue. On one hand, some studies did not show any significance of explicit oral corrective feedback on learners‟ grammatical accuracy, such as the one conducted by Sanz (as cited in Ellis et al., 2006) which concluded that explicit oral corrective feedback in form of metalinguistic feedback had no effect on learners‟ grammatical development. In addition to the study made by
Leeman (as cited in Ellis et al., 2006) on Spanish noun-adjective agreement, which revealed that explicit oral corrective feedback that indicates only the error, is unhelpful at all.
22
On the other hand, other studies have shown a positive effect of explicit oral corrective feedback on learners‟ grammatical accuracy. In 1993, Carroll and Swain (as cited in Ellis et al., 2006) conducted a study with 100 Spanish adult ESL learners to assess the use of dative verbs. The design consisted of 4 experimental groups: (A) direct metaliguistic feedback, (B) explicit rejection, (C) recasts, (D) indirect metalinguistic feedback, and one control group (E). The results showed that group (A), which was treated with direct metalinguistic feedback, outperformed the other groups.
Another study done by Ellis et al., (2006) with 34 students of New Zealand to compare between explicit oral corrective feedback in form of metaliguistic information and implicit oral corrective feedback in form of recasts. Group (A) received recasts, group (B) received metalinguistic information, and group (C) was the control. The target grammatical aspect was past tense (-ed). It was concluded that explicit oral corrective feedback in form of metlinguistic information was more effective and helpful.
Finally, in addition to these experimental studies, other various studies (Kim &Mathes,
2001; Nagata, 1993, as cited in Ellis et al., 2006) investigated learners‟ perspectives in terms of oral corrective feedback types, and found that the majority of students prefer more explicit oral corrective feedback.
Conclusion
In sum, in the light of what have been mentioned above, researchers have different views and arguments on the issue of oral corrective feedback in general and explicit oral corrective feedback in specific, i.e., its definition, source, timing, types, role, and its effect on learners‟ grammatical accuracy. Therefore, the following chapter aims to investigate an important factor, which should be taken into consideration. This factor constitutes of
23
Teachers‟ attitudes towards explicit oral corrective feedback, which is one type of oral corrective feedback and its impact on enhancing EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy.
24
Chapter Two: The Practical Framework
Introduction 26
2.1. Procedure 26
2.2. Sample of the Study 26
2.3. Description of the Questionnaire 32
2.4. Analysis of the Questionnaire Results 34
2.5. Synthesis of the Questionnaire Results 64
Conclusion 65
General Conclusion 67
Limitations of the Study 68
Suggestions for Further Research 68
References 70
Appendix
25
Introduction
The main purpose of the current study is to investigate teachers‟ attitudes towards the impact of using explicit oral corrective feedback in EFL classes on enhancing students‟ grammatical accuracy. The first chapter was about the theoretical background, while this part is devoted for the empirical study of the research work. Therefore, a questionnaire was delivered to EFL teachers at the level of middle schools in order to fulfill the objective of the study. The chapter represents the chosen method, sample and means of data collection.
Then, it reports the results, their analysis and interpretation as well.
2.1. Procedure
The present study employs a descriptive method with a questionnaire as a research instrument for gathering the relevant data. The questionnaire is composed of closed-ended questions, where the participants are asked to tick the appropriate answer, and open-ended questions (clarification questions) for their own explanation. This method is chosen in order to fulfill the aim of the study, which intends to examine perceptions and opinions of the participants under study concerning the topic in focus.
2.2. Sample of the Study
The target population of the study is Algerian EFL teachers of middle schools in Oum
El Bouaghi district. The sampling method was „Multi-stage cluster sampling‟. In multi- stage cluster (Dudovskiy, 2016), the sampling is carried out in stages; at each stage, smaller sampling units are used. In this study, towns of Oum El Bouaghi district represent the total number of clusters (12 towns). In the first stage, ½ of these clusters, i. e., 6 out of
12 Towns (Sigus, Oum El Bouaghi, Ain M‟lila, Ain El Beida, Ain Fakroun and Ain
26
Bebouch) . Then, in the second stage, ⅓ units (schools) of each cluster again were randomly chosen as the following:
-Oum El Bouaghi: n° 1, 3, 5 and 10
-Ain Babouch: n° 2 and 3
-Ain El Beida: n° 1, 2, 3, 9, 20, 4 and 5
-Sigus: n° 3 and 2
-Ain M‟lila: n° 2, 3, 5, 10 and 7
-Ain Fakroun: nº 1, 4 and 8
At the end, all the subjects (teachers) in the chosen units (schools) represent the sample of the study, i. e., 70 teachers. The necessary information about the target population was brought from „The Directorate of Education of Oum El Bouaghi‟. The following tables illustrate the target population (table 02), and the target sample of the study (table 03).
Figure1, shows the sampling method.
Table 2. Population of the Study
Town Middle school
Oum El Bouaghi 1-Ibn Tobible Rebai 2-Maaziz Abd El Karim 3-Ouakaf Sebti 4-Hamou Bouzid 5-Adjli Kadour 6-Fellah Mohamed Lakhiari 7-Berkani Massaoud 8-Fellah Amar 9-Ikhoua Maarf 10-Djebaili Ahmed 11-Ben Zoua Haouass 12-Al Djadida Ain Zitoun
27
Ain Bebouch 1-Zaghribet Derradji 2-Ounas Rebai 3-El Djadida Mekdad Taib 4-El Djadida Ain Dis
Kasr S‟bihi 1-Cheriet Belkhir 2-El Djadida 01 3-El Djadida 02
Ain EL Beida 1-Fadhli Lakhdar 2-Kouchari Bachir 3-Ibn Sina 4-Mohamed Salah el Antari 5-Hamimi Tahar 6-El Djadida Cite el Moustkbel
7-Meziani Rabai 8-Saidi Djemoui 9-Kouadria Rabai 10-Belalmi Abderahmane 11-Hadjadj Mohamed Larbi 12-Ahmad Ben Mousa 13-El Beida Saghira 14-Cite Ibn Rouchd 15- Belkadhi Mohamed Saghir 16-Zrara Salah 17-Chorfi Said 18-El Djadida Cite El Karia 19-Maamri Miloud 20-Dhif El Amri
Fkirina 1-Delfi Hamada 2-Boukardoun Yamina 3-Fizi Mohamed Lakhder 4- El Djadida Oued Nini
Souk Naamane 1-Sigha Issa 2-Annab Naamoune 3-Benarab Mesbah 4-El Djadida 5-Taleb Abdellah 6-Bounab Ismail 7-Kelab Debih Soulaimane
28
Meskiana 1-Chouabah Liamine 2-Ibn Badis 3-Zouaikia Makdad 4-Sahbi Hizoubi 5-Bouragba Mouhamed 6-Sallaoui Amar 7-Tadjouri Ibrahim 8-Cite Sdairia 9-Ben Ich Maloum 10-El Djadida Rahia Dhalaa 1-Taibi Mohamed Liamine 2-El Djadida Dhalaa 3-El Djadida 02 Dhalaa 4-El Djazia 720
Ain Fakroun 1-El Khawarizmi 2-Souidani Yousef 3-Bouia Belkassem 4-Masri Sabti 5-Darka Abderahmane 6-Kaakaa Abdellah 7-Ben M‟hidi Abd El Aziz 8-Dakdouk Taib 9-Baaziz Housine Ain Karcha 1-Moudjari Abdellah 2-Maansar Miled 3-El Djadida 02 4-Boughazi Habiba 5-Baaziz Aboud 6-Ketaf Tahar 7-Kabadj H‟mida 8-L‟khamedj Ouati 9-Mrabet Diab 10-Azri Baatouch 11-El Djadida 01 12-El Djadida 02 13-Mrabet Abes
29
Sigus 1-Syoud Mohamed 2-Yahi Ben Yahi 3-Amara Chaban 4-Atrous Abdelhamid 5-Taliya Moussa 6-Deghar Lakhdar
Ain M‟lila 1-Khelifi Touhami 2-Krabsi Abdellah 3-El Djadida 05 July 4-Beroual Houcine 5-Mellah Aboud 6-Bakha Massoud Cite Nour 7-Mokadem Abd El Majid 8-El Djadida Soualhia 9-Bachoua Ali 10-Belaabed Mohamed Jilali 11-Zehak Mohamed Fourchi 12-Berkani Ali 13-Torech Touhami 14-El Djadida 01 15-El Djadida 02 12 107
Figure 1. Sampling Method
12 towns
½
6 towns
-Oum El Bouaghi -Ain El Beida -Sigus -Ain Fakroun -Ain Babouch -Ain M‟lila
⅓ ⅓ ⅓ ⅓ ⅓ ⅓
4 schools 7 schools 2 schools 3 schools 2 schools 5 schools
30
Table 3. Sample of the Study
Town Middle School N of Total %
teachers
Oum El Bouaghi -Ibn Tobible Rebai 03
-Ouakaf Sebti 03 12 17,14 -Adjli Kadour 03
-Djebaili Ahmed 03 Ain Babouch -Ounas Rebai 03 05 7,14
-El Djadida Mekdad Taib 02 Ain El Beida -Fadhli Lakhdar 02
-Kouchari Bachir 03 -Ibn Sina 05
-Chorfi Said 03 -Dhif El Amri 02 22 31,43 -Mohamed Salah El Antri 03
-Hamimi Tahar 04
Ain Fakroun -El Khawarizmi 04
-Masri Sebti 02 09 12,86 -Dakdouk Taib 03
Sigus -Amara chaabane 03 06 08,57
-Syoud Mohamed 03 Ain M‟lila -Krabsi Abdellah 02
-El Djadida 05 July 04 -Mellah Aboud 04 16 22,86 -Zehak Mohamed Fourchi 03 -Mokadem Abd El Majid 03
31
6 towns 23 middle schools 70 70 100
Although the process of delivering the questionnaire was very exhausting and a great efforts were made in order to collect all the data, only 54 (out of 70) teachers returned the questionnaires ( i. e., 77, 14% of the target sample were included in the study).
2.3. Description of the Questionnaire
The questionnaire is made up of 26 multiple choice and 5 open-ended questions, divided into 5 sections: Personal background, teachers‟ perceptions of grammatical accuracy, teachers‟ perceptions of explicit oral corrective feedback, teachers‟ attitudes towards the impact of explicit oral corrective feedback on learners‟ grammatical accuracy, and further suggestions. But before that, it starts with a brief explanation about the two variables of the study to make the participants familiar with the topic.
Section One: Personal Background (Q1-Q3)
This section aims at gathering general information about the target participants, including their gender (Q1), degree of education (Q2), and teaching experience (Q3).
Section Two: Teachers’ attitudes towards Grammatical Accuracy (Q4-Q13)
The present section seeks to elicit information about teachers‟ perceptions of grammar and accuracy in general. It begins by asking them whether (or not) grammar should be taught in EFL classes (Q4). In the case of “Yes answer”, teachers are provided with a set of reasons to select from (Q5). In the case of “No answer”, they are asked to justify their choice (Q6). After that, teachers are required to give their opinion about whether grammatical accuracy is important in speaking English or not (Q7). Teachers are asked to
32 select the reason behind their choice if they took “Yes” (Q8) and to justify their answer in the case of “No” (Q9). The next questions are about teachers‟ assessment of their students‟ oral grammatical accuracy (Q10), whether (or not) they make grammatical errors while speaking in the classroom (Q11), and the frequency of making oral grammatical errors
(Q12). At the end, teachers are requested to determine the main types of these grammatical errors that students usually make (Q13).
Section Three: Teachers’ attitudes towards Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback (Q14-
Q27)
This section is about teachers‟ perceptions and practice of explicit oral corrective feedback in the classroom. It aims at knowing teachers‟ viewpoints about whether (or not) students should be given oral corrective feedback in the classroom (Q14). For which reason, if the answer was “Yes” (Q15), and an open-ended question is provided if the answer was “No” (Q16). Teachers, then, are asked about whether or not they correct their students‟ oral grammatical errors (Q17), the type of the grammatical error they correct if they took “Yes” (Q18), and the one who makes the correction if the answer was negative
(Q19). Later on, teachers are asked about the amount of time that should be devoted to oral grammatical error correction (Q20) and the type of correction (implicit or explicit) (Q21).
In the case of implicit correction, teachers are required to select the form they use to do so
(Q22). In the case of explicit correction, teachers are requested to choose the form and the reason behind using that form (Q23, Q24, Q25, and Q26). Finally, teachers are asked about the timing of correction, whether at the moment of making the error or after the error is made, and to justify either choice (Q27).
33
Section Four: Teachers’ attitudes towards the Impact of Explicit Oral Corrective
Feedback on EFL Students’ Grammatical Accuracy (Q28-Q30)
The aim of this part is to examine teachers‟ viewpoints about the effectiveness of using explicit oral corrective feedback as a tool in EFL classes to develop students‟ grammatical accuracy. Teachers are asked: to state their opinion about whether (or not) explicit oral corrective feedback improves students‟ grammatical accuracy (Q28), to specify the extent to which they think so, if they answered with “Yes” (Q29),and to justify their answer if they took “No” (Q30).
Section Five: Further Suggestions
In this section, teachers are asked if they have any further suggestions, comments or additions.
2.4. Analysis of the Questionnaire Results
Section One: Personal Background
Q1. Gender:
-Male
-Female
Table 4. Teachers’ Gender
Options Male Female Total
N 9 45 54
% 16,67 83,33 100
34
Table4 and Figure2 indicate, clearly, that most 16,67 % of teachers (83, 33%) are women. This may be due
83,33 to the fact that females, generally, are interested in % Male studying languages more than males do. Female
Figure 1. Teachers' Gender
Q2. Degree of education
-License -Magister
-Master -Doctorate
Table 5. Teachers’ Degree of Education
Options N % License 48 88,89 Master 4 7,41 Magister 2 3,70 Doctorate 0 0 Total 54 100
The majority of teachers (88, 89%), as pointed out from Table5, hold License degree.
7, 41% of them hold Master degree, while 3, 70% (2 teachers) hold Magister degree. It is not surprising, because teaching at the level of middle schools requires license degree only.
Q3. How long have you been teaching English? -Less than 2 years -From 2 to 5 years -From 6 to 10 years -From 11 to 25 years -More than 25 years
35
The aim behind asking this question is to figure out teachers‟ experience in teaching
English. This question is very important and helpful as well, because it shows the experience of the teacher with students‟ use of English and, hence, the situations where the student makes errors while speaking in the class.
Table 6. Teachers’ Teaching Experience
Options N %
Less than 2 years 4 7, 41
From 2 to 5 years 9 16, 67
From 6 to 10 years 7 12, 96
From 11 to 25 28 51, 85
More than 25 years 6 11,11
Total 54 100
According to Table6, more than half the teachers (51, 85%) have been teaching English from 11 to 25 years. 6 teachers have the experience of more than 25 years. This means that the majority of teachers (62, 96%) have more than 11 years in teaching English. This percentage proves that teachers have a good experience in interacting with students and therefore, dealing with situations where students use English inappropriately.
Section Two: Teachers’ attitudes towards Grammatical Accuracy
Q4. Should grammar be taught in EFL classes?
-Yes -No This question aims at knowing the place of grammar, in general, in EFL classes.
36
Table 7. Teachers’ Perceptions of Teaching Grammar in EFL Classes
Options N %
Yes 50 92, 59
No 3 5, 56
No answer 1 1, 85 Total 54 100
The vast majority of teachers (92, 59%) believe in the obligation of teaching grammar in EFL classes. 5, 56% of them think otherwise. So, Table7 proves the importance of including grammar, as a crucial component of learning the language, in EFL curriculum.
Q5. If ‟Yes‟, is it because …?
a- It is one of the basic components of English
b- It contributes in communicating effectively
c- It helps students to combine and organize words in a meaningful structure
d- It helps students to speak accurately
e- It makes the student aware of the linguistic system and rules that govern the
language
f- It makes the learner aware of the difference between the native and the target
language
g- Others
Table 8. Teachers’ Reasons of Teaching Grammar in EFL Classes
Options N %
a 4 8
37
b 2 4
c 3 6
d 2 4
e 1 2
a+c 2 4
a+d 1 2
b+c 1 2
b+d 2 4
c+d 2 4
c+e 3 6
a+b+d 1 2
a+c+d 4 8
a+c+e 1 2
a+d+g 2 4
a+e+f 1 2
b+c+d 2 4
b+c+f 1 2
c+d+e 1 2
c+e+f 1 2
a+b+d+e 1 2
a+c+d+e 2 4
a+c+d+g 1 2
a+c+e+f 1 2 a+b+c+d+e 1 2
38
a+b+c+d+e+f 5 10
b+c+d+e+f+g 1 2
a+b+c+d+e+f+g 1 2
Total 50 100
Table8 shows that the majority of teachers (10%) who said „Yes‟ to the previous question (Q4) believe that grammar is important to be taught in EFL classes due to all the mentioned reasons (a, b, c, d, e and f).4 teachers (8%) traced its importance to „a‟, „c‟ and
„d‟, and an equal number (8%) related it to option „a‟ only. 3teachers (6%) highlighted the reason „c‟, while 4% and 2% of them chose „b‟ and „e‟ respectively. The other informants have a variety of choices with different combinations. If we scrutinize at this table, we notice that „a‟, „c‟ and„d‟ are found in the majority of options and chosen by most of the teachers. Only 5 teachers mentioned other reasons (g) behind the need of including grammar in EFL curriculum. Two of them stated that grammar „helps the student in writing‟. Other two teachers emphasized its contribution in enhancing student‟s fluency.
The last teacher added that grammar „is a device that specifies the infinite set of well formed sentences‟.
Q6. If „No‟, please explain why.
All participants (3teachers), who said „No‟ to Q4, have answered this question. For the first one, grammar should not be taught simply because „language is a message, not rules‟. The second teacher argued that we should „let the learner detect the rule‟ by himself. While the last one believes that, we should teach phonetics instead of grammar.
This means, according to him, that mastering pronunciation is more important in speaking than learning grammar.
39
Q7. Do you think that grammatical accuracy is important in speaking English?
-Yes
-No
This question is asked in order to assess the importance of grammatical accuracy in speaking English from the viewpoint of teachers. This question is very helpful to pave the way for the next questions, which are related to the corrective feedback.
Table9. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Importance of Grammatical Accuracy in
Speaking English
Options N %
Yes 47 87, 04
No 7 12, 96
Total 54 100
12,96%
87,04%
Yes No Figure3.Teachers' Perceptions of the importance of Grammatical Accuracy in Speaking English
87, 04% of teachers believe that grammatical accuracy is an important aspect in speaking English, while 12, 96% of them think otherwise. This question seems to
40 emphasize one of the major reasons behind teaching grammar in EFL classes (Q5), namely
„d‟ (It helps students to speak accurately).
Q8. If „Yes‟, is it because…?
a- Grammatical accuracy contributes in developing students‟ oral proficiency
b- It helps the student to express himself without making errors
c- Others
Table 10. Teachers’ Reasons behind the Importance of Grammatical Accuracy in
Speaking English
Options N %
a 13 27,65
b 10 21,27
a+b 16 34,04
a+c 2 4,26
b+c 2 4,26
a+b+c 2 4,26
No answer 2 4,26
Totale 47 100
According to the results obtained from Table10, we note that while 27, 65% of the teachers assume that grammatical accuracy is important in speaking English due to option
„a‟, and 21, 27% of them related it to „b‟, the majority of the participants (34, 04%) traced its importance to both reasons (a and b). 6 teachers suggested other reasons (c). Four of them argued that grammatical accuracy “helps students to promote their writing”. One
41 teacher stated that “it increase students‟ self-confidence while speaking”. Another one suggested, “it helps the student to speak fluently without making mistakes”.
Q9. If „No‟, please explain why?
Five (out of 7) teachers, who said „No‟ to Q7, justified their answer. 4 of them agree on one explanation. They believe that grammatical accuracy is not important in speaking
English, because in speaking we focus on communication only, which requires, according to them, ideas not grammatical aspects. The other teacher claims that “pupils can learn it
(grammar) implicitly through contexts”, although this explanation is more relevant to Q6
(grammar should not be taught in EFL classes) rather than this one.
Q10. How do you assess your students‟ grammatical accuracy when speaking in the classroom?
a- Excellent
b- Good
c- Average
d- Bad
e- Very bad
Table 11. Teachers’ Assessment of Students’ Grammatical Accuracy when Speaking in the Classroom
Options N %
Excellent 1 1,85
Good 7 12, 96
Average 34 62, 96
Bad 5 9, 26
42
Very bad 0 0,00
From Good to Excellent 4 7, 41
From Average to Good 2 3, 71
From Bad to Average 1 1, 85
Total 54 100
The grammatical accuracy of middle school students is said to be average „c‟. This is claimed by more than half the teachers (62, 96%). Some teachers argue that their students‟ grammatical accuracy is good (12, 96%), Excellent (1, 85%) and from good to excellent (7,
41%). This maybe because they teach only 3rd and 4th year students. While those who assessed them as bad (9, 26%) and from bad to average (1, 85%) are more likely to teach
1st and 2nd year students, who are not familiar yet with English.
Q11. Do your students make grammatical errors while speaking in the classroom?
-Yes
-No
Through this question, we aim at checking the reliability of the previous question, i. e., to assess students‟ grammatical accuracy through knowing whether they do make grammatical errors or not.
Table 12. Possibility of making Oral Grammatical Errors
Options N %
Yes 52 96, 30
No 2 3, 7
Total 54 100
43
Table12 points out that the students of almost all the respondents (96, 30%) make grammatical errors when they speak, while 3, 7% of them claim the opposite. Actually, this result is very logical, since the level of students‟ grammatical accuracy was average (Q10).
Besides, it indicates that students at the level of middle school do not master the target language (English) yet.
Q12. If „Yes‟, how often do they make grammatical errors?
a- Always
b- Sometimes
c- Often
d- Rarely
Table 13. Students’ Frequency of making Oral Grammatical Errors
Options N %
Always 15 28, 85
Sometimes 26 50
Often 10 19, 23
Rarely 1 1, 92
Total 52 100
Half of the teachers (50%) claim that their students „sometimes‟ make grammatical errors. Others‟ answer (28, 85%) was „always‟. 19, 23% of them answered with „often‟.
„Rarely‟ was the least frequent with 1, 92%. From the Table 13 we deduce that middle school students are suffering from many problems related to grammar while they speak in the classroom.
44
Q13. Which type(s) of grammatical errors do they make?
a- Tenses f- Pronouns
b- Subject-verb agreement g- Adjectives
c- Articles h- None
d- Prepositions i- Others
e- Adverbs
Table 14. Types of Students’ Oral Grammatical Errors
Options N %
a 5 9, 62
a+b 6 11, 55
a+c 1 1, 92
a+d 5 9, 62
a+e 3 5, 78
a+f 2 3, 85
a+g 1 1, 92
b+e 1 1, 92
a+b+c 1 1, 92
a+b+d 4 7, 70
a+b+e 2 3, 85
a+c+d 1 1, 92
a+c+f 1 1, 92
a+d+f 1 1, 92
a+b+d+e 2 3, 85
45
a+b+f+g 1 1, 92
a+c+d+e 1 1, 92
a+c+d+f 1 1, 92
a+c+e+f 1 1,92
a+b+c+d+f 1 1, 92
a+b+c+f+g 1 1, 92
a+b+c+d+e+f 1 1, 92
a+b+c+d+f+g 1 1, 92
a+b+d+e+f+i 1 1, 92
a+c+d+e+f+g 1 1, 92
a+b+c+d+e+f+g 5 9, 62
h 1 1, 92
Total 52 100
The majority of teachers (11, 55%) chose options „a‟ (tenses) and „b‟ (subject-verb agreement) as the most frequent types of grammatical errors made by students. Others (9,
62%) selected only „tenses‟. An equal percentage (9, 62%) find „tenses‟ and „preposition‟ the major problem faced by their students and the same percentage for those whose students are suffering because of all mentioned grammatical aspects. The rest of teachers differ in their choices giving the way to various combinations of different grammatical aspects.
What we noticed from the table above is that all teachers, except 2 of them, agree on option‟a‟ „tenses‟. This is due to the fact that tenses are more complicated than the other grammatical aspects, especially when it comes to the conjugation of irregular verbs. This
46 issue is the most problematic for most of the EFL learners. One teacher (1, 92%) claims that none of the listed types of errors are made by her students. Another teacher (1, 92%) has further type (i), namely „word order‟.
In this section, almost all the participants are aware of the importance of teaching grammar in EFL classes. Furthermore, the majority of teachers emphasized the significance of grammatical accuracy in speaking English. Some of them related its significance to its contribution in enhancing students‟ oral proficiency, while others traced it to the fact that due to grammatical accuracy learners can express themselves freely without making errors. Yet, middle school students, in the opinion of the vast majority of teachers, are suffering from the grammatical errors, and especially the use of tenses.
Section Three: Teachers’ attitudes towards Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback
Q14. Do you think that students should be given Oral Corrective Feedback?
-Yes
-No
The main objective of this question is to know the place of oral corrective feedback, in general, in EFL classes from teachers‟ points of view.
Table 15. Teachers’ Perceptions of OCF
Options N %
Yes 52 96, 30
No 2 3, 70
Total 54 100
47
3,70%
Yes 96,30% No
Figure4.Teachers' Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback
Table15 denotes that the vast majority of teachers (96, 30%) are in favor with OCF as a technique to treat middle school students‟ misuse of English, whereas 3, 70% of them do not agree on that. The results of this table indicate that teachers are aware of the importance of correcting students‟ oral errors at this level.
Q15. If „Yes‟, for which reason(s)?
a- It helps students to recognize language form and meaning
b- It helps them to know the difference between their language and the target one
c- It develops students‟ L2 proficiency
d- Learners themselves prefer to be corrected
e- others
Table 16. Teachers’ Reasons for the Importance of OCF
Options N %
a 6 11,54
b 3 5,77
c 7 13,46
d 1 1,92
48
a+b 2 3,85
a+c 10 19,23
a+d 2 3,85
b+c 1 1,92
b+d 2 3,85
c+e 1 1,92
a+b+c 8 15,38
a+c+d 1 1,92
a+b+c+d 4 7,69
a+c+d+e 2 3,85
No answer 2 3, 85
Total 52 100
From Table16, we notice that the majority of teachers (19, 23%) who said „Yes‟ to
Q14, believe that students should be given OCF because of „a‟ and „c‟. We may interpret that OCF has a positive role in making the students aware of the different aspects of grammar and hence developing it. 15, 38% of them traced it to „a‟, „b‟ and „c‟, while
13,46% and 11,54% of the subjects chose „c‟ and „a‟ respectively. Option „d‟ was the least frequent reason with only one teacher (1, 92%).
This table shows that only 3 informants added other reasons for correcting their students‟ grammatical errors. The first teacher stated “to assess my teaching method and achievement of my objectives”. The second one thinks that “controlling the use of grammar makes pupils self-confident in oral and written expression”. The last one added
“it makes the learners aware of their mistakes that should be corrected”.
49
Q16. If „No‟, please justify your answer
Two teachers believe that students should not be given OCF in the classroom. Only one of them justified his answer, giving the fact that “when the learner gives the answer, we should not interrupt him”. This explanation may have two main interpretations, either this teacher focuses on the information given by the student rather than form and meaning, or he delays the correction till the student finishes his answer.
Q17. Do you correct your students‟ oral grammatical errors?
-Yes
-No
This question is more specific than the previous one (Q4). It limits the correction to only one type of errors. This type is the grammatical errors.
Table 17. Teachers’ Correction of Oral Grammatical Errors
Options N %
Yes 39 72, 22
No 14 25, 93
No answer 1 1, 85
Total 54 100
Based on the results obtained from 1,85% Yes Table17 and Figure 5, the majority of 25,93% No 72,22% respondents (72, 22%) correct their No answer students‟ oral grammatical errors, While
25, 93% of them do not do so. One Figure5.Teachers' Correction of Oral Grammatical Errors informant did not answer the question. If we make a comparison between the results of this question and Q14, we find that 24, 08%
50 of teachers who are in favor with correcting students‟ oral errors, do not correct the grammatical ones (96, 30% - 72, 22%). It can be interpreted that these teachers (24, 08%) tend to correct other types of errors such as, vocabulary, pronunciation…
Q18. If „Yes‟, which grammatical errors do you correct?
a- Tenses d- Prepositions g- Adjectives
b- Subject-verb agreement e- Adverbs h- Others
c- Articles f- Pronouns
Table 18. Types of Grammatical Errors that Teachers Correct
Options N %
a 3 7, 70
b 1 2, 56
a+b 3 7, 70
a+d 4 10, 26
a+f 2 5, 13
a+b+d 5 12, 82
a+b+e 1 2, 56
a+b+f 1 2, 56
a+d+f 2 5, 13
a+b+d+e 1 2, 56
a+b+d+f 1 2, 56
a+c+d+e 1 2, 56
a+c+d+f 2 5, 13
a+c+f+g 1 2, 56
a+b+c+d+f 1 2, 56
51
a+b+c+e+f 1 2, 56
a+b+d+e+g 1 2, 56
a+c+d+e+f+g 2 5, 13
a+b+c+d+e+f+g 6 15, 40
Total 39 100
Table18 shows that 15, 40% of teachers correct all types of grammatical errors (a, b, c, d, e, f, g). Although teachers have a variety of combination between two or more choices, all of them, except one, agree on one option, which is „a‟ (tenses). If we compare between the present question and Q13 (types of grammatical errors made by students), we discover that , in the opinion of teachers, „tenses‟ is the most frequent type of errors made by students (96, 15%) and corrected by teachers (97, 43%) as well.
Q19. If „No‟, who does correct him?
a- The student
b- The classmates
c- none
Table 19. Corrector of Students’ Oral Grammatical Errors
options N %
a 4 28, 57
b 6 42, 86
c 0 00,00
ab 4 28, 57
Total 14 100
52
Teachers who do not correct their students‟ grammatical errors, prefer the „classmates‟ to do so (42, 86%), or let „the student‟ to correct himself (28, 57%). Others (28, 57%) use both options. This indicates that these teachers do not like to integrate themselves in the correction process. Interesting questions should be raised: What if the student or his classmates could not correct the error. Or they did so, but in a wrong way? Does he interfere or ignore it?. Yet, these results prove indirectly that grammatical errors are corrected, even if the source of correction is not the teacher.
Q20. How often do you correct your students‟ grammatical errors while speaking during the class?
-Always
-Sometimes
-Rarely
This question was addressed in order to determine the frequency of using OCF. It will help to know whether teachers are overcorrecting the oral grammatical errors made by students or not.
Table 20. Teachers’ Frequency of Using OCF
Options N %
Always 16 29, 63
Sometimes 34 62, 96
Rarely 3 5, 56
No answer 1 1, 85
Total 54 100
62, 96% of the participants, as shown on Table20, „sometimes‟ correct their students‟ grammatical errors. On the other hand, 16 teachers (29, 63%) „always‟ do it. This means
53 that they are overusing oral correction when it comes to grammar. 3 teachers stated that they „rarely‟ correct the grammatical errors.1 teacher did not answer the question at all.
Q21. How do you correct your students‟ oral grammatical errors?
- Implicitly
- Explicitly
This question was designed to compare between the two types of OCF, i. e., explicit
OCF, which is the variable under investigation, and implicit OCF. Actually, this question is somehow decisive, because it will denote the place of our independent variable, from teachers‟ viewpoints, in the process of correcting the grammatical errors.
Table 21. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Mode of Correcting Grammatical Errors
Options N %
Implicitly 30 55, 56
Explicitly 16 29, 63
Implicitly and Explicitly 8 14, 81
Total 54 100
More than half the teachers (55, 56%) correct their students‟ grammatical errors implicitly. Only 29, 62% of them use explicit OCF to do so, while others (14, 81%) use both types. If we make a simple calculation, we find that implicit OCF was chosen by
70,37% (55, 56% + 14,81%) of the informants, while explicit OCF was selected by
44,44% (29, 63% + 14, 81%)of them. These results argue that the majority of teachers prefer to correct middle school students‟ grammatical errors implicitly rather than explicitly.
54
Q22. If you correct your students‟ grammatical errors „implicitly‟, which form do you use?
a- Recasts (you reformulate the student‟s utterance minus the error)
b- Clarification requests (you ask for clarification, e.g., „Sorry?)
c- Repetition (you repeat the student‟s erroneous utterance)
Table 22. Teachers’ Perceptions of Implicit OCF Types
Options N %
a 11 28, 95
b 11 28, 95
c 4 10, 53
a+b 3 7, 89
a+c 1 2, 63
b+c 6 15, 79
a+b+c 1 2, 63
No answer 1 2, 63
Total 38 100
Table22 indicates that most of teachers who selected „implicit‟ correction in Q21
(30+8) for oral grammatical errors, use it in form of either „recasts‟ (28, 95%) or
„clarification requests‟ (28, 95%) only. Others (7, 89%) use both forms, while „c‟
(repetition) seems to be less useful from the viewpoints of the teachers (10, 53%). Doing a simple calculation, we find that „b‟ is the most form used by the informants (28,95+ 7,89+
15,79+ 2,63= 55,26%).In other words, more than half the teachers (55, 26%) prefer to correct middle school students‟ grammatical errors by asking them to clarify what they have just said (clarification requests).
55
Please justify your answer
Only seven (out of 38) teachers justified their answer. Their explanations were about the following two points:
-When the teacher reformulates the students‟ utterance (recasts), he does not interrupt him or break the communication.
-The teacher should not put too much focus on the error, but lead the leaner to identify the error and correct it by himself.
Q23. If you correct your students‟ grammatical errors „explicitly‟, in which form do you do so?
a- Metalinguistic comments (you do not give the correct form, but information about
it)
b- Explicit correction (you give the student the correct form directly)
c- Elicitation (you reformulate the correct part, then you stop and let the student
continue
Table 23. Teachers’ Perceptions of Explicit OCF Types
Options N %
a 3 12,5
b 8 33,33
c 4 16,67
a+b 1 4,17
a+c 2 8,33
b+c 3 12,5
a+b+c 2 8,33
No answer 1 4,17
Total 24 100
56
In Table21, 24 teachers (16+ 8) chose explicit OCF. It seems that, as Table23 illustrates, these teachers have divergent viewpoints concerning the form to be used. Some of them (33, 33%) selected „b‟. Others (16, 67%) chose „c‟, while only 3 teachers (12, 5%) stated „a‟. The rest of the informants have variety of combinations of the three forms. If we analyze the table, we find that explicit oral corrective feedback in form of explicit correction is the most technique used by teachers. This may indicate that middle school teachers prefer to provide the student with the input directly, without giving them information about it.
Q24. If „metlinguistic comments‟, for which reason?
a- They get the student‟s attention to the misuse of language
b- They lead the student to self-repair
c- They do not provide the student with the correct form, but provide him with an
explanation about it
d- others
Table 24. Teachers’ Perceptions of Metaliguistic Comments
Options N %
b 2 25
d 0 0
a+b 1 12,5
a+c 1 12,5
b+c 1 12,5
a+b+c 1 12,5
No answer 2 25
Totale 8 100
57
In Table23, 8 teachers (3+ 1+ 2 +2) chose metalinguistic feedback. Table24 indicates that „b‟ was the main reason (25%) for choosing metalinguistic comments as a form to correct grammatical errors explicitly. The other 25% of the participants did not answer the question. On the other hand a combination between „a‟ and ‟b‟, „a‟ and „c‟, „b‟ and „c‟, and
„a‟ „b‟ and „c‟ was made by an equal number of teachers (12, 5%).
Q25. If „explicit correction‟, for which reason?
a- It makes the learner of aware his error
b- It provides the learner with the correct form of the target error
c- To tell him what is possible and not possible in the target language
d- others
Table25 . Teachers’ Perceptions of Explicit Correction
Options N %
a 8 57,14
b 1 7,14
d 0 0
a+b 1 7,14
a+c 1 7,14
a+b+c 3 21,44
Total 14 100
In Table23, 14 teachers (8+ 1+ 3+ 2) selected explicit correction. According to
Table25, more than half these teachers (57,14%) agree on „a‟ as the main reason for choosing explicit OCF in form explicit correction. 1 teacher for each of the following options: „b‟, „a+ b‟ and „a+ c‟. While 21, 44% of them related it to all of the listed reasons.
58
Q26. If „elicitation‟, for which reason?
a- It gets the student‟s attention to the error without giving him the correct form
b- It leads the student to self-repair
c- It leads him to a reflection about what is wrong and what is supposed to be right
d- others
Table 26. Teachers’ Perceptions of Elicitation
Options N %
b 3 27,27
c 1 9,09
b+c 1 9,09
a+b+c 6 54,55
Total 11 100
In Table23, 11 teachers (4+ 2+ 3+ 2) stated elicitation. Table26 illustrates that the majority of teachers (54, 55%) use explicit oral corrective feedback in form of elicitation due to all the mentioned reasons (a, b and c). 27, 27% of them highlighted reason „b‟, while only one teacher (9, 09%) selected „c‟.
Q27. When do you correct your students‟ grammatical errors?
a- At the moment of making the error
b- Minutes or hours after the error is made
Through this question, we aim at knowing the suitable time to correct middle school students‟ grammatical errors in the opinion of teachers.
59
Table27. Teachers’ Perceptions of Correction Timing
Options N %
a 38 70, 34
b 13 24, 07
No answer 3 5, 56
Total 54 100
It is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of teachers (70, 34%) think that grammatical correction should be „at the moment of making the error‟, whereas 24, 07 of them believe otherwise. Tree teachers did not answer the question.
Please justify your answer
Thirteen (out of 38) teachers who correct the grammatical errors immediately justified their choice. Their clarifications turn around 3 main points:
- Correcting the student‟s grammatical errors immediately helps him to not forget the information.
- It makes the learner aware of his errors.
- If we correct the student immediately, he will not make the error again.
Eight (out of 13) teachers who chose delayed correction justified their selection in the following statement:
-“To give him an opportunity to assess himself” (1 teacher)
-“Because during it, the learner will be interrupted and he may forget his idea or answer” (4 teachers)
-“Because I focus on learner‟s answer, not accuracy, at the moment he speaks. When he finishes, I correct him implicitly” (1 teacher)
60
-“To encourage the student to speak and express himself freely” (2 teachers)
In this section, almost all teachers are aware of the importance of correcting students‟ oral errors. In the case of oral grammatical errors, the majority of the respondents correct them, especially when it comes to the use of tenses. Yet, teachers who do not prefer to be a part of the correction process, some of them let the classmates do it, while some others prefer the student to correct himself. Concerning the frequency of correcting grammatical errors orally, more than half the teachers do it sometimes, whereas the others overuse it.
Implicit OCF was chosen by the overwhelming majority of teachers. Most of them ask the student for clarification, while others prefer to reformulate the student‟s whole utterance minus the error. Less than half the teachers use explicit OCF. They did not agree on one form, but the most one used was explicit correction. They believe that at this level (middle school), students need to be provided with input explicitly. Besides, most of them think that correcting the grammatical misuse at the time of making it, helps the learner to be aware of his errors and, therefore, never repeat it again, unlike treating it later on.
Section Four: Teachers’ attitudes towards the Impact of Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Grammatical Accuracy.
Q28. Does explicit oral corrective feedback improve students‟ grammatical accuracy?
- Yes - No
This question was asked in order to answer our research question, which is related to the relationship between the two variables of the current study. Therefore, this question is decisive in nature.
61
Table 28. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback on Improving Students’ Grammatical Errors
Options N %
Yes 47 87, 04
NO 7 12, 96
Total 54 100
Interestingly, it is quite clear that 13% approximately all teachers (87, 04%)
87% believe that explicit OCF enhance
students‟ grammatical accuracy, while Yes 12,96% of them assume otherwise. From NO Figure6.Teachers' Perceptions of these results, we note that although 70, the Impact of EOCF on Improving Students' Grammatical Accuracy 37% of the informants (55, 56% +
14,81%) in Q21 prefer implicit OCF to treat the grammatical errors, almost all of them argue that explicit OCF has a crucial role in improving grammatical accuracy. An interesting question that comes to mind is why do teachers correct oral grammatical errors implicitly and, therefore, reduce it and enhance grammatical accuracy, if they believe that explicit OCF is the useful mode to do so?. May be because they think that explicit OCF has bad effect on student‟s motivation to participate during the class, or it interrupts him while speaking and, hence, break the communication and waste time. Therefore, it is better to use implicit OCF instead.
62
Q29. If „Yes‟, to what extent do you think that explicit oral corrective feedback improves students‟ grammatical errors?
- Very much
- Much
- Not much
Table 29. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Degree of the Effectiveness of Explicit OCF in Enhancing Students’ Grammatical Accuracy
Options N % Very much 16 34, 04 Much 29 61, 70 Not much 2 4, 26 Total 47 100
Table29 indicates that explicit OCF, according to most of the teachers (61, 70%), improves grammatical accuracy „much‟. 34, 04% of them think it does „very much‟, while
2 teachers (4, 26%) stated that it does so, but „not much‟.
Q30. If „No‟, please justify your answer
All teachers who said „No‟ to Q28 (7 teachers) justified their answer. Three of them stated clearly that explicit OCF effects negatively the student‟s motivation to learn English.
Tow teachers assume that pupils should learn grammar through context and recognize their mistakes through context too. Another one completely ignores the effect of explicit OCF in developing grammatical accuracy. He argues that even if we provide the student with the information explicitly, he will repeat the same error again. The last one added, “because it does not help learners to develop their competencies, they will always rely on their teachers”.
63
Section Five: Further Suggestions
Only 10 teachers responded to this question. Their suggestions and comments were as the following:
-“Students can improve their grammatical accuracy with more practice rather than explicit
OCF”
-“Explicit correction is very beneficial for mid-school students because they are still young compared to other levels” (2 teachers)
-“Teaching grammar explicitly helps the learner to improve their oral and writing skills”
(2 teachers)
-“Teaching grammar is not a matter for only EFL classes, even the native speakers face many problems in teaching it. Besides, making grammatical errors does not mean that the learners are of weak level. It is true that influences their accuracy, but it does not affect their fluency”
-“Explicit OCF can be harmful sometimes because the learner will lose interest in communication and care more about grammar points” (3 teachers)
-“Students of middle school are not familiar with English enough. That is why we should provide them with explicit OCF to tell them what is wrong and right”
2.5. Synthesis of the Questionnaire Results
The main objective of the current study is to investigate teachers‟ attitudes towards the effectiveness of explicit oral corrective feedback in enhancing EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy. The obtained results revealed that:
64
-Middle school students, according to the teachers, face many problems related to grammar
(Q11, Q12, Q13 and Q14) what makes their grammatical accuracy weak.
-Moreover, they believe that grammatical accuracy is very important in speaking English
(Q7).
-The majority of teachers do correct their students‟ oral grammatical errors when they speak in the class (Q17).
-Besides, more than half the teachers (70, 37%) correct oral grammatical errors implicitly, while 44, 44% of them do so explicitly (Q21).
-Yet, almost all teachers (87, 04%) believe that explicit oral corrective feedback is effective in improving middle school students‟ grammatical accuracy (Q28).
All in all, teachers are aware of the importance of correcting oral grammatical errors of
EFL students at the level of middle school. Although the majority of them tend to use implicit OCF in their classes, almost all of them have positive attitudes towards the impact of explicit oral corrective feedback in boosting EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy. Thus, our research hypothesis is confirmed.
Conclusion
This chapter dealt with an analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire findings. The relevant data about EFL middle school teachers‟ perceptions of the variables of the study under investigation were gathered in order to fulfill our objective which is a confirmation or rejection of the research hypothesis, i. e., „teachers have a positive attitude towards the impact of explicit oral corrective feedback in enhancing EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy‟. The gained results showed clearly that middle school teachers have positive
65 perceptions of explicit OCF for the enhancement of EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy, though they do not practice it in the classroom.
66
General Conclusion
This study was undertaken for the sake of investigating teachers‟ attitudes towards the impact of explicit oral corrective feedback on enhancing EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy. Therefore, it offered a descriptive analysis for the relevant data. This dissertation was composed of two main chapters:
The first chapter was devoted to the theoretical background of the study, in which we discussed some major points related to grammar accuracy (definition of grammar and its role in EFL classes, definition of grammatical accuracy and its importance in speaking
English, in addition to the main reasons behind making oral grammatical errors) and explicit oral corrective feedback (definition, types, timing, source of OCF; researchers‟ perspectives towards the use of OCF in EFL classes, and the main studies tackled the relationship between EOCF and grammatical accuracy).
The second chapter dealt with the representation and interpretation of the findings. 54
EFL teachers at the level of middle school were the target sample of the study. A questionnaire was used to gather the relevant data. Basing on the analysis of the questionnaire results, teachers have positive attitudes towards the usefulness of explicit
OCF in developing EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy. Therefore, the findings of the study go in the same direction of the research hypothesis.
67
Limitations of the Study
Although great efforts were done in order to achieve as a unique research as it was possible, the current study faced some limitations.
First, the sampling method used to collect the data (i. e., selecting samples from different towns of the district) constrained us to consume much more time (more than 10 days) in the process of delivering the questionnaire and getting it back.
Second, many teachers did not accept to complete the questionnaire; therefore, not all the subjects of the target sample were included in the study as it was expected previously.
Third, the questionnaire consisted of a number of open-ended questions for the sake of gathering as much information as possible about the target variables. Unfortunately, some of the participants did not answer all the questions, and even if they did so, their answers were very brief and short.
Fourth, the study is limited to only middle school teachers, whose students‟ level is different from other levels. Therefore, we cannot generalize its results to secondary school or university teachers.
Suggestions for Further Research
This research investigated a descriptive study on the effect of explicit oral corrective feedback in enhancing EFL students‟ grammatical accuracy in the viewpoint of middle school teachers. The findings of this study pave the way to suggest other further research studies.
68
First, an experimental study could be conducted to assess the relationship between explicit OCF and grammatical accuracy at the level of middle school and the other levels
(secondary school and university) and, therefore, getting a statistical findings.
Second, a comparative study could be done between explicit OCF and implicit OCF as the two major mode of OCF to see which one is more useful and effective in language pedagogy (LP). This study is very helpful to reveal our most important finding‟s ambiguity that is the reason behind assuming that explicit OCF is crucial in developing grammatical accuracy, but using implicit OCF instead when it comes to practice.
69
References
Amara, N. (2015). Errors correction in foreign language teaching. The Online Journal of
New Horizons in Education, 5(3), 58-68.
Arrouf, S. (2009). The impact of explicit grammar instruction on learners’ grammatical
knowledge and accuracy in writing: A case study of first-year students of commerce
at Larbi Ben Mhidi University.Larbi Ben Mhidi University of Oum El Bouaghi, Oum
El Bouaghi, Algeria.
Azar, B. (2007). Grammar-Based teaching: A practitioner‟s perspective. TESL- EJ, 11(2),
1-12. Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej42/01.pdf
Bailey, K. M. (n. d.). Speaking. Montery Institute of International Studies (USA). Retrieved
from http://www.princeton.edu/~pia/TEFL/Nunan%20Chapter%203%20tefl.pdf
Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. USA, Virginia: Alexandria.
Calsiyao, I. S. (2015). Corrective feedback in classroom oral errors among Kalinga-
Apayao State College. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities
Research, 3 (1), 394-400.
Celce-Murcia, M., &Hilles,S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching grammar.
New York. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dudovskiy, J. (2016). The ultimate guide to writing a dissertation in business studies: A
step by step approach [e-book]. Retrieved from research-methodology.net/sampling-
in-primary-data-collection/multi-stage-sampling/
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Ministry of
Education, New Zeland: Auckland.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-8.
Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2504d6w3.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S.,& Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the
acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
Ellis, R. (2010). A principled approach to incorporating second language acquisition
research into a teacher education programme. Reflector on English Language
Teaching, 9(1).
Ellis, R. (2013). Corrective feedback in teacher guides and SLA. Iranian Journal of
Language Teacher Research, 1(3), 1-18.
Fang, X., & Xue-mei, J. (2007). Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching. US-China
Education Review, 4(9),10-14.
Fungula, B. N. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in the Chinese EFL classroom: Methods
employed by teachers to give feedback to their students. Carlstads University.
Giri, A. (2010). Errors in the use of English grammar. Journal of NELTA, 15(1-2), 54-63.
Retrieved from
http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NELTA/artcle/download/4610/3821.
Harmer, J. (1987). Teaching and learning grammar. London: Longman.
71
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). England: Pearson
Education Limited
Hattie, J., &Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi: 10.3102/0034654365430298487.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory,
research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal,62(8), 387-398. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4781.1978.tb0249.x
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., &O‟Hagan,S. (2008). Assessed levels of second
language speaking proficiency: How distinct?. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24-49. doi:
10.1093/applin/amm017
Kumar, B. P., Kumar,P. V., & Sagar, N.(2015). Role of grammar in English language
learning. International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities,
3(10), 186-190.
Lyster, R. (1998c). Form in immersion classroom discourse: In or out of focus?. Canadian
Journal of Applied Linguistic, 1, 53-82.
Lyster, R., &Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
Lyster, R., &Saito, K. (2010). International feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of
classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 1(2), 276-297. doi:
10.1075/lia.1.2.07lys.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., &Sato, M. (2013).Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1-40. doi: 10.1017/so261444812000365.
72
Mart, Ç.T. (2013). Teaching grammar in context: Why and how?. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 3(1), 124-129. doi: 10.4304/tpls.3.1
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge.
Purnawarman, P. (2011). Impacts of different types of teacher corrective feedback in
reducing grammatical errors on ESL/EFL students’ writing. A dissertation submitted
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Curriculum and Instruction. University of
Virginia.
Richards, J. C. (1970). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language
Teaching Journal, 25, 204-219. Retrieved from
http://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/1971-paper.pdf
Russell, J., &Spada,N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for acquisition of
L2 grammar: Ameta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (eds.),
Synthesizing research on language learning (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: Johm
Benjamins.
. Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta
(1997): Where do we stand today?. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 6(1), 21-31. Retrieved from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/.
Shute, V. J. (2007). Focus on formative feedback. Educational Testing Service. Pronceton.
Tabbert, R. (1984). Parsing the question “Why teach grammar?”. The English Journal,
73(8), 38-42. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-
8274%28198412%2973%3A8%3C38%3APTQ%22TG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
73
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harmer, J. (ed.). England. Pearson
Education Limited
Wang, Z. (2014). Developing accuracy and fluency in spoken English of Chinese EFL
learners. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 110-118. doi: 10.5539/elt.v7n2
74
APPENDIX
Teachers’ Questionnaire.
Teachers’ Questionnaire
Dear teacher,
This questionnaire is part of a research work. It is designed to investigate your attitude towards the impact of Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback on improving EFL learners’ Grammatical Accuracy in the Algerian EFL classes.
Please put a tick (√) in the appropriate box/boxes, and make a full answer or explanation whenever necessary.
Please accept my gratitude and respect in advance for your collaboration.
Miss. Boumahdjour Manar
Department of English
Faculty of letters and languages
University of Oum El Bouaghi.
I. Personal background
1. Gender:
-Male -Female 2. Degree of education:
-License -Master -Magister -Doctorate
3. How long have you been teaching English?
-Less than 2 years -From 2 to 5 years -From 6 to 10 years -From 10 to 25 years -More than 25 years
II. Teachers’ attitudes towards Grammatical Accuracy
4. Should grammar be taught in EFL classes?
-Yes -No
5. If ‘Yes’, is it because..? -It is one of the basic components of English -It contributes in communicating effectively -It helps students to combine and organize words in a meaningful structure -It helps students to speak accurately -It makes the student aware of the linguistic system and rules that govern the language -It makes the learner aware of the difference between the native and the target language - Others: please, specify ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6. If ‘No’, please explain why? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7. Do you think that grammatical accuracy is important in speaking English? - Yes - No 8. If ‘Yes’, is it because..? -Grammatical accuracy contributes in developing students’ oral proficiency -It helps the student to express himself without making errors -Others, please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9. If ‘No’, please explain ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10. How do you assess your students’ grammatical accuracy when speaking in the classroom? -Excellent -Good - Average -Bad -Very bad
11. Do your students make grammatical errors while speaking in the classroom?
-Yes -No
12. If ‘Yes’, how often do they make grammatical errors?
-Always -Sometimes -Often - Rarely 13. Which type(s) of grammatical errors do they make?
-Tenses -Subject-verb agreement -Articles -Prepositions
-Adverbs
-Pronouns
-Adjectives
-None
-Others: please, specify ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. III. Teachers’ attitudes towards Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback
14. Do you think that students should be given Oral Corrective Feedback in the classroom?
-Yes
-No
15. If “Yes”, for which reason(s)?
-It helps students to recognize language form and meaning -It helps them to know the difference between their language and the target one -It develops students’ L2 proficiency -Learners themselves prefer to be corrected - Others: please, specify…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
16. If “No”, please, justify your answer ……………………………..…………..……………………………………
17. Do you correct your students’ oral grammatical errors?
-Yes
-No
18. If ‘Yes’, which grammatical errors do you correct?
-Tenses - Subject verb agreement - Articles - Prepositions -Adverbs -Pronouns -Adjectives -Others: please, specify…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
19. If ‘No’, who does correct him?
-The student him/herself
-The classmates
-None
20. How often do you correct your students’ grammatical errors while speaking during the class?
-Always
-Sometimes
-Rarely
21. How do you correct your students’ oral grammatical errors?
- Implicitly -Explicitly
22. If you correct your students’ grammatical errors “Implicitly”, which form do you use?
-Recasts (you reformulate the student’s utterance minus the error) -Clarification requests (you ask for clarification, e.g. ‘Sorry?’) -Repetition (you repeat the student’s erroneous utterance) *Please, justify your answer …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23. If you correct your students’ grammatical errors “Explicitly”, in which form do you do so?
-Metalinguistic comments (you do not give the correct form, but information about it) - Explicit correction (you give the student the correct form directly) -Elicitation (you reformulate the correct part, then you stop and let the student continue)
24. If “Metalinguistic” comments, for which reason?
- They get the student’s attention to the misuse of language -They lead the student to self-repair -They do not provide the student with the correct form, but provide him with an Explanation about it -Others: please, specify …………………………………………………………………………………….
25. If “Explicit” correction, for which reason?
-It makes the learner aware of his error - It provides the learner with the correct form of the target error -To tell him what is possible and not possible in the target language -Others: please, specify ………………………………………………………………………………………………
26. If “Elicitations”, for which reason?
-It gets the student’s attention to the error without giving him the correct form - It leads the student to self-repair -It leads him to a reflection about what is wrong and what is supposed to be right - Others: please specify ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
27. When do you correct your students’ grammatical errors?
-At the moment of making the error -Minutes or hours after the error is made *Please, justify your answer …………………………………………………………………………………………………
IV. Teachers’ attitudes towards the impact of Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Grammatical Accuracy
28. Does explicit oral corrective feedback improve students’ grammatical accuracy?
-Yes
-No
29. If ‘Yes’, to what extent do you think that explicit oral corrective feedback improves students’ grammatical accuracy?
-Very much
-Much
-Not much
30. If ‘No’, please justify your answer ……………………………………………………………………………………………
V. Further Suggestions
31. Do you have any further comments or suggestions? ………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………...….. …………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………..… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… ….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Résumé
La grammaire est considérée comme un élément crucial dans le processus d'apprentissage de la langue. Les apprenants qui étudient l’anglais comme langue étrangère font face à de nombreuses difficultés pour acquérir cet aspect linguistique. Ces difficultés grammaticales conduisent les élèves à faire de nombreuses erreurs, surtout lorsqu'elles parlent en classe.
L'étude actuelle a cherché à étudier les points de vue des enseignants en ce qui concerne l'efficacité de l'utilisation de commentaires correctifs oraux explicites pour stimuler la précision grammaticale des apprenants. Au total, 54 enseignants du collège du district d'Oum El Bouaghi ont fourni les données pertinentes. Une méthode descriptive a été réalisée à l'aide d'un questionnaire en tant qu'instrument principal pour répondre à notre question de recherche: Quelles sont les attitudes des enseignants à l'égard de l'impact d'une rétroaction corrective orale explicite sur l'amélioration de la précision grammaticale des
étudiants qui étudient l'anglais comme langue étrangère? Les résultats obtenus soulignent le désir des enseignants de corriger les erreurs grammaticales orales. Bien que la plupart d'entre eux préfèrent utiliser des commentaires correctifs oraux implicites, la plupart d'entre eux croient que les commentaires correctifs oraux explicites ont un effet positif dans l'amélioration de la précision grammaticale des élèves qui étudient l’anglais comme langue étrangère.
ملخص
ذعرثش انقٕاعذ عُصشا حاسًا فً عًهٍح ذعهى انهغح. ٌٕاجّ انراليٍز انزٌٍ ٌذسسٌٕ انهغح االَجهٍزٌح كهغح أجُثٍح صعٕتاخ
كثٍشجفً انحصٕل عهى ْزا انجاَة انهغٕي. ْزِ انصعٕتاخ انُحٌٕح ذؤدي انطالب إنى فعم انعذٌذ يٍ األخطاء
ٔخصٕصا عُذيا ٌرحذثٌٕ فً انفصٕل انذساسٍح. سعد انذساسح انحانٍح إنى انرحقٍق فً ٔجٓاخ َظش انًعهًٍٍ َحٕ
فعانٍح اسرخذاو سدٔد انفعم انرصحٍحٍح انشفٍٓح انصشٌحح نرعزٌز انذقح انُحٌٕح نهًرعهًٍٍ. قذو يجًٕع 45 يٍ يعهًً
انًذاسس انًرٕسطح فً يُطقح أو انثٕاقً انثٍاَاخ راخ انصهح. ٔقذ ذى االعرًاد عهى انًُٓج انٕصفً تاسرخذاو االسرثٍاٌ
كأداج سئٍسٍح نإلجاتح عهى سؤانُا انثحثً يا ًْ يٕاقف انًعهًٍٍ ذجاِ ذأثٍش سدٔد انفعم انرصحٍحٍح انشفٍٓح انصشٌحح
عهى ذعزٌز انذقح انُحٌٕح نهطالب انزٌٍ ٌذسسٌٕ انهغح اإلَجهٍزٌح كهغح أجُثٍح ؟. ذشٍش انُرائج انًكرسثح إنى سغثح
انًعهًٍٍ فً ذصحٍح األخطاء انُحٌٕح انشفٌٕح. عهى انشغى يٍ أٌ انغانثٍح انعظًى يُٓى ٌفضهٌٕ اسرخذاو سدٔد انفعم
انرصحٍحٍح انشفٍٓح انضًٍُح فً انقٍاو تزنك، ذقشٌثا كم يُٓى ٌعرقذٌٔ أٌ سدٔد انفعم انرصحٍحٍح انشفٌٕح انصشٌحح نٓا
ذأثٍش إٌجاتً فً ذعزٌز انذقح انُحٌٕح نهطالب انزٌٍ ٌذسسٌٕ انهغح االَجهٍزٌح كهغح أجُثٍح.