Developing a Motivated Learner Through Self Correction Essay Sample
In states where English is taught as a 2nd linguistic communication or a foreign linguistic communication ( ESL / FL ) . the displacement from a instructor centered schoolroom to a scholar centered one has been a great challenge. This happens because the instructor. evidently. a individual of superior lingual accomplishments is expected to leave as much cognition as possible within a limited figure of hours. Confirming this. Tsui ( 1985 ) in a survey where she observed two ESL schoolrooms found that instructor talk took up more than 80 % of the entire talk clip. This pattern creates teacher dependent scholars who are non actively involved in the acquisition procedure. It besides creates persons who know a great trade about the linguistic communication but. lack existent application accomplishments.
If scholars feel what is taught in the schoolroom has no or small relevancy in the existent universe. they will non be motivated to larn. Since the ability to pass on is the ultimate mark of larning a linguistic communication. it is of important importance that the instructor explores new avenues which would assist the scholar tackle the lingual challenges he / she may meet in the universe outside the schoolroom. This paper discusses how a displacement from the traditional technique of supplying expressed negative paper based feedback on written work to a group of grownup ESL scholars has helped make scholars who would reflect on the teacher’s feedback. place the errors and rewrite boulder clay they produce a piece of composing which satisfied both the instructor and the scholar. Theoretical Background
Role of feedback
Feedback is widely seen in instruction as important for promoting and consolidating acquisition ( Anderson. 1982. Brophy. 1981. Vygotsky. 1972. cited in Highland and Highland. 2006 ) . It is defined as ‘information that is given to the scholar about his or her public presentation of a acquisition undertaking. normally with the aim of bettering their performance” ( Ur. P. 1996. p. 242 ) . In the same vena. Lightbown and Spada ( 2006. p. 197 ) define disciplinary feedback as “any indicant to the scholar that his or her usage of the mark linguistic communication is incorrect” Harmonizing to research workers such as Long & A ; Robinson ( 1998. cited in Sauro. 2009 ) . DeKeyser. ( 2005. cited in Sauro ) corrective feedback plays a valuable function in easing the acquisition of certain mark linguistic communication signifiers. which may be hard to larn through input entirely. including signifiers that are rare. low in perceptual saliency. semantically excess. make non typically lead to communication dislocation. or that lack a clear form-meaning relationship ( Sauro. 2009. p. 96 ) .
Elaborating this. Harmer ( 2001. cited in McDonough and Shaw. 2003. p. 166 ) claims that “feedback given to pupils is formative – concerned with a developmental procedure – every bit good as summational – the rating of the terminal product” . The function played by the instructor is polar where feedback on learner public presentation is concerned. Confirming this. Harmer ( 2001. cited in McDonough and Shaw. 2003. p. 166 ) ‘regards the instructor as a ‘motivator’ and a ‘feedback provider’ . Alroe ( 2011 ) claims that error rectification of 2nd linguistic communication learners’ texts is assumed to be an of import and good pattern by both instructors and pupils. specially in Asiatic states. Therefore. it is evident that instructors are expected provide uninterrupted feedback on learners’ public presentation in order to assist them go competent users of the mark linguistic communication.
Feedback on students’ authorship
There is a assortment of disciplinary feedback techniques available for instructors in relation to students’ composing. Corrective feedback can both be expressed and inexplicit and may or may non include metalinguistic information. The tabular array below illustrates the different classs of written disciplinary feedback.
The handiness of many options. although positive. may creates confusion since instructors rather frequently wonder which method would vouch maximal learner consumption. Students excessively have to fight a batch in calculating out how to implement the feedback received. However. it is the duty of the instructor to calculate out the best possible manner to supply feedback that facilitate maximal consumption. For those whose 2nd linguistic communication is English. achieving truth in their academic or workplace authorship is of important importance. Therefore. they expect their instructors to give feedback on their authorship even though they may neglect to or non motivated to integrate corrections. Leki ( 1991. cited in Hyland & A ; Hyland. 2006 ) and Schachter ( 1991. cited in Hyland & A ; Hyland. 2006 ) claims that ESL scholars have less of their ego worth invested in L2 composing than L1 authors in their native linguistic communication. Hence. they are non discouraged when corrections are pointed out to them. The Survey
Profile of the scholar
The scholars concerned were a category of 18. with an intermediate proficiency of English. following a 15 hebdomad Business English Course conducted by the University of Colombo. Sri Lanka. Classs of four hr continuance were held one time a hebdomad. They were scholars from all walks of life. There were both male and female pupils whose ages varied between 18 – 53. It has been a common observation that the scholars in these extension classs are more motivated than the mean undergraduate since the former has an immediate demand to analyze the mark linguistic communication. Hence. bulk of the pupils attended categories on a regular basis and completed at least the minimal figure of prep assignments they were given.
Rationale for the survey
The pupils were given composing activities such as memos. letters. studies and proceedingss as prep assignments either one time a hebdomad or one time in two hebdomads during their 15 hebdomad English class. Since the class contained 8 faculties. the entire figure of composing activities they would make varied between 8 and 12. The bulk of the pupils did these composing assignments as instructed and submitted them to the instructor for feedback. Though feedback on pupil work is considered to have” more consequence on accomplishment than any other individual factor ‘ ( Black and William. 1998 cited in Harmer. 2007 ) . scholars. normally are loath to pass clip revising an already corrected bill of exchange and would prefer to merely set it off and bury about it. This has been a personal observation of the author for a considerable period of clip. Irrespective of the learners’ class of survey. gender. age. degree of competency. continuance of the class. the mean scholar was seldom motivated to feed back their written work for better feedback. As a consequence of this. their written work. which was confined to 8 or 10 for the full programme showed small or no seeable betterment in relation to the quality of linguistic communication.
This made the author reflect carefully on the feedback techniques used with a position to revising them should the demand arise. The technique which had been used was one where the instructor identified and corrected the errors herself ( Direct disciplinary feedback ) . In other words. the pupils were given expressed negative feedback in the signifier of recasts and reformulations. This evidently provided no chance for the scholar to make anything other than peeking at the already corrected piece of work and inserting it inside a book or a file. Thus. a demand was strongly felt to alter this pattern. The following technique employed was to underscore or circle the errors in their written work ( Indirect disciplinary feedback ) . This besides had failed to accomplish the expected consequence – a motivated scholar. who would utilize the feedback provided to better his / her authorship accomplishments. This technique. harmonizing to them. was beyond their lingual ability. They found it an highly dashing undertaking to penetrate the type of error they had made. Alternate Schemes implemented
Therefore. in order to actuate pupils to integrate instructor feedback and bring forth revisions in the most effectual and economical manner. two schemes were implemented. 1. Supplying Metalinguistic Feedback promoting self rectification 2. Supplying electronic disciplinary feedback
Strategy 1 – Providing Metalinguistic Feedback Encouraging Self Correction It was evident that the scholars needed counsel in order to place the types of error they make. In other words. supplying metalinguistic cues which gave pupils the chance to understand the nature of the mistake. proved to be an ideal solution for this job. Metalinguistic feedback is the procedure of supplying a lingual hint for the targeted mistake ( s ) . Harmonizing to Lyster and Ranta ( 1997 ) . it supplies the linguistic communication scholar with negative grounds sing the non mark like nature of their linguistic communication. They categorize metalinguistic feedback as “comments / information. or inquiries related to the well-formedness of the student’s vocalization. without explicitly supplying the right form” ( p. 47 ) .
Hence. the teacher’s undertaking is to bespeak the presence of errors with no open corrections made. There are assorted ways of supplying metalinguistic cues. As stated in table 1 above. the account can take the signifier of brief mistake codifications ( Table 2 ) or can come in the signifier of a longer and more elaborate account.
Lyster and Ranta ( 1997. cited in Lightbown and Spada. 1999. p. 106 ) in one of their surveies on feedback in Gallic submergence schoolrooms found that “student consumption was least likely to happen after recasts and much more likely to happen when they receive feedback in the signifier of evocations. elucidation petitions. metalinguistic feedback and repeat. Taking the above positions into consideration. this group of scholars was advised on the importance of regular prep entry. How they would be given feedback. what they were expected to make one time the feedback was received and how they could utilize the feedback to farther heighten their written work were discussed in great item prior to the debut of the new schemes. . Feedback was provided on the undermentioned countries:
Communicative quality
Logical organisation
Grammar
Vocabulary
Punctuation and spelling
( Adapted from Writing Profile by Hopkins and Tribble. cited in MacDonough & A ; Shaw. 2003 ) When taging books. elaborate remarks and suggestions were made under each subdivision with a position to rectifying their syntactic degree mistakes every bit good as bettering other general composing accomplishments. viz. . the logical flow of thoughts. coherency and coherence. Therefore. the pupils were expected to calculate out their errors with the aid of metalinguistic feedback given. It should be noted that in the current survey. abbreviated codifications bespeaking the error type were non used. Alternatively. the error was pointed out utilizing a longer phrase ( e. g. – incorrect tense / correct word. but wrong signifier ) . The feedback they received was non conclusive and mutely demanded some sort of action from the scholar. The pupils excessively had strong sentiments sing their feedback penchants. Almost everyone expressed their want to have feedback on all their errors and preferred to hold some kind of metalinguistic account alternatively of merely a direct rectification or no account.
Harmonizing to McDonough and Shaw ( 2003. p. 167 ) . although “the ruddy pen method” employed by the instructor is “inherently negative” there is no ground as to why feedback should non be positive. Therefore. the scholars. most of the clip. were given feedback on the positive aspect their authorship every bit good. For case. in add-on to remarks on the surface degree errors. elaborate remarks on the quality of their written work were made. Remarks such as “You have understood the construction of a missive of petition good. It contains all the of import elements you need to include” boosted the ego assurance and the motive of the scholars. The new method encouraged them to do usage of the remarks given and revise their work. A few highly motivated scholars made 3 – 4 resubmissions depending on the importance of the undertaking. Each resubmission was found to be better than the old one ( see annexure for illustrations ) . A comparing of the first bill of exchange with the subsequent bill of exchange of written work proved that they had understood the type of errors they had made in the first bill of exchange.
This confirms Fathom and Whally’s ( 1998. Ferris. 2002. Ferris & A ; Helt. 2000 cited in Hyland & A ; Hyland. 2006. p. 4 ) findings since they claim. “studies mensurating pupil betterment longitudinally suggest that pupils who receive mistake feedback over a period of clip can better their linguistic communication truth. The model for the current survey is based chiefly on the work of Vygotsky and Piaget and their several signifiers of societal and cognitive constructivism. The basic theory of constructivism promotes active acquisition since the scholar is expected to ( carbon monoxide ) concept cognition. Metalinguistic disciplinary feedback provides this chance and encapsulates the dogmas of constructivism by promoting scholars to construct their ain cognition in a scaffolded mode. It allows for ego – find since it provides merely hints and non direct replies while still supplying counsel within a students’ zone of proximal development. Although the instructor is required to supply the metalinguistc cues. it is the pupil who has to build the cognition by internalising the lingual cues and accommodating this new cognition into old scemata ( Anderson. 2010 ) . Benefits of Self Correction
Self Correction is believed to transfuse in the scholar feelings of autonomy and success and supply them the chance to take a more active function in their ain acquisition. In fact. self rectification and rewriting aid wean pupils from dependence on the instructor for rectification. Anderson ( 2010 ) claims that. in this state of affairs. pupils rely on the instructor merely as a usher and non as the ultimate beginning of information. Although the instructor is available to assist the scholar whenever the demand arises. the scholar is encouraged to work out on his/her ain how the error can be rectified utilizing the metalinguistic cues provided. This can really hike the degree of assurance of the scholar particularly when they compare their revised work with the original. Learners appreciate individualized remarks since it enables them to understand what their strengths and failings are. The instructor excessively gets the chance to understand linguistic communication related issues of each person scholar through the usage of this technique. Furthermore. it allows the instructor to order remedial action when a peculiar error recurs in a learner’s work. Strategy 2 – Electronic disciplinary feedback
The alteration in the feedback technique was non the exclusive ground that motivated scholars to do alterations to their written work. In fact. it is the other scheme which is related to the medium in which they were asked to feed back which farther motivated them. This scheme is discussed in item below. Since the pupils had categories during the weekend. they met the instructor merely one time a hebdomad. Consequently. the prep was besides submitted one time a hebdomad or one time in two hebdomads. The instructor would roll up all the prep assignments and would return the pronounced assignments the hebdomad after. This was a long and boring procedure and by the clip the feedback is provided. pupils had trouble retrieving the original undertaking.
Taking this into consideration. the author decided to do usage of the engineering available in order to promote them to rewrite incorporating feedback given. Elaborating the usage of engineering in the ESL schoolroom. Sauro ( 2009 ) states that “with the tools of engineering doing their manner into the L2 schoolroom. disciplinary feedback delivered via written synchronal computer-mediated communicating ( SCMC ) holds peculiar promise” . Since the bulk of these pupils were employed. they had entree to computing machines and the cyberspace and were able to e get off their prep assignment. Those who did non hold these installations were encouraged to utilize the Self Access Centre of the Colombo University. Thus. the new method enabled the pupils to pass on with the instructor on a regular footing.
Prompt feedback was given in the signifier of metalinguistic cues. Since they had the soft transcripts. they were able to integrate the feedback straight off into the original paperss. It saved a batch of clip for the pupils. The instructor was besides able to keep a uninterrupted duologue with each single pupil since they excessively were quite prompt in directing their revised bill of exchanges due to the convenience of the method. Another advantage of this was that it enabled both the instructor and the pupils to keep records of written work and the feedback given.
Due to this method. the instructor was able to compose luxuriant remarks on the pupils composing decipherably utilizing a choice of colorss. It besides gave the instructor the chance to “provide hyperlinks to concordance files that provided illustrations of right usage” ( Ellis. 2009. p. 98 ) . The pupils were besides happy that the programme involved new engineering and made full usage of it. Their composing continued to better as a consequence of the two schemes implemented. Confirming this. Yeh and Lo’s ( 2009 ) survey of 50 Chinese college students’ usage of electronic feedback found that an on-line feedback note system somewhat outperformed traditional paper-based feedback.
Decision
In decision. it can be stated that the usage of metalinguistic feedback in topographic point of expressed negative feedback exercised a positive influence on the learners’ composing since metalinguistic cues provided them the necessary information to understand their errors without they being corrected explicitly. It made composing a challenging undertaking since they were required to work out the jobs in their authorship themselves. They were able to witness their ain advancement which. in bend increased their motive to work harder. As stated above. bulk of the scholars showed advancement in the written end product they produced. However. non every pupil made usage of this. Sometimes. their work load impeded on the motive to compose and rewrite prep assignments. However. the fact that they were able to pass on with the instructor on line gave them the chance for immediate feedback on their public presentation motivated the bulk of the pupils to subject and revise work on a regular footing.
Mentions
Alroe. J. M. ( 2011 ) Error Correction of L2 Students’ Texts – Theory. Evidence and Pedagogy. Chulalongkorn University Language Institute. Siam
Anderson. T. ( 2010 ) . The consequence of tiered disciplinary feedback on 2nd linguistic communication academic authorship. Maestro of Arts thesis. University of British Columbia. Vancouver. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //circle. ubc. ca/bitstream/…/ubc_2010_fall_anderson_timothy. palladium
Ellis. R. ( 2009 ) . A typology of written disciplinary feedback types. ELT J. 63 ( 2 ) . 97-107.
Harmer. J. ( 2007 ) . The pattern of English linguistic communication learning. Pearson Education Limited.
Hyland. K. & A ; Hyland. F. ( 2006 ) . Interpersonal facets of response:
Constructing & A ; construing teacher written feedback. In Hyland. K. & A ; Hyland. F. Feedback in 2nd linguistic communication authorship ( pp. 206-224 ) . Cambridge: Cambridge.
Hyland. K. . & A ; Hyland. F. ( 2006 ) . Contexts and issues on feedback in 2nd linguistic communication composing. In K. Hyland. & A ; F. Hyland. Feedback in 2nd linguistic communication authorship ( pp. 1-22 ) . Cambridge: Cambridge.
Lightbown. P. & A ; . ( 1999 ) . How linguistic communications are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown. P. M. . & A ; Spada. N. ( 2006 ) . How linguistic communications are learned ( 3rd ed. ) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyster. R. and Ranta. L. ( 1997 ) . Corrective feedback and learner consumption: Negotiation of signifier in communicative schoolrooms. Surveies in Second Language Acquisition. 21. 557-587.
McDonough. J. ( 2003 ) . Materials & A ; methods in ELT: A teacher’s usher. Blackwell publication.
Sauro. S. ( 2009 ) . Computer-mediated disciplinary feedback and the development of 2nd linguistic communication grammar. Language Learning & A ; Technology. 13. 96–120.
Tsui. A. B. ( 1985 ) . Reserve and anxiousness in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. In Bailey. K. M. & A ; Nunan. D ( Eds. ) Voices from the linguistic communication schoolroom ( pp. 145-167 ) . Qualitative research in 2nd linguistic communication instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University imperativeness
Ur. P. ( 1996 ) . A class in linguistic communication instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yeh. S. W. . & A ; Lo. J. J. ( 2009 ) . Using on-line notes to back up mistake rectification and disciplinary feedback. Computers and Education: An International Journal. 52 ( 2 ) . 882-892
Bio Data
Enoka Makulloluwa is a lector in English Language attached to the ELTU. University of Colombo. She has an MA in Linguistics from University of Kelaniya and an MA in TESL from OUSL. Her research involvements are codeswitching in the ESL schoolroom and impact of feedback on scholar public presentation.
