Feedback, Uptake and SLA

Feedback, Uptake and Second Language Acquisition

Cognitive Science has contributed significantly to the development of SLA (Second Language Acquisition), and subsequently to SLTE (Second Language Teacher Education). This is relevant in my roles as an EAL (English as an Additional Language) teacher and teacher trainer, which is where I have been focussing my development. I therefore have not had the opportunity to investigate the role of corrective feedback/error correction, and its importance for SLA, which is a fascinating area that is continually developing alongside advances in cognitive science. Feedback is of central importance in education, as the role of the teacher is to help the learner move from what is not known through the zone of proximal development to a point where one day they are able to operate without the teacher (Van der Veer and Valsiner, 1994). Feedback in general has been proven to be successful in facilitating language development (Carroll, Swain and Roberge, 1992; Lightbown and Spada, 1990), but by focusing on specific strategies, I can identify which would be most beneficial in my teaching, and then determine the most appropriate way to apply these, with the aim of becoming a more effective instructor. This report is based on Uptake in Incidental Focus on Form in Meaning-Focused ESL Lessons (Loewen, 2004), and will examine the relevance and research context, outline feedback in SLA, and then address its potential in my classrooms.

SLA theory does not exist in a vacuum, and its development has paralleled those in cognitive science and neurolinguistics. Earlier theories of language acquisition such as the Natural Approach (Krashen and Terrell, 1988) argued that language was best learned by assimilation in a process similar to FLA (First Language Acquisition), where comprehensible input was most important with the learner modelling what they heard. Corrective feedback was seen to reduce the potential for language acquisition, specifically that it increased negative affective factors such as confidence and motivation (Truscott, 1999). These beliefs were subsequently echoed by prominent teacher educators (Harmer, 1991; Hedge, 2000; Ur, 1996). However, later theories assert that feedback, and the subsequent ‘uptake’, which is a learner’s response to feedback, facilitates noticing, and that noticing aids language development (Schmidt, 1990 and 1995 in Loewen, 2004). With noticing, it is now possible to connect what is known or not known, with what is needed, and it is the attention to these limitations/errors that creates this. Schmidt argues that language development cannot occur without noticing, but whether this needs to be conscious is a continued area of interest in SLA. Swain (1995) develops this theory further in the ‘Output Hypothesis’, and argues that in addition to noticing, uptake facilitates hypothesis testing, which is important because when learning a new language learners are always testing their hypotheses, and these are corroborated or refuted via feedback from an interlocutor. This also increases awareness of the metalinguistic function of that aspect of the language, and this awareness deepens the learner’s knowledge of the language. These cognitive responses become more active with increased feedback and uptake, and perform an important function in language development.

There are many different forms of corrective feedback: it can either be explicit (Direct information that the language is incorrect) or implicit (Indirect attention to the problem using intonation, tone or volume, or paralinguistic cues), and within ELT (English Language Teaching), there are multiple, and often competing, models classifying forms of error correction; however, I have consolidated and defined these according to my conceptualization:

Elicitation: Stop the learner and ask/wait for them to correct themselves. The instructor can assist by echoing back their language up to the error, and then allow the learner to repair it.
Clarification requests: Pretend to either not hear, or using intonation, tone, volume, paralinguistic cues or verbal information indicate a lack of comprehension/a problem.
Metalinguistic feedback: Provide a linguistic explanation about the error.
Repetition: Repeat the erroneous language in an exaggerated manner using intonation, tone and/or volume.
Correction: Clearly state/indicate that the utterance is incorrect and correct it.
Recasts: Repeat back the corrected form.

These categories are not mutually exclusive, and can be used in combination with one another, for example, there could be metalinguistic feedback, and then elicitation, or a correction. Feedback can also be immediate or delayed, meaning or form-focused, spoken or written, teacher or learner-initiated, formative or summative, assessed or unassessed, and can relate to phonological, grammatical or semantic areas, which therefore makes it a very complex topic.

As uptake is directly linked to language acquisition, it is essential to examine the method of feedback and its link with uptake, and then to encourage its use in the classroom. Researchers found that elicitation generated the most uptake (100%), followed by clarification requests (88%), metalinguistic feedback (86%), repetition (78%), correction (50%) and recasts (31%) (Lyster and Ranta, 1997 in Loewen, 2004, p. 5). Additionally, explicit feedback was found to be more effective (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Carroll and Swain, 1993; Loewen, 2005; Ellis, Loewen and Erlam, 2006) despite previous concerns about a negative effect on the learner. Explicit feedback has also been proven to move beyond successful uptake, and facilitate longer-term language acquisition (Long, 2007; Ellis, 2008). However, Loewen (2007) argues that teachers must be judicious with their use of explicit feedback as too much attention to errors can be discouraging for learners, and it becomes exhausting for teachers. Additionally, it can decrease fluency, impede communication and limit a learner’s opportunities to struggle to communicate, which is where I really see my learners’ communicative abilities develop. If the errors are non-impeding/non-intrusive, that is they do not impede communication, and if the focus of the task is on developing communicative ability, then I limit my use of corrective feedback. I also seek to create and exploit opportunities for positive feedback.

Loewen’s (2004) research has shown that fee-paying adult learners had much higher levels of uptake, and this reflects the motivated and semi-autonomous learner profile in my current teaching environment. His research has provided three key findings I want to incorporate into my classroom:

Feedback complexity is key, and there is more successful uptake when there is a greater number of turns taken between teacher and learner (p. 10).
Elicits, where the learner produces the corrected response, generate much more uptake than provides, which are teacher corrected responses (p. 11).
Timing is a key factor, with greater uptake occurring if the feedback is given quickly (p. 11).

The common thread uniting these relates to the use of time, and the roles of the teacher and learner. If the learner is viewed as a co-constructor of knowledge, and language learning is based on the development of skills, then as instructors we must create a comfortable environment where we can identify our learners’ errors, but also make the time to elicit the correct language using a dialogic approach. We need to value this as an integral aspect in the process of learning a language, which may seem time-consuming, particularly in large classes and where curricular constraints exist, but it is essential. Additionally, if we can develop language accuracy via awareness-raising and learner training, learners will have the opportunity to reflect on their language use and self-correct, and eventually this will become an automatic response that can be transferred to contexts outside of the classroom.

I currently teach beginners, and it is key to balance encouraging the accurate use of language so that errors are not fossilized, but also to develop communicative ability and confidence, and it is always with this in mind that I give corrective feedback for speaking. I give explicit feedback with writing, although I generally use error coding, and they are therefore required to correct it (Guided elicits), which is a much more active process than corrections (Provides). I also try to incorporate corrective written feedback into communicative tasks. My learners write ten sentences in their journals every night, and this task revises language and reinforces accuracy, in particular the correct use of the past tense, as English has many irregular past tense verbs. One way I give feedback is to anonymize their entries, put the errors in bold, project them on the computer, give them some time in pairs to try and correct the errors, and then after, I elicit the correct responses. The anonymity reduces negative affective factors, and giving them time to make the corrections in pairs requires them to test their language hypotheses and use functional language to communicate. While we go over the answers together a dialogue emerges and evolves. They build on one another’s responses, and I scaffold and give clues, which therefore makes the turn-taking very complex, and each question often involves several students taking multiple turns. Another variation on this that also strengthens the four skills (Reading, writing, listening and speaking) is to have them each dictate two sentences about yesterday in pairs, which they write on the board. After, I underline the errors, and then they have five minutes to try and correct everyone’s errors, and then I elicit the correct responses from the whole class. This works well once the class knows one another, and once they realize that everyone makes errors, and that errors are a necessary part of learning, they really appreciate and see the validity of this activity.

They also really enjoy being the teacher, and so I ask them to create sentences with intentional errors, and then the others correct the errors, with them supporting their peers, which deepens their metalinguistic knowledge, and also develops their confidence and autonomy. Another activity involves them to (re)creating sentences in groups from cut-up sentences, and I have used this a lot with my beginners as it consolidates both grammar and vocabulary. The metalinguistic discussions that emerge are fascinating, and regardless of whether their assumptions are correct, they are actively testing their hypotheses, and there is also a considerable amount of functional language used. After, we go over and correct the sentences together and discuss why, how and what we have done. Although these tasks take time, they are particularly important as Loewen (2004) observed that metalinguistic uptake is particularly successful when it is learner generated. These tasks are also learner-centred and engaging, which lead to deeper learning.

When I have done error correction tasks with pre-service teachers, I have used case/scenario-based teaching, and I ask them to look at videos or read descriptions of learner errors, and explain which strategy they think is most suitable for that context. I have also had them watch teacher-learner feedback interactions, and identify the method used, and whether they felt it was appropriate and successful. In the future, I would like to either have someone observe me and give me feedback about my error correction methods, or videotape a lesson and reflect on it. As a lot of my feedback is tacit, this report has encouraged noticing and deeper reflection in my teaching, and made me consider whether there are ways I could be more effective, and it is these opportunities for growth that inspire my love of teaching!

References

Carroll, S., Swain, M., and Roberge, Y. (1992) The Role of Feedback in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Error Correction and Morphological Generalizations, Applied Psycholinguistics 13:2, p. 173-98.

Carroll, S. and Swain, M. (1993) Explicit and Implicit Negative Feedback: An Empirical Study of the Learning of Linguistic Generalizations, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, p. 357-86.

Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006) Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, p. 339-68.

Harmer, J. (1991) The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman.

Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Second Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1988) The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1990) Focus on Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, p. 429-48.

Loewen, S. (2004) Uptake in Incidental Focus on Form in Meaning-Focused ESL Lessons, Language Learning, 54:1, p.153-8.

Loewen, S. (2005) Incidental Focus on Form and Second Language Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27:3, p. 361-86.

Loewen, S. (2007) Error Correction in the Second Language Classroom, Clear News, 11:2, p.1-5.

Long, M. (2007) Problems in SLA. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, p. 37-66.

Schmidt, R. (1990) The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, p.129-58.

Schmidt, R. (1995) Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning. In R.

Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Swain, M. (1995)Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics, p.125–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Truscott, J. (1999) What’s Wrong with Oral Grammar Correction? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55:4, p. 437-56.

Ur, P. (1996) A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.

Van der Veer, R. and Valsiner, J. (1994). The Vygotsky Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.