Errors, Interaction, and Correction: A Study of Native-Nonnative Conversations

Chun, Ann E.; Day, Richard R.; Chenoweth, N. Ann; Luppescu, Stuart

doi:10.2307/3586471

Cited by 65 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This research indicated that teachers' attempts at error correction were frequently ambiguous and inconsistent and, therefore, that the value of correction was not clearly demonstrated. Other studies explored error correction by NSs in more naturalistic conversations (Chun, Day, Chenoweth, & Luppescu, 1982;Day, Chenoweth, Chun, & Luppescu, 1984), which revealed that NSs rarely correct learners' errors in conversation.…”

Section: The Role Of Negative Feedback and Positive Evidence In L2 Acmentioning

confidence: 99%

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN TASK-BASED INTERACTION

Iwashita

2003

Stud Second Lang Acquis

215

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the role of task-based conversation in second language (L2) grammatical development, focusing on the short-term effects of both negative feedback and positive evidence on the acquisition of two Japanese structures. The data are drawn from 55 L2 learners of Japanese at a beginning level of proficiency in an Australian tertiary institution. Five different types of interactional moves made by native speaker interlocutors during task-based interaction were identified, by way of which learners received implicit negative feedback and positive evidence about the two target structures. The relative frequency of each interactional move type was calculated, and associated changes in the learners' performance on immediate and delayed posttests were examined. It was found that, although native speaker interactional moves containing positive evidence about the two target structures were 10 times more frequent during task-based language learning than those containing implicit negative feedback, only learners who had an above-average score on the pretest benefited from the positive evidence provided. Implicit negative feedback, This study is based on my doctoral dissertation (Iwashita, 1999). Earlier reports of this research were presented at the Pacific Second Language Research Forum (Tokyo, March, 1998) and the Second Language Research Forum (Honolulu, October, 1998). I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation advisers, Tim McNamara and Michael Long, for their assistance throughout all stages of this project. I am also grateful to Lis Grove, Paul Gruba, Leslie Ono, Rhonda Oliver, Lourdes Ortega, Jenefer Philp, Sara Rabie, Neomy Storch, Joanna Tapper, and the anonymous SSLA reviewers for many helpful and insightful comments. Thanks are also due to Martin Johnson for his statistical advice. All errors are, of course, my own. Finally, I am deeply indebted to the students who participated in the study and to the teachers for their cooperation.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Negative Feedback and Positive Evidence In L2 Acmentioning

confidence: 99%

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN TASK-BASED INTERACTION

Iwashita

2003

Stud Second Lang Acquis

215

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During this period and the following decades research centred on different aspects of error-making: the development of taxonomies for identifying and classifying errors (Dusková 1969, Burt and Kiparsky 1974, Politzer and Ramírez 1973, Corder 1981, Chun et al 1982, Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982; the investigation of error gravity (Tomiyama 1980, Hughes and Lascaratou 1982, Davies 1985, McCretton and Rider 1993; and detailing the different causes of errors (Richards 1974, Odlin 1989, Gass and Selinker 1992, Ringbom 1992.…”

Section: The Rise and Fall Of Il Error Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error feedback in L2 writing classes

Ferris

Roberts

2001

Journal of Second Language Writing

652

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The present study analyses the errors identified in the written argumentative texts of 304 Spanish university students of English taken from two different corpora -one from a technical university context and the other from learners enrolled in the Humanities. Considered an important design criterion for computer learner corpora studies, the metadata of the students' was recorded and their competence levels were measured using the Oxford Quick Placement Test. The scores obtained (0 to 60) were then related to the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) levels ranging from A1 to C2.Within the field of applied linguistics and language teaching/learning, many studies have been carried out over the years designed to address the phenomenon of interlanguage errors made by learners of English (Dusková 1969, Green & Hecht 1985, Lennon 1991, Olsen 1999, among many others). These studies involved analyzing a small number of texts with a limited number of tags, based on either linguistic taxonomies or surface structure categories of errors (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen 1982). However, in the last three decades, technological advances have been made which have facilitated the analysis of much larger amounts of data using computers for both the development of learner corpora and programs for a more detailed analysis of the learner data.The error coding system used in the present research work has been designed to address all the possible levels of error (with as many sub-categories as required) since learners writing in a foreign language not only make errors related to grammar and vocabulary, but also with regard to their competence in the use of syntax, discourse relations and pragmatics, among others.The aim of the present study is two-fold. Firstly, we explore the nature of the errors coded in the corpus i.e. which errors are most frequent, including not only the main categories but also the most delicate levels of errors. Secondly, we address the question of the relationship, if any, of the learners' competence levels and the type and frequency of the errors they make. The results show that grammar errors are the most frequent, and that the linguistic competence of the learners has a lower than expected influence on the most frequent types of errors coded in the corpus.

show abstract

“…Although early studies raised considerable doubts as to the efficacy of feedback (e.g. Chaudron, 1977;Chun et al, 1982), recent studies provide substantial evidence on its effectiveness in SLA (Carroll & Swain, 1993;Ellis et al, 2001; Ferris,1997). Studies in the 1990s denote that providing feedback to students on both content and form may improve their learning and result in the development of their interlanguage system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Performance after Collaborative Output

Abadikhah¹,

Ashoori²

2012

JLTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect of written corrective feedback on EFL learners' performance after completing a set of output activities. The study involved two groups of learners (24 male students) at intermediate level. The first group, consisting of six pairs, worked on four output activities (text editing, composition, transformation and substitution). The second group received written feedback after completing the same activities. Twelve tailor-made dyad-specific tests were constructed and administered to the pairs of learners. Results revealed that the participants who received written corrective feedback after completing the activities outperformed those who did not receive written feedback. The study confirms the view that providing an opportunity for interaction after receiving feedback triggers noticing the gaps between the learners' interlanguage and target language, which facilitates L2 development.

show abstract

Errors, Interaction, and Correction: A Study of Native-Nonnative Conversations

Cited by 65 publications

References 8 publications

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN TASK-BASED INTERACTION

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN TASK-BASED INTERACTION

Error feedback in L2 writing classes

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Performance after Collaborative Output

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About