Learner and Teacher Roles in the Treatment of Oral Error in Group Work

Bruton, Anthony; Samuda, Virginia

doi:10.1177/003368828001100204

Cited by 60 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, although all interlocutor types consistently provided negative feedback, in adult dyads, NSs provided significantly more feedback than NNSs, which at first appears to conflict with earlier studies that found more negotiation when NNSs interacted with other NNSs than when they interacted with NSs (Bruton & Samuda, 1980;Gass & Varonis, 1994;Long & Porter, 1985;Pica et al, 1996;Polio & Gass, 1998;Porter, 1986;Varonis & Gass, 1983. However, as discussed above, our study took the grammaticality of the learners' original utterances into account.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

“…In addition, assessing the feedback provided by NNS interlocutors, in comparison to NSs, may shed light on the value of learner-learner pair work and thus contribute to the design of instructional programs. Previous research has found that NNS±NNS interaction tends to include a higher incidence of interactional features such as prompts and various types of negotiation (when compared to NS±NNS interaction), particularly when the NNSs are at different developmental levels (Bruton & Samuda, 1980, Gass & Varonis, 1994Long & Porter, 1985;Pica et al, 1996;Porter, 1986;Varonis & Gass, 1983. Thus, if one posits, as many do, that a combination of L2 input, interactional feedback, and production opportunities is of crucial importance for L2 learners, at first glance it might seem that NNSs would benefit more from interacting with other NNSs than with NSs.…”

Section: Native Versus Nonnative Interlocutorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interactional Input and The Incorporation of Feedback: An Exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS Adult and Child Dyads

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the documented benefits of participation in communicative interaction (e.g., Gass & varonis, 1994; Mackey, 1999), the present study investigated the effects of interlocutor type on the provision and incorporation of feedback in task–based interaction. The interactions of 48 dyads, evenly divided among adults and children, and native speaker–nonnative speaker and nonnative speaker–native speaker, were analyzed to assess the effect of interlocutor on (1) amount of feedback, (2) opportunities for modified output, and (3) immediate incorporation of feedback. In all dyed types, at least 30% of errors resulted in feedback, much of which led to modified output. Analyses also revealed significant differences for amount, nature, and response to feedback according to dyad type.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

Section: Native Versus Nonnative Interlocutorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactional Input and The Incorporation of Feedback: An Exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS Adult and Child Dyads

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There seems to be considerable individual variability in the amount of attention students pay to their own and others' speech, however (Gaies, 1983b;Morrison and Low, 1983), and a suggestion that training students to correct each other can help remedy this (Bruton and Samuda, 1980). During group work, learners seem more apt to repair lexical errors, whereas teachers pay an equal amount of attention to errors of syntax and pronunciation (Bruton and Samuda, 1980). Learners almost never mi §-correct during unsupervised group work (Bruton and Samuda, 1980;Porter, 1983).…”

Section: 34 ~~~~J~dmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During group work, learners seem more apt to repair lexical errors, whereas teachers pay an equal amount of attention to errors of syntax and pronunciation (Bruton and Samuda, 1980). Learners almost never mi §-correct during unsupervised group work (Bruton and Samuda, 1980;Porter, 1983).…”

Section: 34 ~~~~J~dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition

Long¹,

Porter²

1985

TESOL Quarterly

646

369

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of group work in classroom second language learning has long been supported by sound pedagogical arguments.Recently, however, a psycholinguistic rationale for group work has emerged from second language acquisition research on nonnative speaker/non-native speaker conversation, or interlanguage talk. Provided careful attention is paid to the structure of tasks students work on together, the negotiation work possible in group work makes it an attractive alternative to the teacher-led, "lockstep" mode, and a viable classroom substitute for individual conversations with native speakers.* Revised version of a paper presented at the 18th annual TESOL Convention, Houston, Texas, March 6-11, 1984 In all probability, one of the main reasons for low achievement by many classroom SL learners is simply that they do not have enough time to practice the new language. This is especially serious when teaching large classes in those EFL settings in which students need to develop aural-oral skills, but is relevant in the ESL context, too.From observational studies of classrooms, we know that the predominant mode of instruction is what might be termed the ~lockstep•, in which one person (usually the teacher) sets the same instructional pace and content for everyone, e.g. by lecturing, explaining a grammar point, leading drill work, or asking questions of the whole class. The same studies show that when lessons are organized in this manner, a typical teacher of any subject talks for at least half, and often for as much as two thirds of any class period (Flanders, 1970). In a fifty-minute lesson, that potentially leaves 25 minutes for the students.Since five minutes are usually spent on administrative matters, however, (getting pupils in and out of the room, calling the role, collecting and distributing homework assignments, etc.), and (say) five minutes on reading and writing, the total time available to students is actually more like 15 minutes. In an EFL setting, in a class of (say) 30 students in a public secondary The lockstep limits not only the gyanti~2 of talk studenta can engage in, as indicated above, but also its g.ualj~:l· This is because teacher-fronted lessons favor a highly conventionalized variety of conversation, one rarely found outside courtrooms, wedding ceremonies and classrooms. In it, one speaker asks a series of •known information", or •display" questions, such as 'Do you work in the accused's office at 27 Sloan Street?', 'Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?', and 'Do you come to class at nine o'clock?' -questions to which there is usually only one correct answer, already known 106 to both parties. The second speaker responds ('I do'), and, in the classroom, then typically has the correctness of the response confirmed ('Yes•, 'Right', or 'Good'). Only rarely is genuine communication taking place. (For further depressing details, see, e.g. Fanselow, 1977; Boetker and Ahlbrand, 1969;Long, 1975;Long and Sato, 1983;Mehan, 1979.) An unfortunate but hardly surprising side-effect of...

show abstract

“…A similar question as to the wisdom of group activities, given nonnative speakers' level of competence in the L2, has been raised regarding group speaking activities. However, little miscorrection of student speech by peers was reported in studies by Bruton and Samuda (1980), Porter (1983), cited in Long and Porter (1985), and Deen (1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Miscorrection in Peer Feedback in Writing Class

Jacobs

1989

RELC Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learner and Teacher Roles in the Treatment of Oral Error in Group Work

Cited by 60 publications

References 5 publications

Interactional Input and The Incorporation of Feedback: An Exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS Adult and Child Dyads

Interactional Input and The Incorporation of Feedback: An Exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS Adult and Child Dyads

Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition

Miscorrection in Peer Feedback in Writing Class

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About