Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Department of English Language Teaching, West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of English Language Teaching, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Objective: Research on corrective feedback (CF) in L2 pragmatics instruction, especially in online teaching, is still in its infancy. To address this gap, this study sought to examine the types of CF provided by EFL teachers in online classes in response to the learners’ pragmalinguistically and sociopragmatically inappropriate production of the binary speech acts of request and refusal.
Methods: Eighteen hours of online classroom interaction data were analyzed using conversation analysis and a taxonomy that classifies feedback into implicit and explicit input-providing and output-prompting CF.
Results: The findings of the study showed that explicit output prompts were largely applied by teachers as the most frequent type of CF. The teachers tended to use prompting questions and metapragmatic clues to help learners better understand request and refusal speech acts, rather than directly offering input or reformulation. In addition, because of the face-threatening nature of speech acts of refusal and request, the teachers applied explicit output prompts as corrective feedback to reinforce the accuracy of learners’ production.
Conclusions: It can be concluded that the online mode of instruction can impact the explicitness of pragmatic CF. This research is of great value for teachers to employ both implicit and explicit types of CF to develop learners’ competency in pragmatics in online instruction.
Keywords
Main Subjects
Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011). Exploring the teachers’ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859-1868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.435
Alsuhaibani, Z. (2020). Developing EFL students’ pragmatic competence: The case of compliment responses. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913539
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.7275/g367-ye94
Basturkmen, H. L., & Fu, M. (2021). Corrective feedback and the development of second language grammar. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchara (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 367-386). Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224-245). Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2022). Pragmatics: Speaking as a pragmalinguistic resource. In T. M. Derwing, M. J. Munro, R. I. Thomson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and speaking (pp. 243-257). Routledge
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Yilmaz, Y. (2021). Corrective feedback in instructional pragmatics. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchara (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 429-449). Cambridge University Press.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Ulissweltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). Newbury House.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200
Chong, S. W. (2022). The role of feedback literacy in written corrective feedback research: from feedback information to feedback ecology. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2082120. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2082120
Coşkun, A. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4(1), 35–50.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education.
Dai, D. W. (2023). What do second language speakers really need for real-world interaction? A needs analysis of L2 Chinese interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 13621688221144836. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221144836
De Casterlé, B. D., Gastmans, C., Bryon, E., & Denier, Y. (2012). QUAGOL: A guide for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(3), 360-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.09.012
Dilāns, G. (2016). Corrective feedback in L2 Latvian classrooms: Teacher perceptions versus the observed actualities of practice. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815584454
Edmondson, Willis J., Juliane House, and Daniel Z. Kadar. (2023). Expressions, speech acts and discourse: A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
Eslami, Z. R., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Promoting advantageous ways of corrective feedback in EFL/ESL classroom. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 19, 48-65. https://doi.org/ 10.32038/ltrq.2020.19.04
Fukuya, Y. J., & Zhang Hill, Y. (2006). The effects of recasting on the production of pragmalinguistic conventions of request by Chinese learners of English. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 59-91. https://doi.org/10.5070/L4151005079
García-Gómez, A. (2022). Learning through WhatsApp: Students’ beliefs, L2 pragmatic development and interpersonal relationships. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5-6), 1310-1328. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799822
Gass, S., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315181752
Glaser, K. (2018). Enhancing the role of pragmatics in primary English teacher training. Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(2), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2018.45.2.06
Gorman, M., & Ellis, R. (2019). The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 57-81. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00005.gor
Halenko, N., & Wang, J. (2022). Guest editorial: Learning and teaching second language pragmatics: Setting the scene. The Language Learning Journal, 50(4), 407-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2088440
Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2), 416-431. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004001120
Ishihara, N. (2010). Instructional pragmatics: Bridging teaching, research, and teacher education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 938-953. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00242.x
Jenks, C. J. (2011) Transcribing talk and interaction: Issues in the representation of communication data. John Benjamins.
Kamiya, N. (2016). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 206-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.939656
Kimura, D., Malabarba, T., & Kelly Hall, J. (2018). Data collection considerations for classroom interaction research: A conversation analytic perspective. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1485589
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008
Kulka, S. B, House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(1), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000390
Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P. (2021). Issues of Error Selection for Focused Written Corrective Feedback in Authentic Classroom Contexts. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211028425
Luquin, M., & Mayo, M. D. P. G. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System, 98, 102465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102465
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher–student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00003-X
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00039
Macbeth, D. (2014). Studies of work, instructed action, and the promise of granularity: A commentary. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 295-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613514676
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Routledge.
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 205-234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000553
Méndez, E. H., & Cruz, M. R. R. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75.
Melander, H., & Sahlstrom, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale: Learning as interactional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1519-1537. https://doi.org/0.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.013
Nicholas, A., & Perkins, J. (2023). A concept-based approach to teaching L2 pragmatics. L2 Pragmatics in Action: Teachers, learners and the teaching-learning interaction process, 58, 293- 318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lllt.58.12nic
Nguyen, M. T. T., Pham, H. T., & Pham, T. M. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1026907
Nguyen, M. T. T., Do, H. T., Pham, T. T., & Nguyen, A. T. (2018). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 pragmatics: An eight-month investigation. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(3), 345-375. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0059
Patra, I., Alazemi, A., Al-Jamal, D., & Gheisari, A. (2022). The effectiveness of teachers’ written and verbal corrective feedback (CF) during formative assessment (FA) on male language learners’ academic anxiety (AA), academic performance (AP), and attitude toward learning (ATL). Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00169-2
Pfanner, N. (2015). Teacher corrective oral feedback in the classroom. Journal of Language and Education, 1(2), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2015- 1-2-46-55
Plonsky, L. (2012). Replication, meta-analysis, and generalizability. In G. Porte (Ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics (pp. 116-132). Cambridge University Press.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2015). Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers' cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication. System, 55, 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.09.006
Ranta, L. & R. Lyster (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge University Press,
Riazi, M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied Linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. Routledge.
Sánchez-Hernández, A., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2022). Teaching the pragmatics of English as an international language: A focus on pragmatic markers. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 256-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064933
Schenck, A. (2022). How selection of a target feature impacts corrective feedback: Finding answers through meta-analysis of Chinese EFL learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(2), 274-293. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0208
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 128-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Shao, J., Wu, Y., Zeng, S., & Huang, R. (2023). The role of feedback type and language anxiety in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback for L2 learning. The Language Learning Journal, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2023.2166976
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593-610). Routledge.
Shen, R., & Chong, S. W. (2022). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in ESL and EFL contexts: a qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468
Taguchi, N. (2018). Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of the study abroad research. Language Teaching, 51(1), 124-137. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000440
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge.
Taguchi, N. (2023). Technology-enhanced language learning and pragmatics: Insights from digital game-based pragmatics instruction. Language Teaching, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000101
Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 393-417. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr198oa
Tajeddin, Z., & Shirkhani, S. (2017). Pragmatic corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: Investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices. Teaching English Language, 11(2), 25-56. https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.2017.53182
Taylor, T. L. (2003). Multiple pleasures women and online gaming. Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 9(1), pp. 21-46.
Valizadeh, M. (2022). The Effect of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Written Syntactic Complexity. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 196-208. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12052
Van Ha, X., & Murray, J. C. (2021). The impact of a professional development program on EFL teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. System, 96, 102405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102405
Widanta, I. M. R. J., Hudiananingsih, P. D., Sitawati, A. A. R., & Ardika, I. W. D. (2019). Pragmatic errors and transfer of foreign learners of Indonesian: The case of refusals. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(3), 501-508. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1003.13
Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2017). Metacognitive unawareness of the errorful generation benefit and its effects on self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1073-1092. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xlm0000363
Yusuf, N. H. (2018). Causes of pragmalinguistic errors in university EFL learners’ writings. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5(6), 1-27.
Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043
Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2022). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person-s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903343
)