公式化与非公式化错误的附带纠正反馈:英语教师的信念与实践

IF 1.5 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language Awareness Pub Date : 2021-07-27 DOI:10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421
Leila Gholami
{"title":"公式化与非公式化错误的附带纠正反馈:英语教师的信念与实践","authors":"Leila Gholami","doi":"10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research on corrective feedback (CF) and language teachers’ beliefs and practices on the provision of CF has been mainly limited to learners’ non-target-like use of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling (non-formulaic forms). Consequently, learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic sequences, that is, collocations, idioms, lexical bundles, and compounds (formulaic forms), has received scant attention in CF and teacher cognition studies. This study examined three Iranian English as a foreign language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices on treating learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms through incidental reactive focus on form. The teachers’ stated beliefs about the provision of CF for learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms were elicited through a questionnaire and stimulated recall interviews, and their practices were examined by drawing on 36 hours of audio- and video-recorded teacher-learner interactions in primarily communicative activities. The findings indicated that while learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic forms outnumbered that of non-formulaic ones in teacher-learner interactions, teachers provided CF, by far, more frequently for non-target non-formulaic forms than formulaic ones. The teachers were not always aware of the amount of CF they tended to provide for learners’ non-target-like use of different linguistic targets. The (in)consistencies between the teachers’ CF beliefs and CF provision for learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms are discussed. Supplemental data for this article is available online at at http://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421 .","PeriodicalId":46683,"journal":{"name":"Language Awareness","volume":"31 1","pages":"21 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incidental corrective feedback provision for formulaic vs. Non-formulaic errors: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices\",\"authors\":\"Leila Gholami\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Research on corrective feedback (CF) and language teachers’ beliefs and practices on the provision of CF has been mainly limited to learners’ non-target-like use of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling (non-formulaic forms). Consequently, learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic sequences, that is, collocations, idioms, lexical bundles, and compounds (formulaic forms), has received scant attention in CF and teacher cognition studies. This study examined three Iranian English as a foreign language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices on treating learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms through incidental reactive focus on form. The teachers’ stated beliefs about the provision of CF for learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms were elicited through a questionnaire and stimulated recall interviews, and their practices were examined by drawing on 36 hours of audio- and video-recorded teacher-learner interactions in primarily communicative activities. The findings indicated that while learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic forms outnumbered that of non-formulaic ones in teacher-learner interactions, teachers provided CF, by far, more frequently for non-target non-formulaic forms than formulaic ones. The teachers were not always aware of the amount of CF they tended to provide for learners’ non-target-like use of different linguistic targets. The (in)consistencies between the teachers’ CF beliefs and CF provision for learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms are discussed. Supplemental data for this article is available online at at http://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421 .\",\"PeriodicalId\":46683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language Awareness\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"21 - 52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language Awareness\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Awareness","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要关于纠正反馈(corrective feedback, CF)以及语言教师对提供纠正反馈的看法和实践的研究,主要局限于学习者对语法、词汇、发音和拼写(非形式化形式)的非目标性使用。因此,学习者对公式化序列,即搭配、习语、词汇束和复合词(公式化形式)的非目标性使用,在CF和教师认知研究中很少受到关注。本研究考察了三名作为外语的伊朗英语教师所陈述的信念和做法,即通过对形式的附带反应性关注来对待学习者对公式化形式和非公式化形式的非目标性使用。通过问卷调查和刺激回忆访谈,得出教师关于为学习者非目标使用公式化和非公式化形式提供CF的信念,并通过在主要交际活动中录制的36小时的师生互动音频和视频来检查他们的实践。研究结果表明,尽管在师生互动中,学习者非目标式使用公式化形式的数量超过非公式化形式,但教师提供CF的频率远高于非目标非公式化形式。教师并不总是意识到他们倾向于为学习者提供不同语言目标的非目标使用的CF量。讨论了教师的CF信念与学习者对公式化和非公式化形式的非目标使用的CF提供之间的一致性。本文的补充数据可在http://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421上在线获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Incidental corrective feedback provision for formulaic vs. Non-formulaic errors: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices
Abstract Research on corrective feedback (CF) and language teachers’ beliefs and practices on the provision of CF has been mainly limited to learners’ non-target-like use of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling (non-formulaic forms). Consequently, learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic sequences, that is, collocations, idioms, lexical bundles, and compounds (formulaic forms), has received scant attention in CF and teacher cognition studies. This study examined three Iranian English as a foreign language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices on treating learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms through incidental reactive focus on form. The teachers’ stated beliefs about the provision of CF for learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms were elicited through a questionnaire and stimulated recall interviews, and their practices were examined by drawing on 36 hours of audio- and video-recorded teacher-learner interactions in primarily communicative activities. The findings indicated that while learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic forms outnumbered that of non-formulaic ones in teacher-learner interactions, teachers provided CF, by far, more frequently for non-target non-formulaic forms than formulaic ones. The teachers were not always aware of the amount of CF they tended to provide for learners’ non-target-like use of different linguistic targets. The (in)consistencies between the teachers’ CF beliefs and CF provision for learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms are discussed. Supplemental data for this article is available online at at http://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421 .
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Language Awareness
Language Awareness Multiple-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Language Awareness encourages and disseminates work which explores the following: the role of explicit knowledge about language in the process of language learning; the role that such explicit knowledge about language plays in language teaching and how such knowledge can best be mediated by teachers; the role of explicit knowledge about language in language use: e.g. sensitivity to bias in language, manipulative aspects of language, literary use of language. It is also a goal of Language Awareness to encourage the establishment of bridges between the language sciences and other disciplines within or outside educational contexts.
期刊最新文献
Affordances in the international service-learning context for Spanish learners Content knowledge for language teaching: dialectical materialist stance on developing teacher language awareness Accommodating beginner language learners in level-based language introduction Developing an MLA-test for young learners – insights from measurement theory and language testing Fostering language awareness for integration through teacher-researcher collaboration in a Spanish bilingual education context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1