Vol. 1 No. 2 (2023): Emirati Journal Of Education And Literatures
Articles

EFL Classroom Repair Strategies By An English Non-Native Teacher To Tertiary Students In The UAE

PDF
  • Elsayed Mahmoud

Published 2023-05-04

Keywords

  • Input,
  • Output,
  • Repair Strategies,
  • Teachers’ Corrective Feedback

How to Cite

EFL Classroom Repair Strategies By An English Non-Native Teacher To Tertiary Students In The UAE. (2023). Emirati Journal of Education and Literature, 1(2), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.54878/8kp2nk50

Abstract

According to its negative results in English as a second language (ESL) classrooms, researchers shifted their concentration and strategies from focusing on the input to focusing on the output as it has many merits for students’ development. Swan’s (1985) comprehensible output hypothesis encouraged the interaction between students and their teachers. Consequently, there are four repair strategies in classroom interaction. This mixed-method research aims at looking into types of divergent repair strategies that a teacher uses at the tertiary level classroom to correct students’ productions in academic writing online lectures, and its effect on student’s modification output while acquiring the knowledge. Therefore, it will concentrate on observing the classroom interaction between collegiate students and a teacher to answer the following questions:

1. What are the repair strategies used in the classroom? 

2. To what extent the teacher encourages the learner’s output?

This paper is divided into six sections. In the following lines, the literature review with different SLA theories related to the output in SLA, repair strategies, and a critical review of the output of interlanguage will be depicted. To answer the first question, classroom observation has been done. To answer the second question, a semi-structured interview with the teacher has been conducted. Data is analyzed in terms of Varonis and Gass’s (1985) framework. In the framework, there are four initiations that could control the classroom interaction: self-initiation (SI)  self-repair (SR), Other-initiation (OI)  self-repair (SR), self-initiation (SI)  other-repair (OR), and other-initiation (OI)  other-repair (OR). The four initiations with their categories will be compared between the two classes. The -categories are: Lexical, syntactical, and semantic. The Lexical category has two elements: phonological and morphological. The Syntactical category has two elements: Phrase and sentence. The Semantic category has three elements: synonyms, substitutions, and descriptions. Data reveal that although all strategies have been used in the classroom, the most frequent strategy used is the other-initiation>other-repair strategy. In addition, it reveals that the less frequent strategy used in the classroom is the self-initiation>self-repair strategy. Moreover, there is a lack of knowledge the teacher has in knowing the best strategy and its effect on the student’s development. 

PDF

References

  1. Abukhadrah, Q. A. (2012). Arab male students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback: a case study. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University. Chaudron, C. (1977). Teachers' priorities in correcting learners' errors in French immersion classes. Language Learning, ( 27), 29-46.
  2. Ellis, R. (1993). ‘Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus’. TESOL Quarterly (27), 91–113. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Elsayed Mahmoud. Tertiary Students' Perceptions of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback in an ESL Classroom in the UAE. EJEL. 2023. DOI: 10.54878/EJEL.268
  4. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  5. Firas Habbal. Standards of Building e-Learning Systems in Higher Education. EJBESS. 2021. Vol. 1(1):4-30. DOI: 10.54878/EJBESS.163
  6. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  7. Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and Interaction. In C. Doughty, and M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 224-255.
  8. Izumi, S. (2000). Promoting noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
  9. Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly,( 34) ,239–278.
  10. Izumi, S. (2002). OUTPUT, INPUT ENHANCEMENT, AND THE NOTICING HYPOTHESIS. An Experimental Study on ESL Relativization, (24), 541–577 DOI:10.1017.S0272263102004023
  11. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  12. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  13. Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press, 45-77.
  14. Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  15. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 19(01), 37-66.
  16. Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, (51), 265-301
  17. Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: how it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, (37), 271-283.
  18. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second‐ language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259-278.
  19. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 126- 141.
  20. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, (26), 399-432.
  21. Loewen, S. (2005). INCIDENTAL FOCUS ON FORM AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361-386. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050163
  22. LIU, J AND XU, Y. (2018) Interaction in the Classroom the TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, First Edition. Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  23. Mahmoud, E. (2023). “Tertiary Students’ Perceptions Of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback In An ESL Classroom In The UAE” Emirati Journal of Education and Literatures 1(1), pp. 4-17. DOI 10.54878/EJEL.268
  24. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0210
  25. McHoul, A.W. (1990) The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, (19), 349–377.
  26. Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (ED.), Qualitative research .London: Sage.
  27. Riktesh Srivastava. Service Quality Control using Queuing Theory. EJBESS. 2022. Vol. 1(1):31-38. DOI: 10.54878/EJBESS.169
  28. Sahin, S. (2007). Teachers’ oral corrective behaviours and learners’ reactions to feedbacks received in grammar lessons. Masters dissertation, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
  29. Sinclair, J. H., & Coulthard, M. (1975). The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  30. Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers’ production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, (49), 627–675
  31. Shehadeh, A., 2001. Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly 35 (3), 433–457.
  32. Shehadeh, A. (2003) Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge. System, (31), 155–171
  33. Swain, M. (1984). A review of immersion education in Canada: Research and evaluation studies. ELT Documents, (119), 35–51.
  34. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition ,235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  35. Swain, M., Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16 (3), 371–391.
  36. Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the Communicative Approach (2), in “ELT Journal”, 39 (2), 76–87
  37. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 64– 81
  38. Swain, M.& Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, (82), 320–337
  39. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, (82), 320-37.
  40. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125- 144.
  41. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two french immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Education Research, (37), 285–304.
  42. Swain, M. (2011). The inseparability of congition and emotion in second language learning. Language teaching. DOI:10.1017/S0261444811000486
  43. Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, (15), 147-147.
  44. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4),. 255-272.
  45. Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Aplied linguistics,( 6), 71-90.
  46. Young, D. (1990). "An investigation of students' perspective on anxiety and speaking." Foreign Language Annals, (23), 539-553.