Corrective feedback in general, and oral corrective feedback (OCF) in particular, has been of interest to both language teachers and researchers in second language acquisition (SLA). Teachers focus more on positive feedback and concern if corrective feedback should be provided, and when and how to provide it (Ellis, 2017). By comparison, SLA researchers pay attention to negative feedback and its effectiveness. Having received great interest, there have been a number of attempts in defining and classifying OCF up to date. Different models of classification have been proposed with different aspects of OCF taken into consideration, namely implicitness/explicitness and input-providing and output-prompting. This paper aims to review a body of literature on OCF classification models in the field of SLA.
The present paper analyses conversational strategies employed by the interviewer on a New Zealand radio programme from conversation analysis (CA) perspective. This study employs a documentary method of interpretation in order to seek answer(s) to the research question. Specifically, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson’s (1974) model of conversation analysis was adopted to explore turn-taking strategies used in the interview. The analysis reveals that the interviewer employed a variety of turn-taking strategies such as signaling the end of turn, holding a turn, asking a question, self-selection and “prosodic features” (ibid.) to achieve the purpose of the interview. The findings of this study suggest several potential CA-informed pedagogical implications for English language teaching classroom.
This exploratory study examined the relative effects on L2 listening comprehension of three different jigsaw procedures: having learners listen to either the first or the second half of an input text and then share the content with a classmate who did not listen to the same half (Jigsaw-Listening 1), or having them implement the same procedure as above, but followed by their actual exposure to either the remaining content (Jigsaw-Listening 2) or the whole listening passage (Jigsaw-Listening 3). Their text comprehension as gauged by ten multiple-choice content questions was subsequently compared to that obtained by learners who listened to the same complete input text, either once (One-time Listening) or twice (Repeated-Listening). The quantitative results showed that all Jigsaw Listening groups obtained better text comprehension than the One-time Listening group. The learners in Jigsaw-Listening 2 and 3 were also found to outperform those in the Repeated-Listening group. Follow-up interviews with some participants randomly selected from the Jigsaw-Listening groups revealed that these learners carried out different metacognitive strategies to complete their assigned listening procedures and the more strategies they used the better listening outcome they produced. These findings have implications for both L2 listening instructors and course designers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.