A???“ .
3.; h

”fir

, ‘3‘) "
.4.

 

THESVS

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

TARGET LANGUAGE CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND
LANGUAGE USE
BY KOREAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EFL TEACHERS

presented by

EunYoung Won

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Department of Linguistics and
Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and

African Languages

 

Q”

Major Professor’s Signature

flue/,5 Z r: 25w

' V

Date

MSU is an Affinnative ActiorVEqual Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

FEB/1.1L a @ng

l1 ‘1
v

 

N

APR 1‘ 4 zoos

 

as

L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.1s

 

TARGET LANGUAGE CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE USE
BY KOREAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EFL TEACHERS

By

EunYoung Won

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages

2004

ABSTRACT

TARGET LANGUAGE CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE USE
BY KOREAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EFL TEACHERS

By

EunYoung Won
While there has been a plethora of studies conducted on corrective feedback in ESL
contexts, little work has been done on the same phenomenon in EFL classroom contexts.
Korea’s recently articulated policy of instituting the target language in the classroom has
made it necessary to pay attention to the kinds of TL interaction teachers are using. In
order to broaden the understanding of EFL classroom discourse on one hand (e. g., TL
feedback), and to identify problems in meeting the stated goals of EFL teaching in Korea
on the other hand, this observational study was undertaken. The main research objective
was to investigate the amount and type of TL feedback as it occurred in elementary
school EFL classrooms during teacher-fronted activities. The data came from class
observations of 5 female EFL teachers’ classes, and stimulated recall with each teacher
after the last lesson was observed. The results showed that the amount of TL feedback
was high in the classes where the teacher implemented meaning-based activities as well
as maintained TL use. The two major factors affecting the occurrence of TL feedback
were the teachers’ language of instruction and their teaching methodology. Specific to
methodology were the related issues of whether or not the teachers implemented TL
activities and how they elicit students’ knowledge. In addition, the teachers’ tendency of
filling-in and over-correction were identified as other factors affecting the occurrence of

TL feedback.

Cepyright by
EUNYOUNG WON
2004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I am deeply gratefiJl to the teachers who participated in the study.
Without them, this thesis would not have been born. A special thanks also to my
committee members, Dr. Charlene Polio and Dr. Susan Gass, for giving me both praise
and constructive suggestions that were invaluable. Dr. Polio’s comments challenged me;
Sue Gass generously shared her insights. My life-time mentor, A.S., can not be thanked
enough for harrying me through this process. In fact, my whole network of friends taught
me that the best achievement comes from overcoming hardships. Above all, I would like

to thank my family —- my parents and my brother — for their endless love, care, and

support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURE ............................................................................................................ viii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1 - _ - _ 5
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 5
1. Research Motivations ............................................................................................ 5

1.1 Studies on Corrective Feedback ................................................................... 5

1.2 Adaptability of Findings .............................................................................. 8

2. Feedback Types and Implications in EFL Classrooms ....................................... 11

2.1 Types of Feedback ..................................................................................... 11

2.2 TL Feedback: Implications for EFL Teachers ........................................... 14
RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................................. 18
3. Research Paradigm .............................................................................................. 18

4. Data Collection ................................................................................................... 19

4.1 Background: Teaching Contexts, Goals of English Education .................. 19

4.2 Participants ................................................................................................. 20

4.3 Data Sources and Procedures ..................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 2 - ........ _ - 24
TEACHERS’ LANGUAGE USE ...................................................................................... 24
- 1. Results ................................................................................................................. 24
1.1 The Ratio of TL to NL ............................................................................... 24

1.2 The Functions of the TL/NL ...................................................................... 25

1.3 Reasons for Language Choices .................................................................. 31

2. Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 3 - -- 41
TARGET LANGUAGE FEEDBACK .............................................................................. 41
1. Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 41

1.1 Criteria for excluding exchanges from TL corrective feedback ................ 41

1.2 Data Coding ............................................................................................... 44

1.3 Issues Regarding Uptake ............................................................................ 44

2. Results and Discussion ....................................................................................... 45

2.1 Frequency of TL Feedback ........................................................................ 45

2.2 Factors Affecting the Occurrence of TL Feedback .................................... 51

3. Conclusion and Implications ............................................................................... 74

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................ 87
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 94

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Participants ...................................................................................... 21
Table 2. Overview of the Functions of TL/NL Use ........................................................... 30
Table 3. Summary of Factors Affecting the TL/NL Use ................................................... 38
Table 4. Frequency of TL Feedback .................................................................................. 46
Table 5. Feedback in NL vs. TL ........................................................................................ 47
Table 6. T 1: Individual Students’ TL Turns, Errors, Feedback, Errors Untreated ........... 49
Table 7. Factors Affecting the Occurrence of TL Feedback ............................................. 52
Table 8. Functions of Students’ TUNL Use During Teacher-Fronted Lessons ................ 54
Table 9. Distribution of Students’ Turns ........................................................................... 55
Table 10. Ratio of Student TL Turns: SSS vs. S ............................................................... 56
Table 11. Ratio of Negotiated vs. Non-Negotiated TL Choral Responses ........................ 58
Table 12. Ratio of NL vs. TL Negotiated Individual Student (S) Turns ........................... 64

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Ratio of Teachers’ TL vs. NL Use ..................................................................... 25

viii

INTRODUCTION

The effort to improve English education has been an on-going struggle in Korea,
as is probably the case in many English as a Foreign Language (EFL) countries. In
Korea’s case specifically, vigorous debates as to why the typical Korean student (after 10
years of studying English) still cannot speak the language well have led to several
attempts by educational policy makers aimed at remedying the situation. The first
initiative, in 1997, was to implement early English education in elementary schools
(starting in the 3rd grade), emphasizing the development of oral/aural skills. The hope was
that the early introduction of English would help students acquire better oral
communication skills (Lee & Park, 2001, p.54).

The government also put great effort into developing materials and improving
classroom conditions. Most English classrooms across the country were equipped with
TVNCRs and computers, and teachers began to use multi-media learning materials such
as CD-ROMs and internet-based resources during class time. The new textbooks were
much improved too, containing various colorful materials including picture cards, which
saves teachers from having to develop their own. However, since students were still
suffering from a lack of opportunities to interact in Target Language (TL), another reform
was proposed by the Ministry of Education in 2000: to teach English with English as the
medium of instruction in elementary and middle schools for at least one hour each week.
The initiative began in 2001 , and English classes were to be taught in English by 2004, at
least officially (F ouser & Park, 2003). The motivation and hope was that this measure

would promote more TL input and interaction, which educators in EFL setting were now

aware of as necessities in developing L2 proficiency (Kim, 2002).

However, despite such efforts at the policy level in Korea, little is known about
how much input and interaction in the TL is going on at the ground level - in the actual
classroom. In a thorough overview of issues in curriculum change and management,
Markee (1997) points out that language education programs have placed too much
emphasis on curriculum development, at the expense of curriculum implementation in the
classroom. Supporting Markee’s points, Carless (1999), in his study of task-based
curriculum implementation in Hong Kong, claimed that many innovations are adopted
“in name” but never actually tried at the classroom level (p. 374). These warnings about
the discrepancies between theoretical policy on one side, and actual classroom practice
on the other, suggest the need for research into EFL classroom contexts.

Although the government push for maximal TL use in Korea has had some
positive effects, stimulating discussion about teacher’s language use (Fouser & Park,
2003), I have located no research that investigates directly how EFL teachers try, or do
not try, to promote TL input and interaction in actual classrooms in this particular EFL
context.‘

A few survey-based studies were done inquiring about teachers’ perceptions of the
policy, essentially to confirm the difficulties limiting its implementation: low proficiency
of students and teachers, large class sizes, lack of time to prepare the lessons, and little
on-going in-service training (Kim, 2002; Fouser & Park, 2003). For example, Kim (2002)

surveyed 53 in-service English teachers (elementary to high school); Fouser and Park

 

' There was one study located on teachers’ language use - an error analysis study by Lee (1999). However,
the data of his study was not from the teachers’ actual use, but drawn from 122 lesson plans written by in-
service and pre-service teachers. The result showed the grammatical errors most frequently made by the
teachers, exceeding other areas such as lexical and orthographical errors.

(2003) gathered information from 200 middle school English teachers in Japan and Korea.
Both studies recommended increasing the number of teacher education programs in order
to implement TL use more successfully in the classroom.

There is no doubt that the information gathered through these surveys is helpful in
understanding the situation of EFL teachers. However, to be able to support the teachers
in a more practical way (e.g., as to what types of in-service training they need), their use
of language must be studied.2 In the words of Van Lier (1988), we should not make “rash
recommendations about methods of teaching and ways of learning” without really
knowing what transpires in the classroom (p. 7). Polio and Duff’s (1994) comment about
the lack of research into domestic foreign language classrooms also neatly sums up the
case for investigating EFL classrooms:

“Many researchers have described linguistic input and interaction in ESL

classrooms, yet relatively few have characterized FL classes, an area which

deserves much more attention than it has received until now. Despite their

advertised objectives of targeting oral/aural as well as literacy skills, many

foreign language programs may privilege grammar, literacy, and translation

skills, and this imbalance could be addressed through classroom research

[italics added] (p. 313).”
With this in mind, the current study is intended to contribute to an understanding of EFL
classroom interaction by identifying difficulties and problems that are being experienced
in meeting the stated goals of EFL teaching in Korea. The particular focus of this study is
one aspect of input and interaction: teacher-student TL corrective feedback exchanges. It

is hoped that this study can identify some of the areas of concern as a first step towards

addressing them. Specifically, the research questions are as follows.

 

2 Some of the classroom-based studies on teachers’ language use found that the teachers’ actual classroom
practice may not equate with their perceived use of the language (e.g., Duff & Polio, 1990; Basturkrnen,
Loewen, & Ellis, 2004). Therefore, the findings of survey-based studies on teacher behavior may be
questionable.

1) What amount of TL corrective feedback is found in Korean elementary EFL
classrooms, and what type is it?
2) What are the identifiable factors affecting the occurrence of TL feedback?
In addition to answering these two questions, this study will also present the results of a
preliminary study of the teachers’ language use, both in terms of amount and function,
drawn from the same data. The discussion will start with a review of the research on

corrective feedback.

CHAPTER 1

LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Research Motivations

1.1. Studies on Corrective Feedback: Importance, research areas investigated

A substantial body of research has been accumulated on the role of corrective
feedback in second language acquisition (SLA). Corrective feedback refers to an implicit
(e. g., recast) or explicit (e. g., metalinguistic information) indication of learner errors. It is
now widely supported as a benefit to L2 learners (in meaning-based contexts), in that it
helps them notice the difference between the TL and their utterance.

Along with discrete language point presentation, feedback on errors is one of two
features common to all L2 classrooms (Nicolas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001). Therefore it
is not surprising to find that studies of classroom language learning have a very wide
scope in the area of feedback (Chaudron, 1988). Within this body of work, feedback goes
by a variety of names - error treatment, negative evidence, negative feedback, focus on
form (Lyster & Ranta, 1997), or (more recently) reactive focus on form (this term defined
by Ellis, 2001).3 (Hereafter the terms, corrective feedback and feedback, are used
interchangeably.)

Research objectives in the literature on feedback range from exploring the effect

 

3 Citing Schachter ( 1991), Lyster and Ranta stated that the terms, negative evidence, negative feedback, and
focus on form, have been used in the field of psycholinguitics, linguistics, and L2 pedagogy respectively.
Based on Ellis’ (2001) framework of form-focused instruction (FFI), corrective feedback can also be
labeled as reactive focus on form, which refers to the teacher ’s (or sometimes another student’s) reaction to
an error made by an individual student (e.g., in Ellis, Basturkrnen, & Loewen, 2001).

of different types of feedback in experimental settings (e. g., Carroll & Swain, 1993;
Mackey & Philp, 1998; Long, Inagaki & Ortega, 1998) and content-based ESL classroom
settings (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998), to investigating the distribution of feedback and
learner modification in immersion or ESL classrooms (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster,
1998a, 1998b, 2001; Panova & Lyster, 2002). Expanding the area of study on feedback to
learners’ perspectives, a study by Mackey, Gass, & McDonough (2000) considered the
question of how adult L2 learners perceive different types of feedback that occurred
during dyad tasks: Did adult learners perceive feedback as such, and did they recognize
the linguistic target of the feedback? Using stimulated recall methods to gather
information about learner’s perceptions, their study found that the learners’ perception of
feedback differed depending on the types of error made, as well as the type of feedback
given (i.e., recasts, negotiation, or a combination of the two).4

Other studies address the important role of contextual variables that affect the
provision of teacher feedback in classroom settings5 —- factors such as classroom
interactional context (Oliver & Mackey, 2003), learner age (Oliver, 2000), teacher
experience and teacher education (Mackey, Polio, and McDonough, 2004), teacher
beliefs (Basturkrnen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2004), and types of pedagogical setting (e.g.,
content-based) (Pica, 2002). Oliver and Mackey (2003) looked at the provision of
feedback under four different contexts of teacher-student exchanges (i.e., content,

management, communication, and explicit language-focus) in five elementary school

 

’ For example, the study found that the learners perceived more accurately the feedback on vocabulary and
phonological errors than that on morphosyntactic errors. Negotiation, which was given most frequently in
reaction to phonological errors, was consequently perceived as such. Recasts, which occurred mostly on
morphosyntactic errors, were least likely to be perceived as feedback.

5 Contextual variables referred to in this study include both macro-level (e.g., socio-cultural context,
pedagogical settings, background of participants) and macro-level (e.g., discourse, interactive context) (Van
Lier, 1988).

ESL classes. Their results demonstrated that the amount of feedback differed significantly
depending on the focus of the exchanges that took place in each lesson period. Among the
4 interactional contexts, the percentage of teacher feedback was higher in explicit
language focus and content exchanges than it was in communication and management
exchanges.

Oliver (2000) examined the role of learner age (i.e., adult vs. children) in two
different interactional settings (i.e., teacher-fronted lessons vs. NS-NNS dyads).
Significant differences were found between adults and children during teacher-fronted
lessons, especially in the following two areas: i) the number of errors, and ii) the types of
feedback. That is, the proportion of correct utterances by children was significantly
higher than that of adults. As a result, adults received more feedback than children. In
terms of the feedback types used, teachers of adults employed more negotiation-type
feedback than the teachers of children. Oliver detailed the differences further by
observing that the different results were, in part, due to the difierent degrees of control
over the interactions by the teachers. That is, teachers of children tended to exert a tighter
control over their learners than teachers of adults, thus “reducing the opportunity for
producing erroneous utterances by the young learners” (p. 138).

Mackey, Polio and McDonough’s study (2004) highlights the importance of
teacher education, as well as teacher experience through its investigation of a distribution
of incidental focus on form seen in adult ESL teachers at two different levels of
experience.6 Their results showed that experienced teachers used the focus on form

techniques significantly more than inexperienced ones. The most interesting and

 

6 Incidental focus on form (Ellis, 2001) refers to incidentally arisen classroom activities (i.e., either
preemptively or reactively) which draw learners for attention to linguistic form. Mackey, Polio, and
McDonough’s (2004) study looked at both preemptive and reactive focus on form.

important implication of their study is the follow-up they did; the researchers conducted a
teacher development session about focus on form techniques with the inexperienced
teachers to look at how such training would help the novice teachers’ use of those
techniques. Although the use of those techniques did not increase significantly after the
short workshop, they learned from the reflections provided by the pre-service teachers
that the workshop had raised the teachers’ awareness of focus on form techniques.
Although there are complex issues and variables to take into account when
considering the effects of corrective feedback (e. g., learner’s readiness and attention to
form), the overarching finding of previous studies is that corrective feedback is
facilitative in L2 leaming. Therefore it is important for language teachers to be capable of

implementing L2 feedback in their classrooms.

1.2. Adaptability of Findings: Lack of research on EFL classrooms

What is probably most amazing in SL research on feedback is how diverse the
field is; the range of topics is daunting. However, questions arise when one considers the
matter of applying the findings of the studies in EFL classroom settings in Asia, a context
where the teachers are typically nonnative TL speakers and where the typical class sizes
are 40 or more. Most of the studies done (only some of which were mentioned above) are
based on either ESL or French immersion settings, where average class size does not
exceed 20, a number half of what is found in EFL classrooms. The participating teachers

are usually native or near-native speakers of the TL.7

 

7 A few studies were conducted in European EFL classrooms. For example, Havranek and Cesnik (2001)
and Havranek (2003) looked at the types and the effect of feedback in German EFL classrooms. The
situations do not seem to be much different from that of ESL settings: small class sizes and native/near-
native speaking teachers. There were 2 studies conducted in EFL classrooms with nonnative speaking

It is certainly understandable that previous studies usually involved native or near-
native teachers of the TL. The underlying objectives of most studies were to some degree
related to finding out the effect of feedback from the learner development point of view.
To measure the (immediate/short term) effects, the studies need to focus on learners’
performance, allowing as few variables as possible of the participating teachers.
Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the studies on feedback provide only minimal
information about the teachers (e. g., their gender or years of teaching experience), unless
the purpose of the research was specifically to target teacher variables, such as in the
Basturkrnen, et al. (2004) study about teachers’ beliefs and their actual use of focus on
form, or in the Mackey et al. (2004) study described earlier.8

However, questions remain as to how EFL learners can profit from corrective
feedback, or whether they are even amenable to such type of input. To take one definition
of corrective feedback as an example, one of the pre-requisites for it to occur is that an
individual student has to make an error, or there needs to be communication breakdown
between the teacher and a student.9 Obviously, such one-to-one interactions may take
place frequently in ESL classrooms, but probably not in EFL classrooms with 40 students.

In that case, because of the lack of opportunity, one might question whether corrective

 

teachers of English: One study was by Lucas (1975) in German and the other was by Yoneyama (1982) in
Japan. I was not able to locate the original studies. According to Chaudron (1988), who cited the studies,
the studies suggested the non-native speaking teachers put high priorities on correcting grammar errors.

8 Looked at from another angle, the above reason also explains why the area of nonnative TL teachers’
feedback patterns in L2 has been underdeveloped; unless the participating teachers have enough TL
proficiency, it may involve more complex variables making it hard to come up with generalizations, a
difficulty this study also encountered.

9 Ellis (2001) states that focus on form occurs between the teacher and an individual student and the
teacher’s technique is directed at the individual learners but can benefit other classmates who listen to the
correction: when the teachers react to an error made by an individual student or when an individual student
asks a question about the meaning of a word (p.37). Havranek (2003) also writes the same: corrective
feedback occurs as a response to a particular learner s incorrect utterance and is addressed to that learner,
but in the school context her/his classmates are also expected to learn from the correction.

feedback (or focus on form), a method encouraged in ESL settings, is, in fact, the best
way to teach EFL. Taking a closer look at a specific type of feedback, recasts (i.e.,
reformulation of learners’ incorrect utterances), one might doubt whether the effects of
this heavily-researched feedback type (see Nicolas et al., 2001 for a comprehensive
review) have much relevance in EFL settings with non-native speaking teachers.

Several studies have indeed expressed concerns about the adaptability to EFL of
methodologies developed in ESL contexts. Some have focused on the argument that SLA
theories and teaching methodologies developed in ESL settings are not necessarily
applicable to EFL, especially in Asia, because of cultural and socioeconomic differences
(e.g., Liu, 1999 in Braine, 1999). Others have taken a more constructive approach by
addressing the difficulties/problems that exist in the adaptation of current methodologies
in EFL countries (e.g., Li, 1998; Fotos, 1998). For example, Li (1998) carried out a study
investigating the conflicts Korean teachers had about implementing Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT). Afier thoughtfully outlining the difficulties EFL teachers
faced,lo Li provided recommendations relating to very general factors such as educational
values and attitudes in society, and the development of local teaching methodology. She
also proposed work that could be done on specific skills, such as reading and grammar.
The justification/motivation of Li’s study, as well as the findings, are inspiring. In her
conclusion, she writes:

“In any attempt to improve education, teachers are central to long-lasting

changes. How teachers as the end users of an innovation perceive its feasibility is
a crucial factor in the ultimate success or failure of that innovation” (p. 698).

 

'0 Factors related to teachers and students (e.g., low language proficiency, lack of opportunity to use
English outside, students’ reluctance to participate in class, misconceptions about CLT, little time to
prepare), educational system (e.g., lack of training programs, large class size, grammar-based examination),
and the problems of CLT itself (e.g., issues regarding assessment).

10

In summary, I believe the issues and concerns discussed so far regarding the adaptation of
current methodologies in EFL countries can be achieved through more active research in
EFL. The lack of research into EFL classrooms means that there will probably be some
kind of resistance to new methods before we can even try to see what will work.
Furthermore, Li’s point that the teacher is the one who chooses to adopt or not to adopt
any curricular changes is enough justification for research attentions on EFL teachers.
The purpose of the current study, as mentioned earlier, was to look at one aspect
of classroom input and interaction (i.e., TL feedback) during teacher-fronted lessons. By
finding out how frequently teacher TL feedback occurs, and what identifiable factors play
a role in the occurrence of TL feedback, this study will be able to identify some of the
areas in need of improvement in order to develop English education in one EFL context —
Korea. The following section discusses the model of TL feedback adopted in this study

and the implications of using TL feedback for EFL teachers.

2. Feedback Types and Implications in EFL Classrooms

2.1. Types of Feedback

Different research studies have proposed different sets of categories for feedback
types (Chaudron, 1988), probably because of their own research interests. For example,
in an observational study of immersion school teachers’ feedback and learner uptake,
Lyster and Ranta (1997) categorized teacher feedback 6 different ways (i.e., recasts,
repetition, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, explicit correction)

in order to capture more accurately what type of feedback was leading learners to modify

11

their utterances. In an earlier study, Chaudron (1977) developed the models of 31 features
and types of corrective feedback, to provide a descriptive, quite detailed model of a
classroom discourse (cited in Chaudron, 198 8).

This study follows the low-inference categories that Ellis (2001) classified as
reactive focus on form techniques: recasts, negotiation, and explicit feedback. The reason
behind this choice was the potential benefit of being consistent with terminology used in
other recent studies of fonn-focused instruction (e. g., Mackey et al. 2004).

The following is a definition of each technique, with examples taken from the
data in this study.

A. Recasts: A type of implicit feedback, recast refers to the teacher’s reformulation of all
or part of a student’s erroneous utterance (Example 1). Recast has been of particular
interest in L2 research because of its particular nature: it is unobtrusive, keeping the flow

of communication while serving as feedback input at the same time.11 [The teachers’

 

 

feedback appears in bold]
(Ex 1) Recasts T 1 (5/27)
T: How much is it? Please guess, Team A. “Guessing the price”

S 1: Ten dollar!
T: Ten dollars! Oh, it’s too expensive!
S 2: Five dollar!

T: It’s five dollars! Too expensive.

 

 

” Whether recasts serve as negative evidence in SLA is rather controversial. After reviewing literature on
the effect of recasts in L1 and L2, Nicolas et al. (2001) suggest that learner development stages,
pedagogical settings (e.g., content-based or form-based), researching contexts (e. g., laboratory or classroom
observation) are important considerations in discussing the effect of recasts.

12

B. Negotiation: Negotiation, another type of implicit feedback, includes clarification
requests (Example 2) and repetition with rising intonation (Example 3); these are used to
indicate that there is some sort of problem with the utterance (i.e., form) or that it has not
been understood (i.e., meaning). Gass (1997) notes that negotiation includes both
negotiation of form and negotiation of meaning, and that the two are often inseparable.
The importance of negotiation has been emphasized by many SL researchers. For
example, Gass (1997) posited that, “because it can require more learner involvement
[than recasts] and hence ensure that some processing has taken place on the part of the
learner,” negotiation “might result in a greater likelihood that learners’ attention is
focused on the language of the negotiation” (cited in Mackey et al. 2000, p.491). In fact,
it is negotiation that some of the classroom-based SL researchers argue in favor of, over
other types of feedback such as recasts or explicit correction (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997;

Lyster, 1998a, 1988b).

 

 

(Ex 2) Clarification requests T 2 (6/12)

T: What does he want? What does he want? Checking the answer to
S 1: He XXX. listening comprehension
T: Huh? Beg your pardon? questions on CD

S 1: He wants some water- waTer.

 

 

(Ex 3) Repetition T 5 (5/30)

 

T: ((posting flash cards on the board)) 958 ’défitilOl {PI-E- Vocabulary
315351 pa'ol Wt [Let 3' start with an easy one first]

S: /diz/=

 

13

 

T: =diz?

ss: 0l[Ah], This/Idis

 

C. Explicit feedback in TL: As the term “explicit” indicates, explicit feedback refers to
any overt correction in response to an error (Mackey et al., 2004). This type of feedback
includes explicit statements or questions pointing out an error and may or may not

include metalinguistic terminology.

 

 

 

 

 

(Ex 4) Explicit feedback: explicit statement T 2 (6/5)

S: I /wan-teu/, some, spaghetti. Review

T: Don’t say ‘wan-TEU.’ Say lwanl. lwan/ [* This episode is from the first
S: /wan/ lesson observed — not included
T: /wan/ in data analysis of the TL

S: /wan/ feedback]

(Ex 5) Explicit feedback: overt question type T 2 (6/12)

S 1: /sirsty/ Review

T: Sirsty? Is there that kind of word?
lsirsty/af-E ‘30in $013! 91314))?! [Is ‘sirsty'an English word?]
Say properly. THirsty. THirsty. Repeat after me. THirsty.

S 1: Thirsty

 

2-2. TL Feedback: Implications for EFL teachers

To turn to the most fundamental question, what impact would it have if EFL

14

teachers employed current practices regarding corrective feedback in the TL? The
answers can be seen looking at the role of feedback from two broad perspectives. First
there is the way the function of feedback in learning theory has changed. Second, it is
important to understand how the priorities of form-focused instruction, if it is going to be
used in EFL, will be different from the form-focused approach in ESL, since EFL has a
built-in emphasis on form already.

Chaudron (1988) noted that, in a traditional audio-lingual approach, the concept
of feedback was equivalent to reinforcement of behavior. That is, feedback was provided
in one of two following ways:

- positive reinforcement by praising or repeating the student’s correct response, or
- negative reinforcement by explaining grammar points (i.e., direct correction) or
modeling the correct response (i.e., indirect correction). (p. 133)

The underlying assumption was that the learner errors would be cured through
this mechanical, in Ellis’ (1990) words, “manipulative process” (p.74). In the more
current L2 learning theories, largely influenced by interactive and cognitive theories of
learning (Nassaji, 2000), feedback is a part of the “process of negotiation” (p.74), a
means by which the students and teacher work together to manage interactional tasks in
the class (Ellis, 1990). Thus, the firnction of feedback is not limited to providing
reinforcement; it also provides information that learners can utilize to modify their output
(Chaudron, 1988), which Swain (1985) argues is important for learners to develop their
L2. From the perspective of learners’ development of linguistic forms, work done by
Gass (1997) and others (e. g., Schmidt, 1990) ftuther suggests that corrective feedback is

a necessary device, helping learners develop (or internalize) linguistic information

15

(Boulima, 1999). As it is commonly believed that teachers teach the way they learned,
one can assume that teachers who learned TL under traditional teaching methods (e. g.,
grammar-translation, audio-lingual) rely heavily on such reinforcing treatments. It is
important that teachers be equipped with different techniques for giving feedback that go
beyond the simplistic and explicit “you-are-right-or-wrong” type of reinforcement.
Considering corrective feedback within the framework of form-focused
instruction, the function of feedback reflect the shift in teaching practices fi'om traditional
approaches to their more communicatively—oriented equivalents. From the point of view
of EFL teachers and their teaching methods, being able to use different techniques of
corrective feedback does not just mean that they know several ways of providing
feedback in the TL. It also means that they are able to implement communicative
activities in which students can use the TL in more meaningful ways. In a thorough
review of F F1 in SLA, Spada (1997) concludes that FFI has an advantage in L 2
development. She cited the findings of N. Ellis’s (1995) study: “. . .a blend of explicit
instruction and implicit learning can be superior to either just explicit instruction or
implicit learning alone” (p. 82). EFL countries like Korea cannot afford to exclude
explicit grammar instruction from their English curriculum, since grammatical
knowledge becomes important at the secondary school level and in higher education.
However, at the same time they would like to produce learners who have fluency in the
L2. F otos (1998) argues for focus on form in EFL settings. She maintains that EFL has
never left grammar instruction completely behind. The major problem in EFL situations
is not a lack of grammar instruction, but the absence of opportunities for contextualized

TL use. Fotos asserts that focus on form provides a strong rationale for incorporating

16

communicative language activities into EFL grammar classrooms, and that it is “exactly”
what EFL classrooms need to adapt (p. 301).

From the standpoint of enhancing TL input and interaction in the classroom,
utilizing TL feedback techniques would benefit EFL teachers in Korea. Explicit feedback,
especially of the metalinguistic type, may not necessarily be given in the TL in the classes
observed, but this study resfricts its consideration to feedback that is given in the TL; the
feedback given in the NL is coded separately, to be discussed at a later point.

Given the reasons above, this study takes a position in favor of higher TL
feedback in the classroom during teacher-fronted activities.12 Many factors play a role in
the occurrence of TL feedback. Identifying some of the important factors is another key
element that this study attempts to address. Therefore, no predetermined hypothesis was
set. However, a logical prediction could be made: the more a teacher uses TL, the higher
the frequency of TL feedback that will occur. Indeed, during the observation, it became
evident that the teachers’ TL/NL use was a primary issue and needed to be addressed
before looking at the TL feedback. The teachers’ medifum of the instruction was an
overarching factor that affected not just the frequencies of TL feedback but also overall
class interaction affecting the TL use by the students. Therefore, this study conducted a
preliminary study looking into the teachers’ TL/NL; the results of this preliminary study

will be discussed after the section on research methods.

 

'2 Of course, one might need to be cautious when making such argument; the higher quantity of the TL
feedback itself may not be the direct reflection of the quality of the class in EFL classroom, especially if the
class’ focus is already on the form. One also needs to consider the matter of the appropriateness of feedback
—- learner’s level and affective aspect, for example. In addition, in a large classroom, teacher-to-one
feedback may mean that the rest of 39 students are being left out. In his study of variation in the frequency
and characteristics of incidental focus on form in ESL classrooms, Loewen (2003) expressed the concern
that there has not been much guidance for teachers regarding the optimal number of focus-on-form
interventions in the classroom.

17

RESEARCH METHODS

3. Research paradigm

The current study adopted a non-ethnographic, non-experimental research
approach, in Polio’s (1996) definition of the term.13 That is, it aims to describe what goes
on in the classroom without experimental manipulation, but also has a more specific
focus (i.e., TL feedback exchanges) than other types of qualitative research such as
ethnographic study.

An underlying principle has guided the choice of the research paradigm of this
classroom study. Discussing the issues and the difficulties in reporting classroom research,
Polio (1996) notes that non-ethnographic research involves various complications (e. g.,
reporting with implicit evaluation of the teachers). Nevertheless, as Polio stresses, such
research is a benefit to the field of second/foreign language teaching (although it may
include sensitive issues especially with respect to the teachers). Investigating the
teachers’ behavior is important, given that they are the most important factors affecting
the success of instructed SLA (Polio, 1996). Therefore, such kinds of non-ethnographic
research should be encouraged.

She provides suggestions to help minimize potential problems in presenting the
observational reports: eliciting teacher perspectives, acknowledging the teacher’s point of

view and the realities of the teaching context, for example. Informed by these suggestions,

 

'3 Polio (1996) subdivides non-experimental (i.e., qualitative) research into three kinds: ethnography,
program evaluation, and non-ethnographic/non—experimental research. These three types are not necessarily
mutually exclusive, but each type has its own characteristics. For example, ethnographic research is more
holistic, while non-ethnographic/non-experimental research focuses on a specific feature of the classroom.
Non-ethnographic research is also different from program evaluation research; the purpose of the study is
known by all the parties involved in program evaluation, but is implicit in non-ethnographic research.

18

this study triangulated the data by adopting a retrospective method - stimulated recall
(Gass & Mackey, 2000). In their thorough guidelines for stimulated recall, Gass and
Mackey (2000) note that the major advantage of this tool is that it allows the researcher to
access the participant’s insights, which are difficult to obtain by other means (e. g., class
observation alone).

The following section describes the background of data collection: teaching

contexts, participants, and procedures.

4. Data Collection

4.1. Background: Teaching Contexts, Goals of English Education

The elementary school level was chosen for observation in this study. The
rationale behind the choice was the assumption that elementary school English classes
have more TL interaction than classes at higher levels (Lee, Choi, Boo, & Lee, 2001).
English instruction for secondary school students is more grarnmar—oriented (i.e., more
traditional), because of the importance of college entrance examinations in Korea (Kim,
2002). Kim’s (2002) survey also reported that elementary school teachers (n=14) showed
more positive attitudes toward the TL use policy while secondary school teachers (n=39),
especially high school teachers, did not favor it. Only 5th and 6th grade classes were
selected; in the 3rd and 4th grade, curriculum is designed mainly to develop listening skills,
and much of the lesson content is comprised of songs and chants only (Lee et al. 2001).

According to the national curriculum, the primary goal of English education at the

19

elementary school level is to deve10p “communicative competence and fluency”; another
objective is to raise student’s motivation and interest in English learning (Kwon, 2000, p.
78). Under the new national curriculum, 5’h and 6th grade receive English instruction 2
hours a week; 3rd and 4th grade 1 hour a week. One characteristic of the Elementary
school English curriculum is the total exclusion of written language in the first year of
instruction.M The following list summarizes the characteristics of the previous national
curriculums (6”. effective in 1995-2000). According to Kwon (2000), the new curriculum
(7”. effective in 2001-current) followed the basic philosophy of the previous one, which
the list outlines (p.60-61):

l) A change to a functional syllabus from the traditional grammatical syllabus

2) Comprehension before production

3) Emphasis on communicative competence

4) Fluency over accuracy
The only major change made in the new curriculum was to switch the orientation of the
syllabus —- from functional to “grammatical-firnctional syllabus”; Grammatical structures
are categorized for their grammatical functions without explicit grammatical terminology.

(Kwon, 2000, p.79).

4.2. Participants
Five female EFL teachers in public elementary schools participated in this study.

Table 1 shows the teachers’ profiles. In terms of their years of teaching experience, T 1

 

" English curriculum at the elementary school level has been criticized by its too little emphasis on writing
and grammar skills (Lee et al. 2001). Lee et al. (2001) for example argued that there has been discontinuity
between elementary English and middle-school curriculums. Indeed, the teachers in this study expressed
such concerns. However, this study will not attempt to evaluate the program

20

and T 4 had more than 10. T 3 and T 5 had 4 years each, and T 2 had 2 years. All teachers

but T 4 were teaching Grade 6 (11-12 years old). Regarding the teachers’ background, T 2,

T 3, and T 5 all majored in elementary school English education in college, with T 5

taking an MA degree in the subject as well. T 4 taught English in secondary schools for 8

years before she started teaching at the elementary level. T 1 and T 2 had ESL experience

overseas.

Table 1. Summary of Participants

 

 

 

 

 

 

T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5

English 11 (yrs) 12

teaching

Education BA. in BA. in BA. in BA. in BA. + M.A.
Elementary Elementary Elementary Secondary in
Education + English Edu. English Edu. English Edu. Elementary
M.A. in English Edu.
Psychology

Formal Training Intensive In-service In-service In-service

training programs ESL teacher teacher teacher
abroad abroad training training training

Grade 6‘h 6‘“ 6‘“ 5th 6‘“

observed (Age: 12) (Age: 12) (Age: 12) (Age: 11) (Age: 12)

Class size 45 40 39 38 39

 

As to why these particular teachers were invited, the first priority when finding

suitable teachers was to include ones who were relatively experienced (i.e., in terms of

their years of teaching and/or their educational background). The five teachers do have

different backgrounds (e.g., their years of English teaching experience vary from 2 to 12;

21

their TL proficiency was unknown before observing the classes; some teachers had ESL
training experience overseas, and the others did not; some teachers had had classes in
English teaching methods for the elementary school level, and others had not.) However,
this diverse group is regarded as representative of the current average population of
English teachers in elementary school in Korea. Considering that there are also non-
English—major teachers who are teaching the subject in elementary schools, the four
teachers (T 2,3,4,5) can be regarded as relatively qualified for elementary schools in
Korea.15 The second important objective in mind was to have at least one teacher who
was particularly skilled (i.e., T 1).16 T 1’s teaching experience started when English
language was elective, not a regular subject in elementary school curriculum. She has
done workshops as a teacher trainer and attended overseas training programs in English

speaking countries.

4.3. Data Sources and Procedures

The data consisted of class observations of 4 lessons and stimulated recall (SR)
after the last observation. Each class was videotaped, and the videotape was used as the
main prompt for SR. The data collection period was May through lune 2003, halfway

through the first semester of the school year. The schedules for the observations and

 

'5 There are three types of English teachers at elementary school level in Korea: English subject-only
teachers (e.g., T l, T 2), homeroom-teachers (e.g., T 3, T 5), and competent neighboring classroom teachers
in exchange of other subjects (e.g., T 4). Not all the teachers are English-related major in the case of
homeroom teachers (i.e., teaching all the subject matters including English); many of them, especially for
3rd and 4"I grade level teachers, are non-English majors. Non-English majored teachers are eligible to teach
English subject once they receive lZO-hour in-service training programs (Kwon, 2000).

'6 Polio (1996) notes the benefits of observing particularly skilled teachers in conducting an observational
study. For example, in their 1990 study of college-level foreign language classes in North America, Duff
and Polio found one teacher who effectively used her TL/NL (i.e., the teacher used the students’ NL (i.e.,
English) in the last 5 minutes of class so that the students could ask questions in English). Using this
example as well as a work by Cumming (1992), Polio (1996) writes that such an approach allows a study to
make a more positive report on teacher behaviors, consequently benefiting other pre-/in-service teachers.

22

stimulated recall are in Appendix A. During the video recordings, an audiotape was
placed on the teacher’s desk at the front of the classroom. Transcriptions were made using
both the audiotape and the videotapes to capture the teachers’ non-verbal gestures. The
transcript conventions can be found in Appendix B.

A pre-observational interview was done briefly to get the background of each
teacher, such as their teaching experiences, and to arrange an observation schedule. The
teachers were informed that this study was generally interested in classroom interaction.
They were not told about the specific objective of the study — their patterns of TL
feedback, nor were they told that this study was also interested in looking at their TL/NL
use. Although it might have been useful information to directly survey each teacher about
her self- perceived proficiency, the question was not asked during the observation periods.
The reason behind this omission was a concern that the teachers might become too self-
conscious about their language use during videotape recordings. Later, during the
interviews, all the teachers expressed the opinion to some degree that their TL proficiency

was one constraint in their teaching of English.

23

CHAPTER 2

TEACHERS’ LANGUAGE USE

As mentioned previously, the teachers’ TL/N L use was the primary issue that
needed to be addressed before discussing TL feedback. The following section presents the
ratio of TL to NL by the teachers, functions of the languages, and the teachers’ reasons
for their language choice. The distribution of the teachers NL and TL was calculated by
counting the utterances”. The definition of utterance was defined as “grammatical and/or
intonational limits” (Ma, 2003).18 An utterance appeared as a single lexical word, a
sentence, or a phrase. Each teacher’s utterance was entered into a spreadsheet and coded
as K, E, or M for Korean, English, and Mixed utterances respectively. Examples and a

detailed description of the definition of utterance can be found in Appendix C.

l . Results

1.1. The Ratio ofTL to NL

Figure 1 shows the average use of the languages over 4 lessons by the five teachers. The

amount of TL showed a range from around 88% to 30%. The mean of total TL use by T l

 

 

n For the analysis of teachers’ percentage of TL/NL use, all four lessons from each teacher were used. It
was judged that it would be beneficial to look at as many lessons as possible.

'8 Counting utterances was used here instead of other techniques, such as word counting, since Korean is an
agglutinative language and English is not. That is, an utterance at a sentential level in English can be a
le’dcal word in Korean. Polio and Duff (1994) addressed this problem. Another method, marking the
language by listening to tapes, is a technique used in some of the studies (e.g., Duff & Polio 1990; Kang,
200 1 ). The current study did not use this technique because the teachers frequently used CD-Rom — in
every lesson, for each activity, which might affect the results more if the method had been used. In other
Words’ it was judged that using such techniques might not be giving more accurate pictures of the ratio of
the t"V0 languages used by each teacher, especially in the case of low NL using teachers.

24

and T 2 was over 80 %, T 4 and T 5 less than 30 %, and T 3 in the middle.

Figure 1. Ratio of Teachers’ TL vs. NL Use

are Mixed Korean I English

4.7 2.9 4.4

   

In the quantitative study of teachers’ language use (i.e., 15 teachers of Spanish at
secondary school level), Wing (1987) reported that postgraduate travel/residence in a
target country was the strongest predictor leading to the high amount of TL use in the
classroom. This may have accounted for the high amount of TL use by T 1 and T 2; both

had ESL experience abroad.

1.2. The Functions of the TL/NL Use
Many studies have looked at the teacher’s TL use, but those are mostly conducted
at the secondary school level (e.g., Mitchell, 1988; Franklin, 1990; Macaro, 1995;

Tumbull, 1999; Wing, 1987), and a few at college level (e.g., Duff & Polio, 1990; Polio

25

& Duff, 1994). The overarching findings of these previous studies are that L1 was used
mostly for teaching grammar explicitly, giving instructions for complex activities,
controlling/ managing the classroom, for building rapport, and providing L1 equivalents
or vice versa (Macaro, 2001). Some of them point out that there is a hierarchy of
difficulty in the TL among teacher-fronted activities like the ones just listed. In Franklin
(1990), for example, secondary school French teachers identified the following areas as
being the most difficult tasks to conduct in the TL: explaining grammar, teaching
background, and discussing language objectives. Tasks such as organizing the classroom,
giving activity instructions, and chatting informally with pupils are relatively easier to do
in the TL.

A logical expansion of the question would be: what firnctions do the teachers in
this particular context - elementary school EFL classrooms - use their TL/NL for? The
functions were broken down into six broad categories: basic instruction, eliciting
comprehension, activity/ game instruction, praise/feedback, modeling, and explicit
teaching of forms/lesson objectives.

Basic instruction includes a short instructional phrase as a routine (e. g., “Listen
carefully,” “Clap your hands five times”). Discipline-related phrases were also included
with basic instructions, since some teachers used overt statements (e. g., T 2: Speak
quietly, 53-8-3] 3H2] 4] .9. [Speak quietly], T 4: 2538-3] 3“ [Be quite]), while other
teachers used basic instructional phrases for the purposes of discipline (e. g., T 1:
((gesture)) Point to the window, point to the board, point to the door, point to the ceiling,
((lowering her voice when the class begins to calm down)) Point to your eyes, nose,

mouth, ((whispering» put your hands down).

26

 

(Exam les 6) Basic instruction & disciplining

 

TL T 1: Now, open your book to page fifty one. Open your book to page fifty one
and ((gesture)) please read the sentence, and connect the pictures with
sentences... ((walking around the class)) Please connect the word-
sentences with pictures XXX.

Middle T 3: Open your book to page fifty-five. Fifty-five. Xl-[ok], Listen carefully. 7“ E
31 Lil %°ll 9}“ ’8 2i 03. @611 '34] Ct. [Listen carefully and match the

answers correctly]

NL T 5: ll 1% 1‘91 E74], EH1”! ltd-Ext] 340111}. ‘45.} Ei-El ‘élB’l—E— JET):-
eeo a 0% east satire—30,31. we “aiéqfii. ante.
473': o 73% “'1‘ 3101 7.5—} '3‘4-1 3" a 1101 E4118. [0K, next, question
number one. Let’s read question number one together. ‘Listen carefully to
the dialogue and match the pictures and words line by line. ’Listen
carefully. I '11 play it only twice. Those who make noise can ’t listen properly.

Listen carefully and match them line by line]

 

Elicitation of comprehension mostly occurred during listening comprehension

checks; Examples are given below.

 

iExamples 7) Eliciting comprehension (Afier listening to a CD dialogue)

 

TL T 1: Who is she? Who is she?

81: She is a -

SS: Momy // mozm=

T: = She is Mom. Mom. She is Mom. Who is she?
SSS: She is Nami.

T: She is Nami. Is she wearing red cap?

SSS: No~

NL r4; 2}: om ware :1 axiom ore-oi a are? a?
[0k, what Is the name of the boy in the dialogue? Jin?]

ss: 1 M13 [Ho // Jinho]

T: 7335. ”fi% OLE—51.3.? [Jinho Is uncles 'name is?]

sss: Peel! // 7.3 $624. [Junil //Kim Junil]

T: 7:} "fr.“ 921.44 11:: $13}? 4}%%_l 711-3.? [What does Mr. Kim Junil do?]

SSS: 7]"?- [A singer]

T: 7}-’i‘-. “1 FL] 01] 13 32531 9,1 310'] 8.? [A singer. What was he wearing?]

SSS: (11:73 // figalfi [Glasses // sun glasses]

T: Sunglasses. 751$ {“1 *3 ‘El 0] %€:? [Jinho Is teachers ’name is?]

$83: 3:01: [Smith]

r: Mrs. Smith. 73 i :1 *3 ‘3 e— 7] 7} at 9., acts? [Is Mrs. Smith tall or short?]

 

27

[ $33: 71 9.. [Tall]

Activity instructions include functions used to explain game procedures or the

gestures for songs/chants. Some examples of activity instructions happened as follows.

 

(Example 8) Activity/ game instruction
TL T 1: Let’s review the last lesson. ((showing picture cards)) Let’s play the game.
Please, ((gesture)) raise your hand, and ask me, “I’m thirsty, can I have some
juice?” If I have it, I will give it to you and I’ll say “Here you are”. T:
((showing a picture card)) 11', {I ’8' ‘Ei 0] 319—9., “Sure, here you are”3l'31 i
7i 0418.. You have five chances. Please-- ready -- raise your hand. “I’m thirsty,
can I have some juice?” or “I’m hungry, can I have some hamburgers?”

NL T3: iii-9.- activity :13] :11 review. Lesson six. 6 Rik-€01]: “ll—fi- LH -8--% £31:—
%€3flit %‘%-° $710413. °l77i *d’tlrlOl 7l—E gjrlflzlfi.
—r7]-7<] %-n~7} 0‘ M0] 9.. Z}, I’m hungry, I’m thirstyE—r- {5-71-5 037]}3?
[Today we will do an ‘activity ’and a ‘review. ’Lesson Six. We will do a
review activity for Lesson Six. You have cards I gave you. There are two types
of cards. 0k, I’m hungry, I’m thirsty, what type of cards are these?]

888: ”lift—LEE} // $343} [Hungry // thirsty]

T: 017i? $9.7} 34117} 9.1% 85801:}? Old Eflltlfiali’l—E. 151-8- 01!

Cl 317%] €744 7lE-Eai Llrliifidxlfi? 0171—1:— E—Xil-E 6}] EQT " °“-‘-?
[These cards have some problems, right? So these are problem-cards. Next
you have food-item cards. The cards for solving problems are? ]

S. {will} 2”SH a 7L9. [Problem-solving cards]

T: 0]. E21] 6H€7IE°llB..° Tdm: 513-11] 8%7iE-f-Eiéi +2418 Edi]
Shaft-E :E—Ol/‘i {HIEOI 3%.?— 9.131.141] 8%7lE-t-6‘Eol 43°!
%%T A 9.171] 71143] %:——-"~il 8.. ’1‘] 01 T4113. ((instruction continues))

[Yes, problem-solving cards. First, spread out your problem cards. One
member in each group collects the solving-cards and keeps them. Put only
the problem-cards in the center of your table. Mix them please]. ((continues))

 

 

The category of explicit teaching of forms is comprised of functions that did not
fit into the above three categories: explicit teaching of forms (e. g., vocabulary,
pronunciation/phonics, grammar, writing, culture) and managerial language (e.g., lesson
objectives, homework). Not all teachers used all of these functions to the same extent

(e.g., some teachers talked about lesson objectives at some length, while others did not;

28

some teachers taught phonics explicitly, and some did not). Some examples appear in the

box below.

 

(Example 9) Explicit teaching of vocabulary, pronunciation, phonics, grammar, writing,
culture, lesson objectives, etc.

TL

NL

 

r 2: i am e7} ‘é’ot? /ai/ ((Writing ‘ai’ on the board))i Sin e tat—gr, 2:10] that
X193, rice. i {Sill e ”at-8°] €01 @811! “d ‘ai’ 0] 33-71] vars—ea 13,35,
[[When ‘i’ comes before ‘e’] Is ‘i ’pronounced as ‘s’? /ai/. When ‘i ’comes with
‘e ', rice, I told you, you pronounce 'i 'as ‘ai. ']

T 3; Thirsty, x] if} x] {lot} figar, “r” “v” :1. 1301! “s”7<l “l 9:! ~3- AlEE—f:
((Writing the words on the board)) 1}, Hungry ‘25“ h Z—l 7]] “114118.. N82 5}".
219-331, Hungry 35:13] 371 '3‘ 51"] Oil 721] '3‘ €371] 2.9-1:. $17} El 8.? ((Pointing
to the letter ‘h’ in ‘hungry’)) [You wrote the word, thirsty, last time. Some

I I I

people missed the letters - 'r v or ‘s’. 0k, when writing ‘hungry ', stretch the
letter ‘h. 'Don ’t write ‘71. ’ If you write ‘h ’short, what does it become?]

The first three categories were the most commonly occurring language ftmctions

across all of the classrooms (i.e., basic instructions including disciplinary comments;

eliciting comprehension; and activity/ game instructions). Table 2 provides an overview of

the functions of teachers’ language use. The five teachers are divided into 3 categories:

high, middle, and low TL users. The three most commonly occurring language functions

show the most differences in the TL use among the 3 groups. For instance, basic

instructions (e. g., “Open your book to page~”) were usually given in the TL by the high

TL users, and in the NL by the low TL users.

29

Table 2. Overview of the Functions of TL/NL use

 

 

 

 

 

Functions High TL users Middle Low TL users
(87.7%, 87.4%) (42.8 %) (30.4%, 29.8 %)
Basic instructions/disciplining TL NL (+ TL) NL
Eliciting comprehension TL NL (+ TL) NL
Activity/ game instructions TL (+ NL) NL NL
Explicit teaching of TL + NL TL + NL NL + TL

(vocabulary, pronunciation,
phonics, grammar, culture,

lesson objectives, homework,

 

 

etc.)

Feedback/praise TL (some in NL) NL (+ TL) NL (with TL
(including choral feedback) phrases in it)
Modeling TL TL TL

 

n=2(T1&T2) n=1(T3) n=2(T4&5)

 

The issue of when to use the TL or NL is not simple; for instance, language use
must obviously take into consideration the grade level and the curriculum being taught.
For example, for the teachers at a higher grade, grammar instruction might be the most
challenging area to teach, as has been reported in the previous studies. For the teachers at
elementary schools observed in this study, explicit teaching of grammar was not an issue
since the syllabus itself does not emphasize explicit grammar knowledge much. Rather,
much of the class time was spent on checking listening comprehension with CD-ROMs
and the game/activity explanations in general; these were the skills/kinds of exercises the
curriculum was built around. Listening comprehension and leading activities were also
the areas where the low NL-using teachers tended to rely on the NL. The following

section describes the teachers’ rationales for their language choices.

30

1.3. Reasons for Language Choices

As much as there were considerable differences in the amount of TL use, each
teachers’ reasons for their choices was difl‘erent. The following section will describe
some representative examples, and each teacher’s accompanying stimulated recall
comments. The teachers’ recall comments are translated into English, and presented in

italics.

A. Teacher 1

 

 

Functions of TL used Functions of NL used

- Basic instruction, disciplining - Brief translation of activity instructions
- Activity instructions - Vocabulary equivalents

- Disciplining - Giving homework

- Commenting/giving feedback - Explicit/brief grammar instruction

- Modeling, etc. - Talking with students individually, etc.

 

Strategies for TL use: 0 Use of visual aids, modifying textbook materials
0 Miming actions and the pronunciation of words
0 Simple sentences, repetitive, slow speech, etc.

 

T l taught the majority of her lessons in the TL. What noted in particular about T
1’ language is that she used a variety of strategies to make TL comprehensible. Her TL
sentences were simple, repetitive, and very clear. She also used lots of visual aids,
miming actions and the pronunciation of words. One of the most distinctive differences
between her and the other teachers was that she used very little Korean translation. On a
few occasions, she provided TL vocabulary equivalents in Korean, but in general, she
rarely relied on translation. Another distinct difference from the other teachers was found
in her activity instructions. She modified the games/activities in the textbook (by
simplifying) so that she would not spend much time explaining directions for activities.

In a recall comment on the TL instructions for one of her activities, she said, “I used

31

English but I didn ’t expect them to understand what I said at this moment. As the game
progresses, though, they would pick up the procedures, thinking ‘Ah, this is what the
teacher meant! She notes that some activities require more thorough explanations than
others, but in such cases, she says, “When an activity cannot be fully modeled with
gestures or pictures only, I don 't spend much time trying to explain how to play the game
in Korean. I quickly give the translation if necessary, and move on to the game. If you go

to the activity right away, the SSS catch up sooner or later; doing it themselves.”

B. Teacher 2
Contrary to T 1, T 2 gave longer and more complex explanations in English,
which seemed often to be at a level that was quite advanced, and too challenging for her
students. Sometimes, she translated her TL utterances into the NL (when she judged the
students would not understand her English); instances in which she used this approach
included introducing a lesson, giving background for vocabulary, correcting students’
common mistakes, teaching phonics, and disciplining. In Example 6 below, T 2 is
introducing a new lesson, first in English and then in Korean. In recall, she says “When
I’m explaining something, I give the explanation in English first. Then, I usually give the
Korean translation. I spoke English first, so that the students would become more
familiar with English explanations... Here, I was a bit concerned that there might be
some students whose parents had been laid 0173 "
(Example 10)

x

T: From this class, ssh— from this class, we will learn lesson-- seven, lesson seven. “My
Father is a Pilot.” We will learn some expressions which are related with jobs and

Vocations. 5&0“ 3E1? gig 0K” 334% 5H3 ELIE}. [We will learn about job-related

 

 

32

 

expressions] Before we start, I want to say something. Olaf-EEOIW 2 ‘PE’OI 9153119. [I
have something to tell you] Now, our economy situation is recession. gall—lat 2;”? Di
01$- 5%] W9. [Our economy is in recession] So, may, your father may retired. right?
043in- OltHIILl OlCHLIDlVH 34213 EJOitHEIfii-E 45$ 91% 45E ENE}, [Some of your
parents might have lost their jobs] Don’t take it seriously. Just you will learn some jobs,

how to speak, how to say some jobs in English. 01E1 5420“ 431?? fig; @013 UHE-CIE

EQE’E 013 IOIICI; 0| 3% J§5H $Al3| Ul‘ELICt [Just think of the lesson as vocabulary you

are learning]

 

C. Teacher 3

T 3 has yet a different pattern. She used the TL when giving basic instructions
such as “listen carefully” or in getting attention (e. g., “Attention!”). However, she reverts
to Korean for all other functions, as in the example below. In Example 7, she is giving
directions mainly in Korean for a sentence scramble. In her recall, she explains: “My
English is a problem, but the BIGGER problem is that my students don I pay attention
even in Korean; I don ’t think they would listen to me if I explained this in English. I
usually use Korean for game procedures, because ‘the way to play the game ’is not really
the English I am trying to teach them.”

(Example 11)

 

T; gislesson 69! mag-43+ are lasagna

[Who wants to put the title of lesson six in order?]

-L1‘-7l 8131 3H2)??? [Who ’d like to try?] $9303 510153519. [It Is scrambled. ]
#3! {1% 3%)”? [ Who ’d like to try?] 0t XIE‘1 ((S name)), Come to the front.
3m gel-TEE D'IOIIE [Put them in order one by one]

It SHOIICDl EOWIR [Stick the cards at the top of the board]

$ iigoll gap} SIDED]? [Mich one should come first?]

 

 

33

In general, having students participate was more important for her than having
them use the TL. In the next example, she is telling a student to speak in Korean if he is
not sure what to say. T 3 comments, “I wanted him to participate even if he used Korean.
I think participation is better than nothing.”

(Example 12)

 

T: Do you like sunny days?
835: No~ XXX
T: Why? 9“ ’a‘s'O‘lR’ [Why don I you like them .7] I, 9” $4013) [.1, why don I you like them ?]
81: $4351 35!? [What should Isay? ...uhm ...]
T: 35* EEDaE 5MB [Just say it in Korean] :chst EEQE 8H [Say it in Korean]
81: 3930257; DQ531019. [I forgot even the Korean]
T: €19an ”@9101? [You forgot how to say it in Korean ?]
lac-I gOE SHOEH? [You want to use English then ?]

((class laughs»

 

T 3’s use of TL pattern was different from T 1 and T 2. T 3 started with the NL
and then switched to TL. T l and T 2’s did the opposite, because their priority was
communicating in the TL. T 3 tried to use the TL in giving basic instructions, but it was

difficult for her to sustain unless she thought about it deliberately, as seen in Example 9.

(Example 13)

 

T: Olaf-E 001 “@019, 01815311019? Easy or difficult? 9 It Is my habit, I think. Unless I
really try to, Korean comes first,

T: If, 33' CIDE'IOI Eu. 340i Ht Let’s read! unconsciously.

 

34

D. Teacher 4

T 4 used the NL all the time, except when modeling target expressions for the
lesson. To the question why she did not use English, she answered: “Except when I model
the target expressions, I don ’t use English at all My personality is the biggest obstacle,
I guess. I feel so awkward speaking English, even saying things like ‘Listen carefully, ’or
‘Next. ’More complicated commands or explanations of game rules, I can I do these in
English...1 am afraid of making mistakes; I don I want to make mistakes, because I
majored in English. "

(Example 14)

 

T: It, 311%, %EDIRI [new 53MB [0k, next, letIs review. Repeat after me.]
Everyday

SSS: Everyday

T: I get up

SSS: I get up

T: At seven o’clock

SSS: At seven o’clock

T: Everyday I get up at seven o’clock.

SSS: Everyday I get up at seven o’clock.

 

She also expressed her concerns that, “If I had to speak English all the time, I wouldn 't be
able to say what I really want to say... Is it ‘Sit down straight ’or what? My students
wouldn I understand either...I do want to observe a class where the teacher uses

English "

E. Teacher 5

The last teacher, T 5, also used mainly Korean for all functions except modeling.

35

Only occasionally did she use basic instructions in English such as “Clap your hands,”
and “Great!” T 5 was responding to classroom realities in a way similar to T 3,
mentioned previously. She commented, giving a reason for using the NL, that, “Even if a
teacher explains in Korean, the students don ’t understand. If they don’t understand, they
don I pay attention. I think my class is at least better than the other classes.” During SR,
she spoke of Krashen’s natural approach, and emphasized listening comprehension-based
learning and the affective filter as teaching approaches that had an influence on her. She
said one of the main reasons she used Korean was that she had observed that some of her
lower level students expressed frustrations in their journals (e.g., “English is too hard”);
these comments, in turn, lowered her expectations of them. She believes English learning
in elementary school is supposed to make students feel English is “fun.”

(Example 15)

 

T: IE—T—E‘l fléfll‘éi 2% [flat GEE. [Now, look at my gestures. ]
ABC Dai-JISE 3'1 Oicg31|5& EDI? [What can we do as a gesture for a teacher?]
Olaf-E- Elna' ӎ? 3'] 21995, [If you have something like a pencil (using it)]
ABC CHEW 2493i: adi‘la abc Oliflfl HN6H—JF-Xt ABC.
[just like the teacher asking students to read the alphabet, ABC, let Is make the gesture
this way]

SSS: ABC ((with gesture))

T: If, Jill—8‘0“ 532%,?)- EEIHE [ Then, next. When you say broom broom]

73351-5 i‘i‘la 5:33-ng -‘=r"§—r‘=‘~§ [gesture like you are driving, broom, broom]

 

She said that giving instructions for activities was the hardest part of the class to
conduct in English. She also commented that use of the TL needs to be accompanied by
the teacher’s miming of the task. This teacher personally found it hard to be an “actor” in

this way. However, T 5 acknowledges that an English teacher should try to use the TL as

36

much as possible: “I think I should use English, because the students don 't have
opportunities to use English outside of class. But, practically, it Is very hard for the
teacher to keep speaking English... First of all, it requires a lot of patience on the
teacher Is part. Unless she/he is quite determined, it Is very easy for a teacher to give up
using English. If the teacher can use other means, like gestures, mimes, etc., it will be
great, but I found it hard to do, with my personality... once the teacher decides to use
English all the time, lots of preparation and eflort is involved ...In addition, teachers are

3

afraid that if they use English, they will lose control of the class. ’

2. Discussion and Conclusions

As for the ratio of NL/TL use by the teachers observed, there was a wide range.
The amount of teaching experience did not seem to affect the teachers’ TL use. Their
recall comments show that the reasons for recourse to the NL are very complex; teacher-
specific factors such as personality are interrelated with other known factors (e. g., TL
proficiency/confidence). This observation backs up what Dickson (1996, p. 15) has noted
— that teachers’ language proficiency was only one of many factors that explained their
reluctance to use the TL for certain purposes.

In summary, the high TL using teachers seemed to be more influenced by
classroom-internal factors in the reasons they give for TL/NL use (i.e., features that vary
by lessons).19 On the other hand, classroom-external factors (i.e., features that do not vary
by lessons) appeared to be the greater influence on low TL using teachers. There were
also reasons for TL/NL use the two groups of teachers had in common, given in Table 3

below.

 

'9 The term, classroom-internal/external factors, was used in Polio and Duff ( 1994).

37

Table 3. Summary of Factors Affecting the TL/N L Use

 

 

High TL users Low TL users
More Classroom-internal factors Classroom-external factors
influential - Complexity of language - Teacher personality
factors utterances - Teachers’ TL confidence
affecting - Functions of language use - Attitude toward TL use:
TL/N L use Less firm belief toward TL use

- Empathy toward lower-level students:

maximum student participation

 

Common - Presence of lower-proficiency students (mixed-level, large class-size)
reasons by - Teacher proficiency
all teachers - Need for comprehension checks, expedience, discipline

- Explicit correction for common mistakes

 

The observation on the teachers’ language use leads to some concerns that many
SL researchers have pointed out. For example, in their study of teacher talk in foreign
language classrooms, Polio and Duff (1994) pointed out that the teachers’ too-frequent
recourse to the NL takes up precious class time, reducing the amount of input time for
learners. The implied recommendation of course is that the explanations should usually
be given in the TL. However, three teachers said the students would not understand if
they gave instructions in English. The fact was the data from this study indicate that they
spend too much time explaining activities in the NL. In one instance, it took more than
twice as long (i.e., 9 min) to explain a card game than it took to complete the game itself
(i.e., 4 min.), which made me wonder about the quality of the activity (e.g., card game on
occupation vocabulary). In such cases, when the teachers introduced activities, their NL

explanation was hard to understand, even for the observer. Thus, it was not surprising that

38

the students in their classes looked passive; it was the teacher who monopolized most of
the speaking.

Some recall comments seem to reflect that the teachers understand TL use fiom a
rather narrow point of view. For example, one teacher commented that there is no need to
use the TL for activity instruction since the way to play the game/activity is not what the
students are learning. However, Clark (1981) asserted that such behavior might have the
students perceiving that “Use English [NL] when you have something real to say. Use the
foreign language [TL] when we are doing exercises, question-answer work, and other
unreal (non-communicative) things” (p.153; cited in Franklin, 1990, p.20). Polio and
Duff (1994) further argued that such approach is problematic; it “offers little incentive for
students to initiate meaningful interaction in the TL themselves, since that behavior is not
being modeled for them by their teachers” (p. 323). Indeed it was observed that where
the teachers resort to the NL the teachers often asked the students to speak the TL during

the group activities. The following example illustrates the point made above.

 

 

(Example 16) fill-in elicitation T 3

T: Next, Oil-:- 019.1 élEH‘éDlQ? [How is he feeling?] SR comments:

S: ggalfl [He is thirsty] “I wanted them to say the

T: I’m? --I’m? --I’m? expressions in English, but

SS: thirsty they kept saying in Korean and

T: thirsty. I want some orange juice. I became a bit impatient. I
OllE 0151 etEHgDIR? [How is he feeling?] should ’ve asked them to say in

S: UlLTllllQ. [Hungry] English here... like “in

T: I’m? English? but... “I'm? I’m? ”

Sss: hungry came out first.

T: hungry. I want some pizza.

 

39

In the episode, the teacher tried to elicit TL expressions using picture prompts on
a TV screen. Although she wished the students to answer the questions using TL target
expressions, the students did not, and the teacher ended up initiating the TL point and
having the students fill in the rest of the expression. This type of practice was common in
classes where the teacher used NL most of the time. This teacher at least wished the
students would respond more in the TL, although she herself used the NL. It was my
impression that the other hi gh—NL use teacher did not seem to even expect the TL from
the students.

To conclude, the major problem the teachers in this study had did not seem to be
due to the students’ low proficiency in English. Rather, the problem originated with the
teachers’ lack of strategies to modify both the English they were capable of, and the
material in the textbooks. In fact, in T 1’s lessons, few TL phrases could be found which
might have challenged the students’ understanding. Most of the class activities in T 1’s
lessons were ones she developed, along with a few modified from the textbook activities.
If strategies are developed in the areas above, teachers’ confidence in the use of TL in the
classroom may be built up. Of course, there are other long-term issues on which follow-
up work needs to be done in this process of developing teacher strategies. As Chambers
(1991) reasoned, given the difficulty of teaching in the TL in FL classrooms, teachers will
not maintain their application of the necessary strategies if they do not really believe they
are valid. Therefore, teacher education programs need to provide teachers with
opportunities to think about when NL can be useful (or not), and eventually to come to a

consensus about maximizing TL input.

40

CHAPTER 3

TARGET LANGUAGE FEEDBACK

So far, this thesis has looked at the teachers’ TUNL use, both in terms of amount
and function, in the classroom. This chapter discusses the main research questions of this
study about the TL feedback found during teacher-fronted lessons. The first lessons from
each teacher were excluded, so three lessons from each teacher (a total of 15 lessons)
were used for the analysis of TL feedback. Discussion will start with the details on data

coding.20

1. Data analysis

In this study, the definition of an error is operationalized as utterances that contain
ungrammatical elements or ones that have obvious pronunciation errors (definition in
Oliver, 2000 [italics added]). Students’ hesitations or slow speech were not considered to
be errors, nor were student response in the NL.

Greater problems arose in determining whether a certain exchange in TL could be
considered a feedback move or not than coding the types of TL feedback. Therefore, this
section will start with a discussion of how errors/ feedback episodes have been defined in

this study.

1.1. Criteria for excluding exchanges from TL corrective feedback

Based on the definition of errors above, the following criteria were created. First,

2° The first two lessons from T 1 and T 4 were observed on the same day, but with two different classes.
Some parts of the content of the lessons that T1 and T4 did with their separate classes overlapped, and
therefore the decisions was made to exclude the first lesson observed with ALL of the teachers’ classes.

41

any exchanges that fell under the following criteria were excluded from the analysis of

TL feedback episodes.

Over-correction:

Several researchers addressed the difficulties in defining an error in the L2
classroom. One of the problems is over-correction (e.g., George, 1972; Nystrom,
1983; Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Chaudron, 1986, 1988; Ellis, 1990). Allwright and
Bailey (1991), for example, described a problem that occurred in error correction
when the teacher rejected students’ correct responses because they were not
expressed in the form the teacher wanted. This type of exchanges occurred
particularly with one of the teachers in this study, which made it hard to draw the
line between feedback on errors and unnecessary interruption. It was hard to justify
calling the students’ utterances errors, and thus such exchanges were excluded,
leaving them as a point to be discussed later. In addition, the judgment was made
that the inclusion of such episodes in the frequency of feedback would not give a
more accurate picture of that frequency in a comparative study such as this.

Teachers’ fillin ' e elicitation or fillin in the lines:

   

Occasions where the teacher starts with partial TL expressions and has a student fill
in the rest were not counted as feedback moves. Exchanges in which the teacher
completes the TL expressions by interrupting the student’s “half-done” utterance
(i.e., turn completion by the teacher) were also excluded. The rationale was that
when such exchanges occurred, the students had not yet made errors. This paper will

revisit this type of episode in a discussion.

Teacher’s TL translation as a reaction to students’ response in NL:

42

Some previous studies (e. g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002) included
a student’s unsolicited NL use as an error, thus included the teacher’s translation as a
type of recast; their studies were interested in how the teachers reacted to their
students’ NL use. They were probably able to do so because the TL was the main
medium of instruction. However, this study did not consider students’ NL response
to be an error, because as the teachers’ question itself was posed in NL, most of the
students’ responses in NL could not be regarded as unsolicited.

o M—corrective repetition vs. Recasts on pronunciation:
Unless the students’ utterances had a distinctive pronunciation error in it, a teacher’s
repetition of such grammar error-free utterances were excluded. The reason was that
when the teacher repeated a student’s utterance that contained no grammatical errors,
it was sometimes unclear whether the teachers’ intention was to recast
pronunciation, or just to give the student positive reinforcement (in the lessons that
were not later watched together). In these cases, the purpose of the repetition was

inferred, largely based on the teachers’ recall comments.”

In addition to the occasions listed above, exchanges where the teachers explicitly

requested a student to speak up were excluded from feedback coding (e. g., T: I can ’t hear

 

2‘ Confusion of intention arose particularly with one of the teachers, who constantly repeated students’
utterances back to them (T 3). During SR, she explained what she was doing three different ways. For two
episodes in the beginning of the lesson, she said she intended to provide corrections of the student’s
utterances. About similar exchanges which came at the end of the lesson, she claimed that her main
intention in repeating was to gather the students’ attention, and have their classmates listen. At other times,
T3 said that the repetition was positive reinforcement. When a usually quiet student participated, she would
repeat what that student had said to provide praise in an indirect form, rather than saying “Good,” or
“Excellent.” In general though, she emphasized that her main purpose of repeating is to gather students’
attention and have other students listen. It should also be noted that since the observer, I myself, shared the
same NL, there can be a bias in determining “obviousness of errors” in pronunciation. I did not catch many
errors in pronunciation.

43

you. Speak up, please). There were 5 occasions of that kind in L2 (one in T 1’s lesson

and four in T 2’s lesson) and frequently in the L1 in the other teachers’ classes.

1.2. Data coding

To find out the amount and type of feedback in TL, error-feedback exchanges (i.e.,
learner error -> teacher feedback in TL) were identified. Each feedback episode was
coded under the following categories: recast, negotiation, and explicit feedback. The
teachers’ feedback in NL that contains the correct form of TL was considered as NL
feedback, not TL feedback; this will be discussed later on.22 Multi-feedback within a
teacher’s turn occurred only one time with one of the teachers, where the teacher used 4
different types of feedback (repetition-)explicit feedback-)NL translation of her
previous utterance-) explicit feedback with the correct pronunciation); they were coded
one TL explicit feedback and one NL feedback. To check the inter-coder reliability, a
second coder coded the types of feedback on the transcripts of all the data, based on the
criteria provided as above. Since the low inference categories were used, coding for the

types of feedback reached over 90 % agreement.

1.3. Issues regarding uptake

Some classroom-based studies on feedback have included in their analysis the
amount of learner uptake (i.e., learners’ response to feedback) to measure the immediate
effect of feedback (e. g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Havranek, 2002).

This study did not attempt to compare whether certain feedback types lead to more

¥

22 Such excluded NL feedback episodes include an occasion where the teacher repeats a student’s NUTL
mixed sentence (containing an incorrect pronunciation of a word) slightly changing the pronunciation (e.g.,
S: kl /doctol/°l £11310] 01:. T: /doctor/7l' HI 2&0] 0la).

44

uptake. One reason for this is that uptake does not necessarily mean that the feedback was
effective (or shows the learner has acquired the form), as many SL researchers have
pointed out (e. g., Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Mackey, Gass, &
McDonough, 2000). Furthermore, a more direct reason concerned the problem of
recording; the video recording was done in the back so it could not capture all the
students’ reaction to teacher feedback. In addition, it quickly became apparent from the
observation that the predominant teacher-to-one discourse pattern was IRE (i.e.,
Teacher’s initiation — student’s response — teacher evaluation/ feedback, then moves to a
next turn by another student). There was little opportunity for students to respond to the

teachers’ feedback.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Frequency of TL Feedback (Research Question 1)

Table 4 shows the amount of each type of feedback in TL occurring in the total of
3 lessons by each teacher. The results of the distribution of TL feedback vary across this
group of teachers. T 1 has the highest total amount of TL feedback. TL feedback by T 3, 4,

and 5 are quite low compared to T l. T 2 is in the middle.

45

Table 4. Frequency of TL Feedback

 

 

 

 

 

 

T l (n=31) T 2 (n=13) T 3 (n=3) T 4 (n=7) T 5 (n=1)
Implicit feedback
- Recasts 31 8 3 5 0
- Negotiation 0 3 0 l 1
Explicit feedback 0 2 0 1 0
(TL) Total 31 13 3 7 1
Average per lesson 10.3 (31/3) 4.3 (13/3) 1 (3/3) 2.3 (7/3) 0.3 (1/3)

 

 

 

 

 

Implicit feedback occurred most from T 1 (n=31), some from T 2 (n=11) and T 4 (n=6),
and only a few times from T 3 (n=3). Only one negotiation-type implicit feedback was
found by T 5 (n=1). Both negotiation episodes occurred in T 3 and T 4 were repetition-
type. For T 2, two negotiation episode arose in the form of clarification request phrase
(e.g., T: Uh? beg your pardon?) and one episode in repetition-type (T: Sirsty?). Explicit
feedback arose only from T 2 (n=2), one incidence of which occurred in reaction to a

pronunciation error and one in reaction to a student’s false start.

Feedback given in NL

Table 5 shows the total amount of NL feedback by each teacher (the amount of TL
feedback was given below as well to compare).23 No feedback in the NL was found from

T 1. However, all the other teachers resorted to NL for feedback in varying degrees.

 

23 NL feedback was not broken down into smaller categories. The reason given was that using Ll already
entailed explicimess (functioning similar to explicit feedback in TL). Thus it was not necessary to break it
down, based on implicitness/explicitness (although some NL feedback were more explicit (e.g., direct
statement) than others (e.g., question form)).

46

Table 5. Feedback in N L vs. TL

 

High TL user Middle Low TL user

 

T1(n=31) T2(n=18) T3(n=5) T4(n=15) T5(n=4)

 

 

NL feedback 0 (0%) 3 (19%) 2 (40%) 8 (53%) 3 (75%)
TL feedback 31 (100%) 13 (81%) 3 (60%) 7 (47%) l (25%)
Total 31 (100%) 16 (100%) 5 (100%) 15(100%) 4 (100%)
Errors missed n=1 n=7 n=10 n=1 =0

 

 

 

In the case of T 2, the three episodes of NL feedback were the translated-version of her
previous TL feedback. Although the tokens of NL feedback were low (similar with the TL
feedback), the low TL using teachers (T 4 and 5) relied more on the NL than the TL for
feedback. The NL feedback of T 2, 3, 4, and 5 were given in reaction to errors on
pronunciation (T 2) and vocabulary (T 3 and T 5). NL feedback on grammar was
encountered in T 4’s lessons; she did not use any metalinguistic terminology, as seen in

Example 17 below.

 

(Example 17) NL feedback T 4

 

S1: I come to school at - eight ten, o’clock.
T: ‘I come to school at eight ten o’ clock i‘lL‘llQ.
[said, ‘I come to school at eight ten o ’clock']

o’clockg EWIPJ &—I: 31019 [when should we use ‘o ’clock ’?]

 

Previous studies on error correction have reported that teachers are inconsistent in
their error treatment (Ellis, 1990). In this study too, not all the errors were treated by the

teachers; most were treated though, except by T 3 and T 2. Most of the errors that went

47

untreated were those the teachers did not seem to recognize as errors (e. g., S: Can I have
some hamburger? T: Can I have some hamburger?)24 A few errors were made by the
students because the teacher had unknowingly taught the class to make them (e. g., T:

Sorry, I don’t have. S: Sorry, I don’t have).

Discussion on TL Feedback Occurred

With respect to the TL feedback that occurred (e.g., error types), this paper will
only focus on T 1, whose classes I found more communicatively-oriented and whose
students were most engaged in the TL. The frequencies of TL feedback by the other
teachers seemed to be too low to discuss any patterns of TL feedback. Remember that the
amount shown in Table 1 is the sum for 3 lessons.

For the 4 teachers’ classes, more was needed than just a statement of what
occurred; the issue that has to be addressed is why so little TL feedback occurred. This
matter will be dealt with in answering the second research question (i.e., what are
identifiable factors affecting the occurrence of TL feedback?)

The amount of TL feedback from T 2 (n=13) was higher than that from three of
the other teachers (T 3, T 4, and T 5). However, the difference between T 2 and T 1
(n=31) is greater than that any between T 2 and the other 3 teachers (i.e., the amount of T
2’s TL feedback is closer to the other lower occurrence group). Despite the fact that she
used more TL than the 3 teachers, T 2’s overall interaction patterns and teaching approach
were much closer to T 3, 4, and 5 than T 1. Therefore, this paper will consider T 2’s class

a lower TL feedback groups. A description of the other teachers’ feedback description and

‘

2‘ The lesson was about asking for food (i.e., a hamburger/hamburgers, not meat from the butchers).
Another example: (S : Can I have some sandwich? T : I’m thirty or I’m hungry? S : I’m hungry. T : good
job.)

 

48

some of their recall comments can be found in Appendix F.

Teacher 1

T 1 implemented meaning-oriented activities (e.g., guessing the price) in which
individual students could participate freely (rather than being called on) using the TL
points. Her implicit feedback occurred during such activities, and also in listening
activities (e. g., T: Ok, tell me what you heard!) Linguistic targets of her TL feedback
were mostly grammar (e. g., S: It’s egg. T: Yes. it’s an egg. Do you like egg?) and
pronunciation. Some episodes arose in reaction to lexical errors (e.g., T: How’s the
weather? 81: It’s sunny! 82: It’s cloudy! T: It’s CLOUDY [in one of the routines —
exchanging weather information at the beginning of the lessons]).25 Table 6 shows the
number of individual students’ turns, errors, and instances of feedback given by the
teacher.

Table 6. T 1: Individual Students’ TL Turns, Errors, Feedback, Errors Untreated

 

 

Student turns (S) in TL Errors Implicit feedback Errors untreated
L 1 (5/27) 24 (guessing the price) 16 16
3 (reading sentences) 0 -
L 2 (6/10) 21 (guessing the food) 7 7
L 3 (6/ 10) 23 (listening elicitation) 9 8 1
26 (alphabet hangrnan) 0 -
7 (read my lips) 0 -
Total 104 32 31

 

 

2’ One may argue that the function of the teacher’s feedback in this episode is closer to positive
reinforcement, confirming S 2’s response was correct. However, the teacher’s reaction arose with additional
facial signals and exaggerated mouth movement. Her reaction serves as positive feedback to S 2’s utterance,
but at the same time it also functions as corrective feedback to 8 1’5 utterance. S 1’s and S 2’s utterances
occurred almost simultaneously.

49

The example below is a guessing activity where recasts on pronunciation occurred
most. Individual students are participating to “win” the game against the teacher by

telling what food she has. The focus here was pronunciation of vocabulary - food nouns.

 

(Example 18) (T - 1) SR comments

 

S 1: I’m hungry. Can I have some /e-g-s/? Tl: I didn i find any grammar errors by
T: Sorry, I don’t have eggs. students here; The expressions were simple.
What I was focusing on here was vocabulary

S 2: I’m hungry- hungry. Can I have some, and I was especially looking at their

some /pija/? pronunciation and accent. Even though they
T: Sorry, I don’t have /pitsa/ know the word, pronouncing the words
clearly is another story. ‘I ’m, ' ‘H UNGry, ' ‘r-
S 3: Can I have some--/bre- bred/? rice, ' ‘bRead these look simple but still
T: Sorry, I don’t have bread. dzflicult for them... I do look at

pronunciation a lot, but I don ’t necessarily
((The game continues)) point out the pronunciation problems
explicitly during the activities. I exaggerate

my mouth a lot to model instead.

 

No explicit feedback was used in reaction to individual students’ errors, nor was
any NL feedback. This might lead one to the impression that T 1 only focused on fluency
at the expense of accuracy, which was not the case. Common grammar errors that
occurred during such games (e. g., the plural —s that occurred during the guessing the
price game) were revisited at the end of the lesson; she used picture flash cards on the
board and had a focused practice as a class. She also had a short time at the end of the
lesson on asking for food explaining the grammar point on plural —s after certain food
items (e.g., T: Look! DUI—s g 33. EOI-f-IOEIXIRI Sail—16% some EELIDI; E‘QHEXI gala

gUiHJIE-EJHQJXI $3H9Xl Some hamburgers. BBL juice6LilwaterE? {21-453 @1019. :lEHkl

50

043 IONS-Sg- EON Sig—Ill Juice, water, chicken. [Look! We must put —s here, right?
because he said SOME. We don ’t know how many; one hamburger; or two hamburgers.
SOME hamburgerS. Then, juice and water? we can I count. So no —s after these words
like juice, water; chicken. ] ).

One thing to note is that, in T 1’s class, after the class, each student was given a
short conversation time with the teacher one-on-one, which they called “pass-word
game.” All the students lined up, and each student had to talk with the teacher using 2-3
expressions based on what they had learned. There, the teacher used a more variety of

difierent feedback types including ones that were more explicit.

2.2. Factors Affecting the Occurrence of TL Feedback (Research Question 2)

In order to answer the second research question, “What are some of the
identifiable factors affecting the occurrence of TL feedback?”, this study first looked at
what the similarities and differences were across the teachers, especially between the high
TL feedback classes (T1) and the low TL feedback classes (T 2, 3, 4, 5). At the surface-
level, the following features were noticeable.

1) There were more choral responses than individual student responses, in most classes
except in T 2’s (i.e., T l, T 3, T 4, T 5).
2) Most of the individual students’ turns contained little potential for TL errors, especially
in T 2, 3, 4, and T 5’s classes, for one or more of the following reasons:
A. Students’ utterances were based on rote performance (memorization), especially
in T 2 and T 4’s classes; hesitation were observed but not many errors.

B. Students produced much of their NL in response to teacher’s questions.

51

C. Students were often fed the lines, thus many of their turns consisted of one word

only.

D. Students’ utterances were often interrupted by the teacher because of the teachers’

tendency toward over-correction.

Based on the features illustrated above, and taking into consideration the issues related to

the teachers’ language use, the factors affecting the occurrence of TL feedback were

identified as seen in Table 7.26

Table 7. Factors Affecting the Occurrence of TL Feedback

(Commons and Differences between High vs. Low TL Feedback Teachers)

 

Factors

Tl

Low TL Feedback teachers

 

A. General factors

(applying to most classes)

More teacher-to-many than teacher-to-one interaction

9Choral feedback

0 Communicative drills

o Repetition, pattern
drills

 

Teacher-specific factors
B. TL use by teachers:

Medium of instruction

C. Teaching approaches!
methodology used

0 TL as the medium
-) Feedback in TL

Opportunities for students

to make errors

 

2° The above factors identified are of course not mutually exclusive.

52

- NL as the medium
'9 Feedback in NL

Little opportunity for

learners to make errors

1) TL activities 0 Teacher implemented 0 Teachers implemented

communicative TL few/no TL activities
activity -> Heavy drills & rote
memory
2) Eliciting technique 0 Teacher elicits TL points 0 Teachers elicit
-) TL used by students translation
-) NL used by students
3) Reactive patterns 0 Allows variation 0 Allows little variation

-) Filling-in

-) Over-correction

 

It should be noted that, for different teachers, different factors played more of a
role in determining the results of TL feedback. To capture the differences, as well as to
have a better picture of class interaction overall, post-hoc analysis were done:
quantitative counts of the distribution of the students’ turns according to their languages
(NL vs. TL) and according to the interaction patterns (choral responses [SSS] vs.
individual responses [8]). Students’ TL turns were then subdivided by the nature of the
responses (Negotiated [N] vs. Non-Negotiated [NN]).27

The terms, negotiated/non-negotiated, in this study were used as a convenient

device to distinguish between plain drills (i.e., repetition, translation, rote memorization)

 

‘7 The following turns were excluded: Students’ turns where they repeat after the CD or singing songs.
Short turns were also excluded such as the followings: “yes/ no,” names of students/ groups, requesting for
participation (“Me! Me!”), roaring, turns with no prominence - such as “I got it”. Student-generated
questions or requests were also excluded (e.g., asking about the activity procedures).

53

and responses that occurred during less controlled, open questions.28 Table 8 provides a

more detailed overview of the fimctions of TL/NL turns by the students. Non-negotiated

(NN) TL turns included repetition, translation, reading out sentences, and rote

performance. Negotiated (N) TL turns, on the other hand, included those generated

during meaning-based activities where meaning was the primary focus. There was no

need to break down the students’ NL turns; they were all negotiated (e. g., definition,

responding to listening comprehension questions). Choral responses which occurred in a

more conversational style (e. g., communicative drills) were considered negotiated

responses.

Table 8. Functions of Students’ TL/N L Use During Teacher-Fronted Lessons

 

NL
Negotiated turns

TL

Negotiated turns

Non-Negotiated turns

 

- Listening comprehension
exchanges in NL

- NL responses on
activity procedures

- Word definition in NL

- Translations into NL

 

- Meaning—based activities
(e. g., guessing games)

- Vocabulary activities
(communicative-drills)

- TL responses to the

teachers’ questions in TL

 

- Repetition of single
vocabulary word item

- Rote performance at the
sentence level

- Reading TL sentences

- One word TL responses

- Translations into TL

 

 

2" Gass and Varonis (1991) defined negotiated exchanges as ones which include routines or exchanges that
involve indications of non-understanding and subsequent negotiations of meaning (p.127; cited in Boulima,
1999, p. 1). Following this definition in his study of negotiated interaction in English classes in Morocco,
Boulirrra (1999) operationalized a negotiated interaction as one which violates the basic functional structure
of teaching exchanges (i.e., IRE) (p.4). However, the type of complex negotiated exchanges Boulima refers
to (i.e., violating IRE) were rare in the data of this study, since the teachers had great control over the
students’ responses/participation. For the purposes of this study, the term ‘negotiated interaction’ takes not
only the kind of exchange that would be called a negotiated interaction in previous studies, but also ones
that occur during IRE exchanges (i.e., responses from students that have the potential for negotiation).

54

Table 9 shows the quantitative results. Note that the students’ turns in this table

are not the amount of their TL/NL use.29

Table 9. Distribution of Students’ 'Iurns

 

NL TL

 

Total SSS S SSS S

 

Turns N N NN N NN N

 

T1 279 0(0%) 2(1%) 46(16%) 129 (46%) 3(1%) 101(36%)
T2 193 7(4%) 26(13%) 58 (30%) 0 (0%) 83 (43%) 19(10%)
T3 201 20(10%) 28(14%) 96 (48%) 7 (3%) 24(12%) 26(l3%)
T4 376 32 (9%) 14(4%) 200 (53%) 0 (0%) 130 (35%) 0(0%)

T5 185 11(6%) 27(15%) 114(62%) 16 (9%) 11(6%) 6(3%)

 

 

 

As seen in Table 9, different factors were more noticeable in certain teachers. For
example, the prominence of choral response that is seen in most of the teachers was
extremely dominant in T 5’s lessons; almost 90 % of her students’ TL turns were choral
rather than individual (i.e., SSS:S = 130:17 = 88 %:12 %). Also, the individual students
in T 2 and T 4’s classes were much more engaged in much more non-negotiated TL
production (i.e., rote memorization and repetition) than negotiated.

In the following sections the factors will be discussed one by one, accompanied
by the results of the quantitative analysis of student turns, broken down along the lines of

the discussion point.

 

‘9 Even so, it may be worth noting that the TL choral turns (i.e., SSS) were mostly a single word-level de-
contextualized repetition in the classes of T 2, T 3, T 4, and T 5. Individual students’ NL turns particularly
in T 5’s classes were at the short paragraph’s level.

55

Discussion
1. General factor: More teacher-to-rnan y than teacher-to-one interaction

Table 10 shows the average ratio of the TL turns by choral response (SSS) to
individual student responses (S) during teacher-fionted lessons: the data are drawn from
Table 8. As seen in Table 10, in all teachers’ classes, except T 2’s, there was more
interaction between the teacher and the students as a class/ group than interaction between
the teacher and individual students. Consequently, there were more chances for choral

feedback to occur than individual-based feedback.

Table 10. Ratio of Student TL 'llurns: SSS vs. S

 

 

 

TL
SSS: S (%) SSS: S (raw amount)
T l 63% : 37% (l75:104=279)
T 2 36% : 64% (58:102=160)
T 3 67% : 33% (103:50=153)
T 4 61% : 39% (200:130=330)
T 5 88%: 12% (130:l7=147)

 

Undoubtedly, the problem of large classes is the major constraint on more
frequent one-to—one interaction.30 This holds true particularly in T 1’s lessons, as she
commented during SR that large class size limited her individual interactions with

students. The pass-word game was meant to provide one-on—one input to students in T 1’s

 

30 This does not mean that small classes will lead automatically to more one-to-one interaction and
feedback. (I thank Dr. Susan Gass for making the point that the class size by itself can not be the cause of a
lack of interaction.) As found in the study by Mackey et a1. (2004), teacher variables such as experience
may be even more important factors. The argument just stated is not meant to imply that large class sizes
cause the lack of one-on-one interaction and feedback. Rather it is based on comments from teachers in this
study; the quantification of student TL turns by SSS and S were presented to provide the general picture of
classroom interaction.

56

class.

Differences in the nature of such teacher-to-many interaction were observed

between T 1’s classes and those of the others. While T 1 interacted with her class in a

more communicative way, the other teachers did so in a very audio-lingual way; the

comparison in Example 14 illustrates the disparity in the teachers’ approaches.

 

(Example 19)

 

Drill practice on vocabulary

 

<T 1> Communicative drills (6/ 10)

<1” 2> Non-communicative drills (6/9)

 

T: ((Pointing the pictures on the board))
Ok, let’s review, lesson six. Do you
remember this? What’s this?

SSS: juice//ju-sseu

T: Tomato juice? Apple juice? Orange

juice?

SSS: Orange juice.

T: What’s this?

SSS: It’s pizzal/pizza.

T: Do you like PIZZA?

SSS: Yes-! !! // I like pizza.

T: ME, TOO! I like PIZZA. What’s this?

SSS: It’s~hamburger // hamburger.

T: I like HAMburgers. How about you?

SSS: I don’t like // I like

T: What’s this?

SSS: rice//rice//

T: Do you like RICE?

SSS: yes~!

T: I do too. I love~ RIce. Ok, RIce. It’s

very very delicious. Ok, what’s this?

 

T: Ok, let’s see the vocabulary. Repeat
after me. Sandwich!

SSS: Sandwich!

T: Sandwich!

SSS: Sandwich!

T: Don’t say SAN-DU-WI-CHI.
Say SAN dwich.

SSS: sandwich

T: sandwich

SSS: sandwich

T: hamburger

SSS: hamburger

T: hamburger

SSS: hamburger

T: coke

SSS: coke

T: coke

SSS: coke

T: egg

SSS: egg

T: orange juice

 

57

 

SSS: eg—//egg. It’s egg. SSS: orange juice

T: Yes, it’s an egg. Do you like egg? T: It’s not the o-lan-ji-ju-ssu. Orange juice
SSS: yes// SSS: orange juice

T: orange juice '

SSS : orange juice

 

 

Table 11 below shows the ratio of negotiated vs. non-negotiated TL choral
responses (i.e., SSS) in each teacher’s classes. Most of the student responses found were

based on repetition of one word or phrases/expressions in the 4 teachers lessons.

Table 11. Ratio of Negotiated vs. Non-Negotiated TL Choral Responses

 

 

 

TL by SSS
NN: N (%) NN: N (raw amount)
T 1 26% : 74% (46:129=l75)
T 2 100%: 0% (58:0=58)
T 3 93% : 7% (96:7=103)
T 4 100% : 0% (200:0=200)
T 5 88%: 12% (114:16=l30)

 

Pattern drills or simple repetition type practices may be a necessary component of
background building, particularly for beginner-level learners. However, a problem
observed in this study was that the students were already getting this type of practice
regularly - repeating after the CD in every single lesson. (Recall that the students’ turns in

the above analysis do not include repetitions they made after CD.)

58

Teacher-Specific Factors
2.11. use by the mm

The teachers’ medium of instruction was a determining factor that affected the
frequency of TL feedback, as well as overall class interaction, which in turn affected TL
use by the students. The results of the preliminary study of the teachers’ TL/NL use (i.e.,
the amount, fimctions, reasons for their language choice) have already been presented,
along with examples of the impact a teacher’s recourse to NL has (seen in Example 12).
With respect to the relationship between the teachers’ medium of instruction and the
frequency of TL feedback, T 2’s decision to stay with the TL most of the time led her to
have a relatively higher amount of TL feedback than the other three teachers who
maintained NL instead (i.e., T 3, 4, 5). T 2 rationalized her NL use for feedback by
explaining that she corrects students’ pronunciation explicitly. Through the NL version
provided in her correction, more students would realize what the pronunciation errors
were (e.g., English ‘th’ sounds). With T 3, 4, and 5, since Korean was their language of
instruction, their reasons for choosing the NL as a vehicle for their feedback were no
different from their reasons for TL/N L use in general; using Korean for feedback was

taken for granted.

2. Methodology-Related Factors: Little opportunities for students to produce TL errors

 

With the teacher’s language use as a factor affecting the occurrence of TL
feedback, the most problematic findings from the observation of these classes is that
individual students in T 2, T 3, T 4 and T 5 were given little opportunity to produce TL

errors! (Note that the frequencies of feedback, including that given in the NL, still

59

showed a difference between T l [n=31] and the other teachers [n = ranging from 4 to
16]). The three most apparent factors related to students’ opportunities to use TL were:
(1) Implementation of TL activity
(2) Techniques of eliciting students’ knowledge (i.e., students’ use of TL vs. NL)
(3) Reactive patterns (i.e., TL exchanges that were excluded from feedback)
3. filling-in-the-gaps
b. over-correction
The above elements characterize the basic differences between T l and the other teachers,
which in part explain the low fi'equencies of TL feedback for T2, T3, T4, and T5. The
discussion will start first with the first factor in the above list - implementation of TL

activities.

2.1 Im lementation of TL activities: meanin -based vs. drills/rote memorization

   

The teacher’s ability to design TL tasks during teacher-fronted lessons was one of
the significant differences between T l and the others. While T l implemented tasks in
which the students could participate individually, using the TL without fear of making
errors (e. g, guessing activities), the other teachers did not. 3 ’ This is true particularly in
the case of T 2 and T 4, who often spent class time having individual students stand up
and perform (i.e., calling on them individually). Their teaching methods relied heavily on
the following practices: mechanical drills, rote memorization, and asking questions for
TL translation. All the students in their classes needed to do was repeat after the teacher

(or the CD), or perform English phrases and sentences they had memorized.

 

3 ' There were a few activities in the other teachers’ classes such as bingo or TPR; these did not require
much student’ speaking.

6O

Consequently, the students’ utterances in their classes did not contain many grammar
errors. Rather, difficulties arose when students could not memorize the TL in question,
and thus hesitated or spoke slowly (the students’ hesitation was not considered an error).
Often it was my impression that the students were under pressure to produce exactly, and
only, what their teachers expected.

Oliver and Mackey (2003) reported that among the different classroom contexts,
errors occurred most when the focus of activity was meaning-based communication (e.g.,
the teacher asks open-ended questions). This risky kind of activity (fiom the point of
view of making errors) pays off in that it provides many opportunities for feedback to
occur. 32 Oliver and Mackey suggested that the high occurrence of errors in
communication exchanges supports Tarone’s (1979) claim that errors are likely to occur
more when the primary attention is put towards conveying meaning (cited in Oliver &
Mackey, 2003, p. 529). Along the same lines as Oliver and Mackey’s (2003) finding is
the observation in this study that students in the classes where the teacher implemented
meaning-based activities had more chances of making errors than those in the more

traditional type of class. The teachers rationalize their styles as follows.

 

(Example 20)

 

T2 T4

 

T: Now, look at the board. Is there any T: Ok, starting now, you as a pair will stand
volunteer? Is there any volunteer? up and perform the patterns we 've learned so
Ok, you stand up! Look at the board. far. One person asks first “what time do

If, look at the board. Read it please. you~? " If you want to ask the same question,

 

 

’2 However, they report that the percentage-wise, the provision of feedback was the highest in two other
contexts (i.e., explicit language focused and content), not communication. Then again, although the
percentage was low, the raw number of feedback given in communication exchanges was still the second
highest.

61

 

S:

T: Can I? I am?

S: ...I’m hungry?

T: Stay stand up. %Aikl 311(23th
[stay stand up] It, I! stand up please.
Is anybody want— wants to talk? Ok,
you, you A, you B. Start.

S 1: I’m hungry. Can I have some X?

S 2: Sure, here you are.

ask “how about you? ” or “what about you? "
If you want to ask a diflerent question, ask
“what time do you do your homework? " for
example. Try to ask diflerent questions each
time, though. [instruction continues...]

T: Stand up!

S 1: What time do you go to bed?

S 2: I go to bed at twelve o’clock.

S 1: what time~

 

S 1: Thank you. T: EOIQOIXHYou should ask]
T: Great. S 2: how about you?
S l: I go to bed at nine-thirty.
Q: You use English a lot. 9 I expected them to use drflerent

91 guess around 6:4 or 7:3? I use
Korean especially when I scold them. I
use English a lot but my teaching style is

quite Korean... very strict.

Q: Why? On purpose?

9 Yes. 2 hours per week is too short to
reach the lesson objectives. Otherwise
they wouldn 1 learn as much as is in the
textbooks during the limited time. To do
so, I have to be strict. If I 'm not, I have

hard time in the following class.

expressions, like... If one says “what time do
you get up? " then the other says “what time
do you have breakfast? ” But they mostly used
what Is in the main dialogue (i.e., they would
re-use “What about you?” as an answer
repeatedly).

Q: You particularly seem to concentrate on
individualized rote performance?

9 The students don ’t have chances to speak
English outside. I want them to have a chance
to speak out at least one sentence before they
leave the class. A drawback is sometimes it Is
boring, but it is still better than just winding
up listening to the CD.

 

62

2.2 Ne otiation in NL? —Teachers’ elicitin techni ues

   

Related to the techniques a teacher could use for implementing meaning-based
activities is another observation taken from this study - that the teachers often asked
questions which actually promoted the students’ use of the NL.

Van Lier (1988b) noted that the teacher’s questioning is the most common speech
act in all classrooms (p. 274). What this implies is that, depending on how the teacher
elicits students’ knowledge of content or understanding, the students either have a chance
or have NO CHANCE to speak the TL. Of course, an effective teacher would want the
students to engage in using the TL as much as possible, because it would be waste time if
the students had to translate into the NL instead.

In the classes observed, questioning by the teacher was indeed the main discourse
act used to keep the class moving. It quickly became apparent in observations of T1 ’5
class that she used her questions effectively (keeping them very short), in such a way that
the students had to respond in the TL. The other teachers used questions the opposite
way; the students had to use the NL. The functions of the individual students’ NL
responses include responses to:

o listening comprehension questions (Example 21-2)
0 giving the meaning of TL words (e.g., T: Bread, what does it mean? S: @[bread])
0 responding to managerial questions including activity procedures
(e.g., T: 3519173 9.1010511? [How many cards do you need to have?]
S1: 63:? [Six]
T: 91531221253"? [How many?]

82: 653109! [sixl-polite ending marker]).

63

o answering to review questions

(e. g., T: 6m0flkl IIBDIII GE 3‘! Um? [What did we learn in Lesson six?]

S 1: HHDEECHhungry] T: UHflECHhungry]
S 2: EUELchirsty] T: gUEUflhirsty]
S 3: $125:- EF-kllgkan I have some~?] T: 533% zit-kllflkan I have some~?]

S 4: 9.1—). éz'Cl [I want some-] T: %QUU want some]. . .)

Table 12 shows the ratio of NL vs. TL individual student turns that occurred during

negotiated exchanges with the teachers.

Table 12. Ratio of NL vs. TL Negotiated Individual Student (S) ‘Itrrns

 

S - Negotiated

 

 

NL : TL (%) NL : TL (raw amount)
T l 2 % : 98% (2:101:103)
T 2 58%: 42% (26:19:45)
T 3 52% : 48% (28:26=54)
T4 100% : 0% (14:0=14)
T 5 82% : 18% (27:6=33)

 

As seen in Table 12, in T 1’s lessons, in only two questions did she ask for

translations of what an expression meant (Example 21-1). In the other teachers’ classes,

there were many more questions eliciting the students’ response in which they would

have to use the NL.

the most common activities seen in all of the classes.

Compare the following two excerpts from a listening activity which was one of

33

 

’3 As mentioned previously in the section of Teaching Context, the state curriculum puts great emphasis on

64

 

(Example 21)

Example Listening comprehension checking

 

<CD dialogue>

Nami: Can I have some?

Nami: Mom, I’m home.

Mother: I’m making sandwiches

Mother: Sure, here you are.

Nami: hum, it’s delicious. Thanks mom.

 

(Example 21- 1) T 1

(Example 21 - 2) r 3

 

T: Ok, tell me what heard. ((T walks
around the class to give a point mark to
those who participated))

81: Thank you mom.

T: Thank you mom. THANKS Mom.

THANKS mom. Thanks mom

((gesture)) =

S2:=Can I have some?

T: Can I have some? Can I have some?
Can I have some? 2:5:- CA’OIE Emmi?
[Can I have some?]

S3:= Here you are.

T: Here you are! Here you are. ((gesture))

S4: I’m hungry.

T: I’m HUNGRY. I’m HUNGRY.

((gesture))

SS: It’s delicious.

T: Oh, deLIcious. It’s deLIcious.

((gesture))

S6: Sure.

S7: I’m making sandwich.

T: Yeh! I’m making SANDwiches. I’m
making SANDwiches. What does it

 

T: It, (Hill/H $093 310159, ”5’5!th
[Where is Namhi coming back from ?]

SSS: {301in // ’él [home // home]

T: If, Elli—11.01% 7.3% $012153",

%0 lélEil OISE 011.7 ISIE rig-DI? [0k,
she came home from school. What can she
say?]

SSS: wil $kllR// It $019”

[Sandwich please//I ’m home]
T: ‘Mom, I’m home.’ CPEIOI
[Repeat after me] ‘Mom, I’m home.’
SSS: ‘Mom, I’m home.’
T: IE} 01‘?! ’cs’EHOIlEZ’
[How is Nami feeling now?]

SSS: UHEIHR [SheIs hungry]

T: Oh, I’m hungry. DIE, $013} 53%;—
ELD 31me [What was her mom doing
then ?]

SSS: éflSfliV/LHE-‘r’iil 9%019.

[Sandwich// She Is making sandwiches]

T: I’m MAKING?

S: 819470!

T: Sandwich. If, Jail/xi %‘DDlEPéOl-f-E

 

 

listening skills (as well as oral skills). Thus, listening comprehension activity took a large portion of the
lessons. The curriculum is largely influenced by Krashen’s input hypothesis and natural approach, which
emphasizes heavy listening comprehension skills but not necessarily speaking.

65

 

mean in Korean?

SS: "JE-‘r’iilg‘ BED (RU. [I ’m making

sandwiches]

T: That’s right! Oh, you missed ONE
sentence. You missed ONE sentence.
((gesture))

SSS: One more time! // CMIE’E’J //One

more time! [one more time!]

T: Ok, listen one more time. You missed
ONE sentence. Listen, listen.

((gesture)) ((the activity continues))

’LlEf—lil-S- @0135 3&1 £150 REE

CINE—3% 50-123., LEON .Lxgfil 8L2
5112321018. JEiLlDlListen carefully.

[Ok, so the scene was about Nami Is trying
the sandwiches. LetIs listen again. Then we

will repeat after it, so Listen carefully]

((After playing the CD))
T: LHEOI %‘é‘fil {519. It’s easy, 31137
[It was very easy to understand, right?]

Let’s listen and repeat.

 

Q: You don’t really ask questions that
they should reply to in Korean.
9 Having them translate is not
encouraged. I don ’t usually do so.
Sometimes you make an on-the-spot
decision for giving the Korean meaning of
a certain English expression. In that case,
I quickly say it and move on, instead of
stopping the class and asking them to
translate. Keeping the flow of the lesson

in the TL is important.

 

Q: What do you think of your students’
listening skills?

9 In terms of listening, most of them are
really good, for better than when we learned
English. Many of them go to private institute
after class.

Q: Is there any reason you elicit them in
Korean?

9 Some students would not understand...

and I don ’t think I can ask in English.

 

As seen in the examples above, T 1’s elicitation technique is effective in that the

students had to speak in the TL to express their understanding. Some errors in different

areas occurred, and the teacher recast (e. g., sandwich 9 sandwiches). In T 3’s class, on

the other hand, the teacher elicited the students’ comprehension by having them answer in

the NL. She became the one who was really using the target expressions. Compared to

the students in T l’s class, the students in T 3’s were missing out on opportunities to

66

speak the TL based on what they had understood.

It was not my impression at all that students in T 3 ’8 class were less proficient

than those in T 1’s; many of the students seemed to know the content of the CD dialogue

already. As a matter of fact, T 3 herself commented (during SR) that most of her students

9

listening skills were quite “impressive,” partly because most of them took English

tutoring privately after class. Is it truly necessary, then, to have the students to translate

what they understood back into the NL? What the students are really missing is the

chance to produce TL output, rather than just repeating after the teacher.

(Example 21- 2): this type of class interaction seemed preferable to the listening

elicitation and word meaning questions, which were done frequently - completely in the

NL - in two of the other teachers’ lessons (Example 22).

 

(Example 22) - Listening comprehension

T5

 

T: ((after playing the CD)) Ok, S!

S 1: 590129.319qu 5’33, 2%
%fiEEHE?

T: 33:19.

S 1: JEILIDIQ, L‘lLil OlflHl-‘i’4'51AILI ELIDIQ,
$3| OHIHIE E’QOIOI. LiLil OHIHI—L’:
%SWLI? UIE’DI FAAlOt

T: 2 931018. E E§6H§Al§2 EEWE
APE"? %Eé‘fiHEIt

S 2: $58-23 SEE/s1 233:!- Lc'lIlOlODlXDILiI
OllltlDl %E‘Olafll 0le 010 IE- Lléoll 39
g’é‘Ol Eli/8111313137, ‘a’XlOlOIEQ, 3
0111 01001 Olfllll flag-LI DEIDRE],
UIEiDI 2.9-EAR! 331L171! L120" 3%!
UIE’DI ENDIEIEQGDIIEI

9 “I learned from my professors in
graduate studies, who had been
influenced by theories of Krashen Is,
like the natural approach,
comprehensible input, aflectivefilter;
T PR, etc. I ’m quite influenced by
such comprehension-based teaching
approaches. We learned that these
theories were quite important. So,
even if my students can 't verbalize, I
have them explain first in Korean
what they understood. Then, tell them
listen again and find one expression,

like “I want to be- ” here... ”

 

67

 

Li’rgOI‘leiQ.

 

[Translation]

81: I will present. Teacher; is it ok if my answer is not completely correct?

T: Sure.

S: What happened was, the girl asked ‘What does your father do? ’then the boy said
‘My father is a police oflicer. ’ ‘What does your father do? ’ ‘He is a pilot. '

T: Oh, that Is right. Who else? Who wants to add more? Let S ((S2)) try.

82: Looking at the picture of a police oflicer- the boy said his father was a police officer;

and the girl said she wanted to be a police oflicer in the future. The boy asked what

her father did. She said ‘Pilot. 'Then he said he wanted to be a pilot. That was what

the story was about.

 

2.3 Teachers’ reactive atterns xcluded exchan es from TL feedback

The last discussion point, representing another explanation for the low frequency
of TL feedback, concerns two features of the teachers’ reactive moves: the fill-in-the-
blank type elicitation and over-correction. These arose particularly in T 2 and T 3’s
classes, and were not counted as feedback episodes unless the student actually made an
error (there was one case in T 2’s class where a student had a completely false start, and
the teacher used filling-in-the-blank type elicitation; this was counted as explicit

feedback).

2.3.1) “Filling-in-the-blank” - Missing opportunities for negotiation
The following occasions were examples of filling-in-the-blank type exchanges:
i) Type A: The teacher completes the TL by interrupting the student’s utterance (Example

23-1) or giving the correct answer (Example 23-2)

68

 

(Example 23-1) - T 3

(Example 23-2) - T 2, T 4

 

T: Xi, OIEECHLDI 9J2)?“ 91.19.1513! 312ml EEOI
IE} DIE] 31 DE’OHRI [Ok, the lady is eating
a hamburger: What does the cat want?]

S: an 928 .373 [he wants to eat something]

T: XI, § 913. él'ca—DDI? [What does he want to eat?]

SSS: QUID‘I [a hamburger]

T: @5131? Oi, 6% Elm gill QIOIQ. [a
hamburger? Yes. His paws are reaching for
the hamburger] :IEJC'II- CHE Ilg- 31ng
@3131 %:OIEJILI E'éOIEII—I? [Then, does the cat
like hamburgers or not?]

S: EI§OI3IIE [no, it doesn ’t]

T: IE} SCI DIE 31 DE’ECII OiE-DII PE
8E Elli? [The cat looks thirsty. What
can it say?]=

S: =I’m:=

T: =I’m thirsty. I’m thirsty.

ODI jt—.”0|| 21591 ED 8401211 AP-‘I!
[let Is read what Is in the book Start!]

(T 2)

S: I, want, some,

T: I want some spaghetti.

S: I want some spaghetti.

T: Right! I want some spaghetti.
Good job.

(T4)
8 l: I come to school...at. . .eight,
T : Ten. Ill-%- [next]

S 2: I get home, seven o’clock,

uh. . .and study English.

 

 

ii) Type B: The teacher interrupts the student’s half-done sentence by eliciting the

completion (e. g., having the student fill in the last word) (Example 24)

 

(Example 24-1) T 3

(Example 24-2) T 2

 

T: J, ZIIIBIOIUH OIDIEH ERIE. [.I, you try]!
I’m hungry? Or I’m thirsty?

S: I’m hungry.

T: I’m hungry? :IE' OIDIEH ERIE

[Then, ask me] Can I have some?

 

T: ((holding up a picture)) Look at me.
What do Iwant? -- I’m?

S: I’m hungry, I, want some, chi-X.

T: I want some?

8: Chicken

 

69

 

S 1: Can I have some» hamburgers?

T: hamburger? No, I’m sorry, I don’t have S:
hamburgers.((pointing S 2)) T: he wants some?
S 2: Can I have some= S: He wants some bread.
T: =I’m? T: Right! He wants some bread.
S: I’m hungry.
T: hungry?

S: Can I have some pizza?

T: pizza? Sorry, I don’t have pizza.

 

9 In case the students couldn 't say it well, 9 I tend to elicit the student '5'
feeling embarrassed ...to encourage, to help.. response this way, especially if the

student is at the lower-level.

 

 

Walsh (2002) notes that teachers’ turn-completion is problematic because it
minimizes students’ opportunities to reforrnulate their utterances (i.e., to negotiate
meaning/form). He further argues:

“The teacher’s intentions may well be justified: there are other learners

waiting to speak, for example, or she needs to move on to the next phase of

the lesson. Nonetheless, she may be doing the learner a disservice as there is

no negotiation of meaning, no need for clarification, no confirmation checks.

There is a sense of the learner being ‘fed the lines’ instead of being allowed

time and space to formulate her response” (p. 16 [italics added]).
The teachers in this study had their reasons for filling in. They said they tended to do so
particularly when the student called upon was less proficient than others (Example 24 - 2),
sometimes because of time constraints (Example 23 -1), and at other times out of their
great consideration for the student on the spot (just in case the student failed to do what
they were asked) (Example 24 - 1). However, this filling-in-the-blanks strategy seemed to

be almost a habit, with the unspoken assumption being that it w only the teacher who

was capable, or who even had the right to say the complete TL sentence. In Example 23-1,

70

after the class had spent a long time on comprehension-checking exchanges in Korean, a
student finally tried to respond in the TL to the teacher’s question. The teacher did not
wait, taking over the student’s turn to complete instead. Filling-in—the-blank may have
become a crutch, in part, because teachers only partly understand the importance of
negotiation in the process of language acquisition — a point made by Walsh (2002) above,
as well as many other SL researchers (Gass, 1997; Pica, 1989; Polio & Duff, 1994; Swain,
1985, 1995).

As to the question of why filling-in-the-blank was resorted to (especially Type B),
another observation that was made (although the assertion does not sound ethical) was
that the teacher used it particularly when the lessons were not well structured. In other
words, it seemed almost “inevitable” that teachers would need to feed students the lines,
because the students had not been given enough background before they were pushed
into saying things the teacher wanted them to say, into performing. The students did not
appear to know (or at least were not confident that they could say) exactly what the

teacher expected them to. Consider the following (Example 25).

 

 

(Example 25) Filling-in elicitation (+ over-correction) T 2 SR (6/13)
T: Does your mother work? 9 I wanted her to
Sl: No. be able to say using

T: No, she? - No, she? - No, she? — doesn’t. Good. You may sit. more complex
You stand up. What does your, what does your father do? Does expressions, not
your father work? just yes or no.
S: My father is a=
T: =Yes, he? Yes, he? Yes, he does.

S: Yes, he does.

 

In the example above, the teacher was trying to elicit a complete expression when the

71

student responded briefly (i.e., “no”). The teacher later commented that she wanted to
have the student give a response more complex than just “no” (i.e., with a correct use of
pronouns and negation). The fact was that it was the first day of a series of lessons on
asking people about their occupations. After going through the job-related nouns word by
word, the teacher started calling on individual students, asking them whether their parents
worked or not. Many of the students could not meet the teacher’s expectations. The
content they had just learned consisted only of job-related nouns, NOT the pronouns (i.e.,
he vs. she) or the negative forms (does vs. doesn’t) that might accompany a short
dialogue about whether someone works or not. Consequently, the day of that particular
lesson, there were many in the class who were “low proficiency students” from the

teacher’s perspective.

2.3.2) Over-correction

Another problem, which was also excluded from the feedback counts, occurred
when the teacher overcorrected in response to a student’s complete sentence. Over-
correction in this study refers to occasions when the teacher demanded another form in
response to a linguistically appropriate utterance from a student which deviated from the
form the teacher desired. For reasons similar to those for the filling-in-the—blank type
exchanges discussed above, the overcorrecting pattern is problematic; it allows students
little autonomy to create their own sentences — sentences which may well be correct, even
if they are not the answers the answers the teacher expected. It does not credit any answer
which is not what the teacher expects. In this sense, some over-correction episodes

overlap with the filling-in-the-blank type elicitation above (Example 25), since the

72

teachers over-corrected many times using fill-in-the-blank elicitation.

The following is an example of over-correction which took the form of fill-in-the-
blank elicitation, but with yet another problem compounding it. The teacher interrupted
one student in the pair (who were practicing a dialogue standing up before the class)
because S 2 “skipped” a part that the teacher had expected to hear. Through her
interruption, the teacher “succeeded” in having the student say the form she wanted.

However, she “skips” herself, by not providing the right input on S 2’s article errors.

 

 

(Example 26) T 2 SR comments:

S 1: Does your father work? Q: S2 said “a” office worker. Any

S 2: Yes, my father is- a office worker= reason for focusing on “yes, he does,”

T: =Yes, he?- Yes, he? - not correcting his article error?

SS: does... 9 “Almost no student said ‘an 'today.

T: Yes, be? What I wanted them to say was “Does

S 2: yes, he does. your father work? Yes he does, " being

T: Right. Yes, he does. Good. Well done. able to say difl'erent jobs based on this
You may sit. frame. So I interrupted them to use that

phrase”

 

The tendency to over-correct becomes even more problematic when it gets
explicit. In the following example (Example 27), S 1 pronounced the word, water, in a
way that was closer to North American pronunciation (i.e., /wara/) than British. The
teacher had been teaching the British pronunciation, and she points out explicitly. The
teacher’s intention (i.e., telling the students about pronunciation variation) is
understandable (and certainly it is the teacher’s right to choose which errors she corrects).

Nonetheless, her explicit over-correction seemed to confuse the students.

73

 

(Example 27) fill-in elicitation T 2 SR comments:

 

T : What’s that? Q: Any reason for correcting

S1 : It’s some /waro/. the student’s pronunciation?

T : /wara/? /wara/? some /warar/? No. .. 9 “I wanted them to be

S2 : Some milk? familiar with dzflerent

T : No. XI[ok], I told you. I told you, don’t pronounce pronunciation of the
/warar/. /warer/ all 91.3% '52’g5IXI 92ng word ...I don i think it Is good
[I told you not to pronounce it /ware/, right?] for the students to teach

SSS: 01’? [Uh?] only one pronunciation. ”

T: II[ok], Who- who can revise it?

S3: /wata/

T: Right, /wata/

 

3. Conclusion and Implications

Before discussing the conclusions of this thesis, the significance of the teacher’s
role in teacher-fronted lessons should be emphasized again. Walsh (2002) addressed the
importance of teacher-student interaction and the need for the teacher’s awareness of how
to facilitate the negotiation of meaning during teacher-fronted lessons. Supporting his
claim were the findings of Foster’s (1998) study, which looked at learner interactions
during pair/ group work in adult EFL classrooms. Foster reported that there was little
evidence of negotiation for meaning. Such a claim may not mean that pair/small group
work would not work in all the classrooms. The point is that because the teacher can not
always ensure that the students will maintain discourse in the TL, especially in the case
of large classes like the ones observed in this study, the teacher’s strategies to keep

directing the class interaction in such a way as to simulate meaningful communication are

74

indeed important. In this sense, the findings of this study shed light on the teachers’
actual classroom practice during teacher-fronted lessons.

It should be noted that, since this thesis involves a small sample size, it is
problematic to generalize from it about non-native EFL teachers’ language use. However,
several tentative conclusions can be drawn from the study. In response to the first
question, “What amount of TL corrective feedback is found in Korean elementary EFL
classrooms and what type is it?,” the amount and type of TL feedback varied across the
classes, ranging from over 30 episodes for one teacher to a single incident in the total of
the 3 lessons for another. Except for T 1, the frequency of TL feedback was too low to
draw any generalizations about patterns in the type of TL feedback each teacher used. In
T 1’s classes, implicit feedback was used for errors by individual students which occurred
during communicative activities.

To answer the second research question, “What are the identifiable factors
affecting the occurrence of TL feedback?,” this study compared the high TL feedback
teacher (i.e., T1) with the low TL feedback teachers (i.e., the other four). The two major
differences were the teacher’s language of instruction and the teaching methodology used.
Some specific issues related to teaching methodology were whether the teachers
implemented TL activities, and what techniques they used to elicit students’ knowledge.
Based on the observations, tentative conclusions for the observed behaviors can be drawn
as follows.

1) The classes where the highest amount of TL feedback occurred were those
where the teacher implemented meaning-based activities, as well as maintained TL use.

T1, whose class was the most communicatively oriented, implemented activities where

75

individual students could participate in the TL without being pressured to speak in correct
sentences. During those activities, the teacher reacted to student errors using implicit
feedback techniques.

2) In the classes where the teacher depended heavily on traditional methodology
(excessive drills, rote memorization, NL translation), there was little opportunity for
meaningful TL use by individual students. Thus, errors did not occur often, and there was
not much feedback.

3) The way that the teacher elicited students’ knowledge was another factor
affecting the individual students’ language production, and the consequent occurrence of
TL feedback. In the low TL feedback classes, individual students produced as much NL,
if not more, in response to the teacher’s questions. Therefore, meaningful negotiation
occurred more in the NL than in the TL.

4) The teachers’ patterns of filling-in-the-gaps, instead of providing the individual
students opportunities to refonnulate their utterances, was observed in the low TL
feedback teachers’ classes. Along with the teachers’ tendency to fill in, there was the
demand they made of students to produce legitimized TL patterns (i.e., over-correction).
Both of these were identified as other factors affecting the occurrence of TL feedback.

5) Summary of stimulated recall: The above conclusions are based on what was
observed in the classroom. Some of the stimulated recall comments from each teacher
were presented in earlier chapters, along with their classroom practice. The following
section summarizes the voices of the teachers gathered during the stimulated recall. The
summary of the teacher comments which follows is organized under factors related to the

teacher’s educational background, TL proficiency, and other external factors raised by the

76

teachers such as class size/mixed-level, class management etc.
a. Teacher training experience abroad:

T I commented that the experience of taking teacher education programs abroad
helped her teaching of English. Through such programs, she had opportunities both to
observe classes where the medium of instruction was the TL, and to do micro-teachings
in English. She recalled, “In the program in Canada, for example, we observed ESL
classes and French immersion classes. After observing the classes, we also had chances
to try teaching demonstrations in front of the teacher educator there. Then we discussed
each other Is teaching, what was good and what could be improved. It was all in English.”

These experiences were invaluable for her, as she stressed when she said: “You
learn from your own teaching - what works and what doesn ’t work. But I believe
observing different classes teaches you many things that can 't be learned just from your
own teaching. Through observations, you get opportunities to reflect on your own
teaching, and think of how to improve. It was a great learning experience for me to
observe ESL classes and try teaching in English.”

She described some of the teaching methodology programs she attended in
another English-speaking country: “When the lesson was on the ‘opposites, ’for example,
we used real pictures from magazines, pictures that showed the opposite concepts, like
‘ugly, 'then ‘pretty. ’Another thing we did was, we made masks and did a play. Basically,
the methodology there was quite activity-based; a teacher teaches the language by doing
hands-on things together with the students, and we teach words such as making, cutting
off, cutting out, and so on.”

She was impressed with the classroom dynamics she observed; the students

77

participated in class activities with great engagement; “It struck me the way the students
interact with their teachers. Students ’ participation was not like, a teacher says
something and has them repeat after her; or she calls on someone. There were many
students who asked questions of the teacher; and the teachers were able to answer: It was
quite diflerent from our typical classroom dynamics.”

To a question regarding other elements that may have influenced her teaching, T I
noted; “The basic element is, you must love what you are doing - enthusiasm. It Is your
enthusiasm that makes you attend training programs, observe other classes, think of
drfierent activities, look for resources, and so on. In my case, studying child psychology in
a graduate program was of particular help; it taught me to see a child Is perspective.
Besides, I think my personality fits a teaching job too. When I first started teaching
English, I didn i even use a textbook. 1 now reflect that I was quite brave. Fortunately, at
that time, there was an English native-speaking teacher here; I observed her classes
sometimes, and learned a lot.”

b. TL proficiency:

The teachers’ TL proficiency was a common concern for all the teachers
regardless of the amount/type of TL use. For T 2, the issues were related to how to make
the TL comprehensible. As she said, “I have difliculty making my English easier for
students to understand, especially the classroom English you use for management, or
ways to communicate with students more naturally...” In the case of low-TL using
teachers, the issues related to their TL proficiency were more complicated, involving
matters such as concerns about low proficiency students, class management, workload etc.

For T l, a main concern was how to integrate the natural use of TL within an activity.

78

Reflecting on her own experience as a teacher trainer, T 1 made the point that, “Giving
input constantly to students, while having them engaged in real tasks- activities: this is
probably the best way to teach a language, right? But there are many problems in having
such a class. First of all, it is hard to expect teachers to have that much language skill. If
I could, I would love to teach lessons this way. For example, I say what I ’m doing in
English simultaneously with doing it, ‘I’m cutting, I’m pasting, I’m drawing, etc. 'That is
the way English education should aim to go in the future, thoug .”
c. Mixed-level classes, large class sizes, and lower-proficiency students:

The difficulty of teaching mixed-level classes was raised by T 2, T 3, and T 5. T 3
and 5 commented that there was a large gap between low-proficiency students and the
hi gher-proficiency students, and that such gaps were the result of socio-economic
differences among the students. That is, the students whose families could afford private
language schools or private tutors already knew the content of the lessons, while there
were still some students who could not attend a private language school. For T 3 and T 5,
the fact that using English might exclude low-proficiency students was a reason for using
Korean. According to the teachers, the national curriculum provided tasks to help
teachers teaching multi-level classes, but as T 5 commented, “dividing groups of 40
students by their levels and giving them different tasks is diflicult for one teacher to
manage.” T 2 responded that she had similar problems with proficiency gaps among the
students. She had problems keeping the class under control, since there were many
students who went to private schools, and they did not pay attention in this class.
d. Drfliculties specific to homeroom teachers: Workload, keeping student motivation:

T 3 and T 5 had an additional difficulty that is specific to the case of homeroom

79

teachers of the higher grades of elementary school. First of all, since homeroom teachers
teach all subjects, including English, to the same group of students, switching from one
language to the other was not easy. T 5 stated that, “English class comes between two
periods of other subjects. In the previous class, you scold them. Then, in English class, if
the teacher comes in with a lively face, saying ‘Hello everyone! 'they don 'tfollow you. It
does not really matter in lower grades, 3'“ grade classes, but for 6“ graders it matters.” T
3 continued that it was a challenge to keep student motivation up, “Because the students
don 't have the opportunity to use English outside class, our school is even talking about
designating one spot as an ‘English zone ’where students have to speak English. But it Is
not easy for teachers to keep the students in the mood for English even in the classroom.
For example, when I use the word ‘Attention! ’in the classes for other subjects, some of
my students say ‘Oh, Teacher; this is not English class Those who don’t usually
participate much in school certainly don ’t participate in English class.”

Their workload was another problem, as T 5 commented, “When I first started
teaching English, I would go to a big bookstore looking for English materials, tapes,
songs for my students. But after 7 years of teaching, I find myself not the same as I was
before. Work that is related to students, like checking homework and diary assignments,
preparing to teach other subjects - these are just a part of what you need to do. There is
administrative work homeroom teachers need to do other than teaching English.” T 4
also noted, “I felt that teaching English in a middle school was easier since you only
needed to teach one subject repeatedly in drflerent classes.”

e. Influence of previous teacher education:

The type of teacher education program a teacher had gone through was another

80

element that played a role. In T 5’s case, she learned about Krashen’s input hypothesis as
an important basis for teaching methodology during her graduate studies.
Comprehensible input and affective filter were important elements that formed her
teaching philosophy, she said. Accordingly, her lessons contained noticeably more praise
than those of other teachers. (e.g., “:1. a—é— XI ! 1,15?- 7:33} LII ” [Yes! you are doing great!],
“Oh, GREAT!”) and encouraging comments (e. g., “08' 9‘] "E XVII 7:} °I °I=. XI’LI 7:} 9.1 7II {SI
E7“ XII ‘32} $558331] 15}. 9.30] "a“ ‘2} LI-Q—IE 33139348..” [Learning English is about
having confidence. Having confidence is most important. It Is ok not to say it fluently] —
when asking for a volunteer to perform a target expression).

f.’ Idea of TL learning/teaching:

Recall comments such as “. . . What I wanted them to say was ‘Does your father
work? Yes he does, " (in Example 26), and the teachers’ practices (e.g., focus on rote
memory, tendency to over-correct), seem to indicate that the teachers’ ideas of L 2
learning were based on audio-lingual theory. Teachers’ demands for the full TL pattern
might be interpreted as a sign of their enthusiasm, but this does not make the
phenomenon acceptable; it still stifles students’ creativity with sentences.

To summarize, the stimulated recall sessions were beneficial for teachers as well
as the researcher to understand the observed behaviors. For some teachers, watching a
video of their own teaching served as a moment of awakening; for others, the first
reaction was defensive. T l sums up the problem the Korean EFL teachers were facing:
disregarding the issue of teacher proficiency for the moment, “There are many difliculties
- class size, time to prepare the materials and so on. On top of that, if students could

understand, we might be able to maximize English use, but not all students are yet ready

81

and we need to compromise in this real situation we are dealing with... What teaching
English through English means to us I believe is using English at a level the students can
understand... It seems hard to reduce the gap between diflerent points of view as to how
much English teachers should use; people outside the class can easily say, ‘Well,
elementary school teachers are not qualified; they should use English more... 'The
bottom line is though that, although there ARE many problems and dzfliculties, we should
keep trying to make sure we provide the students with the best formation we can.” Let it
be noted, however, that in T 1’s case, she was able to maintain the TL for her students by
using other strategies to help the students understand her TL.

Many interrelated reasons explain the observed behavior of the four teachers
whose classroom culture does not reflect the current direction in English education. It
MUST be emphasized that the problems which have been identified are systemic rather
than simply teacher-based. Regardless of the effectiveness of their actual teaching
practice, each traditional-approach teacher had sincere concern for the students, as their
insights (noted under examples) show. The observation and the teachers’ recall comments
suggest special attention to the following areas.

0 Understanding the importance of modified TL output in meaningful context. The low
TL feedback teachers’ excessive use of oral drills and CD-Rom for “input,” and their
reliance on the NL for “interaction” seem to show that the teachers are not aware that
meaningful output is also important. It was evident that the teachers in this study put
great effort into making sure the students did comprehend the listening materials; they
did so by having them verbalized back in the NL to the teachers.

It seemed that the emphasis on listening in the national curriculum might have

82

caused elementary school teachers to overemphasize this skill. One of the basic principles
of the Korean curriculum (as mentioned in a previous chapter of this study) is
“comprehension before production.” The Ministry of Education Teacher’s Guide also
identifies the Natural Approach as the most important theoretical principle to base
language education on at the elementary school level (Korea Institute of Curriculum &
Evaluation, 2002, p. 33). Although the curriculum does state that the English education
should also develop “communicative competence” and “fluency over accuracy” (Kwon,
2000, p.60), there seems to be relatively little explanation of how to best develop the
“communicative competence.” We all know through our own experience of learning a
second language, oral drills or rote memorization alone do not help much in developing
TL proficiency.

o A problem of proficiency or a problem of strategy?‘ Some teachers commented that
they would not be able to use the TL to elicit listening comprehension because of their
own lack of proficiency, besides the other problems such as mixed-level. However, the
teachers’ concerns about not being able to speak TL seem to have more to do with a lack
of strategies than their TL proficiency. The strategy T 1 used was lots of pictures, simple
sentences, and gestures, while the other teachers used the NL as a way to increase
comprehensibility. As seen in the examples on listening elicitation earlier, T 1 used just a
few phrases, as a routine (e. g., “Tell me what you heard!” “You missed ~ sentence!”). It
was the students who spoke the TL in T 1’s classes, while in the other classes it was
usually just the teachers who spoke the TL during listening comprehension. T 2, 3, and 5
expressed concerns about the difficulty of teaching/managing mixed-level classes.

Franklin (1990) argued that the “real” problem of mixed ability may have more to do

83

with the teachers’ expectations of what low ability students are capable of achieving, than
the exact nature of the ability mix in the classroom (p.21). He further asserted that these
expectations may in turn depend on the teaching and learning experience of the teachers
themselves.

0 Opportunities for teachers to build TL confidence through on-going training:
Needless to say, as previous studies have addressed, on-going Opportunities for teacher
training must be provided. Certainly T 1 benefited from attending teacher training
programs abroad. However, accessing professional development abroad is not an option
for most teachers. Therefore, in-service teacher training programs on a regular basis
seems to be urgent. There are many commercial resource books on classroom English.
The Teacher’s Guide also provides examples of classroom English for teachers. However,
if the teachers are not given opportunities to try teaching English using the TL, these
books may not be utilized much. If resources were all that was necessary to implement
TL use in elementary school classrooms, all the EFL teachers in Korea would be
experiencing great success. Particularly, the teachers seemed to have difficulties in
making the TL comprehensible to the students. For one thing, being unsure about minor
classroom language such as basic instructions seems to bother teachers. For example, T 2
knew that some of her TL was non-idiomatic (e. g., “Speak down” instead of “Speaking
quietly”). Another problem was that her instructions also tended to be complex and
confused. In her case, this sometimes led her to translate her TL into NL sentence by
sentence. Clearly teachers need opportunity to develop their competence. At the same
time, however, they need to build their confidence in order to have more fluency in the

TL. Some of the teachers’ comments (e.g., T 4 in Example 14) show that self-

84

consciousness is an inhibiting factor on their TL use. As T 1 commented, “It is always
better to have more proficiency. But, at the same time, it Is important not to be afraid of
making mistakes.”
0 Teacher’s Guide: The Teacher’s Guide could be improved to reflect more realistic
classroom dynamics. The first area to include is a section with the possible errors that
occur frequently. Throughout the classes, common errors that could have been corrected
were not caught by the teachers. Particular grammar problems found during the
observation were related to countable/non-countable nouns. Activities in the textbook
also need modification to reflect actual “normal” class size. This was in fact raised by T 4,
who commented that many activities in the textbook and the instruction in the teachers’
guide seemed to be for small classes (e.g., card games). In her case, she preferred to use
class time having students recite the TL patterns as much as possible, rather than
spending time explaining and doing the games during which she sometimes found the
class became “uncontrollable.”

To conclude, much work needs to be done by teacher education programs in
Korea. Language teachers need information, guidance, and practical support in order to
implement a more communicative approach to teaching. One of the main blocks
impeding such a change seems to be that most teachers have been trained in traditional
audio-lingual methods, and are consequently most familiar with that style. Therefore,
teacher education programs, including in-service workshops, need to start by changing
attitudes to classroom dynamics. If the teachers are not exposed to the kinds of strategies
that T 1 had, technology and textbooks will not succeed in addressing the problem of

students’ lacking opportunities to interact in the TL. All the “great” policies and

85

curriculum development initiatives will not get off the ground.

86

APPENDIX A

Schedule for Observations and Stimulated Recall

 

 

 

 

 

 

1st 2nd 3rd 4th SR (Stimuli)
T 1 5/27 5/27 6/ 10 6/11 6/11
(another (Videotape: Last lesson)
class)
T2 6/5 6/9 6/12 6/13 6/13
(Videotape: 2/3 of the last
lesson & transcripts in
August)
T 3 5/21 5/23 5/28 5/30 6/2
(Videotape: Last lesson &
brief transcripts)
T 4 5/20 5/20 5/21 6/3 6/4
(another (Videotape: Last lesson)
class)
T 5 5/29 5/30 6/4 6/7 6/ 10

(Videotape: All four lessons)

 

87

APPENDIX B

Transcription Conventions (Adapted from Polio & Duff, 1994, p.325)

 

T teacher

S student

SS more than two students, but not the whole class
SSS almost all the students

[italics] translation of NL utterance

(( )) «comments»

X one or two unclear words

XXX more than two unclear words or entire utterance

- (hyphen attached to speech on left side) false start or
self-correction

? utterance-final rising intonation
utterance-final falling intonation

= latching (no pause between two speakers)

// overlapping (two speakers talking at the same time)
, pause between phrases or clauses
THE (capital letters) stressed word (e.g., T: It’s CLOUDY.)

hesitation (e. g., uh...) or long pause

 

88

APPENDIX C
Definition of Utterance

“Stretch of uninterrupted talk by one speaker, which has grammatical and/or intonational
limits; clausal, phrasal or even lexical unit bounded by some sort of intonational
indication of its completeness” (definition by Ma, 2003).

1. The following utterances were excluded:
1) Indistinct backchannels/discourse markers (e.g., 7~I~[ok], “umm”, “oh,” “uh”
“shushing” “ok”)
2) Names of a student/group (e.g., “Team A,” “9 E%”[Group 9])
3) An utterance containing inaudible elements (T: i geo XXX [this XXX])
4) Teachers’ talking to themselves (“Where is my picture? ")

2. Stretched sentences/words were coded as one utterance.
(Example) T: It...s...too....ex...pe...n..si....ve.

3. Coding
A. M(ixed): When an utterance had a mixture of English and Korean.
(Examples)
- “zerofi of 8.?” [gem-yeasseyofl
- “ham-beo-geo7l 0114 31 hamburger” [not ‘ham-beo-geo’ ‘hamburger ']

B. K(orean): When a sentence was uttered in Korean (with one word or phrase in
English).

(Examples)
- “if-7} mom% {Ef‘fl 3!] 5'71?” [Who wants to be the mom?]
- “ "5‘ group two7I' (”I-’1‘- élfilil 9.101 8..”
[Group Tlvo is doing great today]
- “Hello’il’oil %EIBJ [You only know ‘hello '?]

Questions asking a definition of an English word were coded as Korean.
(Examples)
- “Thirsty‘f: 3?] all 8.?” [WhatIs ‘thirsty 'in Korean?]

C. E(nglish): When a sentence was uttered in English (with one word or phrase in
Korean).

(Example)

- “iii. ill-41 - open your book to fifty two.”
[textbook]

89

APPENDIX D

The Amount of TL Feedback From Each Teacher by Lesson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher 1
Recasts Negotiation Explicit NL Total (TL + NL)
5/27 16 0 0 O 16
6/10 7 0 0 0 7
6/11 8 0 O O 8
Total 31 0 0 0 31
31 0 31
Teacher 2
Recasts Negotiation Explicit NL Total (TL + NL)
6/9 1 O 0 l 2
6/12 0 3 l 2 6
6/13 7 0 1 0 8
Total 8 3 2 3 l6
l3 3 16
Teacher 3
Recasts Negotiation Explicit NL Total (TL + NL)
5/23 0 0 0 l 1
5/28 1 0 0 l 2
5/30 2 O 0 0 2
Total 3 0 0 2 5
3 2 5
Teacher 4
Recasts Negotiation Explicit NL Total (TL + NL)
5/20 2 0 0 4 6
5/21 2 0 1 3 5
6/3 1 l 0 1 3
Total 5 1 1 8 15
7 8 15
Teacher 5
Recasts Negotiation Explicit NL Total (TL + NL)
5/30 0 l 0 l 2
5/4 0 0 0 2 2
6/7 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 1 0 3 4
1 3 4

 

90

APPENDIX E

Description of Feedback Occurred in T 2, T 3, T 4, T 5

 

 

 

Teacher 2
Recasts Negotiation Explicit NL Total (TL + NL)
6/9 1 o‘ o 1 2
6/ 12 O 3 1 2 6
6/ 13 7 0 1 0 8
Total 8 3 2 3 16
13 3 16

 

In T 2’s classes, all types of feedback were found. Out of a total of 8 recasts episodes, 7
arose in one lesson when she asde students questions about the target vocabulary words
(e.g., TI' Who needs this stufl? S: Teacher T: Yes, Q teacher needs this). One recast arose
during listening comprehension activity where the teacher elicited knowledge of a
dialogue content (e.g., TI: What food is Nami Is mom making? S: Sandwich. I? Yes she is
making sandwiches, Right). The linguistic targets of her recasts were grammar points
(e.g., English articles and plural markers).

 

T 2 tended to use explicit feedback (including NL) on students’ pronunciation errors.
Indeed, all 3 instances of NL feedback and l of the 2 episodes of TL explicit feedback
that occurred related to pronunciation errors. In the example below, a student was called
on to respond to a picture that appeared on a TV screen using the pattern, “I’m _, I want
some _.” The teacher points out the student’s pronunciation error explicitly, using more
than one kind of feedback within the same turn.

 

 

Example SR comments

T: Look at the picture and answer. 9

S: XX 1 explicitly

T: I’m what? — I’m? ((9 Clarification request: Negotiation» corrected the

S: /sarsty/ pronunciation

T: /sorsty/? Is there that kind of word? ((9T L Explicit)) error because it
XI. nasty/Elvi- slot 71 °3 01 01] are-q 77}? ((-) NL translation» (11a. ‘th ’sound)
[Ok, is there such a word, ‘sirsty ’, in English ?] is one of the
Say properly. THirsty. THirsty. Repeat after me. THirsty. areas where

S: THirsty many students

'1‘; THirsty have trouble.

S: X

T: OK, I’m thirsty. I want some orange juice. Good!
CD: I’m thirsty. I want some orfle juice.

 

91

APPENDIX E (Cont’d)

 

 

 

Teacher 3
Recasts Negotiation Explicit NL Total (TL + NL)
5/23 0 0 0 1 1
5/28 1 0 0 1 2
5/30 2 0 0 0 2
Total 3 0 0 2 5
3 2 5

 

Three recasts episodes were found in T 3’s classes, all of which concerned pronunciation
errors; 2 episodes occurred during the exchange of greetings at the beginning of class

(e. g., S: I ’m /ta:-i-a-deu/. T? I ’m tired. Why? "), and 1 occurred during a guessing game
about food.

One of the distinctive features in T 3’s reaction to individual students’ utterances was that
she often repeated after students (as mentioned in Footnote 19 in this paper). She
commented that her main intention in repeating students’ utterances was to get the class
to pay attention. Therefore, unless there were obvious pronunciation errors, her
repetitions were excluded from being counted as feedback episodes. An example of her
recasts is given below.

 

 

Example SR comments

T: J, how are you feeling today? 9 Here, I repeated to give a

S 1: I’m /ta:iadeu/. clearer pronunciation, but also to
T: I’m tired. Why? have other students listen.

S 2: I’m tiger!
S l: 11*] , 2'2", ok? [eleven o ’clock, snoring sound] Q: I noticed you often repeat

((SSS laugh» what the students said. Did you
T: o-] 311:};- 111401] g 71] xl-7IZL'11... 82H? ((33)) have any purpose in doing so?
[J went to bed at eleven last night] 9 I do 30 mainly to gather the
S3: “aigd -_ taiad/ students ’attention, and to let
T: I’m tired? Why? others know they can do it too
S3: OI, [#01] k] 9?: 35014.] (i.e., encouraging partrcrpatron).

[uh, because I couldn ’t play outside] Sometimes a students voice is
'1‘; til-01V] a. %OIA‘I, 1:117]. 9V1 13qu k] % %(a :4 too 10W, so [repeat it.

ease.

[because you couldn ’t play outside. You get tired if

you can ’t play outside because of raining]

 

92

APPENDIX E (Cont’d)

 

 

 

Teacher 4
Recasts Negotiation Explicit NL Total (TL + NL)
5/20 2 0 0 4 6
5/21 2 0 1 3 5
6/3 1 1 0 1 3
Total 5 1 1 8 15
7 8 15

 

Indirect feedback (which counted as recasts) were used during the individual students’
rote performance (e.g., S: What time you do go to bed? I} What time DO you go to bed.)
NL feedback occurred frequently (e.g., S: I come to home at eight o 'clock T: ‘come
home ’ O/X/ [it should be ‘come home’]). Only one episode of negotiation feedback
(repetition type) was found; it occurred when a student used the wrong vocabulary (i.e.,
S: I get up at three thirty. TI' Huh? At three thirty?)

The teacher commented that she does not try to correct explicitly all the time, unless the
error occurs consistently. She says, “Sometimes, there are students who I think do not
really know the meaning of the sentences they are reciting. I just provide the correct form
when a student couldn ’t remember: For example, if a student missed ‘my 'in ‘I do

9”

homework, 'then I say ‘I do my homework at five 0 'clcok .

 

 

 

Teacher 5
Recasts Negotiation Explicit NL Total (TL + NL)
5/30 0 1 0 1 2
5/4 0 O 0 2 2
6/7 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 1 0 3 4
1 3 4

 

Only one instance of TL feedback was found in T 5’s classes, in the form of repetition (S:
/diz/ T‘: /diz/?). TWO NL feedback arose in reaction to a student’s lexical errors and one in
response to pronunciation. An example of the two NL feedback is given below.

 

Example

 

S: I want to be a teeth teacher.
T: "@771? [whats ‘teeth teacher ’in English?]
S: teeth doctor, OI ’51 *3 ‘El [teeth doctor]
T: 0] 4d *3 ‘a’ [teeth doctor],
XI, 7“] 3494"};- dentistt'illil filial 5}. [0k, ‘dentist’is ‘dentist'in English]

 

93

 

REFERENCES

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to
classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Basturkmen, H., Ellis, R., & Loewen, S. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about
incidental focus on form and their classroom practice. Applied Linguistics, 25(2),
243-272.

Boulima, J. (1999). Negotiated interaction in target language classroom discourse.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Braine, G. (1999). (Ed.) Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carless, D. (1999). Factors affecting classroom implementation: Task-based curriculum
renewal in Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Reform, 8(4), 374-
82.

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical
study of the leaming of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 15(3), 357-86.

Chambers, F. (1991 ). Promoting use of the target language in the classroom.
Language Learning Journal, 4. 27-31.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of
learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46.

Chaudron, C. (1986). The interaction of quantitative and qualitative Approaches to
Research: A view of the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4),
709-71 7

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, J. (1981). Communication in the classroom. The Modern Languages in Scotland.
2122.

Cumming, A. (1992). Instructional routines in ESL composition teaching: A case study
of three teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1 , 17-36.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. (pp.
114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

94

Dickson, P. ( 1996). Using the target language. Slough: National Foundation for
Educational Research.

Ellis, N. (1995). Consciousness in second language acquisition: A review of field studies
and laboratory experiments. Language Awareness, 4, 123-46.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Basil
Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form focused
instruction and second language learning (pp. 1-46). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL
lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied
Linguistics, 1 9(1), 1-23.

Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the Focus from Forms to Form in the EFL Classroom. ELT
Journal, 52(4), 301-307.

Fouser, R., & Park, M. (2003). Target language use in the EFL classroom: The current
situations in Korea and Japan. Inmun Sahoe Kwahak Yon 'guso Nanchang [Journal
of the Pukyung Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences], 3, 1-30.

Franklin, C. (1990). Teaching in the target language: Problems and prospects.
Language Learning Journal, 2, 20-24.

Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1991). Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In
N. Coupland, H. Giles, & J. Wiemann (Eds), “Miscommunication ” and
problematic talk (pp.121-145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

George, H. (1972). Common errors in language learning: Insights from English.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Havranek, G (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?
International Journal of Educational Research, 3 7, 255-270.

95

Havranek, G, & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback.
In Foster-Cohen, S. & Nizegorodcew, A. (Eds), EuroSLA Yearbook. (pp. 99-122).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Holley, F. & King, J. (1975). Imitation and correction in foreign language learning. In
Schumann, J. & Stenson, N. (Eds), New frontiers in second language learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Kang, S. (2002). The effect of the use of Korean and English in KFL classrooms of non
heritage learners. The Korean Language in America, 7, 25-37.

Kim, S. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions about teaching English through English. Yeong-eo
Kyoyook [English Teaching], 5 7(1), 131-148

Korea Institute of Curriculum & Evaluation. (2002). Elementary school English:
Teacher Is guide. Seoul: Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development.

Kwon, O. (2000). Korea’s English education policy changes in the 19905: Innovations
to gear the nation for the 21St century. Yeong-eo Kyoyook [English Teaching], 55
(1), 47-91.

Lee, H. & Park, M. (2001). A preliminary evaluation of the elementary school English
program in Korea. Yeong-eo Kyoyook [English Teaching], 56(1), 53-79.

Lee, J. (1999). Errors in classroom English used by elementary school English teachers
and ways of improving them. Yeong-eo Kyoyook [English Teaching], 54(4), 353-
371.

Lee, W., Choi, Y., Boo, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Joonghakkyo ilhaknyun yong-eo
Kyoyooke natanan chodeung yong-eo kyoyook hyokwa [An investigation into the
effects of elementary English education: A follow-up study on first-year middle
school students]. Yeong-eo Kyoyook [English Teaching]. 56(4). 211-241.

Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’
perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea.
TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-723.

Liu, D. (1999). Training non-native TESOL students: Challenges for TESOL teacher
education in the West. In Braine, G (Ed.), Non-native educators in English
language teaching (pp. 197-210). Mahwah, NJ :Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on
form. Language Teaching Research, 7, 315-345.

Long, M., Inagaki, S,. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in
SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal,

96

82(3), 357-71.

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of
form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
19(1), 37-66.

Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51-81.

Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to
error types and leamer repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning,
48(2), 183-218.

Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to
error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning,
51(1), 265-301.

Ma, C. (2003). When best friends do not use their own home language: Korean-Chinese
bilingual code choice. Paper presented at 13th Japanese/Korean conference. MSU.
MI.

Macaro, A. (1995). TL use in Italy. Language Learning Journal, 11, 52-54.

Macaro, A. (2001). Analyzing student teachers’ code-switching in foreign language
classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85,
531-548.

Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and development and second
language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language

Journal, 82(3), 338-56.

Mackey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional
feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-97.

Mackey, A., Polio, C. & McDonough, K. (In press). Teachers’ use of incidental focus on
form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 1-43.

Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricula innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative language teaching in practice. London:CILT.

Nassaji, H. (2000). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and commturicative
interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(3), 385-402.

Nicolas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001) Recasts as feedback to language

97

learners. Language Learning, 51 (4), 719-758.

Nystrom, N. (1983). Teacher-student interaction in bilingual classrooms: Four
approaches to error feedback. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds) Classroom-
oriented research on second language acquisition (pp. 169-189). Rowley, Mass:
Newbury House.

Oliver, R. (2000) Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair
work. Language Learning, 51(1), 1 19-151.

Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL
Classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519-33.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult
ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-95.

Pica, T. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the
Learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63-90.

Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and

linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal,
86(1), 1-19.

Polio, C. & Duff, P. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language
classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation.
Modern Language Journal. 78(3), 313-26.

Polio, C. (1996). Issues and problems in reporting classroom research. In J. Schachter
& S. Gass (Eds). Second language classroom research: Issues and opportunities.
(pp.61-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language
Research, 7(2), 89-102.

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review
of classroom and laboratory research Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.

Swain, M. (1985). Designing bilingual education: Aspects of immersion and “European
school” models. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(1),
1-15.

Swain, M. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step
towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-91.

98

Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29(1), 181-191.
Tumbull, M. (1999). Multidimensional project-based teaching in French second

language: A process-produce case study. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4),
548-568.

Van Lier, L. (1988a). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second
language classroom research. NY: Longrnan.

Van Lier, L. (1988b). What’s wrong with classroom talk? Prospect, 2(2), 267-283.

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in
the EFL classroom. Language teaching research, 6 (1), 3—23.

Wing, B. (1987). The linguistci and communicative firnctions of foreign language

teacher talk. In B. VanPatten, T. Dvorak, & J. Lee. (Eds) Foreign language
learning: A research perspective. (pp. 158-173). New York: Newbury House.

99

 

I 1"

‘i ‘1. I .

.3. Y l‘l

(‘

   
 
  

S

l

u113111111191111111111111]