Today will be a shorter post than last week.
I want to take a look solely at the section of this chapter entitled “Considerations About Providing Corrective Feedback”. Glisan and Donato give five considerations in the form of questions.
Should I discuss the role of feedback with my learners?
“Yes!” reply Glisan and Donato. They note that learning a language is so different from the learning that takes place in students’ other classes that they benefit from an explanation of how the teacher’s responses can benefit them. They also recommend a discussion at the beginning of the course or semester with the intent of reaching two goals:
a. Find out how students feel about receiving Corrective Feedback. The purpose is to help the teacher determine when, how, and what kinds of Corrective Feedback to provide.
b. Help students understand how Corrective Feedback can help them learn the language and improve performance.
I agree that it is beneficial for the teacher to discuss with students how the course works, theoretical underpinnings, etc. At the same time, I doubt that my discussion will look quite like Glisan and Donato imagine.
Since Glisan and Donato’s discussion is based on the theory that noticing is essential to language acquisition, we part company on the issue of when, how, how much, and what kind of Corrective Feedback to give. There are, of course, appropriate occasions in the language classroom to invoke the Monitor and discuss items that contribute to its effectiveness. These occasions, however, are few and far between – especially at the lowest levels. Far more important is Comprehensible Input, the sole sufficient cause of language acquisition.
This evening at church, I happened to speak with another congregant and found out that she teaches in the teacher training program at CSU Long Beach, our local CSU campus. Specifically, she teaches Second Language Acquisition (English Language Learners) and Special Education research, principles, and theory to teacher candidates.
When I explained my plans for retirement and mentioned coaching and advising teachers, she asked me what method(s) or approach(es) I used. Not knowing at the time how much she knew about SLA, I started an explanation, and she finished my explanation with the words “Comprehensible Input!” That started a great conversation, and I was so pleased to know that there are others, not just foreign language teachers, who understand that CI is the sine qua non of language instruction.
She also agreed with me, contra Glisan and Donato, that any grammar explanation, corrective feedback, or attempt to get students to notice is effective only insofar as it aids negotiation of meaning and supports understanding.
In his paper on Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Dr Stephen Krashen notes that he has changed is opinion on one matter. In the original work, he advocated hiding the acquisition process from students. Now, however, he strongly favors discussing the process of Second Language Acquisition with students so that they can continue to learn on their own.
I doubt that Krashen’s discussion would look much like Glisan’s or Donato’s, either.
How do I determine when I should provide corrective feedback?
Despite my disagreement with Glisan and Donato on the nature and value of Corrective Feedback, I believe their answer to this question is helpful.
The authors note that making this determination is a complex process and dependent on a number of factors. They divide these factors into two categories: Learner Factors and Contextual Factors.
Contextual Factors involve answering the following question:
- Does the error interfere with the learner’s intended meaning? (If no, don’t correct.)
- Is the error the linguistic target of the lesson, e.g. made during the focus on form lesson? (Since I disagree with focus on form for acquisition, I find this question not germane.
- Is the error one that is being made frequently by many learners in the class? (If no, don’t correct.)
In this section, Glisan and Donato state, “Of critical importance is that, within a sociocultural perspective, corrective feedback should be approached in such a way as to serve meaning-making and interaction.”
This statement again makes me wonder if the authors fully understand their position. It seems to contradict their earlier distinction that “… many of these types of CF can be used to provide conversational feedback instead of to call attention to linguistic errors.”
The second set of factors are Learner Factors that give rise to the following questions:
- Would the learner benefit from receiving Corrective Feedback, i.e. is the learner developmentally ready for this feedback?
- Is the individual learner open to receiving Corrective Feedback?
- Does the learner appear to be confused and in need of Corrective Feedback to make meaning and/or clear up misunderstanding?
- Does the learner appear to want Corrective Feedback assistance from he teacher?
Glisan and Donato suggest that a “yes” answer to any one of these questions justifies providing Corrective Feedback. I disagree in that the second questions appears to me to be the gatekeeper. If the individual learner is not open to receiving Corrective Feedback, a yes answer to any of the other questions will not make it beneficial.
How do I know whether to use implicit or explicit CF strategies?
Here I find Glisan and Donato’s advice excellent.
They recommend a graduated approach within a dialogic structure.
That is, start with the least intrusive, most implicit strategy and move in the direction of increasingly explicit as needed. If a raised eyebrow or “Huh?” is sufficient to elicit negotiation of meaning, why use something more intrusive?
On what basis should I decide to use prompts vs. reformulations in providing CF?
Once again, I find myself in agreement with Glisan and Donato on this consideration.
They state, “The decision to use prompts or reformulations depends on whether the teacher desires further output from learners following the CF. To this end, prompts elicit output and reformulations offer input without signaling a need to respond further.” (2017, p. 148)
Glisan and Donato noted earlier that reformulations (aka recasts) is the type of Corrective Feedback used most by teachers. (2017, p. 144). At the time, they cast some doubts on their effectiveness, maintaining that “… they have been found to be less likely to lead to uptake by learners in comparison to other strategies such as elicitation and clarification requests.” Nonetheless, they were forced to admit that the long-term benefits of implicit correction exceed those of explicit correction.
Questions that arise from this discrepancy between the two passages lead to a number of questions. Among them is the question of how it was determined that recasts are less likely to lead to uptake if recasts are not intended to elicit a response. I would like to know the studies and their procedures. Once again, I believe Glisan and Donato allow their theory to affect their assessment of the evidence.
Since my primary goal is to provide Comprehensible Input, I will use primarily reformulations.
What if my learners experience anxiety when I provide CF?
You’re doing something wrong.
Glisan and Donato are more diplomatic in their answer than I, but it comes to the same thing.
If learners experience anxiety when the teacher provides Corrective Feedback, then the teacher is doing something wrong.
It may be that the teacher has failed to establish a classroom discourse community.
It may be that the teacher is working outside the students’ zone of proximal development, so the feedback simply adds stress rather than relief.
It may be that the teacher has failed to gain the trust and respect of the students.
It may be something else, but whatever it is, the teacher is doing something wrong if corrective feedback increases students’ anxiety.
Glisan and Donato close this section with a nice flow chart. I will try to recreate some semblance of it.
Consider Contextual Factors
All answers “yes”, proceed to Learner Factors.
“No”: ignore the error.
Consider Learner Factors
All answers “yes”, decide on Corrective Feedback
“No”: ignore the error.
Decision to Provide Corrective Feedback
Decide on Reformulation or Prompt
If moving interaction forward: Reformulations
If working in learner’s Zone of Proximal Development: Prompts
Reformulations
Conversational Recast
Repetition
Provide language needed to express meaning
Foreshadow new language
Prompts
Move from implicit to explicit
Clarification Request –> Elicitation –> Metalinguistic clues –> Explicit Correction
I encourage you to look at Figure 6.2 (p. 149) in Enacting the Work of Language Instruction to see the flowchart as Glisan and Donato lay it out.
My conclusion on the use of Corrective Oral Feedback is “It depends”. It depends on what you want to accomplish. It depends on your relationship with your students. It depends on which strategies you choose.
Okay, that turned out longer than I intended.
In the remaining portion of the chapter, Glisan and Donato deconstruct the practice and provide suggestions for rehearsing the practice. We’ll take a look at those next time.