La influencia del componente no verbal asociado al feedback correctivo en la producción oral en ELE

  1. Elvira Muñoz Moreno 1
  2. Irini Mavrou 2
  1. 1 Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL), Países Bajos
  2. 2 Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, España
Journal:
Revista signos: estudios de lingüística

ISSN: 0035-0451,  0718-0934

Year of publication: 2020

Volume: 53

Issue: 103

Pages: 468-495

Type: Article

DOI: 10.4067/S0718-09342020000200468 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista signos: estudios de lingüística

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Abstract From a pedagogical perspective, the study of feedback has become a field of research in order to describe teacher’s talk and understand whether it facilitates learner’s uptake and second language acquisition. However, nonverbal language accompanying teacher’s feedback has been underresearched. Traditionally, studies of corrective feedback analyse audio-recorded samples and almost exclusively verbal utterances. The present study investigated teacher’s nonverbal behaviour associated with oral corrective feedback during four interaction-based activities that took place in a Spanish as a foreign language classroom at a university in the Netherlands. Exploratory data analysis was conducted in order to determine (a) the distribution of corrective feedback and nonverbal behaviour associated with this feedback, (b) nonverbal behaviour types and their distribution in relation to corrective feedback, and (c) the distribution of uptake and the relationship between nonverbal behaviour and the amount of successful uptake. According to the results obtained, 68% of oral corrective feedback was accompanied by nonverbal language, making corrective feedback more salient and, therefore, contributing to a greater amount of uptake. Elicitation was the most frequent technique and associated mostly with nonverbal cues, which were both used by the teacher depending on factors such as teacher’s intention, instructional context and error type.

Bibliographic References

  • Banaruee, H.,Khatin-Zadeh, O.,Ruegg, R.. (2018). Recasts vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of High School EFL learners. Cogent Education. 5. 23
  • Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. 20. 436
  • Cestero Mancera, A. M.. (2004). Vademécum para la formación de profesores. Enseñar español como segunda lengua/lengua extranjera. SGEL. Madrid.
  • (2002). Consejo de Europa Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: Aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación. Secretaría General Técnica del MEC, Anaya e Instituto Cervantes. Madrid.
  • Davies, M. (2006). Paralinguistic focus on form. TESOL Quarterly. 40. 841
  • Dehgani, Q.,Izadpanah, S.,Shahnavaz, A.. (2017). The effect of oral corrective feedback on beginner and low intermediate students’ speaking achievement. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literature. 9. 279
  • Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research. 20. 405
  • Ellis, R.,Basturkmen, H.,Loewen, S.. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning. 51. 281-318
  • Faraco, M.,Kida, T.. (2008). Gesture: Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Research. Routledge. Nueva York.
  • Farjadnasab, A. H.,Khodashenas, M. R.. (2017). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing accuracy. International Journal of Research in English Education. 2. 30-42
  • Ferreira, A. (2006). Estrategias efectivas de feedback positivo y correctivo en el español como lengua extranjera. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística. 39. 379-406
  • Ferreira, A. (2017). El efecto del feedback correctivo para mejorar la destreza escrita en ELE. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal. 19. 37-350
  • Gullberg, M. (2006). Some reasons for studying gesture and Second Language acquisition (Hommage à Adam Kendon). International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 44. 103-1124
  • Gullberg, M. (2010). Methodological reflections on gesture analysis in Second Language acquisition and bilingualism research. Second Language Research. 26. 75-102
  • Guvendir, E. (2011). The role of non-verbal behavior of teachers in providing students corrective feedback and their consequences. Sino-US English Teaching. 8. 577
  • Jabu, B.,Noni, N.,Talib, A.,Syam, A.. (2017). Lecturers’ use of corrective feedback and students’ uptake in an Indonesian EFL context. Global Journal of Engineering Education. 19. 82
  • Kamiya, N. (2012). Proactive and reactive focus on form and gestures in EFL classrooms in Japan. System. 40. 386
  • Lazaraton, A. (2004). Gesture and speech in the vocabulary explanations of one ESL teacher: A microanalytic inquiry. Language Learning. 54. 79-117
  • Lee, E. J.. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System. 41. 217
  • Lee, E. J.. (2017). An integrated loop model of corrective feedback and oral English learning: A case of international students in the United States. Journal of International Students. 7. 581-600
  • Long, M. H.. (1996). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Academic Press. Nueva York.
  • Lyster, R.,Ranta, L.. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19. 37-66
  • Lyster, R.,Saito, K.,Sato, M.. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in Second Language classroom. Language Teaching. 46. 1-40
  • McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago/ Londres.
  • Mohammadi Darabad, A. (2014). Corrective feedback interventions and EFL learners’ pronunciation: A case of -s or -es ending words. International Journal of Learning & Development. 4. 40-58
  • Muramoto, N. (1998). Research Issues and Language Program Direction. Heinle & Heinle. Boston.
  • Roshan, S. (2017). Written corrective feedback, individual differences and Second Language acquisition of the English passive voice. Auckland University of Technology. Auckland, Nueva Zelanda.
  • Sánchez Calderón, S. (2014). Los efectos de las estrategias de retroalimentación oral en la adquisición de segundas lenguas. Colindancias: Revista de la Red de Hispanistas de Europa Central. 5. 283-311
  • Sheen, Y.,Ellis, R.. (2011). Handbook on Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Routledge. Nueva York.
  • Shirkhani, S.,Tajeddin, Z.. (2017). Pragmatic corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: Investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices. Teaching English Language. 11. 25-56
  • Sia, P. F. D.,Cheung, Y. L.. (2017). Written corrective feedback in writing instruction: A qualitative synthesis of recent research. Issues in Language Studies. 6. 61-80
  • Sime, D. (2008). Gesture: Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Research. Routledge. Nueva York.
  • Smith, H. A.. (1979). Nonverbal communication in teaching. Review of Educational Research. 49. 631
  • Swain, M. (1985). Input in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House. Nueva York.
  • Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2008). Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum 2007. Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Somerville.
  • Tusón, A. (2002). El análisis de la conversación: Entre la estructura y el sentido. Estudios de Sociolingüística. 3. 133
  • Vicente-Rasoamalala, L. (2006). Elementos no verbales en la retroalimentación del docente de L2. The Journal of the Faculty of Foreign Studies. 38. 159
  • Vicente-Rasoamalala, L. (2009). Teacher’s reactions to foreign language learner output. Universitat de Barcelona. Barcelona, España.
  • Wang, W.,Loewen, S.. (2016). Nonverbal behavior and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms. Language Teaching Research. 20. 459
Data source: Dialnet