hernandez_mendez_edith_et_al_2
TRANSCRIPT
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
240
Oral corrective feedback by EFL teachers at Universidad de
Quintana Roo
Edith Hernández Méndez Rosario Reyes Cruz
Griselda Murrieta Loyo Universidad de Quintana Roo
Abstract This paper aims at analyzing the actual role of corrective feedback in the EFL classes in the English Language Program at Universidad de Quintana Roo. A second goal is to identify the corrective feedback techniques used by the EFL teachers in this program. For this, an exploratory study which integrated documentary and qualitative research was conducted. This article draws on research in second language acquisition (SLA) and language pedagogy in order to examine controversial issues relating to corrective feedback, such as its role in EFL classrooms and the techniques used by teachers. Five language instructors from the English language bachelors „program at the Universidad de Quintana Roo were interviewed. The findings show that the type of correction mostly used by teachers is teacher correction. The techniques more frequently used are repetition of error, recasting, body language and metalinguistic feedback. However, they favor more implicit CF. It also seems that instructors´ target for oral corrective feedback is phonology and morphosyntax, but semantics and pragmatics are the most neglected areas. The provision of corrective feedback seems unsystematic, inconsistent and ambiguous.
Introduction
Although the provision of corrective feedback in the foreign language
classroom seems natural in the process of learning a language, the role that
corrective feedback plays in the classroom and the attitudes language teachers
have towards it have been not same through the years, or even from one teacher
to another. On the other hand, in the theoretical ground, corrective feedback has
also been an area of research and discussion in language acquisition and learning
over the last decades, which has contributed to the debate about this issue.
For the sake of clarity, one of the first definitions of corrective feedback is
that of Chaudron (1977) who considers it as “any reaction of the teacher which
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
241
clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the
learner utterance”. (p: 31). Other synonyms of corrective feedback more commonly
used are “error correction”, “negative evidence” “negative feedback”. However,
Han (2008) suggests that error correction implies an evident and direct correction,
whereas corrective feedback is a more general way of providing some clues, or
eliciting some correction, besides the direct correction made by the teacher. Ellis,
Loewen and Erlam (2006) describe corrective feedback as follows:
Corrective feedback takes the form of responses to learner utterances that contain error. The responses can consist of (a) an indication that an error has been committed, (b) provision of the correct target language form, or (c) metalinguistic information about the nature of the error, or any combination of these. (p. 340).
Interestingly, the role of corrective feedback has been discussed from both
theoretical and pedagogical grounds. While some language acquisition theories
and second language methodologies encourage the use of corrective feedback,
others disfavor its use. Some problems that have arisen with regard to the use of
corrective feedback or its absence in the language classroom are a) the
inconsistency, ambiguity, and ineffectiveness of teachers‟ corrections (Allwright,
1975; Chaudron, 1977; Long, 1977); b) ambiguous, random and unsystematic
feedback on errors by teachers (Lyster and Mori, 2006); c) acceptance of errors for
fear of interrupting the communication; d) wide range of learner error types
addressed as corrective feedback (Lyster and Ranta, 1997). In the context of
Mexico, (Hernández & Murrieta, 2009) observed very limited corrective feedback in
the foreign language classroom, which is associated with problem C.
These problems identified can be a reflection of the teachers ´training,
perceptions, and attitudes regarding corrective feedback. Therefore, this
exploratory study addressed in this paper aimed at analyzing the actual role of
corrective feedback in the EFL classes in the English Language Program at
Universidad de Quintana Roo. Additionally, a second goal is to identify the
corrective feedback techniques used by the EFL teachers in this program. Our
purpose is to explore the issue of corrective feedback in the teaching practice in
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
242
Mexico, and particularly at the Universidad de Quintana Roo, that will lead to
further research.
Since scarce research has been done with regard to corrective feedback
(CF), teachers educators, teachers, pre-service teachers, and language learners
can benefit with this paper as they can learn or reflect about the acquisition of a
second or foreign language, and specifically, about the use of corrective feedback
in their teaching practice.
This is an exploratory study which integrated documentary and qualitative
research. This article draws on research in second language acquisition (SLA) and
language pedagogy in order to examine controversial issues relating to corrective
feedback, such as its role in EFL classrooms and the techniques used by teachers.
Five language instructors from the English language bachelors „program at the
Universidad de Quintana Roo were interviewed. They were chosen considering the
different language levels they teach, and according to their availability and
willingness to participate in this study. They are teachers with ages ranging from 25
to 40, and with a teaching experience from 4 to 10 years. All of them have a
Master´s program (two in Curriculum Design, one in Translation, one in Education,
and one in Education and EFL teaching). The instrument used was a semi-
structured interview with 20 questions approximately. The interviews were
recorded and analyzed considering variables such as: types of errors, the
corrector, frequency of correction, CF techniques, perception of students‟ attitudes,
training, and individual differences.
The paper is organized as follows: an overview of the theoretical and
pedagogical perspectives regarding corrective feedback, and the different types of
errors and corrective feedback are presented. Next, the findings are reported and
discussed. Finally, the conclusions and suggestions make up the last section.
1. The controversial role of corrective feedback in the foreign language
classroom
Ellis (2009) highlight five main controversies concerning corrective
feedback, which we reformulate in questions: does CF contribute to L2
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
243
acquisition? Which errors are to be corrected? Who should correct? (the teacher or
the learner him/herself/) which type of CF is the most effective? And when is better
to do CF? This paper will discuss the first three questions which cover the role of
CF and the techniques or strategies used for CF.
As previously stated, the view and value attributed to CF vary according to
the method or approach being used by the teacher or their beliefs about correction
in the language pedagogy. For example, within the audiolingual method, error
correction played a very important role as both accuracy and fluency were
emphasized. However, within the post-method era, according to Ellis (2009),
language teaching methodologists do not prescribe overtly CF, but while some
acknowledge the cognitive contribution it can make, other scholars warn instructors
about the affective damage it can cause. Other methodologists use the dichotomy
“accuracy‟ and “fluency” to place CF in the former.
In the 1990s, some researchers began to assert that explicit grammar
instruction, error correction, and/or a focus on form could promote SLA (Aljaafreh &
Lantolf, 1994; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, 1993, 1994; Long, 1996; Schmidt,
1990, 1993, 1995). Loewen et al (2009) claim that the controversy concerning CF
can be better understood in terms of meaning-focused instruction versus form-
focused instruction. The former assumes that second language (L2) acquisition
occurs unconsciously and implicitly like first language acquisition (L1).
Comprehensible input and a low affective filter in the learner are essential for
language learning. Advocates of this view claim that overt attention to linguistic
form is not needed, and also see corrective feedback as ineffective (e.g., Krashen,
1981; Newmark & Reibel, 1968; Schwartz, 1993; Terrell, 1977; Truscott, 1999, all
cited by Loewen et al, 2009). Krashen (1982), one of its proponents, suggests that
CF is useless and potentially harmful.
Nevertheless, the meaning-focused instruction has been questioned with
regard to its effectiveness. Research suggests that learners‟ production shows
grammatical inaccuracy even after years of exposure to the target language. This
situation has been associated with a lack of noticing and practicing linguistic forms
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
244
on behalf of the learners. These findings suggest therefore that form-focused
instruction can benefit language learners.
Form-focused instruction (FFI) is defined by Ellis (2001:1) as “any planned
or incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to
pay attention to linguistic forms”. This term, however, has been reinterpreted and
some scholars distinguish between focus on forms and focus on form. The former
refers to the:
[ ] division of the language according to lexis, structures, notions or functions, which are selected and sequenced for students to learn in a uniform and incremental way” (Klapper & Rees, 2003: 288).
Within this type, there is obviously no communicative context. Conversely,
focus on form favors attention to linguistic structures within the context of meaning-
focused, communicative activities (Ellis, 2001; Long, 1991, 1996). Long claims that
attention to meaning is not enough for acquisition to occur; some attention to form
is needed. Further the notion of attention, Schmidt (1995, 2001) draws on the
concept and importance of noticing as paramount in language acquisition.
Learners must consciously notice input for L2 learning to occur. From this
perspective, according to Kim (n.d.), corrective feedback seems to be beneficial to
language learners as it stimulates noticing and triggers them to recognize the gap
between their interlanguage and the target norm. This will consequently lead them
to grammatical restructuring.
Some other concepts closely related to these views of focus on form, and
focus on meaning instruction are explicit and implicit corrective feedback,
respectively. Ellis et al (2006) point out that in implicit CF there is no overt indicator
that an error has been committed, whereas in explicit feedback types, there is.
Schachter (1991 cited by El Tatawi, n.d.) classifies a grammatical explanation or
overt error, or metalinguistic explanation in explicit feedback; and implicit correction
includes, but is not limited to, confirmation checks, repetitions, recasts, clarification
requests, silence, and even facial expressions that express confusion. It is
precisely in next section where a brief description of the strategies for providing
corrective feedback is presented.
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
245
2. Types of errors and types of corrective feedback
2.1 Error types
When correcting, it is paramount to identify the type of error the learners
make because it is not always the case teachers want or need to correct
everything. Errors have been categorized by Mackey et al. (2000) and Nishita
(2004 cited by Yoshida, 2008) as:
(1) Morphosyntactic error. Learners incorrectly use word order, tense,
conjugation and particles.
(2) Phonological error. Learners mispronounce words (or we suggest it
could also include suprasegmental errors).
(3) Lexical error. Learners use vocabulary inappropriately or they
codeswitch to their first language because of their lack of lexical
knowledge.
(4) Semantic and pragmatic error. Misunderstanding of a learner‟s
utterance, although there is not any grammatical, lexical or phonological
errors.
2.2. Participants in the corrective feedback
Considering the participant(s) in the corrective feedback interaction, there is
the following possibilities:
Self-correction is possible when the learner realizes that he has committed a
mistake and repairs it by providing a correct form in place of the wrong one. Self
correction seems to be preferred to correction provided by others: it is face-saving
and allows the learner to play an active role in the corrective event.
Peer correction occurs when one learner corrects another one. This kind of
correction is appreciated for a number of reasons. Its most important advantages
are the following: both learners are involved in face-to-face interaction; the teacher
obtains information about learners‟ current abilities; learners co-operate in
language learning and become less teacher-dependent; peer correction does not
make errors a public affair, which protects the learners‟ ego and increases their
self-confidence.
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
246
Teacher-correction. The person to correct the errors is the teacher. The teacher
knows the problem and the solution, and can define and put things simply so that
the student can understand the mistake. The student should trust and respect
his/her place as a fluent speaker of English.
2.3. Techniques used in corrective feedback
Recast involves the teacher‟s reformulation of all or part of a student‟s utterance,
minus the error. Spada and Fröhlich (1995; cited in Lyster and Randa 1997) also
refer to such reformulations as “paraphrase”. Recasts are generally implicit in that
they are not introduced by phrases such as “You mean,” “Use this word,” and “You
should say.” However, some recasts are more salient than others in that they may
focus on one word only, whereas others incorporate the grammatical or lexical
modification into a sustained piece of discourse. Recasts also include translations
in response to a student‟s use of the L1. (Lyster and Randa, 1997).
Clarification request: According to Spada and Fröhlich (1995 cited in Lyster and
Randa, 1997), indicates to students either that their utterance has been
misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way and
that a repetition or a reformulation is required. This is a feedback type that can
refer to problems in either comprehensibility or accuracy, or both. A clarification
request includes phrases such as “Pardon me” and, in French, “Hein?” It may also
include a repetition of the error as in “What do you mean by X?” (Lyster and
Randa, 1997).
Metalinguistic feedback contains either comments, information, or questions
related to the well-formedness of the student‟s utterance, without explicitly
providing the correct form. Metalinguistic comments generally indicate that there is
an error somewhere. Metalinguistic information generally provides either some
grammatical metalanguage that refers to the nature of the error (e.g., “It‟s
masculine”) or a word definition in the case of lexical errors. Metalinguistic
questions also point to the nature of the error but attempt to elicit the information
from the student (e.g., “Is it feminine?”). (Lyster and Randa, 1997)
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
247
Elicitation: According to Lyster this type of feedback refers to at least three
techniques that teachers use to directly elicit the correct form from the student.
First, teachers elicit completion of their own utterance by strategically pausing to
allow students to “fill in the blank” as it were (e.g., “C‟est un . . . ”). Such “elicit
completion” moves may be preceded by some metalinguistic comment such as
“No, not that. It‟s a . . . ” or by a repetition of the error as in the following example:
(1997)
Repetition of error refers to the teacher‟s repetition, in isolation, of the student‟s
erroneous utterance. In most cases, teachers adjust their intonation so as to
highlight the error. (Lyster and Randa, 1997)
Body Language does not use an oral response. With this type of error correction
the teacher uses either a facial expression or a body movement to indicate the
student what he/she said is incorrect. Among which, frown, head shaking, etc,
were observed. (Shujen S. Yao, 2000)
3. Findings
Below we report the data obtained from the interviews to instructors in the
English Language Program at Universidad de Quintana Roo. For this, we have
divided the information in different sections.
3.1. The importance of corrective feedback in learning a foreign
language
In particular, these teachers interviewed see corrective feedback to be used
at the beginning of the learning process for two main reasons: beginners are less
reluctant to correction than advanced learners, and secondly, because by using
corrective feedback with beginners, fossilization can be prevented. They also
agreed that CF ought to be used tactfully considering students‟ attitudes toward
corrective feedback. It seems these instructors see CF as a something that can
damage the learner‟s feelings and the process of learning if used very frequently
and regardless the personality or emotions of the students. That is probably why
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
248
most of them try to get to know their students very well and find out who likes or
dislikes receiving any corrective feedback.
All the instructors agreed that if communication and meaning is the goal of
an activity, then CF has no place. That is, they seem to be afraid of using CF for
fear of interrupting the flow of communication in some activities and of inhibiting the
learners‟ participation.
Accordingly, these instructors favor the use of more implicit CF techniques
rather than explicit ones. Some teachers stated that CF can help learners to gain
fluency and improve their speaking skill.
3.2 Types of errors
When these teachers were asked about the types of errors they corrected,
all of them thought about pronunciation, and particularly, they were talking about
pronunciation of segments. Two teachers mentioned the correction of intonation in
advanced levels. The next error types brought up by these instructors can be
classified into morphosyntactic and lexical errors. Semantic and pragmatic errors
were not mentioned.
3.3. Corrective feedback techniques
With regard to the question of who corrects in the classroom, all teachers
use self-correction, teacher correction and peer correction. Teacher correction is
the most preferred one. It seems natural for everyone to correct and be corrected
by the teacher, the expert and knowledgeable person.
Self-correction was thought of as the set of strategies learners use to get rid
of their errors by themselves, not at the moment of making the error, but as a
subsequent step outside the classroom, and after having noticed the error. When
self-correction, understood as the one that students make as uptake just after the
error was made, was made clear to them, all teachers agreed they use it to some
extent, but not very often. One teacher sees self-correction in the classroom as the
best way of making corrective feedback.
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
249
Peer-correction is used cautiously by these instructors as learners‟
personalities and relationships among them play a crucial role for the application of
this technique. They see peer-correction as a technique that is depended on
factors as learners‟ attitudes towards their classmates, personalities, age, self-
esteem, and so on. They suggest teachers must get to know their students very
well before using correction between peers.
As to the techniques used by the teachers interviewed, they reported:
Body language.
Recasts
Repetition of error
Metalinguistic feedback.
Although metalinguistic feedback was included as one technique used, the
instructors made it clear that they don‟t use it directly and individually, that is, they
take notes of the errors learners made during an activity and at the end of such a
task, the instructors, addressing the whole class, explain the problem of the error
and give examples. They rarely use metalinguistic feedback to refer to a learner‟s
error in particular. Some of them emphasized the fact that this technique was
employed only when students find it difficult to understand why and what the error
was about. For complicated or difficult issues, these instructors said to favor the
metalinguistic feedback.
Repetition of error and recasts were the techniques most declared. These
teachers think that implicit corrective feedback is better as learners‟ emotions are
not affected. In addition, communication is not inhibited as they let students speak,
and the correction is such as indirect that learners do not feel any “harm” from the
correction provided.
While the techniques mentioned by these teachers seem varied, the
problem observed is, rather than the techniques themselves, the unsystematic and
ambiguous way of providing corrective feedback. Through the interviews, teachers
agreed that some techniques, such as recast and repetition of error can be
ambiguous and that some students do not even notice the correction. However,
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
250
they still insisted on using these techniques over metalinguistic corrective
feedback, or more explicit ways of CF. Moreover, these instructors never brought
up any plan or way of organization regarding CF. None said anything about
following a plan on how to correct what and when. We could infer teachers correct
any type of mistake (phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical) based only on the
criterion of how much they were affecting the meaning of the message to be
conveyed. Errors could then be interpreted as those that indeed prevent
communication, but it seems there are other “minor” errors that are neglected.
3.4 Effectiveness of corrective feedback
These teachers acknowledge that metalinguistic feedback is effective, but
they claim the implicit techniques for CF are more pertinent and tactful because
you consider your students‟ styles, attitudes and personalities. Teachers seem very
concerned with learners‟ emotions and are afraid of causing them anything that
may de-motivate them from learning the language.
4. Conclusions
Oral corrective feedback in the English Language Program at Universidad
de Quintana Roo plays an important role in the teaching of English as a Foreign
Language as it is used frequently in the classroom by the teachers interviewed.
However, the provision of CF seems inconsistent, ambiguous and unsystematic.
There is a need for teachers to provide CF clear enough to be perceived by
learners as such.
Although teachers do employ different techniques for CF, they seem more
concerned with the learners‟ feelings and emotions and are afraid of de-motivating
them. However, these perceptions can be understood as a need to provide CF in a
more systematic and consistent way. Teachers should not correct every error, or
neglect all of them. They need to use techniques that are effective and that allow
for time and opportunity for repair. Teachers agreed that their students do ask for
CF and accept correction. So the question to think about is whether teachers‟
intentions overlap with the learner‟s attitudes and emotions.
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
251
References
Aljaafreh, A. & J. Lantolf. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in
the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher‟s treatment of error. In M. K.
Burt & H. D. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second language learning,
teaching, and bilingual education (pp. 96-109). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of
learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.).
El Tatawy Mounira ( no date )Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Teachers‟
college. Columbia University.
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-
113.
Ellis, R. (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Language
learning, 51:Supplement 1, 391-.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 1, 3-18.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition
of L2 grammar. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368. CUP: USA.
Han, Z.H. (2008, November). Error correction: Towards a differential approach. The Fourth QCC
Colloquium on Second Language Acquisition. New York, New York. Video.
Hernández, E. y Murrieta, G. (2009). La enseñanza de la pronunciación en las clases de inglés. En
Reyes, M.R. Coordinadora. Creencias, estrategias y pronunciación en el aprendizaje de
lenguas extranjeras. Universidad de Quintana Roo.
Kim, J.H. Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL
& Applied Linguistics, 4, 2. Teachers College, Columbia University
Klapper, J. & Rees, J. (2003). Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university
foreign language learning context. Language teaching research, 7, 285-314.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:
Pergamon Institute of English.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thomson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., and Chen, X. (2009). The
modern language Journal,93,1, 91-104.
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
252
Long, M.. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C.
A., & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL '77. Teaching and learning English as a Second
Language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 278-94). Washington, D.C.:TESOL.
Reprinted in Robinett, B. W., & Schachter, J. (ed.), Second language learning: Contrastive
analysis, error analysis, and related aspects (pp. 446-65). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1993.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie
& B. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York:
Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., Nakatsukasa, K. (2007)
Teachers‟s intentions and learners‟ perceptions about corrective feedback on the L2
classroom. Innovation in Language learning and teaching, 1, 1, 129-152.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention
and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching
and learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 1-64). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
Schmidt, R. (1990).The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,
129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.
3-32), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers‟ choice and learners‟ preference of corrective feedback types.
Language awareness, 17, 1, 78-93.
Biodata Dra. Edith Hernández Méndez. Licenciatura en Lengua Inglesa en la Universidad Veracruzana, Maestría en Enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera por la Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Maestría y Doctorado en Lingüística Hispánica por la Ohio State University. Especialidad: adquisición de lenguas, enseñanza y aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras, estudios variacionistas. Contacto: [email protected] Dra. María del Rosario Reyes Cruz. Licenciatura en Lengua Francesa en la Universidad Veracruzana, Maestría en Psicopedagogía en la Universidad de la Habana, doctora en educación internacional por la Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. Especialidad: teoría de la educación, creencias pedagógicas, uso de tecnología
MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)
ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0
©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
253
Contacto: [email protected] Mtra. Griselda Murrieta Loyo. Licenciatura en lengua inglesa (área de concentración Traducción) y lengua francesa por la Universidad Veracruzana y maestría en Lingüística y Lenguas por la Universidad de Manchester, Inglaterra. Especialidad: lenguas en contacto: lenguas criollas, bilingüismo, preservación de lengua materna, estrategias de aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras Contacto: [email protected]