Cover not available

In:TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy
Edited by Virginia Samuda, Kris Van den Branden and Martin Bygate
[Task-Based Language Teaching 12] 2018
► pp. 213–234

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 8
Promoting learning from second language speaking tasks

Exploring learner attitudes to the use of comparators and oral feedback

 | University of Edinburgh
Published online: 1 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.12.09lyn
In this chapter I report the findings of a study of language learner attitudes to comparators and oral feedback used as support for their performances on speaking tasks. The study involved two groups of international postgraduates studying at the University of Edinburgh: the first were students who had attended an in-session speaking skills course, and the second were an intact class attending a pre-sessional English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programme. The views revealed in their questionnaire responses and interviews show wide variation at the individual level, even among students from the same cultural background. The findings also suggest differences in perception between the two groups, which may be related in part to the different experience of learners at a pre-sessional stage and of those already attending degree programmes. I discuss the learners’ responses and suggest a teaching framework in which language teachers and course designers could accommodate different learners’ perceptions of the most effective ways of comparing and enhancing their second language performances.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background: Defining feedback
  • Timing of feedback
  • Feedback encouraging learner reflection
  • Supplementing feedback: Comparators
  • Learner views on comparators and feedback: Type and timing
  • The task under study
    • Pre-task
    • Task 1: Private performance
    • Debriefing 1
    • Task 2: Public performance
    • Debriefing 2
    • Post-task
  • Survey 1: In-session students
    • Data collection
  • Findings
    • Usefulness
    • Timing of chosen comparators
  • Summary
  • Survey 2: Pre-sessional students
    • Data collection
  • Findings
    • Usefulness
    • Timing of chosen comparators
  • Discussion
  • Reasons for differing perceptions
  • A framework for accommodating learners’ preferences
  • Conclusion
  • References
  • Appendix
References (50)
References
Allwright, R. (1975) Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ’83: The question of control (pp.231–252). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allwright, R., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, K., Maclean, J., & Lynch, T. (2004). Study speaking (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aston, G. (1993). Notes on the interlanguage of comity. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 224–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byrne, D. (1987). Techniques for classroom interaction. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom errors. In J. Fanselow &. R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’76 (pp.41–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N., Day, R., Chun, A., & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of nonnative speakers to corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 79–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Di Pietro, R. (1987). Strategic interaction: Learning language through scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2009). Investigating learners’ feedback and instructor preferences in the Spanish foreign language classroom. Hispania, 92(2), 295.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis in second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.206–225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ingels, S. (2010). Transcription and self-correction strategies for improving L2 pronunciation. Paper presented at TESOL Convention, Boston, April 2010.
Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 1–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.177–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp.278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (1996). Proof-listening: A feedback technique in speaking classes. Modern English Teacher, 5(4), 41–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal, 55(2), 124–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61(4), 311–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Responding to learners’ perceptions of feedback: The use of comparators in second language speaking courses. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lynch, T., & Anderson, K. (1992). Study speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil M., Atanassova G., Hama M., Logan-Terry A., & Nakatsukasa K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 129–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mennim, P. (2003). Rehearsed oral L2 output and reactive focus on form. ELT Journal, 57(2), 130–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Long-term effects of noticing on oral output. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 265–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nolasco, R., & Arthur, L. (1987). Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 459–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (1985). Conversational competence through role-play activities. RELC Journal, 16(1), 82–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 183–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.119–140). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1983) Nutritional needs of language learners. In M. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL ’82: Pacific perspectives on learning and teaching (pp.175–189). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2001). The case of the missing “No”: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 51, 347–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stillwell, C., Curabba, B., Alexander, K., Kidd, A., Kim, E., Stone, P., & Wyle, C. (2010). Students transcribing tasks: Noticing fluency, accuracy and complexity. ELT Journal, 64(4), 445–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vigil, N., & Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26(2), 281–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Perspectives on task-based instruction: Understanding our practices, acknowledging different practitioners. In B. L. Leaver & J. Willis (Eds.), Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practice and programs (pp.3–44). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Suzuki, Yuichi, Masaki Eguchi & Nel de Jong
2022. Does the Reuse of Constructions Promote Fluency Development in Task Repetition? A Usage‐Based Perspective. TESOL Quarterly 56:4 ► pp. 1290 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue