Foreign Language Teachers’ Feedback Practices: a Comparative Study

• Authors: Mihaela Brumen , Isabel Alonso-Belmonte , María Fernández Agüero , Tomaž Zupančič

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of this study is to describe the current foreign language (FL) assessment and feedback practices as reported by 213 experienced primary teachers in Slovenia and Spain. An ad hoc questionnaire was designed, validated and administered to 113 Slovenian and 100 Spanish teachers. The data were collected and analysed with the use of descriptive and inferential statistics. Among the most relevant findings, it is noteworthy that Spanish teachers focus on providing feedback on receptive skills while their Slovenian colleagues pay more attention to productive skills. Also, results from both groups reveal a lack of FL pronunciation feedback and scarce attention to interactive aspects of communication.

Keywords

EN

assessment; feedback comments; foreign language; teacher education; young learners

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: The New Educational Review
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 53
• Pages: 216-226

Dates

published

2018

Contributors

author

Mihaela Brumen

• University of Maribor

author

Isabel Alonso-Belmonte

• Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

author

María Fernández Agüero

• Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

author

Tomaž Zupančič

• University of Maribor

References

• Adams, M.J., Foorman, B.R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic awareness in young children: A classroom curriculum. Baltimore, MA: Brookes Publishing.
• Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The Effect of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191 – 205.
• Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Derwing, T.M., & Munro, M.J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research based approach. Tesol Quarterly, 39(3), 379 – 397.
• Farrokhi, F. (2012). The Effects of Direct Written Corrective Feedback on Improvement of Grammatical ccuracy of High- proficient L2 Learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 49– 57.
• Ferris, D.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N. & Hyun, H. (2014). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw–Hill.
• Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, (pp. 1 – 19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Jang, E.E., & Wagner, M. (2014). Diagnostic feedback in language classroom. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to language assessment, Vol. II (pp. 693 – 711). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Khatri, R. (2013). Feedback, student collaboration, and teacher support in English as a foreign language writing. IJSR – International Journal of Scientific Research, 2(2), 70 – 75.
• Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 216 – 237.
• Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69 – 85.
• Lešnik, S., Brumen, M. & Ivanuš-Grmek, M. (2013). Attitudes of parents toward learning foreign languages: a Slovene case study. The New Educational Review, 34 (4), 52 – 62.
• McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• National examination centre. (2016). Retrieved 25/04/2018, from http://www.ric.si/preverjanje_znanja/statisticni_podatki/
• Pardo, D.B. (2004). Can pronunciation be taught? A review of research and implications for teaching. Revisita Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 17, 6 – 38.
• Schulz, R.A. (2001). Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244 – 258.
• Seedhouse, P. (2001). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 51(Supplement 1), 347 – 385.
• Sert, O. (2015). Classroom interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh.
• Stobart, G. (2006). The validity of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and Learning (pp. 133 – 146). London: Sage.
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125 – 144). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.
• Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 6(1). 1 – 14. Retrieved 26/04/2018 from http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_6_1/Walsh.pdf

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/tner.2018.53.3.18

Biblioteka Nauki

1969309