NEGOTIATION FOR MEANING AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN TEACHER- STUDENTS INTERACTION

Authors

  • Cresensiana Widi Astuti STIKS Tarakanita Jakarta Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61841/j8qxzj75

Keywords:

Negotiation for Meaning, Interaction, Corrective Feedback

Abstract

In interactional communication in English, language learners might find difficulties in expressing their thought and understanding their interlocutors’ utterances. Not only in social communication, but also in classroom interaction when language learners communicate with their teachers in English. This paper was aimed at finding, first, what learners do when they do not understand, second, how does the teacher respond to the learners’ errors, and third, the types of corrective feedback used by the teacher in responding to the learners’ errors. Data for this paper was collected by recording the interaction between a teacher and six students. They were interviewed on topics relevant to their future job as secretaries. The analysis was focused on the occurrence of negotiation for meaning, types of corrective feedback, and backchanneling behavior and disfluency markers. The results showed that the learners were willing to ask to clarify when they did not comprehend their interlocutor’s utterances. Their interlocutor reacted by giving the information needed or repeating the utterance, providing corrective feedback to the learners’ errors, and showing backchanneling. The data showed that recast was the most frequently used type of corrective feedback to which the learners responded in repair. The data showed some disfluency markers: false starts, fillers, self-correct utterances, and L1 influence. These findings might be useful in improving the interactional communication between teachers and students in which the teacher, as the more able person, is expected to give more room for the students to ask and to take some time before production.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586949

2. Bergmann, C., Sprenger, S.A., Schmid, M.S. (2015). The impact of language co-activation on L1 and L2 speech fluency. Acta Psychologica, 161, 25-35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.07.015

3. Canale, S. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards, & R. Schmidt, Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/.

4. Cook, J. (2015). Negotiation for Meaning and Feedback among Language Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(2), 250-257. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0602.02

5. Corder, P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6. Ellis, R. and Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Foster, P. and Ohta, AS. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402-430. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami014

8. Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: an introductory course. New York: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from https://www.ebookphp.com/second-language-acquisition-an.

9. Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy and thinking. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Retrieved from https://www.heinemann.com/products/e01203.aspx#fulldesc

10. Halliday, M. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116. Retrieved from www.lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HallidayLangBased.pdf · PDF file

11. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/131696239/15-A-Levelt-Speaking-1989

12. Lightbown, P.M., and Spada. N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-second-language.

13. Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. (H. Winitz, Ed.) Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 379, 250-278. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/179331774/Input-Interaction-and-Second-Language-Acquisition-by- Michael-H-Long

14. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. e. de Boot, Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

15. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. a. Ritchie, Handbook of research on language acquisition: Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.

16. Long, M. and Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228. Retrieved from https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/3586827

17. Long, M. and Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teacher's questions. In H. a. Seliger, Class oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

18. Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66. doi:DOI: 10.1017/S0272263197001034

19. Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3-21. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270815081_Second- Language_Acquisition_Social_Interaction_and_the_Classroom

20. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x

21. Pica, T. (1996). Do second language learners need negotiation? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 7(2), 1-35. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol7/iss2/1

22. Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44-63. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ635193

23. Tarone, E. and Swierzbin, B. (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloads

Published

30.06.2020

Issue

Vol. 24 No. 6 (2020): 24 (6) 2020

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  1. Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
  2. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
  3. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

  1. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  2. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices:

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

How to Cite

Widi Astuti, C. (2020). NEGOTIATION FOR MEANING AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN TEACHER- STUDENTS INTERACTION. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(6), 3620-3635. https://doi.org/10.61841/j8qxzj75