Action Research Paper

ACTION RESEARCH PAPER

Action Research Paper

Arthur R. Sanford, III

University of Southern California: Rossier School ofEudcation

EDUC: 526B

February 15, 2015

Dr. Melanie Calvert


Introduction

At the beginning of my research, my problem of

practice focused on discovering the best methods and most

appropriate approaches for giving error corrections in

the classroom. My Capstone research intended to document

the successes and failures of corrective feedback methods

to determine which methods are best for the particular

needs of the students. Data on these types of error

corrections was collected primarily through observation

and fieldnotes. Also, a checklist with notes about which

types of corrections were made and the effectiveness of

the corrections was kept. This idea came from the seminal

research of Lyster and Ranta (2007), who provided models

for each type of error correction and how it is employed

in the classroom. From that point my research focused on

observing the types of correction found in their

2

2


research, as they were the most important and had a body

of literature dedicated to their study. Whether the

student generated their own self-repair was of particular

importance, because Lyster and Ranta (2007) “make a

distinction between recasts and explicit correction on

the one hand, and the other four feedback types on the

other, in that the former provide the correct form and do

not encourage a response from the learner (‘uptake’),

while the latter, collectively called prompts, withhold

the correct form and are more likely to be followed by

learner uptake” (Li, 196). According to Table 1, which

Tedick and de Gortari (1998) used to summarize Lyster and

Ranta’s (2007) findings, recasts and explicit correction

did not result in student repair in any significant way,

because they are really just a repetition of what the

teacher is saying and did not result in “learner uptake”

(Li, 196, 2014). On the other hand, the other four

correction types had greater success of student self-

repair because the correct form is not provided. For that

reason, learners achieve uptake with these types of error

correction. Thus, from this point onward, my error

3

3


correction research focused on corrective feedback that

generates learners’ self repair.

Data Collection and Findings

Shaofeng Li (2012) gives a delineation of Lyster and

Ranta’s (1997) six types of corrective strategy. I was

confident in using their summation of corrective

strategies and how best to employ them because further

research in the area agrees (LightBrown and Spada, 2006).

This delineation was used as the basis for observing

classroom error corrections. For example, a teacher can

respond to the erroneous utterance ‘He has dog’ by:

1. Reformulating it, recast: ‘a dog’

2. Alerting learner and providing correct form,

explicit correction: ‘no you should say “a dog”

3. Asking for clarification, clarification request:

‘Sorry’

4. Making a metalinguistic comment, metalinguistic

feedback: ‘You need an indefinite article’

5. Eliciting correct form, elicitation: ‘He has...?’

4

4


6. Repeating the wrong sentence, repetition: ‘He has

dog?’

I evaluated the fieldnotes and checklist of error

corrections by counting the frequency by which student

errors were self-repaired or ended up requiring a direct

correction. Then, I compared the four types of error

correction that Lyster and Ranta’s (2007) research

indicates lead to frequent learner reuptake, and noted

how effective they have been in the lessons observed.

Discussions about progress with error corrections

were also part of the data collection. During a

discussion with a teacher whose class I had observed, it

was mentioned that the student might not make a self-

generated correction, but that they might very well

remember it later and use the correct form. However, it

could not be substantiated whether this was merely the

student repeated the correct form or not. Also, it was

too difficult to track student reuptake of the corrected

form at a later time. The other teachers also discussed

with me over the research period about how effective each

type of error correction was in their classrooms. As the

5

5


last stage of my research, I sent the teachers a survey

to determine how many corrections they made in each class

since being introduced to corrective feedback methods in

my research. I also asked what types of corrections were

made, how frequently, and whether they believe the

corrections were effective at increasing students’

fluency. The results will be presented in the Data

Analysis section below.

Data Analysis

As stated in my Problem of Practice, my greatest

weakness was monitoring the most useful times to give

students corrective feedback in the classroom. The most

challenging aspect of this problem for me is knowing how

and when to appropriately correct a student in a way that

is reflective for the student while meeting the needs of

the lesson objective and target language. The main thing

I want to improve in my classroom practice is the method

in which I give corrective feedback, particularly on-the-

spot corrections in the classroom. My aim throughout this

action research has been to improve the methodology used

decide which errors to correct, when to correct them, how

6

6


to correct them, and choose the correct students to give

corrective feedback. After reading Lyster and Ranta’s

(1997) seminal research on corrective feedback, I began

to focus on the six types of corrective feedback they,

and other researchers following their lead, identified as

the most practiced forms of feedback. In an effective

summary of types of error corrections, Tedick and de

Gortari (1998) state that researchers have been “

especially interested in finding what types of error

treatments encourage learners’ self-repair. In other

words, what types of corrective feedback lead students to

correct their own errors with an eye toward grammatical

accuracy and lexical precision within a meaningful

communicative context” (pg. 2).

Thus far in my data collection, there is substantial

learner uptake, also called “self-generated corrections,”

(Li, 197, 2014. Also, Lyster and Ranta, 1997) when the

teacher uses indirect forms of feedback. The esults of

the action research can be accessed in Appendix A. The

most effective indirect form is elicitation. For example,

if a student says ‘I am going to store’, the teacher can

7

7


look confused and ask, ‘Do you mean you are going to the

store?’, and with that prompt students can often correct

themselves. There is no indication that explicit

corrections, such as saying the correct form directly

after the student, are that effective. For example, if a

student says ‘I am going to store’, the teacher can

follow up by saying ‘going to the store’ it is unclear

whether the student is just repeating the correct form,

or has actually learned to use it (Lyster, 2004; Lantolf,

2000). Sometimes students do not know the correct form,

so elicitation will prove ineffective and a direct

correction will have to be given anyway. Metalinguistic

feedback can be effective, except students must have a

strong knowledge of grammar for this to be effective, and

it is often too direct to be effective. Occasionally, the

students were distracted by the teacher’s attempt, and

were unsure which part of their speech to correct, or how

to go about correcting it. Repetition feedback can

promote repair, but students are prone to repeat their

initial mistake, seemingly thinking that the teacher is

directly giving them a correction, rather than repeating

8

8


their incorrect form. In this case the teacher ends up

having to directly intervene anyway. Explicit corrections

and recast are not immediately effective. Often, the

teacher has to follow up with an explanation. Overall,

the research indicates that it is best to attempt methods

that lead to self-generated correction according to

Lyster and Ranta (1997). The total observed results of

error corrections can be accessed in Appendix B. After

the observations and first round of data collection, I

met with the teachers to encourage them to try various

error correction methods discussed previously. After two

weeks, I had the teachers fill out a survey asking them

how many corrections they make per class, which types of

corrections they preferred, which are the most effective,

and if they believe making corrections leads to student

fluency. The results can be accessed in Appendix C.

According to the survey results, one teacher makes

up to a few corrections every class, two of the teachers

make between three to five corrections, and the last

teacher makes at least five corrections every class. On

the question “Which types of error correction do you

9

9


think are the most effective?” Teacher one’s most

preferred are recast and explicit. Interestingly, Lyster

and Ranta (1997) distinguish between those types on the

one hand and the other four types, the reasoning being

that the former provide the correct form and do not

encourage reuptake from the learner, whereas,

clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback,

elicitations, and repetitions encourage the learner to

find the correct form so that learning can proceed. These

latter four are more likely to be followed by learner

reuptake. It seems to follow that this teacher answered

“somewhat” to the question “Do you think your preferred

methods of error correction have increased student

fluency?” because the teacher may be unaware of the

research indicating that indirect methods are best at

prompting student reuptake. By comparison, the other

three teachers surveyed marked te latter four indirect

types of error correction delineated by Lyster and Ranta

(1997) and Li (2004) as being the most effective.

Elicitation was the most referred correction method,

followed by repetition, and repetition. During my primary

10

10


research I noticed that teacher 2, 3, and 4 used tended

to try elicitation or repetition as the initial

correction method, and if the student still failed to

generate their own correction they would them supply the

correct form. This fits Lantolf’s (2000) “prompt, then

provide” (pg. 211; Li, 196, 2014) model of error

correction. This method was discussed with all the

teachers during our discussions about corrective methods

and how to employ them.

Following these results, I will hold a workshop to

show the teachers the most effective forms of error

correction according to the research. I will also show

them that those who used the prompt, then provide model

of corrective feedback reported increased student fluency

over the period of the action research. It is probably

not coincidental that the teachers who reported the most

success use Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) preferred models of

error correction initially, then rely on supplying the

answer to keep the class going should the student not

generate their own repair. This agrees with Lantolf’s

(2000) approach that excessive, especially direct,

11

11


feedback, thwarts learner autonomy and is not contingent

upon the needs of individual learners.

Implications for Practice

This information will tell me when are the

appropriate moments to use direct and indirect feedback.

Thus far, I have learned that when giving error

corrections the teacher should initially try an

elicitation or metalinguistic feedback because they are

the most effective, and if those fail at student self-

correction, the teacher should just supply the

correction. Therefore, it is best to employ Lanolf’s

(2000) “prompt-then-provide” (pg. 211) model in order to

keep students’ affective filter low, and use Lyster’s

(2004) model of correction types as a selective guide to

which errors are more frequent and thus probably in

greater need of feedback to the students. Willis and

Willis’ (2007) preference for post-task correction is

probably more beneficial, since their research indicates

that it contextualizes the correction and does not

distract the students from oral production in the task

they are trying to achieve. Prompt then provide, as

12

12


outlined by Li (2014) is the method where the teacher

tries elicitations, and if that fails then the teacher

should just supply the correction. It may not lead to

self-generated repair, but it does allow the class to go

one and the student to at least become aware of the

mistake. Nunan (68, 1996) states, “More recently, the

view has emerged that that making mistakes is a healthy

part of the learning process, and that mistakes and

subsequent correction can provide the learner with

valuable information on the target language.” As stated

in my problem of practice, the most challenging aspect is

using enough corrective techniques appropriately so that

error correction can be a useful tool. Learners often

seek error correction, and may feel they are being short-

changed if not explicitly corrected. Teachers often have

good reasons for not correcting too much, or may in fact

be giving corrections in such a way that learners are not

explicitly aware that they are being corrected. Teachers

might also get into the habit of using the same narrow

range of corrective techniques, which may not be

effective for certain learners. Thus, the error

13

13


corrections methods should be suited to the learners in

their context according to their needs.

Research Implications

The setting for my research was at a private

language company, with up to four students who are taught

English using communicative methods. I chose this sight

out of proximity to my own location and teaching context.

The classes took place for two hours, four times a week.

The age of the students ranges from 14 to 40, and they

are all intermediate level English speakers who make

frequent grammar errors when discussing content with the

teacher or doing task-based learning. The curriculum is

textbook based, with a lot of grammar modeling. The most

common method of instruction follows the

introduction/warmer-presentation-practice-production-

review lesson plan formats (Richards, 2006). The

students are all either working professionals who need to

speak fluent English to add to their job skills, or

students who want to learn English in order to go to

university. Considering their primary needs, they seek

error correction in the classroom, and would complain if

14

14


they felt they were being corrected too few times during

class.

The research indicates that direct correction

methods are ineffective. In my fieldnotes and

observations they were also found to be to distracting

and sometimes confusing. This agrees with the body of

research found thus for on this subject. Lyster and

Ranta, 2004) Willis and Willis’ (2007) state that too

much focus on form may undermine language acquisition and

raise the students’ affective filter. Error correction

may best be done in a post-task, or “offline” stage,

because error correction will force students focus on a

particular linguistic structure during the task. As Li

(197) states, “when linguistic forms are addressed in a

pre-task phase, learners’ consequent obsession with form

can undermine the primary focus on meaning, which is of

overarching importance in a task-based or communicative

approach”. Further research could focus on addressing how

best to do error correction in a post-task phase.

Conclusion

From this point I will hold a workshop with teachers

15

15


at my research site in order to demonstrate the best

methods for error correction according to the research

found. The teachers’ first language is English, so I will

teach them some basic Latin constructions. The teacher

will have two groups: group one will receive the prompt,

then provide model of error corrections, and group two

will receive direct corrections. This will give them a

chance to personally observe what Lantolf's (2000) and

Willis and Willis’ (2007) respective research says about

how the different methods effect students in the

classroom. Afterwards, I will ask them how effective they

thought the corrections were, and if they felt their

learning was being thwarted during the error correction

process. Ideally, this will lead teachers to see the

importance of the indirect methods that lead to student

self-generated repair, and they will employ these methods

in their own classrooms.

16

16


References

Nunan, David. The Self-Directed Teacher: Managing the

Learning Process.

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.

1996.

Lantolf J. 2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language

Learning. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

17

17


Lightbown and Spada (2006:125-128) “Corrective feedback

in the classroom” in How

languages are learned (3rd edition) Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Li S. 2014. ‘Oral Corrective Feedback’. Oxford ELTJ

68, (2): 196-198.

Retrieved February 10, 2014 from:

eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/12/elt

.cct076.full?utm_content=

buffer830a4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com

&utm_campaign=buffer

Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and

learner uptake: Negotiation

of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second

Language

Acquisition, 19, 37-66.

Lyster R. 2004. Differential effects of prompts and

recasts in form-focused

instruction. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition. 26/3: 399–432.

18

18


Richards, J. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching

Today.

CambridgeUniversity Press: New York. Retrieved from:

http://www.cambridge.org/other_files/downloads/esl/b

ooklets/Richards-Communicative-Language.pdf

Tedick D. and de Gortari B. (May 1998). Research on Error

Correction and

Implications for Classroom Teaching. The Bridge: From

Research to

Practice. 2-4.

Willis D., Willis J. Doing Tasked-based Teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

2007.

19

19


Appendix A

N is the number of attempted corrections. The list runs

from most to least effective, in terms of student self-

generated corrections, as follows. The timeline was four

students in a total of four, 50-minute classes every

week, observed over five weeks:

(n)=125

20

20


Elicitation: ~40% (50)

Metalinguistic feedback: ~20% (25)

Clarification request: ~15% (18)

Repetition: ~1% (12)

Recast: 0% (5)

Explicit: 0% (15)

Appendix B

21

21


Appendix C: Teacher Survey

How many corrections do you make per class, since we

first discussed error correction methods? 0-3, 3-5,

5-10?

Answers: Teacher 1, 0-3. Teachers 2 and 3, 3-5.

Teacher 4, 5-10.

22

22


What types of error correction do you think are the

most effective? Rank in order from highest to

lowest. 1) elicitation 2) metalinguistic feedback 3)

clarification request 4) repetition 5) recast 6)

explicit

Teacher 1: repetition, recast, explicit,

elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic

feedback.

Teacher 2: elicitation, repetition, clarification

request, metalinguistic feedback, recast, explicit.

Teacher 3: elicitation, clarification request,

repetition, recast, metalinguistic feedback,

explicit.

Teacher 4: elicitation, repetition, clarification

request, metalinguistic feedback, recast, explicit.

Do you think your preferred methods of error

correction have increased student fluency? 0) not at

all 1) somewhat 2) considerably 3) greatly

Teacher 1: 1

Teacher 2: 2

Teacher 3: 2

23

23


Teacher 4: 3

24

24

Action Research Paper

Documents

Transcript of Action Research Paper