Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices
This study investigated the relationship between pre-service English-as-a-second-language (ESL) teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their actual teaching practices. To determine the nature of this relationship, 99 teachers-in-training with little or no teaching experience were asked to complete a questionnaire seeking information about their teaching beliefs, particularly about oral corrective feedback (i.e. teachers’ responses to students’ language errors). The teachers’ responses were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis which revealed several dimensions underlying their beliefs. To examine how these beliefs affect classroom performance, 10 of the teachers were first asked to indicate how they would correct language errors illustrated in hypothetical (videotaped) classroom scenarios and were then observed teaching an authentic ESL class. The classes were video-recorded and 30-minute teacher-fronted communicative segments from the lessons were analysed for the number and type of errors learners made and the teachers addressed. Results indicate a multifarious relationship between stated beliefs and actual teaching practices in that while the teachers corrected fewer errors than they believed they would, they preferred the same corrective techniques in both hypothetical and actual teaching situations. Most notably, the study suggests that the complexities of the language classroom and the pre-service teachers’ lack of experience at integrating theoretical knowledge and practical skills, lead them to behave overall as native-speaking interlocutors, not as language teachers. Implications for teacher training are discussed.
|, , , ,|
|Language Teaching Research|
|Organisation||School of Linguistics and Language Studies|
Kartchava, E, Gatbonton, E. (Elizabeth), Ammar, A. (Ahlem), & Trofimovich, P. (Pavel). (2018). Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research. doi:10.1177/1362168818787546