|
Peter Beech
|
Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Description of the survey
3.
Discussion of the results
4.
Conclusion
5. References
6.
Appendix - Specimens of the survey forms and results
1.
Introduction
My experience of the Aston MSc,
combining reading, teaching practice and research, combines what Edge (1992: 6)
refers to as intellectual comprehension and experiential understanding. The
theory that we adopt is
integrated into our practice
and classroom research into the results of
its implementation provides feedback to refine the theory. If the course
is conceived as comprising of linguistic and pedagogic strands, these are most
closely intertwined in the Linguistic Varieties component; by applying
sociolinguistic studies to our own classroom situation we can examine the type
and quality of interactions that take place.
Underhill (1991: 2) has said that
“the psychological learning atmosphere created by a teacher is a deciding
factor in the effectiveness and personal significance of that teacher’s
lessons”. Coming to the Teacher Development option at the end of the course
has given me the opportunity to reflect on my development throughout the course
and in particular on how far I have been able to develop my “attitudes,
awareness and behaviours” to promote a positive atmosphere. I regard this as
an essential condition for effective learning as “The whole person, both in
feeling and in cognitive aspects, is part of the learning event” ( Rogers
& Freiberg 1969, 1994: 36). For this reason I decided to base this account
of my development on a piece of research into my students’ attitudes to
patterns of interaction in the classroom. As Wright (1990: 84) states, “An
understanding and awareness of the intricacies of the social and psychological
processes of the classroom is central to effective teacher development”.
In many aspects of our work we
are obliged to evaluate learners’ performance, and it is essential to do this
in ways which will not compromise our “unconditional acceptance of students’
worth” . While we would not want to abandon criteria of achievement and
success, we should recognise that the values we bring to evaluation are limited
to our own perspectives. To overcome this limitation, some forms of evaluation
can be negotiated, thus enhancing the extent to which learning can be learner-
or person-centred. But while a humanistic
approach seems most likely to
create a positive atmosphere, Bailey et al. (1996: 16) note “Some of the
teachers that we considered the
best were perceived as successful because they were demanding and strict, rather
than displaying supportive behaviour.” In any case, evaluation is at the heart
of classroom interaction. Of the many possible ways of giving feedback
(Richards & Nunan 1990: 7) the most common is evaluation of
learners’ contributions by the teacher (Van Lier 1988: 33). Even when we try
to minimise the asymmetry of power in the classroom, conversational patterns are
not normal, and the three-turn sequence initiation - response - evaluation is
prevalent, with evaluation almost always performed by the teacher. Given the
inevitability of evaluation it seemed important to be aware of the most
effective way of conducting it. In order to explore whether my students concur
with those in Freeman & Richards’ data, or if they respond more favourably to a person-centred classroom, I returned to a piece of classroom
research that I had originally undertaken in the context of the Linguistic
Varieties component and asked students
to provide feedback on the various kinds of repair that occurred in my data.
As Tsui (1996: 156) points out, [
language] “ learners are much more vulnerable to criticism and negative
evaluation than in other subjects because the chances of making mistakes in the
language class are much greater. A learner may get the answer right in terms of
content, but wrong in terms of form or pronunciation.” In order to minimise
the threat to the learners’ self-confidence, we should therefore modulate our
treatment of the errors, combining it with positive feedback for those aspects
that are correct. That is not to say that errors are undesirable; as Widdowson (1990: 121-122) puts it, “ Learning is not now seen
as conformity to the conditions controlled by the teacher but as a
self-generating process by the learners themselves. ... Non conformity is
positively evaluated as the achievement of an interim interlanguage.” But if
our evaluation is intended to be positive, it is important that it should be
perceived as such by the learners being evaluated, and in order to be aware of
students’ perceptions, it is necessary to conduct research. As Peck ( 1993:
84) points out, “Teachers who become aware of their own techniques of
teaching, as a result of research, may become sensitised to the relative
effectiveness of different aspects of their own methodology.”
In the original project I had
transcribed repair trajectories from recordings of my lessons and had quantified
the relative frequency of various kinds. I had been particularly struck by the
unexpected prevalence of other-initiated other-repair, which essentially took
the form of the teacher correcting an error rather than prompting the student to
correct it herself. Although this kind of repair is highly constrained in social
situations, I had concluded that, in Van Lier’s(1988: 189-190) terms, this
evaluative didactic repair need not be perceived as disjunctive, with a high
likelihood of threat to face. Rather it could be regarded as affirming and
enabling; in the interactions I had recorded, repair often took the form of a
cooperative effort to reach the correct utterance, analogous to back channels
which support the current speaker without taking over the turn.
However, as Underhill ( 1993:
183) notes, “ One thing that disturbs me is the discrepancy between my
experience of myself and my learners’ experience of me. There is constant
evidence that the effect I think I am having on my learners ... is different
from the effect I am actually having on them.” I thus realised the necessity
of testing how far my students’ perceptions of the sensitivity and helpfulness
of the various kinds of repair concurred with my own.Allwright & Bailey
(1991: 103) quote research which found that learners actually want more
correction than they get, and I have often been told by adult learners that they
want all their mistakes to be corrected. I thus decided to design a new piece of
research to survey the learners own attitudes to errors and correction. As Clark
(1992: 78) points out, we need to make our beliefs and theories explicit in
order to perceive the frames through which we interpret experience. At the time
of the original research, the focus was on Conversation Analysis rather than the
affective needs of learners, but after my experience of the Teacher Development
component I realised that in order to understand whether the repair strategies I
use are regarded as threatening or enabling, I should ask the learners
themselves. In that way I understood what Edge (1992: 81) means when he says “
Classroom research is teacher development made explicit”.
2. Description of the Survey
The
first phase of the survey ( see appendix) explores learners’ attitudes to
errors and corrections. It aims to establish attitudes to making errors through
items A-C, and then
if
students
want to be corrected (items D-H)
how
students want to be corrected (items I-L)
when
students
want to be corrected (items M-O)
by
whom students
want to be corrected (items P-Q).
The
second phase takes up the question of how students want to be corrected through
examples of various treatments. The second phase was administered immediately
after the first, and each student’s completed forms were stapled together so
that the responses could be correlated. In particular, in order to assess the
reliability of the data, I wanted to
see how far each student’s responses in phase two exemplified the preferences
expressed in phase one I-L. The survey was completed by students from four
classes:
9
elementary, represented as B
11
pre-intermediate, represented as C
11
intermediate, represented as D
8
upper intermediate, represented as E.
In
the tables of results, as in the discussion, capital letters refer to classes
and small letters denote individual students; Bf is student f in class B.
The
authentic transcript from my original data is D, and the other versions are
designed to illustrate various kinds of repair trajectories as follows:
In
A, B, C and D the teacher initiates repair which is done by the original
student.
A
simply indicates that the error exists, after the Transition
Relevant Point
Corresponds
to phase one I + N
B
indicates the location of the error, after the Transition
Relevant Point
Corresponds
to phase one J + N
C
indicates the location of the error, interrupting the turn
Corresponds
to phase one J + M
D
explains the error
Corresponds
to phase one K + N
In
E, F and G, the teacher performs the repair.
E
after the TRP
Corresponds
to phase one L + N
F
before the TRP
Corresponds
to phase one L + M
G
in response to the self-initiation by the student
Corresponds
to phase one L + N
H
is self-initiated self-repair
No
equivalent in phase one
I
is repaired by a fellow student
Corresponds
to phase one Q + M
It was clearly impractical to try to
illustrate all the possible repair trajectories, so I decided to restrict myself
to the number that would fit on one page. This meant that there is only one
example of peer correction, and no instance of the error being left untreated.
It is also likely that students’ evaluation of appropriate repair might depend
on the kind of error being treated, but it was not possible handle the
proliferation that a variety of errors would have entailed. It is clear from the
transcript that the error is grammatical, but there is no wider context to show
if it arose during a high structure activity such as a grammar exercise or a low
structure one such as a discussion. In my original data, initiation was often
performed by drawing attention to the trouble source by means of a question
(“What’s the correct preposition?”) or explanation (“What you need is a
singular noun”), a technique which obviously lends itself to grammar
exercises. While the type of error is probably the most important criterion for
the decision to repair ( Allwright 1988: 205), that might also depend on its
relevance to the pedagogic focus. Time constraints might also influence the
treatment of errors, as would the phase of the lesson ( Allwright & Bailey
1991: 90). Additionally, the teacher might be more likely to overlook errors by
certain individuals in order to spare them the embarrassment of constant
correction.
3. Discussion of the Results
The
order of most positively evaluated statements in phase one was as follows:
F.
I want to be corrected if I make mistakes in an exercise.
C.
I think it’s good to make mistakes because you learn from them.
N.
I prefer to be corrected after I have finished.
H.
I want all my mistakes to be corrected.
K.
I like the teacher to indicate where the mistake is and explain it so that I can
correct it.
I.
I like the teacher to indicate that there’s a mistake and let me find and
correct it myself.
G.
I want to be corrected if I make mistakes in conversation.
P.
I think corrections should be done by the teacher.
J.
I like the teacher to indicate where the mistake is and let me correct it
myself.
E.
I don’t mind being corrected.
A.
I hate making mistakes.
Q.
I think corrections can be done by other students as well.
M.
I prefer to be corrected immediately.
O.
I prefer to be corrected later.
B.
I don’t mind making mistakes.
D.
I hate being corrected.
L.
I like the teacher to give me the correction.
The
order of most positively evaluated repair trajectories in phase two was as
follows:
D
Student:
I mustn’t crossing the busy road.
Teacher:
Remember that modal verbs are followed by the bare infinitive.
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road
A
Student:
I mustn’t crossing the busy road.
Teacher:
Try again.
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
H
Student:
I mustn’t crossing, no, cross, I mustn’t cross the busy road.
B
Student:
I mustn’t crossing the busy road.
Teacher:
I mustn’t ...?
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
C
Student
: I mustn’t crossing...
Teacher
: Not crossing.
Student : I mustn’t cross the busy road
I
Student
1 : I mustn’t crossing...
Student
2 : cross
Student
1 : I mustn’t cross the busy
road.
E
Student:
I mustn’t crossing the busy road.
Teacher:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road
G
Student:
I mustn’t crossing ... crossing or
cross?
Teacher:
Cross
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
F
Student:
I mustn’t crossing...
Teacher:
I mustn’t cross
Student: I mustn’t cross the busy road.
By
comparing each individual’s responses across the two phases, we can evaluate
the reliability of the data in expressing the students’ real preferences.
Thus, where I, J and K are preferred (rated 1 or 2) in phase one, A, B, C and D
should be preferred (given a lower average number than E, F and G) in phase two.
Where L is preferred in phase one, E, F and G should be preferred in phase two.
On this measure, there is a satisfactory degree of reliability. The average of
I, J and K is lower than L for 30 of the 39 students. Of these 30, all but 3
gave A, B, C and D a lower average than E, F and G. On the other hand, for the
students who expressed a preference for L over I, J and K, 4 out of 6 failed to
corroborate that in phase two, indicating that the discrepancy is due to
carelessness or misunderstanding rather than a minority preference. This can be
borne out by examination of the responses of individuals Bd, Cb, Cc, Cd, Cf, Cg,
Eb, Ed and Eh.
There
is a high level of agreement that “ it’s good to make mistakes because you
learn from them”, even though nine individuals strongly agreed that they hate
making mistakes, and a very low rating was given to “ I don’t mind making
mistakes”. It seems that while, in theory at least, students recognise that
errors are an essential part of the learning process, they have very negative
feelings about actually making them. Nevertheless, they do want their errors to
be corrected, and while correction of mistakes that occur in conversation was
given slightly less approval than correction of mistakes made in exercises, the
difference was not great enough to be considered significant. The high placings
of K, I and J and the last position of L in phase one bear out the dispreference
for the teacher providing the correction which is clearly indicated in phase
two, while the high placing of “I prefer to be corrected after I’ve finished”
is also clearly supported by the ordering of the repair trajectories. On those
two points there is clear evidence of strong student preferences.
It
can be seen from the graph which displays the average rating given by all the
students that treatments D and A are much more strongly preferred than the
others, followed by H, B and C. This means that self-repair is clearly perceived
as preferable. The ratings for the other treatments, I, E, G, F are
significantly lower, with F, where the teacher interrupts and gives the correct
answer, being perceived as the least desirable. The most highly rated treatment
of the error is for the teacher to explain
it so that the student can correct it (D), followed by encouragement to
try again, prompting and pointing to the trouble source. The rating of H, where
the student corrects her own error, varies enormously amongst individuals, but
for the most preferred treatments, A and D, there was a very high degree of
agreement. With the exception of the cases where they were pushed down one rank
by H, D and A occupied first and second placings in all classes.
In
phase one, the question of who should perform the repair is a divided one. There
was a very slight tendency to agree (2.7) that corrections can be done by other
students, and a rather stronger tendency to agree (2.2) that corrections should
be done by the teacher. For any average figure, the question arises if a lot of
students are neutral or if the group contains individuals with various strong
preferences that cancel each other out in the averaging. As we are concerned
here with the attitudes of individuals, I felt it was important to resolve that
point. If we look at the individual ratings for statement Q, we find the
following number of occurrences of each rating:
CLASS
B C
D E
TOTAL
RATING
1
2 1
1 0
4
2
2 5
2 5
14
3
4
3 5
1
13
4
0 2
2 1
5
5
1 0
1 1
3
This
shows that the great majority of individuals either agree weakly or are neutral
on the question of whether corrections can be done by other students, and the
only example of such a repair trajectory in phase two was given
a low ranking, presumably because it constitutes an interruption. As
Allwright & Bailey (1991: 108) note, “Porter found that second language
learners interacting either with native speakers or with other second language
learners were able to accurately correct other learners’ errors, though they
rarely did so. A possible disadvantage of peer correction is that it deprives
the speaker of the opportunity to correct the error; in my data, self-repair
initiated by other students did not occur, which is natural as students cannot
be expected to employ didactic techniques. On the other hand, there is evidence
that error correction by peers may be more likely to lead to learning. Block
(1996: 170) suggests that “...it would appear that teacher-generated discourse
is less memorable than learner-generated discourse”. In addition to possible
cognitive advantages, greater student participation in correction might also
bring the affective benefits associated with peer teaching. In a situation
described in Rogers & Freiberg (1969, 1994: 201), the tutees “showed
greater confidence, more motivation to work, and an improved attitude towards
mathematics....Tutors gained in their own self-assurance and their willingness
to assume responsibility.”
On
the question of when repair should be carried out, my idea that repair before
the TRP might be regarded as enabling rather than threatening was not borne out
by the data, although in order to test that hypothesis I would need to modify
the design of the research to include more extensive transcripts exemplifying
that kind of support. As Van Lier (1988: 235) notes, “ When control is shared,
a type of repair is favoured which is proactive, i.e. which aims to further the
interaction as it is developing.”
The corollary of this is that there will be a greater proportion of
repair or initiation before the turn is completed, as in my original data. On
the present evidence, however, it seems more important that, as Nunan & Lamb
(1996: 76) point out, “Correction methods which encourage purposeful learner
involvement by allowing opportunities to self-correct or analyse the errors
facilitate learning.” So repair trajectory C, although it had a rather low
rating because of the interruption, still rates significantly higher than those
where the correction is provided.
By
using concrete examples in phase two of the survey, I hoped to increase the
reliability of the responses, but the most reliable way to gauge attitudes to
repair is through observing its actual effects. The uptake of repair varied
greatly between individual students in my original data. Having modified my
practice in line with the conclusions of the present research, it will be
interesting to see if the incidence of uptake is improved, on the occasions
where repair is provided, and if the incidence of repair is improved on the
occasions where initiation is provided; initiation which is more informative, in
explaining the nature of the error should clearly be more likely to lead to
successful repair by the learner.
4.
Conclusion
The
results of the survey, in conjunction with the transcripts from my original
research, constitute an evaluation of myself as a teacher ( Nunan 1988: 147-148,
Allwright 1988: 200). I can now develop a new cycle of action research by
observing the effects of modifying my practice in line with my students’
expressed preferences. The particular focus of this research is clearly only one
of many aspects of classroom practice which should be made explicit, but it
highlights the importance of combining essential evaluation with sensitivity to
the learners’ affective domain. As Leithwood (1992: 91) notes, “At the
highest stages of psychological development, teachers are inner-directed but
appreciate the interdependent nature of relationships in a social setting such
as a classroom....these teachers have achieved more of a synthesis in their
classrooms between an emphasis on achievement and an interpersonal orientation.”
My
own development throughout the past two years has been characterised by the
growing understanding that the learner is at the centre, and that the focus for
my development must be a focus on the learner. The emphasis placed on
experiential understanding by this course means that our readings are mediated
through our own research in our own classrooms. So, as Oberg & Underwood
(1992: 163) express it, “The theory that we thus create is not separate from
our practice, either as source or product. It is simply how we speak of what we
do when our actions are in tune with our intentions.”
5.
References
Allwright,
D. 1988.
Observation in the Language Classroom
London: Longman.
Allwright,
D. & Bailey, K. 1991.
Focus on the Language Classroom Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bailey,
K. et al. “The
language learner’s autobiography: Examining the
‘apprenticeship of observation’.”
In Freeman & Richards (1996) : 11-29.
Bailey,
K. & Nunan, D.
(eds.) 1996. Voices From the Language Classroom
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Block,
D.
“A window on the classroom: classroom events viewed from different angles.”
In Bailey & Nunan (1996) : 168-194.
Clark,
C. “Teachers
as Designers in Self-directed Professional Development.” In Hargreaves &
Fullan (1992) : 75-84.
Edge,
J. (1992) Cooperative
Development Harlow: Longman
Edge,
J & Richards, K. (eds.)
(1993) Teachers Develop Teachers
Research Oxford:
Heinemann.
Freeman,
D. & Richards, J. (eds.)
(1996) Teacher Learning in Language Teaching
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fullan,
M. & Hargreaves, A.
(eds.) (1992) Teacher
Development and Educational Change London: The Falmer Press.
Hargreaves,
A. & Fullan, M.
(eds.) (1992) Understanding Teacher Development London: Cassell.
Leithwood,
K. “The
Principal’s Role in Teacher Development.” In Fullan & Hargreaves (1992)
: 86-103.
Nunan,
D. (1988) The
Learner-Centred Curriculum Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan,
D. & Lamb, C. (1996)
The Self-Directed Teacher Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Oberg,
A. & Underwood, S. “Facilitating
Teacher Self-development: Reflections on Experience.” In Hargreaves &
Fullan (1992) : 162-177.
Peck,
A. “The
relationship between classroom process analysis and interventionist strategies
in foreign language teaching.” In Edge & Richards (1993) : 83-93.
Richards,
J. & Nunan, D. (eds.)
(1990) Second Language Teacher Education
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers,
C. & Freiberg, H. (1969,
1994) Freedom to Learn New
York: Macmillan
Tsui,
A. “Reticence
and anxiety in second language learning.” In Bailey & Nunan (1996) :
145-167.
Underhill,
A. Plenary
talk in IATEFL Teacher Development Group newsletter 17/1991.
Underhill,
A. “Awareness:
the instrument and the aim of experiential research.” In Edge & Richards
(1993) : 183-187.
Van
Lier, L. (1988)
The Classroom and the Language Learner
London: Longman
Widdowson,
H. (1990) Aspects
of Language Teaching Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wright, T. “Understanding classroom role relationships.” In Richards & Nunan (1990) : 82-97.
6.
Appendix: specimens of the survey forms and results.
Learners’
Attitudes to Errors and Correction
Please
indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements by giving it a number 1-5:
1
= I strongly agree
2
= I agree
3
= Neutral
4
= I disagree
5
= I strongly disagree
A.
___ I hate making mistakes.
B.
___ I don’t mind making mistakes.
C.
___ I think it’s good to make mistakes because you learn from them.
D.
___ I hate being corrected.
E.
___ I don’t mind being corrected.
F.
___ I want to be corrected if I make mistakes in an exercise.
G.
___ I want to be corrected if I make mistakes in conversation.
H.
___ I want all my mistakes to be corrected.
I.
___ I like the teacher to indicate that
there’s a mistake and let me find and correct
it myself.
J.
___ I like the teacher to indicate where the mistake is and let me correct it
myself.
K.___
I like the teacher to indicate where the mistake is and explain it so that I can
correct it.
L.
___ I like the teacher to give me the correction.
M.
___ I prefer to be corrected immediately.
N.
___ I prefer to be corrected after I have finished.
O.
___ I prefer to be corrected later.
P.
___ I think corrections should be done by the teacher.
Q.___
I think corrections can be done by other students as well.
Please
add any other comments you would like to make.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Peter
Beech Language
Studies Unit, Aston University
1996 - 97
Kinds
of Correction
Please
number these dialogues in order from the best (1) to the worst (9) way of
correcting mistakes.
A.
___
Student:
I mustn’t crossing the busy road.
Teacher:
Try again.
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
B.
___
Student:
I mustn’t crossing the busy road.
Teacher:
I mustn’t ...?
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
C.
___
Student
: I mustn’t crossing...
Teacher
: Not crossing.
Student : I mustn’t cross the busy road
D.
___
Student:
I mustn’t crossing the busy road.
Teacher:
Remember that modal verbs are followed by the bare infinitive.
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
E.
____
Student:
I mustn’t crossing the busy road.
Teacher:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road
F.
___
Student:
I mustn’t crossing...
Teacher:
I mustn’t cross
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
G.
___
Student:
I mustn’t crossing ... crossing or
cross?
Teacher:
Cross
Student:
I mustn’t cross the busy road.
H.
___
Student:
I mustn’t crossing, no, cross, I mustn’t cross the busy road.
I.
___
Student
1 : I mustn’t crossing...
Student
2 : cross
Student
1 : I mustn’t cross the busy
road.
Peter Beech Language Studies Unit, Aston University 1996 - 97