Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/13822
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Premarathne, K. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-07-15T05:52:10Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-07-15T05:52:10Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Premarathne, K. (2015). The impact of Corrective Feedback (CF) for ESL (English as a Second Language) learners on Second Language (L2) phonological errors. In: Research Forum E Proceeding, Staff Development Centre Research Forum, Cycle 15-2015, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya. | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 2448-9743 | |
dc.identifier.uri | ||
dc.identifier.uri | http://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/13822 | |
dc.description.abstract | Background and rationale:Communicative Language Teaching, which emerged in 1980s, emphasizes accuracy over fluency. As a result, correcting pronunciation errors has become a debatable topic among the Second Language facilitators and it is incorporated in the syllabus as a personal interest of the teachers (Harmer, 1993). However, unrepaired errors lead to early fossilization (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Aim: Therefore, this study aims is to evaluate the effectiveness of peer and teacher lead corrective feedback on pronunciation errors. Theoretical underpinning / Conceptual framework:Six types of CF techniques have been introduced in the literature: recast and explicit (teacher lead techniques) and elicitation, clarification request, repetition, metalinguistic and paralinguistic cues ( self and peer correction techniques ) (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Even though student oriented feedback enhances learner autonomy, cooperation and interaction, several related psychological issues can be identified(Sultana, 2009). Proposed methodology:A sample of ninety high proficiency learners will be divided equally into three groups: Group 1 (feedback by peers), Group 2 (feedback by teachers) and Group 3 (no feedback). All will be exposed to pre and post tests. In the pre andpost tests, they will be asked to readout a list of words and to develop a conversation respectively targeting the most common phonological error identified at the pilot test. Groups 1 and 2 will be given feedback. The results of the two tests of all threegroups will be compared for significant statistical difference. Expected outcomes: The findings of this study will be helpful in deciding the contribution and the most effective means of corrective feedback for phonological accuracy. Educational programs can be improved accordingly. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Staff Development Center, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka | en_US |
dc.subject | Phonological errors | en_US |
dc.subject | English | en_US |
dc.subject | Second language | en_US |
dc.subject | Corrective feedback | en_US |
dc.title | The impact of Corrective Feedback (CF) for ESL (English as a Second Language) learners on Second Language (L2) phonological errors | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Cycle 15 - 2015 |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.