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.