Doing exposed correction in the language class-room: A conversation analysis perspective

Main Article Content

František Tůma
Nicola Fořtová

Abstract

Exposed correction can be seen as a tool whose use on the one hand temporarily stops the progressivity of the talk, but at the same time makes it possible for the speakers in interaction to clarify problems that have occurred, both in mundane conversation and institutional talk. Using conversation analysis, a dataset of 18 teaching hours (1585 minutes of video-recordings of whole-class work in total) was examined to identify and describe the practices used by learners and teachers in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms when conducting exposed correction. The analysis shows that in exposed correction sequences there seems to be a requirement for the learners to produce a reaction to teacher correction. While learners typically repeat the correct form after the teacher has corrected them in a correction sequence that the learners initiated by displaying trouble producing the target language form, teacher-initiated sequences tend to generate minimal post-expansion on the part of the learners. When no student response comes, the teacher may expand the correction sequence. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Tůma, F., & Fořtová, N. (2020). Doing exposed correction in the language class-room: A conversation analysis perspective. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting, 6(1), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.14746/yplm.2020.6.8
Section
Articles

References

  1. Brown, H.D. 2007. Teaching by principles. 3rd ed. White Plains: Pearson.
  2. Clift, R. 2016. Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, as-sessment 2001. Council of Europe.
  4. Cook, V. 2010. “Prolegomena to second language learning”. In: Seedhouse, P. et al. (eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics. London: Palgrave Mac-millan. 6–22.
  5. Corder, S.P. 1975. “Error analysis, interlanguage and second language acquisition”. Language Teaching 8(4). 201–218.
  6. Drew, P. and J. Heritage. 1992. “Analyzing talk at work: An introduction”. In: Drew, P. and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3–65.
  7. Drew, P. and M-L. Sorjonen. 2011. “Dialogue in institutional interactions”. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. 191–216.
  8. Edge, J., 1990. Mistakes and correction. White Plains: Longman.
  9. Ellis, R. 2008. The study of second language acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Fasel Lauzon, V. and S. Pekarek Doehler. 2013. “Focus on form as a joint accom-plishment: An attempt to bridge the gap between focus on form research and conversation analytic research on SLA”. International Review of Applied Lin-guistics in Language Teaching 51(4). 323–351.
  11. Firth, A. and J. Wagner. 2007. “Second/foreign language learning as a social accom-plishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA”. The Modern Language Journal 91(s1). 800–819.
  12. Fu, T. and H. Nassaji. 2016. “Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom”. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 6(1). 159–181.
  13. Gower R., D. Phillips and S. Walters. 2007. Teaching Practice: A Handbook For Teachers in Training. UK: Macmillan.
  14. Hanusková, M. 2019. “Interactive repair among English as a lingua franca speakers in academic settings”. Brno Studies in English 45(2). 35–52.
  15. Han, Z. and E. Tarone (eds.). 2014. Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amster-dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
  16. Harmer, J. 2001. The practice of English language teaching. 3rd ed. Harlow: Long-man.
  17. Hellermann, J. 2009. “Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of self‐initiated self‐repair by an adult learner of English”. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 53(2). 113–132.
  18. Heritage, J. and S. Clayman. 2010. Talk in action. Interactions, identities, and institu-tions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  19. Jefferson, G. 1987. “On exposed and embedded correction in conversation” In: Button, G. and J. R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organization. Clevedon: Mul-tilingual Matters. 86–100.
  20. Kitzinger, C. 2013. “Repair”. In: Sidnell, J. and T. Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 229–256.
  21. Koshik, I. 2002. “Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences”. Research on Lan-guage and Social Interaction 35. 277–309.
  22. Lewis, M and J, Hill. 1992. Practical techniques for language teachers. Hove: Lan-guage Teaching Publications.
  23. Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. “Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(1). 37–66.
  24. Macbeth, D. 2004. The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society 33(5). 703– 736.
  25. Markee, N. 2000. Conversation analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  26. McHoul, A.W. 1990. “The organization of repair in classroom talk”. Language in Society 19(3). 349– 377.
  27. Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rodgers. 2014. Approaches and methods in language teach-ing. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation”. Language 50(4). 696–735.
  29. Schegloff, E.A., G. Jefferson and H. Sacks. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation”. Language 53(2). 361–382.
  30. Schegloff, E.A. 1979. “The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation”. In: Giv-on, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics. New York: Academic Press. 261–286.
  31. Schegloff, E.A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversa-tion analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Scrivener, J. 2011. Learning teaching. 3rd ed. Oxford: Macmillan.
  33. Seedhouse, P. 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. University of Michigan: Blackwell.
  34. Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage”. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguis-tics in Language Teaching 10(3). 209–232.
  35. Selting, M. 2000. “The construction of units in conversational talk”. Language in Society 29(4). 477– 517.
  36. Seo, M.-S. and Koshik, I. 2010. “A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair in ESL conversational tutoring”. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2219–2239.
  37. Sidnell, J. 2013. “Basic conversation analytic methods”. In: J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 77–9.
  38. ten Have, P. 2007. Doing conversation analysis. London: SAGE.
  39. Tůma, F. 2017a. Interakce ve výuce anglického jazyka na vysoké škole pohledem konverzační analýzy. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
  40. Tůma, F. 2017b. “Střídání kódů ve výuce angličtiny u učitelů-expertů pohledem konverzační analýzy”. Slovo a slovesnost 78(4). 283–304.
  41. Ur, P. 1996. A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.