Competency-Based Corrective Feedback in Higher Education Second Language Teaching: Perspectives from Empirical Research and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
- 1.4k Downloads
This chapter discusses different forms of teacher-introduced corrective feedback – the backbone of language teaching – and students’ responses to it. How can university teachers use corrective feedback to promote clarity and transparency? And what resource allocations and constraints may affect these teaching-learning processes? The chapter also discusses the link between corrective feedback and the EU’s second language teaching system. It is further argued that student-centered, self-governed learning is important in European higher education, and that this, in turn, calls for learning situations where reflective self-correction among students is encouraged. Consequently, given the importance of, and need for, such learning environments, this chapter reminds the reader that student-introduced feedback should be encouraged and seen as a natural part of the teaching and learning process. Student-introduced feedback provides students with opportunities to offer feedback about the teaching-learning that is taking place, as well as about their perspectives on their own learning experiences. A key point in this chapter, therefore, is that learners may improve their language skills at a faster rate and with higher quality if they are provided with opportunities to reflect on and take active part in their own learning.
KeywordsLanguage Teaching Corrective Feedback Language Teacher Chinese High Education Lexical Error
- Bailey, R. 2009. Undergraduate students’ perceptions of the role and utility of written assessment feedback. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education 1(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
- Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, online edition. http://www.coe.int. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Accessed 1 Jan 2012.
- Dewey, J. 1933/1998. How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Eaton, S.E. 2010. Formal, non-formal and informal learning: The case of literacy, essential skills and language learning in Canada. Calgary: Eaton International Consulting.Google Scholar
- Ellis, D. 2009. Ticking the right boxes? A survey of English feedback pro forma. WordPlay: The English Subject Centre Magazine 1(2): 34–35.Google Scholar
- EUA. 2010. Trends 2010: A decade of change in European higher education. Brussels: European University Association.Google Scholar
- Havranek, G., and H. Cesnik. 2001. Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In EUROSLA Yearbook, ed. S. Foster, H. Cohen, and A. Nizegorodcew. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
- Skolverket, S. 2009. Gemensam europeisk referensram för språk: lärande, undervisning och bedömning. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
- Symbaluka, D.G., and A.J. Howell. 2010. Web-based student feedback: Comparing teaching-award and research-award recipients. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(1): 75–86.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Zhang, Y., L. Zhang, and L. Ma. 2010. A brief analysis of corrective feedback in oral interaction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 1(3): 306–308.Google Scholar