Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Sheen's Corrective Feedback in ESL

Daphne and Stacey's presentation of Differential Effects of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback in the ESL Classroom - EDUC 5380 October 2012

daphne berky

on 26 October 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Sheen's Corrective Feedback in ESL

Joey Learns French... With the guiding question in mind, please enjoy watching... Oral recasts are effective (Long, 1996, 2007)

Withholding the correct form pushes learners to stretch their 'interlanguages' (Ammar & Spada; Lyster)

Metalinguistic CF is effective ( Lyster, 2004 and Ellis et al., 2006)

Writing is not 'an end in itself' (Reichelt, 2001)

Sheen - explicit oral and written feedback works! What the research says about CF 1. Oral recast
2. Oral metalinguistic correction
3. Written direct correction
4. Written metalinguistic correction
(Sheen p. 212-213) 4 Types of Corrective Feedback (CF) Oral recasts / written direct correction
Oral metalinguistic correction / written metalinguistic correction
Fill the gap Goals of Sheen's study: Oral CF Written CF

1. Corrective feedback may or may not be clear Corrective feedback is clear
2. Immediate (online) Delayed (offline)
3. Individuals and class hears the CF Individual sees the CF
4. Multiple CF Limited CF Differences between oral and written CF According to Sheen, combining oral and written CF optimizes learners' processing of the feedback
Which expedites L2 learning
(Sheen p. 210) Sheen's Reasoning: Why study this? 177 intermediate students (n =143)
with 11 different languages
varying educational backgrounds Sheen's Study:

4 types of CF were used
stories: Aesop and Sheen's story
articles a/the
pretest, treatment, post-test, delayed post-test 2 weeks
2 treatment sessons
30-min narrative task The study's results and discussions Metalinguistic CF is most effective

Schmidt (1995, 2001) - Two Notions of Awareness

Noticing and understanding

"Noticing is a crucial step towards acquisition, but understanding can lead to deeper and greater learning"
(Sheen p. 225) Significance of Metalinguistic CF Inspector Clouseau Learns English...
THINK-PAIR-SHARE: Why Isn't This Working?! 1. Which type(s) of CF have you found effective in your classrooms ? Why?

2. In light of Sheen's research, will you do anything differently now that you know more about the differences between oral and written CF?

3. Discuss criticisms of Sheen's study and/or possible difficulties in researching CF. Let's Discuss Which types of oral and written corrective feedback
do you think are the most effective and why? Guiding question to think about: Not surprisingly, results reveal that written direct correction was superior to oral recasts

Students weren't aware that they were being corrected (during oral recasts)

Both oral and written metalinguistic CF was effective

Explicit CF effective Differential Effects of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback
in the ESL Classroom (Sheen, 2010) Sheen's Corrective Feedback Presentation: Daphne Berky and Stacey Bliss
EDUC 5380, October 25, 2012
York University Research Details Sheen's Corrective Feedback How much time? Testing Instruments 1. Speeded Dictation
2. Writing Test
3. Error Correction Test Exit Questionnaire Oral recasts - 0% awareness
Written Direct CF - 25%
Oral Metalinguistic - 35%
Written Metalinguistic - 52% Questionnaire Results
Full transcript