Advertisement

An Investigation into Language Learners’ L2WTC by Casting a New Look at Feedback Through the Lenses of Life-Responsive Approach to Language Teaching

  • Haniyeh Jajarmi
  • Sahar Tabatabaee Farani
  • Shaghayegh ShayestehEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Given that communication is the ultimate goal of language classes and that humanistic psychology esteems education as a means of improving the quality of life, in this study, we intended to juxtapose the two views, coining a new form of feedback, called life feedback, to address the extent to which the proposed feedback is able to raise willingness to communicate (WTC) in language learners. In so doing, 20 language teachers along with their 324 students took part in the study. Adopting a mixed-methods approach, in the qualitative phase, we observed 30 minutes of discussion in the language classes. Based on the type of feedback (i.e., life or linguistic) the teachers gave to their learners, we categorized them into life teachers and linguistic teachers. As for the quantitative phase, WTC questionnaire was administered to the learners. To analyze the data, an independent-samples t test was run. The overall results indicated that the teachers who mainly provided their learners with life feedback, in comparison with those who made more use of linguistic feedback, could better foster learners’ WTC. The concept was discussed and implications were provided for the language education context.

Keywords

Feedback Willingness to communicate Applied ELT Life feedback Life-responsive approach to language teaching 

通过生命视角重新审视语言学习者的L2WTC对语言教学的反应

摘要

語言課程的最終目標及人文心理學觀點皆認為生活品質得以藉由教育而有所提高。立基於上面兩個觀點, 本研究提出了名為「生活反饋」的新型反饋形式, 並探究這種反饋形式能在提高語言學習者溝通意願 (WTC) 的面向上有多少程度的助益。本研究招募了20名語言教師和324名學生, 並應用了質、量混合分析方法來檢驗本研究資料。在質性資料搜集階段, 我們對各個課程中的討論進行了30分鐘的觀課, 並根據教師給學生的反饋類型 (生活反饋或語言反饋) 將教師分為生活教師與語言教師兩類。在量話資料搜集階段, 我們則對學習者進行了溝通意願的問卷調查。我們使用了獨立樣本t檢驗來分析數據。就總體結果來說, 相較於提供 (較多) 語言反饋的教師, 提供學習者生活反饋的教師更能促進學習者的溝通意願。本研究亦就此新型反饋形式進行討論並提出其在語言教育上的教學暗示。

關鍵詞

反馈 沟通意愿 应用ELT 生活反馈 语言教学的生活反应方法 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Akkuzu, N. (2014). The role of different types of feedback in the reciprocal interaction of teaching performance and self-efficacy belief. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allwood, J. (1993). Feedback in second language acquisition. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross linguistic perspectives (Vol. II, pp. 196–235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ates, S. (2013). The effect of repeated reading exercises with performance-based feedback on fluent reading skills. Reading Improvement, 50(4), 158–165.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berns, M., & Matsuda, P. K. (2006). Applied linguistics: overview and history. In K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 394–405). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3–44). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: a course in second language acquisition. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39(4), 468–479.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cao, Y. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 789–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cetinkaya, Y. B. (2005). Turkish college students’ willingness to communicate in English as a foreign language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77–80.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evan, N., Hartshorn, J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ spelling errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghonsooly, B., Khajavy, G. H., & Asadpour, S. F. (2012). Willingness to communicate in English among Iranian non–English major university students. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hosseini, A., Pishghadam, R., & Navari, S. (2010). Tasire classhaye zaban dar afzayesh hooshe hayajani [The influence of English language classes on the development of emotional intelligence]. Language and Literature Studies, 42, 1–11.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback in second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1–22). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33(2), 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English: a microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 154–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khaza’ifar, A., Pishghadam, R., & Ziai, S. (2011). Ahamiayte tafakore enteghadi dar khandan [The significance of critical thinking in reading]. Farhangestan Letter, 12, 19–37.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ko, C. J. (2015). The provision of feedback types to EFL learners in synchronous voice computer mediated communication. Paper presented at the 22nd EUROCALL Conference on Critical CALL, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krishnamurti, J. (1981). Education and the significance of life. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2015). Bringing innovation to conventional feedback approaches in EFL secondary writing classrooms: a Hong Kong case study. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 14(2), 140–163.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lu, Z., Li, X., & Li, Z. (2015). Awe-based corrective feedback on developing EFL learners’ writing skill. Paper presented at the 22nd EUROCALL Conference on Critical CALL, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    MacIntyre, P., Dörnyei, Z., Clement, R., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    MacIntyre, P., Babin, P. A., & Clement, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate: antecedents and consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47(2), 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    MacIntyre, P., Baker, S. C., Clement, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52(3), 537–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. (2003). Talking in order to learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 589-608Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Makiabadi, H., Pishghadam, R., Naji Meidani, E., & Khajavy, G. H. (2019). Examining the role of emotioncy in willingness to communicate: a structural equation modeling approach. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 24(2), 120–130.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the Seventy First Annual Convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition, and anxiety (pp. 19–37). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Merrett, F. (2006). Reflections on the Hawthorne effect. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Olesova, L. A. (2011). An examination of the effectiveness of embedded audio feedback for English as a foreign language students in asynchronous online discussions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, United States.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peng, J. (2012). Toward an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40(2), 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Peng, J., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: a model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60, 834–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Petchprasert, A. (2012). Feedback in second language teaching and learning. US-China Foreign Language, 10(4), 1112–1120.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pishghadam, R. (2008). Afzayeshe tafakore enteghadi az tarighe mobahesye adabi [Developing critical thinking through literary discussions]. Journal of Literature, 48, 153–167.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pishghadam, R. (2011). Introducing Applied ELT as a new approach in second/foreign language studies. Iranian EFL Journal, 7(2), 9–20.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pishghadam, R. (2016). Emotioncy, extraversion, and anxiety in willingness to communicate in English. In W. A. Lokman, F. M. Fazidah, I. Salahuddin, & I. A. W. Mohd (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language, Education, and Innovation (pp. 1–5). London: Infobase Creation Sdn Bhd.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pishghadam, R., & Zabihi, R. (2012). Life syllabus: a new research agenda in English language teaching. Perspectives, 19(1), 23–27.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pishghadam, R., Zabihi, R., & Kermanshahi, P. (2012). Educational language teaching: a new movement beyond reflective/critical teaching. Life Science Journal, 9(1), 892–899.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pishghadam, R., Zabihi, R., & Shayesteh, S. (2014). The perception-practicum interface revisited: life-wise language teaching and teacher burnout. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(2), 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pishghadam, R., Mahmoodzadeh, M., Naji Meidani, E., & Shayesteh, S. (2019). Teacher as envolver: a new role to play in English language discussion classes. Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences, 42(1), 41–51.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Praver, M., Rouault, G., & Eidswick, J. (2011). Attitudes and affect toward peer evaluation in EFL reading circles. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(2), 89–101.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rassaei, E. (2015). The effects of foreign language anxiety on EFL learners’ perceptions of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. London: ArnoldGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shahsavani, S., Shahsavar, Z., & Sahragard, R. (2014). On the relationship between willingness to communicate and identity processing styles of the Iranian advanced EFL learners. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(1), 57–67.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shakeebaee, G., Pishghadam, R., & Khajavy, G. H. (2017). Examining ethnocentrism, emotionalization, and life syllabus in foreign language achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: the road less traveled. Assessing Writing, 11(1), 22–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialog. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Walters, J. D. (1997). Education for life: preparing children to meet the challenges. Nevada: Crystal Clarity Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Weaver, C. (2005). Using the Rasch model to develop a measure of second language learners’ willingness to communicate within a language classroom. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(4), 396–415.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Winne, P. H., & Butler, D. L. (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T. Husen & T. Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Student cognition in learning from teaching (2nd ed., pp. 5738–5745). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yousef, R., Jamil, H., & Razak, N. (2013). Willingness to communicate in English: a study of Malaysian pre-service English teachers. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yousefi, M., & Kasaian, S. A. (2014). Relationship between willingness to communicate and Iranian EFL learner’s speaking fluency and accuracy. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 2(6), 61–72.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zarrinabadi, N. (2014). Communicating in a second language: investigating the effect of teacher on learners’ willingness to communicate. System, 42(1), 288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Taiwan Normal University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Letters & HumanitiesFerdowsi University of MashhadMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations