Incidental Corrective Feedback Provision for Formulaic vs. Non-Formulaic Errors: EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Practices

Autor/in	Gholami, Leila
Titel	Incidental Corrective Feedback Provision for Formulaic vs. Non-Formulaic Errors: EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Practices
Quelle	In: Language Awareness, 31 (2022) 1, S.21-52 (32 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Gholami, Leila)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0965-8416
DOI	10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421
Schlagwörter	Phrase Structure; Grammar; Teacher Attitudes; Figurative Language; Recall (Psychology); Error Correction; Feedback (Response); Vocabulary Development; Pronunciation; Spelling; Language Usage; English (Second Language); Language Teachers; Teacher Student Relationship; Foreign Countries; Incidental Learning; Communicative Competence (Languages); Native Language; Second Language Learning; Second Language Instruction; Iran + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Phrasenstruktur; Grammatik; Lehrerverhalten; Abberufung; Korrektur; Wortschatzarbeit; Aussprache; Schreibweise; Sprachgebrauch; English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Language teacher; Sprachunterricht; Teacher student relationships; Lehrer-Schüler-Beziehung; Ausland; Inzidentelles Lernen; Communicative competence; Languages; Kommunikative Kompetenz; Sprache; Zweitsprachenerwerb; Fremdsprachenunterricht
Abstract	Research on corrective feedback (CF) and language teachers' beliefs and practices on the provision of CF has been mainly limited to learners' non-target-like use of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling (non-formulaic forms). Consequently, learners' non-target-like use of formulaic sequences, that is, collocations, idioms, lexical bundles, and compounds (formulaic forms), has received scant attention in CF and teacher cognition studies. This study examined three Iranian English as a foreign language teachers' stated beliefs and practices on treating learners' non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms through incidental reactive focus on form. The teachers' stated beliefs about the provision of CF for learners' non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms were elicited through a questionnaire and stimulated recall interviews, and their practices were examined by drawing on 36 hours of audio- and video-recorded teacher-learner interactions in primarily communicative activities. The findings indicated that while learners' non-target-like use of formulaic forms outnumbered that of non-formulaic ones in teacher-learner interactions, teachers provided CF, by far, more frequently for non-target non-formulaic forms than formulaic ones. The teachers were not always aware of the amount of CF they tended to provide for learners' non-target-like use of different linguistic targets. The (in)consistencies between the teachers' CF beliefs and CF provision for learners' non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms are discussed. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01