YABANCI DİL OLARAK TÜRKÇE ÖĞRETİM SÜRECİNDE SÖZEL DÜZELTME GERİBİLDİRİMLERİ: ÖĞRETMEN VE ÖĞRENCİ YEĞLEYİŞLERİ

The purpose of this study is to analyze the preferences of the students related to getting corrective feedback aimed at the errors doing during the oral communication; moreover, the preferences of the teachers related to giving feedback for correction comparatively. According to the obtained data, the students and the teachers totally agree on correction of verbal communication errors and the students choose that the correction which is done every time, but the teachers choose the correction which is done generally. In addition, both the teachers and students prefer correction of speech errors after the end of the speech and correction of the important speech errors preventing the comprehension of the audience. In terms of the strategies used the process of correction, both the teachers and students prefers mostly corrective question. Finally, the students and the teachers prefer the correction of communication errors done by the native Turkish teachers. Introduction and Purpose of Study: Feedback is an important source of knowledge for evaluating students’ linguistic development characteristics, anxiety levels and self-confidence, as well as types of errors, their systemic nature and communicative role. These variables need to be effectively evaluated to obtain the intended outcomes of feedback and to make feedback part of students’ learning. This study aims to analyze comparatively students who receive corrective oral feedback on their speaking errors and teachers who give corrective feedback. Accordingly, this study asks the following questions: 1. Do students and teachers prefer to correct speaking errors? 2. How often do students and teachers prefer to correct speaking errors? 3. When do students and teachers prefer to correct speaking errors? 4. How often do students and teachers prefer to correct speaking errors according to types of error? 5. How do students and teachers prefer to correct speaking errors?6. Who do students and teachers prefer to correct their speaking errors? Conceptual Framework: There are many descriptive and experimental studies of corrective feedback for speaking. Descriptive studies mostly focus on the distribution of the types of oral feedback given by foreign language teachers (Lyster and Ranta 1997, Panova and Lyster 2002, Fidan and Inan 2012, Safari 2013). According to these studies, reformulation is the most commonly used form of feedback (Doughty 1994; Lyster ve Rant, 1997; Panova and Lyster 2002; Suzuki 2005; Jabbari and Fazilatfar, 2012; Fidan and Inan, 2012; Safari, 2013; Esmaeili and Behnam, 2014). There are also studies that examine the effect of corrective oral feedback given by teachers on students’ performative inferences. They indicate that the lowest levels of inference were obtained using reformulation (Fidan and Inan 2012, Safari 2013). Studies about the effect of corrective oral feedback on students’ speaking abilities emphasize that the frequency, timing and the person who gives feedback are important variables for the intended outcomes (Li 2010). It is claimed that teachers should seldom correct errors which are either related to attention deficit, infrequent or do not cause communication breakdown. Moreover, research results show that feedback is most effective when it is given after students complete their sentences (Li 2010). They also show that students prefer to receive feedback from their teachers rather than their peers (Agudo 2013, Petterson 2014). Most studies emphasize the negative effects of peer feedback on students’ communication. Method: A survey was used for this research. The research population included 96 students from Gaziantep University, Nigde University, Ankara University and 19 Mayis University. The research was done in the 2014-2015 academic year. A Turkish version of 5-point Likert scale with 24 items developed by Fukuda (2003) to analyze students‘ preferences about receiving corrective feedback for their verbal communication errors and teachers’ preferences about giving feedback. Findings and Discussion: The participating students and teachers favored the correction of speaking errors. However, students wanted their all errors to be corrected, whereas teachers preferred to correct them most of the time. This indicates that students always expect teachers to give feedback for their errors. However, students’ answers to the question of how often do they prefer to receive feedback for their speaking errors indicate that they want the speaking errors they often make to be corrected always, and those which are not often repeated to be corrected most of the time. They preferred individual errors made by one student to be occasionally corrected. With regard to the timing of corrections, it is remarkable that they agreed on the item, “errors need to be corrected as soon as they are made, even if this interrupts the speaker.” Most students preferred to receive a clarification request, whereas teachers preferred repetition as feedback. Student were indecisive about repetition as a type of feedback. The types of feedback that both teachers and students find effective include implicit correction, explicit correction, metalinguistic clues, elicitation and recasting. The students and teachers completely agreed on correction of speaking errors by teachers whose native language is Turkish, and disagreed on their correction by teachers whose native language is the same as that of the students. In teaching and learning Turkish as a foreign language, students do not expect explanation in their native language, and teachers find it more useful to give explanations in the target language. Conclusion and Recommendations: To conclude, students and teachers agreed completely about the correction of speaking errors, while students wanted speaking errors to be always corrected, whereas teachers wanted them to be corrected most of the time. Students and teachers had different attitudes towards correction according to the different types of errors. They both agreed that errors which are often repeated need to be corrected always. They did not much care about speaking errors that prevent comprehension. Students think that individual errors need to be corrected occasionally. Teachers think that speaking errors which are not often repeated only need to be corrected occasionally. Implicit correction, explicit correction, clarification request, elicitation and recasting were the preferred strategies for both students and teachers. Students and teachers wanted speaking errors to be corrected by teachers whose native language is Turkish. The teachers’ views about effectiveness of different types of feedback did not correspond to their practices in class (Forrokhi 2007). According to Lyster and Saito (2010), teachers should be flexible and determine which corrective feedback strategies should be used according to students’ cognitive and affective needs, and their personal characteristics. Gömleksiz and Elaldı (2011) pointed out that problems stemming from teachers have taken place at the forefront of teaching a foreign language. In Sallabaş’es study, it was determined that anxiety levels of learners who think that Turkish is not a difficult language were significant lower than those of learners who think that it is a difficult language. In Şavlı and Kalafats’work it was observed that the use of native language and several proposals were suggested in order to establish a relation between two languages in this process.