Pragmatic instructions in oral communication in context

Abstract

Errors in oral communication are seen as windows for students to learn English better. They are parts and parcels of the teaching learning process transpiring in the classroom. If these errors are left untreated, it could be detrimental in the learning process and language acquisition of the students. There have been plenty of researches along this domain especially in the Middle East like Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. Some countries in East Asia like Japan, China, and Korea as well as other Southeast Asian countries and some non - native English-speaking countries in Europe have also delved into this kind of study. However, a dearth of researches in line with oral corrective feedback could be found in the Philippines. Since there is a growing need for this kind of research in the Philippines together with the implementation of the K-12 curriculum, the researcher deemed it necessary to shed light to the significance of corrective feedback in oral communication classes. Hence, one of the objectives of this study is to explore the different types of corrective feedback commonly employed by English teachers to Grade 11 students in University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City. Specifically, the study aims to determine the different types of oral corrective feedback used by oral communication teachers and preferred by students, and the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students. The core intention of this study was to determine and analyze the different types of oral corrective feedback in oral communication classes. Specifically, it sought to answer the following research queries: 1. What type of oral corrective feedback is used by Oral Communication teachers in improving oral communication skills? 2. What type of oral corrective feedback is the most preferred by students in improving oral communication skills? 3. What is the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by: a. teachers; and b. students? 4. What is the difference in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students? HYPOTHESIS: There is a significant difference in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students. This study had been based on the concept of descriptive survey method and triangulation which included an adopted questionnaire for teachers and students, a classroom observation for teachers, and a focus group discussion for teachers during the first trimester, S.Y. 2017 -2018. To treat the data, the following were used; first, to determine the type of oral corrective feedback used by oral communication teachers in improving oral communication skills, frequency (median) was used to represent the frequency of usage of the types of oral corrective feedback due to the presence of extreme values in the data; second, to determine the type of oral corrective feedback preferred by students in improving oral communication skills, mean was used; third, to determine the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students, mean was used; and, to determine the difference in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students, non -parametric equivalence for T-test which is the Man Whitney U Test was used. The following are the major findings of the study: 1. Ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback mostly used by oral communication teachers in improving oral communication skills. 2. Recast, explicit correction, and questioning (self -correction) were the types of oral corrective feedback most preferred by students in improving oral communication skills. However, ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback that was never preferred by the students in improving oral communications skills. 3. Teachers and students perceived recast, questioning (peer correction), and questioning (self - correction) as highly effective. On the other hand, ignoring was perceived as never effective in improving oral communication skills. 4. There was a significant difference in the level of effectiveness in clarification request as perceived by teachers and students. More importantly, there was a high significant difference in the level of effectiveness in explicit correction, denial, and ignoring as perceived by teachers and students. In light of the findings of this study, the researcher arrived at the following conclusions: 1. Teachers were more concerned with not interrupting the flow of communication in the class and their focus was more on fluency, not accuracy, in the English language. 2. There has to be a combination of implicit, explicit, and self - correction in the oral communication classes. However, ignoring is the type that was never preferred which means that students wanted their errors like phonological errors, morphosyntactic errors, semantic errors, and lexical errors to be corrected. 3. Teachers and students thought that implicit correction, classmates correcting each other in a safe environment, and self - generated feedback were ways that could improve oral communication skills. On the other hand, ignoring was perceived as never effective which means that the participants both thought that not correcting students' errors in the English language and leaving them untreated could not improve their oral communication skills. 4. Teachers and students' perceptions on oral corrective feedback in improving oral communication skills were at odds. In relation to the findings and conclusions of this research, the following are recommended: 1. An experimental study is recommended since this research was focused on the perceptions of teachers and students only. 2. A measurement and comparison of student uptake in the use of the types of oral corrective feedback could be made. Such a study will inform researchers more about how students respond to their teachers' oral corrective feedback and will uncover the types of oral corrective feedback which are more effective in helping students improve their communication skills. 3. Other researchers are encouraged to conduct a comparative study regarding this topic. They might come up with results that will enhance the findings of this study. 4. A module on the types of oral corrective feedback and how they are employed in oral communication classes could be provided to English teachers and pre - service English teachers.