INTRODUCTION

Rationale

One of the concerns of teachers in the teaching English as a Second Language

(ESL) learners, particularly in communicative classes, is how students’ errors should
be corrected and to what extent this correction would contribute to improving their
knowledge. Another concern relates to the method of providing students the feedback
needed to foster improvement without damaging their fluency and motivation. These
apprehensions arise due to problems found during error correction in the ESL
classrooms. Having errors corrected can sometimes be annoying for language
learners, and such corrections may reduce students’ willingness to communicate with
their teachers or classmates. If teachers corrected too many errors, their students’
fluency in speaking might be affected because they would fear making mistakes.
Furthermore, it may affect students’ confidence and performance in the learning
process (Panova & Lyster 2002, cited in Chen, 2005). On the other hand, if teachers
do not correct enough student errors, students’ accuracy would not improve. Students
may continue making the same mistakes that teachers have never tried correcting
(Truscott 1996). Recent studies in cognitive psychology and second language
acquisition (SLA), based on the hypothesis that not all of the input is operated as
intake for learning, gave priority to the role of attention and noticing in mediating
input and learning (Izumi, 2002). Findings of such studies signify that language
awareness is essential for learning to occur (Schmidt, 2001).

One of the are as where interactional research has been most productive is the
study of oral feedback. Fluency activities, including discussions, free talk, decision-
making tasks, jigsaw tasks are widely used in the L2 classroom to train and enhance
speaking skills both in communicative teaching syllabi and in syllabi adopting
more traditional approaches. Abstracting from the limitations posed by the
classroom context to genuine naturalistic interaction, discussion activities fit into
traditional classifications of communicative/quasi-naturalistic activities in many
ways. In particular they show some of the features typical of naturalistic
interaction discussed in Nunan (Nunan 1987, 1989): uneven distribution of
information among participants, negotiation of meaning, topic/subtopic nomination
by more than one speaker, open-endedness, and the right of the interlocutors to
decide whether to contribute or not to the interaction. They also adapt well to the
communicative agenda of both analytic syllabi and of syllabi designed according to
Task-based Language Teaching guidelines (Long and Robinson 1998; Long 2006).

In recent years the role of feedback in the L2 classroom has been at the centre of
much debate in SLA research. Both researchers and practitioners seem to agree on the
importance of corrective feedback to enhance language accuracy and have studied the
effectiveness of a number of different strategies. However, in the case of fluency
activities teaching practice and SLA research have developed different views on the
suitability of using immediate corrective feedback. In his pedagogical
recommendations to practitioners Ellis (2009) suggests that teachers should
experiment more in the area of feedback exploring different timing possibilities,
including on-line strategies. On the other hand, more research on the relationship
between accuracy enhancement and delayed feedback in fluency activities is needed
in SLA to ascertain whether the commonly held view that delayed feedback is the
most valid pedagogical choice is supported by qualitative and quantitative studies
measuring its effectiveness. In the light of the current theoretical discussion on
feedback and in comparison to other forms of online feedback, the use of delayed
elicitations seems particularly promising because it sums up the advantages of
elicitative feedback and of delayed feedback. First of all elicitations in general
constitute corrective feedback that does not One of the concerns of teachers in the
teaching English provide learners with the target-like form and consequently is more
effective in pushing the production of modified output. Secondly, unlike online
feedback, including online elicitations, delayed elicitations do not interrupt the flow
of communication during the oral activity, so that focus on meaning is maintained
throughout during fluency work.

Although corrective feedback is considered an important aspect of second

language (L2) pedagogy, there has been considered controversy over its role and
usefulness in both L2 acquisition and instruction. Theoretically, the argument for the
role of the corrective feedback relates closely with the notion of whether or not there
is a need for negative evidence in language acquisition (Nassaji, 2015).Negative
evidence if defined as information that tells the learner what is not possible in a given
language. This has been contrasted with positive evidence, which refers to the
information that tells the learners what is possible in given language. Positive
evidence is received mainly through naturalistic exposure to language input or input
that has been modified or simplified for the purpose of comprehension (e.g., gas,
2003; Long, 1996). Negative evidence can be obtained in various ways. It can be
obtained through explanation or presentation of grammatical rules and can also be
obtained in the form of corrective feedback on learner errors (Long, 1996). Such
feedback can be provided both directly through over correction or indirectly through
strategies that signal to the learner that his or her utterance may contain an error, such
as repetition of the learner error or clarification request, confirmation checks, and
other indications of failure or understand the message by the interlocutor (Nassaji,
2015).