Teacher and SHL Student Beliefs about Oral Corrective Feedback: Unmasking Its Underlying Values and Beliefs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Brief summary of the paper

This paper aims to situate the use of corrective feedback (CF) within the context of a CLA framework by analyzing observations in one mixed classroom of L2 and SHL learners. The paper focuses on the 4 SHL students enrolled in the class and their teacher, aiming to uncover the ideologies espoused by both groups when discussing the topic of corrective feedback. The literature review section provides a good overview of the research on CF. The results share the perspectives of the focal teacher and 4 SHL students surrounding the principal research questions. The researchers present rich data containing explicit reflections on CF and on students’ varieties of Spanish from both the perspective of the teacher and the students. The paper concludes by addressing the role that CLA can play in facilitating a more empowered classroom, where students learn to stand up to and dialogue with CF in order to bets position themselves to reach their goals both in and outside of the classroom.

General Concept Comments

Though the paper provides a complete lit review of CF, it doesn’t include much on the role of ideologies. In addition, the interpretive framework section, currently situated within the methods section, might be better placed in the lit review of the paper. At the very least, the information included in the methods section should be reduced to a more methods like approach and some of the text should be moved to the lit review. The findings section offers detailed accounts from the teacher and student participants but could use some reworking. It starts rather abruptly, and the reader could use some contextualization. The selection and inclusion of quotes needs to be better organized as well, and I imagine the authors will need to include translations of the quoted text in English, since the readership of Languages includes more than just Spanish speakers. As I read through, I was unclear if classroom observations also formed a part of the larger study. Given the discrepancies between what the teacher thinks she is doing and what the students perceive, it would be interesting to include what is actually occurring in the classroom.

The topic of corrective feedback in the SHL context is definitely relevant, but the presentation of the data is somewhat awkward. It’s clear that the authors have a rich data set, but the data needs to be presented in a more compelling fashion – perhaps by grouping comments together into a table and highlighting common themes. The current presentation feels like a list of quotes followed by a reflection.

I also think the authors can better situate the topic within a CLA framework. CLA appears in the conclusions of the paper, and rightfully so, but it seems to me it needs a place in the literature review and the overall framework of analysis as well. It’s there throughout, the authors just aren’t explicit about it, and I think a more intentional treatment of CLA from the beginning would be beneficial.

In short, the topic is relevant, the data is rich, but the paper needs some reworking in order to help with flow and substantiate the claims made.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive feedback, which I believe helped me to greatly improve my manuscript. The points you brought up relating to my data presentation and the necessary integration of CLA into my analysis were fundamental to polishing this paper. I have also combed through the manuscript to ensure that all spelling errors have been fixed. I have included the table with edits based on your suggestions and comments:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The motivation of the current manuscript is clearly articulated and rooted in the need to further explore the ideological dimension of oral corrective feedback practices from a critical perspective as well as the consequences of unanalyzed standard language ideologies inherent in corrective feedback on minoritized language speakers and learners in the classroom. The author clearly lays out the tenets of SLA perspectives in this active strand of research and critically situates this topic within the field of SHL education in the U.S. Both the topic and the reported findings of the study are likely to draw great scholarly interest from readers of this journal and to provide much needed practical guidance for the field.

 

Given these strengths, I recommend this manuscript for publication with Languages with minor revision. In particular, the methodological approach is missing some key information, such as how many interviews each participant participated in and the limitations of the study merit mentioning in the discussion or conclusions. The findings are based on an analysis of one teacher and four students’ beliefs so this should be explicitly recognized and the author could make explicit recommendations for future research to further explore and strengthen the insights reported here by examining, for example, the beliefs of several teachers with different pedagogical backgrounds and collecting classroom observation data. The presentation of the interview data in the analysis also needs to be cleaned up and better organized to facilitate interpretation for the reader. Finally, there are several typos throughout the manuscript that need revision. Please see specific comments below.

 

Specific comments

p. 1 – In the first sentence, the negative evidence that oral CF provides is referenced but the facilitative role of the positive evidence, or input about is possible in the target language, has also been investigated as a source of its effectiveness (e.g., Leeman, 2003,  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition/article/abs/recasts-and-second-language-development/1ADEB91DA64CDBD4526418105BA640B6)  

 

p. 1 – Here and in several places throughout the manuscript, typos need to be carefully reviewed.

- “an Oral CF 38 episode is an other-initiated repair”’

 

p. 1 – The driving question of the manuscript could be clarified/revised from ‘why’ to ‘how’ to open up the multifaceted possible answers and views prompted by this question:

why >> how is the practice of oral CF meaningfully different for minoritized students?

 

p. 4 - contentions issue >> contentious issue?

 

p. 5 – The erradicationist approach has been explained but this is the first mention of the expansion approach, the appreciation approach, and critical language awareness approaches,

which all need a brief description prior to reporting Beaudrie’s findings.

 

p. 5 – The author describes the analytical approach as rigorous and systematic, which are terms usually associated with a large-scale quantitative research. Qualitative data analysis can of course be approached in a systematic fashion, but rigorous may not be adequate to describe a study with one main participant (the SHL instructor). Perhaps ‘iterative’ and ‘cyclical’?

 

p. 6 – Perhaps consider different wording choice for ‘bifocal’. Dual focus?

 

p. 6 – The author states that there were “multiple semi-structured interviews” but I cannot find how many there were and when they were conducted/how far apart they were spaced out, etc. Did the teacher and students each participate in the same number of interviews?

 

p. 6 – What is an interview matrix?

 

p. 6 – Were students and the instructor asked the exact same questions in the interviews? What were ethnographic field notes based on? I don’t see that classroom observations were included in data collection.

 

p. 7 – At bottom of Figure 1, there are several typos and Martínez 2003 is cited twice. Also there are missing key CLA references that stress learner agency in critical pedagogical models: “Teach learners expicitly about langauge ideologies and instill agency to correct such social wrongs. (Author, D, E; Martínez, 2003; Leeman, 2005; Martínez, 2003; Holguín Mendoza, 2018)”

 

p. 8 – Under ‘Findings’ restate research question in a narrative format.

 

The excerpts from Belinda’s interview (lines 326-349) seem to be excessively long. The paragraph following critically and thematically analyzes her discourse but it may be for effective for the reader to be able to process the interpretation if there is more intermittent analysis. Also the reader should be informed before reading the data what the words/phrases in bold mean.

 

p. 11 – Need to indicate the speaker (Reina) in:

Researcher: O.K. and what do you think about that?

Reina: Sometimes I don't know what she's talking about. Like I was just like, “O.K.,” just keep listen.

 

p. 12 – Again it is recommended that research question 2 be rephrased in a narrative format, rather than listed as a question/sub-heading.

 

-       The analysis and interpretation of excerpts from Belinda’s interview would again benefit from integrating analysis throughout rather than presenting as one large chunk of text. Also Belinda is listed as the speaker three times but there is no change in turn in speakers so it seems unnecessary to list her name three times.

 

p. 14 – Instead of “examples of how macro-level ideologies–– both societal and programmatic–– can meaningfully shape micro-level interview discourses”, I would consider rephrasing to ‘shape micro-level beliefs that inform classroom discourse and practices’.

 

p. 14 – If author is citing foundational work in CLA in SHL education, not sure this acknowledges key refs:

“Specifically, CLA aims to transform society through instruction that instills learner awareness of social and educational inequity as well as the agency to correct such social wrongs (Author, D, E; Author, A).”

 

p. 15 – Instead of “The above-mentioned recommendations are a direct response to the findings of the study”, perhaps it would be more clear to say the recommendations are a ‘reflection of the findings’ or ‘are derived from the findings’. Also, either here or before they are presented, the author should specify the context of these recommendations. Are these to be implemented in language teacher education? Studies such as Quan (2021) and Prada (2021) might be mentioned as case study examples of the outcomes of critically-oriented teacher training courses.

 

-       At some point a couple of methodological limitations should be addressed such as noting that these data would be enhanced by gauging the beliefs of several SHL instructors and also carrying out classroom observations to explore the extent to which discourse in the interviews and in the classroom align.

 

p. 15 – In the discussion or conclusions, interpreting student resistance and agency as observed in the interview data regarding normative oral CF practices is warranted. Also returning to the broad question motivating the study could strengthen the take-away message. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive feedback, which I believe helped me to greatly improve my manuscript. The points you brought up relating to my data presentation and discussion section were fundamental to polishing this paper. I have also combed through the manuscript to ensure that all spelling errors have been fixed. I have included the table with edits based on your suggestions and comments:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Teacher and SHL Student Beliefs about Oral Corrective Feedback: Unmasking it Underlying Values and Beliefs Reviewed May 9, 2022   The manuscript of the study generates interest and it is a very relevant topic. Generally speaking, it is easy to read but some sections need to be rewritten. The study’s main contribution is highlighting the role that language ideology plays on heritage language education. However, since the report is only on one instructor and four of her students, a more in-depth analysis is required in order to fully appreciate the classroom situation. For example, class observations, textbook(s) used, online platforms, length of the term, frequency of classes, overall number of students, and so on. There is also the concern about the results of the interviews, they are depicted as evidence of common heritage language teaching practices, however, the instructor herself does not seem representative of language teachers (she came to pursue a degree in psychology). Lastly, the study itself does not add anything truly new or surprising: language teachers have an ideology and that shows on how they provide feedback. Since it is only one teacher, and only 4 students, there is nothing really compelling. The study focuses much on the teacher’s beliefs about language, but how about the students? You could explore this deeper.     Other observations   p.2, l. 55. Fix spacing p.3, l. 106. Typo: “was view” p.3, l. 111. Typo “tan” p.5. l.228. Not clear what this means: “…had HIS status, the World…” Correct spacing as well.   p.7, l.288. tipo: “educational system” p.7, l. 296. Rewrite lines 295-297 (These findings… approach”). Meaning is unclear p.10, l. 448-450: “The problematic… formalities of schooling”. Explain how you got to this observation, what part of Belinda’s testimony provide evidence of this? p.11, l. 469. “demonstrate”. How about “suggest”, or “evidence”? p.12 and in other pages. The use of the word “data” seems inadequate, you are presenting testimonies. p.12, l. 481-483. These lines need to be rewritten. p.12 (and others). Belinda’s transcribed responses need to be translated. Also, explain early on why you have bolded some parts of the text. p.13, i.534. “They vs US” --- should be: “they vs we” p.13, l.534. “…in how Belinda’s repeatedly used…” This need to be rewritten   p.14, l. 608 “a privileged variety of Spanish”. Say what variety this is p.14, paragraph starting at l. 615 is too long and verbose p.15, l.634, 3. When teachers…students. This needs to be rewritten.   p. 15, l. 666.Typo: phycology p.15, l. 672. Typo: question---questions

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive feedback, which I believe helped me to greatly improve my manuscript. The points you brought up relating to my data presentation and the necessary integration of CLA into my analysis were fundamental to polishing this paper. I have also combed through the manuscript to ensure that all spelling errors have been fixed. I have included the table with edits based on your suggestions and comments:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent job addressing reviewer concerns. I appreciate the effort to front the topic of CLA throughout the paper. The results section reads much more easily because of how you have framed the quotes. I have made some minor suggestions throughout the text, but in short, I find this version to be significantly stronger, and with a few minor changes, ready to go forward. I think this offers important insight into both student and teacher opinions towards CF and makes a strong case for the role of CLA in supporting students’ own language ideologies in order to reaffirm the validity and importance of their varieties of Spanish (and English and whatever other language for that matter)

I have included some specific, minor suggestions in the text -- both some editing/wording issues and a couple of suggestions for tying in some references in a couple places in the text. I hope these suggestions are helpful

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for all of your work and for providing your expertise. I’ve gained so much from your insights.

 

I have addressed your comments in the new version of the manuscript:

 

Lines 224-237– I have added a brief summary of Ducar (2008). I’m very grateful for the suggestion…I had to stop myself from adding too much because it is such an insightful and inspirational article. I will be engaging with this article a lot more in my future work.

 

Lines 778-785– I have added a translation, thank you. I will refrain from adding Potowski and Lynch just because of space even though it’s an excellent article. I have added quite a bit of Ducar (2008) because it’s very much relevant to the topic. I hope this is acceptable.

 

On line 1056: I’ve added Ducar (2008) to the analysis because I think that what she says is 100% relevant to what I heard from my participants.

 

Lines 1082–– I’ve added commentary on Li’s findings.

 

1210––modified the conclusion to be more consistent with the paper’s findings! Thank you.

 

Fixed small error throughout the paper as per your feedback.

 

Added Ducar (2008) to references.

 

Lines 228-245 (in the version of the manuscript this past round) were deleted to save some space in general but to also add the changes made. I didn’t think this section on program dynamics was a pertinent compared to the changes suggested.