Domingos Di Lello

In this article, we will explore the impact of correction strategies on language development, various methods of corrective feedback, and their effectiveness in enhancing students' linguistic proficiency and language learning outcomes, exploring multiple perspectives from researchers both in favor and against it. 

Additionally, we will highlight the significance of questioning techniques in fostering higher-order thinking skills, which are crucial for developing critical and creative thinkers. By contrasting the two levels of thinking skills, namely Lower-Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) and Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), this workshop aims to elucidate their distinct characteristics and implications for instructional design in bilingual classrooms.

Through the lens of Bloom’s Taxonomy, we will discuss how to design instructional activities that not only support language acquisition but also promote comprehensive cognitive growth and explore the six cognitive domains, offering insights into how these domains can inform instructional practices and promote holistic cognitive development in bilingual learners. 

This article seeks to provide educators in bilingual education with valuable insights and strategies to optimize teaching and learning experiences through a comprehensive examination of these interconnected topics. 

Corrective Feedback in Bilingual Education

Corrective feedback in bilingual education involves providing students with information about their language errors to facilitate language acquisition and improve their proficiency. This feedback can take various forms, such as explicit correction, where the teacher directly points out and corrects the mistake, or more subtle methods like recasts, where the teacher reformulates the error into the correct form within the context of conversation. 

The goal of corrective feedback is to guide students towards accurate language use while maintaining their confidence and motivation. Effective corrective feedback is balanced, timely, and tailored to the students' proficiency levels, helping them to internalize language rules and apply them correctly in future communication. It holds a significant position in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and bilingual education research. 

Scholars have articulated varied stances, both in favor of and against this practice. 

Opponents argue that 

• positive evidence alone suffices for language acquisition, citing potential adverse effects of negative feedback on interlanguage development. 

• correction can lead to an increase in the "affective filter," resulting in heightened anxiety and stress that hinder the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). This implies that emotional factors may impede the innate language learning mechanism.

Proponents assert that 

• corrective feedback helps learners identify and correct their errors, leading to improved accuracy and fluency in the target language.

• feedback provides learners with essential input that aids in the development of their linguistic competence and promotes language acquisition.

• corrective feedback helps learners develop self-monitoring skills, allowing them to recognize and correct their mistakes independently over time.

The debate underscores the complex interplay between cognitive, linguistic, and contextual factors in language acquisition processes.

At the cognitive level, there is a need to explore how individual differences influence the efficacy of recasts and other types of corrective feedback, especially concerning students' ability to modify their output. Cognitive psychologists argue that corrective feedback helps to strengthen the internal, pre-existing rules of language that learners are believed to possess. According to this perspective, language learning is seen primarily as a mental process where the brain works to recognize and internalize these structural rules through reinforcement. Consequently, learners are viewed in isolation from the broader social, political, and historical contexts in which languages are used and developed.

Linguistically, studies suggest that the effectiveness of corrective feedback varies across different grammatical targets and linguistic domains, including morphosyntax, vocabulary, pronunciation, and pragmatics.

Contextually, learner responses to corrective feedback are shaped by various instructional settings, highlighting the need for tailored pedagogical approaches.

Recent studies show specific considerations on error correction in classroom interactions, such as:

• the timing of feedback delivery,

• the types of errors addressed,

• the explicitness of feedback,

• the source of feedback (teachers vs. students), and

• the correlation between feedback and learner response. 

These inquiries point out the complexities involved in navigating corrective feedback practices and their impact on learners' short-term and long-term development in bilingual educational contexts.

Corrective feedback is a crucial component of bilingual education, particularly for young learners. As mentioned before, it involves teachers providing responses to students' language use that help them recognize and correct their errors. Effective corrective feedback supports language development by guiding students towards accurate language use without discouraging them. 

Here’s an overview of the most common correction strategies that can be implemented effectively for young learners in a bilingual setting:

Types of Corrective Feedback

Explicit Correction:

Description: The teacher directly corrects the student's error and provides the correct form.

Example:

Student: "She go to the park."

Teacher: "No, we say 'She goes to the park.' Can you say that?"

Pros: Clear and straightforward, helping students learn the correct form directly.

Cons: Can be discouraging if overused; may interrupt the flow of communication.

Recast:

Description: The teacher rephrases the student's error into the correct form without explicitly pointing out the mistake.

Example:

Student: "She go to the park."

Teacher: "Yes, she goes to the park every day."

Pros: Natural and unobtrusive, maintaining the flow of conversation and modeling correct language use.

Cons: Students may not always notice the correction.

Elicitation:

Description: The teacher prompts the student to self-correct by asking questions or providing part of the correct answer.

Example:

Student: "She go to the park."

Teacher: "She...?" (Encouraging the student to complete the sentence correctly)

Pros: Encourages active student engagement and self-correction, promoting deeper learning.

Cons: Can be time-consuming; not always effective if the student lacks the necessary knowledge.

Clarification Request:

Description: The teacher asks the student to clarify their statement, indicating that there was a mistake.

Example:

Student: "She go to the park."

Teacher: “I’m sorry, what did you say? Can you repeat that?”

Pros: Encourages students to reflect on their output and make adjustments.

Cons: Might frustrate students if overused or if they struggle to identify their errors.

Metalinguistic Feedback:

Description: The teacher provides comments or questions related to the form of the student’s utterance without providing the correct form.

Example:

Student: "She go to the park."

Teacher: "Do we say 'she go' or 'she goes'?"

Pros: Encourages students to think about language rules and apply them.

Cons: May be too abstract for younger students or those with limited language proficiency.

Paralinguistic signals:

Description: they involve non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, gestures, intonation, and body 

language used by teachers to indicate that a student has made an error. These signals complement 

verbal feedback, enhancing learners' awareness of their mistakes in a multimodal learning

environment.

Example: 

Student: "She go to the park every day."

Teacher raises her eyebrows and tilts her head slightly with a questioning look.

Student:  "Oh, she goes to the park every day."

Pros: they can subtly indicate errors without interrupting the flow of conversation, allowing for more 

natural communication.

Cons: effective use of paralinguistic signals requires skill and experience on the part of the teacher to 

ensure they are clear and appropriate.

Strategies for Effective Corrective Feedback

Be Positive and Encouraging: Always provide feedback in a supportive and encouraging manner to avoid discouraging the student. Highlight what the student did well before addressing the error.

Focus on One Error at a Time: Especially for young learners, focusing on correcting one type of error at a time (e.g., subject-verb agreement) can prevent overwhelming them and aid in more targeted learning.

Use Visual Aids and Gestures: Incorporate visual aids, gestures, or drawings to help students understand corrections, making feedback more accessible and engaging for young learners.

Incorporate Feedback into Activities: Provide corrective feedback during interactive activities such as storytelling, games, or songs to make it more natural and contextually relevant.

Be Consistent: Regular and consistent feedback helps reinforce correct language use. Ensure that corrections are given in a consistent manner so that students can recognize patterns and rules. 

Balance and Moderation: Use a mix of strategies to avoid discouraging students. Too much correction can hinder confidence and communication.

Contextual Relevance: Correct errors that are pertinent to the lesson objectives. Prioritize errors that impede understanding or are frequently repeated.

Student-Centered Approach: Tailor correction strategies to individual student needs, taking into account their language proficiency and learning style.

Encourage Self-Correction: Foster an environment where students feel comfortable attempting self-correction and view mistakes as learning opportunities.

Corrective feedback is essential in bilingual education for young learners, helping them develop language accuracy and confidence. By thoughtfully using a variety of feedback types and strategies, teachers can address errors in a supportive and engaging way, fostering a positive learning environment where students feel encouraged to practice and improve their language skills.

García (2009) emphasizes the significance of effective bilingual pedagogy, which strikes a balance between promoting meaningful communication and fostering attention to linguistic form. While prioritizing meaningful interaction, bilingual educators should also cultivate students' awareness of errors and encourage self-correction, aligning with the overarching goal of facilitating language development in emergent bilinguals.

Razfar (2010) brings attention to the prevalent cognitive perspective dominating discussions on corrective feedback in language learning contexts, emphasizing its detachment from the broader socio-cultural and relational dynamics inherent in classroom interactions. He critiques the limited focus on underlying beliefs and socio-cultural contexts that shape language ideologies, particularly overlooking the affective and relational dimensions encompassing identity and ideological solidarity. 

Corrective feedback, traditionally viewed within face-to-face oral interactions, encompasses both oral and written modalities, yet research often prioritizes the latter. Razfar advocates for a more comprehensive approach to corrective feedback, one that integrates socio-cultural learning tenets, critical language ideologies, and student agency, thereby enhancing instructional strategies and learning opportunities across diverse domains.  

Reflecting on the implications of this topic, it becomes evident that teacher feedback holds significant importance in facilitating effective language learning within bilingual education. However, many subject teachers face challenges in supporting language development alongside their primary subject content delivery. Evaluating the importance of corrective feedback for bilingual teachers instructing non-language arts subjects becomes imperative. 

In a case study by Joore, Leeuw, and Kerkkamp (2013) on corrective oral feedback in bilingual settings, it is noted that while theorists advocate for the critical role of oral feedback in bilingual education, teachers often perceive it as secondary to their subject instruction. 

Formative feedback, aimed at modifying student thinking and behavior to enhance learning, is essential in fostering improved learning outcomes. The study highlights the prevalence of recasts in both English language and subject classes, suggesting the need for teachers to explore alternative feedback strategies such as elicitation or metalinguistic feedback to promote student engagement and language development.

 

Enhancing Learning Through Effective Questioning Strategies

Questioning strategies are a powerful tool in education that can significantly enhance student learning. By using a variety of question types and techniques, educators can promote engagement, critical thinking, and deeper understanding. Effective questioning strategies can be particularly impactful in bilingual education settings, where they help students develop language proficiency and cognitive skills simultaneously. Here's a look at how effective questioning strategies can enhance learning:

The Role of Questions in Learning

Encouraging Active Participation: Questions engage students and encourage them to actively participate in the learning process. This active involvement helps students to better understand and retain information.

Stimulating Critical Thinking: Well-crafted questions can challenge students to think critically and analytically, rather than just memorizing facts. This helps them to develop higher-order thinking skills (HOTS).

Assessing Understanding: Teachers can use questions to gauge students' understanding of the material, identify misconceptions, and provide timely feedback or clarification.

Promoting Discussion: Open-ended questions can spark discussion and debate among students, fostering a collaborative learning environment where ideas can be shared and explored in depth.

Developing Language Skills: In bilingual education, questions can be used to practice language skills, encouraging students to express their thoughts and ideas in the target language.

Questioning techniques in bilingual education for young learners need to be developmentally appropriate, engaging, and supportive of both language development and content understanding.

Here are some effective questioning techniques tailored to young learners in bilingual settings:

1. Simple and Clear Questions

Description: Use questions that are straightforward and easy to understand, avoiding complex vocabulary or structures.

Example: "What color is the apple?" "Is the cat big or small?"

Purpose: Help young students grasp the question quickly and respond without confusion, building their confidence in the target language.

2. Yes/No Questions

Description: Start with questions that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" to build basic comprehension and confidence.

Example: "Is the sky blue?" "Are you happy?"

Purpose: Encourage participation from all students, including those who are shy or less confident in their language skills.

3. Choice Questions

Description: Provide questions with two or more options for answers, helping students make decisions and express preferences.

Example: "Do you like apples or bananas?" "Is this a dog or a cat?"

Purpose: Build vocabulary and understanding by offering controlled choices and encourage students to speak in the target language.

4. Who/What/Where/When Questions

Description: Use basic "wh-" questions to encourage students to provide more detailed answers.

Example: "Who is your friend?" "What is your favorite toy?" "Where do you live?" "When is your birthday?"

Purpose: Develop students' ability to understand and respond to more detailed inquiries, enhancing their language and cognitive skills.

5. Repetition and Rephrasing

Description: Ask students to repeat or rephrase questions or answers to ensure understanding and practice language skills.

Example: "Can you say 'I like apples'?" "How do you say 'good morning'?"

Purpose: Reinforce language structures and vocabulary, aiding in retention and comprehension.

6. Visual and Contextual Cues

Description: Use pictures, objects, gestures, and context to support the questions and aid understanding.

Example: Showing a picture of an apple while asking, "What is this?" or pointing to the clock and asking, "What time is it?"

Purpose: Provide visual support to help students understand and respond to questions.

7. Follow-Up Questions

Description: Ask follow-up questions to extend students' thinking and encourage more detailed responses.

Example: "Why do you like apples?" "How do you get to school?"

Purpose: Encourage deeper thinking and longer responses, developing language skills and critical thinking.

8. Encouraging Descriptive Answers

Description: Prompt students to describe objects, actions, or experiences in more detail.

Example: "Can you describe your favorite game?" "What did you do at the park?"

Purpose: Enhance vocabulary and expressive language skills, encouraging students to use more complex language structures.

9. Interactive Storytelling Questions

Description: Use questions to engage students during storytelling, asking them to predict, recall, or imagine parts of the story.

Example: "What do you think will happen next?" "Why did the character go to the forest?" "How would you feel if you were in the story?"

Purpose: Increase engagement, comprehension, and critical thinking, making language learning more interactive and fun.

10. Positive Reinforcement and Encouragement

Description: Provide positive feedback and encouragement to build confidence and motivation.

Example: "Great answer!" "You did a good job describing your toy!" "I like how you used the new word we learned!"

Purpose: Encourage participation, build self-esteem, and reinforce language use in a supportive manner.

Implementing Questioning Techniques

Plan and Prepare: Plan questions in advance to align with learning objectives and outcomes. Prepare a mix of question types to address different cognitive levels and skills.

Create a Safe and Supportive Environment: Ensure that students feel comfortable and safe to speak and make mistakes. Encourage a classroom culture where trying is valued more than getting it right the first time.

Be Patient and Give Think Time: Allow students adequate time to think and respond to questions. Young learners may need a few moments to process the question and formulate their answers.

Use Positive Body Language and Tone: Show enthusiasm and encouragement through your tone of voice and body language to make students feel supported and motivated.

Incorporate Questions into Daily Routines: Use questioning techniques consistently throughout the day during various activities to reinforce language learning and comprehension. 

Encourage Student Questions: Encourage students to ask their own questions. This not only promotes curiosity and engagement but also helps students take ownership of their learning.

Provide Feedback: Offer constructive feedback on student responses. Acknowledge correct answers and guide students towards the correct answer when they make mistakes.

Use Think-Pair-Share: Allow students to think individually about a question, discuss their thoughts with a partner, and then share their ideas with the larger group. This strategy promotes collaboration and deeper understanding.

Scaffold Questions: Begin with simpler questions and gradually increase the complexity as students become more confident and knowledgeable about the topic. 

Use Bloom’s Taxonomy: Structure questions to progress from lower-order thinking skills (LOTS) to higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). This helps students build a solid foundation before tackling more complex and analytical tasks.

By employing these questioning techniques, teachers can create an engaging and supportive bilingual learning environment that encourages young students to practice and develop their language skills effectively. In bilingual education, these strategies also support language development and help students become more proficient and confident in their use of the target language. By thoughtfully integrating questioning into their teaching practices, educators can create a dynamic and interactive learning environment that encourages curiosity, exploration, and meaningful learning.

 

Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to Bilingual Instruction

Teachers often rely on Bloom's Taxonomy as a framework not only for crafting learning objectives and assessments but also for structuring and assessing questioning techniques. By aligning questions with the cognitive domains outlined in the taxonomy - ranging from remembering and understanding to analyzing, evaluating, and creating - educators can scaffold student learning experiences to prompt deeper inquiry and diverse cognitive engagement. This taxonomy serves as a roadmap for educators, guiding the formulation of questions that prompt students to delve into complex cognitive processes, fostering a culture of inquiry and intellectual exploration within the classroom. Through the intentional implementation of questioning strategies rooted in Bloom's Taxonomy, educators empower students to develop their capacity for critical thinking, inquiry, and knowledge generation, ultimately enriching their learning journey.

Bloom's Taxonomy, developed by Benjamin Bloom and colleagues, categorizes cognitive skills into six levels, from basic to complex. The taxonomy is divided into two main categories: LOTS and HOTS. 

Lower-Order Thinking Skills (LOTS)

LOTS involve basic cognitive processes and are foundational for more complex thinking. In the context of bilingual education for K-3 students, these skills help build the groundwork for language acquisition and content understanding.

Remembering: Recalling facts and basic concepts.

Example Activity: Flashcards with vocabulary words.

Question: "What is the word for 'dog' in Portuguese?"

Understanding: Explaining ideas or concepts.

Example Activity: Matching pictures to words.

Question: "Can you tell me what 'cat' means?"

Applying: Using information in new situations.

Example Activity: Using new vocabulary in sentences.

Question: "Can you use 'run' in a sentence?"

Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)

HOTS involve more complex cognitive processes and are essential for deep understanding and critical thinking. In bilingual education, these skills help students use language creatively and think critically.

Analyzing: Breaking down information into parts and exploring relationships.

Example Activity: Sorting objects based on characteristics.

Question: "How are a cat and a dog similar and different?"

Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria.

Example Activity: Comparing and contrasting stories.

Question: "Which story do you like better and why?"

Creating: Producing new or original work.

Example Activity: Writing and illustrating a short story.

Question: "Can you create a story about your favorite animal?"

Implementing LOTS and HOTS in Bilingual Education for Young Students

1. Remembering and Understanding

Activities:

Songs and Rhymes: Use simple songs and rhymes to help students remember vocabulary and sentence structures.

Storytelling: Read bilingual stories and ask students to recall key details and understand the main ideas.

2. Applying

Activities:

Role-Playing: Engage students in role-playing activities where they use new vocabulary in context (e.g., shopping at a market).

Classroom Routines: Integrate language practice into daily routines (e.g., taking attendance, weather reports).

3. Analyzing

Activities:

Sorting and Classifying: Have students sort pictures or objects based on characteristics, such as color, size, or category.

Comparative Discussions: Encourage discussions that compare two items or concepts (e.g., comparing two animals or foods).

4. Evaluating

Activities:

Opinion Sharing: Ask students to express their preferences and justify their choices (e.g., favorite book or toy).

Peer Review: Have students review each other's work and provide positive feedback and suggestions.

5. Creating

Activities:

Art Projects: Incorporate art activities where students create and describe their drawings or crafts.

Story Creation: Guide students in creating their own short stories or comics using new vocabulary and language structures.

Integrating Bloom's Taxonomy into Bilingual Education

Gradual Progression: Start with LOTS to build a solid foundation of basic language skills. Gradually introduce HOTS as students become more comfortable with the language.

Language Support: Provide ample language support, including visual aids, gestures, and bilingual resources, to help students understand and respond to questions at different cognitive levels.

Interactive Learning: Use interactive and hands-on activities to keep young learners engaged and motivated. Interactive activities can also make abstract concepts more concrete and accessible.

Encouragement and Praise: Always encourage students and praise their efforts, especially when they engage in higher-order thinking tasks. Positive reinforcement builds confidence and a willingness to take on challenging tasks.

Differentiation: Tailor activities to meet the diverse needs of students. Some students may need more time with LOTS before moving on to HOTS, while others may be ready to tackle more complex tasks sooner.

By strategically incorporating LOTS and HOTS into bilingual education for young students, teachers can support comprehensive language development and foster critical thinking skills, creating a robust foundation for lifelong learning.

Conclusion

In conclusion, bilingual education stands at the intersection of language acquisition and cognitive development, offering a rich tapestry of strategies to facilitate effective learning. Through an analysis of corrective feedback practices, we have explored the diverse approaches employed by teachers, highlighting the importance of balancing positive reinforcement with targeted error correction. The comparison of researchers' perspectives has provided valuable insights into the nuanced debate surrounding corrective feedback, underscoring the need for context-sensitive approaches that prioritize students' individual needs. Moreover, the examination of question-based techniques has illuminated their potential to foster critical thinking skills, enabling students to engage deeply with content and construct meaning actively. By contrasting lower-order and higher-order thinking skills, we have underscored the importance of nurturing students' capacity for analytical reasoning and problem-solving. Finally, the exploration of Benjamin Bloom's cognitive domains has offered a comprehensive framework for understanding the varied dimensions of learning and intellectual growth. As educators navigate the complexities of bilingual education, these insights serve as guiding principles for creating inclusive, dynamic, and intellectually stimulating learning environments that empower students to thrive in a multilingual and multicultural world.

 

References

 

Chaudron, C. 1977. A Descriptive Model of Discourse in the Corrective Treatment of Learners' Errors.

   Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46.

Conklin, W. 2012. Higher Order Thinking Skills to develop 21st century learners. Huntington Beach, CA: 

   Shell Education Publishing, Inc. 

Cummins, J. 2000. Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual 

   Matters.

Diaz, Z., Whitacre, M., Esquierdo, J. & Escalante, J. Why Did I Ask That Question? Bilingual/ESL 

   Pre-Service Teachers’ Insights. International Journal of Instruction, Vol.6, No.2, July 2013. Disponível em:

   <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085378.pdf> Acesso em: 26 set. 2022.

Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Fisher, R. 2005. Teaching children to think (2nd ed). Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes. 

García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: 

   Wiley Blackwell. 

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. 2006. Input, interaction, and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19(1), 3-17.

Gibbons, P. 2014. Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the 

   mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Heinemann.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. 2011. Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). 

   Oxford University Press.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. 1999. How languages are learned (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Lyster, R. 2015. The Relative Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in Classroom  Interaction, in The 

   Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 213-228. 

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of

   form in communicative classrooms. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20,

   37–66. 

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. 2001. Classroom instruction that works: Research-based 

   strategies for increasing student achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

   (ASCD).

Tomlinson, C. A., & Murphy, M. 2015. Teaching English Language Learners: A Differentiated Approach. 

   Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).