112
morphology and syntax interdependent and taught in a complementary manner. It is important for
each reader to consider an individual approach and their needs.
In conclusion, the teaching of foreign language is intertwined in foreign language
combined, and each is important for a deep study of the language. Pronunciations during the
educational process leads to an effective results of effective words, and working on talks. It is very
difficult to learn a foreign language without them. Because these help the reader learn the language
quickly and easily. If each foreign student learns well in these sections, it does not have difficulty
communicating in foreign languages, forming foreign languages and pronouncing foreign
languages. Because each of these sections gives the reader the most important knowledge that
needs a foreign language.
References
1. Bauer. L. (2003). “Introducing Linguistic Morphology”. Edinburgh University Press
2. Nosirova D. N. “Xorijiy tillarni o’rganishda o’qish, tinglash, yozish va gapirishning
afzalliklari”. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational,natural and social sciences. 2022
3. Ladefoged. P. (2005). “A course in Phonetics”.
CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK AS A MOTIVATION IN TEACHING WRITING
Sultamuradova Yulduz, Student of KSU
Scientific advise:r Khadjieva D
Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement, but this
impact can be either positive or negative. The emotional impact that assessment has on learners
plays a important role in their achievement. It can be seen that providing constructive feedback
that focuses on the learner’s progress toward the desired standard, rather than on the learner self,
is more productive. According to if learners are merely provided with a mark or grade, the
assessment is mainly judgmental and learners are focused on comparing themselves to others
rather than using the feedback to improve.
Feedback is counterproductive when it results in learners feeling that they are not good
enough, and impacts negatively on their confidence and enthusiasm to learn.
Feedback
involves “a process to collect information to determine whether or not successful teaching and
learning has occurred.” Feedback is “a commitment between teachers and students for academic
and professional development.” It is an important tool used by successful teachers to make
adjustments to the teaching process by identifying areas that are successful and those that require
improvement. Feedback is strongly associated with students’ perceptions of the quality of
education. Therefore, we must consistently give and request feedback from students. However,
the unfortunately reality is that students are infrequently requested to provide feedback regarding
the teacher’s performance. Conversely, teachers do not provide feedback to students as often as
they'd like.
Feedback is more constructive when it focuses on what the learner does well
rather than highlighting failure.[1,80] Learners’ mistakes and misconceptions can be addressed
if the feedback is focused on their work, providing guidance on how they can improve.
Communication between students and teachers is crucial at all educational levels and is
particularly important in adult learning situations. Good feedback should be descriptive, specific,
and constructive. Constructive feedback requires an atmosphere of trust and, above all, should not
113
violate the personal integrity of either the sender or the receiver. When providing feedback, the
speaker must assume ownership of the feelings that are being expressed. Therefore, the word "I"
should be the subject of the feedback sentence. The predicate of the feedback sentence should
contain a verb that conveys the speaker's feelings and should also describe the behaviors related
to the feeling[2,43].
In general, feedback is better received when given in a timely manner so that recipients
have an opportunity to improve. More frequent feedback makes each encounter less emotional
and feedback becomes a common, routine part of the learning process. Learning expectations for
the activity should be articulated early to reduce ambiguities in performance objectives and
minimize surprises during the evaluation. In order to maximize the potential use of feedback as a
learning tool, both the deliverer and receiver of feedback should be receptive. Solicit feedback
and express appreciation when receiving it to model an accepting behavior. Most importantly,
create an atmosphere of trust and respect when giving and receiving feedback.
Constructive feedback, given or received, plays a critical role in teaching. We should not
allow fear to prevent us from employing feedback in our daily activities. Providing feedback in a
structured, constructive manner can help minimize fear and maximize its utility as an educational
tool.
Hattie and Timperley [4, 39] point out that praise can be effective, provided it is
accompanied by feedback about the task. Essentially, only providing learners with grades
showing their failure, instead of feedback that diagnoses incorrect mental models and corrects
misunderstanding, is detrimental to their learning. Hattie and Timperley [4, 50] state that “the
major discriminator is whether [the feedback] is clearly directed to the task, processes and not to
the self level”. Stiggins [3, 19] accepts: “If all students are to succeed, they must have continuous
access to sufficient evidence of their own academic success at mastering prescribed
achievement standards”. Constructive feedback has been of great interest to both Second
Language (SL) and Foreign Language (FL) researchers likewise. In the same way, a growing
div of research has investigated the potential efficacy of Written Constructive Feedback (WCF)
and its roles in language learners’ writing development in different ways.
The effectiveness of WCF has been controversial regarding whether error correction is
beneficial to the learning process or not. On the one hand, CF has proved to be effective in
promoting language learning , yet on the other hand, as Truscott claimed, it could be
obstructive or even detrimental. In an extreme view on CF, Truscott argued that the application of
CF on the learners’ writing should be totally avoided as it hinders and harms writing development.
According to Truscott , “grammar correction has no place in writing courses and should be
abandoned”.
On the contrary, more recent studies support the positive contributions of CF to language
learning and in particular writing skills. CF also enables learners to notice the “gap” between
their interlanguage and the target language resulting in more focused and accurate learning.
This, in turn, enables language learners to concentrate their attention on syntactical structures of
their language products resulting in better learning of linguistic forms. Lee argue that the main
concern nowadays is not to whether provide CF for the learners but rather “when and how to
provide feedback on the students’ errors”. ]. There is also research evidence which proves that
students want error feedback and think that it helps them improve their writing skill in the target
language (Leki, 1991; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Chandler, 2003) [28]. Similarly, Leki (1991) and
114
Zhang (1995) in their studies found out that the learners themselves greatly appreciate teacher-
provided CF regarding their writings. This clearly shows that “L2 students have positive attitudes
towards written feedback”.
It is also worth mentioning that, “many scholars and researchers agree that feedback is essential
and has a positive effect on students’ writing. Thus, feedback on writing can be selected as a
means of helping students to make revision and can help students improve their writing skills” .
According to Lyster and Ranta [4,70], different types of CF have been identified including
explicit, metalinguistic, elicitation, repetition, recast, translation, and clarification requests.
A) Explicit feedback falls at the explicit end of corrective feedback spectrum. Rezaei et al.
(2011) cite Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) and mention that this type of feedback “is
characterized by an overt and clear indication of the existence of an error and the provision of the
target-like reformulation and can take two forms, i.e. explicit correction and metalinguistic
feedback”. In explicit CF, teacher clearly draws learner’s attention to the erroneous part(s) and
provides correct structures directly.
B) Metalinguistic Feedback As characterized by Rezaei et al. (2011), “much like
explicit error correction, metalinguistic feedback- because it diverts the focus of conversation
towards rules or features of the target language- falls at the explicit end of the corrective feedback
spectrum.”
C) Elicitation In this type of CF, self-correction is emphasized (Panova&Lyster, 2002).
Regarding this type of CF, Rezaei et al. (2011) propose three different ways duringFtF interaction
varying in their level of explicitness or implicitness. The first strategy “is request for
reformulations of an ill-formed utterance. The second one is through the use of open questions.
The last strategy which is … the most implicit is the use of strategic pauses to allow a learner to
complete an utterance.”
D) Repetition This type of CF, according to Rezaei et al. (2011), “is less communicatively
intrusive in comparison to explicit error correction or metalinguistic feedback and hence falls at
the implicit extreme on the continuum of corrective feedback.”
E)Recast “The term recast was initially used in the literature of L1 acquisition to refer to
responses by adults to children’s utterances …; afterward it merged into the domain of L2
acquisition in which different definitions were utilized for this term.” According to Ellis and
Sheen (2006, pp. 78-80), recasts are of various types including corrective recasts (Doughty
& Varela, 1998), corrective/non-corrective recasts (Farrar, 1992), full/partial recasts,
single/multiple recasts, single utterance/extended utterance recasts, and simple/complex recasts
(Ellis & Sheen, 2006).
F) Translation
Translation was regarded as a subdivision of recast (Lyster&Ranta, 1997). But, according
toRezaei et al. (2011), the difference between translation and recast is that “the former is
generated in response to a learner's ill-formed utterance in the target language while the latter is
generated in response to a learner's well-formed utterance in a language other than the target
language.”
G) Clarification Requests
According to Rezaei et al. (2011), this kind of feedback “carries questions indicating that
the utterance has been ill-formed or misunderstood and that a reformulation or a repetition is
required” [13, 585]. This type of feedback unlike explicit error correction, recasts, and
115
translations, can be more consistently resorted to in order to generate modified output due to the
fact that it might not provide the learners with any information regarding the type or location of
the errors made.
Thus, they demand deeper levels of mental processing required by the learners to
produce target-like forms and therefore are more beneficial to high-level learners.
Given the above mentioned findings and studies, it becomes apparent that despite earlier
controversy over the effectiveness of CF provided by teachers on learners’ writing, it is obvious
that CF plays a crucial role in promoting learning processes and eliminates learners’ structural
problems regarding what they produce especially in written form. Teachers should also be
aware of learners’ needs which are the basis for appropriate feedback teachers intend to provide
as there are different types of feedback ranging from explicit to implicit. This is because learners
vary in their knowledge and level of proficiency and therefore, “can benefit from different ways
of providing corrective focus on form”
References
1.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study
of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-
386.
2.
Cathcart, R. L., & Olsen J. W. B. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of
classroom conversation errors. In J. F. Fanselow, & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’76, 41-45.
Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
3.
Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers’ priorities in correcting learners’ errors in French immersion
classes. In R. D. Richard (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp.
64-84). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
4.
Hattie and Timperley The Power of Feedback
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
5.
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types
and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51(1), 265-301
MULTIMODAL COMMUNICATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Tilepbaeva Uldawlet Polatbay qizi, Student of KSU
Abstract:
In the digital age, communication has evolved beyond traditional text-based interactions
to incorporate multiple modes, including images, audio, video, and interactive elements. This
phenomenon, known as multimodal communication, plays a crucial role in shaping online
discourse and human interaction. This article explores the key components of multimodal
communication, including text-visual integration, audio-visual content, and interactive features
found on social media and digital platforms. It also examines the sociolinguistic implications of
this shift, such as the evolution of internet slang, cross-cultural communication, and accessibility
challenges. As digital communication continues to evolve, understanding multimodal interactions
is essential for effective online engagement, education, and media consumption.
Keywords:
Multimodal communication, digital discourse, text-visual integration, social media,
emojis, memes, interactive communication.
