Abstracts
Abstract
Oral-corrective feedback (CF) has often been a significant concern in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). This study sought to investigate teachers’ and students' attitudes toward the oral CF in traditional and technology-enhanced classes. It also investigated the extent to which teachers' attitudes toward the oral CF matched their practices. A mixed-methods design was used for the study, utilizing data from questionnaires, observations, semi-structured interviews, and focus-group discussions. A sample of 162 female Iranian EFL students studying English at a private school participated in the study. The results showed that explicit correction (26%) and metalinguistic feedback (32%) were rated much more positively by the majority of students. Furthermore, the results indicated that they were more accustomed to receiving oral-feedback from the teacher in face-to-face classes than text- or audio-based feedback in technology-enhanced lessons. In addition, teachers' attitudes toward the CF were categorized into four themes: students' affective responses to CF, reasons for providing CF, timing of CF, CF in face-to-face instruction, and technology-enhanced instruction. The findings also showed that teachers' expressed beliefs about the frequency of CF provision predicted their practices, in many cases. This research has implications for EFL teachers and materials developers.
Keywords:
- Oral Corrective Feedback,
- Iran,
- EFL,
- Face-to-Face,
- Virtual Learning
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Biographical notes
Dr. Narges Sardabi is Assistant Professor of TEFL at Ershad Damavand University in Iran. She has published several academic articles in issues on Teaching English as a Foreign Language.
Amir Ghajarieh is Associate Professor of TEFL at Ershad Damavand University (EDU) and a certified English Translator to the IRI Judiciary. He heads EDU's Translation Studies Department and serves as adjunct professor at UCSI University. Ghajarieh served as a Research fellow at the Languages and Linguistics Faculty, University of Malaya in Malaysia. He was selected as the best researcher at EDU in 2022 and 2023. His research interest encompasses language education issues in second and foreign language teaching contexts and translation studies, with particular emphasis on language education methods, teacherpreneur identity, translanguaging, CALL, educational psychology and English for Specific purposes. He has extensively published in Q1 Scopus and ISI-cited journals themed on language teaching and translation studies.
Navid Atar Sharghi holds a PhD in language Sciences and is Assistant Professor at Imam Khomeini International University's Persian Language Teaching Center in Qazvin, Iran. His expertise lies in Persian language instruction to international students, teaching the French language to Iranians. He serves as the director-in-charge of Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages (JTPSOL) and has worked on comparative linguistics and translated academic and literary works. He can be reached at navid_atar.sharghi@PLC.ikiu.ac.ir.
Leyla Rahmani is affiliated with the TEFL Department in the Social Sciences Faculty at Ershad Damavand University, Iran. Her research interests include English-language teaching and feedback.
Bibliography
- Abbuhl, R. (2021). Interactionist approach to corrective feedback in second language acquisition. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 44–64). Cambridge University Press.
- Alzubi, A., A., Nazim, F. M., & Al-Mwzaiji, K. N. A. (2022). Learning through correction: Oral corrective feedback in online EFL interactions. World Journal of English Language, 12 (8), 382-389. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n8p382
- Anggunsari, P., & Mahmudah, S. (2023). Oral corrective feedback as a formative assessment in teaching speaking skills. Journal of Research on English and Language Learning, 4(1), 18-25. https://doi.org/10.33474/j-reall.v4i1.19432
- Baker, A., & Burri, M. (2016). Feedback on second language pronunciation: A case study of EAP teachers' beliefs and practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(6). Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol41/iss6/1
- Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243–272.
- Bloom, M (2007). Tension in a non-traditional Spanish classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168806072468
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Borg, W. R. & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research: An introduction. Longman Inc.
- Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.
- Choi, S. Y., & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), 331–351.
- Couper, G. (2016). Teacher cognition of pronunciation teaching amongst English language teachers in Uruguay. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 2(1), 29–55.
- Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
- Fraser, H. (2010). Cognitive theory as a tool for teaching second language pronunciation. In S. de Knop, F. Boers, & T. de Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 357–379). Mouton de Gruyter.
- Ghajarieh, A. and Mirkazemi, F.S. (2023). The impact of neoliberal discourse and the socio-economic status of parents on TEFL young learners’ achievement: Parental beliefs and behaviors in the spotlight. Forum for Linguistic Studies 5(1): 234–249. https://doi.org/10.18063/fls.v5i1.1536
- Ghajarieh, A. and Aghabozorgi, A. (2024), "Translanguaging approaches and perceptions of Iranian EGP teachers in bi/multilingual educational spaces: A qualitative inquiry." Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-07-2023-0108
- Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.
- Gooch, R., Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English/r/to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 60, 117–127.
- Harmer, J. (2006). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Longman.
- Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
- Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467–494.
- Johnson, E. S., Crawford, A. R., Moylan, L. A., & Zheng, Y. (2017). Explicit instruction rubric manual. Boise State University.
- Kennedy, S., Blanchet, J., & Trofimovich, P. (2014). Learner pronunciation, awareness, and instruction in French as a second language. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12066
- Kim, J., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 269–297). Oxford University Press.
- Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
- Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In. B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201-224). Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–9). John Wiley & Sons.
- Liu, H., & Feng, M. (2023). The role of learner engagement with corrective feedback in EFL/ESL classrooms. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1118467. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1118467
- Loewen, S., & Philp, U. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
- Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104.
- Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
- Lyster, R. (2015). Using form-focused tasks to integrate language across the immersion curriculum. System, 54, 4–13.
- Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
- Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167-184.
- Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language teaching, 46, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
- Martínez Agudo, J. D. (2013). An investigation into how EFL learners emotionally respond to teachers' oral corrective feedback. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(2), 265-278.
- McCargar, D. F. (1993). Teacher and student role expectations: Cross-cultural differences and implications. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 192-207.
- Muyashoha, A. B. (2019). The students' perception toward oral corrective feedback in speaking class at the English department of IAIN Palangka Raya (Unpublished master’s thesis). State Islamic Institute of Palangka Raya.
- Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2015). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (4th Ed). Pearson Education
- Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral-feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79.
- Rochma, A. F. (2023). Corrective oral-feedback on students’ errors in speaking courses. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 125-135. https://doi.org/10.18860/jetle.v4i2.20442
- Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of/r/by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595-683.
- Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
- Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning (Educational Linguistics series). Springer.
- Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 593-610). Routledge.
- Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.
- Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (2), 111–122.
- Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–70.
- Vavrus, F. K. (2009). The cultural politics of constructivist pedagogies: Teacher education reform in the United Republic of Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development, 29 (3), 303–11.
- Wagner, E. (2010). Survey research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti, Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 22–38). Continuum International Publishing Group.
- Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
- Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134–1169.
- Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0
- Ляшенко. Т.В., (2023). Corrective feedback strategies in an online RFL class. Russkij âzyk za rubežom, https://doi.org/10.37632/pi.2023.296.1.009