Content uploaded by Joseph B. Quinto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph B. Quinto on Feb 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Journal of International Education
ISSN 2586-4769
Journal of International Education Vol. 2, December 2020
Corrective Feedback in Oral Communication
Joseph B. Quinto, LPT, Ph.D.
College of Arts and Sciences, Humanities Department, Benguet State University, Philippines
______________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Since there is a dearth of research in oral corrective feedback in the Philippines
together with the implementation of the K-12 curriculum, the researcher deemed it necessary
to shed light to the significance of corrective feedback in oral communication classes. The
study aimed to determine the different types of oral corrective feedback used by oral
communication teachers and preferred by students, level of effectiveness of oral corrective
feedback as perceived by teachers and students, and the difference in the level of
effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students. Specifically,
the results showed the following: first, ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback
mostly used by oral communication teachers in improving oral communication skills; second,
recast, explicit correction, and questioning (self-correction) were the types of oral corrective
feedback most preferred by students in improving oral communication skills. However,
ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback that was never preferred by the students in
improving oral communications skills; third, teachers and students perceived recast,
questioning (peer correction), and questioning (self-correction) as highly effective. On the
other hand, ignoring was perceived as never effective in improving oral communication
skills; finally, there was a significant difference in the level of effectiveness in clarification
request as perceived by teachers and students. More importantly, there was a high significant
difference in the level of effectiveness in explicit correction, denial, and ignoring as perceived
by teachers and students.
Keywords: communicative competence, oral communication, oral corrective feedback, senior
high school
I. INTRODUCTION
Errors in oral communication are seen as windows for students to learn English better.
They are parts and parcels of the teaching learning process transpiring in the classroom. If
these errors are left untreated, it could be detrimental in the learning process and language
acquisition of the students. There have been plenty of research studies along this domain
especially in the Middle East like Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.
Some countries in East Asia like Japan, China, and Korea as well as other Southeast Asian
countries and some non - native English speaking countries in Europe have also delved into
this kind of study. On the contrary, a dearth of research studies in line with oral corrective
feedback could be found in the Philippines.
Globalization has promoted English to a world-leading-medium of communication. Many
scholars have accentuated the importance of communicating in English effectively and
appropriately, particularly with people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds
(Alyan, 2013).The rise in popularity of the communicative approach in language teaching
since the late 1970s primarily focusing on language for meaningful interaction and for
accomplishing tasks rather than on learning rules has intensified debate among teachers and
researchers on corrective feedback (CF) or error correction (EC) in second language (L2)
learning. The concept of CF has, therefore, been under analysis for long especially since
2
Journal of International Education
Hendrickson’s study in 1978 in which he questioned if errors should be corrected and if so
which ones, when, and how the errors should be corrected (Smith, 2010 as cited in Abaya,
2014).
Coskun (2010) explained that the issue of oral error correction should be approached from
a historical perspective to see the progress made so far. Traditionally, when the audio-lingual
approach to teaching foreign languages was popular among English teaching professionals,
errors were seen as something to be avoided. However, today, the contemporary research
seems to agree on the fact that rather than expecting students to produce error-free sentences,
students are encouraged to communicate in the target language, and making errors is a natural
part of second language acquisition. One of the recent issues in teaching speaking skills
around the world has been the role of CF in learner uptake, defined as learners’ reaction to
the teacher’s feedback. The research on CF has centered on its necessity and frequency,
timing, methods, types of errors, and correctors (Alhaysony, 2016).
The research on corrective feedback has centered on the types of corrective feedback, the
effect of corrective feedback on learner uptake and the role of individual differences in this
effect (DeKeyser, 1993; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova &
Lyster, 2002; Schulz, 1996; Tsang, 2004; Yoshida, 2008 as cited in Park, 2010). Regardless
of many studies on corrective feedback, only a dearth of published studies has investigated
the corrective feedback perceived by teachers and students and by high achievement students
and low achievement students (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Schulz, 1996, 2001; Yoshida,
2008 as cited in Park, 2010). There has been a lot of discussion on errors and their correction
in the foreign language classroom because of the fact that the attitudes towards errors of both
teachers and students differ, as well as error correction diverges depending on the approaches
that are applied (Tomczyk, 2013).
It has long been assumed within traditional pedagogical practice that error feedback is
necessary for learners to progress in their acquisition and use of second language (L2) in
more target-like ways. Providing feedback in class is not a simple or clear-cut process as
there are many different types of feedback and each type can have a specific effect on
learners’ errors (Gitsaki & Althobaiti, 2010). Broadly speaking, errors are natural part of
language learning. Hence, as far as EFL (English as a Foreign Language)/ESL (English as a
Second Language) classrooms are concerned, speaking attracts the attention of almost all
students.
Corrective feedback (CF) which refers to the implicit or explicit information learners
receive indicating a gap between their current situation and compared to the desired
performance has been an area of interest for EFL researchers during the last few decades
(Asassfeh, 2013). Moreover, Long (1996 as cited in Rassaei, 2010) said it is among the
techniques which are believed to facilitate L2 development by providing learners with both
positive and negative evidence. When it comes to oral corrective feedback, what errors are
corrected are influenced by the pedagogical approach of the teacher and the recent advent of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) which emphasizes the process of communication
rather than mastery of language forms (Richards & Rodgers, 2001 as cited in Kim, 2015).
The core intention of this study was to determine and analyze the different types of oral
corrective feedback in oral communication classes. Specifically, it sought to answer the
following research queries:
1. What type of oral corrective feedback is used by oral communication teachers in
improving oral communication skills?
2. What type of oral corrective feedback is the most preferred by students in improving
oral communication skills?
3. What is the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by:
a. teachers; and
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 6 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
1
Journal of International Education
ISSN 2586-4769
Journal of International Education Vol. 2, December 2020
Corrective Feedback in Oral Communication
Joseph B. Quinto, LPT, Ph.D.
College of Arts and Sciences, Humanities Department, Benguet State University, Philippines
______________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Since there is a dearth of research in oral corrective feedback in the Philippines
together with the implementation of the K-12 curriculum, the researcher deemed it necessary
to shed light to the significance of corrective feedback in oral communication classes. The
study aimed to determine the different types of oral corrective feedback used by oral
communication teachers and preferred by students, level of effectiveness of oral corrective
feedback as perceived by teachers and students, and the difference in the level of
effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students. Specifically,
the results showed the following: first, ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback
mostly used by oral communication teachers in improving oral communication skills; second,
recast, explicit correction, and questioning (self-correction) were the types of oral corrective
feedback most preferred by students in improving oral communication skills. However,
ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback that was never preferred by the students in
improving oral communications skills; third, teachers and students perceived recast,
questioning (peer correction), and questioning (self-correction) as highly effective. On the
other hand, ignoring was perceived as never effective in improving oral communication
skills; finally, there was a significant difference in the level of effectiveness in clarification
request as perceived by teachers and students. More importantly, there was a high significant
difference in the level of effectiveness in explicit correction, denial, and ignoring as perceived
by teachers and students.
Keywords: communicative competence, oral communication, oral corrective feedback, senior
high school
I. INTRODUCTION
Errors in oral communication are seen as windows for students to learn English better.
They are parts and parcels of the teaching learning process transpiring in the classroom. If
these errors are left untreated, it could be detrimental in the learning process and language
acquisition of the students. There have been plenty of research studies along this domain
especially in the Middle East like Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.
Some countries in East Asia like Japan, China, and Korea as well as other Southeast Asian
countries and some non - native English speaking countries in Europe have also delved into
this kind of study. On the contrary, a dearth of research studies in line with oral corrective
feedback could be found in the Philippines.
Globalization has promoted English to a world-leading-medium of communication. Many
scholars have accentuated the importance of communicating in English effectively and
appropriately, particularly with people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds
(Alyan, 2013).The rise in popularity of the communicative approach in language teaching
since the late 1970s primarily focusing on language for meaningful interaction and for
accomplishing tasks rather than on learning rules has intensified debate among teachers and
researchers on corrective feedback (CF) or error correction (EC) in second language (L2)
learning. The concept of CF has, therefore, been under analysis for long especially since
2
Journal of International Education
Hendrickson’s study in 1978 in which he questioned if errors should be corrected and if so
which ones, when, and how the errors should be corrected (Smith, 2010 as cited in Abaya,
2014).
Coskun (2010) explained that the issue of oral error correction should be approached from
a historical perspective to see the progress made so far. Traditionally, when the audio-lingual
approach to teaching foreign languages was popular among English teaching professionals,
errors were seen as something to be avoided. However, today, the contemporary research
seems to agree on the fact that rather than expecting students to produce error-free sentences,
students are encouraged to communicate in the target language, and making errors is a natural
part of second language acquisition. One of the recent issues in teaching speaking skills
around the world has been the role of CF in learner uptake, defined as learners’ reaction to
the teacher’s feedback. The research on CF has centered on its necessity and frequency,
timing, methods, types of errors, and correctors (Alhaysony, 2016).
The research on corrective feedback has centered on the types of corrective feedback, the
effect of corrective feedback on learner uptake and the role of individual differences in this
effect (DeKeyser, 1993; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova &
Lyster, 2002; Schulz, 1996; Tsang, 2004; Yoshida, 2008 as cited in Park, 2010). Regardless
of many studies on corrective feedback, only a dearth of published studies has investigated
the corrective feedback perceived by teachers and students and by high achievement students
and low achievement students (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Schulz, 1996, 2001; Yoshida,
2008 as cited in Park, 2010). There has been a lot of discussion on errors and their correction
in the foreign language classroom because of the fact that the attitudes towards errors of both
teachers and students differ, as well as error correction diverges depending on the approaches
that are applied (Tomczyk, 2013).
It has long been assumed within traditional pedagogical practice that error feedback is
necessary for learners to progress in their acquisition and use of second language (L2) in
more target-like ways. Providing feedback in class is not a simple or clear-cut process as
there are many different types of feedback and each type can have a specific effect on
learners’ errors (Gitsaki & Althobaiti, 2010). Broadly speaking, errors are natural part of
language learning. Hence, as far as EFL (English as a Foreign Language)/ESL (English as a
Second Language) classrooms are concerned, speaking attracts the attention of almost all
students.
Corrective feedback (CF) which refers to the implicit or explicit information learners
receive indicating a gap between their current situation and compared to the desired
performance has been an area of interest for EFL researchers during the last few decades
(Asassfeh, 2013). Moreover, Long (1996 as cited in Rassaei, 2010) said it is among the
techniques which are believed to facilitate L2 development by providing learners with both
positive and negative evidence. When it comes to oral corrective feedback, what errors are
corrected are influenced by the pedagogical approach of the teacher and the recent advent of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) which emphasizes the process of communication
rather than mastery of language forms (Richards & Rodgers, 2001 as cited in Kim, 2015).
The core intention of this study was to determine and analyze the different types of oral
corrective feedback in oral communication classes. Specifically, it sought to answer the
following research queries:
1. What type of oral corrective feedback is used by oral communication teachers in
improving oral communication skills?
2. What type of oral corrective feedback is the most preferred by students in improving
oral communication skills?
3. What is the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by:
a. teachers; and
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 7 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
3
Journal of International Education
b. students?
4. What is the difference in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as
perceived by teachers and students?
HYPOTHESIS: There is a significant difference in the level of effectiveness of oral
corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students.
II. RELATED LITERATURE
Alhaysony (2016) also added that research on CF has gained prominence in the domain of
L2 acquisition because it plays a crucial role in developing L2 acquisition theories as well as
teaching second languages. Huang et al. (2016) posited that the most common errors
committed by students in oral communication are pronunciation errors and grammatical
errors. An example is an observation on a study of Japanese Senior High School English
classes which "revealed that even though students are more fluent in their communication,
they are less accurate in their grammar usage"(Phettongkam, 2013, p. 97). There has been a
lot of discussion on errors and their correction in the foreign language classroom because of
the fact that the attitudes towards errors of both teachers and students differ, as well as error
correction diverges depending on the approaches that are applied (Tomczyk, 2013). Calsiyao
(2015) supported that the expectations of the teachers and the students toward error
correction found to be contradictory. This is because the nature of error correction is
dependent on the teaching styles of the educator and the learning styles of the students. On
another note, Palangyos (2009) conveyed that there have been controversies concerning
corrective feedback; one is whether or not teachers correct all errors committed by students;
another is which types of corrective feedback are effective and which ones are not.
Saville - Troike (2006) stated Second Language Acquisition (SLA) refers both to the
study of individuals and groups who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first
one as young children, and to the process of learning that language. Second language
acquisition – naturalistic, instructed, or both – has long been a common activity for a majority
of the human species and is becoming ever more vital as second languages themselves
increase in importance (Doughty & Long, 2005). Second Language Acquisition as a part of
Applied Linguistics is the driving force of this research mainly because the process of
acquiring a second language with near - native competence is the goal of any English
language classroom. Another interesting part of second language acquisition is the different
hypotheses proposed by many.
The Interactional Hypothesis states that conversational interaction "facilitates language
acquisition because it connects input (what learners hear and read); internal learner
capacities, particularly selective attention; and output (what learners produce) in productive
ways" (Long, 1996, as cited in Muho & Kurani, n.d.). This particular hypothesis advances
two major claims about the role of interaction in L2 acquisition: comprehensible input is
necessary for L2 acquisition and modifications to the interactional structure of conversations
which take place in the process of negotiating a communication problem help to make input
comprehensible to an L2 learner (Long, 1980 as cited in Ellis, 1991). As Ellis (1991)
observed, comprehensible input by Stephen Krashen has a major causative factor in SLA.
The Input Hypothesis, on another hand, states that acquisition takes place as a result of
the learner having understood input that is a little beyond the current level of his competence
(i.e. the i + 1 level). Input that is comprehensible to the learner will automatically be at the
right level. Additionally, more comprehensible input results in more language acquisition,
that language teaching methods containing more comprehensible input are more effective,
and that language development occurs more effectively (Lightbrown, 1985). A review by
Long (1988), for example, found that formal instruction does have positive effects on SLA
4
Journal of International Education
processes. Formal target language instruction has been found to speed up the rate at which
learners acquire the language forms and also to result in a higher ultimate level of attainment
(Ellis, 1989). Long now clearly acknowledges that interaction promotes L2 acquisition not
only by supplying comprehensible input but also by providing the learner with opportunities
for production, drawing on the comprehensible output hypothesis by Merrill Swain.
Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis was formulated as a reaction to Krashen’s (1985) input
hypothesis and as a reaction against what Swain saw as the inefficacy of the use of
comprehensible input alone in the development of learners’ linguistic competence in the
immersion schools in Canada. Swain recognizes that interlanguage development can take
place when learners are 'pushed' to improve their output. In this respect, certain interactional
modifications may be more helpful than others. For instance, requests for clarification (e.g.
'Pardon') could improve the learner by making her clarify what she has said, whereas
confirmation checks may not because they solve the communication problem for the learner.
Comprehensible output production is usually inseparably linked with feedback, which is a
kind of interaction providing learners with error correction and with metalinguistic
information, facilitating improvement of the accuracy of L2 production (Donesch-Jezo, 21).
When it comes to oral corrective feedback, what errors are corrected are influenced by the
pedagogical approach of the teacher, and the recent advent of Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) which emphasizes the process of communication, rather than mastery of
language forms (Richards & Rodgers, 2001 as cited in Kim, 2015). Nevertheless, what
constitutes a communicative error has not been categorized with distinction, and the research
undertaken in the field primarily focuses on accuracy errors. One of these is a study
conducted by Gass and Mackey (2017) who classified errors into four categories and they are
as follows:
Phonological error means problem with pronunciation. An example of a phonological
error is the lack of distinction between the phoneme /p/ and the phoneme /b/ among Arab
ESL learners, so others hear them saying pird and brison instead of bird and prison. Another
example is presented below.
NNS: The rear, rear [rleks].
NS: The rear what? Legs?
NNS: [regs] Yeah.
Morphosyntactic error means problem with grammar. An example of a morphological
error is the production of such errors as womans, sheeps, and furnitures. Another example is
presented below.
NNS: There is a three bird my picture.
NS: Three birds in your picture?
NNS: Three birds yeah.
Lexical error means problem with word choice. A lexical error involves inappropriate
direct translation from the learner's native language or the use of wrong lexical items in the
second language. Examples of lexical errors are: This is the home that my father built, and
the clock is now ten. Another example is presented below.
NNS: There is a green, uh…
NS: A green?
NNS: A, no, I don’t know the letter for this.
NS: Yes, yes, yes, a plant.
Semantic error means problem with meanings. Examples of semantic errors are errors in
word order, subject-verb agreement, and the use of the resumptive pronoun in English
relative clauses produced by Arab ESL learners as illustrated in: The boy that I saw him is
called Ali. Another example is presented below.
NNS: He is on the tree.
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 8 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
3
Journal of International Education
b. students?
4. What is the difference in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as
perceived by teachers and students?
HYPOTHESIS: There is a significant difference in the level of effectiveness of oral
corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students.
II. RELATED LITERATURE
Alhaysony (2016) also added that research on CF has gained prominence in the domain of
L2 acquisition because it plays a crucial role in developing L2 acquisition theories as well as
teaching second languages. Huang et al. (2016) posited that the most common errors
committed by students in oral communication are pronunciation errors and grammatical
errors. An example is an observation on a study of Japanese Senior High School English
classes which "revealed that even though students are more fluent in their communication,
they are less accurate in their grammar usage"(Phettongkam, 2013, p. 97). There has been a
lot of discussion on errors and their correction in the foreign language classroom because of
the fact that the attitudes towards errors of both teachers and students differ, as well as error
correction diverges depending on the approaches that are applied (Tomczyk, 2013). Calsiyao
(2015) supported that the expectations of the teachers and the students toward error
correction found to be contradictory. This is because the nature of error correction is
dependent on the teaching styles of the educator and the learning styles of the students. On
another note, Palangyos (2009) conveyed that there have been controversies concerning
corrective feedback; one is whether or not teachers correct all errors committed by students;
another is which types of corrective feedback are effective and which ones are not.
Saville - Troike (2006) stated Second Language Acquisition (SLA) refers both to the
study of individuals and groups who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first
one as young children, and to the process of learning that language. Second language
acquisition – naturalistic, instructed, or both – has long been a common activity for a majority
of the human species and is becoming ever more vital as second languages themselves
increase in importance (Doughty & Long, 2005). Second Language Acquisition as a part of
Applied Linguistics is the driving force of this research mainly because the process of
acquiring a second language with near - native competence is the goal of any English
language classroom. Another interesting part of second language acquisition is the different
hypotheses proposed by many.
The Interactional Hypothesis states that conversational interaction "facilitates language
acquisition because it connects input (what learners hear and read); internal learner
capacities, particularly selective attention; and output (what learners produce) in productive
ways" (Long, 1996, as cited in Muho & Kurani, n.d.). This particular hypothesis advances
two major claims about the role of interaction in L2 acquisition: comprehensible input is
necessary for L2 acquisition and modifications to the interactional structure of conversations
which take place in the process of negotiating a communication problem help to make input
comprehensible to an L2 learner (Long, 1980 as cited in Ellis, 1991). As Ellis (1991)
observed, comprehensible input by Stephen Krashen has a major causative factor in SLA.
The Input Hypothesis, on another hand, states that acquisition takes place as a result of
the learner having understood input that is a little beyond the current level of his competence
(i.e. the i + 1 level). Input that is comprehensible to the learner will automatically be at the
right level. Additionally, more comprehensible input results in more language acquisition,
that language teaching methods containing more comprehensible input are more effective,
and that language development occurs more effectively (Lightbrown, 1985). A review by
Long (1988), for example, found that formal instruction does have positive effects on SLA
4
Journal of International Education
processes. Formal target language instruction has been found to speed up the rate at which
learners acquire the language forms and also to result in a higher ultimate level of attainment
(Ellis, 1989). Long now clearly acknowledges that interaction promotes L2 acquisition not
only by supplying comprehensible input but also by providing the learner with opportunities
for production, drawing on the comprehensible output hypothesis by Merrill Swain.
Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis was formulated as a reaction to Krashen’s (1985) input
hypothesis and as a reaction against what Swain saw as the inefficacy of the use of
comprehensible input alone in the development of learners’ linguistic competence in the
immersion schools in Canada. Swain recognizes that interlanguage development can take
place when learners are 'pushed' to improve their output. In this respect, certain interactional
modifications may be more helpful than others. For instance, requests for clarification (e.g.
'Pardon') could improve the learner by making her clarify what she has said, whereas
confirmation checks may not because they solve the communication problem for the learner.
Comprehensible output production is usually inseparably linked with feedback, which is a
kind of interaction providing learners with error correction and with metalinguistic
information, facilitating improvement of the accuracy of L2 production (Donesch-Jezo, 21).
When it comes to oral corrective feedback, what errors are corrected are influenced by the
pedagogical approach of the teacher, and the recent advent of Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) which emphasizes the process of communication, rather than mastery of
language forms (Richards & Rodgers, 2001 as cited in Kim, 2015). Nevertheless, what
constitutes a communicative error has not been categorized with distinction, and the research
undertaken in the field primarily focuses on accuracy errors. One of these is a study
conducted by Gass and Mackey (2017) who classified errors into four categories and they are
as follows:
Phonological error means problem with pronunciation. An example of a phonological
error is the lack of distinction between the phoneme /p/ and the phoneme /b/ among Arab
ESL learners, so others hear them saying pird and brison instead of bird and prison. Another
example is presented below.
NNS: The rear, rear [rleks].
NS: The rear what? Legs?
NNS: [regs] Yeah.
Morphosyntactic error means problem with grammar. An example of a morphological
error is the production of such errors as womans, sheeps, and furnitures. Another example is
presented below.
NNS: There is a three bird my picture.
NS: Three birds in your picture?
NNS: Three birds yeah.
Lexical error means problem with word choice. A lexical error involves inappropriate
direct translation from the learner's native language or the use of wrong lexical items in the
second language. Examples of lexical errors are: This is the home that my father built, and
the clock is now ten. Another example is presented below.
NNS: There is a green, uh…
NS: A green?
NNS: A, no, I don’t know the letter for this.
NS: Yes, yes, yes, a plant.
Semantic error means problem with meanings. Examples of semantic errors are errors in
word order, subject-verb agreement, and the use of the resumptive pronoun in English
relative clauses produced by Arab ESL learners as illustrated in: The boy that I saw him is
called Ali. Another example is presented below.
NNS: He is on the tree.
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 9 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
5
Journal of International Education
NS: He is standing on the tree.
NNS: Yeah, standing on the tree.
When it comes to oral corrective feedback, the different types are worth noting. There are
different types of oral corrective feedback based on Lyster and Ranta's model and had been
added with some other types as found in the research of Alfaki, (2013). They are as follows:
Recast - the teacher repeats what the learner has said replacing the error. An example is
presented below.
S: Were you suprising by anything in the article?
T: Were you surprised by anything in the article?
Explicit correction - the teacher explicitly provides the learner with the correct form. An
example is presented below.
T: “That is not right. You should say….”
Repetition of error - the teacher repeats the learner’s error in isolation. In most cases, the
teacher adjusts his/her intonation so as to highlight the error. An example is presented below.
S: “I going to visit my parents next week.”
T: I going to…(emphasis)
S: I’m going to…
Elicitation - the teacher provides a sentence and strategically pauses to allow the learner
to ‘fill in the blank’. An example is presented below.
S: Mario and the carabao become good friends.
T: Mario and the carabao…
S: became
Metalinguistic feedback - the teacher provides information or questions related to an error
the student has made without explicitly providing the correct form. An example is presented
below.
S: “When Mario saw the carabao, he was….”
T: “surprise,
surprised,
surprising?”
S: “surprised”
Clarification request - the teacher asks for repetition or reformation of what the learner
has said. An example is presented below.
T: “What’s your surname?”
S: “Lucy”
T: “pardon me”
S: “Lopez”
T: “Excellent!”
Denial - the teacher tells the learner that his or her response was incorrect and asks him or
her to say the sentence without the error. An example is presented below.
“That’s not correct. Could you try again?”
Questioning (peer correction) - learners correct each other in face-to-face interaction in a
safe environment. For example, learners work in pairs and read to each other a tongue twister.
A student reads the line: A flea and a
fly flew. She mispronounces the word flew. Her partner corrects her: A flea and a fly (flu:).
Questioning (self-correction) - the learner is aware of the error he/she makes and repairs
them. An example is presented below.
A student answering the question,
What did you do yesterday?
S: “I go to the movies.”
S: “I went to the movies.”
6
Journal of International Education
Ignoring - the teacher does nothing when the student makes an error.
III. METHODOLOGY
Research Method
This study on oral corrective feedback in oral communication had been based on the
concept of descriptive survey method which concerns itself with the present phenomena in
terms of conditions, practices, beliefs, processes, relationships or trends invariably (Salaria,
2012). In order to collect data, triangulation was used because a single method cannot explain
the phenomenon at hand
Population and Locale
The respondents were divided into two namely; student - respondents and teacher -
respondents. The student - respondents were Grade 11 students using stratified sampling
technique. There were 406 randomly selected Grade 11 students taking oral communication
classes from different strands in University of the Cordilleras Senior High School; 118
students from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics), 94 students from
HUMSS (Humanities and Social Sciences), 20 students from Housekeeping, 20 students from
GAS (General Academic Strand), 20 students from TG (Tour Guiding), 49 students from ICT
(Information and Communications Technology), and 85 students from ABM (Accountancy,
Business and Management). All 23 English teachers teaching oral communication classes
were selected in the first trimester, S.Y. 2017 – 2018 in University of the Cordilleras – Senior
High School.
Data Gathering Intrument
The data gathering tools used in this research were a class observation checklist for oral
communication teachers, questionnaires for students and teachers, and an interview guide for
teachers for the focus group discussion. A close-ended questionnaire about oral corrective
feedback types and the level of effectiveness of the oral corrective feedback types were
reformulated to fit specifically for this study. These questionnaires were based on the
techniques used in correcting students’ oral errors by Al-Faki (2013).
The oral corrective feedback types’ questionnaire for students has a reliability coefficient of
0.75 (Cronbach’s Alpha) interpreted as adequate, 0.78 (Split-Half Correlation) interpreted as
adequate, and 0.87 (Split Half with Spearman-Brown Adjustment) interpreted as good. The
effectiveness of oral corrective feedback types in improving students’ oral communication
skills’ questionnaire has a reliability coefficient of 0.81 (Cronbach’s Alpha) interpreted as
good, 0.84 (Split-Half Correlation) interpreted as good, and 0.91 (Split Half with Spearman-
Brown Adjustment) interpreted as excellent.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher needed to ask permission from Mr. Ronaldo L. Pontanosa, the Academic
Director of University of the Cordilleras - Senior High School, English teachers who taught
oral communication, and grade 11 students by providing request letters for class observation
of teachers and focus group discussion, and the distribution of the questionnaires to teachers
and students. Before distributing the questionnaires, the researcher clearly explained the
instructions on how to properly address each item. The questionnaires were distributed to the
teachers and the students during their free time to be retrieved the day after as per school
policy. After the retrieval, the researcher fervently tallied the scores, used appropriate
statistical tools, presented the data through tables, and analyzed and interpreted the data
gathered to answer the problems in this study. To complement the results of the survey, the
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 10 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
5
Journal of International Education
NS: He is standing on the tree.
NNS: Yeah, standing on the tree.
When it comes to oral corrective feedback, the different types are worth noting. There are
different types of oral corrective feedback based on Lyster and Ranta's model and had been
added with some other types as found in the research of Alfaki, (2013). They are as follows:
Recast - the teacher repeats what the learner has said replacing the error. An example is
presented below.
S: Were you suprising by anything in the article?
T: Were you surprised by anything in the article?
Explicit correction - the teacher explicitly provides the learner with the correct form. An
example is presented below.
T: “That is not right. You should say….”
Repetition of error - the teacher repeats the learner’s error in isolation. In most cases, the
teacher adjusts his/her intonation so as to highlight the error. An example is presented below.
S: “I going to visit my parents next week.”
T: I going to…(emphasis)
S: I’m going to…
Elicitation - the teacher provides a sentence and strategically pauses to allow the learner
to ‘fill in the blank’. An example is presented below.
S: Mario and the carabao become good friends.
T: Mario and the carabao…
S: became
Metalinguistic feedback - the teacher provides information or questions related to an error
the student has made without explicitly providing the correct form. An example is presented
below.
S: “When Mario saw the carabao, he was….”
T: “surprise,
surprised,
surprising?”
S: “surprised”
Clarification request - the teacher asks for repetition or reformation of what the learner
has said. An example is presented below.
T: “What’s your surname?”
S: “Lucy”
T: “pardon me”
S: “Lopez”
T: “Excellent!”
Denial - the teacher tells the learner that his or her response was incorrect and asks him or
her to say the sentence without the error. An example is presented below.
“That’s not correct. Could you try again?”
Questioning (peer correction) - learners correct each other in face-to-face interaction in a
safe environment. For example, learners work in pairs and read to each other a tongue twister.
A student reads the line: A flea and a
fly flew. She mispronounces the word flew. Her partner corrects her: A flea and a fly (flu:).
Questioning (self-correction) - the learner is aware of the error he/she makes and repairs
them. An example is presented below.
A student answering the question,
What did you do yesterday?
S: “I go to the movies.”
S: “I went to the movies.”
6
Journal of International Education
Ignoring - the teacher does nothing when the student makes an error.
III. METHODOLOGY
Research Method
This study on oral corrective feedback in oral communication had been based on the
concept of descriptive survey method which concerns itself with the present phenomena in
terms of conditions, practices, beliefs, processes, relationships or trends invariably (Salaria,
2012). In order to collect data, triangulation was used because a single method cannot explain
the phenomenon at hand
Population and Locale
The respondents were divided into two namely; student - respondents and teacher -
respondents. The student - respondents were Grade 11 students using stratified sampling
technique. There were 406 randomly selected Grade 11 students taking oral communication
classes from different strands in University of the Cordilleras Senior High School; 118
students from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics), 94 students from
HUMSS (Humanities and Social Sciences), 20 students from Housekeeping, 20 students from
GAS (General Academic Strand), 20 students from TG (Tour Guiding), 49 students from ICT
(Information and Communications Technology), and 85 students from ABM (Accountancy,
Business and Management). All 23 English teachers teaching oral communication classes
were selected in the first trimester, S.Y. 2017 – 2018 in University of the Cordilleras – Senior
High School.
Data Gathering Intrument
The data gathering tools used in this research were a class observation checklist for oral
communication teachers, questionnaires for students and teachers, and an interview guide for
teachers for the focus group discussion. A close-ended questionnaire about oral corrective
feedback types and the level of effectiveness of the oral corrective feedback types were
reformulated to fit specifically for this study. These questionnaires were based on the
techniques used in correcting students’ oral errors by Al-Faki (2013).
The oral corrective feedback types’ questionnaire for students has a reliability coefficient of
0.75 (Cronbach’s Alpha) interpreted as adequate, 0.78 (Split-Half Correlation) interpreted as
adequate, and 0.87 (Split Half with Spearman-Brown Adjustment) interpreted as good. The
effectiveness of oral corrective feedback types in improving students’ oral communication
skills’ questionnaire has a reliability coefficient of 0.81 (Cronbach’s Alpha) interpreted as
good, 0.84 (Split-Half Correlation) interpreted as good, and 0.91 (Split Half with Spearman-
Brown Adjustment) interpreted as excellent.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher needed to ask permission from Mr. Ronaldo L. Pontanosa, the Academic
Director of University of the Cordilleras - Senior High School, English teachers who taught
oral communication, and grade 11 students by providing request letters for class observation
of teachers and focus group discussion, and the distribution of the questionnaires to teachers
and students. Before distributing the questionnaires, the researcher clearly explained the
instructions on how to properly address each item. The questionnaires were distributed to the
teachers and the students during their free time to be retrieved the day after as per school
policy. After the retrieval, the researcher fervently tallied the scores, used appropriate
statistical tools, presented the data through tables, and analyzed and interpreted the data
gathered to answer the problems in this study. To complement the results of the survey, the
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 11 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
7
Journal of International Education
researcher sourced out materials available in the library such as books, journals, and theses.
Other sources were online articles, online research journals, and online theses.
Data Analysis
This research on corrective feedback in oral communication used different statistical tools
to treat its data. Firstly, to determine the type of oral corrective feedback used by oral
communication teachers in improving oral communication skills, frequency (Median)was
used to represent the frequency of usage of the types of oral corrective feedback due to the
presence of extreme values in the data. Secondly, to determine the type of oral corrective
feedback preferred by students in improving oral communication skills, mean was used.
Additionally, the non- parametric counterpart of ANOVA which is the Kruskal Wallis Test
was used to test the differences in the preferences of the types of oral corrective when
grouped according to strands. Non - parametric test was used because the data is in ordinal
level. The arbitrary scale used was: 3.26 - 4.00 Highly Effective, 2.51 - 3.25 Moderately
Effective, 1.76 - 2.50 Slightly Effective, and 1.00 - 1.75 Never Effective.
Thirdly, to determine the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived
by teachers and students, mean was used. The arbitrary scale used was: 3.26 - 4.00 Highly
Effective, 2.51 - 3.25 Moderately Effective, 1.76 - 2.50 Slightly Effective, and 1.00 - 1.75
Never Effective. Lastly, to determine the difference in the level of effectiveness of oral
corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students, non - parametric equivalence for
T-test which is the Man Whitney U Test was used because the data is in ordinal level. This
was used in order to assess whether the means of the two groups were statistically different
from each other.
IV. RESULTS
The first problem dealt with is the type of oral corrective feedback used by oral
communication teachers in improving oral communication skills. The types of oral corrective
feedback used by oral communication teachers are shown in table 1. It includes the average
of 23 teachers in using oral corrective feedback in the two - hour observation per class. It also
shows that among the ten types of oral corrective feedback, ignoring had been used thirteen
times in two hours, self - correction had been used once in two hours, explicit correction had
been used once in two hours, and recast had been used once in two hours.
Table 1
Types of Corrective Feedback
by Oral Communication Teachers
However, the other types of oral corrective feedback namely repetition of error, elicitation,
metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, peer correction had not been used in the two -
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
13
0
5
10
15
Frequency of Usage
(Median)
Corrective Feedback
Corrective Feedback Used by Oral Communication Teachers
8
Journal of International Education
hour period. On average, the results showed that 4 out of 10 types of oral corrective feedback
had been used in 2 hours. This implies that oral communication teachers had a high
preference in the use of ignoring as a type of oral corrective feedback in their oral
communication classes.
The second problem dealt with is the type of oral corrective feedback preferred by
students in improving oral communication skills. The mean scores and the descriptive
equivalence are shown in table 2.
Table 2
Types of Oral Corrective Feedback Preferred
by Students in Improving Oral Communication Skills
Chi-square = 913.532
**p-value = 0.000 (highly significant
The table shows that grade 11 students had a preference on recast as a type of oral
corrective feedback with a mean score of 3.4778, explicit correction with a mean score of
3.2709, questioning (self - correction) with a mean score of 3.3374 were all interpreted as
highly preferred, while ignoring garnered a mean score of 1.4483 interpreted as never
preferred in improving oral communication skills. Other types of oral corrective feedback
such as repetition of error with a mean score of 3.1478, elicitation with a mean score of
3.1478, metalinguistic feedback with a mean score of 3.1749, clarification request with a
mean score of 3.1256, denial with a mean score of 3.0222, and questioning (peer correction)
with a mean score of 3.2512 were moderately preferred in improving oral communication
skills. The p-value implies that there exists a significant difference in the type of oral
corrective feedback as perceived by students.
The third problem dealt with is the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as
perceived by teachers and students. The mean scores and descriptive equivalence of the level
of effectiveness as perceived by teachers are shown in table 3. It shows that recast with a
mean score of 3.4348, elicitation with a mean score of 3.3913, clarification request with a
mean score of 3.6087, denial with a mean score of 2.3478, questioning (peer correction) with
a mean score of 3.4783, and questioning (self - correction) with a mean score of 3.5652 were
perceived as highly effective by the teachers in improving oral communication skills.
Corrective Feedback
N
Mean
Descriptive Equivalence
Recast
406
3.4778
Highly Preferred
Questioning (Self - Correction)
406
3.3374
Highly Preferred
Explicit Correction
406
3.2709
Highly Preferred
Questioning (Peer Correction)
406
3.2512
Moderately Preferred
Metalinguistic Feedback
406
3.1749
Moderately Preferred
Repetition of Error
406
3.1478
Moderately Preferred
Elicitation
406
3.1478
Moderately Preferred
Clarification Request
406
3.1256
Moderately Preferred
Denial
406
3.0222
Moderately Preferred
Ignoring
406
1.4483
Never Preferred
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 12 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
7
Journal of International Education
researcher sourced out materials available in the library such as books, journals, and theses.
Other sources were online articles, online research journals, and online theses.
Data Analysis
This research on corrective feedback in oral communication used different statistical tools
to treat its data. Firstly, to determine the type of oral corrective feedback used by oral
communication teachers in improving oral communication skills, frequency (Median)was
used to represent the frequency of usage of the types of oral corrective feedback due to the
presence of extreme values in the data. Secondly, to determine the type of oral corrective
feedback preferred by students in improving oral communication skills, mean was used.
Additionally, the non- parametric counterpart of ANOVA which is the Kruskal Wallis Test
was used to test the differences in the preferences of the types of oral corrective when
grouped according to strands. Non - parametric test was used because the data is in ordinal
level. The arbitrary scale used was: 3.26 - 4.00 Highly Effective, 2.51 - 3.25 Moderately
Effective, 1.76 - 2.50 Slightly Effective, and 1.00 - 1.75 Never Effective.
Thirdly, to determine the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived
by teachers and students, mean was used. The arbitrary scale used was: 3.26 - 4.00 Highly
Effective, 2.51 - 3.25 Moderately Effective, 1.76 - 2.50 Slightly Effective, and 1.00 - 1.75
Never Effective. Lastly, to determine the difference in the level of effectiveness of oral
corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students, non - parametric equivalence for
T-test which is the Man Whitney U Test was used because the data is in ordinal level. This
was used in order to assess whether the means of the two groups were statistically different
from each other.
IV. RESULTS
The first problem dealt with is the type of oral corrective feedback used by oral
communication teachers in improving oral communication skills. The types of oral corrective
feedback used by oral communication teachers are shown in table 1. It includes the average
of 23 teachers in using oral corrective feedback in the two - hour observation per class. It also
shows that among the ten types of oral corrective feedback, ignoring had been used thirteen
times in two hours, self - correction had been used once in two hours, explicit correction had
been used once in two hours, and recast had been used once in two hours.
Table 1
Types of Corrective Feedback
by Oral Communication Teachers
However, the other types of oral corrective feedback namely repetition of error, elicitation,
metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, peer correction had not been used in the two -
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
13
0
5
10
15
Frequency of Usage
(Median)
Corrective Feedback
Corrective Feedback Used by Oral Communication Teachers
8
Journal of International Education
hour period. On average, the results showed that 4 out of 10 types of oral corrective feedback
had been used in 2 hours. This implies that oral communication teachers had a high
preference in the use of ignoring as a type of oral corrective feedback in their oral
communication classes.
The second problem dealt with is the type of oral corrective feedback preferred by
students in improving oral communication skills. The mean scores and the descriptive
equivalence are shown in table 2.
Table 2
Types of Oral Corrective Feedback Preferred
by Students in Improving Oral Communication Skills
Chi-square = 913.532
**p-value = 0.000 (highly significant
The table shows that grade 11 students had a preference on recast as a type of oral
corrective feedback with a mean score of 3.4778, explicit correction with a mean score of
3.2709, questioning (self - correction) with a mean score of 3.3374 were all interpreted as
highly preferred, while ignoring garnered a mean score of 1.4483 interpreted as never
preferred in improving oral communication skills. Other types of oral corrective feedback
such as repetition of error with a mean score of 3.1478, elicitation with a mean score of
3.1478, metalinguistic feedback with a mean score of 3.1749, clarification request with a
mean score of 3.1256, denial with a mean score of 3.0222, and questioning (peer correction)
with a mean score of 3.2512 were moderately preferred in improving oral communication
skills. The p-value implies that there exists a significant difference in the type of oral
corrective feedback as perceived by students.
The third problem dealt with is the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as
perceived by teachers and students. The mean scores and descriptive equivalence of the level
of effectiveness as perceived by teachers are shown in table 3. It shows that recast with a
mean score of 3.4348, elicitation with a mean score of 3.3913, clarification request with a
mean score of 3.6087, denial with a mean score of 2.3478, questioning (peer correction) with
a mean score of 3.4783, and questioning (self - correction) with a mean score of 3.5652 were
perceived as highly effective by the teachers in improving oral communication skills.
Corrective Feedback
N
Mean
Descriptive Equivalence
Recast
406
3.4778
Highly Preferred
Questioning (Self - Correction)
406
3.3374
Highly Preferred
Explicit Correction
406
3.2709
Highly Preferred
Questioning (Peer Correction)
406
3.2512
Moderately Preferred
Metalinguistic Feedback
406
3.1749
Moderately Preferred
Repetition of Error
406
3.1478
Moderately Preferred
Elicitation
406
3.1478
Moderately Preferred
Clarification Request
406
3.1256
Moderately Preferred
Denial
406
3.0222
Moderately Preferred
Ignoring
406
1.4483
Never Preferred
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 13 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
9
Journal of International Education
Table 3
Level of Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback
as Perceived by Teachers
Corrective Feedback
Mean
Descriptive Equivalence
Clarification request
3.6087
Highly Effective
Questioning (Self Correction)
3.5652
Highly Effective
Questioning (Peer Correction)
3.4783
Highly Effective
Recast
3.4348
Highly Effective
Elicitation
3.3913
Highly Effective
Denial
3.3478
Highly Effective
Metalinguistic feedback
3.1304
Moderately Effective
Repetition of error
3.0435
Moderately Effective
Explicit correction
2.5652
Moderately Effective
Ignoring
1.0000
Never Effective
N=23
To determine the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by
students, refer to table 4. The table shows that recast with a mean score of 3.5493, explicit
correction with a mean score of 3.2734, questioning (peer correction) with a mean score of
3.2734, and questioning (self - correction) with a mean score of 3.3547 were perceived as
highly effective by students in improving oral communication skills.
Table 4
Level of Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback as Perceived by Students
Corrective Feedback
Mean
Descriptive Equivalence
Recast
3.5493
Highly Effective
Questioning (Self Correction)
3.3547
Highly Effective
Explicit correction
3.2734
Highly Effective
Questioning (Peer Correction)
3.2734
Highly Effective
Metalinguistic feedback
3.2512
Moderately Effective
Repetition of error
3.2266
Moderately Effective
Elicitation
3.2241
Moderately Effective
Clarification request
3.2143
Moderately Effective
Denial
3.1404
Moderately Effective
Ignoring
1.4877
Never Effective
N = 406
The fourth problem dealt with is the difference in the level of effectiveness of oral
corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students. Mann - Whitney U Results, Z
Results, and p-value are shown in table 5. It shows that there is a significant difference in the
level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students in
improving oral communication skills.
10
Journal of International Education
Table 5
The Difference in the Level of Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback
as Perceived by Teachers and Students
Corrective Feedback
Mann-Whitney U
Z
p-value
Recast
4198.500
-.950
0.34
Explicit Correction
2706.500
-3.672
0.00**
Repetition of Error
3914.500
-1.406
0.16
Elicitation
4133.000
-1.009
0.31
Metalinguistic Feedback
4562.000
-.200
0.84
Clarification Request
3389.500
-2.397
0.02*
Denial
2622.500
-3.778
0.00**
Questioning
(Peer Correction)
4018.500
-1.226
0.22
Questioning
(Self Correction)
3842.000
-1.578
.12
Ignoring
3381.000
-2.889
.00**
*Significant at
**Highly Significant at
The p-value revealed that there is no significant difference in the types of oral corrective
feedback namely recast (0.34), repetition of error (0.16), elicitation (0.31), metalinguistic
feedback (0.84), questioning (peer correction, 0.22), and questioning (self - correction, 0.11).
There is a significant difference, though, in the use of clarification request (0.02), while there
exists a high significant difference in the use of explicit correction (0.00), denial (0.00), and
ignoring (0.00) in improving oral communication skills. This implies that there are
differences in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers
and students.
V. DISCUSSION
1. Ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback mostly used by oral communication
teachers in improving oral communication skills.
Ignoring
The result is in contrast with what teachers mentioned in the focus group discussion when
asked “Does your corrective feedback method change depending on the orientation of the
speaking activity? (i.e. communicative, pronunciation, grammar, etc.)” because all of them
said they change their corrective feedback method depending on the orientation of the
speaking activity.
To quote some of their responses, some teachers said, “Yeah, different activities call for
different kinds of feedback. So, we really have to change the way we really give out feedback
to our students especially if it’s changing the topics. So, we really cannot do anything about
it. But, of course, we need to adjust to it,” “I think each oral communication activity needs a
different type of feedback. For example, if you do impromptu speeches, you can do
corrective feedback immediately after each person. It’s actually good because you can do it
individually. When it comes to group tasks, usually, what I do is after all the groups have
performed their tasks, then I give feedback because from the point of view of the students
after each group and I give a feedback then the next group will take the feedback and perform
better, so they feel like it’s kind of unfair. So, depending on one to one, or one to many, or
small group discussions, it all varies,” “Feedback is very important coming from the teacher
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 14 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
9
Journal of International Education
Table 3
Level of Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback
as Perceived by Teachers
Corrective Feedback
Mean
Descriptive Equivalence
Clarification request
3.6087
Highly Effective
Questioning (Self Correction)
3.5652
Highly Effective
Questioning (Peer Correction)
3.4783
Highly Effective
Recast
3.4348
Highly Effective
Elicitation
3.3913
Highly Effective
Denial
3.3478
Highly Effective
Metalinguistic feedback
3.1304
Moderately Effective
Repetition of error
3.0435
Moderately Effective
Explicit correction
2.5652
Moderately Effective
Ignoring
1.0000
Never Effective
N=23
To determine the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by
students, refer to table 4. The table shows that recast with a mean score of 3.5493, explicit
correction with a mean score of 3.2734, questioning (peer correction) with a mean score of
3.2734, and questioning (self - correction) with a mean score of 3.3547 were perceived as
highly effective by students in improving oral communication skills.
Table 4
Level of Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback as Perceived by Students
Corrective Feedback
Mean
Descriptive Equivalence
Recast
3.5493
Highly Effective
Questioning (Self Correction)
3.3547
Highly Effective
Explicit correction
3.2734
Highly Effective
Questioning (Peer Correction)
3.2734
Highly Effective
Metalinguistic feedback
3.2512
Moderately Effective
Repetition of error
3.2266
Moderately Effective
Elicitation
3.2241
Moderately Effective
Clarification request
3.2143
Moderately Effective
Denial
3.1404
Moderately Effective
Ignoring
1.4877
Never Effective
N = 406
The fourth problem dealt with is the difference in the level of effectiveness of oral
corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students. Mann - Whitney U Results, Z
Results, and p-value are shown in table 5. It shows that there is a significant difference in the
level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and students in
improving oral communication skills.
10
Journal of International Education
Table 5
The Difference in the Level of Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback
as Perceived by Teachers and Students
Corrective Feedback
Mann-Whitney U
Z
p-value
Recast
4198.500
-.950
0.34
Explicit Correction
2706.500
-3.672
0.00**
Repetition of Error 3914.500 -1.406 0.16
Elicitation
4133.000
-1.009
0.31
Metalinguistic Feedback 4562.000 -.200 0.84
Clarification Request 3389.500 -2.397 0.02*
Denial
2622.500
-3.778
0.00**
Questioning
(Peer Correction)
4018.500 -1.226 0.22
Questioning
(Self Correction)
3842.000 -1.578 .12
Ignoring
3381.000
-2.889
.00**
*Significant at
**Highly Significant at
The p-value revealed that there is no significant difference in the types of oral corrective
feedback namely recast (0.34), repetition of error (0.16), elicitation (0.31), metalinguistic
feedback (0.84), questioning (peer correction, 0.22), and questioning (self - correction, 0.11).
There is a significant difference, though, in the use of clarification request (0.02), while there
exists a high significant difference in the use of explicit correction (0.00), denial (0.00), and
ignoring (0.00) in improving oral communication skills. This implies that there are
differences in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as perceived by teachers
and students.
V. DISCUSSION
1. Ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback mostly used by oral communication
teachers in improving oral communication skills.
Ignoring
The result is in contrast with what teachers mentioned in the focus group discussion when
asked “Does your corrective feedback method change depending on the orientation of the
speaking activity? (i.e. communicative, pronunciation, grammar, etc.)” because all of them
said they change their corrective feedback method depending on the orientation of the
speaking activity.
To quote some of their responses, some teachers said, “Yeah, different activities call for
different kinds of feedback. So, we really have to change the way we really give out feedback
to our students especially if it’s changing the topics. So, we really cannot do anything about
it. But, of course, we need to adjust to it,” “I think each oral communication activity needs a
different type of feedback. For example, if you do impromptu speeches, you can do
corrective feedback immediately after each person. It’s actually good because you can do it
individually. When it comes to group tasks, usually, what I do is after all the groups have
performed their tasks, then I give feedback because from the point of view of the students
after each group and I give a feedback then the next group will take the feedback and perform
better, so they feel like it’s kind of unfair. So, depending on one to one, or one to many, or
small group discussions, it all varies,” “Feedback is very important coming from the teacher
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 15 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
11
Journal of International Education
and also from their peer, so usually we ask their classmates or their peer to give their
evaluation especially if it’s a group activity,” “Yes, very much. The first consideration there
is your objective. What is your objective for the speaking activity. And then, is your feedback
method appropriate to your activity? Does it correspond to what your objectives are? If it
does, you should choose a feedback method that would fulfill your objectives,” and “It also
depends on the activity. If it is a discussion, it’s easier to correct the students. However, if it
is for example a performance task, and they’re delivering a performance. Of course, we
cannot interrupt. I do not interrupt my students. I just write their mistakes on the comment
part in the rubrics and then after that we’ll have like a post-conference.”
To further analyze the types of oral corrective feedback used by oral communication
teachers, the frequency of usage of corrective feedback is. It shows that oral communication
teachers used four types of oral corrective feedback namely ignoring defined as the teacher
doing nothing when the student makes an error, explicit correction defined as the teacher
explicitly providing the learner with the correct form, questioning (peer correction) defined as
learners correcting each other in a face-to-face interaction in a safe environment, and
questioning (self - correction) defined as the learner being aware of the error he/she makes
and repairs them.
2. Recast, explicit correction, and questioning (self - correction) were the types of oral
corrective feedback most preferred by students in improving oral communication skills.
However, ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback that was never preferred by the
students in improving oral communications skills.
Recast
The preference of students in the use of recast employed by the teacher through a
repetition of what the learner has said replacing the error is in line with the research
conducted by Park (2010) stating that the students’ groups reported that recast helps the
conversation to go smoothly, does not make students shy away from class participation, and
helps students to be more confident in developing conversation skills. For instance, one of the
Low Performing Students reported that “If the teacher corrects my errors naturally through
recast, I feel comfortable when I speak in English.” Another research in the effectiveness of
recast supports this perception of students. Sato (2009) stated that the results in the study
imply that recasts can facilitate learning, considering the high success rate. This means that
there was a learner uptake which is defined as the learners’ reaction to the teacher’s feedback.
Statistically, a successful move was more frequent than a failed move. Compared with
explicit correction, recast corrects students’ errors in a more indirect way, which can provide
corrections and at the same time protect their self-esteem (Ran & Danli, 2016).
Questioning (self - correction)
The preference of students in the use of questioning (self - correction) as a highly
preferred type of oral corrective feedback is in conjunction with the research conducted by
Yoshida (2008) stating that all the learners mentioned that finding out correct answers was
more effective for their learning than being provided the answers by the teachers. Moreover,
self - corrections may also give the learners a sense of achievement and confidence. Self-
correction seems to be preferred to correction by others because it is face-saving and allows
the learner to play an active role in the corrective event. Self-correction plays a central role in
the promotion of autonomous learning nowadays (Mendez & Cruz, 2012). Learner autonomy
is a new realm of learning. It is defined as learners understanding teaching objectives and
teaching methods, setting their own learning target, choosing suitable learning strategies,
monitoring their own learning strategies, and establishing their own learning outcome (Wang,
12
Journal of International Education
2014). This implies that students prefer being responsible of their actions and responsible of
correcting themselves in improving their oral communication skills.
Explicit Correction
The preference of students in the use of explicit correction as a highly preferred type of
oral corrective feedback is in line with the research of Park (2010) stating that both the High
Performing Students and the Low Performing Students chose explicit correction because they
wanted the teacher to correct their errors explicitly and clearly so that they would not make
the same errors in the future. Also, Fidan (2015) said in his research that the majority of
student - participants prefer the method of error correction where the teacher gives the correct
form immediately. This implies that students wanted their errors to be corrected in an explicit
manner.
Ignoring
Ignoring, on the other hand, is a type of oral corrective feedback interpreted as never
preferred by the students. The only small but relevant advantage for this method is that the
students avoid the embarrassment of having their utterance corrected in front of their peers
(Trang, 2012). This is in opposition with Long (1996 as cited in Rassaei, 2010) who said
That corrective feedback is among the techniques which are believed to facilitate L2
development by providing learners with both positive and negative evidence. Providing
feedback and correcting errors to learners on their performance is an important aspect of
teaching (Akhter, 2007).
In conclusion, grade 11 students preferred recast, explicit correction, and questioning (self
- correction) as the types of oral corrective feedback in their oral communication classes. This
means that they wanted their errors to be corrected both by the teacher and by themselves. All
in all, the students never preferred their errors to be left untreated.
Teachers and students perceived recast, questioning (peer correction), and questioning
(self - correction) as highly effective. On the other hand, ignoring was perceived as never
effective in improving oral communication skills.
Recast
Teachers perceiving recast as highly effective in improving oral communication skills is
consistent with one teacher during the focus group discussion saying “As for me, if ever there
would be a mispronounced word for example they would say ‘receiver’, you will not say ‘no,
that’s wrong’ but you say ‘ah, you mean receiver’ so that they would not feel ashamed in
class.”
On the part of the students, they perceived recast as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills. This is in line with the research of Tsai and Sung (2014) stating that
with regard to correcting grammar errors, Interviewee 6 in their study explained why he
preferred recasts. He said, "I like that the teacher uses recasts, so I can hear the correct
sentence. If I still don't understand, then she can explain why." With respect to correcting
lexical errors, several interviewees expressed that if the teacher just used recasts, they think
they would get it.
Questioning (peer correction)
Questioning (peer correction) perceived as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills is supported by the response of one teacher during the focus group
discussion saying “When, for example, a student commits an error, I ask him to call a friend
so that he will not be embarrassed that’s because as we know students at this age are very
sensitive. So, if ever that he calls a friend and that friend stands together with him he will not
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 16 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
11
Journal of International Education
and also from their peer, so usually we ask their classmates or their peer to give their
evaluation especially if it’s a group activity,” “Yes, very much. The first consideration there
is your objective. What is your objective for the speaking activity. And then, is your feedback
method appropriate to your activity? Does it correspond to what your objectives are? If it
does, you should choose a feedback method that would fulfill your objectives,” and “It also
depends on the activity. If it is a discussion, it’s easier to correct the students. However, if it
is for example a performance task, and they’re delivering a performance. Of course, we
cannot interrupt. I do not interrupt my students. I just write their mistakes on the comment
part in the rubrics and then after that we’ll have like a post-conference.”
To further analyze the types of oral corrective feedback used by oral communication
teachers, the frequency of usage of corrective feedback is. It shows that oral communication
teachers used four types of oral corrective feedback namely ignoring defined as the teacher
doing nothing when the student makes an error, explicit correction defined as the teacher
explicitly providing the learner with the correct form, questioning (peer correction) defined as
learners correcting each other in a face-to-face interaction in a safe environment, and
questioning (self - correction) defined as the learner being aware of the error he/she makes
and repairs them.
2. Recast, explicit correction, and questioning (self - correction) were the types of oral
corrective feedback most preferred by students in improving oral communication skills.
However, ignoring was the type of oral corrective feedback that was never preferred by the
students in improving oral communications skills.
Recast
The preference of students in the use of recast employed by the teacher through a
repetition of what the learner has said replacing the error is in line with the research
conducted by Park (2010) stating that the students’ groups reported that recast helps the
conversation to go smoothly, does not make students shy away from class participation, and
helps students to be more confident in developing conversation skills. For instance, one of the
Low Performing Students reported that “If the teacher corrects my errors naturally through
recast, I feel comfortable when I speak in English.” Another research in the effectiveness of
recast supports this perception of students. Sato (2009) stated that the results in the study
imply that recasts can facilitate learning, considering the high success rate. This means that
there was a learner uptake which is defined as the learners’ reaction to the teacher’s feedback.
Statistically, a successful move was more frequent than a failed move. Compared with
explicit correction, recast corrects students’ errors in a more indirect way, which can provide
corrections and at the same time protect their self-esteem (Ran & Danli, 2016).
Questioning (self - correction)
The preference of students in the use of questioning (self - correction) as a highly
preferred type of oral corrective feedback is in conjunction with the research conducted by
Yoshida (2008) stating that all the learners mentioned that finding out correct answers was
more effective for their learning than being provided the answers by the teachers. Moreover,
self - corrections may also give the learners a sense of achievement and confidence. Self-
correction seems to be preferred to correction by others because it is face-saving and allows
the learner to play an active role in the corrective event. Self-correction plays a central role in
the promotion of autonomous learning nowadays (Mendez & Cruz, 2012). Learner autonomy
is a new realm of learning. It is defined as learners understanding teaching objectives and
teaching methods, setting their own learning target, choosing suitable learning strategies,
monitoring their own learning strategies, and establishing their own learning outcome (Wang,
12
Journal of International Education
2014). This implies that students prefer being responsible of their actions and responsible of
correcting themselves in improving their oral communication skills.
Explicit Correction
The preference of students in the use of explicit correction as a highly preferred type of
oral corrective feedback is in line with the research of Park (2010) stating that both the High
Performing Students and the Low Performing Students chose explicit correction because they
wanted the teacher to correct their errors explicitly and clearly so that they would not make
the same errors in the future. Also, Fidan (2015) said in his research that the majority of
student - participants prefer the method of error correction where the teacher gives the correct
form immediately. This implies that students wanted their errors to be corrected in an explicit
manner.
Ignoring
Ignoring, on the other hand, is a type of oral corrective feedback interpreted as never
preferred by the students. The only small but relevant advantage for this method is that the
students avoid the embarrassment of having their utterance corrected in front of their peers
(Trang, 2012). This is in opposition with Long (1996 as cited in Rassaei, 2010) who said
That corrective feedback is among the techniques which are believed to facilitate L2
development by providing learners with both positive and negative evidence. Providing
feedback and correcting errors to learners on their performance is an important aspect of
teaching (Akhter, 2007).
In conclusion, grade 11 students preferred recast, explicit correction, and questioning (self
- correction) as the types of oral corrective feedback in their oral communication classes. This
means that they wanted their errors to be corrected both by the teacher and by themselves. All
in all, the students never preferred their errors to be left untreated.
Teachers and students perceived recast, questioning (peer correction), and questioning
(self - correction) as highly effective. On the other hand, ignoring was perceived as never
effective in improving oral communication skills.
Recast
Teachers perceiving recast as highly effective in improving oral communication skills is
consistent with one teacher during the focus group discussion saying “As for me, if ever there
would be a mispronounced word for example they would say ‘receiver’, you will not say ‘no,
that’s wrong’ but you say ‘ah, you mean receiver’ so that they would not feel ashamed in
class.”
On the part of the students, they perceived recast as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills. This is in line with the research of Tsai and Sung (2014) stating that
with regard to correcting grammar errors, Interviewee 6 in their study explained why he
preferred recasts. He said, "I like that the teacher uses recasts, so I can hear the correct
sentence. If I still don't understand, then she can explain why." With respect to correcting
lexical errors, several interviewees expressed that if the teacher just used recasts, they think
they would get it.
Questioning (peer correction)
Questioning (peer correction) perceived as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills is supported by the response of one teacher during the focus group
discussion saying “When, for example, a student commits an error, I ask him to call a friend
so that he will not be embarrassed that’s because as we know students at this age are very
sensitive. So, if ever that he calls a friend and that friend stands together with him he will not
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 17 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
13
Journal of International Education
be as embarrassed. So, at least, there is an assistance or there is help from a friend.” Another
teacher mentioned “I correct their errors at the same time I also encourage peer feedback. In
that way, it’ll feel a little more comfortable that it’s correction from the class instead of just
the teacher.” In addition, Mendez and Cruz (2012) explained that peer correction occurs
when one learner corrects another one. Its most important advantages are that both learners
are involved in face-to-face interaction; the teacher obtains information about learners’
current abilities; learners co-operate in language learning and become less teacher-dependent;
peer correction does not make errors a public affair, which protects the learners’ egos and
increases their self-confidence.
Questioning (peer correction) perceived by students as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills is supported by Smith (2000) which reveals that while the teacher, of
course, may seem like the most intuitive answer in correcting students, peer correction has
received a share of attention. Pair and group communication activities, in which peers are
likely to correct each other, are common in most modern ESL classrooms. Moreover, when a
student is unable to self - correct, peer correction might be appropriate. If a student raises his
hand while the teacher is waiting for a student to self - correct, the teacher may want to call
on that student for the correct answer, or after waiting for a short time for a student to self -
correct, the teacher could ask the whole class the same question and encourage a choral
response (Arntsen, n.d.). Group oral feedback – for example, speaking to a whole class about
a common misconception – can also be helpful (Brookhart, 2008).
Questioning (self-correction)
Questioning (self - correction) perceived as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills is consistent with the research conducted by Rana and Perveen (2013)
stating that self - correction is believed to instill in the learner feelings of self-sufficiency and
success and provide them with the opportunity to take a more active role in their own
learning. In fact, self - correction helps weak students away from dependency on the teachers
for oral error correction.
Questioning (self - correction) perceived by students as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills is similar with the study conducted by Tedick and Gortari (n.d.) who
mentioned that this active engagement occurs when there is negotiation of form, or when the
students have to think about and respond to the teacher’s feedback in some way. And this
negotiation of form occurs when the teacher does not provide the correct form but instead
provides cues to help the student consider how to reformulate his or her incorrect language.
Ignoring
Overall, teachers with a mean score of 1.0000 and students with mean score of 1.4877
perceived ignoring as never effective in improving oral communication skills. This means
that teachers and students have their own preferences in the level of effectiveness of oral
corrective feedback.
Every oral communication teacher (23 out of 23) perceived ignoring as never effective in
improving oral communication skills in their oral communication classes. The result supports
the research of Mendez and Cruz (2012 as cited in Ananda, Febriyanti, Yamin, & Mu’in,
2017) which states that teachers have a positive view about oral corrective feedback, and they
strongly feel they need to correct students’ errors in order for them to become fluent and
accurate. They also see corrective feedback having a positive effect on language learning. But
then again, the result reveals that there is a gap between what teachers perceived and what
they actually practiced in their oral communication classes. All teachers answered that
ignoring was never effective in improving oral communication skills, but among the ten types
of oral corrective feedback ignoring got the highest frequency on average. Plus, 87 percent
14
Journal of International Education
(20 out of 23 teachers) used ignoring as their oral corrective feedback in their oral
communication classes during the observation phase. This means that there really exists a
mismatch between what oral communication teachers employed in the oral communication
classes and what they perceived as never effective in improving oral communication skills.
Students, in the same way, view ignoring as never effective in improving oral
communication skills. This is corroborated by the research conducted by Oladejo (1993)
which shows that a general agreement by learners with the view that "It is necessary to
correct their errors in English in order to enhance their fluency and accuracy in the language."
It is also interesting to note that the majority of the learners disagree with the view that
"Constant error correction could frustrate the learner and inhibit his willingness to perform in
the language."
In conclusion, teachers and students alike perceived some types of oral corrective
feedback to be highly effective and moderately effective. However, teachers and students
agreed that ignoring as a type of oral corrective feedback was never effective in improving
oral communication skills.
4. There was a significant difference in the level of effectiveness in clarification request as
perceived by teachers and students. More importantly, there was a high significant difference
in the level of effectiveness in explicit correction, denial, and ignoring as perceived by
teachers and students.
Clarification Request
Clarification request as a type of oral corrective feedback is perceived as highly effective
by teachers, while students perceived it as moderately effective in improving oral
communication skills. This suggests that the teachers asking for repetition or reformation of
what the learner has said is thought to be highly effective by teachers. The significant
difference could be explained by Al-Faki (2013) when the teachers in his study elaborated
that “Clarification request is used because in these stages students need to give longer
answers. In case the students are not competent enough, teachers sometimes ask for
clarification.” Despite the fact that when students reform their sentences after a clarification
request, the sentence tends to improve (Grassi & Barker, 2009), students in the study still
thought that it is moderately effective.
Explicit Correction
Teachers perceived explicit correction as moderately effective while students perceived it
as highly effective in improving oral communication skills. This means that students’
perception is geared towards being explicitly provided with the correct form. The high
significant difference is in favor of the research conducted by Russell (2009) stating that the
current research in this area, albeit scant, indicates that there is a mismatch in students’ and
teachers’ belief systems about error correction, with students generally in favor of more
corrections, especially corrections that are more explicit, and teachers generally in favor of
less oral error correction in order not to impede students’ communication in the target
language.
Denial
Teachers perceived denial as highly effective while students perceived it as moderately
effective in improving oral communication skills. This means that teachers think that telling
the learner that his or her response is incorrect and asking him or her to say the sentence
without the error is highly effective. The high significant difference was explained by one
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 18 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
13
Journal of International Education
be as embarrassed. So, at least, there is an assistance or there is help from a friend.” Another
teacher mentioned “I correct their errors at the same time I also encourage peer feedback. In
that way, it’ll feel a little more comfortable that it’s correction from the class instead of just
the teacher.” In addition, Mendez and Cruz (2012) explained that peer correction occurs
when one learner corrects another one. Its most important advantages are that both learners
are involved in face-to-face interaction; the teacher obtains information about learners’
current abilities; learners co-operate in language learning and become less teacher-dependent;
peer correction does not make errors a public affair, which protects the learners’ egos and
increases their self-confidence.
Questioning (peer correction) perceived by students as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills is supported by Smith (2000) which reveals that while the teacher, of
course, may seem like the most intuitive answer in correcting students, peer correction has
received a share of attention. Pair and group communication activities, in which peers are
likely to correct each other, are common in most modern ESL classrooms. Moreover, when a
student is unable to self - correct, peer correction might be appropriate. If a student raises his
hand while the teacher is waiting for a student to self - correct, the teacher may want to call
on that student for the correct answer, or after waiting for a short time for a student to self -
correct, the teacher could ask the whole class the same question and encourage a choral
response (Arntsen, n.d.). Group oral feedback – for example, speaking to a whole class about
a common misconception – can also be helpful (Brookhart, 2008).
Questioning (self-correction)
Questioning (self - correction) perceived as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills is consistent with the research conducted by Rana and Perveen (2013)
stating that self - correction is believed to instill in the learner feelings of self-sufficiency and
success and provide them with the opportunity to take a more active role in their own
learning. In fact, self - correction helps weak students away from dependency on the teachers
for oral error correction.
Questioning (self - correction) perceived by students as highly effective in improving oral
communication skills is similar with the study conducted by Tedick and Gortari (n.d.) who
mentioned that this active engagement occurs when there is negotiation of form, or when the
students have to think about and respond to the teacher’s feedback in some way. And this
negotiation of form occurs when the teacher does not provide the correct form but instead
provides cues to help the student consider how to reformulate his or her incorrect language.
Ignoring
Overall, teachers with a mean score of 1.0000 and students with mean score of 1.4877
perceived ignoring as never effective in improving oral communication skills. This means
that teachers and students have their own preferences in the level of effectiveness of oral
corrective feedback.
Every oral communication teacher (23 out of 23) perceived ignoring as never effective in
improving oral communication skills in their oral communication classes. The result supports
the research of Mendez and Cruz (2012 as cited in Ananda, Febriyanti, Yamin, & Mu’in,
2017) which states that teachers have a positive view about oral corrective feedback, and they
strongly feel they need to correct students’ errors in order for them to become fluent and
accurate. They also see corrective feedback having a positive effect on language learning. But
then again, the result reveals that there is a gap between what teachers perceived and what
they actually practiced in their oral communication classes. All teachers answered that
ignoring was never effective in improving oral communication skills, but among the ten types
of oral corrective feedback ignoring got the highest frequency on average. Plus, 87 percent
14
Journal of International Education
(20 out of 23 teachers) used ignoring as their oral corrective feedback in their oral
communication classes during the observation phase. This means that there really exists a
mismatch between what oral communication teachers employed in the oral communication
classes and what they perceived as never effective in improvin
g oral communication skills.
Students, in the same way, view ignoring as never effective in improving oral
communication skills. This is corroborated by the research conducted by Oladejo (1993)
which shows that a general agreement by learners with the view that "It is necessary to
correct their errors in English in order to enhance their fluency and accuracy in the language."
It is also interesting to note that the majority of the learners disagree with the view that
"Constant error correction could frustrate the learner and inhibit his willingness to perform in
the language."
In conclusion, teachers and students alike perceived some types of oral corrective
feedback to be highly effective and moderately effective. However, teachers and students
agreed that ignoring as a type of oral corrective feedback was never effective in improving
oral communication skills.
4. There was a significant difference in the level of effectiveness in clarification request as
perceived by teachers and students. More importantly, there was a high significant difference
in the level of effectiveness in explicit correction, denial, and ignoring as perceived by
teachers and students.
Clarification Request
Clarification request as a type of oral corrective feedback is perceived as highly effective
by teachers, while students perceived it as moderately effective in improving oral
communication skills. This suggests that the teachers asking for repetition or reformation of
what the learner has said is thought to be highly effective by teachers. The significant
difference could be explained by Al-Faki (2013) when the teachers in his study elaborated
that “Clarification request is used because in these stages students need to give longer
answers. In case the students are not competent enough, teachers sometimes ask for
clarification.” Despite the fact that when students reform their sentences after a clarification
request, the sentence tends to improve (Grassi & Barker, 2009), students in the study still
thought that it is moderately effective.
Explicit Correction
Teachers perceived explicit correction as moderately effective while students perceived it
as highly effective in improving oral communication skills. This means that students’
perception is geared towards being explicitly provided with the correct form. The high
significant difference is in favor of the research conducted by Russell (2009) stating that the
current research in this area, albeit scant, indicates that there is a mismatch in students’ and
teachers’ belief systems about error correction, with students generally in favor of more
corrections, especially corrections that are more explicit, and teachers generally in favor of
less oral error correction in order not to impede students’ communication in the target
language.
Denial
Teachers perceived denial as highly effective while students perceived it as moderately
effective in improving oral communication skills. This means that teachers think that telling
the learner that his or her response is incorrect and asking him or her to say the sentence
without the error is highly effective. The high significant difference was explained by one
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 19 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
15
Journal of International Education
teacher, during an interview in the study of Al-Faki (2013), who said “Teachers believe that
students have the readiness to discover or search for their own errors and that denial will
stimulate students to find answers which result in good knowledge obtained by such
strategy.” On one hand, students thought that it is moderately effective especially when they
are not aware of their errors and they don’t exactly know what to correct.
Ignoring
It is also interesting to note that even though both teachers and students think ignoring is
never effective in improving oral communication skills the study proves that some students
think otherwise. The high significant difference and the factors why some students want
ignoring as a type of oral corrective feedback could be justified by Wörde (2003) who has
provided a plausible explanation for this. During his interview, the participants cited
numerous and various sources for their anxiety, such as speaking activities, inability to
comprehend, negative classroom experiences, fear of negative evaluation, native speakers,
methodology, pedagogical practices, and the teachers themselves.
The mismatch in the significant difference in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective
feedback as perceived by teachers and students in the use of clarification request, and the gap
in the high significant difference in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as
perceived by teachers and students in the use of explicit correction, denial, and ignoring could
also be brought out by some of the teachers’ responses during the focus group discussion.
When teachers were asked whether their way of correcting students matches with what the
students want, majority answered yes and the minority said that they were not sure. One
teacher said “I could say that my strategy or my correction matches with what students want
because I base it on them.” Another teacher responded “For me, I believe so because I’m an
open-minded person. I always tell them that if they are not comfortable in my strategies they
can suggest, give their opinions, or just give their feedback because they are the ones
learning.”
In conclusion, there lies no significant difference in 6 types of oral corrective feedback.
However, there exists a mismatch between teachers’ perceptions and students’ perceptions on
other types of oral corrective feedback. Then, some types of oral corrective feedback are
more appealing to teachers and students than others.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the findings of this study, the researcher arrived at the following conclusions:
1. Teachers were more concerned with not interrupting the flow of communication in the
class and their focus was more on fluency, not accuracy, in the English language.
2. There has to be a combination of implicit, explicit, and self-correction in the oral
communication classes. However, ignoring is the type that was never preferred which means
that students wanted their errors like phonological errors, morphosyntactic errors, semantic
errors, and lexical errors to be corrected.
3. Teachers and students thought that implicit correction, classmates correcting each other
in a safe environment, and self - generated feedback were ways that could improve oral
communication skills. On the other hand, ignoring was perceived as never effective which
means that the participants both thought that not correcting students’ errors in the English
language and leaving them untreated could not improve their oral communication skills.
4. Teachers and students’ perceptions on oral corrective feedback in improving oral
communication skills were at odds.
In relation to the findings and conclusions of this research, the following are
recommended:
16
Journal of International Education
1. An experimental study is recommended since this research was focused on the
perceptions of teachers and students only.
2. A measurement and comparison of student uptake in the use of the types of oral
corrective feedback could be made. Such a study will inform researchers more about how
students respond to their teachers’ oral corrective feedback and will uncover the types of oral
corrective feedback which are more effective in helping students improve their
communication skills.
3. Other researchers are encouraged to conduct a comparative study regarding this topic.
They might come up with results that will enhance the findings of this study.
4. A module on the types of oral corrective feedback and how they are employed in oral
communication classes could be provided to English teachers and pre-service English
teachers.
References
Abaya, R. (2014). Corrective Feedback in English Language Teaching and Learning: Which
Way to Go? International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature
(IJSELL) Volume 2, Issue 10, pp. 5-12.
Akhter, T. (2007). Giving feedback and correcting errors in ESL classroom. BRAC
University.
Al-faki, I. (2013). Techniques used by teachers in correcting students’ oral errors in an
Omani boy’ school. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp.
1770-1783.
Alhaysony, M. (2016). Saudi EFL Preparatory Year Students‟ Perception about Corrective
Feedback in Oral Communication. English Language Teaching, 9(12), 47-61.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n12p47
Alyan, A. (2013). Oral communication problems encountering English major students:
Perspectives of learners and teachers in Palestinian EFL university context. AWEJ
Vol.4, No.3, Pp.226-238.
Ananda, D., Febriyanti, E., Yamin, M., & Mu’in, F. (2017). Students’ preferences toward
oral corrective feedback in speaking class at English department of Lambung
Mangkurat University academic year 2015/2016. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 176-186.
Arntsen, T. (n.d.). How to correct mistakes. Retrieved from http://busyteacher.org/3723-how-
to-correct- mistakes. html
Asassfeh, S. (2013). Corrective feedback (CF) and English-major EFL learners’ ability in
grammatical error detection and correction. Canadian Center of Science and
Education, Vol. 6, No. 8.
Brookhart, S. (n.d.). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD: Virginia, USA.
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 20 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
15
Journal of International Education
teacher, during an interview in the study of Al-Faki (2013), who said “Teachers believe that
students have the readiness to discover or search for their own errors and that denial will
stimulate students to find answers which result in good knowledge obtained by such
strategy.” On one hand, students thought that it is moderately effective especially when they
are not aware of their errors and they don’t exactly know what to correct.
Ignoring
It is also interesting to note that even though both teachers and students think ignoring is
never effective in improving oral communication skills the study proves that some students
think otherwise. The high significant difference and the factors why some students want
ignoring as a type of oral corrective feedback could be justified by Wörde (2003) who has
provided a plausible explanation for this. During his interview, the participants cited
numerous and various sources for their anxiety, such as speaking activities, inability to
comprehend, negative classroom experiences, fear of negative evaluation, native speakers,
methodology, pedagogical practices, and the teachers themselves.
The mismatch in the significant difference in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective
feedback as perceived by teachers and students in the use of clarification request, and the gap
in the high significant difference in the level of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback as
perceived by teachers and students in the use of explicit correction, denial, and ignoring could
also be brought out by some of the teachers’ responses during the focus group discussion.
When teachers were asked whether their way of correcting students matches with what the
students want, majority answered yes and the minority said that they were not sure. One
teacher said “I could say that my strategy or my correction matches with what students want
because I base it on them.” Another teacher responded “For me, I believe so because I’m an
open-minded person. I always tell them that if they are not comfortable in my strategies they
can suggest, give their opinions, or just give their feedback because they are the ones
learning.”
In conclusion, there lies no significant difference in 6 types of oral corrective feedback.
However, there exists a mismatch between teachers’ perceptions and students’ perceptions on
other types of oral corrective feedback. Then, some types of oral corrective feedback are
more appealing to teachers and students than others.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the findings of this study, the researcher arrived at the following conclusions:
1. Teachers were more concerned with not interrupting the flow of communication in the
class and their focus was more on fluency, not accuracy, in the English language.
2. There has to be a combination of implicit, explicit, and self-correction in the oral
communication classes. However, ignoring is the type that was never preferred which means
that students wanted their errors like phonological errors, morphosyntactic errors, semantic
errors, and lexical errors to be corrected.
3. Teachers and students thought that implicit correction, classmates correcting each other
in a safe environment, and self - generated feedback were ways that could improve oral
communication skills. On the other hand, ignoring was perceived as never effective which
means that the participants both thought that not correcting students’ errors in the English
language and leaving them untreated could not improve their oral communication skills.
4. Teachers and students’ perceptions on oral corrective feedback in improving oral
communication skills were at odds.
In relation to the findings and conclusions of this research, the following are
recommended:
16
Journal of International Education
1. An experimental study is recommended since this research was focused on the
perceptions of teachers and students only.
2. A measurement and comparison of student uptake in the use of the types of oral
corrective feedback could be made. Such a study will inform researchers more about how
students respond to their teachers’ oral corrective feedback and will uncover the types of oral
corrective feedback which are more effective in helping students improve their
communication skills.
3. Other researchers are encouraged to conduct a comparative study regarding this topic.
They might come up with results that will enhance the findings of this study.
4. A module on the types of oral corrective feedback and how they are employed in oral
communication classes could be provided to English teachers and pre-service English
teachers.
References
Abaya, R. (2014). Corrective Feedback in English Language Teaching and Learning: Which
Way to Go? International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature
(IJSELL) Volume 2, Issue 10, pp. 5-12.
Akhter, T. (2007). Giving feedback and correcting errors in ESL classroom. BRAC
University.
Al-faki, I. (2013). Techniques used by teachers in correcting students’ oral errors in an
Omani boy’ school. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp.
1770-1783.
Alhaysony, M. (2016). Saudi EFL Preparatory Year Students‟ Perception about Corrective
Feedback in Oral Communication. English Language Teaching, 9(12), 47-61.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n12p47
Alyan, A. (2013). Oral communication problems encountering English major students:
Perspectives of learners and teachers in Palestinian EFL university context. AWEJ
Vol.4, No.3, Pp.226-238.
Ananda, D., Febriyanti, E., Yamin, M., & Mu’in, F. (2017). Students’ preferences toward
oral corrective feedback in speaking class at English department of Lambung
Mangkurat University academic year 2015/2016. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 176-186.
Arntsen, T. (n.d.). How to correct mistakes. Retrieved from http://busyteacher.org/3723-how-
to-correct- mistakes. html
Asassfeh, S. (2013). Corrective feedback (CF) and English-major EFL learners’ ability in
grammatical error detection and correction. Canadian Center of Science and
Education, Vol. 6, No. 8.
Brookhart, S. (n.d.). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD: Virginia, USA.
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 21 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
17
Journal of International Education
Calsiyao, I. (2016). Corrective feedback in classroom oral errors among Kalinga-Apayao
state college students. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities
Research, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp.394-400.
Coskun, A. (2010). A classroom research study on oral error correction. Humanizing
Language Teaching Magazine, Issue 3.
Donesch - Jezo, E. (2011). The role of output and feedback in second language acquisition: A
classroom - based study in grammar acquisition by adult language learners. Esuka -
Jeful, 2-2:9-28.
Doughty, C. and Long M. (2005). The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell
Publishing.
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic language acquisition the same? A study of the
classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 11, 3, 305-328.
Ellis, R. (1991). Second language acquisition & language pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Fidan, D. (2015). Learners’ preferences of oral corrective feedback: An example of Turkish
as a foreign language learners. Academic Journals, Vol. 10(9), pp. 1311-1317.
Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2
research (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge.
Grassi, E. & Barker, H. (2009). Culturally and linguistically diverse students: Strategies for
teaching and assessment. SAGE Publications, page 261.
Gitsaki, C. and Althobaiti, N. (2010). ESL teachers’ use of corrective feedback and its effect
on learners’ uptake. The Journal of Asia TEFL Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 197-219.
Huang, J., Hao X., & Liu Y. (2016). Error correction in Oral classroom English teaching.
Journal of English Language Teaching, 9(12), 98-103.doi: 10.5539/elt.
Kim, K. (2015). Similarities and differences between teachers' and students' views on
corrective feedback - Korean context. The Bridge: Journal of Educational Research-
Informed Practice, Vol. 2, Issue 3.
Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Beverly Hills, CA: Laredo
Publishing Company.
Lightbown, Patsy. (1985). Great Expectations: Second-Language Acquisition Research and
Classroom Teaching. Applied Linguistics. 6. 10.1093/applin/6.2.173.
Long, M.H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L.Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second
language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
18
Journal of International Education
Méndez, E. H., and Cruz, M. d. R. R. (2012). Teachers’ perception about oral corrective
feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. Profile: Issues in Teachers'
Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75.
Muho, A & Kurani A. (n.d.). The role of interaction in second language acquisition.
European Scientific Journal.
Oladejo, J. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners' preferences. Revue TESL Du Canada
Vol. 10, No.2.
Palangyos, A. (2009). Teachers’ corrective feedback on spoken communication and its
influence on the learners. University of the Cordilleras.
Park, H. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction. California State
University, Sacramento.
Park, G. (2010). Preference of corrective feedback approaches perceived by native English
teachers and students. The Journal of Asia TEFL, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 29-52.
Phettongkam, H. (2013). Error analysis and its' implications in communicative English
language teaching. Thammasat Review, 96-108.
Ran, Q. & Danli, L. (2016). Teachers’ feedback on students’ performance in a secondary
EFL classroom. Learning in and beyond the Classroom: Ubiquity in Foreign
Language Education.
Rana, A. and Perveen, U. (2013). Motivating students through self-correction. Education
Research International, Vol.2, No. 2.
Rassaei, E. (2010). Investigating the effects of three types of corrective feedback on the
acquisition of English wh-question forms by Iranian EFL learners. English Language
Teaching, Vol. 4, No. 2.
Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta
(1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching
2009,Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 21–31.
Salaria, N. (2012) Meaning of the Term Descriptive Survey Research Method. International
Journal of Transformations in Business Management, 1, 1-7.
Sato, R. (2009). Considering the effectiveness of recasts on Japanese high school learners’
learning. The Journal of Asia TEFL, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 193-216.
Saville – Troike.(2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, H. (2000). Correct me if I’m wrong: Investigating the preferences in error correction
among adult English language learners. University of Central Florida.
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 22 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
17
Journal of International Education
Calsiyao, I. (2016). Corrective feedback in classroom oral errors among Kalinga-Apayao
state college students. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities
Research, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp.394-400.
Coskun, A. (2010). A classroom research study on oral error correction. Humanizing
Language Teaching Magazine, Issue 3.
Donesch - Jezo, E. (2011). The role of output and feedback in second language acquisition: A
classroom - based study in grammar acquisition by adult language learners. Esuka -
Jeful, 2-2:9-28.
Doughty, C. and Long M. (2005). The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell
Publishing.
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic language acquisition the same? A study of the
classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 11, 3, 305-328.
Ellis, R. (1991). Second language acquisition & language pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Fidan, D. (2015). Learners’ preferences of oral corrective feedback: An example of Turkish
as a foreign language learners. Academic Journals, Vol. 10(9), pp. 1311-1317.
Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2
research (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge.
Grassi, E. & Barker, H. (2009). Culturally and linguistically diverse students: Strategies for
teaching and assessment. SAGE Publications, page 261.
Gitsaki, C. and Althobaiti, N. (2010). ESL teachers’ use of corrective feedback and its effect
on learners’ uptake. The Journal of Asia TEFL Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 197-219.
Huang, J., Hao X., & Liu Y. (2016). Error correction in Oral classroom English teaching.
Journal of English Language Teaching, 9(12), 98-103.doi: 10.5539/elt.
Kim, K. (2015). Similarities and differences between teachers' and students' views on
corrective feedback - Korean context. The Bridge: Journal of Educational Research-
Informed Practice, Vol. 2, Issue 3.
Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Beverly Hills, CA: Laredo
Publishing Company.
Lightbown, Patsy. (1985). Great Expectations: Second-Language Acquisition Research and
Classroom Teaching. Applied Linguistics. 6. 10.1093/applin/6.2.173.
Long, M.H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L.Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second
language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
18
Journal of International Education
Méndez, E. H., and Cruz, M. d. R. R. (2012). Teachers’ perception about oral corrective
feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. Profile: Issues in Teachers'
Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75.
Muho, A & Kurani A. (n.d.). The role of interaction in second language acquisition.
European Scientific Journal.
Oladejo, J. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners' preferences. Revue TESL Du Canada
Vol. 10, No.2.
Palangyos, A. (2009). Teachers’ corrective feedback on spoken communication and its
influence on the learners. University of the Cordilleras.
Park, H. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction. California State
University, Sacramento.
Park, G. (2010). Preference of corrective feedback approaches perceived by native English
teachers and students. The Journal of Asia TEFL, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 29-52.
Phettongkam, H. (2013). Error analysis and its' implications in communicative English
language teaching. Thammasat Review, 96-108.
Ran, Q. & Danli, L. (2016). Teachers’ feedback on students’ performance in a secondary
EFL classroom. Learning in and beyond the Classroom: Ubiquity in Foreign
Language Education.
Rana, A. and Perveen, U. (2013). Motivating students through self-correction. Education
Research International, Vol.2, No. 2.
Rassaei, E. (2010). Investigating the effects of three types of corrective feedback on the
acquisition of English wh-question forms by Iranian EFL learners. English Language
Teaching, Vol. 4, No. 2.
Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta
(1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching
2009,Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 21–31.
Salaria, N. (2012) Meaning of the Term Descriptive Survey Research Method. International
Journal of Transformations in Business Management, 1, 1-7.
Sato, R. (2009). Considering the effectiveness of recasts on Japanese high school learners’
learning. The Journal of Asia TEFL, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 193-216.
Saville – Troike.(2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, H. (2000). Correct me if I’m wrong: Investigating the preferences in error correction
among adult English language learners. University of Central Florida.
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 23 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11
19
Journal of International Education
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in
Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235-256. New York: Newbury House.
Tedick, D. and Gortari B. (n.d.). Research on error correction and implications for
classroom teaching. The Bridge: From Research to Practice.
Tomczyk, E. (2013). Perceptions of oral errors and their corrective feedback: Teachers vs.
students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, No. 5.
Trang, T. (2012). A review of Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope’s theory of foreign language
anxiety and the challenges to the theory. English Language Teaching, Vol. 5, No. 1.
Wang, H. (2014). Learner autonomy based on constructivism learning theory. World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Cognitive
and Language Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 5.
Wörde, R. (2003). Students’ perspectives on foreign language anxiety. Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 1.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types.
Language Awareness, 17:1, 78-93.
Acknowledgements
The researcher is fully indebted to the following: his adviser, Dr. Corazon D. Ciriaco, and to
his formidable panel members, Dr. Manilyn R. Cacanindin, Ms. Alma L. Biscocho, and Dr.
Rosemary C. Basbas, who painstakingly checked, rechecked, and helped him through the
process; secondly, big thanks to Dr. Dante L. Caseldo for the great head start and to Ms.
Benelisa Dio-as for being his statistician and critic, as well as, Ms. Asia Ayochok and Mr.
Mark Sanchi Kiray for the manpower; finally, gratitude to all Oral Communication in
Context teachers for the unwavering cooperation and for always heeding his calls without
complaints.
About the Author
Joseph B. Quinto is a passionate English instructor fully committed to
touching the lives of his students through excellence in the teaching
profession. He is currently affiliated with the College of Arts and Sciences
– Humanities Department at Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. He holds a bachelor's degree in secondary education major in
English, a license in teaching in the Philippines, and a diploma in TESOL.
In addition, he obtained both his MA in English as a Second Language and
Ph.D. in Language Education with the distinct honor of ‘Magna Cum
Laude’. Having taught English in Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines inspired him to get
his second doctorate degree in Development Education.
20
Journal of International Education
ISSN 2586-4769
Journal of International Education Vol. 2, December 2020
A Study of Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations from the
Perspective of Space Narrative
Jiang Jindi
Li Zhiqiang
Shandong University of Technology, China
___________________________________________________________________________
The extremely high artistic value of Dickens’ novels, attracted an endless stream of scholars
to study both the writer and his novels with various approaches. Based on the principles of
narratology, this paper takes Dickens’ later-stage representative work Great Expectations as
the research object, refines and summarizes its typical space narrative and divides it into
such three categories as confusing mysterious space, indifferent social space and self-pitying
psychological space. Starting from the composition of each narrative space, this thesis
analyses how the three categories of narrative space are developed, and expounds the role of
different categories of space in the text by analyzing their different ways of expression and
different narrative techniques, and then explores the relationships among and implications of
the three typical categories of narrative space.
Keywords: Dickens, confusing mysterious space, indifferent social space, self-pitying
psychological space, space narrative
Introduction
Charles Dickens is a great realistic writer in Victorian England. His position in the history
of English literature is beyond all doubt. Austrian writer Zweig (1998) comments on Dickens,
saying that he is “the only great writer of the 19th century, whose novels are the highest
expression of British tradition in literature” (45-46). Together with Thackeray, Bronte and
Mrs. Gaskell, Dickens is ranked among “a group of outstanding novelists in modern Britain”
(296) by Marx. Dickens left 15 full-length novels, more than 20 novellas, one informal essay,
two long travelogues, hundreds of pieces of prose and short stories for the world.
Throughout the past two centuries, experts and scholars have explored various aspects of
Dickens’ novels. Nevertheless, there are still some aspects remaining to be studied. For
example, few papers have approached Dickens’ novels by applying the principles of
narratology (Frank, 1945). “Narratology is a literary theory that has emerged in Western
Europe since the 1960s. Adopting the principles of structuralist linguistics, it appears to be
very unique and is endowed with abundant new ideas” (Yang, 1997, p.424). Fiction is mainly
an art of narrative. With people’s increasing attention, theory of narrative has gradually
become a tool for the study of fictions. “Without the theory of narratology, we can hardly
analyze novels or make comments” (Jin, 2001). But the fact is that most of the papers
concerning Dickens’ novels already published mainly study the narrator, characters in the
novel, narrative language and other aspects, and few of them focus on the unique space
narrative showed in his novel, which leaves much space for deep research on this aspect.
Any narrative work develops and connects spatial scenes in chronological order. For
example, the activities of characters in the novel, the symbolic description of scenes, and the
development of story plots, etc., all happen in certain spatial scenes. As the French scholar
수원대저널 내지 2020w.indd 24 2021. 1. 25. 오후 4:11