Content uploaded by Graciela Ferreiro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Graciela Ferreiro on Dec 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
EFL University students` percepon of immediate oral correcve feedback in two Costa Rican
private instuons.
Abstract
!!"#
#$%#&
#"$#
!$
" '(&)*&)
*""*$$$
+,-"+.!""&)
$/$"
*$$$
"""
&)"
"&)$
$""&)
"$$01
"2$&)0
""
&
Keywords3*
("
4"4"56"
6"7
"&4
44
'8("4*
8"6""&
&!4589*
+,-+."&
4*
6:*
"84&!
"4&!
":4"&!"8
4"4
"04&!4"79;
"&
<3"444"4
Introduction
The topic of feedback and error correction has been debated extensively by
second language teachers and researchers for many decades. While some schools of
thought like Behaviorism considered errors as unacceptable and recommended immediate
correction, other experts such as Krashen (1982) and Truscott (1999) have argued the
limited contribution it has to language acquisition. With the emergence of communicative
approaches, errors are seen as evidence of learners' linguistic development, not as an
obstacle to be avoided. (Rezaei, S. et al, 2011)
Whether or not to correct students’ oral errors and how to do so is a constant
concern for most EFL teachers. Even though errors in oral performance are expected in
the classroom as part of the natural process of acquisition, (Edge, 1989 as cited by
Eyengho & Fawole, 2017, p.46) there is also a general sense that teachers must promote
good communication in their students.
Most of the literature about strategies for corrective feedback is based on teachers’
and linguists’ criteria. Extensive research has examined the values of corrective feedback,
revealing that it has a positive role in L2 learners’ language development (Russell &
Spada, 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster et al.,
2013; Nassaji, 2016 as mentioned by Ha & Nguyen, 2021; Tavacoli, & Nourollah , 2015).
Most investigations have explored facilitators’ perspective about oral correction
and the correlation between their pedagogical practices and learners’ learning preferences
(Kahir, 2015; Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Hawkey, 2006; McCargar, 1993; Oladejo, 1993;
Peacock, 2001; Schulz, 1996, 2001 all cited by Katayama 2007; Lee, E., 2013;
Tsuneyasu, 2016; Inci-Kavak, V., 2019; Ha & Nguyen, 2021); most of them have revealed
a mismatch. On the other hand, the opinion of learners and their preferences for error
correction are almost always disregarded (Oladejo, 1993).
As error signaling could cause some anxiety in learners, thus increasing the
affective filter, this research aims to examine students’ perception toward immediate oral
corrective feedback in an attempt to contribute to the development of their communicative
skills . The main objective of this study is to describe the attitude of EFL students and their
perception towards immediate oral corrective feedback employed by language teachers in
private university classroom situations.
Literature review
Errors
In 1967 Corder introduced the distinction between systematic and non-systematic
errors,
It will be useful therefore here-after to refer to errors of performance as mistakes,
reserving the term error to refer to the systematic errors of the learner from which
we are able to reconstruct his knowledge of the language to date (Corder, 1967 p.
167)
Addressing every single error made in the classroom would be useless and time
consuming. The purpose of correction is to make sure that incorrect structures,
vocabulary, and pronunciation are not construed as appropriate by learners. Regarding
the type of errors made in the EFL classrooms, four major categories are described.
a) Grammatical (morpho-syntactic) errors, which according to Nancy Lee (1991) are
tackled by teachers who tend to emphasize grammatical accuracy and to provide
immediate corrective treatment to morpho-syntactic errors.
b) Discourse errors, especially on spoken discourse, are analyzed to promote accurate
communication without undermining the learners’ confidence. So, feedback is usually
provided at the end of the speech.
c) Phonologically-induced errors are, as the term suggests, errors in pronunciation and/or
intonation. This is a sensible area where fossilization tends to take place and where there
is a risk of communication breakdown if the unattended error is serious enough to affect
intelligibility.
d) Lexical errors: Like morpho-syntactic errors, lexical errors are habitually corrected by
teachers, as they are easily pointed out and usually are significant in the conveyance of
meaning. (Lee, 1991)
For the purpose of this investigation, only grammatical, lexical, and phonological errors
were considered since delayed feedback was not the primary concern.
Corrective feedback
There are several ways to approach corrective feedback. Yang and Lyster (2010,
p. 237) defined corrective feedback as “a reactive type of form-focused instruction which is
considered to be effective in promoting noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning” (as
cited by Milla Melero, 2011, p. 20)
Suzuki (2004) defined corrective feedback as a pedagogical technique teachers
use to draw attention to students' erroneous utterances with the intention of modified
output (cited by Lee, 2013)
Undeniably, this is a complex phenomenon that serves several functions
(Chaudron 1988 cited by Tavacoli & Nourollah, 2016). The most evident one is showing
the learners, who might be oblivious of the situation, that there is a problem in their
production. Corrective feedback helps the teachers provide scaffolding and hopefully
contributes to the improvement of the learners’ use of the L2. Past research has shown
that giving feedback effectively contributes to learners’ grammatical, morphological, and
phonological development (Carroll & Swain 1993; DeKeyser 1993; Havranek & Cesnik
2003; Rosa & Leow 2004 as cited by Manssor Tavakoli & Nourollah Zarrinabadi, 2016)
Types of corrective feedback
Lyster and Randa (1997) have distinguished six different types of oral corrective
feedback. The first is explicit correction, which refers to a clear indication that the word or
utterance is incorrect, and the provision of the correct form. The second form is recast
which involves the teacher’s reformulation of the part of the student’s utterance, correcting
the error. The third type is clarification request, when instructors indicate to learners
either that their utterance has been misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is
ill-formed in some way. Usually this involves using a question for clarification, thus its
name. The fourth type, elicitation, refers to three techniques that professors use to
directly elicit the correct form from the student: 1) teachers elicit completion of their own
utterance by strategically pausing to allow students to “fill in the blank” ; 2) teachers use
questions to elicit correct forms (e.g., “how do you say…?”), and 3) teachers
occasionally ask students to reformulate their utterance. The fifth type of error correction is
repetition which refers to the instructors’ repetition of the erroneous utterance, usually
adjusting their intonation so as to highlight the error. Finally there is metalinguistic
feedback; it contains either comments, information, or questions related to the correctness
of the student’s utterance, without explicitly giving the correct form. Metalinguistic
information generally provides either some grammatical metalanguage that refers to the
nature of the error (e.g., “An adjective is needed”) or a word definition in the case of lexical
errors. In addition to the preceding six feedback types, the authors also included in their
analysis a seventh category called multiple feedback, which referred to combinations of
more than one type of feedback in one teacher turn. (Lyster & Randa, 1997)
For the purpose of this investigation, the combination of types was not considered.
A seventh option for corrective feedback was included in the survey: the use of non-verbal
cues to indicate a problem with the utterance, the words used, or the pronunciation of a
word. Many times, professors just shake their heads or signal a no with their fingers, or
frown their eyebrows as an indication of error, expecting the learners to react and self-
correct the problem. Delayed feedback was not taken into consideration for this
investigation.
Attitudes and perception
Attitude, according to Dr. Pickens (2020), “is a mind-set or a tendency to act in a
particular way due to both an individual’s experience and temperament” (p.44) Generally,
attitudes are described as positive or negative towards an issue. Attitude surveys are
usually designed using 5-point Likert-type (“strongly agree–strongly disagree”) or
frequency (“never–very often”) response formats (Pickens, 2020)
On the other hand, Pickens considered that perception is closely related to attitude
which, as explained by Lindsay and Norman (1977), is “a process by which organisms
interpret and organize sensations to produce a meaningful experience of the world” (as
cited by Pickens, 2020 p. 52),
Studies such as Schultz’ (1996) done in foreign language students in a higher-
education level, and Ancker’s (2000) which expanded over 4 years (as cited by Gutierrez
et al 2020, p.p 12-13) have found that most of the learners have a positive attitude towards
error correction. Ryan’s (2012) research revealed that survey respondents complained
about the eventual absence of correction because that would deprive them of learning.
(cited by Gutierrez et al 2020, p. 13)
Research design and method
This research is descriptive, transversal and quantitative in nature aiming at addressing
the following research questions:
1. What is the general attitude toward oral corrective feedback among EFL students in two
Costa Rican private universities?
2. To what extent do students prefer to be corrected?
3. Which errors do students consider should be prioritized in their correction
( pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar)?
4. What are the students’ preferences for types of error correction methods?
5. Do students perceive corrective feedback as effective for the improvement of the oral
communication?
The data collection took place from August 2022 to February 2023 and the
participants were 160 university EFL students ranging from 18 to over 40 years of age who
were at the time taking one of the courses from Level 1 to Level 4 of the program offered
by two private universities as part of the curricula for majors not related to education. All of
the participants’ native language is Spanish. All the them voluntarily answered the
instrument. The sample represents the students who were willing to participate in the on-
line survey.
Instrument:
The instrument was applied to all the participants in their native language (Spanish)
to avoid misunderstanding. Because classes were conducted mainly remotely, the
instrument was digital. (See appendix 1) The first section includes general information
about the learners’ background such as gender, age group, major and level of course.
The second section addressed research questions 1 , 2 and 5 about the students’
general opinions about the correction of oral errors in the classroom and its effectiveness.
The section contained five statements: whether or not learner errors should be corrected;
how students feel when they are corrected and when learner errors should be corrected
(i.e., constantly or selectively). The participants were asked to indicate their degree of
agreement or disagreement using a Likert scale from 1 to 5.
The third section addressed research question 3 and asked about students’ preferences
for classroom error correction of different aspects of the language, such as grammar,
phonology, and vocabulary. Instead of the term phonology, the words “pronunciation, and
intonation,” were used in the questionnaire. Participants rated each item on a 5-point
scale, with 1 representing never and 5 representing always with respect to frequency of
correction.
The last section addressed research question 4 and asked learners to rate eight different
methods of error correction frequently used by EFL teachers. The rating for students’
opinions about each method was measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1
representing bad to 5 representing excellent.
The instrument was validated through expert judgement.
Results and Discussion
Most of the participants were young adults ranging from 18 to 25 years old; 56,9%
were female, 44,5% male and 0.6% identified as non-binary, who were taking
predominantly level 1 and 2 of the EFL program at the private universities. Therefore, their
level of proficiency in the language is beginner and low intermediate.
As the overall attitude of the participants to corrective feedback, an overwhelming
majority of 95% (figure 1) considered that receiving feedback from professors is important
or very important matching the perception that feedback contributes to the improvement of
their proficiency (figure 2) which is consistent to the findings of Abarca (2008) in her
research on college students in a Costar Rican public university where “it can be
concluded that, in these students’ opinion, error correction by the teacher is an asset”
(Abarca,2008 p.24). The research conducted by Gutierrez et al (2020) in a Chilean
private college arrives to similar conclusions.
Figure 1.
Students’ opinion about the importance of oral corrective feedback in the classroom
,=&,1,>?
.@&@1A-?
A1A? .1.? "
B
"
Figure 2
Students’ opinion about corrective feedback contributing to the improvement of their
proficiency.
,-&=
A.&+
=&= +&A +&@
"
"
In regard to the frequency of correction (figure 3), an overwhelming majority of 91%
of the participants considered that teachers should always correct oral production. This
seems to confirm the idea that learners are expecting some corrective feedback and they
perceive it as part of the learning process
Figure 3.
Students’ opinion on the frequency of error correction.
=C&D
-?
=.&D-?
>&C-? A&+-? -&,-?
$$
"
"
. As seen in figure 4, 87% reported their desire to have all the mistakes corrected
which is later confirmed in the following questions about which type of errors should be
corrected (figure 6)
Figure 4. Students’ opinion on the amount of correction.
=,&A-?
=-&,-?
,&A-? ,&@-?
$
"
"
"
In terms of the moment of correction, 78% of the participants agreed that the
correction should be immediate, 13% disagreed or strongly disagreed and 10% were
neutral. This seems to be consistent with Alamri and Fauwzi’s (2016) research in Saudi
Arabia which pointed out that “the majority of students prefer immediate correction for all
types of errors including fluency and accuracy errors.” (p. 63) .
Figure 5. Students’ opinion on the time of correction.
A@&=-?
AD&C-?
+-&--?
D&D-? A&+-?
$"
"""
"
"
As to what aspect requires more attention, grammar, vocabulary or pronunciation,
the results were very similar, as can be observed in figure 6.
Figure 6.
Student’s opinion on which errors require more attention.
""
-&--?
+-&--?
.-&--?
A-&--?
=-&--?
>-&--?
,-&--?
C-&--?
$ * ""
. Mostly learners want correction in the three areas. Many teachers would be
tempted to focus on global errors which hinder communication and be more lenient about
local errors. But from the learners’ perspective it appears that they consider grammar,
lexicon, and phonology as equally important. This is consistent with Oladejo’s research
(1993); English as a second language (ESL) students at both high school and university
levels in Singapore preferred comprehensive, not selective errors to be corrected to
enhance their language accuracy. Later Katayama's (2007) study revealed that most of the
249 Japanese undergraduate EFL students wanted all errors to be corrected. Zhang and
Rahimi (2014) looked at Iranian undergraduate students’ beliefs and found that they
valued the errors influencing communication the most, followed by frequent errors. (Lee,
2013 p. 2)
The participants of this study were asked to categorize seven types of error
correction used by professors rating them from bad to excellent. As shown in figure 7, the
three most preferred were explicit correction (54.1% excellent), recast (49.4% excellent)
and clarification (44.7% excellent) followed by elicitation (42.1 excellent). Metalinguistic
feedback and non-verbal cues were considered bad methods of giving oral feedback,
while no correction was the least preferred by the learners. This lack of interest in
metalinguistic corrective feedback could be attributed to the level of the participants who
were primarily in the lower levels of proficiency. Non- verbal cues could be less obvious to
the learners and therefore not as effective as other methods. This finding is similar to
Alamri and Fawzi (2016) who reported “recast and explicit correction were considered
helpful by the majority of students. While approximately 60% of students reported that
repetition of error and clarification request are helpful techniques. Elicitation and ignoring
were the two least preferred techniques.” (p. 64)
Gutierrez et al (2020) on the other hand report that the subjects of their study in
Chile preferred metalinguistic corrective feedback in the first place, followed by recast and
explicit correction.
Figure 7.
Learners’ preference on types of error correction
B
0
E
2
-
+-
.-
A-
=-
>-
,-
C-
D-
F G
E
Conclusions and Implications
The general attitude of the learners to corrective feedback is positive and they are
aware of its relevance for improvement. It seems that they are expecting to receive
feedback on grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation from their instructors. The
participants viewed all types of errors as requiring attention. Corrective feedback plays an
important role in the learning process and most of the participants want to be corrected all
the time. This aligns to the conclusions in Alamri & Fawzi (2016) in Iran, Ha & Nguyen
(2021) in Vietnam, Gutierrez et al (2020) in Chile and Abarca (2008) in Costa Rica.
Most of the participants of this study indicated their desire to be given feedback at
the time of making the mistake. Similar results were reported by Abarca (2008):
“However, it can be concluded from the results that these students feel confident if they
are (1) clearly informed about their errors and (2) given the opportunity to correct them
immediately.” (p.26)
The contributors in this investigation consider that deviances in grammar, lexicon
and phonology should be attended with equal attention, consistent with the results
reported by Katayama in Japan (2007) and Alamri, and Fawzi (2016) in Iran.
Regarding their preferences towards a specific approach or corrective feedback ,
explicit correction is the best evaluated followed by recast and clarification, indicating that
learners at this level (beginners and low intermediate) seem to favor a more direct
approach to feedback, and are less reactive to more subtle forms of error indication.
Understandably, students will react more positively to clear indications of errors which do
not leave room for doubt or confusion. This is aligned with the findings of Alamri, and
Fawzi (2016) and Abarca (2008). Furthermore, Tavakoli and Zarrinabadi (2016) reported
that explicit corrective feedback leads to lower anxiety in students.
Professors need to give serious consideration to the use of oral corrective feedback
considering the needs and wants of the learners, not just their professional criteria.
Background and level of proficiency might be variables to include. Future research might
explore more advanced students’ perspective on the topic as they might have different
preferences.
References
Abarca Amador, Y.(Enero-julio 2008) Learner attitudes toward error correction in a
beginners English classRevista Comunicación. Volumen 17, año 29, No. 1, Enero-
Julio, 2008 (pp. 18-28)
Aguilera Leyva, M. (Nov 12, 2020) Preferences toward Oral Corrective Feedback in EFL
classrooms at ESPOCH . Ciencia Digital, 4(4.1), 58-80.
https://doi.org/10.33262/cienciadigital.v4i4.1.1454
Alamri, B. & Fawzi, H. (2016) Students’ Preferences and Attitude toward Oral Error
Correction Techniques at Yanbu University College, Saudi Arabia. English
Language Teaching; Vol. 9, No. 11;59-65
Alhaysony, M. (2016)Saudi EFL Preparatory Year Students' Perception about Corrective
Feedback in Oral Communication. English Language Teaching, v9 n12 47-61
Corder, S.P (Nov. 1967) The Significance of Learners’ Errors. IRAL International Review
of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Vol. 4 161-170
Escobar-Pérez, J. & Cuervo-Martínez, A. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de
expertos: una aproximación a su utilización. Avances en Medición, 6, 27-36.
Eyengho, T. & Fawole,O. (2017) Students’ Attitude towards Oral Error Correction
Techniques Employed by Secondary School Language Teachers in South Western
Nigeria. Journal of Social Science for Policy Implications June 2017, Vol. 5, No. 1,
46-51. DOI: 10.15640/10.15640/jsspi.v5n1a5
Gutiérrez, A., Arancibia, C., Bustos, C., Mora, F., Santibáñez, X., & Flores, M. (Segundo
semestre 2020). Students’ Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback Given by
Teachers in Communicative Approach English Courses from an EFL Pedagogy
Program at a Private University. Lenguas Modernas - Universidad de Chile . 9 - 26
Ha, X.V. & Nguyen L.T. (June 2021)Targets and Sources of Oral Corrective Feedback in
English as a Foreign Language Classrooms: Are Students' and Teachers' Beliefs
Aligned? Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697160
Inci-Kavak, V. (January 2019) Exploring the Gap between Instructors’ and Learners’
Preferences about Error Correction. ELT. Journal of Theoretical Educational
Science, 13(1), 116-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.537175
Lorincz, K (2014) L2 Learner Perceptions of Interactional Feedback, Linguistic Portfolios:
Vol. 3 , Article 10. Available at:
https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/stcloud_ling/vol3/iss1/10 orincz, K. (2014) L2
Learner Perceptions of Interactional Feedback. Linguistic Portfolios
Naimi AMARA. (July 2015) Errors Correction in Foreign Language Teaching. The Online
Journal of New Horizons in Education. 5(3),
https://www.academia.edu/42296903/Errors_Correction_in_Foreign_Language_Te
aching?auto=citations&from=cover_page
Katayama A. (2007) Japanese EFL Students` Preferences toward Correction of
Classroom Oral Errors. The Asian EFL Journal 9(4). 289-305.
Khunaivi , H. & Hartono, R. (2015) Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of corrective
feedback in teaching speaking. English Education Journal
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Lee, E. ( June, 2013) Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among
advanced ESL Students. Science Direct 41(2) 217-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
Lee, N. (1991) Notions of “error” and appropriate corrective treatment. Hong Kong Papers
in Linguistic and Language Teaching ; v14 55-70
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/NOTIONS-OF-%27ERROR%27-AND-
APPROPRIATE-CORRECTIVE-Lee-Baptist/
27698674ccdeb7d4bf8b80ce2fe5761ca516f791
Lizazi-Mbanga, B. & Mapulanga, P. (Aug 2021) Factors that influence attitudes to and
perceptions of public libraries in Namibia: user experiences and non-user attitudes.
SA Jnl Libs & Info Sci 2021, 87(2)
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form
in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition,19(1), 37-
66.
Milla Melero, R (2011) Corrective feedback in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL
and an EFL classroom. Master Thesis. Universidad Pais Vasco.
Oladejo J. (1993) Error correction in ESL Learners` preferences. TESL Canada Journal
(10)2, 71-89.
Pickens, J. (2020) Attitudes and Perceptions Chapter 3 in Borkowski, N. and Meese,
K.A., 2020. Organizational behavior in health care. Jones & Bartlett Learning .
https://pdf4pro.com/view/attitudes-and-perceptions-jblearning-com-45ed70.html
Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., & Hatef, A. (March 2011) Corrective Feedback in SLA:
Classroom Practice and Future Directions. International Journal of English
Linguistics. 1(1)
Tavacoli, M & Nourollah Z. (June, 2016): Differential effects of explicit and implicit
corrective feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate, Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2016.1195391
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 55, 437-455. doi: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.4.457.
Tsuneyasu, M. (2016) Teacher’s tendencies and Learner’s preferences regarding
corrective feedback types. International Christian University Repository.
oai:icu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004450