Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
91
Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback.
A Comparative Study of Beginner vs.
Intermediate EFL Undergraduate Students
Percepción sobre realimentación oral correctiva en inglés.
Estudio comparativo entre estudiantes universitarios
principiantes e intermedios
Graciela Ferreiro-Santamaría
graciela.ferreiro@uam.cr
Universidad Americana, Costa Rica
Recepción: 20 de septiembre de 2024
Aprobación: 10 de diciembre de 2024
El propósito del estudio fue comparar la percepción
de estudiantes universitarios principiantes e interme-
dios acerca de la realimentación oral correctiva que
reciben en las clases de inglés. Mediante una investi-
gación transversal de carácter cualitativo, se escogió
una muestra de alumnos de nivel B1 a quienes se les
interrogó sobre la importancia de la corrección, los
tipos de error que merecen corrección y preferencia
en tipos de corrección. La comparación de resulta-
dos de 2023 con principiantes y esta cohorte arrojó
hallazgos similares: la percepción es altamente positiva
y los estudiantes desean que todos sus errores sean
señalados; en el caso del nivel superior, hay un énfasis
en el área de pronunciación. Los tipos de corrección
preferidos en ambos niveles fueron los directos y
claros, siendo los tipos de corrección indirectos menos
favorecidos. Los hallazgos aportan a la escaza informa-
ción existente sobre la perspectiva estudiantil bene-
ciando a docentes e investigadores.
Palabras clave: corrección oral, realimenta-
ción, percepción, tipo de corrección, frecuen-
cia de corrección
This study investigated the preferences of college
English as a Foreign Language learners regarding oral
corrective feedback (OCF), an important compo-
nent of language acquisition. e research followed a
cross-sectional design with a qualitative approach. e
study aimed to determine the overall perception of
B1 level students about OCF, the types of errors they
considered worthy of correction, and their preferences
for types of oral correction. Findings were compared
to the results of a previous study conducted by the
researcher in 2023 with A1 learners. Data revealed
that intermediate-level students, similar to beginners,
have a very positive perception of the importance of
OCF in language development. Further, the learners
appreciated correcting all types of errors, with a higher
emphasis on pronunciation-related ones. In both
cohorts, the preferred type was explicit correction,
while the least liked were indirect methods. These
ndings provide valuable insights for instructors and
researchers in the eld.
Keywords: oral corrective feedback, perception,
frequency of feedback, type of feedback, EFL students
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons
Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional DOI: https://doi.org/10.70141/runae.12.1130
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
92
Language instructors and linguists have extensively
discussed and researched the provision of feedback
and error correction in language teaching. Teachers
are concerned with correcting learners’ errors and
the appropriate timing and method (Ellis, 2017b).
Second language acquisition (SLA) researchers seek
to test various theories of L2 acquisition that oer
differing perspectives on the impact of corrective
feedback (CF) on the acquisition process and wish
to determine which type of CF is most effective
(Ellis, 2017b).
Ever since Hendrickson published his article on
error correction, there seems to be consensus on the
benets of error amendment by professors because
it creates awareness of the language functions and
reinforces correct linguistic forms (as cited in Ellis,
2017a). e discussion arises on the complexity of the
phenomenon and the ample variety of ways to address
the issue because some of the errors committed by
English learners can be construed as more serious
than others, especially those that impair communica-
tion (Khansir, 2022).
Teachers tend to be cautious in the amount
and way in which they indicate deviations in the
usage of language, fearful not to cause anxiety in
the learners who are struggling with a new language,
aware of the effects of the affective filter on the
acquisition of language (Krashen, 2009). Instructors
tend to be more concerned with avoiding interrup-
tions in communication (Quinto, 2020). Given this
quandary, numerous descriptive studies have dealt
with this issue over the last y years, exposing two
general features of teachers’ error correction-impreci-
sion and inconsistency (Ellis, 2017a). Clearly, there
is a grey area in the management of errors in the EFL
classroom, and trainers generally rely on their own
preferences or experts’ suggestions for providing oral
feedback and oen struggle to dene what errors to
correct, when to correct, and how to do so.
Considering its importance, empirical research
has described the most common types of error
correction, teachers’ perspectives on OCF, and the
correlation between pedagogical practices and error
correction. Some studies have even revealed a disparity
in the facilitators’ opinions as opposed to that of their
students (Burri, 2022; Gutierrez et al., 2021; Ha &
Nguyen, 2021; Inci-Kavak, 2019; Katayama, 2007;
Lee, 2013; Tsuneyasu, 2016). More recently several
investigations have focused on the opinion of learners
about OCF in different contexts (Aguilera Leyva,
2020; AlGhafri et al., 2023; Alpian Sari et al., 2022;
Anaktototy & Latumeten, 2022; Aziz & Jayaputri,
2023; Fajriana Tajir et al., 2023; Halim et al., 2021;
Paul & Al-Mamun, 2024); some variables that aect
the attitude that learners have about error correction,
such as adverse opinion about grammar instruction,
negative perspective on correction and others have
been identied (Loewen et al., 2009).
Despite growing interest in understanding
learners’ perceptions of oral corrective feedback
(OCF), research in the Latin American context
remains scarce, with the exception of the study by
Gutiérrez et al. (2021) in Chile. is gap prompted
an investigation conducted by the researcher in 2023,
which focused on beginner EFL students’ perceptions
of OCF at two private universities in San José, Costa
Rica. e ndings revealed that learners hold a highly
optimistic view of corrective feedback and recognize
the importance of receiving immediate correction
for grammar inconsistencies, vocabulary use, and
pronunciation errors from their instructors. The
results also demonstrated a preference for explicit
correction, followed by recasts and clarification
requests, suggesting that A1/A2 learners favor more
direct feedback approaches and are less responsive
to more subtle error correction methods, such as
metalinguistic explanations or non-verbal cues.
e purpose of the current study is to investigate
further, considering intermediate EFL learners (B1)
in the same context, to compare their perspectives
and discover if there is a connection between the level
of prociency and the way students perceive OCF.
e same research questions used in the previous
study guided the investigation:
1. What is the general attitude toward oral correc-
tive feedback among intermediate EFL students in
two Costa Rican private universities?
2. To what extent do these students prefer to be co-
rrected?
3. Which errors students consider should be priori-
tized in their correction (pronunciation, vocabulary,
and grammar)?
4. What are the students’ preferences for error co-
rrection methods?
5. Do students perceive corrective feedback as
eective for improving oral communication at inter-
mediate levels?
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
93
Errors
As the perspectives on language acquisition have
evolved, the overview of errors’ role in the process has
also shied. Behaviorists proclaimed zero tolerance
for learner errors, insisting that students had to
follow structural norms and considering L1 to be
the foremost source of errors (Han, 2021). When
Chomsky proposed his Universal Grammar concept,
errors were interpreted to create language hypothe-
ses upon which learners progress in language acqui-
sition. e evolving view on learner error eventually
eradicated the perception that errors are a negative
occurrence, considering them a window into the
learning process. Corder (1967) has been credited
for being the first to elaborate on the significance
of learner errors (Han, 2021). He was one of the
first experts to differentiate systematic errors from
non-systematic errors or mistakes (Corder, 1967, as
cited in Kryeziu, 2021). In general, facilitators tend
to focus on errors of competence, not on mistakes or
errors of performance. A signicant source of inaccu-
racies described in the literature is interference in the
mother tongue, lack of knowledge, or insufficient
practice in grammar, particularly in English tenses
(Amara, 2015; Khansir, 2022).
Learners’ errors can be classied into multiple
categories. Burt (1975 cited in Amara, 2015) made
a distinction between “global” and “local” errors. e
rst hinders communication, and they prevent good
communication. Local errors only affect a single
element of a sentence, thus not impeding a message
from being delivered. ere are several types of errors
found in learners’ production: morpho-syntactic or
grammar errors; phonologically induced errors, very
frequent in beginner students and prone to fossiliza-
tion if not addressed properly; lexical errors which
frequently induce miscommunication; and discourse
errors, especially on spoken discourse, which are
generally addressed at the end of an oral presentation.
This study included only the first three types,
given its focus on immediate oral correction. Delayed
feedback was not considered.
Oral Corrective Feedback
Chaudron (1977) described corrective feedback as
“any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms,
disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement
of the learner utterance” (p. 31). erefore, correc-
tive feedback is a response to a learner’s erroneous
remarks mainly in four ways described by Rahimi
and Dastjerdi (2012): 1) indicating where the error
occurred, 2) providing the correct structure, 3) giving
metalinguistic information on the error, or 4) any
combination of these (cited in Fathimah, 2019).
Part of the ongoing discussion is the value of
corrective feedback (Ellis, 2017a). Some schools of
thought, such as Krashen’s (2009) and Truscott’s
(1999), insist on the futility of error correction in
language acquisition, not to mention that it is excessi-
vely time-consuming. Conversely, fear of fossiliza-
tion might encourage some instructors to overcorrect
(Babushko & Solovei, 2020).
Furthermore, some empirical investigations
have evidenced that students who receive corrective
feedback while performing communicative activities
improved over groups that did not (Lyster & Saito,
2010; Spada & Lightbown, cited in Ellis, 2017a.;
Ugalde, 2023).
Concerning oral corrective feedback (OCF),
Doughty (cited in Tesnim, 2019) insisted on
opportune correction to allow learners to connect
form and meaning since delayed corrective feedback
would only benet focus on form.
Types of corrective feedback
Lyster and Ranta’s research (1997) on instructor
responses to student mistakes in French immersion
programs sparked widespread academic interest
in OCF. Their work introduced key conceptual
frameworks that have since become fundamental to
Corrective Feedback studies, including a classication
system for CF methods and the concept of learner
uptake (Nikouee & Ranta, 2020).
In the current study, the following six dierent
types of oral corrective feedback were presented
to the students for their appraisal, reproducing the
classication proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997):
6. Explicit correction refers to a clear, direct indica-
tion from the professor showing the learner that there
is an incorrect utterance and the subsequent provi-
sion of the correct form.
7. Recast involves the teacher reformulation of the
student’s utterance and correcting the error.
8. As the name indicates, a clarication request in-
volves instructors indicating that the utterance is un-
clear or incorrect, usually in the form of a question.
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
94
9. Elicitation has three variating techniques: a) tea-
chers repeat the incorrect utterance, pausing at the
error, eliciting completion by students; b) teachers
use questions to elicit correct forms (e.g.: “How do
you say…?”), and c) teachers occasionally ask directly
to reformulate the utterance.
10. Repetition occurs when instructors repeat the
incorrect utterance, emphasizing the mistake.
11. Metalinguistic correction refers to the linguis-
tic nature of the error; facilitators make comments
and provide information or questions related to the
correctness of the student’s production, thus relying
on linguistic competence (e.g.: “An adverb is needed;
you are using an adjective”).
An extra method was incorporated into
the questionnaire for the participants: the use of
nonverbal cues. On occasions, professors use body
language to indicate a deviation, maybe shaking
their heads, making a gesture, or frowning their
eyebrows in the hope that learners interpret the
need for self-correction. Thompson and Renandya
(2020) suggest that gestures can eectively indicate a
pronunciation error.
This research is descriptive, cross-sectional, and
quantitative in nature. It replicated the investigation
conducted by the researcher in 2023, modifying the
selected population from beginner to intermediate
level of language prociency.
Participants in this case were twenty-one
university EFL students ranging from eighteen to
forty-two, registered in one of the courses Level 3 and
Level 4 of English as a Foreign Language correspon-
ding to level B1 in the CEFR of language prociency.
e previous study considered more than 140 similar
students in the A1/A2 levels. All were taking the
mandatory courses as part of the program oered by
two private universities for students of diverse majors.
A non-probabilistic sampling method was chosen for
convenience, representing the students willing to
participate voluntarily aer explaining the research
characteristics and agreeing to informed consent.
To prevent any misunderstanding, the
instrument was applied in their native language
(Spanish). The first section includes demographic
information regarding age, gender, major studies,
and course level.
The second section addressed the students’
general opinions on correcting oral errors in
the classroom and its effectiveness in improving
proficiency. It contained five statements using a
Likert scale ranging from completely disagree (1)
to completely agree (5). The students were asked
whether all errors should be corrected and if the
error correction had an impact on their language
development. ey were also asked the frequency of
correction (i.e., constantly or selectively).
e third section addressed students’ opinions
on OCF of grammar, phonology (pronunciation
and intonation), and vocabulary. e partakers rated
each item on a 5-point scale, where 1 represented
never and 5 represented always regarding preferred
correction frequency.
e last section requested participants to rate,
using a Likert scale ranging from 1, representing
poor, to 5, representing excellent, according to their
preference for the types of error correction described
by Lyster and Ranta (1997), plus two more options:
non-verbal cues and no correction at all.
e instrument used was the same one utilized
in the previous research, which was validated
by expert assessment involving the collection of
well-founded opinions from individuals widely
recognized as specialists in the field, following
the approach proposed by Escobar-Pérez and
Cuervo-Martínez (2008). Additionally, a pilot study
was conducted at that time with the participation
of ve students, each selected through non-probabi-
listic convenience sampling, who were not part of the
study’s main sample.
Data analysis included descriptive statistics to
calculate the relative frequency for easier understan-
ding of the data, using graphs to better represent the
ndings obtained.
Table 1. Demographic data
Criterion
Gender Female Male Prefer not
to say
52 % 48 % 0
Age range 18-21 22-25 26-29 30-33 42 +
47.6 % 19 % 19 % 9.5 % 4.8 %
Course taken Level 3 Level 4
62 % 38 %
N = 21
Source: applied questionnaire
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
95
The majority of the sample were young adults
between the ages of 18 and 21. Eighty-one percent
attended Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, while
19 % attended Universidad Americana. e majors
included business administration, advertisement,
graphic design and digital animation, psychology,
engineering, and journalism, with the mode
being engineering.
Figure 1. Students’ opinion about the importance of oral
corrective feedback in the classroom
Completely agree
Agr ee
I can´t decide
Di sag ree
Co mpl et ely dis ag ree
020 40 60 80 1 00
A1 /A2 st ude nts B1 students
Source: applied questionnaire. Data in relative equency
Figure one compares B1, who participated in
this research, and A1/A2 from the previous study.
Evidently, the students responded very positively to
immediate oral corrective feedback, and there were
no negative opinions. e more advanced students
have a slightly higher positive reaction. e ndings
coincide with reports from several empirical studies
spanning from 2019 to 2024, where scholars from
dierent geographical areas and cultural backgrounds
have found that EFL learners with different ages,
genders, and proficiency levels demonstrate a
positive attitude toward error correction (AlGhafri
et al., 2023; Alpian Sari et al., 2022; Anaktototy &
Latumeten, 2022; Aziz & Jayaputri, 2023; Babushko
& Solovei, 2020; Fajriana Tahir et al., 2023; Muslim
et al., 2021; Paul & Al-Mamun, 2024; Rahmawati,
2023; Roothoo & Breeze, 2016; Saeli et al., 2024;
Vattøy, 2019). Shobaha (2019) even reported 100
% acceptance of correction in their investigation.
Arumugam (2022), on the other hand, found that
students with an advanced level of prociency have a
negative view of using OCF.
Figure 2. Students’ opinions about corrective feedback contri-
bute to the improvement of their prociency
60
32
4 2
86
950 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Co m pl et e ly
ag ree
Agr ee I can ´t
decide
D isag ree C o mpl ete l y
di sa gree
A1 /A2 st ude nts B1 students
Source: applied questionnaires. Data in relative equency
Similarly, the perception that proficiency is
enhanced by feedback, shown in Figure 2, is equally
positive in both groups, consistent with the ndings
of Anaktototy and Latumeten (2022), Aziz and
Jayaputri (2023), Fadilah et al. (2017), Ferreiro
Santamaría (2023), Gamlo (2019), Gutierrez et al.
(2020), Katayama (2007), Muslim et al. (2021),
Mulyani et al. (2022), Muyashoha & Sugianto
(2019), Sánchez Centeno & Barbeito (2021),
Skender (2022), Van Ha et al. (2021) and Wiyati &
Padzilah Nur (2020).
Figure 3. Students’ opinion on always correcting errors
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
COMPLETELY
AGREE
AGREE I CAN´T
DECIDE
DISAGREE COMPLETE
DISAGREE
A1 /A2 st ude nts
B1 students
Source: applied questionnaires. Data in relative equency
Regarding the frequency of correction (seen in
Figure 3), in the beginners, 91 % completely agree
or agree with constant OCF, while in the interme-
diate group, 90 % of the participants agree or agree
with constant OCF, which is a considerable majority.
This indicates confirmation that students expect
corrective feedback and they consider it to be part of
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
96
the teaching process, consistent with Alpian & Sari
(2022), Asmara et al. (2022), Gamlo (2019), Putra &
Salikin (2020), and Rochma (2023).
Figure 4. Opinions on whether professors should
address all errors
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
COMPLETELY
AGREE
AGREE I CAN´T
DECIDE
DISAGREE COMPLETELY
DISAGREE
A1 /A2 st ude nts
B1 students
Source: applied questionnaire. Data in relative equency
As seen in Figure 4, the majority of both
cohorts agreed with the statement, “I believe all
oral mistakes should be corrected”, and a large
portion agreed. Once again, there are a few disagree-
ments with error correction in class at the lower
level. is nding is corroborated by responses to a
follow-up inquiry concerning the categories of errors
worthy of correction, as depicted in figures 6 and
7. Analogous observations were reported by Park
(2010) and Skender (2022), who noted that learners
prefer consistent error correction by instructors.
eir studies indicate that students favor correction
for every error or the majority of mistakes made
rather than solely when communication efficacy
is compromised.
Figure 5. Students’ opinion on the time of correction
(immediate error correction)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Co m pl et e ly
ag ree
Agr ee N eut ral Di sag ree C o mpl et e ly
di sa gree
A1 /A2 st ude nts B1 studen ts
Source: applied questionnaires. Data in relative equency
In terms of the moment of correction, visible
in Figure 5, there was an unstated hypothesis that
students might prefer delayed feedback and not
accept immediate correction because in high context
cultures, “people typically speak sequentially…, so
the speaker is rarely interrupted” (Zakirovich, 2023,
p. 53). Despite this fact, of the beginner students,
39.4 % agreed utterly, and 38.7 % agreed with the
teacher’s immediate corrective feedback. In the more
advanced group, 52 % of the participants ultimately
agreed, and 33 % agreed that the correction should
be immediate, with only 10 % manifesting disagree-
ment. The findings are consistent with Alamri &
Fauwzi (2016), Asmara et al. (2022), Lee (2013),
and Van Ha et al. (2021). Studies by Gamlo (2019),
Halim et al. (2021), Rochma (2023), Syakira & Nur
(2021), and Wiboolyasarin et al. (2020) conrm this
tendency, but opposite findings were described by
Putra & Salikin (2020), and Syakira & Nur (2021)
where the participants seemed to prefer delayed
OCF. e investigation by Shobaha (2019) reported
that students welcome corrective feedback anytime,
whether it is delivered immediately or delayed.
Figure 6. A1/A2 Student’s opinion on which errors require
more attention
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Alw ays Fr e qu e ntl y So metimes Rar ely N eve r
Gramm ar Pronunciation/ Intona tion Vo cab ul a ry
Source: applied questionnaire. Data in relative equency
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
97
Figure 7. B1 student’s opinion on which errors require
more attention
0,00%
10, 0 0%
20, 0 0%
30, 0 0%
40, 0 0%
50, 0 0%
60, 0 0%
70, 0 0%
80, 0 0%
Alw ays Fr e qu e nt l y Somet imes Rarel y Neve r
Gramm ar Pro nunciation Vo c a b ula r y
Source: applied questionnaire. Data in relative equency
e study participants were requested to indicate
which errors they believe should be corrected,
including grammar, phonology, and vocabulary. e
results evidence that in the rst cohort all types of
errors have a very similar value, indicating that they
consider all types or errors as worthy of attention,
similar to ndings by Katayama (2007) that suggest
EFL students wanted all errors to be corrected and
aligned to several other empirical studies (Ferreiro-
Santamaría, 2023; Gamlo, 2019; Mawarni &
Murta’ah, 2023; Nhac, 2022; Rochma, 2023). In the
second group, even though the appraisals are quite
elevated in all three categories, there is a preponde-
rance of correction of pronunciation errors, which
aligns with Arumugam (2022), Saeli et al. (2024) and
Stuckel (2022), who reported that intermediate-level
students responded positively when asked whether
they would like to receive correction for pronuncia-
tion-related errors.
These results may indicate that once learners
achieve an intermediate level, their confidence in
their command of vocabulary and grammar structures
is higher, and they consider that they should focus
more on improving pronunciation, which resonates
with Yurtbasi’s (2017) appreciation of the importance
of correcting segmental and suprasegmental mistakes.
Regarding preferences on the type of error
correction, the students were requested to evaluate
seven categories of error correction, as classified
by Lyster & Ranta (1997), which are commonly
employed by academic instructors.
Figure 8. A1/A2 Learners’ preference on types of
error correction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No correction Explicit
correction
re ca st clarific ation elicitatio n repetition Metalinguistic non-verbal
cues
Excellent Very good Goo d More or less good b ad
Source: applied questionnaire. Data in relative equency
Figure 9. B1 Learners’ preference on types of error correction
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No correction Explicit Rec ast Clarific ation Elicitation R epetition Metalinguistic Non- v e r ba l
cues
Bad More or less G oo d Very good Exce llent
Source: applied questionnaire
In the rst study, the results visible in Figure 8
reveal that the three preferred methods were explicit
correction (54.1 % in excellent appraisal), recast (49.4
%), and clarication (44.7 %), followed by elicitation
(42.1 %). Metalinguistic feedback and non-verbal
cues were valued in a low rank. Given the learners’
prociency level, it seems reasonable to expect that
they would prefer more direct methods of correction
and not appreciate indications that imply a knowledge
of linguistic or morphological aspects. As illustrated
in Figure 9, explicit correction emerged as the primary
preference at the higher level, followed by clarica-
tion requests. Recast techniques were positioned in
the third rank of preference. Repetition strategies
occupied the fourth position in this hierarchy.
Nonverbal cues were incorporated into the
study due to their prevalent usage among facilitators,
as they do not disrupt the continuity of students’
oral discourse. Ergul (2023) demonstrated that
certain nonverbal behaviors, such as teacher smiling,
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
98
significantly influenced learners’ self-correction
processes. Beginner students in this study, on the
contrary, did not perceive nonverbal signals as an
efficacious technique for oral corrective feedback
(OCF), potentially due to their subtle nature and the
possibility of being imperceptible to students. The
non-verbal cues population garnered some favorable
assessment at the higher level, albeit not ranking
among the most preferred methodologies.
To corroborate learners’ esteem for immediate
oral corrective feedback, the instrument included
the option of teachers ignoring the mistake. This
option was ranked as a very poor strategy in both
cohorts, as conrmed by Alamri & Fawzi (2016) and
Quinto (2020).
Favored correction methods are the most direct
and clear in both cohorts. Learners would understand
oral corrective feedback, such as explicit indication or
recast or even clarication and elicitation, over more
subtle correction, such as metalinguistic indications,
which require a higher level of linguistic competence
to be understood. Similar perceptions were reported
in various studies (Alpian & Sari, 2022; Asmara
et al., 2022; Muhsin, 2016; Muslem et al., 2021;
Muti’ah & Azizah, 2024; Park, 2010; Rahmawati,
2023; Roothoo & Breeze, 2016; Septianisa, 2021).
Additionally, investigations carried out by Burri
(2022), Rochma (2023), and Shobaha (2019) have
identified recast correction as the predominant
preference among their respective study participants.
Furthermore, Nasajin’s (2017) ndings, derived from
a quasi-experimental research design, demonstrated
that the cohort receiving extensive recast signifi-
cantly outperformed the control group. is outcome
lends credence to the notion that direct corrective
methodology is ecacious.
The purpose of the current study was to inquire
about intermediate learners’ perceptions of OCF and
contrast them to those of lower-level students of EFL
to shed some light on the provision of feedback. e
ndings provide interesting overviews that can aid
professors in the selection of appropriate methods to
provide feedback in class, considering students’ expec-
tations, which are rarely taken into consideration.
Findings point out a highly positive perspec-
tive of OCF by learners at beginner and intermediate
levels in the Costa Rican context, which is the pattern
in most reviewed studies. Learners expect and
appreciate these immediate interventions when they
deviate from correct utterances in English because
they are aware of the importance of error correction
in language development.
Contrary to what could be the general belief
among teachers, students favor immediate correction
of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation errors
at the time when they are committed. Interestingly,
correct pronunciation is of elevated concern for
intermediate students instead of the lower level.
Students favor constant correction and value that their
facilitators mend all errors when they occur. Letting
errors slip by when not relevant to communication is
not considered a good strategy by the learners.
It is concluded that learners prefer more
direct OCF techniques, such as explicit correction,
recast, and elicitation, regardless of proficiency
level, coinciding with Jusa & Kuang (2016) and
Watcharapol et al. (2023). Neither cohort favored
indirect forms such as metalinguistic correction or
non-verbal cues.
These observed similarities and differences in
corrective feedback preferences between learners at
varying prociency levels contribute to the growing
literature on adult English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) students’ perspectives regarding oral error
correction. In accordance with Quinto’s recommen-
dations (2020), educators are advised to employ a
diverse array of oral corrective feedback strategies.
This approach should be based not solely on the
instructors’ personal convictions regarding error
correction methodologies but should also take into
account the individual preferences expressed by
their students.
The study’s limitations involve the reduced
number of participants. Further research involving
a larger number of students would reveal a more
robust result.
Additional research could also explore the
impact of age or gender on learners’ perspectives.
Findings by Babushko and Solovei (2020) report
that older students are better at being corrected
than younger ones.
Another angle for subsequent inquiry could
consider the respondents’ future professions since
this could also influence learners’ attitudes toward
correcting errors.
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
99
Aguilera Leyva, M. (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, 9(11), 59-65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n11p59
AlGhafri M., Mirza C., & Gabarre C. (2023). Students
Attitudes Towards Oral Corrective Feedback: A
Case Study from Oman. Arab World English Journal,
14(3), 406-417. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/
vol14no3.26
Alpian Sari, M., Zaini Miah, M., & Widiastuty, H.
(2022). An Investigation of Students’ Perceptions of
Oral Corrective Feedback in EFL Public Speaking
Course. Professional Journal of English Education,
5(3), 553-562. https://journal.ikipsiliwangi.ac.id/
index.php/project/article/view/10055
Amara, N. (2015). Errors Correction in Foreign
Language Teaching. e Online Journal of New
Horizons in Education, 5(3), 58-68. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/318249645_Errors_
Correction_in_Foreign_Language_Teaching
Anaktototy, K., & Latumeten, C. (2022). Exploring
students’ perception towards teachers’ oral
feedback in the EFL classroom. Cypriot Journal of
Educational Science, 17(12), 4641-4657. https://
un-pub.eu/ojs/index.php/cjes/article/view/7293
Arumugam, N., Afnizul, A., Zakaria, S., & Azmi,
H. (2022). e Eectiveness of Oral Corrective
Feedback: Students’ Perspectives. International
Journal of Academic Research in Progressive
Education and Development, 11(3), 1845-1859.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v11-i3/15373
Asmara, C., Auliya, P., & Muhammad, R. (2022). Oral
Corrective Feedback: What Do Students Prefer and
Why? Teaching & Learning English in Multicultural
Contexts, 6(2), 115-122. https://jurnal.unsil.ac.id/
index.php/tlemc/article/view/2766/2438
Aziz, M., & Jayaputri, H. (2023). EFL Learners’
Perspective on Corrective Feedback. Scope. Journal
of English Language Teaching, 7(2),1-7. http://
dx.doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14806
Babushko, S., & Solovei, L. (2020). Linguistic and
Non-Linguistic University Students’ Attitude
towards Error Correction in EFL Learning. Revista
Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala,
12(4), 72-86. https://doi.org/10.18662/
rrem/12.4/334
Burri, M., (2022). Comparing L2 Teachers’
Practices With Learners’ Perceptions of English
Pronunciation Teaching. Prole: Issues in Teachers’
Professional Development, 25(1), 129-145. https://
doi.org/10.15446/prole.v25n1.101156
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse
in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors 1.
Language Learning, 27, (1), 29-46. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x
Ellis, R. (2017a). Oral corrective feedback in language
teaching: A historical perspective. Avances en
Educación y Humanidades, 2(2), 7-22. https://doi.
org/10.21897/25394185.1482
Ellis, R. (2017b). Oral corrective feedback in L2
classrooms. What we know so far. In Corrective
Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning
(pp. 3-18). Routledge.
Ergül, H. (2023). e Case for Smiling? Nonverbal
Behavior and Oral Corrective Feedback.
Psycholinguist, 52(1), 17-32. https://link.springer.
com/article/10.1007/s10936-021-09807-x
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. https://acortar.link/YnGD4v
Fadilah, A., Anugerahwati, M., & Prayogo, J. (2017).
EFL Students’ Preferences for Oral Corrective
Feedback in Speaking Instruction Jurnal Pendidikan
Humaniora, 5(2), 76-87. https://journal.um.ac.id/
index.php/jph
Fajriana Tahir S., Muhayyang M., & Munir, M. (2023).
EFL Students’ Perception Teacher Oral Corrective
Feedback. Journal of Technology in Language
Pedagogy, 1(2), 458-470. https://ojs.unm.ac.id/
JTechLP/article/view/52963/23537
Fathimah, N. (2019). Teacher’s Corrective Feedback
to Students’ Oral Production in EFL Classrooms.
Advances in Social Science, Education, and
Humanities Research, 430, 143-147. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2991/assehr.k.200406.029
Ferreiro-Santamaría, G. (2023). EFL University
Students’ perception of immediate oral corrective
feedback in Two Costa Rican Private Universities.
Digilec, 10, 36-54. https://doi.org/10.17979/
digilec.2023.10.0.9703
Gamlo, N. (2019). EFL Learners’ Preferences of
Corrective Feedback in Speaking Activities. Wor l d
Journal of English Language, 9(2), 27-37. https://
acortar.link/hObc3O
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
100
Gutiérrez, A., Arancibia, C., Bustos, C., Mora, F.,
Santibáñez, X., & Flores, M. (2021). 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, (56), 9-26. https://
revistas.uchile.cl/index.php/LM/article/view/61507
Ha, X., & Nguyen, L. (2021). Targets and Sources of
Oral Corrective Feedback in English as a Foreign
Language Classrooms: Are Students’ and Teachers’
Beliefs Aligned? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697160
Halim, T., Wahid, R., & Halim, S. (2021). EFL
students’ attitudes toward corrective feedback: a
study conducted at the undergraduate level. Saudi
Journal of Language Studies, 1(1), 40-49. https://doi.
org/10.1108/SJLS-03-2021-0004
Han, Z. (2021). Corrective feedback from behaviorist
and innatist perspectives. In H. Nassaji, & E.
Kartchava (Eds), e Cambridge Handbook of
Corrective Feedback in Language Learning and
Teaching (pp. 23-43). Cambridge University Press.
Inci-Kavak, V. (2019). Exploring the Gap between
Instructors’ and Learners’ Preferences about Error
Correction. ELT Journal of eoretical Educational
Science, 13(1), 116-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.30831/
akukeg.537175
Jusa, G., & Kuang, C. (2016). e Eect of Direct
Corrective Feedback on the Correct Usage of the
Preposition of Time. Journal of Advanced Research
in Social and Behavioural Science, 3(1), 109-122.
https://acortar.link/5SHvco
Katayama A. (2007). Japanese EFL Students’
Preferences toward Correction of Classroom Oral
Errors. e Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289-305.
https://www.asian-e-journal.com/main-editions-
new/japanese-efl-students-preferences-toward-
correction-of-classroom-oral-errors/index.htm
Khansir, A. (2022). Error Analysis and English Syllabus.
Journal on Language and Language Learning, 25(2),
626-638. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.3547
Krashen, S. (2009). Principles and Practice in Second
Language Acquisition. University of Southern
California. https://www.sdkrashen.com/content/
books/principles_and_practice.pdf
Kryeziu, L. ( 2021). Learning from errors.
ILIRIA International Review, 5(1),
391-408 https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/357341305_Learning_from_errors
Lee, E. (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
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., ompson, A., Nakatsukasa,
K., Seongmee, A., & Chen, X. (2009). Second
Language Learners’ Beliefs About Grammar
Instruction and Error Correction. e Modern
Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
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. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral Feedback in
Classroom SLA: A Meta-Analysis.Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Mawarni, F., & Murta’ah, B. (2023). High-school
students’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback
in EFL classroom: A survey study. SALEE: Study
of Applied Linguistics and English Education, 4(2),
472-486. https://doi.org/10.35961/salee.v4i2.841
Muhsin, A. (2016). e eectiveness of positive
feedback in teaching speaking skills. Lingua
Cultura, 10(1), 25-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.21512/
lc.v10i1.873
Mulyani, S., Ningsih, N., & Setyaningrum, N. (2022).
Sudents’ Perceptions Towards Oral Corrective
Feedback in a Speaking Class. ETERNAL, 8(1),
174-184. https://doi.org/10.24252/Eternal.
V81.2022.A12
Muslem, A., Zulkar, T., Astilla, I., Heriansyah, H., &
Marhaban, S. (2021). Students’ Perception Toward
Oral Corrective Feedback in Speaking Classes: A
Case at English Education Department Students.
International Journal of Language Education, 5(4),
244-259. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v5i4.19010
Muti’ah, M., & Azizah, V. (2024). Investigating Students
Attitudes on Oral Corrective Feedback: Small-scale
Survey in Academic Speaking Class. International
Journal of English Linguistics, Literature, and
Education, 6(1), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.32585/
ijelle.v6i1.4824
Muyashoha, A., & Sugianto, A. (2019). e students’
perception towards oral corrective feedback in
speaking class. In Proceedings of International
Conference on English Language Teaching (pp.
14-29). Institut Agama Islam Negeri.
Nasaji, H. (2017). e Eectiveness of Extensive Versus
Intensive Recasts for Learning L2 Grammar. e
Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353-368. https://
doi.org/10.1111/modl.12387
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
101
Nhac, T. (2022). Oral corrective feedback preferences
in English lessons: Learners’ and teachers’
perspectives. European Journal of Educational
Research, 11(3), 1643-1655. https://doi.
org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.3.1643
Nikouee, M., & Ranta, L. (2020). e Visibility of
Oral Corrective Feedback Research in Teacher
Education Textbooks.TESL Canada Journal,37(2),
128-153. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1338
Park, H. (2010). Teachers’ and Learners’ Preferences
for Error Correction [Master’s thesis, California
State University]. Portal Index California State
University. https://hdl.handle.net/10211.9/302
Paul, P., & Al-Mamun, A. (2024). Students’ Perception
of Oral Corrective Feedback in Developing English
Speaking Skills. Belta Journal, 7(1), 1-13. http://
dx.doi.org/10.36832/beltaj.2023.0701.03
Putra, S., & Salikin, H. (2020). How Indonesian EFL
learners perceive error corrections. English Journal
Of Merdeka: Culture, Language, And Teaching Of
English, 5(1), 92-101. http://jurnal.unmer.ac.id/
index.php/enjourme/index
Quinto, J. (2020). Corrective Feedback in Oral
Communication. Journal of International Education,
2, 1-20. https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/
isabela-state-university/bsed-english/corrective-
feedbackin-oral-communication/97359408
Rahmawati, E. (2023). e Urgency of Oral Corrective
Feedback in English Language Teaching: Students
and Teachers’ Perception. Jadila Journal of
Development and Innovation in Language and
Literature Education, 3(2), 148-158. https://doi.
org/10.52690/jadila.v3i2.395
Rochma A. (2023). Corrective oral feedback on
students’ errors in speaking courses. Journal of
English Language Teaching and Learning, 4(2),
125-135. https://ejournal.uin-malang.ac.id/index.
php/jetle/article/view/20442
Roothoo, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison
of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral
corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4),
318-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.
2016.1235580
Saeli, H., Rahmati, P., & Dalman, M. (2024). Oral
Corrective Feedback: Perceptions of Iranian
Learners. In A. Korangy (Ed.), e Handbook of
Cultural Linguistics (pp. 37-50). Springer.
Sakiroglu, H. (2020). Oral Corrective Feedback
Preferences of University Students in English
Communication Classes. International Journal of
Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 172-178.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1234492
Sánchez Centeno, A., & Barbeito, M. (2021). Oral
Corrective Feedback in University EFL Contexts:
e Interplay Between Students’ and Teacher’s
Beliefs. In M. Pawlak (Eds), Investigating
Individual Learner Dierences in Second Language
Learning. Second Language Learning and
Teaching (pp. 207-229). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-75726-7_10
Septianisa, V. (2021). EFL Undergraduate Students’
Oral Corrective Feedback Preferences: A Survey
Study [esis, Universitas Islam Indonesia].
Universitas Islam Indonesia. https://dspace.uii.
ac.id/handle/123456789/31376
Shobaha, S. (2019). e Implementation of Oral
Corrective Feedback in the EFL Classroom.
LangEdu Journal, 1-15. https://core.ac.uk/
download/pdf/287229441.pdf
Skender, L. (2022). Students’ Perceptions of Corrective
Feedback in EFL Classrooms in Higher Education.
European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(3),
264-267. https://www.ej-edu.org/index.php/ejedu/
article/view/372
Stuckel, R. (2022). e eects of corrective feedback
frequency on ESL pronunciation uptake, repair,
and preference [Master’s thesis, Southern
Illinois University Carbondale]. Southern
Illinois University Carbondale. https://www.
proquest.com/dissertations-theses/effects-
corrective-feedback-frequency-on-esl/
docview/2703517708/se-2
Syakira, S., & Nur, S. (2021). Learners’ Perceptions on
the Use of Oral Corrective Feedback in One-to-One
EFL Classroom. Eralingua: Jurnal Pendidikan
Bahasa Asing dan Sastra, 6(2), 286-306. http://
dx.doi.org/10.26858/eralingua.v6i2.26177
Tesnim, O. (2019). Oral Corrective Feedback and Its
Impact on Learners’ Speaking Skills: Tunisian EFL
Students as a Case Study. International Journal of
Language and Linguistics, 7(3), 138-149. http://
www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ijll
ompson, A., & Renandya, W. (2020). Use of Gestures
for Correcting Pronunciation Errors. TEFLIN
Journal, 31(2), 342-359. https://doi.org/10.15639/
teinjournal.v31i2/342-359
Truscott, J. (1999). What is wrong with oral grammar
correction? Canadian Modern Language Review, 55,
437-455. https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.3138/
cmlr.55.4.437
Tsuneyasu, M. (2016). Teacher’s tendencies and
learner’s preferences regarding corrective feedback
types. International Christian University Repository,
RUNAE, 2025, núm. 12, enero-junio, ISSN 2550-6854
102
35-45. https://icu.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/4450/les/
Tsuneyasu%20nal.pdf
Ugalde, Ó. (2023). La implementación de
retroalimentación correctiva asincrónica en
línea efectiva sobre la producción oral de
estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera
en clases universitarias orales en modalidad
virtual. Innovaciones Educativas, 25(39), 14-35.
https://www.scielo.sa.cr/pdf/rie/v25n39/2215-
4132-rie-25-39-14.pdf
Van Ha, X., Nguyen L., & Hung, B. (2021). Oral
corrective feedback in English as a foreign language
classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective.
Heliyon, 7(2), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2021.e07550
Vattøy, K. (2019). Students’ perceptions of
teachers’ feedback practice in teaching English
as a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 85, 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2019.06.024
Watcharapol, W., Phornrat, T., Teavakorn, K., Tidarat,
N., Kanokpan, W., Somkiat, K., & Nattawut, J.
(2023). Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback:
Are Language Prociency, First Language,
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety, and
Enjoyment Involved? Journal of Language and
Education, 9(33), 172-184. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2023.1112136
Wiboolyasarin, W., Wiboolyasarin, K., & Jinowat,
N. (2020). Learners’ oral corrective feedback
perceptions and preferences in ai as a foreign
language tertiary setting. Journal of Language
and Linguistic Studies, 16(2), 912-929. https://doi.
org/10.17263/jlls.759344
Wiyati, R., & Padzilah Nur, R. (2020). Students’
Attitude towards Corrective Feedback in EFL
Classroom. e Journal of English Language
Teaching, Literature, and Applied Linguistics, 2(2),
26-32. https://doi.org/10.37742/jela.v2i2.33
Yurtbasi, M. (2018). Correcting English learner’s
suprasegmental errors. Global Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching, 7(4), 126-131. https://doi.
org/10.18844/gjt.v7i4.3000
Zakirovich, G. (2023). e Relationship Between
Culture and Language in Learning Process.
Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Philosophy and
Culture, 3(5), 55-63. https://www.doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.7901915
