Oral corrective feedback: teachers’ concerns and researchers’ orientation

Abstract

Studies on oral corrective feedback have been mainly directed towards cognitive factors. Practical aspects of error correction have been ignored to a large extent. The present study attempted to fill this gap by investigating teachers' practice and beliefs about oral error correction and the priorities they set for themselves and comparing the results with the recent research findings to find the areas of mismatch between the two domains. Seven teachers were observed, each on two occasions, which made 14 classroom observations overall. Interviews were also conducted with the observed and 30 more teachers. The collected data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis of the interviews. The results indicated that teachers' concerns and priorities were different from those examined in experimental studies, being more affective and practice-oriented in nature. There were also inconsistencies between teachers' beliefs and practice. The results suggested the need to inform teachers about the cognitive aspects of error correction in teacher education programmes and to redress the balance between emotional and cognitive aspects of error correction.

Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices

“…The teacher-trainees in this study were at a double disadvantage as they were only beginning to learn about the profession and had little teaching experience. However, even when teachers see CF as important in promoting L2 development, they often struggle to provide correction, worrying about interrupting the communicative flow, negatively affecting learners’ well-being, or simply not knowing when the right time to correct may be (Basturkmen et al, 2004; Brown, 2009; Roothooft, 2014; Sepehrinia & Mehdizadeh, 2016). The concern for learners’ reaction to CF and confusion about the proper timing of CF was evident in the pre-service teachers’ responses on the beliefs questionnaire when, as a group, they appeared cognizant about the affective factors of CF and could not decide on the phase (immediately, at the end of a lesson, or in a separate lesson) that would render correction most effective.…”

“…A recent study (Rahimi & Zhang, 2015), however, suggests that experienced teachers view CF more positively (90%) than novice teachers (75%) do. Second, teachers may feel that providing CF during a student’s attempt to communicate may unduly interrupt the communicative flow (Brown, 2009; Roothooft, 2014; Sepehrinia & Mehdizadeh, 2016); thus, only those errors that inhibit understanding need to be addressed (Jean & Simard, 2011; Roothooft, 2014). To avoid the perceived ‘humiliating’ (Kamiya, 2014) nature of explicit correction, some teachers may gravitate towards recasts when CF is needed (Bell, 2005; Rahimi & Zhang, 2015), seeing them as a non-intruding yet face-saving and target-providing solution (Lee, 2013; Yoshida, 2010); experienced teachers, however, are more likely to vary the types of CF they use (Junqueira & Kim, 2013; Rahimi & Zhang, 2015).…”

“…Farrokhi, 2007; Yoshida, 2008, 2010). Still, few studies have juxtaposed teachers’ stated beliefs about CF with their corrective in-class practices; when they did, participants were experienced teachers (Kamiya, 2014; Roothooft, 2014; Sepehrinia & Mehdizadeh, 2016). Regarding research on pre-service teachers specifically, we know of only one study that compared the CF beliefs and practices of a novice teacher in Iran (Baleghizadeh & Rezaei, 2010) and another that contrasted the beliefs and corrective practices of one novice teacher and one experienced teacher in the context of English-second-language (ESL) (Junqueira & Kim, 2013).…”

Beliefs about oral corrective feedback in an Argentinean EFL university classroom

“…At present, the tendency is leading researchers to focus on the social interactionist perspective of OCF (Althobaiti, 2014;Ayedh & Khaled, 2011;Ellis, 2009;Martinez Agudo, 2012;Roothooft, 2014;Sepehrinia & Mehdizadeh, 2016, Wass et al, 2018 in order to fulfil the need of taking into consideration the affective component of the EFL teaching and learning processes. Thus, this research goes in line with Ellis's (2009) assertion that corrective feedback is a highly complex instructional and interactive phenomenon that manifests cognitive, social and psychological dimensions.…”

Oral Corrective Feedback Techniques: An Investigation of the EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Practices at Taif University

“…

Recent research has shown that little attention has been paid to teachers' views regarding giving oral corrective feedback (Sepehrinia & Mehdizadeh, 2016). To fill this gap, this empirical study investigates the beliefs of Taif University's teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) about their feedback practices and their perception of the impact that these practices have on students' performance.

…”