Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 162 Download : 114

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study investigated the preferences of adult English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners regarding Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF), an essential component of language teaching and learning. The research addressed a gap in the existing literature by conducting a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study with a sample of 21 intermediate-level university students in Costa Rica. The study aimed to determine the participants' overall perception of OCF, the types of errors they considered worthy of correction, and their preferences for different modes of oral correction. The findings were then compared to the results of a previous study conducted by the researcher in 2023 with beginner-level EFL learners. Statistical analysis revealed that, like their beginner counterparts, the intermediate-level students have a significantly positive perception of OCF in language development. Both cohorts appreciated correcting all types of errors, with intermediate students placing slightly more emphasis on pronunciation-related errors. In both groups, the preferred feedback type was an explicit correction, while the least preferred was no correction, metalinguistic indication, and non-verbal cues. These findings contribute to the limited research on adult EFL learners' preferences for OCF in Latin American contexts, providing valuable insights for language instructors and researchers.

Keywords

EFL Students Latin American Context Oral Corrective Feedback Perception Type of Feedback

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

In submitting the manuscript to the FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • The publication has been approved by the author(s) and by responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.

License and Copyright Agreement

Authors who publish with FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or edit it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
How to Cite
Ferreiro, G. (2024). Comparing Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback Between Beginner and Intermediate Level EFL Undergraduate Students . FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(4), 222-243. https://doi.org/10.24256/foster-jelt.v5i4.182
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative Feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.
  5. Alpian Sari, M., Zaini Miftah, 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://doi.org/10.22460/project.v5i3.p553-562
  6. 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://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i12
  7. Arumugam, N., Afnizul, A. N., Zakaria, S. F., & Azmi, H. Al. (2022). The Effectiveness 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
  8. Asmara, C.H., Auliya, P.K., & Muhammad, R.N. (2022). Oral Corrective Feedback: What Do Students Prefer and Why? TLEMC (Teaching & Learning English in Multicultural Contexts), 6(2), 121-132.
  9. Aziz, M.F., & Jayaputri H.E. (2023). EFL Learners' Perspective on Corrective Feedback. SCOPE: Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 127-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14806
  10. 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
  11. Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second language acquisition (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
  12. Burri, M. (2022). Comparing L2 Teachers' Practices With Learners' Perceptions of English Pronunciation Teaching. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 25(1), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v25n1.101156
  13. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x
  14. Corder, S.P. (1967). The Significance of Learners' Errors. IRAL International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 4, 161-170. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED019903
  15. DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Ellis, R. (2017). 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
  17. 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.
  18. Fadilah, A.E., Anugerahwati, M., & Prayogo, J.A. (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
  19. Fajriana Tahir S., & Muhayyang M. (2023). EFL Students' Perception Teacher Oral Corrective Feedback. Journal of Technology in Language Pedagogy (JTechLP), 2, 458-470.
  20. Fathimah, N.M. (2019). Teacher's Corrective Feedback to Students' Oral Production in EFL Classrooms. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 430, 44-47.
  21. 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
  22. Fu, M., & Li, S. (2022). The Effects of Immediate and Delayed Corrective Feedback on L2 Development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(1), 2-34. doi:10.1017/S0272263120000388
  23. Gamlo, N.H. (2019). EFL Learners' Preferences of Corrective Feedback in Speaking Activities. World Journal of English Language, 9(2), 1-9.
  24. Gutierrez, 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
  25. Ha, X.V., & Nguyen L.T. (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, 697160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697160
  26. Halim, T., Wahid, R., & Halim, S. (2021). EFL students' attitudes toward corrective Feedback: a study conducted at undergraduate level. Saudi Journal of Language Studies, 1(1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/SJLS-03-2021-0004
  27. Han, Z.H. (2021). Corrective Feedback from behaviorist and innatist perspectives. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective Feedback in language learning and teaching (pp. 23-43). Cambridge University Press.
  28. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  29. Inci-Kavak, V. (2019). Exploring the Gap between Instructors' and Learners' Preferences about Error Correction. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(1), 116-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.537175
  30. Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL Students' Preferences toward Correction of Classroom Oral Errors. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289-305.
  31. Khansir, A.A. (2022). Error Analysis and English Syllabus. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Learning, 25(2), 391-406. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.3547
  32. Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press.
  33. Lee, E.J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL Students. System, 41(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. Muslem, A., Zulfikar, 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
  37. Paul, P., & Al-Mamun, A. (2024). Students' Perception of Oral Corrective Feedback in Developing English Speaking Skills. Belta Journal, 7(1), 41-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.36832/beltaj.2023.0701.03
  38. Putra, S., & Salikin, H. (2020). How Indonesian EFL learners perceive error corrections. EnJourMe (English Journal Of Merdeka): Culture, Language, And Teaching Of English, 5(1), 92-101.
  39. Quinto, J.B. (2020). Corrective Feedback in Oral Communication. Journal of International Education, 2(1), 32-41.
  40. Quinto, J.B. (2023). Combining OCF types: A practical guide. Journal of Language Teaching, 8(2), 112-125.
  41. Saeli, H., Rahmati, P., & Dalman, M. (2024). Oral Corrective Feedback: Perceptions of Iranian Learners. In A. Korangy (Ed.), The Handbook of Cultural Linguistics. Springer.
  42. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
  43. Skender, L. (2022). Students' Perceptions of Corrective Feedback in EFL Classrooms in Higher Education. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(3), 114-120. DOI: 10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.3.372
  44. Stuckel, R. R. (2022). The effects of corrective feedback frequency on ESL pronunciation uptake, repair, and preference (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (2703517708).
  45. Syakira, S., & Sahril, S. (2022). Learners' Perceptions on the Use of Oral Corrective Feedback in One-to-One EFL Classroom. Eralingua: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Asing dan Sastra, 6(2), 311-324.
  46. 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. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20190703.15
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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.
  50. Van Ha, X., Nguyen, L.T., & Hung, B.P. (2021). Oral Corrective Feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon, 7(2), e07550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550
  51. Watcharapol, W., Phornrat, T., Teavakorn, K., Tidarat, N., Kanokpan, W., Somkiat, K., & Nattawut, J. (2023). Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback: Are Language Proficiency, First Language, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety, and Enjoyment Involved? Journal of Language and Education, 9(1), 172-184.
  52. Zakirovich, G.B. (2023). The Relationship Between Culture and Language in Learning Process. Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Philosophy and Culture, 3(5), 49-58. https://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7901915