How do learners engage with oral corrective feedback on lexical stress errors?

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-276
Author(s):  
Hooman Saeli ◽  
Mohammadreza Dalman ◽  
Payam Rahmati
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Cognitive Engagement ◽  
Lexical Stress ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Direct Feedback

Abstract This study explored the affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement of 18 Iranian EFL learners with oral corrective feedback on lexical stress errors. The data were collected using questionnaires, pretests, posttests, and interviews. The questionnaire responses showed that the participants held various perceptions about direct feedback. Additionally, the pretest and posttest results indicated that the learners with positive perceptions about direct feedback had significant lexical stress accuracy gains. Also, the students who viewed direct feedback favorably showed positive affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement with it. These learners, for instance, frequently reviewed the provided feedback and used cognitive resources when utilizing it. In contrast, the students with negative perceptions about direct feedback showed negative engagement with it. The findings suggest that learners’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement can determine the working of feedback. Also, students’ perceptions seem to filter the feedback they receive, thereby helping shape how they engage with feedback.

The interplay of oral corrective feedback and L2 willingness to communicate across proficiency levels

2020 ◽  
pp. 136216882092896
Author(s):  
Mostafa Zare ◽  
Zohreh Gooniband Shooshtari ◽  
Alireza Jalilifar
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Willingness To Communicate ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Feedback Type ◽  
Proficiency Levels ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
High Preference ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
The Impact

This study aims to explore the impact of oral corrective feedback types on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ willingness to communicate across proficiency levels. It also investigates how EFL learners view different types of feedback in relation to their willingness to communicate. Sixty Iranian EFL learners were tracked in four proficiency levels. Initially, the participants filled in a questionnaire to measure their attitudes to oral CF and their willingness to communicate. Subsequent to the teachers’ employment of explicit correction, recasts, and prompts, the learners’ willingness to communicate was measured anew. A semi-structured interview was also conducted. The results revealed learners’ high preference for prompts. A two-way mixed between-within ANOVA demonstrated a significant effect for both oral corrective feedback and proficiency level on willingness to communicate. Furthermore, elicitative types of feedback were ranked as the most contributory feedback type to L2 willingness to communicate.

scholarly journals Oral Corrective Feedback on Pronunciation Errors: The Mediating Effects of Learners’ Engagement with Feedback

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Hooman Saeli ◽  
Payam Rahmati ◽  
Mohammadreza Dalman
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Cognitive Strategies ◽  
Cognitive Engagement ◽  
Effective Communication ◽  
Affective Engagement ◽  
Mediating Effects ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
Efl Students ◽  
Positive Engagement

This study examined low-proficiency Iranian EFL students’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement with oral corrective feedback (OCF) on interdental fricative errors: /θ/and/ð/. The data were collected from 27 learners with favorable and unfavorable perceptions about OCF. After receiving OCF on 30 tested and 30 untested lexical items in tutoring sessions, the participants took a posttest. The analysis of the data showed that the learners with positive perceptions about OCF had significantly higher accuracy gains, as shown by their posttest results. The interviews showed that the learners’ positive perceptions about OCF had positive affective engagement. Also, the learners who perceived pronunciation accuracy as an important component of their language development showed positive patterns of affective engagement with OCF. Additionally, the learners who affectively engaged with direct OCF positively tended to show positive behavioral and cognitive engagement with feedback. These learners reviewed the provided OCF and practiced the correction by employing an array of cognitive strategies (e.g., repetition). Overall, our findings show that positive engagement with feedback can result in higher pronunciation accuracy gains. Therefore, teachers should familiarize themselves with their students’ perceptions about feedback on their pronunciation errors, since these perceptions may impact the way students engage with feedback affectively, behaviorally, and cognitively. For instance, students who value pronunciation accuracy may be more likely to positively engage with feedback on pronunciation errors, while students who emphasize effective communication may negatively engage with such feedback.

scholarly journals The Role of Oral Corrective Feedback Types in the Acquisition of the Grammatical Structures

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Firoozeh Abedini ◽  
Mohammadtaghi Shahnazari
Keyword(s):  
Language Learners ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Clarification Request ◽  
Grammatical Structures

<p>This study investigated whether the effects of different types of corrective feedback (CF) (simple clarification request, enhanced prompt and elliptical elicitation) would differ on the acquisition of different types of grammatical structures. The target grammatical structures were verb endings (morphological morphemes) in three different English tenses including the simple present third person singular “-s”, the present continuous verb formation marker “-ing”, and the simple past verb ending” -ed”. These targets were chosen because they are rather problematic for EFL learners to acquire. For this purpose, 31 L1 Persian EFL learners at intermediate level were given an opportunity to carry out some tasks and were provided with different types of CF on their erroneous utterances. Data analysis on the output accuracy following feedback on the three grammatical targets showed that the proportion of errors corrected in response to CF in the form of enhanced prompt was more than the proportion of errors corrected in response to the other two types of CF. These results suggest that the more explicit the CF, the more effective it would be in correcting language learners’ erroneous utterances regardless of the type of given grammatical structure.</p>

Correction timing

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hooman Saeli
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Lexical Stress ◽  
Control Group ◽  
New Words ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Efl Students ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Intonation Accuracy

Abstract The current study set out to investigate the effects of oral corrective feedback (OCF) and examine the impact of correction timing on lexical stress and sentence intonation accuracy in a Persian context. The data was collected from a sample of upper-intermediate EFL students (N = 61). Immediate teacher-explicit OCF, delayed teacher-explicit OCF, and a control group were randomly assigned to three classes. A list of 50 new words, contextualized in 50 statements/questions, were utilized to measure any possible gains. Analysis of post-test results confirmed that the teacher immediate OCF (n = 20) and teacher delayed OCF (n = 20) classes outperformed the control group (n = 21). Post-hoc analysis revealed that the treatment groups were not significantly different in lexical stress accuracy gains. In contrast, the immediate group had significantly higher gains than the delayed one in sentence intonation accuracy.

scholarly journals An investigation into how EFL learners emotionally respond to teachers’ oral corrective feedback

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan De Dios Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Secondary School ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Feedback Process ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Language Pedagogy ◽  
Oral Feedback ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
The Way

This research study draws on research in SLA and language pedagogy and hopes to throw some light on the pedagogical effectiveness of the oral feedback process in L2 classrooms by focusing exclusively on the potential affective damage that teachers´ oral corrective feedback can cause among learners in classroom settings. The paper describes a study in which we investigated how EFL learners actually perceive or rather emotionally respond to the oral feedback process. This paper aims to investigate to what extent the way teachers provide oral corrective feedback is somehow associated with learners´ motivations and attitudes. For this purpose, a short questionnaire was designed and distributed among a sample of 208 EFL secondary school learners. The article first reviews the literature on the controversial role of corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Next, the findings are reported and discussed. This research paper suggests that EFL learners emotionally respond to teachers´ oral corrective feedback in different ways. Additionally, it found evidence that anxiety can have a negative effect on the way learners benefit from the oral feedback process. Thus, the paper issues warnings about the potential affective damage oral corrective feedback can cause among learners in classroom situations.

Assessing the Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback in Process-based vs Product-based Instruction on Learners’ Writing

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 35-53
Author(s):  
Mojgan Khaki ◽  
Hossein Heidari Tabrizi
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Teaching Writing ◽  
Intermediate Students ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Indirect Feedback ◽  
Product Approach ◽  
Based Instruction ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Direct Feedback

The present study peruses EFL learners in a kind of process-product approach in writing and investigates the possible effects of teachers’ direct and indirect corrective feedback in four English language institutes in Isfahan, Iran. Four groups of intermediate students participated as a case in this study. The total number of participants was 120 female EFL learners selected based on a convenient non-random sampling method but randomly divided into four experimental groups. In the first group, the product-based approach was used to teach writing, and the learners received direct corrective feedback. In the second group, again product-based approach was used to teach writing, and the learners received indirect corrective feedback. In the third group, the writing was taught using a process-based approach, and the learners received direct corrective feedback, and in the last group, the learners received indirect feedback in process-based writing. The writing performance of the students in all four groups was compared in terms of accuracy. ANOVA and Post-hoc tests revealed that the process-based approach through which direct feedback was provided was more effective than other teaching writing approaches.

scholarly journals TEACHING SPEAKING: EXPLORING METHOD OF TEACHING AND ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN EFL LEARNERS’ CLASSROOM

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Aldha Williyan
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Group Work ◽  
Role Play ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Communicative Language Teaching ◽  
English Teacher ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
Pair Work ◽  
Vast Area

This study investigates teaching speaking in EFL learners' classroom as teaching speaking is a vast area of research.  This study, however, limits the focus to types of methods and oral corrective feedback.  This study involves two groups of participants, namely a group of EFL learners and an English teacher.  This qualitative study employs observation.  Afterward, the unstructured interview with the English teacher is conducted to give further data.  Through the observation, it is found that the teacher does some particular activities in teaching speaking.  The lesson is opened by group work and the teacher conducts a dialogue and chain drill.  The lesson eventually is closed by pair work and role play.  The analysis shows that the teacher uses several methods in doing those five activities.  Those are communicative language teaching, audio-lingual method, and cooperative language learning.  From those three, the audio-lingual method dominates the class activities. Additionally, this study finds that the teacher employs several types of oral corrective feedback.  Those are recast, explicit correction, clarification requests, and elicitation. These findings indicate that there is a relationship between methods and oral corrective feedbacks used by the teacher.

The Effect of Immediate vs. Delayed Oral Corrective Feedback on the Writing Accuracy of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 1780
Author(s):  
Hasti Yasaei
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Writing Accuracy ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Experimental Group

This research used the quasi-experimental design to investigate the effects of immediate vs. delayed oral corrective feedback (CF) on the writing accuracy of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. A Nelson English Language Test (section 200 A) was used to homogenize three classes, two of which then were randomly assigned to experimental group and one to control group. During the treatment, the experimental group 1 received immediate oral CF through a face-to-face negotiation between the teacher and each individual after an error was made by a learner. The experimental group 2 received delayed oral CF in which learners received oral CF some time after an error was made by a learner. The control group received direct correction. After a 16-session treatment, the results of the post-test indicated a significant difference between the three groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document