Journal of new advances in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics

Journal of new advances in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics

Iranian EFL Teachers' and Learners' Cognition on Corrective Feedback on Speaking

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
English Department, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch
10.22034/jeltal.2021.3.2.1
Abstract
The term corrective feedback is an imperative part of foreign language teaching and frequent practice in the field of learning and achievement. The present study aimed at investigating Iranian EFL teachers' and learners' cognition on corrective feedback on speaking skill covering the necessity, timing, agents of error correction, different types of feedback including recast, clarification request, elicitation, metalinguistic cue, direct correction, repetition, and the types of error that need to be corrected. The study was a quantitative, non-experimental descriptive design conducted at Iran-e-ma and Pendar Language Institutes in Isfahan, Iran during 2020. The participants were 25 non-native English-speaking female teachers and 60 EFL learners. The instruments of the study were questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data and come up with the findings of the study. In terms of feedback type, explicit and delayed corrective feedbacks were the most favoured error-correction forms and teacher-correction, serious and frequent errors were more preferred to be corrected by the teachers. Moreover, significant differences were observed between male and female learners regarding their cognition on feedback. This study could benefit learners, teacher educators, curriculum designers, and teachers in their reflective practice.
Keywords

Abbasi, M., & Karimnia, A. (2011). An analysis of grammatical errors among Iranian translation students: Insights from interlanguage theory. European Journal of Social Sciences, 25(4), 525-536.
Allwright, R., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alahdadi, S., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The dynamic interplay among EFL learners’ ambiguity tolerance, adaptability, cultural intelligence, learning approach, and language achievement. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 37-50.
Boyerhassani, J., Chalak, A. Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2020). Probing into the effect of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated peer feedback practices on IELTS learners’/peers’ provided comments. International Journal of Future Generation Communication and Networking, 13(4), 1234–1245.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chunhong, Z., & Griffiths, C. (2012). Quantitative and qualitative perspectives on individual differences in error correction preferences. In M. Pawlak (ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 305-317). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Demir, Y., & Özmen, K. (2017). Exploring native and non-native EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback practices: An observational study. Brock Education Journal, (pp. 111-129). doi: 10.26522/brocked.v26i2.609
Fukuda, Y. (2004). Treatment of spoken errors in Japanese high school oral communication classes. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, San Francisco.
Grami, M, A. (2005). The effect of teachers' written feedback on ESL students' writing: A study on a Saudi ESL University-level context. Language Teaching, 2, 9-22.
Hosseini, B. A., Ghonsooly, B., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). Self-fulfillment in higher education: contributions from mastery goal, intrinsic motivation, and assertions. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,. DOI 10.1007/ s40299-017-0338-1.
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398.
Khaki, M. & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2021). Assessing the effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback in process-based vs product-based instruction on learners’ writing. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 21, 35-53.
Khorshidi, E., & Rassaei, E. (2013). The effects of learners’ gender on their preferences for corrective feedback. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English,14, 71-83.
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2012). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 74-93. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2012.705571.
Lee, E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217–230.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
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.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302.
Mohseni, A., & Edalat, P. L. (2012). Iranian EFL learners and their teachers’ preferences for oral error correction. Journal of Language and Translation, 3(1), 9-16.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 407-453). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
Park, H. S. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction. [Unpublished Ph.D Thesis]. California State University.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on 'noticing the gap': Normative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
Roothooft, H. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: A comparison of secondary and adult education. Filologíay Didáctica de la Lengua, 18, 151-176.
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Sheen, Y. H. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300. doi: 10.1191/1362168804lrl46oa.
Yoshida, R. (2008a). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525-541.
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293-314. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01022.x
Zhai, K., & Gao, X. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL speaking task complexity in China's university classroom. Cogent Education Curriculum & Teaching Studies, http://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2018.1485472
Zhang, L.J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective Feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429-439.
Zarei, N. (2011). The relationship between gender and corrective feedback. Online Journal of ICT for Language Learning, 5, 11.
 
 
Volume 3, Issue 2
September 2021
Pages 563-578

  • Receive Date 15 June 2021
  • Revise Date 10 August 2021
  • Accept Date 17 August 2021