Universidad Latina de Costa Rica

Orcid: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3976-8783

In recent years there has been extensive research focusing on oral corrective feedback

(OCF), a key aspect of English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) learning mostly

focused on the linguists’ and teachers’ perspective. On the other hand, very little has been

done to know the learners’ perspective. The aim of this investigation was to gather

students’ point of view of oral corrective feedback given by teachers in EFL courses at

which they like to receive feedback, which type of errors they consider should be

positive perceptions regarding the feedback received from teachers on all types of errors.

Learners expect to receive immediate CF as they consider this to be an important part of

the learning process. The participants expressed a desire to be corrected in all grammar,

vocabulary and pronunciation deviances. The preferred method of corrective feedback

was explicit correction, followed by recast and clarification; metalinguistic correction and

non-verbal cues were the least liked.

Keywords: oral corrective feedback; perception of feedback; frequency of feedback; type

investigación es recabar la opinión de estudiantes de dos universidades privadas en San

cursos de inglés como lengua extranjera que forman parte de su malla curricular. Es un

un cuestionario en línea que 160 estudiantes de cursos de inglés de los niveles 1 y 2

(A1/A2 en la clasificación CEFR) contestaron de forma voluntaria. Se les interrogó acerca

desean se les corrija, cuáles son los tipos de errores que consideran se deben de corregir

y su preferencia por el método de corrección. Los resultados obtenidos apuntan a una

The topic of feedback and error correction has been debated extensively by second

language teachers and researchers for many decades. While some schools of thought like

Behaviorism considered errors as unacceptable and recommended immediate correction,

of the natural process of acquisition, (Edge, 1989 as cited by Eyengho & Fawole, 2017,

p.46) there is also a general sense that teachers must promote good communication in

their students. There is a general perception among professors that correction might

increase anxiety and hinder students’ motivation to participate.

Most of the literature about strategies for corrective feedback is based on teachers’

and linguists’ criteria. Extensive research has examined the values of corrective

feedback, revealing that it has a positive role in L2 learners’ language development

al., 2013; Tavacoli, & Nourollah, 2018; Nassaji, 2016 as mentioned by Ha & Nguyen,

2021).

As error signaling could cause some anxiety in learners, thus increasing the

corrective feedback in an attempt to contribute to the development of their communicative

skills. The main objective of this study is to describe the attitude of EFL students and

teachers in private university classroom situations.

In 1967 Corder introduced the distinction between systematic and non-systematic

(1967 p. 167). Addressing every single error made in the classroom would be useless and

a) Grammatical (morpho-syntactic) errors, which according to Nancy Lee

and to provide immediate corrective treatment to morpho-syntactic errors.

b) Discourse errors, especially on spoken discourse, are analyzed to promote

accurate communication without undermining the learners’ confidence. So,

feedback is usually provided at the end of the speech.

c) Phonologically-induced errors are, as the term suggests, errors in

pronunciation and/or intonation. This is a sensible area where fossilization

tends to take place and where there is a risk of communication breakdown

For the purpose of this investigation, only grammatical, lexical, and phonological

There are several ways to approach corrective feedback. Corrective feedback is,

according to Yang and Lyster (2010, p 237), “a reactive type of form-focused instruction

as a pedagogical technique teachers use to draw attention to students' erroneous utterances

with the intention of modified output (cited by Lee, 2013).

Undeniably, this is a complex phenomenon that serves several functions (Chaudron,

1988; cited by Tavacoli & Nourollah, 2018). The most evident one is showing the

learners either that their utterance has been misunderstood by the teacher or that the

blank”; 2) teachers use questions to elicit correct forms (e.g., “how do you say…?”), and

correction is repetition which refers to the instructors’ repetition of the erroneous

utterance, usually adjusting their intonation so as to highlight the error. Finally, there is

metalinguistic feedback; it contains either comments, information, or questions related to

the correctness of the student’s utterance, without explicitly giving the correct form.

Metalinguistic information generally provides either some grammatical metalanguage

that refers to the nature of the error (e.g., “An adjective is needed”) or a word definition

in the case of lexical errors. In addition to the preceding six feedback types, the authors

word. Many times, professors just shake their heads or signal a no with their fingers, or

Attitude, according to Dr. Pickens (2020), “is a mind-set or a tendency to act in a

attitudes are described as positive or negative towards an issue. Attitude surveys are

frequency (“never–very often”) response formats (Pickens, 2020).

On the other hand, Pickens considered that perception is closely related to attitude

which, as explained by Lindsay and Norman (1977), is “a process by which organisms

corrected error type.

Hartono et al. (2022) developed a study focused on the students’ psychological

problems after receiving teachers’ oral corrective feedback, and psychological problems

participants were 25 students registered in public speaking class of English Department.

to high uptake and repair rate. On the other hand, elicitation, and clarification requests in

regarding their choice of oral corrective feedback forms, such as recasts, elicitations, and

metalinguistic feedback in foreign language contexts. The study investigated 207 Saudi

teachers’ perceptions of OCF, including 100 classroom observations, and 100 stimulated

recall (SR) sessions with 10 teachers to further investigate their choices of, and

motivations for, particular types of OCF, with reference to their learners’ uptake. The

findings demonstrated that the teachers consider recasts to be the most effective method

of correction for their students’ learning, especially in the case of pronunciation errors.

The authors concluded by offering insights into some challenges that teachers in FL

contexts might face and suggests some possible implications for teachers’ practice in

these contexts.

positive attitudes towards receiving CF. Nonetheless, they perceived elicitation as the

Youssef, (2019) conducted an action research as a thesis at Cardiff Metropolitan

phase, data collected indicated that both teachers and learners considered the role of OCF

as a valuable component of classroom interaction. However, most students referred to

past experiences as lacking OCF or cited negative affective effects concerning how

feedback was provided by their teachers. In the five teachers, various degrees of

incongruency between beliefs and practices were found. In addition, there was an

apparent lack of familiarity with OCF techniques, especially among the less experienced

teachers. Analysis of the post-intervention indicated a more positive outlook on students’

part concerning their teachers’ approach to the correction of oral errors. Findings

highlight the importance of focusing on OCF training and suggest potential benefits for

incorporating this training component in teacher development programs.

Department of Lambung Mangkurat University in 2015 who were taking Speaking I

of the oral communication?

all types of errors including fluency and accuracy errors” (p. 63). Similar results were

lenient about local errors. But from the learners’ perspective it appears that they consider

grammar, lexicon, and phonology as equally important. This is consistent with Oladejo’s

research (1993); English as a second language (ESL) students at both high school and

university levels in Singapore preferred comprehensive, not selective errors to be

corrected to enhance their language accuracy. Later Katayama's (2007) study revealed

and found that they valued the errors influencing communication the most, followed by

frequent errors (Lee, 2013 p. 2). Ha and Nguyen (2021) reported that “when asked if less

investigation explicit correction and recast were the most accepted. Similarly, Alamri and

use nonverbal communication could consider combining the use of gestures with other

according to learners' cultural backgrounds, previous and current language learning

experiences, or proficiency levels.

phonology should be attended with equal attention. Regarding their preferences towards

followed by recast and clarification, indicating that learners at this level (beginners) seem

error indication. Understandably, students will react more positively to clear indications

of errors which do not leave room for doubt or confusion.

Abarca Amador, Y. (2008). Learner attitudes toward error correction in a beginners

English class. Revista Comunicación, 17(1), 18-28.

Alamri, B. & Fawzi, H. (2016) Students’ Preferences and Attitude toward Oral Error

Language Teaching, 9(11), 59-65.

Lambung Mangkurat University Academic Year 2015/2016. Theory and Practice

Techniques Employed by Secondary School Language Teachers in South Western

Nigeria. Journal of Social Science for Policy Implications, 5(1), 46-51.

https://doi.org/10.15640/jsspi.v5n1a5

Gutiérrez, A., Arancibia, C., Bustos, C., Mora, F., Santibáñez, X., & Flores, M. (2020).

Communicative Approach English Courses from an EFL Pedagogy Program at a

Private University. Lenguas Modernas, 56, 9-26.

Aligned? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 697160.

Martakush, A. K. (2020). The Role of Corrective Feedback and Individual Differences in

Milla Melero, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in oral interaction: A comparison of a

CLIL and an EFL classroom. [Master Thesis, Universidad País Vasco].

Oladejo J. (1993) Error correction in ESL Learners` preferences. TESL Canada Journal

Pickens, J. (2020). Attitudes and Perceptions. In N. Borkowski & K. A. Meese (Eds.),

Organizational behavior in health care. Jones & Bartlett Learning (pp.45-70).

Rashidi, N., & Majdeddin, M. (2023). The Role of Mediational Discourse in Developing

Perspective. The Qualitative Report, 28(3), 784-815.

https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.5463

Language Teaching, 12(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.12.1.18365