EFL Learners’ Preferences and Emotions about Oral Corrective Feedback at Secondary Education in Turkey: Are There Gender and Grade-level Differences?

Burçak Yılmaz Yakışık

Abstract


Oral corrective feedback has attracted the attention of EFL teachers and researchers in recent decades. The current study aims to investigate EFL learners’ preferences and emotions about oral corrective feedback with a specific focus on gender and grade level at secondary education in Turkey. Quantitative research methods were used to reveal the findings.  664 EFL learners participated in the study at two different state high schools in Ankara, Turkey.  Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to investigate the OCF preferences of EFL high school learners. It was revealed that more than half of the high school EFL learners worried about making mistakes in the classroom; however, the majority of the learners agreed on the necessity of receiving OCF and they had positive feelings for being given immediate feedback by their teachers. Regardless of gender and grade level, EFL learners had a higher preference for ‘self-correction’. Females preferred ‘metalinguistic clues’ as the first choice and ‘peer correction’ as the last choice among the OCF types whereas males prefer ‘peer correction’ as the first, but ‘metalinguistic clues’ as the last choice. Among the grade levels, 10th-grade level learners have more concerns about making mistakes and these learners prefer ‘clarification request’ and ‘repetition of error’ a lot more than the 9th-grade level learners.

Keywords


foreign language teaching, gender, high school learners, oral corrective feedback

Full Text:

Download PDF

References


Agudo, M., & de Dios, J. (2013). An investigation into how EFL learners emotionally respond to teachers’ oral corrective feedback. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(2), 265-278. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.

Amalia, Z. D. H., Fauziati, E., & Marmanto, S. (2019). Male and female students’ preferences towards the oral corrective feedback in English as Foreign Language (EFL) speaking classroom. Humaniora, 10(1), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v9i1.1047

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

Comps, J. (2003). The analysis of oral self-correction as a window into the development of past time reference in Spanish. Foreign language Annals, 36(2), 233-257.

Elçin, Ö., & Öztürk, G. (2016). Types and timing of oral corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Voices from students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 10(2), 113-133.

Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.

Ellis, R., Bastürkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.

Fadilah, A.I., Anugerahwati, M., Prayogo, J.A. (2017). EFL students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in speaking instruction, Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 5 (2), 76-87.

Fidan, D. (2015). Learners’ preferences of oral corrective feedback: An example of Turkish as foreign language learners. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(9), 1311-1317.

Fitriana, R., Suhatmady, B., & Setiawan, I. (2015). Students’ preference toward corrective feedback on students’ oral production. Script Journal, 1(1), 46-60.

Fukuda, Y. (2004). Treatment of spoken errors in japanese high school oral communication classes. (unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, San Francisco, USA.

Geçkin, V. (2020). Do gender differences affect foreign language anxiety and preferences for oral corrective feedback? Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 13(3), 591-608

Gregorc, A. F. (1985). An adult’s guide to style (2nd. ed.). Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates Inc.

Hassan, A., & Yalçın-Arslan, F. (2018). A comparative study on Iraqi EFL teachers’ and learners’ preferences of corrective feedback in oral communication. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education 7 (3), 765-785.

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for international feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43 (1), 74-93.

Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 200-215.

Katayama, A. (2007). Students’ perceptions toward corrective feedback to oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289-305.

Katayama, A. (2006). Perception of JFL students toward correction of oral errors. In K. Bradford-Watts, C. Ikeguchi, & M. Swanson (Eds). JALT2005 conference proceedings, Tokyo: JALT.

Kazemi, R., Araghi, S. M., & Davatgari, H. (2013). Iranian EFL learners’ preferences toward classroom oral error correction: With a main focus on their proficiency level. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 1996-2003.

Khorshidi, E., & Rassaei, E. (2013). The effects of learners’ gender on their preferences for corrective feedback. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 1(4), 71-83.

Lin, Y.H., & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46, 567-611.

Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: how it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching, International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271-283.

Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536-556.

Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265-301.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through context: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2012). Counterpoint piece: the case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in second Language Acquisition, 35 (1), 167-184.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 338-356.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in second Language Acquisition,22, 471-497.

Morris, F. A. (2002). Negotiation moves and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 35(4), 395-404.

Park, G. (2010). Preference of corrective feedback approaches perceived by native English teachers and students. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(4), 29-52.

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speaers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NSS interaction. Studies in second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.

Rahimi, A., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). Impact of immediate and delayed error correction on EFL learners’ oral production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 3(1), 45-54.

Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L.J. (2014). The role of incidental unfocused prompts and recasts in improving EFL learners’ accuracy. Language Learning Journal, 42, 67-87.

Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students' oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141-160). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003

Russel, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6, 21-31.

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300.

Shoaei, H., & Kafipour, R. (2016). The effect of gender, experience, context and proficiency on teachers’ and learners’ perception of corrective feedback. International Journal of English and Education, 5(3), 38-54.

Sopin, G. (2015). Perceptions and preferences of ESL students regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback in Libyan secondary schools. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(4), 71-77.

Sunderland, J. (2010). Theorizing gender perspectives in foreign and second language learning. In R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Ed.), Gender perspectives on vocabulary in foreign and second languages, 1-22. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Ünsal-Şakiroglu, H. (2020). Oral corrective feedback preferences of university students in English communication classes. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 172- 178.

Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London and N.Y.: Longman.

Yang, J. (2016). Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error, System, 61, 75-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2016.08.004

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17, 78-94.

Zhang, L, J. & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429-439.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v6i1.889

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Creative Commons License
IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics) by http://ijeltal.org is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


 

Abstracting and Indexing

                     



Contact Us: IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics;

Address: Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, State Islamic University Sultan Aji Muhammad Idris Samarinda

Jl. H.A.M. Rifadin, Samarinda, Kalimantan Timur, Indonesia. Email: ijeltalj@gmail.com