CLASSROOM RESEARCH

Students’ perceptions
about oral corrective
feedback
Thu Tran considers the usefulness of various types of feedback.

T his article reports on a study

investigating the types of oral
“One of found that learners tend to prefer
receiving oral corrective feedback
feedback students perceive as most
and least helpful. It was found that
the author’s more often than the other feedback
they receive from the teachers. One of
recasts and explicit correction were
perceived by students to be most
students heartily the author’s students heartily expressed
that he was in class for improving his
helpful whereas repetition was
reported as the least helpful type of
expressed that spoken English and he wanted to be
corrected in class rather than being
corrective feedback. Reasons the
students provided for their choices are
he was in class laughed at outside of class for making
errors. Learners’ as well as many
presented and discussed. Pedagogical
implications are suggested.
for improving his second language educators’ fear is
that if oral errors are not corrected,
spoken English they may become entrenched,
stabilised or even fossilised (for an
Oral corrective feedback
The issue of oral corrective feedback
and he wanted in-depth discussion of stabilisation and
fossilisation, see Long, 2003).
(OCF) in second language acquisition
has, as Lazaraton (2014: 110) noted,
to be corrected In search of students’ preferences
been ‘exhaustively’ researched.
However, scholars in second language
in class rather regarding OCF types, Smith (2010)
surveyed 50 students and found
acquisition have different opinions
about whether corrective feedback
than being that most of them preferred to be
individually corrected immediately
should be employed. Truscott (1999)
went as far as arguing that OCF is
laughed at when mistakes are made in class. Smith
also found that the participants seemed
not only unjustified but also has
harmful effects on learners. While
outside of class to have a preference for metalinguistic
information, explicit corrective
Truscott (1999) casted doubt on the
necessity for corrective feedback,
for making feedback and recast. In another study,
Yoshida (2008) found that the seven
other researchers (Li, 2010; Lyster &
Saito, 2010) have found empirical
errors.” learners in the study liked to be able to
self-correct. This study further explored
evidence of the effectiveness of students’ perceptions regarding
corrective feedback. Reviewing studies can improve what they have not done effectiveness of OCF.
on OCF, Lyster et al (2013) conclude well enough. In oral communication,
that offering corrective feedback offering corrective feedback is The study
is more effective than not offering challenging due to the risk of making
Participants
it. Despite the fact that there are the students feel uncomfortable and
diverging perspectives on the necessity lose face. The reality is that most Seventy-two students in an Intensive
of corrective feedback, students are students do want ‘to be corrected’ English Programme at a university
usually hungry for feedback so they (Ellis, 2008). Lyster et al (2013) also in the Midwestern United States

n Volume 27 n Issue 4 www.modernenglishteacher.com 33

CLASSROOM RESEARCH
participated in this study. The 13
countries of origin of the student
participants were as follows: China,
India, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Kuwait,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea,
Thailand, the United States, the UAE
and Yemen.
Research questions (RQs)
RQ1: What types of OCF do students
perceive as most helpful?
RQ2: What types of OCF do students
perceive as least helpful?
Instrument
The instrument used in this study was
designed using information from the
taxonomy of OCF by Lyster & Ranta
(1997). Based on the types of OCF
Lyster & Ranta provided, an example
of each type of OCF was developed
to give the participants a better
understanding of each OCF type. The
students were given a table including
three columns: one for OCF types, one
to check if each of the OCF types was
most helpful for them, and another
to check if each of the OCF types was
least helpful for them. The participants
were also asked to briefly write the
reasons for their choice in each box
that they checked.
Figure 1: Students’ perceived helpfulness of OCF types
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Recast Explicit
correction
34 www.modernenglishteacher.com n Volume 27
1. Recast (reformulating learner’s
erroneous language to make it
correct)
S: The man leave last night.
T: Oh, the man left last night.
2. Explicit correction (providing
model language and telling learner
what is wrong with his or her
language use)
S: The man leave last night.
T: You should say: ‘the man left
last night’, because last night is
in the past and the past form of
leave is left.
3. Clarification request (asking
learner to clarify and provide more
information)
S: Me brother bought a new car.
T: I am not sure if I understood you
correctly. Who bought a new car?
4. Metalinguistic feedback (using
terms such as tense and preposition
in the feedback given)
S: The president kill by the assassin.
T: Y
 ou need to use the passive voice.
5. Elicitation (asking learner a
question to help him or her provide
the correct language)
Clarification Metalinguistic
request feedback
Most helpful (%) Least helpful (%)
S: I was able to swim when I am
eleven.
T: I was able to swim when I …
(How old were you when you
were able to swim? What is the
past form of ‘am’?)
6. Repetition (repeating the
erroneous utterance)
S: I have took the test.
T: I have TOOK the test?
Findings
The OCF reported as most helpful
were recast and explicit corrective
feedback, respectively. 58% of the
student participants found recast helpful
for them. 35% of them found explicit
correction helpful. The OCF reported
as least helpful was repetition. 86%
of the student participants indicated
that repetition was the least helpful
OCF for them. Figure 1 summarises the
findings related to students’ perceived
helpfulness of OCF types.
The reasons the students gave to support
their choice that recasts were helpful for
them include: they ‘know the correct
forms and errors’; they ‘are taught quickly
and directly’; and they ‘do not feel
embarrassed’. One important finding
is that despite their limited linguistic
Elicitation Repetition
n Issue 4

repertoire the students in this study
provided many reasons to explain why
they did not find repetition a helpful way
of giving corrective feedback to them.
To support the point that repetition is not
helpful for them as a way to give OCF,
the students mentioned that repetition
seemed like mocking them. They felt
embarrassed, nervous, uncomfortable
and awful because they did not know
what was wrong with them. They did not
feel respected. They also noted that if their
teachers just repeated what they said, they
were not sure if the problem was with
their pronunciation or grammar.
Discussion
The findings of this study corroborate
Smith’s (2010) findings in that most
participants reported that recast and
explicit correction were helpful to
them. Although Smith found that the
participants in her study seemed to
prefer metalinguistic feedback, such a
preference was not confirmed in the
present study.
Although recast may typically be
viewed as an indirect or implicit way
of giving feedback, some students
in this study reported that recast
was a direct way of correcting them.
For example, one student wrote
‘it (recasts) teaches me directly’.
Another noted that ‘I can know the
error quickly and directly’. Therefore,
whether feedback is implicit or
explicit may depend on individual
n Volume 27 n Issue 4 www.modernenglishteacher.com 35
students and whether they are aware
of the feedback offered or not.
OCF has been categorised as recasts,
which include recast and explicit
correction, and prompts, which include
clarification requests, metalinguistic
feedback, elicitation and repetition.
Despite the fact that empirical
research (Lyster & Saito, 2010)
has found conflicting results when
comparing recasts and prompts, the
students in this study overwhelmingly
reported that they found recasts
(recast and explicit correction) more
helpful for them than prompts.
Finally, the students’ negative attitudes
toward repetition is supported by
Finley’s (2012) study which found that
the provision of incorrect language
samples to adult learners may hinder
their ability to acquire new grammars.
Finley suggested that it may be more
beneficial to decrease the amount of
incorrect language sample to which
adult learners are exposed. Although
Ecker et al (2017) found that repeating
the misinformation directly when
debunking it is beneficial for learners,
simply repeating the misinformation
without explicit explanation may not be
beneficial for students. One pedagogical
implication for second language teachers
could be to put more emphasis on
giving learners model language use than
showing learners what is erroneous.
Instead of repeating an error learners
CLASSROOM RESEARCH
make, teachers may simply give learners
the correct version. For those analytic
learners who wish to know what is
wrong with their language use, further
explanation may be necessary. For
example, when a student says, ‘My
friends and I go shopping this morning,’
instead of repeating the sentence with an
error related to verb tense, the teacher
may say: ‘So your friends and you went
shopping this morning.’ One potential
problem with rephrasing learners’
utterances in a correct way to help them
know the utterances should be spoken
that way is that it may be too subtle
for learners to recognise as corrective
feedback for him or her. Alternatively,
the teacher may also say, ‘You need
to use the verb to go in the past tense
because this morning is in the past.’
The vast majority of the students in
this study have a negative attitude
toward repetition and the main reason
they seem to suggest is the affective
implication of the act of repeating
students’ erroneous utterances. Students
feel uncomfortable, embarrassed and
mocked when their errors are repeated.
Krashen (1987) may be correct about
the Affective Filter hypothesis. If students
do not feel comfortable, conditions for
learning may not be optimal. When
the best intent of the teacher is to help
students improve language accuracy,
but students feel uncomfortable, awful
and mocked, the effectiveness of such
a way to help students improve their
language use may be in question.
 CLASSROOM RESEARCH
Another pedagogical implication is
based on the finding that most students
find recast and explicit correction
helpful for them. Teachers may need
to be aware of the kinds of OCF types
their students find helpful. Teachers
can conduct a survey in their own class
to find out what types of OCF types the
students may find more beneficial for
them so they may consider ways to
incorporate students’ preferences into
their practice in offering OCF.
Conclusion
Despite researchers’ inability to pinpoint
specific OCF types based on empirical
data, it is important to have an insight
into students’ perceptions regarding
effectiveness of OCF types. The study
reported on in this article suggests that
the affective aspect students have about
repetition as an OCF type is useful for
classroom teachers to be aware of and
steer clear of. If repetition is to be used,
teachers may need to bear students’
feelings in mind.   Learning, 60 (2), 309-365.
References
Baker CL (1979) Syntactic theory and the
projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10
533–581.
Ecker UKH, Hogan JL & Lewandowsky
S (2017) Reminders and repetition of
misinformation: helping or hindering its
36 www.modernenglishteacher.com n Volume 27
retraction? Journal of Applied Research in
Memory and Cognition 6 185–192. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014
Ellis R (2008) The Study of Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis R (2012) Language Teaching
Research and Language Pedagogy.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781118271643
Finley S (2012) The role of negative and
positive evidence in adult phonological
learning. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Penn
Linguistics Colloquium,Volume 18, Issue 1.
Retrieved on February 9, 2017 from http://
repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1213&context=pwpl
Krashen SD (1987) Principles and Practice in
Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY:
Prentice Hall Macmillan.
Lazaraton A (2014) Second language
speaking. In M Celce-Murcia, DM Brinton &
MA Snow (Eds) Teaching English as a Second
or Foreign Language (4th ed.; pp106–120).
Boston: National Geographic Learning/
Cengage Learning.
Li S (2010) The effectiveness of corrective
feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language
Loewen S (2012) The role of feedback. In
SM Gass & A Mackey (Eds) The Routledge
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition
(pp24–40). New York: Routledge.
Long MH (2003) Stabilization and
fossilization in interlanguage development. In
CJ Doughty & MH Long (Eds) The Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 487-535).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch16
Lyster R & Izquierdo J (2009) Prompts versus
recasts in dyadic interaction. Language
Learning 59 453–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9922.2009.00512.x
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.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster R & Ranta L (2013) Counterpoint piece:
the case for variety in corrective feedback
research. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 35 (1) 167–184. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S027226311200071X
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
Lyster R, Saito K & Sato M (2013) OCF in
second language classrooms. Language
Teaching 46 (1) 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444812000365
Smith H (2010) Correct me if I’m wrong:
investigating the preferences in error
correction among adult English language
learners. MA thesis, The University of Central
Florida. Retrieved on May 2, 2016 from
http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0003062/Smith_
Hillary_P_201005_MA.pdf
Truscott J (1999) What’s wrong with oral
grammar correction? Canadian Modern
Language Review 55 437–456. https://doi.
org/10.3138/cmlr.55.4.437
Yoshida R (2008) Teachers’ choice and
learners’ preference of corrective feedback
types. Language Awareness 17 (1) 78–93.
https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0
Thu Tran is the Program Manager of the
Intensive English Program at Missouri
University of Science and Technology,
Rolla, Missouri, USA. He received a BA
in English Linguistics and Literature
from the University of Social Sciences
and Humanities, Vietnam, an MA in
TESOL from the University of Canberra,
Australia, and a doctorate in TESOL
from Alliant International University, San
Diego, CA. His special interests include
second language vocabulary acquisition
and instruction, assessment, teacher
training, and curriculum and materials
development.
n Issue 4