System 42 (2014) 429–439

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective

feedback in oral communication classes
Lawrence Jun Zhang*, Muhammad Rahimi
School of Curriculum & Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Symonds Street, Auckland 1150,
New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study aimed at examining the differences in high-anxiety and low-anxiety learners’
Received 22 September 2013 beliefs about corrective feedback (henceforth, CF) when they were made aware of the
Received in revised form 13 January 2014 purpose, significance, and types of CF. The differences were sought with regard to the
Accepted 13 January 2014
necessity, frequency, and timing of CF, types of errors, types of CF, and choice of correctors.
One hundred and sixty Iranian EFL learners in three language institutes in the centre of
Keywords:
Iran participated in the study. The learners were assigned to either a high-anxiety group
Anxiety
(N ¼ 80) or a low-anxiety group (N ¼ 80) according to their score on the Foreign Language
Oral communication
Corrective feedback
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). Data from FLCAS and CF questionnaires showed that the
SLA observed differences between the two groups were not significant. All in all, the results
EFL learners indicated that regardless of their anxiety level both groups had similar beliefs about CF and
Teacher beliefs strongly favoured receiving frequent CF in English oral communication classes when they
ELT pedagogy were made aware of the purpose, significance, and types of CF as suggested by Ellis (2009).
Pedagogical implications for providing CF are also discussed.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Meaning-focused and form-focused teaching approaches are two of the most common language teaching approaches. The
former is a communicative approach to language teaching which emphasises that language is acquired through communi-
cation and negotiation of meaning rather than through explicit teaching of forms. This approach gives less importance to
accuracy/correctness and focuses on the effectiveness of negotiation of meaning and communication. On the other hand, the
latter approach, form-focused instruction is based on drawing learners’ attention to specific forms or providing opportunities
to practise specific linguistic forms in mainly communicative contexts (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, 2012; Rahimi &
Zhang, 2014). One of the highly controversial issues which have originated from the two perspectives to second language
acquisition (SLA) is the role of corrective feedback (CF). CF constitutes a reaction to learners’ incorrect linguistic form in order
to help them notice their incorrect utterance and correct it. Several hierarchical taxonomies of CF have been developed by
researchers and the main controversies regarding CF centres on the effectiveness of CF, types of CF, types of errors to correct,
timing of CF and choice of corrector (see Ellis, 2009 for taxonomies, definitions, and examples of CF types and elaborate
discussion of controversies concerning CF).
Meaning-focused approach advocates (e.g., Krashen, 1982, 1985) believe that sufficient exposure to comprehensible inputs
(positive evidence) of a second language (L2) will ultimately lead to acquisition of L2 and they advise against the teaching of
grammar and negative evidence, including CF (e.g., explicit correction of errors). On the other hand, form-focused instruction

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ64 9 6238899x48750 (office), þ64 221633268 (mobile); fax: þ64 9 623 8898.
E-mail addresses: lj.zhang@auckland.ac.nz, larry.jzhang@gmail.com (L.J. Zhang).

0346-251X/$ – see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.012
430 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439

proponents (e.g., Ellis, 1993, 2006, 2008, 2009; Erlam, 2008; Rahimi & Zhang, 2014; Shegar, Zhang, & Low, 2013) argue that L2
learners need to notice the gap between their interlanguage and target language; they recommend using priming techniques,
including providing negative feedback to help learners consciously notice the gap between their still developing language and
the target form, which is believed to be a necessary first step for developing learners’ interlanguage (Schmidt, 1994). Although
learners may learn a great deal of L2 through exposure to positive evidence (e.g., comprehensible input; Krashen, 1998) in
meaning-focused language classes, learners’ fluency typically develops at the expense of low level of accuracy (Harley & Swain,
1984; Lightbown & Spada, 1990). On the other hand, scholars in support of form-focused instruction advise drawing the
learners’ conscious attention to form in mainly communicative-oriented classrooms when it is required by the communicative
demands of the task in which learners are engaged. In other words, this approach advises providing feedback on errors when
learners are not able to notice the gap between their interlanguage form and the target language form by mere exposure to
meaningful input. Furthermore, the findings of many studies have revealed that providing learners with corrective feedback
can help them to acquire target forms (Ammar & Spada, 2006; Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; Lyster,
2004; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Rahimi & Zhang, 2014; Sheen, 2010; Shegar et al., 2013; Yang & Lyster, 2010; also, see Li, 2013,
for a meta-synthesis). Additionally, one of the factors which are reported to determine the effectiveness of CF is learners’ in-
dividual attributes such as self-efficacy, anxiety and beliefs about CF (Ellis, 2010) because, despite the provision of CF, learners’
individual attributes may hinder their attending to and/or uptaking of CF and acquiring correct forms. Therefore, under-
standing the role of anxiety as one of the important individual attributes in learners’ CF beliefs, which might hinder or facilitate
learners’ attending to and/or uptake of CF, can be an important step in improving the effectiveness of CF in helping learners to
promote their language learning (Li, 2013; Sheen, 2011).

2. CF and anxiety

Krashen (1982, 1985) considered anxiety as debilitative and argued that CF is potentially detrimental to L2 learning as it can
increase L2 anxiety, raise affective filters, hinder ability to process comprehensible input and consequently decrease L2 learning
ability. Additionally, Krashen (1998) noted that oral communication is the most anxiety-provoking classroom activity and
argued that “pushed output” (e.g., pushing learners to produce correct target form by given them CF) hinders acquisition as it
provokes anxiety in learners, raises the affective filter and inhibits L2 learning. Like other instructional techniques, CF can be
anxiety-provoking in oral communication classes if learners are not made aware of purpose of CF in improving their language
learning (Swain & Lapkin,1995). However, if both learners and teachers know what they are doing and what the purpose of CF is
(Ellis, 2009), it is likely that it may have a positive effect on learners’ CF belief, lower their anxiety level and thereby facilitate L2
learning. For this reason, examining the role of raising L2 learners’ awareness of CF purpose in their CF beliefs is a significant
endeavour.

3. Anxiety and L2 learning

An increasing body of research has been allocated to investigating learners’ self-reported anxiety with regard to L2
learning. However, as noted by Gardner, Smythe, and Lalonde (1984), Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) and Scovel (1978),
contradictory results of the studies conducted in the 1970s (e.g., Chastain, 1975; Swain & Burnaby, 1976, pp. 115–128) made
their interpretation difficult. Many researchers (e.g., Horwtiz, Horwtiz, & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Zhang,
2000, 2001) attributed these contradictory findings in part to general measures of anxiety and to the inadequate con-
ceptualisations of L2 anxiety, which did not take into account the specific nature and context of L2 learning.
To address the discrepancy noted above in findings, during the mid-1980s, a situation-specific L2 anxiety was adopted and
conceptualised as a unique form of anxiety which emerges in response to L2 learning rather than an indication of more general
types of anxiety (Horwtiz et al., 1986; Gardner, 1985; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991a). Further, L2 anxiety was defined by Gardner and
MacIntyre (1993, p. 5) as a stable personality trait “as the apprehension experienced when a situation requires the use of a second
language with which the individual is not fully proficient”. As a result of following the situation-specific approach, several anxiety
measures, including Gardner and his colleagues’ French Class Anxiety Scale and French Use Anxiety Scale (MacIntyre & Gardner,
1988), and Horwtiz et al.’s (1986) Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale were developed (see also Sparks & Patton, 2013).
With conceptualisation of language anxiety as a situation-specific anxiety and subsequent developments in measurement,
many correlation studies collectively revealed the negative role of anxiety in L2 performance (e.g., Aida, 1994; Cheng, 1994;
Cheng, Horwitz, & Schallert, 1999; Gardner, Lalonde, Moorcraft, & Evers, 1987; Horwtiz, 1986; Phillips, 1992; Rahimi & Zhang,
2014; Truitt, 1995; Trylong, 1987; Wu, 1994; Ying, 1993; Young, 1986; Zhang, 2001). Moreover, several experimental studies in
a controlled environment substantiated the negative impact of L2 anxiety on the processes of L2 learning (MacIntyre &
Gardner, 1991b, 1994a,b). Because the negative impact of anxiety in L2 acquisition is substantiated, it is important to help
learners to manage and reduce their L2 anxiety.
In order to reduce second language anxiety, Young (1991) identified six possible sources of second language anxiety: (1)
personal and interpersonal issues, (2) instructor–learner interactions, (3) classroom procedures, (4) language testing, (5)
instructor beliefs about language learning, and (6) learner beliefs about language learning. Among these factors, learner beliefs
seem to be the most important to consider because they are more likely to be susceptible to teacher invention (Horwtiz, 1987)
and be accessible to change by learners (Truitt, 1995); such change can happen through teachers’ metacognitive instruction or
learners’ metacognitive self-regulation (Zhang, 2010). Moreover, theory and research in cognitive and educational psychology
 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439 431

have substantiated the relative importance of beliefs in learners’ experience of anxiety. An association between anxiety and
beliefs have been identified in such areas as values (Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Pekrun, 1992),
attributions (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Goldberg, 1983; Sarason & Sarason, 1990; Turk & Sarason, 1983; Weiner, 1986), and self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1986; Cooper & Robinsons, 1991; Hackett, 1985; Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).
Although a multitude of studies has demonstrated the relationship between anxiety and beliefs as noted above, the role of
learners’ anxiety in learners’ CF belief which is reported to influence the effectiveness of CF (Sheen, 2008) and learners’
engagement with CF (Ellis, 2010) is an under-researched area. Further, many studies have investigated the impact of different
CF types on L2 accuracy and findings are in favour of providing CF and explicit feedback is reported to be more facilitative to L2
accuracy than implicit ones (e.g., Rahimi & Zhang, 2014; see also Long, 1996; Shegar, Zhang, & Low, 2013), but research into the
role of learners’ attributes in their CF belief, which might hinder or facilitate the effectiveness of CF, is scant. For this reason, this
study examines the role of learners’ anxiety in their beliefs about CF when they are made aware of the purpose of CF by
implementing the Foreign Language Anxiety Scale and the CF Beliefs Questionnaire. Specifically, this study is an attempt to
answer the following research questions:

1. In a comparison of learners in a high-anxiety group and learners in a low-anxiety group, are there any differences in their
beliefs about the provision of CF?
2. In a comparison of learners in a high-anxiety group and learners in a low-anxiety group, are there any differences in their
beliefs about the appropriate time of providing CF?
3. In a comparison of learners in a high-anxiety group and learners in a low-anxiety group, are there any differences in their
beliefs about the types of CF?
4. In a comparison of learners in a high-anxiety group and learners in a low-anxiety group, are there any differences in their
beliefs about the types of errors that should be corrected?
5. In a comparison of learners in a high-anxiety group and learners in a low-anxiety group, are there any differences in their
beliefs about the choice of correctors?

4. Method

4.1. Participants

The participants were 160 (80 male, and 80 female) Persian EFL learners enrolled for an intermediate English oral
communication course at three language institutes in Iran. The students majored in natural and applied sciences, including
Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Physics, Physical Education, Economics, Music, and Fine Arts at university. The ages of the
participants ranged from 18 to 23. They were chosen according to their responses to FLCAS. Based upon their responses the
learners were classified as having low or high anxiety using the total mean score (M ¼ 82.12 out of 165) and standard de-
viation (SD ¼ 21.01) for the whole sample (N ¼ 197). Learners (N ¼ 80) who scored more than one standard deviation above
the mean were classified as “high anxiety” (M ¼ 114.88, SD ¼ 8.26) and learners who scored more than one standard deviation
below the mean (N ¼ 80) were classified as “low anxiety” (M ¼ 54.01, SD ¼ 7.02). Those learners (N ¼ 37) whose score fell
within one standard deviation of the mean were not included in the analysis. An independent-samples t-test revealed that the
difference between two groups’ anxiety score was statistically significant t(158) ¼ 50.18, p ¼ .000.

4.2. Instruments

The researchers adapted and used two questionnaires: Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale and Corrective Feedback
Belief Scale (CBFS) (Fukuda, 2004) and a background demographic questionnaire (Appendix A). The FLCAS is a 33-item in-
strument adapted from Horwtiz, Horwtiz, and Cope’s (1986) Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale, which assesses the
degree to which learners feel anxious about learning during English class (Appendix B). Both of the instruments were scored
on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” (5 points) to “strongly disagree” (1 point). After the scores of the
negatively worded items in each of the scales were reversed, a higher score on the FLCAS corresponds to more English class
anxiety. The FLCAS has been successfully used in different contexts (e.g., Arnaiz & Guillén, 2012; Horwtiz, 1986; Liu, 2009;
Rahimi & Zhang, 2014; Zhang, 2000, 2001). Alpha reliabilities for the FLCAS and CBFS in the present study were .91 and
.86, respectively, indicating acceptable internal consistency for the instruments (DeVellis, 1991).

4.3. Procedure

The study consisted of three phases: (1) FLCAS phase (2) CFCRT phase (3) CFBS phase. Prior to conducting the research,
consent from administrators of the institutes was obtained and all students were informed that participation in the study was
voluntary.
Before starting the CFCRT phase, all groups of the students were given FLCAS in order to assess their anxiety level in oral
communication classes (Appendixes A and B). Then 80 learners were assigned to the high-anxiety group and 80 others to the
low-anxiety group according to their scores on the FLCAS.
432 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439

Table 1
High-/low-anxiety group responses to the necessity of CF.

Groups N Mean SD t-value p

HA 80 3.75 0.910 0.5123 >0.05
LA 80 4.50 0.512

After the CFCRT phase, all students participated in 24 90-min oral communication classes (two sessions per week). All
groups were taught by the same instructor (one of the researchers). The teaching sessions took place in summer (the longest
break for school and university students, some of whom typically took English oral communication classes in private language
institutes). All groups received the same instruction. The CFCRT phase followed the following steps: (1) Explanation of error and
its role in interlanguage development; (2) Explanation of CF types; (3) Explanation of the purpose of CF; (4) Explanation of the
significance of CF in interlanguage development; (5) Explanation of timing of CF; and (6) Explanation of choice of correctors.
At the second half of the first session, the learners were introduced to types of CF and errors. The teacher explained what
they were and gave examples. Also he told them about the benefits of CF and its effects on improving the oral communication
of language learners. Then, the teacher explained that making errors is a natural part of their learning process, that it is the
sign of learning, that they should not be embarrassed because of their errors, that without making errors learning will
typically not occur, and that the purpose of CF is to help them understand their errors, learn the correct forms, and promote
their language learning. Following this, the teacher explained immediate and delayed CF and also the choice of correctors
(peer correction, self-correction, and teacher correction) to the learners. The teacher did not argue for or against CF types, CF
timing, choice of correctors, or types of errors; however, as it is clear from the above, he did argue for the necessity of error
correction and its benefits to learners’ language learning. To assess delayed effects of CFCRT, learners completed the CFBS in
the second half of the fifth session.

5. Results

According to the language anxiety scores, participants were assigned to the high-anxiety (HA) group (N ¼ 80) or the low-
anxiety (LA) group (N ¼ 80) respectively. In the following sections, participants’ responses are reported with regard to their
beliefs about CF.

5.1. Necessity of CF

As regards the responses of the high- and low-anxiety groups to the necessity of error correction, 91% of the students in the
high- and 90% of the students in the low-anxiety groups responded “strongly agree” or “agree” on Question 1. As displayed in
Table 1, there was no significant difference between the high- and low-anxiety groups’ beliefs about the necessity of CF. The
results clearly indicate that the students in both groups, regardless of their level of anxiety in oral communication classes,
were in favour of receiving CF. This result can be safely attributed to learners’ awareness of the purpose of the CF. As Ellis
(2009) argues, to enhance the effectiveness of CF, both teachers and learners should be aware of the purpose of the CF. In
other words, by raising learners’ awareness of the purpose of the CF, the inhibitive role of anxiety can be reduced at least as
regards CF beliefs, as the findings of this study show.

5.2. Frequency of CF

As far as the responses of the high- and the low-anxiety groups to frequency of CF are concerned, 86% of the low-anxiety
group and 84% of the high-anxiety group wanted their errors to be usually corrected. Therefore, regardless of their level of
anxiety, both groups were in favour of receiving CF frequently. As illustrated in Table 2, there was no statistically significant
difference between the two groups. The responses of learners with regard to the second question are in line with their re-
sponses to the first question and clearly indicate that the level of anxiety did not affect learners’ CF beliefs when they were
made aware of the purpose of the CF.

5.3. Timing of CF

As for the high- and the low-anxiety groups’ mean responses on the timing of CF, “Immediate CF” received the highest
mean from the high-anxiety group (M ¼ 4.11) and the low-anxiety group (M ¼ 4.45), “After the student finishes speaking”
received the second highest mean from the high-anxiety group (M ¼ 3.43) and the low-anxiety group (M ¼ 3.54), and “At the

Table 2
High-/low-anxiety group responses to the frequency of CF.

Groups N Mean SD t-value p

HA 80 4.50 0.70 0.412 >0.05
LA 80 4.30 0.65
 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439 433

Table 3
High-/low-anxiety group responses to the timing of CF.

Timing of feedback HA mean score SD LA mean score SD t-value p

Immediate CF 4.11 0.94 4.45 0.98 0.89 >0.05
CF after students finish talking 3.43 1.07 3.54 1.03 0.75 >0.05
CF after the activity 3.23 0.94 3.12 0.91 0.49 >0.05
CF at the conclusion of class 3.11 0.89 2.92 1.05 0.93 >0.05

conclusion of class” received the lowest mean from the high-anxiety group (M ¼ 3.11) and the low-anxiety group (M ¼ 2.92).
As illustrated in Table 3, there were no significant differences between the two groups’ responses about the appropriate
timing of CF. These findings show that participants in the two groups favoured immediate rather than delayed CF.

5.4. Types of errors to correct

“Serious spoken errors that may cause problems in a listener’s understanding” gained the highest mean regardless of
learners’ anxiety levels in two groups: HA (M ¼ 4.43) and LA (M ¼ 4.21). “Frequent errors” and “individual errors” gained the
second highest mean and “Infrequent errors” had the lowest mean from both the high- and low-anxiety groups.
As illustrated in Table 4, there were no significant differences between the two groups’ responses to the types of errors that
should be corrected. The results revealed that participants in the two groups believed that “Serious spoken errors that may
cause problems in a listener’s understanding” were the most important and “Infrequent errors” were the least important
errors to be corrected. The two groups’ responses to “types of errors that should be corrected” reveal that the most important
concern of learners is communicating what they mean; therefore, special attention should be given to those errors which
hinder communication of meaning in oral communication classes.

5.5. Methods of CF

As Table 5 illustrates, there were no significant differences in the beliefs of the high- and low-anxiety groups about the
methods of CF. The learners in both groups rated explicit feedback (HA: M ¼ 4.26 and LA: M ¼ 4.21) and metalinguistic
feedback (HA: M ¼ 4.20 and LA: M ¼ 4.15) as the most effective types of CF and elicitation, recast, repetition and clarification
request as the second most effective types, no CF was the least favoured method by two groups (HA: M ¼ 1.95 and LA:
M ¼ 1.82).

5.6. Choice of correctors

Table 6 shows the responses of the high-anxiety and the low-anxiety groups to the choice of correctors. Regardless of
learners’ level of anxiety, teachers’ CF was the most highly valued by both groups; their classmates CF had the second highest
mean; and self-correction was the least favoured CF. As illustrated in Table 6, there were no statistically significant differences
between the two groups’ beliefs about the choice of correctors.

6. Discussion

The results show that both high- and low-anxiety groups, regardless of their anxiety level, strongly supported provision of
corrective feedback as evidenced by their responses to the necessity of feedback (M ¼ 3.75 and M ¼ 4.50 for HA and LA groups,
respectively). Results also show that both groups believed that their learning was more effective when their errors were
corrected frequently as it was reflected in their responses to frequency of CF (M ¼ 4.50 and M ¼ 4.30 for HA and LA groups,
respectively). They generally believed that their errors should be corrected immediately (M ¼ 4. 11 and M ¼ 4. 45 for HA and LA
groups, respectively) and they ranked errors which caused problems in conveying meaning as the most important errors to be
corrected (M ¼ 4.43 and M ¼ 4.21 for HA and LA groups, respectively); they favoured explicit feedback as the most facilitative
in promoting their language learning (M ¼ 4.26 and M ¼ 4.21 for HA and LA groups, respectively). Further, teachers were
ranked as the most preferred choice of correctors by both groups (M ¼ 4.31 and M ¼ 4.27 for HA and LA groups, respectively).
One obvious explanation for both groups’ strong support for frequent provision of CF is their awareness of the purpose,
significance, and types of feedback; prior to administering the questionnaires, learners from both groups received CFCRT, the
purpose of which was to raise their awareness of the role of CF in oral communication classes. Their strong preference for

Table 4
High-/low-anxiety group responses to the types of errors that should be corrected.

Types of errors that should be corrected HA mean score SD LA mean score SD t-value p
Serious Errors 4.43 0.98 4.21 1.21 0.91 >0.05
Frequent Errors 3.87 1.03 3.69 1.02 0.84 >0.05
Infrequent Errors 3.12 1.12 3.09 0.99 0.57 >0.05
Individual Errors 3.79 0.98 3.92 1.01 0.96 >0.05
434 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439

Table 5
High-/low-anxiety group responses to the methods of CF.

Types of feedback HA mean score SD LA mean score SD t-value p

Clarification request 3.35 1.11 3.45 1.14 0.85 >0.05
Repetition 3.24 1.23 3.25 1.21 0.89 >0.05
Explicit feedback 4.26 0.91 4.21 1.12 1.03 >0.05
Elicitation 3.18 1.09 3.24 0.97 0.76 >0.05
No corrective feedback 1.95 0.82 1.82 1.08 1.01 >0.05
Metalinguistic feedback 4.20 0.88 4.15 0.88 0.99 >0.05
Recasts 3.31 0.95 3.23 0.71 0.89 >0.05

frequent CF supports Ellis’ (2009) view. Ellis argues that teachers should not be afraid to correct learners’ errors and CF should
be provided both in accuracy and fluency work when a need arises for such pedagogical intervention.
On what kind of errors should be corrected, serious errors causing problem in conveying the meaning were strongly felt by both
groups to be corrected. One clear justification for such a preference could probably be the nature of the course that they were taking;
they were taking the oral communication course, which had the course objective of promoting their speaking skills. Another
explanation can be the confusion, disappointment and anxiety that resulted from errors causing oral communication breakdown.
Concerning both groups’ appraisal of different types of CF, there was clear support for explicit CF. Our result is in part
consistent with the findings of previous studies (Kaivanpanah, Alavi, & Sepehrinia, 2012; Katayama, 2007; Yoshida, 2008)
who found very strong preferences for metalinguistic feedback and recasts among Iranian EFL learners, Japanese EFL learners
and learners of Japanese, respectively. One clear justification for this difference is the learners’ awareness of CF in our study.
However, similar to the findings of previous studies, our results also demonstrate that the Iranian EFL learners did not reject
recasts; rather, a significant number of participants seemed to believe that it was a useful type of CF.
On whether CF in EFL oral communication classes should be immediate or delayed, unlike Kaivanpanah et al.’s (2012)
findings which did not reveal any clear preference for one versus the other, the results of our study indicated that imme-
diate CF was ranked the first and CF given after learners finished talking were ranked the second by both high- and low-
anxiety Iranian EFL learners in this study. This discrepancy in the results of the two studies can be attributed to the fact that in
our study learners were made aware of the purpose, significance and types of CF prior to their responding to the CF ques-
tionnaire, but this component was absent in Kaivanpanah et al.’s (2012) study. Learners’ preference for immediate CF echoes
Mackey’s (2007) view that CF is the most effective when it is given in context at the time when the learner makes error.
Although a significant number of both high- and low-anxiety Iranian EFL learners generally agreed with peer feedback and
self-correction, they clearly ranked teachers as their most favourite choice of correctors. Learners’ strong preference for teacher
feedback can be obviously attributed to the dominant role of teachers in the Iranian EFL context (Kaivanpanah et al., 2012). Both
in traditional and communicatively orientated EFL classes, Iranian learners typically consider their teachers as the primary
source of knowledge and expertise in teaching English and providing CF, so they expect their teachers to take the lead in teaching
and giving feedback. These results echo the findings from previous studies which indicated that learners preferred teachers to
other correctors (e.g., Kaivanpanah et al., 2012; Katayama, 2007; Zacharias, 2007; Zhang, 1995). Katayama (2007) attributed
Japanese EFL learners’ strong inclination to teacher CF on pronunciation to the dearth of native speakers in their EFL context and
as Kaivanpanah et al. (2012) posits this can also be considered as one of the contributing factors in the Iranian EFL context.
Overall, the results of our study provide some empirical evidence for Ellis’ (2009) guidelines that teachers should make
learners aware of CF values and not be afraid to correct their errors. Our findings also reveal that when learners were made
aware of the purpose, significance and types of CF, their anxiety did not negatively impact their CF beliefs; rather, both the
high- and the low-anxiety groups strongly favoured receiving frequent CF for their errors.

7. Conclusion

Some SLA theories (e.g., Krashen, 1982, 1985) maintain that CF is not facilitative of L2 learning, while others argue that CF
as a priming device plays a significant role in second language acquisition (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, 2010; Erlam,
2008; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Rahimi & Zhang, 2014). Based on Ellis’ (2010) componential framework of CF research and
Ellis’ (2009) guidelines for providing CF, this study was set up to investigate the role of individual attributes in learners’ CF
beliefs, specifically the role of anxiety in learners’ CF beliefs when learners were made aware of the purpose, significance, and
types of CF.
Regardless of learners’ anxiety level, there were no significant differences between the high- and the low-anxiety groups’
CF beliefs with regard to the necessity, frequency and timing of CF, the types of CF, and the choice of correctors. In fact, there
were significant similarities in both groups’ beliefs about CF. This might be attributed to the fact that both groups were

Table 6
High-/low-anxiety group responses to the choice of correctors.

Choice of corrector HA mean score SD LA mean score SD t-value p

Classmates 3.76 0.93 3.82 0.99 0.93 >0.05
Teachers 4.31 0.89 4.27 1.01 0.99 >0.05
Students themselves 3.04 0.82 3.12 0.97 0.78 >0.05
 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439 435

familiarised with the purpose, significance, and types of CF and they knew that the purpose of CF was to help them to promote
their language learning by drawing their attention to discrepancies between their interlanguage and the target language.
Hence, it can be argued that they did not find CF as a threatening measure and source of anxiety. As a result, it can be safely
suggested that by making learners aware of the purposes of instructional techniques (e.g., CF), as suggested by Ellis (2009),
teachers can help learners to develop positive beliefs towards those instructional techniques.
Further, providing CF is a complex social mediation (Ellis, 2009) and due to its complexity, controversies regarding the
necessity, frequency, and timing of providing CF, the types of providing CF, and the choice of correctors have yet to be
addressed as discussed earlier. However, it can be argued that, to successfully execute this complex social mediation, the
individual attributes of the stakeholders should be accommodated. Learners’ CF beliefs, one of the important individual
attributes, should be taken into account in providing CF, and one of the useful approaches to achieve this end is helping
learners to form positive attitude towards CF. Raising learners’ awareness of the purpose, significance, and types of CF is one
such effective approach to help learners form positive attitudes towards CF, as the results of this study suggest. Cultural
contexts are a determining factor in teachers’ decision to implement CF, as shown in this study.
In sum, the findings of this study provide evidence for Ellis’ (2009) general guidelines for giving CF. Specifically, Ellis (2009,
p. 14) proposes that:
Teachers should ascertain their students’ attitudes towards CF, appraise [apprise] them of the value of CF, and negotiate
agreed goals for CF with them. The goals are likely to vary according to the social and situational context. [.]Teachers
should ensure that learners know they are being corrected (i.e., they should not attempt to hide the corrective force of
their CF moves from the learners). Whereas it will generally be clear to learners that they are being corrected in the case
of written CF, it may not always be clear in the case of oral CF.
Additionally, the results of this study might be able to offer insights into teachers’ reflective instructional practice of giving
corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication with specific reference to cultural appropriateness of pedagogical
practices such as CF. Understandably, our study has one major limitation, which relates to the instruments for soliciting par-
ticipants’ views. Also important, though, is how students’ L1 proficiency and their L2 aptitude would contribute to their anxiety
in L2 CF has not been investigated in our study. Therefore, we recommend that further studies be in place to explore how these
variables interact to affect EFL learners’ L2 anxiety, and by extension, their language learning efficiency, especially when CF is
used both as a pedagogical endeavour and as a measure for language growth. Further, this study was conducted with adult EFL
learners and given the cognitive and affective differences between adults and younger learners (Brown, 2000; Oliver, 2000),
further studies are required to shed more light on the effects of young ESL/EFL learners’ awareness of the purpose, significance,
and types of CF on their beliefs about CF as well as their anxiety level. Evidently, using questionnaires for soliciting data would
only enable the researcher to get student perceptions. This is a limitation inherent in our study. We therefore recommend that
further research be conducted using structured observations, oral interaction recordings, interviews, among many other in-
struments, for collecting authentic classroom data to replicate the study for verifying the findings.

Appendix A

Your Feelings about Language Learning

Demographics
Please provide the following information.

1. Gender:
2. Age:
3. Major:

Dear ____
We are collecting information on learners’ belief about corrective feedback, so we invite you to be part of our study, as your
assistance is greatly needed. The purpose of the study is to investigate learners’ opinions of corrective feedback. We will
appreciate it very much if you could respond to the items in this questionnaire. Could you please kindly note that the data
gathered through this questionnaire will be used for research on corrective feedback in language classrooms? There are no
risks or benefits to you from participating in this research, but please do not put your name on this questionnaire so that we
will keep the findings anonymous.

Instructions:
Please reflect on your personal feelings regarding language leaning. Read carefully each statement and indicate to what
extent you agree or disagree by circling the statement that best describes how you feel. There is no right or wrong answer, just
those that are right for you. You could feel uncomfortable with some of the questions, but you may skip any question you
prefer not to answer.
436 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439
 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439 437

Appendix B

Language Anxiety Questionnaire

Please circle the information that applies to you. Make sure to mark only one.

1. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my foreign language class.
 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree
2. I don’t worry about making mistakes in language classes.
3. I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in language classes.
4. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in the foreign language.
5. It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more foreign language classes.
6. During language class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the course.
7. I keep thinking that the other students are better at languages than I am.
8. I am usually at ease during tests in my language classes.
9. I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in language classes.
10. I worry about the consequences of failing my foreign language classes.
11. I don’t understand why some people get so upset over foreign language classes.
12. In language class, I can get so nervous I forget things I know.
13. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my language classes.
14. I would not be nervous speaking the foreign language with native speakers.
15. I get upset when I don’t understand what the teacher is correcting.
16. Even if I am well prepared for language class, I feel anxious about it.
17. I often feel like not going to my language classes.
18. I feel confident when I speak in foreign language classs.
19. I am afraid that my language teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make.
20. I can feel my heart pounding when I’m going to be called on in language classes.
21. The more I study for a language test, the more con- fused I get.
22. I don’t feel pressure to prepare very well for language classes.
23. I always feel that the other students speak the foreign language better than I do.
438 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439

24. I feel very self-conscious about speaking the foreign language in front of other students.
25. Language class moves so quickly I worry about getting left behind.
26. I feel more tense and nervous in my language class than in my other classes.
27. I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my language classs.
28. When I’m on my way to language class, I feel very sure and relaxed.
29. I get nervous when I don’t understand every word the language teacher says.
30. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you have to learn to speak a foreign language.
31. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak the foreign language.
32. I would probably feel comfortable around native speakers of the foreign language.
33. I get nervous when the language teacher asks questions which I haven’t prepared in advance.

References

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: the case of students of Japanese. Modern Language
Journal, 78, 155–168.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
Arnaiz, P., & Guillén, F. (2012). Foreign language anxiety in a Spanish university setting: interpersonal differences. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 17, 5–26.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and second language writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25, 153–161.
Cheng, Y. (1994). The effects of attitudinal, motivational, and anxiety factors on the English language proficiency of Taiwanese senior high school students.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Athens, Georgia, USA: University of Georgia.
Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, 417–446.
Cooper, S. E., & Robinsons, D. A. G. (1991). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy beliefs to mathematics anxiety and performance. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 24, 4–11.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty, & E. Varela (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (Vol. 1);
(pp. 114–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91–113.
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review: Themes in SLA Research, 19, 18–41.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
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.
Erlam, R. (2008). What do you researchers know about language teaching? Bridging the gap between SLA research and language pedagogy. Innovation in
Language Teaching and Learning, 2, 253–267.
Fukuda, Y. (2004). Treatment of spoken errors in Japanese high school oral communication classes. Master’s thesis. San Francisco, CA, USA: California State
University.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second-language learning: Part II. affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1–11.
Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., Moorcraft, R., & Evers, F. T. (1987). Second language attribution: the role of motivation and use. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 6, 29–47.
Gardner, R. C., Smythe, P. C., & Lalonde, R. N. (1984). The nature and replicability of factors in second language acquisition. Research Bulletin, No. 605. London,
Ontario: The University of Western Ontario.
Goldberg, S. A. (1983). Cognitive correlates of test anxiety: Examination of the relationship among test anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, social anxiety, and
attributional style. Unpublished honors thesis. USA: Brown University.
Hackett, G. (1985). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of mathematics-related majors of college women and men: a path analysis. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 32, 47–56.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A.
Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291–311). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Horwtiz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a foreign language anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 59–62.
Horwtiz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. Learner strategies in language learning. In A. L. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner
strategies for learning autonomy (pp. 119–129). London, UK: Prentice-Hall.
Horwtiz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Kaivanpanah, Sh., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2012). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. The Language
Learning Journal, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.705571.
Katayama, A. (2007). Students’ perceptions toward corrective feedback to oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9, 289–305.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26, 175–182.
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working
memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
12, 429–448.
Liu, M. (2009). Reticence and anxiety in oral English lessons. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Corrective feedback in classroom SLA: a meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
 L.J. Zhang, M. Rahimi / System 42 (2014) 429–439 439

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1988). The measurement of anxiety and applications to second language learning: An annotated bibliography. (Research
Bulletin No. 672). London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second language learning: toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39, 251–257.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning: a review of the literature. Language Learning,
41, 85–117.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Language anxiety: its relation to other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language
Learning, 41, 513–534.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994a). The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 1–17.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994b). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283–
305.
Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and per-
formance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60–70.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353–360.
Pekrun, R. (1992). Expectancy-value theory of anxiety: overview and implications. In D. G. Forgays, T. Sosnowski, & K. Wrzesniewski (Eds.), Anxiety: Recent
developments in cognitive, psychophysiological, and health research (pp. 23–41). Washington, DC, USA: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test performance and attitudes. Modern Language Journal, 75, 14–26.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33–40.
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.
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1990). Test anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 475–495). New York: Plenum Press.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: a review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, 129–142.
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York, NY: Springer.
Shegar, C., Zhang, L. J., & Low, E. L. (2013). Effects of an input-output mapping practice task on EFL learners’ acquisition of two grammatical structures in
English. System, 44, 283–308.
Sparks, R. L., & Patton, J. (2013). Relationship of L1 skills and L2 aptitude to L2 anxiety on the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale. Language Learning,
64, 870–895.
Swain, M. B., & Burnaby, B. (1976). Personality characteristics and second language learning in young children: A pilot study. In Working Papers on Bilingualism
(Vol. 11).
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
16, 635–641.
Truitt, S. N. (1995). Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: A study of Korean University students learning English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Austin, TX, USA: University of Texas.
Trylong, V. L. (1987). Aptitude, attitudes, and anxiety: A study of their relationships to achievement in the foreign language classroom. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. USA: Purdue University.
Turk, S., & Sarason, I. G. (1983). Test anxiety, success-failure, and causal attribution. Unpublished manuscript. Seattle, WA, USA: University of Washington.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag.
Wu, C. O. (1994). Communication apprehension, anxiety, and achievement: A study of University students of English in Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis.
Austin, TX, USA: University of Texas.
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
Ying, H. H. (1993). The effects of anxiety on English learning of the senior high school students in Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis. Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of
China: National Taiwan Normal University.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17, 78–93.
Young, D. J. (1986). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral proficiency ratings. Foreign Language Annals, 12, 439–448.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: what does language anxiety research suggest? Modern Language Journal, 75, 426–439.
Zacharias, T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes towards feedback. RELC Journal, 38, 38–52.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209–222.
Zhang, L. J. (2000). Uncovering Chinese ESL students’ reading anxiety in a study-abroad context. Asia Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 3, 31–56.
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Exploring variability in language anxiety: two groups of P. R. C. students learning ESL in Singapore. RELC Journal, 32, 73–91.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320–353.

Lawrence Jun Zhang (PhD) is Associate Professor and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand. He has published
widely on topics related to language learning and teaching in British Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Language
Awareness, Instructional Science, Journal of Second Language Writing and TESOL Quarterly. His interests lie mainly in metacognition in reading and writing
development in second language learning and teaching. He is also interested in representations of lexical and syntactic knowledge in bilingual and second
language acquisition (SLA). He is an associate editor of TESOL Quarterly and an editorial board member of RELC Journal, System, and Metacognition and
Learning.

Muhammad Rahimi is a PhD candidate in the School of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. He holds
an MA in Applied Linguistics from The University of Tehran, Iran. His research interests lie mainly in motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulated learning, learning
strategies, priming devices in SLA, and teacher education. He has published research in The Language Learning Journal and other Iranian journals.