RECAST AND EXPLICIT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

AMONG LANGUAGE TEACHERS AND LEARNERS

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

2023
Volume: 7
Pages: 682-691
Document ID: 2023PEMJ591
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7750452
Manuscript Accepted: 2023-15-3
Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Recast and Explicit Corrective Feedback Among Language Teachers and Learners
Charmaine A. Sabio*
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.
Abstract
When learning a second language or foreign language, learners make various pronunciation, syntax, or word
choice errors. If these errors are not corrected, they will mistake them for the correct form and internalize them
into their inter-language system. Repairing erroneous utterance/s in second language acquisition is an eventual
quest among second language teachers because they are intertwined with language learning. The study aimed to
determine the preferred corrective feedback, the type of corrective feedback provision by language teachers and
learners, and the significant relationship between the preferred type of corrective feedback and the corrective
feedback provision by language teachers. The researcher used survey questionnaires to gather the necessary data
and administered them to the language teachers and learners. This investigated the inevitable corrective feedback
employed in actual classroom scenarios that are an inseparable part of language learning. A total of 318 language
learners and eight language teachers participated in the data-gathering procedure. Findings revealed that
language teachers preferred Recast and corrective feedback provisions under Recast. There was a great extent of
feedback provision on correcting an error and reintroducing a particular item among language teachers.
Language learners preferred the explicit correction type of corrective feedback and feedback provisions under
this type wherein the teacher points out the errors and corrects these immediately. This revealed a great extent of
feedback provision, among others. Finally, there is no significant relationship between the corrective feedback
provided by the language teachers.

Keywords: english language instruction, oral communication, descriptive-correlational research,

erroneous utterances, recast

Introduction check their expressions.

Tsang (2004) investigated the relationship between

Corrective feedback (CF) is a response to learner
utterances containing an error (Ellis, 2006). The
awareness about this seemingly simple yet complex
phenomenon continues to grow on its role in second
language classrooms and its effects on second
language development (Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013).
When learning a second or foreign language, learners
make various pronunciation, syntax, or word choice
errors. If these errors are not corrected, they will
mistake them for the correct form and internalize them
into their interlanguage system (Ahangari &
Amirzadeh, 2011). In employing corrective feedback,
specific questions must be answered, and teachers
need answers (Park, 2010). Han (2008) suggests that
corrective feedback is a more general way of providing
clues to eliciting some correction besides the direct
correction made by the teacher. Ellis, Loewen, and
Erlam (2006) describe corrective feedback as
responses to learner utterances containing an error.
Hans (2008) confirmed that there are also numerous
reasons why teachers need to correct oral errors. First,
correction lets the learner fully realize how much they
have improved in learning the target language. Second,
when a learner gets corrected, he can better understand
how the target language works. Last, the student's
confidence is reinforced by corrective feedback
because they know they can rely on the teacher to
corrective feedback and kinds of learner errors, such as
grammatical and phonological errors, among
secondary school students learning English in Hong
Kong. Yoshida (2009) supported that the teachers use
Recast and explicit correction most frequently.
Furthermore, Sheen (2011) affirmed that teachers
chose to recast most often for several reasons,
including limited class hours. In contrast, students
generally preferred to have an opportunity to work out
correct forms on their own before receiving correct
forms by Recast or explicit correction. Teachers chose
corrective feedback following learner characteristics
such as students' proficiency levels and learning styles.
In a study conducted by Chunhong and Griffiths
(2008), the students indicated that they wanted to be
corrected and felt that corrective feedback was
necessary in order for them to make progress in their
language development. They need somebody to point
out their errors immediately and help them improve
their English a lot in a short time. They found out that
utilizing Corrective verbal feedback in a language
classroom was efficient, which was supported by
Calsiyao (2012) that students are desirous of having all
their spoken errors in the classroom corrected by the
teachers. However, although students expressed solid
preferences for corrective feedback, the learners'
comments also revealed that they felt ashamed,

Charmaine A. Sabio 682/691

Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
embarrassed, and stressed when corrected in front of
others (Griffiths & Chunhong, 2008).
Since there are no local studies that would further
support the facts mentioned above, this has inspired
the present researcher, who is at present an English
teacher, to conduct a study on Corrective Feedback,
particularly on the preferred type of Corrective
feedback and its extent of provision among language
teachers and learners of a State College in at Barangay
Alijis, Bacolod City. The researcher utilized Lyster
and Ranta's (1997) model to categorize the types of
spoken corrective feedback as explicit correction,
recast, clarification request, metalinguistic clues,
elicitation, and repetition.
This study presents the preferred corrective feedback,
the type of corrective feedback provision by language
teachers and learners, and the significant relationship
between the preferred type of corrective feedback and
the corrective feedback provision by language
teachers.
Research Questions
The primary purpose of the study was to determine the
extent of the type of Corrective Feedback on
preference and provision among the language teachers
and learners of Carlos Hilado Memorial State College:
Specifically, this sought to answer the following
questions:
1. What is the corrective feedback preferred by the
language learners?
2. What is the extent of corrective feedback provided
by the language teachers as perceived by the language
teacher?
3. What is the corrective feedback preferred by the
language teachers?
4. What is the extent of corrective feedback provision
by the language teachers?
5. Is there a significant relationship between the
preferred type of corrective feedback and the type of
corrective feedback provided by the language
teachers?
Literature Review
Second Language Development
In second language development, English is the most
commonly used language among foreign speakers
worldwide. When people with different languages
come together, they commonly use English to
Charmaine A. Sabio
communicate (Sheen, 2011). A high level of
proficiency in English is an advantage in life, and
achieving a good level of English Language allows
learners to flourish, but why do language learners
frequently commit spoken errors in the target
language?
According to Calsiyao (2012), one reason is the
incomplete knowledge of the target language in our
land of numerous regional languages in different
regions. Spelling is often problematic for non-native
speakers of English. Filipinos face significant
language acquisition challenges because of the
county's copious Filipino dialects. Chu (2011) also
pointed out that it was due to fossilization that
transpires when a language learner reaches an
adequate level of proficiency in the target language.
Socio-Cultural Aspect
This study is anchored upon Lev Vygotsky's
Sociocultural Theory in second language acquisition.
Vygotsky (1978) defines language as a mediational
tool for human cognitive activity. When humans think
and regulate their behavior, their cognitive activities
are mediated by symbolic tools, one of which is
language. Language can mediate one's cognitive
activity as a form of private speech or others' cognitive
activity in an interactive dialogue. Verbal dialogues
between two people are not mere exchanges of
information; at times, they are the process of cognitive
activity evolving right in front of the hearer. Thus,
human cognitive development, or learning, is mediated
by language. Cognitive development is an active
process in which a novice learner gains independence
in regulating her actions; she acquires the ability to
behave appropriately and internalizes proper
procedures.
Sociocultural views corrective feedback as a
collaborative endeavor. It must be flexible and adapted
to the social/situational context and the individual
learner. It also provides only what is necessary to
enable the learner to correct the error. Moreover, it
must consider the learners' affective needs (Ellis,
2009). In sociocultural theory (SCT), learning is a
"participation" rather than an "acquisition." It is
mediated by and is evident in social interaction rather
than in the mind or learner (Althobaiti, 2014).
Learning as a social process and the origination of
human intelligence in society or culture is the central
theme of the theory, and social interaction plays a
fundamental role in the development of cognition.
Furthermore, learners should be provided with socially
683/691
Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
rich environments to explore knowledge domains with
fellow students, teachers, and outside experts
(Vygotsky, 1978).
On Spoken Errors
A typical definition of the term “error” includes
referencing the linguistic form that diverges from the
correct one. What about “correct”? The term is very
often recognized with the native speaker norm
(Allwright & Bailey, 1991), which is controversial
because native speakers’ utterances differ too much,
and most of the language teaching takes place in a non-
native context by non-native speakers. In order to
evaluate learner language from a proper perspective, it
is critical to discriminate errors from mistakes and vice
versa. An error occurs unexpectedly, which results
from a lack of knowledge of a particular form and
reflects a learner’s current stage in interlanguage
development (Corder, 1967; Selinker, 1972). It is an
attempt to try something out, even though a learner
does not have sufficient knowledge to produce a given
form or item correctly.
A mistake, however, refers to a learner’s temporary
inaccuracy (Corder, 1967) and performance problems
and occurs when a student is familiar with the rule.
However, an incorrect form occurs because of
inattention, fatigue, or a shift from the initial plan or
intention during speaking. Mistakes manifest
themselves as hesitations, slips of the tongue, random
ungrammaticalities, and other performance lapses
(Brown, 1994).
On Corrective Feedback
On the other hand, the term “corrective feedback” has
been defined at different times in a very similar way.
One of the earliest definitions is that of Chaudron
(1977), who considers it as “any reaction of the teacher
which transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or
demands improvement of the learner utterance” It was
also stated that Corrective feedback takes the form of
responses to learner utterances that contain an error.
The responses can consist of (a) an indication that an
error has been committed, (b) a provision of the
correct target language form, (c) meta-linguistic
information about the nature of the error, or any
combination of these. The role and importance of
Corrective Feedback in classroom pedagogy can vary
from teacher to teacher. This may depend on their
previous education and training, teaching experience,
and experience as language learners. From a
pedagogical standpoint, teachers have sought to find
answers to practical questions such as how and when
Charmaine A. Sabio
to correct student errors in the classroom.
Giving and receiving feedback is part of life.
Sometimes the feedback you provide or obtain is
neither helpful nor meant to be. Other feedback,
however, is a genuine effort to assist the recipient in
improving his performance, behavior, understanding,
relationships, or interpersonal skills. This is corrective
feedback, and we all need it from time to time.
Lyster and Ranta (1997) mention that for the past 20
years, researchers that focused on the error treatment
in a second language classroom have had unrelenting
questions framed by Hendrickson in his 1978 review
of feedback on errors in a foreign language classroom.
The questions are as follows:
● Should learners’ errors be corrected?
● When should learners’ errors be corrected?
● Which errors should be corrected?
● How should errors be corrected?
● Who should do the correcting?
Appearing to be straightforward, scholars have
explored these questions over the past two decades in
various L2 classroom settings, and they are pretty
complicated. However, recent work by Lyster and
Ranta (1997) in Canada may provide some practical
advice for immersion teachers. Lyster and Ranta’s
work is particularly interesting because it combines
different types of error treatment, or corrective
feedback, with student responses to that feedback, or
“learner uptake” (1997). They were especially
interested in finding what error treatments encourage
learners’ self-repair. In other words, what types of
corrective feedback lead students to correct their errors
with an eye toward grammatical accuracy and lexical
precision within a meaningful communicative context?
The corrective feedback types were categorized as:
explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests,
metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition.
Explicit correction
Explicit correction refers to the explicit provision of a
correct form and the clear indication of the non-target-
like feature used.
1. Student: I go for a walk last weekend.
Teacher: No, not go – went. You should use the past
tense
Recasts
Recasts refer to the reformulation of a student’s
684/691
Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

utterance with the non-target-like feature changed to a with conditions of relationships that exist, practices
correct form. The correction may be accompanied by that prevail, beliefs and processes that are going on the
accentuated word stress or intonation. effect that is being felt, or trends that are developing.”

2. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. Participants/Respondents

Teacher: I see…you went for a walk last weekend.
Yamane’s formula was utilized to get the sample size
Note: Underlining indicates added stress. of 1535 students from the first and second years who
were officially enrolled. The researcher utilized the
Clarifcation request multi-stage sampling technique. A random stratified
sampling technique was used in getting the 65% or
A clarification request occurs when a teacher has 207 first-year students and 35% or 111 second-year
misunderstood or failed to understand a student’s students. The names of the language learners included
utterance. The teacher then asks for clarification in as study respondents were randomly picked using
order to obtain a reformulated version of the utterance. Lottery or Fishbowl sampling technique, comprising
318 students. The researcher included Bachelor of
3. Student: I go for a walk last weekend.
Science in Information Systems, Bachelor of Science
Teacher: Sorry? Would you say that again?
in Information Technology, and Bachelor of Science in
Metalinguistic Feedback Industrial Technology first-year - second students
officially enrolled in the state college as respondents of
Metalinguistic feedback refers to when teachers use the study.
the students’ current knowledge of English grammar,
Instruments of the Study
lexis, etc., to try and elicit a self corrected response
from the student.
The survey questionnaire consists of two sections,
4. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. which asked the language learners and teachers to
Teacher: How about the past tense? complete sixteen items overall. The first six items of
the survey were taken from the six types of corrective
Elicitation feedback: explicit correction, recasts, clarification
requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and
Elicitation refers to when teachers directly elicit the repetition. The other ten items of the survey were
correct form of an utterance from a student. The related to the extent of provision of corrective
correction is often accompanied by accentuated word feedback utilized by the language teachers when
stress or intonation. correcting or repairing erroneous forms. The range
score was used to determine the range score with their
5. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. verbal interpretation as shown in the following: 4.51 –
Teacher: Really? I drove a car last weekend. I 5.00 (Very High Extent), 3.51 – 4.50 (High Extent),
played tennis…I go for a walk? 2.51 – 3.50 (Moderate Extent), 1.51 – 2.50 (Low
Extent) and 1.00 – 1.50 (Very Low Extent).
Repetition
The research instrument was developed after studying
Repetition refers to when the teacher repeats a and reviewing various related studies, particularly in
student’s utterance simply adjusting the intonation so determining the preferred oral corrective feedback and
as to highlight the error. the types of corrective feedback provision utilized by
language teachers in the classroom. Some items
6. Student: I go for a walk last weekend. included in the research instrument were lifted from
Teacher: I go for a walk last weekend. other relevant studies. The researcher utilized Content
and Face Validity to ensure that the instrument
measured what it intended to measure. The said
Methodology
research instrument was presented to five panels of
experts in the English language field who are adept on
This descriptive research used a survey questionnaire the subject of the study. The overall mean rating of the
to gather the necessary data. As Best and Kahn (2007) five experts was 4.00, which suggested that the
describe it, “descriptive relational research design research instrument was valid. The comments from
describes and interprets what is, and it is concerned these panels for improvement or revisions were also

Charmaine A. Sabio 685/691

Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

sought and considered. Results

To achieve reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha was utilized.
The survey questionnaire was administered to thirty The primary concern of the study is to determine the
language learners and thirty faculty members who extent of the type of Corrective Feedback by Lyster
were English teachers from a state college. Using and Ranta’s framework model, particularly on
Cronbach’s Alpha, the result of reliability testing for preference and provision of language teachers and
language learners was 0.79; for language teachers, it learners of Carlos Hilado Memorial State College
yielded a result of 0.87. The result of the reliability during the Second Semester of the Academic Year
coefficient from both language teachers and learners 2015-2016.
suggested that the instrument utilized in the study had
relatively high internal consistency. Table 1. The corrective feedback preferred by the
language learners n=318
After the research instrument had undergone validity
and reliability testing, the researcher conducted the
study among language learners and teachers of the
state college in Bacolod City. Since the researcher is
also a faculty member of the school, she had easy
access to gather all the needed information for her
study.

Procedure

The survey questionnaires were administered to first-

year and second-year language learners in their
English classes. The researcher distributed the survey
questionnaires to teachers at their convenient time. The
participants were supervised by the researcher, who
Statistics in table 1 shows that among the six types of
explained the study's objectives, after which they were
oral corrective feedback, Explicit Correction with
asked to complete the survey questionnaires. They
mean =3.81 is the most preferred type of corrective
were asked to rate the corrective feedback preference
feedback among language learners. It has a standard
and provision of the corrective feedback according to
deviation of 0.95 which means it is clustered closely
their individual preferences.
around the mean. The Standard Deviations across all
A total of three hundred eigh teen survey corrective feedbacks preferred by language learners
questionnaires from language learners and eight are homogenous such that Recast had the SD= 0.71;
questionnaires were collected after the actual Explicit Correction with the SD=0.95; Clarification
administration of the research instrument. Request with the SD=0.90; Repetition with the
SD=0.88; Metalinguistic Feedback with the SD=0.98;
To obtain the corrective feedback as preferred by the and Elicitation with the SD=0.91 since they are all
language learners, the extent of corrective feedback clustered around the mean.
provided by the language teachers as perceived by the
language learners, the corrective feedback preferred by
the language teachers, and the extent of corrective
feedback provision by the language teachers, the mean
and the standard deviation were used and to determine
the significant relationship between the preferred type
of corrective feedback and the type of corrective
feedback provided by the language teachers
themselves, the Pearson Product-Moment (Ppm) was
utilized. The Pearson Product Moment coefficient of
correlation or Pearson’s correlation was used to
measure the strength and direction of association
between two variables measured on at least an interval
scale.

Charmaine A. Sabio 686/691

Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Table 2. The extent of corrective feedback provided Table 3. Corrective feedback preferred by the
by the language teachers as perceived by the language teacher
language learners n=138

Table 3 suggests that Language teachers prefer Recast

as the frequently used type of Corrective Feedback and
is interpreted to a High Extent in repairing incorrect
utterances in the classroom when teaching learners the
acquisition of a second or foreign language. It shows
that all responses from language teachers are varied
based on the mean value presented in the table, and the
standard deviation is heterogeneous. The individual
responses from language teachers deviate from the
mean. The Standard Deviation of Explicit Correction
(1.41), Repetition (1.19), and Metalinguistic Feedback
(1.04) are more significant than the set of significance,
which is 0.05 margin of error. Moreover, they were
over a point away from the mean.

Table 4. The extent of corrective feedback provided by

the language teachers as perceived by the language
learners
Statistics in table 2 present the extent of the Provision
of Corrective Feedback to Language Teachers
according to their categories. It shows the different
practices of the teachers when repairing or correcting
erroneous oral responses of their learners. The result
shows that among the different techniques presented in
corrective feedback provision, the learners prefer their
teachers to identify the errors they commit by pointing
them out and correcting them immediately, interpreted
as a High Extent of provision (mean=3.95; SD=0.89),
which is an Explicit type of corrective feedback. The
responses solicited from learners were clustered
closely around the mean, which implies that most
responses are homogeneous except for one provision
of corrective feedback wherein the teacher identifies
an error by using gestures, repeating the error, or
asking a question and waits for other classmates to
correct the error which is categorized as Metalinguistic
Feedback.

Charmaine A. Sabio 687/691

Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Statistics in table 4 present the extent of the Provision
of Corrective Feedback to Language Teachers
according to their categories. It shows the different
practices of the teachers when repairing or correcting
erroneous oral responses of their learners. The result
shows that among the different techniques presented in
the corrective feedback provision, teachers prefer to
correct an error and reintroduce a particular item
categorized as Recast (mean=4.13; SD =1.13) to a
great extent.
Table 5. Comparative Statistics between the preferred
type of corrective feedback and the type of corrective
feedback provided by the language teachers
themselves.
Table 5 shows that the status of the hypothesis
between the preferred type of corrective feedback and
the type of corrective feedback provided by the
language teachers themselves is accepted. It shows that
the P value result is higher than the 0.05 level of
significance from both language teachers’ and
learners’ responses. Moreover, the responses from
both language learners and teachers are homogenous
and clustered closely around the mean (learners=3.64
and SD=0.90; teachers=3.38; SD=0.92).
Discussion
The results show that Explicit Correction was the most
preferred type of corrective feedback among language
learners. The regular use of explicit correction in a
language classroom by a teacher effectively
incorporates the corrected form in an incorrect
utterance as preferred by the language learners. Based
Charmaine A. Sabio
on the study's findings, this type of corrective feedback
is a significant tool for the learners to prevent their
errors from getting fixated on and aid them in
developing along their inter-language continuum.
Hathaway (2006) claimed that explicit correction
activated the need to correct original incorrect
utterances. Fawbush (2010) confirmed that employing
this type of corrective feedback makes it more likely
that a language learner will successfully repair an
erroneous form. It is possible that explicit correction
must have some effect on the learners' inter-language
continuum. Zhang also (2010) stressed that learners
gain more awareness, can reform erroneous forms, and
allows them to better understand the corrected form
when the teacher uses this type of corrective feedback.
As perceived by the language learners, the responses
solicited from learners were clustered closely around
the mean, which implies that most responses are
homogeneous except for one provision of corrective
feedback wherein the teacher identifies an error by
using gestures, repeating the error, or asking a question
and waits for other classmates to correct the error
which is categorized as Metalinguistic Feedback.
Rezaei (2011) suggests that when learners are given
instant correction after being pointed out their errors,
they get first-hand feedback that an error has been
committed. The technique is seen as a practical
approach in bringing about positive effects during
second language acquisition that gives the teacher
proof that learning is taking place in the classroom. In
addition, the technique also improves learning
strategies that give enough confidence to learners in
producing correct utterances because they tend to
avoid repeating the same error when pointed out and
corrected immediately. Also, the Explicit Correction
provision type of corrective feedback, which states that
teachers identify the errors by pointing out and
correcting the erroneous utterance immediately by the
language teacher, had the greatest extent of provision
among the six types of corrective feedback.
The Recast was the most preferred type of corrective
feedback among language teachers. Based on the
findings, it was an effective means of correcting
learners’ incorrect utterances during the process of
second language acquisition as perceived by the
language teachers. Recasting is seen as beneficial to
learners in acquiring the second/foreign language in
such a way that it arises naturally in an interactive
class as teachers are utilizing declarative or
interrogative intonations, changes of tone, or
accentuated word stress. Teachers employing recasts
are believed to encourage learners “notice” the error.
688/691
Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Language teachers who participated in the study may
not have known it, but the result shows that Recast is
seen as a practical approach to correcting. Teachers do
not impede the flow of information when utilizing
Recast, as this is not usually a distressing correction
method. The result was supported by Zhang’s (2010)
claim that the frequent use of Recast among language
teachers is seen as an effective way of reformulating
the corrected form of an incorrect utterance as
preferred by the language teachers. To support their
view on Recasts, Recasting yields a positive effect as
this is seen beneficial to learners acquiring the
second/foreign language in such a way that it arises
naturally in an interactive class as teachers are utilizing
declarative or interrogative intonations, changes of
tone, or accentuated word stress. Teachers employing
recasts are believed to encourage learners “notice” the
error.
As perceived by the language teachers, the greatest
extent of provision of corrective feedback stemmed
from when they prefer to correct and reintroduce a
particular item when an error is posed on grammar,
phonology, lexis, etc., by the learners. The result
supported by Hedge (2000) suggests that there is a
need to reintroduce a particular item when an error
occurs, particularly on grammar rules, pronunciation,
or specific phonemes that do not exist in the learners’
first language. Language teachers focus on target
structures that should be used correctly to keep
learners' fluency. There is a greater depth of awareness
from teachers employing this approach in the process
of second language acquisition. When errors are
identified and corrected immediately, teachers are
keen on reintroducing the same item or topic to ensure
that incorrect utterances will not be repeated.
The study revealed no significant relationship between
the preferred type of corrective feedback and the type
of corrective feedback provided by the language
teachers; therefore, the status of the hypothesis was
accepted. In this study, it appears that corrective
feedback does not influence the teaching practices of
language teachers when repairing learners’ erroneous
forms. Similarly, whether or not the teacher focuses on
error correction does not yield any relevant stance on
the target language inputs they are employing in the
process of second language acquisition. They do not
significantly impact the learners’ behaviors and
attitudes when the teachers employ corrections. They
also do not directly affect the development of the
learners’ second language development or their
classroom performances (Park, 2010).
Charmaine A. Sabio
Conclusion
Providing corrective feedback is a multifaceted
decision-making process. Corrective feedback is the
most formidable feature as teachers have to tailor
corrections to the individual learner. The study
supported Tedick’s (2003) claim that language
teachers may employ a combination of recast and
metalinguistic feedback or any other corrective
feedback in one class setting if it requires them to do
so. Moreover, the provision also differs from one
teacher to the other or one learner to another, taking
into consideration the different learning styles of their
language learners, their cognitive and affective
capabilities, and their preferences for corrective
feedback (Leeman, 2003).
Corrective feedback in the form of Explicit Correction
and Recasts can effectively repair errors among
language learners and teachers, respectively.
Additionally, it is evident in the study's findings that
error correction is undoubtedly needed at some point
in the learning process, depending on its extent. The
use of varied types of corrective feedback preferences
by both language teachers and learners may influence
the process of second language acquisition (Hall,
2016).
Teachers should also consider their learners’ response
to the provision of corrective feedback so that a better
learning process will occur. Errors should be corrected
depending on what language teachers and learners
prefer to develop the learners’ language skills, which
is the primary goal of language teaching and learning
(Fawbush,2010). Even though this study produced
several significant findings that would contribute
significantly to the teaching and learning process of
teachers and learners in a language classroom, details
should be made with caution because this study was
conducted by the limited number of teachers handling
language classes at Carlos Hilado Memorial State
College – Alijis Campus. Thus, further studies should
be explored utilizing learners across different teaching
and learning styles, proficiency, cognitive abilities,
age, achievement, and other factors that would further
identify the perceptions of both language teachers and
learners on corrective feedback practices and
approaches.
Meanwhile, Language teachers should maximize the
use of different types of corrective feedback based on
their and learners’ preferences. They should also know
when and how to employ the different corrective
feedback approaches and practices. Learners should
689/691
Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
continue receiving instantaneous corrective feedback
in any form, not only from their language teachers but
from every teacher they come across throughout their
academic journeys.
References
Ahangari, Saeideh., & Amirzadeh, Somayeh. (2011). Exploring the
Teachers’ Use of Spoken Corrective Feedback in Teaching Iranian
EFL Learners at Different Levels of Proficiency. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences. Vol.29. pp. 1859-1868.
Amrhein, Hannah & Nassaji, Hossein. (2010). Written Corrective
Feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why?
University of Victoria.
Asari, Y. (2012). Types of Recasts and Learners’ Uptake. Masteral
Thesis. Graduate School of Waseda University. May, 2012.
Best, John W. & Kahn, James V. (2007). Research in Education.
Prentice Hall. Bilash, Olenka. “Error Correction: Where, When and
How”.
http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.bilash/best%20of%20bilas
h/error%20correction.html. May, 2009.
Buyukbay, Secil. (2007). The Effectiveness of Repetition as
Corrective Feedback. Masteral Thesis. Bilkent University. Ankara.
June, 2007.
Calsiyao, Irene S. (2015). Corrective Feedback in Classroom Oral
Errors among Kalinga-Apayao State College Students. Kalinga
Apayao State College. International Journal of Social Science and
Humanities Research. Vol. 3. Issue 1, pp: 394-400). January –
March 2015.
Chu, R. (2011). Effects of Teacher’s Corrective Feedback. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies , Vol. 1 (5), pp. 454-459.
Coskun, Abdullah. (2010). A classroom research study on Oral Error
Correction. Year 12. Issue 3. June, 2010.
Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and
written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 32: 335-349.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in
second language acquisition. Studies in Second language
acquisition, 28(4), 575-600.
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, Rod. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Development. L2
Journal. Volume 1. Pp. 3-18.
Fawbush, Ben. (2010). Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback for
Middle School ESL learners. Masteral Thesis. Hamline University,
Saint Paul, Minnesota. August, 2010.
Fungula, Bob Nsimba., (2013). Oral Corrective Feedback in the
Chinese EFL Classroom. Thesis. Karlstads University. Spring, 2013.
Gitsaki, Christina. & Althobaiti, Naif. (2010). ESL teachers’ use of
Corrective Feedback and Its Effect on Learners’ Uptake. Sharjah
Higher Colleges of Technology & The University of Queensland,
Australia. Thesis. 2010.
Charmaine A. Sabio
Gitsaki, Christina. & Althobaiti, Naif. (2010). ESL Teachers’ Use of
Corrective Feedback and Its Effect on Learners’ Uptake. The
Journal of Asia TEFL. Vol.7, No.1, pp. 197-219.
Griffiths, C. & Chunhong, Z. (2008). Researching error correction
and pitfalls. Investigating English Language learning and teaching.
Ed. M. Pawlak, 127-137. Poznan – Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz
University Press.
Hall, Margaret, J. , “Elicitation Techniques”
(https://linguistics.stanford.edu/research/linguistic-fieldwork/resourc
es-linguistic-fieldwork/elicitation-techniques).
Hans, Z.H. (2008). Error Correction: Towards a differential
approach. The fourth QCC Colloquium on Second Language
Acquisition. New York, New York.
Hathaway, P. (2006). “Providing Corrective Feedback”.
(http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of- contents/advocacy/encouragement-
education/corrective-feedback/main).
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language
Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hernandez, Edith., et.al. (2010). Oral Corrective Feedback: Some
ways to go about it. Memorias Del Vi Foro de Studious En
Lenguas Internacional. Thesis. Universidad de Quintana Roo. 2010.
Horwitz, E. (2008). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide
to second language learning and teaching. Allyn & Bacon: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Hyland, K, & Hyland, F. (2006). The Role of Implicit & Explicit
Corrective Feedback in Persian-speaking EFL Learners’ Awareness
of and Accuracy in English Grammar. Procedia – Socail and
Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 98. pp 2018 – 2024. May, 2014.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development:
Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
25, 37-63.
Li, Shaofeng. (2013). Oral Corrective Feedback. ELT Journal.
Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the Adult English L2
Classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The
Modern Language Journal.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner
Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Comuunicative Classrooms.
Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and
second language development: Recast responses, and red herring?
Modern Language Journal, 82,338-356.
Martinez, Susana Gomez. (2006). Should we correct our students
errors in L2 learning? Encuentro. Vol.16, pp.1-7.
Mohammadi, Mojtaba. (2016) “Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback
in Teaching and Learning L2”.
(https://www.academia.edu/289001/Recast_and_Metalinguistic_Fee
dback_in_Teaching_and_Learning_L2_Writing_A_Comparative_St
udy)
Mubarak, Mohamed. (2013). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: A
study of practices and effectiveness in the Bharain Context.
Dissertation. University of Sheffield. February, 2013.
Nafez, Shahin. (2011) Error Treatment in TESOL Classrooms. J. J.
Appl. Sci. Humanities Series 13 (1): 207-226. Language
690/691
Psych Educ, 2023, 7: 682-691, Document ID:2023 PEMJ591, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7750452, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Acquisition, 28, 575-600.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of Recasts and Elicitations in Dyadic
Interaction and the Role of Feedback Explicitness. Language
Learning, 59(2), 411-52.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as
feedback to language learners. Language Learning. 51, pp 719-758.
Paba, Lourdes Rey. (2016). “Corrective Feedback in Second/
Foreign L a n g u a g e T e a c h i n g ” (http://
http://www.uninorte.edu.co/web/arey/home/-/blogs/corrective-feedb
ack-in-second-foreign-language-teaching) Retrieved on January 05,
2016.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and
uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Park, Gipyo. (2010). Preference of Corrective Feedback Approaches
Perceived by Native English Teachers and Students. Thesis.
Soonchunhyang University, South Korea. December, 2010.
Park, Gipyo. (2010). Preference of Corrective Feedback Approaches
Perceived by Native English Teachers and Students. The Journal of
Asia TEFL. Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.29-52.
Payne, Chris. (2012). Castaway. English Teaching Professional.
Issue 80. May, 2012.
Rassaei, Ehsan., Moinzadeh, Ahmad., & Youhanaee, Manijeh.
(2012). The Effect of Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of
Implicit and Explicit L2 Knowledge. The Journal of Language
Teaching and Learning. Vol. 2(1), pp.59-75.
Rezaei, Saeed., Mozaffari, Farnazeh, & Hatef, Ali.,(2011).
Corrective Feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice and Future
Directions. International language of English Linguistics. Vol.1.
No.1.March 2011.
Sanavi, Reza., & Nemati, Majid., (2014). The Effect of Six Different
Corrective Feedback Strategies on Iranian English language
learners’ IELTS Writing Task 2: SAGE Publication. April-June
2014: pp.1-9.
Scott, Edurne. (2008). “Corrective Feedback in the Language
Classroom”. (https://suite.io/edurne-scott/zwk237). Retrieved on
September, 2015.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Corrective Feedback and learner uptake in
Charmaine A. Sabio
communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language
Teaching Research. 8(3), 263-300.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and
second language learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Spivey, K. (2014). Written Corrective Feedback in ESL: Strategies,
Approaches, Influences and Factors. Masteral Thesis. May, 2014.
Tedick, D. & Gortari, B. (1998). Error Correction and Implications
for Classroom Teaching. The Bridge, ACIE, Newsletter. Center for
Advanced Research on language Acquisition, University of
Minnesota.
Tedick, Diane J. “Research On Error Correction and Implications
For Classroom Teaching”.
(http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/ACIE/vol1/May1998.pdf).
Retrieved on February 9, 2016.
Tsang, W.K., (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student
interaction: An Analysis of 18 English Lesson in Hong Kong
Secondary classroom. Regional Language Centre Journal. Vol. 35.
pp. 187-209.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge. MA: Harvard
University Press.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of
corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17, 78-94.
Yoshida, R. (2009). Learner’s Perception of Corrective Feedback in
Pair Work. 1st Ed. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages. Issue foreign Language Annals Volume 41, Issue 3,
pages 525–541.
Zhang, Ying., Zhang, Lanqin., & Ma, Leilei. (2010). A Brief
Analysis of Corrective Feedback in Oral Interaction. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 1, No.3, pp.306-308.
Affiliations and Corresponding Information
Charmaine A. Sabio
Carlos Hilado Memorial State University - Philippines
691/691