i

THE IMPACT OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK METHODS ON ESL

STUDENTS SPEAKING SKILLS IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASSES

Thesis

By

Afghala -M.Phil. (ENG022-21-122535)

To

Department of Education and Social Sciences

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the degree of

Master of Philosophy of English (Specialization in Linguistics)

This Thesis has been accepted by the faculty

Faculty of Arts, Design, Education and Social Sciences

Prof.Dr Imtiaz Arif

Director Academic
 ii

ABSTRACT
In the realm of second language acquisition, oral proficiency is a fundamental aspect for

ESL (English as a Second Language) learners as it directly impacts their ability to communicate

effectively in real-life situations. Within this context, the role of corrective feedback has gained

significant attention as a potential technique to enhance ESL students' speaking skills. This study

investigates the impact of explicit and implicit oral corrective feedback on ESL learners'

speaking abilities, aiming to shed light on the most effective approach to foster their linguistic

development and promote authentic communication in non-English language environments.

For this study, a quasi-experimental research design with a pre-test and post-test is used

to investigate the effects of oral corrective feedback methods. Three intact classes of grade seven

in a private Cambridge school were chosen, with two experimental groups and one control group

(OCF-A group N = 14, OCF-B group N = 14, Control group N = 15). This quasi-experimental

study did not randomly assign the sampled participants to different treatment groups instead

three intact classes were given the treatment of oral corrective feedback. Before the application

of oral corrective feedback procedures, a pre-test was performed. Two experimental groups

received explicit and implicit oral corrective feedback methods in English speaking classes,

whereas one control group received no input. Over the course of eight weeks, each experimental

group received sixteen OCF episode sessions with the specified treatment. Following that, a

post-test was performed. Furthermore, an attitudinal questionnaire was employed as a research

instrument to investigate the preferences and perceptions of 43 ESL students in grade seven on

the usefulness of corrective feedback methods.

The data were analysed using SPSS Statistics Software. The study's findings

demonstrated that all oral corrective feedback methods (explicit and implicit) have a significant
 iii

impact on ESL students' speaking skills. However, explicit oral corrective feedback methods

outperformed implicit oral correct feedback.

Keywords: Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF), Corrective Feedback (CF), ESL (English as a

Second Language), Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Second Language (L2)

 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my mentor and philosopher Madiha Munaf for giving me the

chance to develop the research thesis that matches my interest. Thank you for giving me freedom

to adopt innovative study approaches, despite the high improbability of the results. Thank you

for believing in my abilities to bring this research proposal to fruition. This research would have

been unachievable without the support of Sir Muhammad Ali at the initial stage of the research.

I offer my sincere thanks to Sir Younus Fareed for his suggestions and constructive

criticism. I would extend my gratitude to ESL teachers and ESL students of Cambridge School

whose participation has made this research successful. I want offer special acknowledgement to

the writers and researchers whose works are cited and whose works have given me inspirations

for my research work. Dedicated to my parents, husband, my siblings and my children for their

support and prayers.

v
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No
TITLE PAGE i

ABSTRACT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii

CHAPTER ONE : Introduction 1

1.1 Poblem statement 4

1.2 Research objectives 4

1.3 Research Questions 5

1.4 Significance of the Research 5

CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review

2.1 Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) 9

2.2 Oral Corrective Feedback and Speaking Skills 12

2.3 Implicit and Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback Methods 18

2.4 Students Perceptions of Oral Corrective feedback 31

2.5 Theoretical Framework 38

2.5.1 Introduction 38

2.5.2 Long’s Interaction Hypothesis 39

2.5.3 Oral corrective Feedback and Interaction Hypothesis 39

 vii

2.5.4 Krashen's Input Hypothesis 40

2.5.5 Input Hypothesis and Oral Corrective Feedback 42

2.5.6 Noticing Hypothesis by Schmidt 44

2.5.7 Schmidt Hypothesis and Oral Corrective Feedback 45

2.5.8 Swain Output Hypothesis 45

2.5.9 Swain's Output Hypothesis and Oral Corrective Feedback 47

CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology

3.1 Research Design 51

3.2 Variables 56

3.3 Population and Sample 56

3.4 Participants 58

3.5 Timeline of the study 58

3.6 Pilot Study 60

3.7 Instruments 60

3.8 Procedure of Speaking Test 62

3.9 Description of Rubric Checklistb 62

3.10 Validity and Reliability of Research 62

3.11 Description of Questionnaire 65

3.12 Data Analysis Techniques 65

3.13 Ethical Consideration 65

CHAPTER FOUR: Data Analysis

4.1 Experimental Data Analysis 72

4.2 Questionnaire Result Description 83

4.3 Findings and Discussion 89

CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusion

5.1 Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications 98

 viii

5.2 Conclusion 107

REFERENCES 109

APPENDIXES 119
 1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
 2

Chapter 1

Introduction

ESL learners need to learn English as a second language in a non-English environment to

interact in realistic scenarios where students may enhance their speaking abilities and learn how

to freely express their thoughts. ESL teachers encourage speaking to enhance ESL students

speaking skills in the classroom. Oral corrective feedback (OCF) is described as a "complex

phenomenon with numerous purposes" as well as a basic reaction to learner utterances

containing a mistake. Students commit errors during communicative activities in class, which

need to be corrected by the teachers’ oral corrective feedback to avoid error fossilization. The

oral corrective feedback by teachers is an important method in second language learning process.

Oral corrective feedback provides more opportunities for ESL learners to develop important

skills, particularly in the area of public speaking. Nassaji (2015) describes oral corrective

feedback as "any reaction of the teacher that transforms or demands improvement of the learner's

erroneous utterance". According to Ellis, Loewen & Erlam (2006) oral corrective feedback is

teachers’ response to ESL learners’ erroneous utterances. Feedback may be given as (a) a

notification that an error has occurred, (b) the proper form in the target language, (c)

metalinguistic details according to the error's nature, or any variation of these.

In investigating oral corrective feedback methods and student uptake, Lyster and Ranta

(1997) suggested six categories of corrective feedback: First, explicit correction: Teachers

correct students' oral utterances while making it apparent that they have made an error and then

provide the appropriate form. The teacher implicitly reformulating all or a part of a pupil’s

response is known as recast. The third method is elicitation when the teachers actively elicit by

questioning them or urging them to rephrase it. The comments on the well-formedness or
 3

linguistic structure of students’ erroneous utterances is referred to as metalinguistic feedback.

The teacher asking students for clarification of an erroneous statement is called a clarification

request. The teacher repeating a student's erroneous utterance is the sixth type of OCF called

repetition.

In a nutshell, feedback is a generic concept, whereas corrective feedback

concentrates on corrections, and oral corrective feedback (OCF) is focused on learners' speaking

skills. Usually, oral corrective feedback is provided when students make erroneous statement. To

equip students with accurate corrective feedback, to let all students engage in different speaking

activities, and to pave the way toward improving communicative competence, teachers should

take an active role in classroom discussions and assist students whenever students make errors.

The researchers divided oral corrective feedback (CF) methods in two broad categories: explicit

versus implicit, and input-providing versus output-prompting. This thesis focuses on the second

distinction, which is explained as follows: The difference between explicit and implicit oral

corrective feedback is that explicit oral corrective feedback (OCF) is a widely used teaching

technique that focuses on correcting spoken language errors of learners in a direct manner. This

technique is aimed at providing learners with immediate feedback on their spoken language

errors, which can help them improve their language skills. Implicit oral corrective feedback

(OCF) is a widely used teaching approach that aims to address spoken language errors of

learners in an indirect way. This approach primarily involves the use of recasts, prompts, or

clarification requests to indirectly correct the errors made by learners.

 4

1.1 Problem Statement

Research on oral corrective feedback has indicated that ESL teachers can effectively

facilitate language acquisition by addressing errors in the oral utterances of language learners

(Coskun, 2010; Martin & Valdivia, 2017; Papangkorn, 2015). When it comes to providing

corrective feedback, teachers should carefully consider the timing and methods of oral corrective

feedback. (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). There has been a shift in the field of oral corrective feedback

research away from mainly descriptive research that aimed to define categories of CF approaches

(Chaudron, 1977; Allwright, 1975) to scientific studies that compared the effects of various

forms of corrective feedback on the progress of second language acquisition. (Lyster, 2004;

Sheen, 2007). Specifically, the impact of such feedback on students' speaking achievement has

yet to be thoroughly investigated (Qasam Dehgani, Siros Izadpanah, and Ali Shahnavaz 2017).

In order to address a notable gap in the research, a study is needed to explore the effects of

various oral corrective feedback methods on the development of speaking skills. Young English

as a Second Language (ESL) learners in schools encounter challenges in the areas of grammar,

pronunciation, and vocabulary. The majority of these learners frequently make errors during

interactive and speaking activities (Nada H. Gamlo 2019). This research has investigated the

impact of implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback methods on ESL students’ speaking

skills.

1.2 Objective of the Research

The objectives of current research are as follows

 To investigate the impact of oral corrective feedback methods on ESL students speaking

skills.
 5

 To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of explicit and implicit oral corrective

feedback methods on ESL students speaking skills.

 To investigate the perception of ESL students regarding the use of oral corrective

feedback methods.

1.3 Research Questions

What is the impact of oral corrective feedback methods on ESL students speaking skills?

What is the comparative effectiveness of implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback

methods on ESL students speaking skills?

What are the perceptions of ESL students regarding the use of oral corrective feedback

methods?

1.4 Significance of this Study

The study's importance lies in its ability to provide important perspectives and practical

implications for educators of English as a Second Language, language instructors, and curriculum

designers. This study investigates the effects of implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback techniques

on the speaking skills of ESL learners, thereby contributing to our understanding of language acquisition

and pedagogical approaches. The present study holds significant importance due to the following key

reasons.

Improved instructional methods: Comprehending the efficacy of diverse feedback techniques can

assist instructors and educational professionals in enhancing their pedagogical methodologies. Through

the identification of the most effective method for enhancing speaking skills, educators can customize

their feedback approaches to optimize language learning experiences and promote more efficient

language acquisition.

The study provides valuable insights that can be utilized in the development and

improvement of English as a Second Language (ESL) curricula, textbooks, and instructional

 6

materials. By integrating feedback strategies that are based on empirical evidence, designers of

educational curricula can produce materials that more efficiently promote the development of

learners' speaking skills, thereby conforming to the most recent research studies.

The findings of this study have the potential to enhance the professional development of

English as a Second Language (ESL) educators. Incorporating evidence-based practices into

training programs and workshops can enable educators to enhance their effectiveness as

instructors and improve students' speaking proficiency through the application of oral corrective

feedback methods.

The implementation of efficient corrective feedback has the potential to enhance the

motivation and confidence of students. The provision of specific feedback aimed at enhancing

students' speaking abilities can potentially increase their motivation and self-assurance when

effectively communicating in the English language.

The current study contributes to existing research on the development of English as a

Second Language (ESL) speaking skills by examining the impact of implicit and explicit oral

corrective feedback methods. The aforementioned phenomenon aids in enhancing

comprehension of the underlying mechanisms involved in the acquisition of language and the

efficacy of particular feedback methodologies, thereby promoting continued academic discussion

within the realm of second language acquisition.

 7

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
 8

CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review

The influence of both implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback on students' English

as a Second Language (ESL) speaking skills is examined in this literature review. The present

review integrates extant literature to offer a comprehensive summary of the efficacy of the

aforementioned feedback types and their plausible contributions to the enhancement of English

as a Second Language (ESL) speaking proficiency. The review encompasses scholarly works

published, with a particular emphasis on investigations carried out in educational environments.

The results indicate that corrective feedback strategies, whether implicit or explicit, produce a

noteworthy impact on the oral proficiency of English as a Second Language (ESL) learners.

However, the efficacy of these strategies may be contingent upon contextual variables and

individual learner traits. The acquisition of proficient speaking skills is a pivotal facet of

language development among individuals who are learning English as a second language. The

strategy of oral corrective feedback has been widely researched as a means of improving

speaking skills. This approach entails providing learners with explicit or implicit guidance on

language errors during speaking activities. The objective of this literature review is to investigate

the impact of implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback on the speaking skills of English as a

Second Language (ESL) learners. In this chapter OCF-related concepts will be discussed. •

Feedback and oral corrective feedback, Corrective feedback and speaking skills, Oral CF

methods e.g., explicit correction (explicit correction, metalinguistic feedback) and implicit

correction (clarification request, Recast) and theories supporting Oral Corrective Feedback.
 9

2.1 Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF)

The provision of oral corrective feedback (OCF) is a significant component of language

instruction and acquisition, particularly in contexts involving the acquisition of a second

language (SLA). The process entails offering learners either explicit or implicit feedback

regarding their errors or inaccuracies in spoken language. According to the input and interaction

hypotheses Krashen (1985) and Long (1996), feedback is a crucial component in the process of

language acquisition. This is because it enables learners to receive comprehensible input and

engage in interactive activities, which are essential for language learning. According to the

sociocultural theory, introduced by Vygotsky in 1978, social interaction and mediation play a

crucial role in language learning. This theory highlights the importance of social factors in the

process of acquiring language skills. The importance of feedback in promoting language

development is highlighted by this theory.

The most important responsibility of language teachers is to offer corrective feedback to

their pupils' erroneous utterances. OCF "may comprise (a) notification that an error has been

incurred; (b) the correction by providing the right target linguistic form; or (c) morph syntactic

information on the nature of the problem; or any variation of these (Ellis 2006). CF is typically

discriminatory because of empirical limitations and ESL teachers’ preferences for error

correction. The feedback can be provided from multiple sources, including the ESL teacher, the

student who made an erroneous statement, and from other classmates. OCF might be given right

away or soon after a mistake is done (immediate CF). Also, it may be postponed till the

educational activity is finished (delayed CF). The effectiveness of OCF is influenced by various
 10

factors, including timing, frequency, and individual learner preferences. The successful

implementation of OCF strategies in language classrooms necessitates thorough consideration of

various factors. It is recommended that educators possess an understanding of the unique

requirements and preferences of their students and modify their methods of providing feedback

accordingly. Several types of research have shown that OCF is beneficial to the practice of

teaching and learning an (ESL/EFL) second or foreign language. (Nassaji, 2016/2017, Li, 2010,

Lyster 2013). However, its usefulness depends on a vast variety of elements, including the

distinctive qualities of the students and the contexts in which feedback is addressed, and there

have been some disagreements over how OCF is applied (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2020). OCF

methods has an assistive function in facilitating learners to identify their errors and correct them

by using the correct form. These teaching methods are beneficial in second language

acquisition (Nassaji, 2015).

Numerous pre and post-test studies demonstrate that OCF enhances students' accuracy in

grammar judgment and performance assessments (e.g., Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito,

2010). According to a few researchers, teachers commonly employ CF in a variety of

educational settings and CF is divided into various categories based on its purposes and degree

of directness (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Nassaji, 2016; Brown, 2016; Ha & Murray, 2020). By

offering clear and direct guidance on where and how learners have gone wrong, explicit

feedback aims to facilitate their learning process and enhance their overall performance. Various

strategies can be employed to address language errors, including overt correction, metalinguistic

explanations, or clarification requests. Implicit feedback is a type of feedback that differs from

explicit feedback in its indirect nature. Rather than overtly indicating a mistake, implicit

feedback involves rephrasing the learner's statement. This approach is characterized by its
 11

subtlety and can be an effective way to help learners identify and correct errors without feeling

embarrassed or discouraged.

According to Lyster and Mori, the six subtypes of OCF are explicit corrections,

reformulations, metalinguistic feedback, clarification requests, repetition, and elicitation (2006).

CF, which may be given verbally or in writing and may be implicit or explicit, has been thought

to be quite effective in helping learners rebuild the precisely chosen language (Li & Vuono,

2019). The classification of OCF can be described into two primary categories: explicit and

implicit oral corrective feedback. Explicit feedback is a widely used term to describe the practise

of providing learners with direct corrections or explanations of their errors (Lyster, 2004). This

type of feedback is often employed in educational settings to help students improve their

understanding and performance.

Research has been conducted to examine the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback

(OCF), with varying results. Research has shown that explicit feedback can lead to immediate

improvements in accuracy, while implicit feedback is more effective for gradual language

development (Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006). The impact of feedback is subject to a range of

factors, such as the attributes of the learner, the intricacy of the task, and contextual elements.

The provision of a balance between explicit and implicit feedback has the potential to

accommodate diverse learner preferences and foster a classroom environment that is both

supportive and communicative. Furthermore, the provision of opportunities for learners to

participate in purposeful practice and reflection may enhance the efficacy of OCF.

Oral corrective feedback has been identified as a significant tool in second language

acquisition (SLA) that facilitates the enhancement of learners' speaking abilities. The utilization
 12

of both explicit and implicit feedback approaches can prove advantageous in various learning

environments and for diverse learners, despite the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each

approach (Sheen, 2007).

2.2 Corrective Feedback and speaking skill

The process of acquisition of a second language is complex and it requires various skills

to be developed (Canal & Swain 1980). Among these skills, speaking is considered to be

essential as it plays a crucial role in effective communication and language proficiency

development (Celce-Murica et al., 2014). When learning a new language, it is important to be

able to express oneself clearly and accurately. Speaking skills enable learners to articulate their

thoughts and ideas in the target language. This facilitates communication with native speakers

and helps learners to develop their language proficiency (Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Effective communication is a crucial aspect of our daily lives, and speaking skills play a

vital role in this regard. The ability to articulate thoughts and ideas clearly and confidently is

essential in various settings, including personal, and academic. It is important for individuals

who are not native English speakers to possess the skill to communicate effectively through

speech (Celce-Murcia et al., 2014). This is because it enables them to engage in meaningful

conversations and articulate their thoughts, ideas, and opinions with clarity and confidence

(Nunan, 1991). As such, developing speaking skills is essential for ESL students to succeed in

academic, professional, and social settings. Having proficient speaking skills is a crucial factor in

achieving successful communication and integration into a target language community (Gass &

Selinker, 2008). The skill to express effectively in a foreign language can greatly enhance one's

ability to connect with others and communicate in various social situations (Celce-Murcia et al.,

2014). Whether personal or professional reasons, possessing speaking skills can open up a world
 13

of opportunities and facilitate a smoother transition into a new linguistic and cultural

environment. The development of speaking skill is a crucial part in language learning that not

only enhances language proficiency but also equips learners with the ability to effectively

communicate in target language (Richard & Schmidt, 2010). As learners progress in their

language acquisition, they must focus on improving their speaking skills to become more

confident and fluent. By doing so, they can effectively express their thoughts and ideas, engage

in meaningful conversations, and interact with native speakers in a more natural and authentic

way. Therefore, it is essential for language learners to prioritise the development of their

speaking proficiency to achieve their language learning goals.

In the realm of speaking skills, implicit oral corrective feedback has emerged as a

significant concept. This type of feedback is characterised by its natural delivery within

communicative interactions, as noted by Lyster and Ranta (2013). According to research,

implicit feedback has been found to have a beneficial effect on speaking abilities because it

encourages fluent and effective communication (Loewen, 2011). In the realm of language

learning, implicit feedback strategies have been found to be highly effective in improving

speaking proficiency. These strategies include a range of techniques such as clarification

requests, reformulations, recasts, and non-verbal cues. By utilising these methods, learners are

able to more easily identify and self-correct their language errors, ultimately leading to a greater

level of proficiency in spoken language.

In the realm of language learning, explicit oral corrective feedback has emerged as a

crucial tool for enhancing speaking skills. This technique involves direct correction and explicit

focus on linguistic accuracy, as outlined by Lyster and Ranta in their 2013 study. By providing

learners with immediate and targeted feedback on their spoken language, explicit oral corrective
 14

feedback can help to improve their accuracy and fluency, ultimately leading to more effective

communication. According to Nguyen, explicit feedback has been found to be advantageous in

improving speaking skills. This is due to the fact that it provides learners with the clue on how to

correct errors (2018). Providing explicit feedback to students can be an effective way to help

them recognise and correct specific language errors. This approach can lead to improved

accuracy in their spoken language production.

The impact of corrective feedback on speaking skills among ESL students is influenced

by various factors. Both implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback can have varying effects

depending on these factors. Understanding these factors is crucial in determining the most

effective approach to improving speaking skills among ESL students. Several factors can

influence a learner's language acquisition process. These factors may include the learner's

language proficiency, individual preferences, cultural background, and learning styles. Each of

these elements can play a significant role in shaping how a learner approaches language learning

and can impact their overall success in acquiring a new language. According to a study

conducted by Panova and Lyster in 2016, it was found that students with advanced proficiency

levels tend to drive greater benefits from explicit feedback, whereas those with lower proficiency

levels may find implicit feedback more useful.

When it comes to developing speaking skills, feedback plays a crucial role. Feedback is

the process of providing information to an individual about their performance or behaviour. In

the context of speaking skills development, feedback can help individuals identify areas of

improvement and build confidence in their abilities. One of the main benefits of feedback is the

development of speaking skills is a crucial aspect of language learning, and both implicit and

explicit oral corrective feedback are recognised as playing significant roles in this process.
 15

Implicit feedback refers to the subtle cues and hints that a language learner receives during

conversation, while explicit feedback involves more direct and explicit correction of errors. Both

forms of feedback are important in helping learners to improve their speaking abilities and to

develop greater fluency and accuracy in their use of the language. According to Zhang's

research in 2015, the type of feedback provided during communication can have a significant

impact on its effectiveness. Implicit feedback, for instance, can promote fluency and naturalness

in communication, while explicit feedback can improve accuracy and facilitate error correction.

In order to develop of speaking skills, it is crucial to adopt a balanced approach that incorporates

both types of feedback. This approach should be tailored to the individual needs and preferences

of the learners. By doing so, learners can receive the necessary guidance and support to enhance

their speaking abilities.

In summary, the ability to speak fluently in a foreign language is a crucial component of

effective communication. Whether it be for personal or professional reasons, being able to

express oneself clearly and confidently in the target language can greatly enhance one's ability to

connect with others and achieve desired outcomes. Therefore, developing strong speaking skills

should be a top priority for anyone seeking to improve their language proficiency. The

effectiveness of implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback on the speaking skills of ESL

students is contingent upon a multitude of factors. These factors include language proficiency,

individual preferences, cultural background, and learning styles. Optimising speaking skills

development is a crucial aspect of language learning. To achieve this, incorporating both types of

feedback - positive and negative - in a balanced manner is essential. This approach ensures that

learners receive constructive criticism while also being encouraged to continue practising and

improving their speaking skills. It is important to note that feedback should be tailored to
 16

individual learners, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses. By doing so, learners can

receive personalised guidance and support, which can ultimately lead to more effective language

acquisition. When it comes to teaching English as a second language, educators must take into

account various factors to provide effective corrective feedback and design instructional

approaches that facilitate accurate, fluent, and meaningful spoken language production in ESL

learners. By doing so, educators can help their students develop their language skills and

improve their overall communication abilities.

Language is put forward as a means of communication; individuals communicate to share

their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and feelings. As a result, speaking, an essential component of

learning is necessary for communication to occur. During the learning process of a foreign

language, speaking is considered to be the most challenging skill to master. According to Ur, P.

(1996), speaking "seems intuitively the most important" among the four skills (writing, speaking,

and reading, listening). As a result, learning a new language should be a top priority for

everyone. Even though all four skills are necessary to learn a language, speaking is the most

important skill.

Richard (1996) differentiates between corrective feedback about meaning and form, and

the techniques used concerning meaning are to acknowledge correct answers, praise, expand or

modify. It suggests to do repeat, does summarize, etc.

Regarding form methods, it is inclusive of:

 Urging students to repeat what they uttered

 Marking errors and urging pupils to correct themselves

 Marking errors and explaining why it’s wrong

 The student repeats the correct form

 17

 Gestures that there was a mistake

In practicing fluency, mistakes are more readily accepted than when practicing precision. On

rare occasions, the teacher give feedback to correct students' mistakes while they are speaking,

but this should only be performed after the activities are finished. According to Harmer

(2007), "There are times when we may wish to intervene during speaking activities, just as there

are times when we may wish to respond to our students once such activities are done." (Harmer,

2007). Speaking skills is an essential part of the language instruction curriculum (Luoma 2004).

Communication is the main objective of foreign language education, and spoken language is at

the core of foreign language instruction. The difficulties concerning how a teacher should assess

the speaking skills of second language learners, still have not been investigated. As a result, it

might be difficult to provide feedback on spoken language in a language-learning setting

(Assessment Resource Library, 1998; National Communication Association, 2005).

Providing feedback on speaking skills is therefore given the appropriate significance in this

study.

Speaking a foreign language requires making mistakes, and what number and nature of

errors a learner makes depends on their level of ability and where they are in the learning

process. Making errors is therefore a necessary component of learning. And if making errors is a

fundamental component of learning, then receiving feedback is a crucial step in the teaching

procedure. Gipps (1995) argues in favour of this notion and claims that while many processes

contribute to learning, feedback is an essential one. Additionally, he argues that feedback is an

important factor or technique for supporting language learning. It is evident from the discussion

above that making mistakes and learning from them are essential components of learning a
 18

second language, particularly in oral production and teaching a second or foreign language

involves providing feedback on oral errors.

2.3 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback

Lyster and Ranta investigated the impact of various forms of corrective feedback on

student participation in communicative classrooms. It discusses the difference between explicit

and implicit feedback and examines the various forms of explicit oral corrective feedback used in

language instruction and learning.

Explicit oral corrective feedback can take various forms, dependent on its delivery

method and level of explicitness. The following are prevalent forms of explicit oral corrective

feedback used in research on language learning:

Error Correction: This form of explicit feedback involves pointing out and rectifying the

error made by the learner. It may involve providing the proper form, pronunciation, or structure

of the target language. In explicit OCF the teacher or proficient speaker provides a model or

example of the correct form or pronunciation for the student to imitate or compare with his or her

own production.

Metalinguistic Explanation Metalinguistic feedback is the explicit explanation of the

grammatical or linguistic rules and principles associated with the learner's error. The instructor

clarifies the correct form or structure and assists the student in comprehending the underlying

principles.

Explicit Correction Prompts: In this feedback method, the teacher prompts the student to

self-correct by indicating explicitly that an error has been made and requesting that the student

provide the correct form or structure.

 19

Implicit oral corrective feedback consists of providing learners with indirect indications or

signals regarding their errors without explicitly identifying them. Here are some common forms

of implicit oral corrective feedback used in research on language learning:

Recasts: Recasts consist of rephrasing or reformulating the learner's incorrect utterance

without indicating explicitly that an error was made. The instructor or interlocutor provides a

conversational example of the correct form or structure.

Clarification Requests: Clarification requests are queries or clarification requests that are

intended to prompt learners to ruminate on their utterance and recognise the error. The instructor

or interlocutor may request repetition, elaboration, or elucidation in order to infer the error

(Long, M. H., & Robinson, p. (1998).

Elicitation consists of asking students for the correct response or to finish a sentence or

phrase. By requiring students to generate the correct form or structure, the error is indirectly

highlighted and self-correction is encouraged (Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000).

Pauses or Delays: Pausing or postponing the response after a student's mistake can serve

as an implicit indicator that something is not quite accurate. This interruption gives students the

opportunity to self-monitor and self-correct (Wong, J. (2005).

The investigations by Long (1977), Lochtman (2002) and Lyster and Ranta (1977)

produced complex oral feedback classifications, but eventually researchers decided on the

simplified classification depicted in Table 2.1. This is determined by two aspects: Whether a

method is input-providing (giving learners the proper linguistic structure) and output-prompting

(encouraging learners in self-correction) and if a method is implicit (corrective feedback is

concealed) or explicit (corrective feedback becomes obvious to learners).

 20

Table 2.1 Classification of OCF

Implicit Explicit

Input providing 1. Conversational recast 2. Explicit Correction

3. Metalinguistic feedback

Output prompting 4. Clarification request 6. Elicitation

5. Repetition 7. Paralinguistic feedback

The theoretical underpinning of these two CF dimensions is as follows: Input-

providing techniques are preferred if L2 acquisition is viewed as input-driven. In contrast,

output-prompting feedback is preferred if creating the correct form is seen to help with

the acquisition. Whether to use implicit or explicit tactics relies on how much

you emphasize conscious noticing of the correction. While explicit feedback is more likely to

result in conscious noticing and explicit/conscious learning, implicit feedback tends to

implicit/unconscious acquisition

2.4 Explicit and Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback Methods

 21

Corrective feedback, both explicit and implicit is an important subject in second language

learning. The level of implicit and explicit CF can help learners improve their language abilities.

The degree of implicitness and explicitness plays an important theoretical and pedagogical

function in second language learning since it can offer insight into how the cognitive systems of

learners operate while learning a second language. Furthermore, it may help L2 teachers choose

a better CF strategy by providing a clear picture of the strategy's explicitness and implicitness.

Similarly, the benefit of explicit and implicit circumstances in second language learning (L2) has

long been a source of contention in the field of psychology. It is vital to examine the concepts of

explicitness and implicitness in corrective feedback for a better understanding of corrective

feedback and its methods.

Comparative effectiveness of oral corrective feedback (OCF) methods is generally

produced based on explicit and implicit OCF methods in discussions of several studies. In

between these two major differences, the term "implicit corrective feedback" relates to drawing a

learner's attention without interrupting the flow of interaction or explicitly informing the learner

about the spoken errors committed. In contrast, with explicit corrective feedback, the teacher

provides feedback to correct the error, and as a result, the student discovers the chance for self-

correction and draws the learner's attention to the oral utterance (Table 2.2). Explicit corrective

feedback gives learners direct feedback on what was incorrect, especially if they are not fluent

enough to correct the error (Bitchener, 2008).

 22

Table 2.2 Difference between implicit and explicit OCF

Categories Corrective feedback methods

Explicit Explicit correction – purchased not purchase

Elicitation – The girl -------?

Metalinguistic clue – you need the correct verb form.

Implicit Recast – S- The girl had purchase a hat.

T- The girl had purchased the hat.

Clarification request- S- The girl.

T- Sorry/pardon

Repetition- S- The girl had purchase hat.

T- The girl had purchase the hat.

Furthermore, as Sheen (2007) contends, explicit OCF is beneficial, particularly for

acquiring specific structures of grammar. Unlike explicit corrective feedback, implicit corrective
 23

feedback does not offer learners corrected structures or include hints for learners' incorrect

utterances. Instead, for verbal errors, the teacher provides some indicators or hints to capture the

students' attention (Ferris & Roberts, 2001)

Some researchers (e.g., Roberts and Ferris 2001) claim that explicit OCF, as contrary to

implicit OCF, fosters learners to practice self-correction by requiring them to engage in extensive

internal thinking. Furthermore, explicit OCF is more beneficial and efficient than implicit OCF

when dealing with the errors of students who are lower-level or young learners.

Ellis and Sheen (2011) developed a categorization of oral corrective feedback according

to the degree of explicitness and implicitness of OCF methods, which is valuable in the sense

that it is distinguishable in terms of output-prompting and input-providing. The taxonomy of

OCF developed by Ellis and Sheen (2011) not only demonstrates the intricacy of oral corrective

feedback but also states its numerous uses. They classify explicit correction and recasts as input-

providing feedback since they offer second-language forms and structures. In contrast, all other

types of feedback are listed as output-prompting techniques since they help learners make

revised L2 forms.

As stated by Ranta and Lyster (1997), the category of oral corrective feedback consists of

explicit correction, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback repetition, translation, recast, and

clarification. Hatef, Rezaei, and Mozaffari, (2011) state that "all of these techniques are placed

on an explicit-implicit scale. According to Loewen and Nabei (2007), repetition and clarification

requests compared to elicitation and metalinguistic feedback, may be considered easier to

understand.

Sheen and Ellis (2006) make a similar distinction between implicit corrective feedback,

in which the ESL students are not given the correct forms (including elicitation and
 24

metalinguistic feedback), and explicit corrective feedback, in which the forms are provided to

them. Explicit corrective feedback includes didactic recasts, explicit correction, and

metalinguistic explanation.

Researchers generally believe that the distinction between explicit and implicit

feedback is continual rather than binary. How might the various feedback be positioned along

the continuum? A single recommendation comes from Lyster and Saito's (2010) Figure 2.1

because it considers both the input-providing and output-prompting dimensions, this

categorization of the various feedback techniques is beneficial.

Figure 2.1 Continual distinction between explicit and implicit OCF

Clarification Repetition Elicitation Metalinguistic

Request feedback

Implicit Prompts Explicit

Reformulation

Recasts Explicit correction

2.4 Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback

Explicit oral corrective feedback (OCF) is a widely used teaching technique that focuses

on correcting spoken language errors of learners in a direct manner. This technique is aimed at

providing learners with immediate feedback on their spoken language errors, which can help
 25

them improve their language skills. OCF is considered an effective method for language teachers

to address the errors made by learners during oral communication.

Explicit OCF is a teaching approach that is grounded in theoretical frameworks,

specifically, it draws upon the Input and Interaction Hypotheses, which were first proposed by

Krashen in 1985 and later expanded upon by Long in 1996. Additionally, the approach is

informed by Sociocultural Theory, which was developed by Vygotsky in 1978. These theoretical

foundations provide a solid basis for understanding the principles and practises of Explicit OCF.

According to the Input Hypothesis, learners can acquire a language more effectively when they

receive explicit feedback that helps them understand the language input they receive. This theory

proposes that comprehensible input is essential for language acquisition, and that feedback can

play a significant role in making input more comprehensible for learners. By providing learners

with feedback that helps them understand the language they are exposed to, teachers and

language instructors can facilitate the language acquisition process and help learners achieve

greater proficiency in the target language. Sociocultural Theory places emphasis on the

importance of explicit instruction and mediation in facilitating language development through

the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). This theory states, learners are able to acquire

language skills more effectively when they receive guidance and support from more

knowledgeable individuals who can help them navigate their ZPD. By providing learners with

the necessary scaffolding, educators can help them develop their language abilities and move

towards greater proficiency. This approach has been widely adopted in language teaching and

has been shown to be effective in promoting language development in learners of all ages and

backgrounds.
 26

Explicit Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) is an essential aspect of language learning that

can be delivered in different ways. These methods include overt correction, metalinguistic

explanations, clarification requests, and explicit reformulations. Each of these techniques plays a

crucial role in helping learners improve their language skills. In language learning, overt

correction is a technique that involves directly identifying and rectifying a learner's mistakes.

This method entails explicitly pointing out the errors made by the learner and providing them

with the correct form. Metalinguistic explanations are a type of linguistic analysis that aims to

clarify the grammatical rules or principles that underlie a particular error. This approach is often

used in language teaching and learning contexts, where instructors seek to help students

understand the underlying structures of a language in order to improve their overall proficiency.

By providing metalinguistic explanations, instructors can help students identify and correct

errors more effectively, and develop a deeper understanding of the language they are studying.

This approach is particularly useful Clarification requests are a common technique used in

education to prompt learners to self-correct and improve their understanding of a topic. By

asking for clarification, educators can encourage learners to reflect on their own knowledge and

identify areas where they may need further explanation or guidance. This technique can be

particularly effective in language learning, where learners may struggle with new vocabulary or

grammar rules. When it comes to language learning, one technique that is commonly used is

explicit reformulation. This involves taking an incorrect statement made by the learner and

restating it in a corrected form. By doing so, the learner is able to see the mistake they made and

learn from it.

The impact of explicit oral corrective feedback (OCF) has been a topic of research, with

varying results. Studies have produced mixed findings on the subject. According to recent
 27

studies, explicit feedback has been found to have a positive impact on learners' accuracy. By

highlighting errors and providing correct models, learners are able to immediately improve their

performance. The utilization of explicit instruction in language learning has been found to be

beneficial in enhancing learners' understanding of language rules and promoting conscious

reflection. The effectiveness of explicit Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) is subject to various

factors that impact its efficacy. These factors include the characteristics of the learner, the

complexity of the task, and individual preferences.

The practical implications of a particular concept or idea refer to its real-world

applications and consequences. In other words, it is the successful implementation of explicit

OCF (Object-centred Framework) is contingent upon the careful consideration of several key

factors. Creating a supportive and constructive classroom environment is crucial for teachers

who aim to foster a positive learning experience for their students. By doing so, learners are

more likely to feel comfortable taking risks and accepting feedback, which can ultimately lead to

greater academic success. To achieve this, teachers can implement various strategies such as

providing clear expectations and guidelines, offering constructive feedback, and creating a safe

space for students to express their thoughts and ideas. By setting clear expectations, learners will

have a better understanding of what is expected of them and will be more likely to feel confident

in their abilities. Additionally, offering constructive feedback is an essential component of

creating a supportive classroom In order to maximise the effectiveness of feedback, it is

important to provide it in a timely manner and to focus on the most salient errors. Additionally,

clear explanations should be offered to ensure that the feedback is easily understood and

actionable. By following these guidelines, the impact of feedback can be greatly enhanced. When

it comes to providing feedback to students, teachers must take into account their proficiency
 28

levels and individual needs. This is because the appropriate level of explicitness in feedback

delivery can vary depending on the student. Therefore, it is essential for teachers to tailor their

feedback to meet the specific needs of each learner. By doing so, they can ensure that their

feedback is effective and helps students improve their skills and knowledge.

In the realm of second language acquisition (SLA), explicit oral corrective feedback has

been identified as a highly effective instructional tool. This type of feedback has been shown to

facilitate learners' development of accurate speaking skills, which is a crucial aspect of language

acquisition. As such, it is clear that explicit oral corrective feedback should be considered an

essential component of any SLA curriculum. Explicit feedback is a widely used method to

enhance learners' accuracy and conscious knowledge. However, its effectiveness can be

influenced by several factors. In the realm of language acquisition, there is a need for further

research to delve into the most effective methods of providing explicit Oral Corrective Feedback

(OCF). It is crucial to gain a deeper understanding of the long-term impact that OCF has on

language acquisition.

2.5 Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback

Implicit oral corrective feedback (OCF) is a widely used teaching approach that aims to

address spoken language errors of learners in an indirect way. This approach primarily involves

the use of recasts, prompts, or clarification requests to indirectly correct the errors made by

learners. The use of OCF has been found to be effective in improving learners' language

proficiency, particularly in the context of second language acquisition. Theoretical foundations

are the fundamental principles and concepts that underlie a particular field of study. They

provide a framework for understanding and Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) is a
 29

concept that finds its roots in various theoretical frameworks, including the Input and Interaction

Hypotheses (Krashen, 1985; Long, 1996) and Sociocultural Theory (Vygotsky, 1978). These

frameworks provide a theoretical foundation for understanding how implicit OCF can be used to

facilitate language learning. According to the Input Hypothesis, learners can acquire a language

more effectively through implicit feedback, such as recasts, which provide them with

comprehensible input. This hypothesis proposes that the provision of such feedback can facilitate

language acquisition. Sociocultural Theory is a theoretical framework that places great emphasis

on social interaction and mediation as key factors in promoting language development. This

theory highlights the crucial role of implicit feedback in scaffolding learners' linguistic

competence. In other words, learners acquire language skills through their interactions with

others, and the feedback they receive from these interactions helps to shape their language

abilities. This approach underscores the importance of social context in language learning and

suggests that language development is not solely an individual process, but rather a collaborative

one that involves the active participation of others.

Implicit Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) is a broad category of feedback techniques that

are used to correct learners' errors without explicitly pointing them out. Instead, these techniques

provide alternative correct models or invite learners to self-correct. There are several types of

Implicit OCF that fall under this category. These techniques are designed to help learners

improve their language skills without feeling embarrassed or discouraged by their mistakes.

In language teaching, there are various techniques that educators use to correct their

students' language errors. These techniques include recasts, prompts, and clarification requests.

Recasts involve the teacher restating the student's incorrect utterance in a corrected form.

Prompts are designed to encourage self-correction or reflection, while clarification requests seek
 30

repetition or clarification of the student's utterance. These methods are commonly used to

improve language proficiency and accuracy in learners.

The effectiveness of implicit oral corrective feedback (OCF) has been a topic of research,

with varying outcomes. Studies have produced mixed results in determining the efficacy of this

approach. According to recent studies, implicit feedback may have a positive impact on language

development by fostering self-correction among learners and promoting their engagement in the

negotiation of meaning. This type of feedback is believed to encourage learners to reflect on their

language use and make necessary adjustments, ultimately leading to improved language

proficiency over time. The utilization of implicit feedback has been found to have a positive

impact on the development of language fluency and naturalness among learners. This approach

to language learning involves providing learners with subtle cues and hints, rather than explicit

corrections, in order to guide them towards more accurate and natural language use. The

effectiveness of implicit OCF is subject to variation based on a number of factors. These factors

include the characteristics of the learner, the complexity of the task at hand, and contextual

factors.

The practical implications of a particular concept or idea refer to the real-world

applications and consequences that arise from its implementation. To effectively implement

implicit OCF, it is crucial to take into account several key factors. Creating a classroom

environment that fosters open communication and encourages students to take risks is a crucial

aspect of effective teaching. Teachers who prioritize building a supportive and communicative

atmosphere can help learners feel more comfortable expressing themselves and engaging in oral

communication. By doing so, students are more likely to actively participate in class discussions

and develop their communication skills. The implicit oral corrective feedback during classroom
 31

interactions has been found to be an effective way to promote natural language use and enhance

learners' autonomy and metalinguistic awareness. This approach involves giving feedback in a

subtle and indirect manner, allowing learners to reflect on their language use and make

adjustments accordingly. By incorporating this technique into classroom interactions, educators

can create a more dynamic and engaging learning environment that supports language

development and encourages learners to take ownership of their learning. In order to effectively

cater to the diverse needs and preferences of learners, it is important for teachers to strike a

balance between the use of implicit and explicit feedback approaches. By utilising both methods,

educators can provide a more comprehensive and personalised learning experience for their

students. Incorporating both implicit and explicit feedback strategies can help teachers to better

meet the needs of their students and promote a more successful learning environment.

In the realm of second language acquisition (SLA), implicit oral corrective feedback has

emerged as a promising instructional approach. This method provides learners with opportunities

to engage in authentic communication and self-correction, ultimately enhancing their language

proficiency. As such, it is considered a valuable tool for language teachers seeking to optimise

their students' learning outcomes. This literature review delves into the theoretical foundations,

types, effectiveness, and practical implications of implicit OCF. The use of implicit feedback in

language development and fluency has been a topic of interest among researchers and language

learners alike. Although this method of feedback can be beneficial, its effectiveness may be

influenced by a range of factors. In the realm of language acquisition, there is a need for further

research to explore the most effective methods of providing implicit Oral Corrective Feedback

(OCF). Additionally, it is crucial to gain a deeper understanding of the long-term effects of OCF

on language learning.
 32

2.6 Students' Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback

The majority of studies on ESL students 'view CF as an important teaching technique

with the main objective of grammar accuracy. As a result, these studies frequently included a

few inquiries regarding CF in a comprehensive survey about grammar teaching. However, they

have offered some insightful information. Overall, students' attitudes toward CF happened to be

favorable (Schulz, 1996, 2001; Davis, 2003; Brown, 2009; Jean & Simard, 2011; Li, 2017;

Loewen et al., 2009), but the degree up to which the pupils wanted to receive CF differed

depending on the context of learning along with the previous experience with learning a

language (Loewen et al., 2009). For instance, Columbian students learning a foreign language

(FL) were found to be more favorable about CF as compared to the US students learning FL

in Schulz's (2001) extensive research involving post-secondary students. In a wide-ranging poll

of high school Canadian students, Jean and Simard (2011) discovered that a larger proportion

of English language learners (ELL) than French language learners believed that grammar

mistakes should always be corrected during speaking classes. They explained this mismatch by

pointing out that the pupils had learned their first language in their language arts classes. Spanish

high school EFL students participated in (Agudo's 2015 and Loewen et al 2009) 's wide-

ranging research study, which found that high school students learning EFL in Spain had

favourable attitudes toward OCF than students learning FL in the US in that research. He said

that the higher secondary school students learning EFL in his study wanted and anticipated

frequent correction in the classroom. Many research contrasted students' and teachers' beliefs

about the function of OCF and concluded that students had significantly more favourable

perceptions of OCF than the teachers' Li, 2017; Roothooft & Breeze, 2016; Schulz, 2001;

Brown, 2009; Jean & Simard, 2011.Teachers felt worried about the potential negative
 33

consequences of CF on students' psychological conditions, but students were open to receiving

rapid and specific feedback (Li, 2017; Roothooft & Breeze, 2016). According to research by

Kartchava and Ammar (2014), students' perceptions about the importance of OCF have been

found to influence how much they perceive the rectifying nature of the ESL teachers’ corrective

feedback. Additionally, students' preference for specific OCF types may influence how quickly

they adopt new information after receiving OCF (Akiyama, 2017). Future study on the

fundamental assessment of language learning how, when, and what to effectively correct in L2

classes is warranted since SLA research effectively displays the significance of OCF practice.

(Lyster et al. (2013); Ellis (2017); Ha & Murray (2020, 2021). The scant literature on studies

examining students' preferences for CF types yields some contradictory results. Lee (2013) In a

study with 60 senior-grade students in the US who were prepared to serve as academic staff in a

spoken ESL course, it was discovered that the students favoured explicit to be the foremost

desired OCF type. In research with 282 secondary school pupils and 113 adults who were

learning Spanish as an EFL, Roothooft, and Breeze (2016) discovered that pupils responded

well to explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback it’s interesting to see that adult learners

thought positively of recasts compared to secondary school pupils. The research could not

provide any explanations for this divergence, though. Not accounting for their stress

levels, Zhang and Rahimi's pupils—81 highly stressed and 81 low-stress pupils—rated

elicitation, repetition, and clarification requests as the least productive types and explicit

correction and metalinguistic feedback as the most beneficial and effective types. Additionally,

they discovered a connection between Iranian undergraduate EFL pupils' apprehension levels

and their CF beliefs. This supports the findings of prior research by Oladejo (1993) conducted

with Singaporean ESL learners in higher secondary school and university settings, which
 34

concluded oral corrective feedback achieved the maximum evaluation score. In recent research

with EFL learners in China, Zhu and Wang (2019) discovered that their learners chose to obtain

output-prompting OCF (such as repetition and clarification requests) to input-guiding OCF

(explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback). This study shows that context affects students'

choices for OCF types, and in particular situations, EFL learners value metalinguistic feedback

more than US ESL learners. When OCF should be administered, Davis (2003) found that 97

undergraduate or 86% of EFL students wanted that OCF to be given immediately to culminate

the development of harmful habits. In a comprehensive poll of 1,600 FL students at a US

institution, Brown (2009) found that his students were somewhat in favor of effective ESL

teachers correcting mistakes right away. Regardless of their anxiety level, Zhang and

Rahimi's undergraduate EFL students favored immediate OCF over delayed OCF, but in Zhu

and Wang's (2019) study, the students had a poor assessment of delayed CF. These findings

display that learners favor immediate OCF over delayed OCF, at least in the beginning. in

general, but the divergent opinions on the best timing for CF among SLA researchers and L2

educators (Ellis, 2017; Ha & Murray, 2021) call for additional studies to learn more about

students' attitudes in this area and come up with more persuasive educational

implications. (Quinn & Nakata, 2017). Pupils in Zhang and Rahimi's (2014) paper believed

that frequent mistakes have to be rectified the greatest concerning CF objectives, followed by

errors that impede communication. In Lee's (2013) research, higher ESL learners also stated the

correction of the spoken errors that occurred the most frequently. The pupils of Zhu and Wang

(2019) wanted their mistakes to be fixed, even if they weren't major. Students in Oladejo's

(1993, p. 78) research thought that to increase their language correctness, "complete, not

selective" faults should be rectified. The group of students from secondary schools anticipated
 35

CF for grammatical mistakes, but those from universities anticipated implicit OCF which to push

students for self-correction. More research is required to make significant conclusions regarding

students' preferences for oral corrective feedback methods because the limited literature does not

reveal any significant results.

According to Sheen's research in 2007, providing effective corrective feedback is

essential in improving the speaking abilities of ESL students. This highlights the significance of

offering constructive criticism to non-native speakers to help them develop their language

proficiency. Gaining insight into the viewpoints of students is a crucial aspect of improving

instructional methods and promoting feedback delivery that is centred on the learner. This

understanding can be instrumental in shaping the way educators approach their teaching

practises.

Implicit oral corrective feedback is a term used to describe feedback that is provided in a

natural manner during communicative interactions, without the need for direct correction. This

type of feedback has been extensively studied by researchers such as Lyster and Ranta (2013),

who have explored the various perceptions associated with it. According to research conducted

by Loewen in 2011, it has been found that implicit feedback is highly valued by ESL students.

This is because it encourages the development of fluency and facilitates natural communication.

Many educators believe that using a less intrusive approach to classroom management can help

maintain a positive learning environment. This approach is perceived as being more conducive to

fostering a positive classroom atmosphere. Implicit feedback is a form of communication that is

conveyed through various means such as clarification requests, reformulations, recasts, and non-

verbal cues. These forms of feedback are not explicitly stated but are instead implied through the

way they are conveyed. Clarification requests, for instance, are a way of seeking further
 36

information or clarification on a particular topic. According to Nassaji and Swain's research in

2000, students who are learning English as a second language tend to view this particular form of

feedback as less intimidating to their self-confidence and more in line with genuine language

usage.

Explicit oral corrective feedback is a method of language instruction that involves direct

correction and explicit focus on linguistic accuracy. This approach has been studied extensively

by researchers such as Lyster and Ranta (2013), who have explored the perceptions of explicit

oral corrective feedback among language learners. According to a study conducted by Panova

and Lyster in 2016, it was found that ESL students hold different views regarding explicit

feedback. These views are shaped by a variety of factors, including their cultural background,

personal preferences, and learning styles. Explicit feedback is highly valued by many students as

it offers precise guidance on correcting errors and promotes accuracy. According to Nguyen

(2018), individuals perceive it as a chance to recognise and correct particular language mistakes.

According to Zhang (2015), while some students may benefit from explicit feedback, others may

find it to be overwhelming, anxiety-provoking, or discouraging, particularly if they perceive it as

negative criticism.

The objectives can be influenced by various factors. These factors can range from personal

experiences, cultural background, social norms, and media exposure. Understanding the

perceptions of ESL students regarding implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback are

influenced by various factors. According to a study conducted by Leeman and Ledoux in 2003,

students' preferences for a specific feedback type can be influenced by various individual

differences, including their language proficiency, motivation, and self-confidence. These factors

can play a significant role in shaping the way students perceive and respond to feedback.
 37

Therefore, it is essential for educators to consider these individual differences when providing

feedback to their students to ensure that it is effective and well-received. Cultural factors are

known to have a significant impact on various aspects of human behaviour. In particular, beliefs

about authority and face-saving have been identified as important cultural factors that influence

how individuals interact with one another. These factors can have a profound effect on

communication, decision-making, and social relationships. Understanding the role of cultural

factors in shaping behaviour is essential for effective cross-cultural communication and

collaboration. According to recent research, students hailing from collectivist cultures may

exhibit a greater inclination towards implicit feedback. This is primarily attributed to their desire

to evade public embarrassment or loss of face. According to Nassaji and Swain (2000), students

hailing from individualistic cultures tend to welcome explicit feedback as it corresponds with

their preference for direct guidance and enhancement. This stands in contrast to students from

other cultural backgrounds who may have different expectations regarding feedback.

The impact of feedback preferences on learning outcomes has been a topic of interest in

the field of English as a Second Language (ESL) education. Specifically, the preferences of ESL

students for implicit or explicit oral corrective feedback have been found to have a significant

impact on their learning outcomes. This suggests that understanding and accommodating

individual feedback preferences may be an important factor in promoting effective language

learning. According to research conducted by Sheen in 2007, it has been found that when

feedback types are tailored to match the preferences of students, it can significantly improve

their motivation, engagement, and overall language proficiency. These findings highlight the

importance of considering individual student preferences when providing feedback in

educational settings. When it comes to providing feedback to students, educators have a range of
 38

strategies at their disposal. By offering students a variety of options for feedback delivery,

educators can empower them to express their preferences and make informed choices about how

they receive feedback. This approach can help to create a more personalised learning experience

that is tailored to the needs and preferences of individual students. Establishing a classroom

environment that is both supportive and inclusive is crucial for optimising the advantages of

corrective feedback. It is imperative that students feel at ease expressing their preferences in such

a setting.

In the realm of language learning, the perceptions of ESL students regarding implicit and

explicit oral corrective feedback have been found to hold great importance. These perceptions

have been shown to significantly impact the overall language learning experience of these

students. In order to design effective feedback strategies that promote speaking skills, educators

must have a thorough understanding of their students' perceptions. This understanding is crucial

as it allows educators to align their feedback strategies with students' preferences, ultimately

leading to more successful outcomes. According to scholarly literature, providing feedback to

ESL students in a learner-centred manner can have a significant impact on their learning

outcomes. This approach takes into account individual differences, cultural factors, and the

feedback preferences of students. By doing so, it creates a more meaningful and effective

feedback provision system that fosters a positive and conducive learning environment for ESL

students. As noted by Sheen (2007), this approach can lead to better learning outcomes and a

more successful educational experience for ESL students. In the realm of ESL instruction, it is

imperative to refine feedback practises to enhance language learning outcomes. To achieve this,

future research should delve deeper into the interplay between perceptions, preferences, and

language learning outcomes. By doing so, we can gain a better understanding of how these
 39

factors influence one another and how we can use this knowledge to improve feedback practises.

Therefore, it is crucial to continue exploring this area of research to ensure that ESL instruction

is as effective as possible.

2.5 The Theoretical Framework

Introduction

Corrective feedback methods are greatly influenced by the SLA (Second Language

Acquisition) theories. Theories and models of language learning are all relevant to the

apprehension of corrective feedback in SLA in some way. Several SLA theories make use of the

concept of CF. The language theories and models discussed in this section were chosen based on

their relevance to oral corrective feedback, so that their pedagogical intervention and theoretical

reasoning, relating to oral corrective feedback might be taken into account. This section

discusses the Krashen Input Hypothesis (1980, 1985), Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis (1990,

2001) and Swain's Output Hypothesis (2005).

2.5.1 Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1980)

Long (1980) proposed the interaction hypothesis, which was modified by Long (1981,

1981, 1983, 1983) and (1996, 2001) in response to Krashen's Input Hypothesis (1985). Krashen

(1985) claims that learning is only possible when "comprehensible input" is provided.

Comprehensive input is a language that is more advanced than the learners' grammatical

knowledge. Long states that understandable input is insufficient for second language acquisition,

however he argues that certain forms of corrective feedback are essential for acquisition and

comprehension. Long claims that interaction among learners leads to comprehensible input that

improves language development. When there is interaction between two speakers, their
 40

grammatical complexity is comparable, but their language structures differ. Conversational

corrective feedback such as repetitions, comprehension checks, or clarification requests are used

when interacting with a more competent counterpart. These conversational methods eventually

results in inappropriate input for developing learners' present level of knowledge.

2.5.2 Oral Corrective Feedback and Interaction Hypothesis

Ellis (1999) states that interaction can serve as notification to students of potential

linguistic gaps which they can address by putting more emphasis on input. Specific structural

components of a second language can develop as the results of corrective feedback in the form of

comprehensible input in interactional activity. The interaction could involve negotiation,

reformation, and feedback elements. A modified form of the interaction theory, according to

Ellis (1999b), emphasizes the importance of intelligible output and corrective feedback in

enabling L2 acquisition.

Interaction, primarily corrective feedback in interaction, is essential for second language

acquisition. Its effectiveness in language learning can be attributed to the following factors. First

of all, interactional feedback is essential for the development of language because it alerts

learners to errors in speaking during meaning-focused interaction. Interactional feedback is

defined by Long (1991) as a form of treatment that "overtly directs students' attention to

linguistic elements as they occur unintentionally in lessons whose main focus is on meaning or

communication".

Interactional feedback helps to identify potential discrepancies’ between learners'

interlanguage and their target language produced by their negotiating input. Interactional

feedback is crucial for language development because it gives students the chance to make

hypotheses and test them. Interactional feedback is also beneficial since it spurs students to
 41

enhance their output and interlanguage (IL). The importance of this process in language

development is emphasized by Long (2006). Furthermore, two-way interaction tasks may yield

conventional gains over one-way information exchange tasks. It has been argued that the

Interaction Hypothesis by Long overemphasizes the meaning-based interaction between non-

native and native speakers (Braidi, 1995).

2.5.3 Input Hypothesis by Krashen (1980, 1985)

Krashen's language acquisition theory has been developed around five assumptions.

According to the acquisition-learning hypothesis, language learning is separated into two distinct

processes: conscious learning (learning process) and subconscious learning (acquisition process)

(Ferris and Bitchener 2012). The monitor hypothesis explains how acquisition and learning are

employed in production, as well as how the learner may monitor the output of his or her learned

system. The natural order hypothesis is the third theory.

Language is learned systematically, according to this hypothesis, however, there are

faster and slower learners. This hypothesis's central path is the input hypothesis that argues that

learning can only occur if information, particularly comprehensible input, is beyond the present

level of ESL learners. There is no requirement to correct errors if they are provided sufficient

input, they spontaneously learn grammatical values on their own.

The last hypothesis is the Affective filter hypothesis which describes the affective aspects

that influence second language acquisition. These effective factors determine whether language

acquisition is made possible or restricted, and so account for variability in L2 learning. The

affective filter hypothesis effectiveness is based on the learner's opinion toward second language

acquisition either positive or negative (Ferris and Bitchener 2012).

 42

As previously defined, the Input Hypothesis by Krashen (1982, 1985) is the primary

focus of this study, hence it is being considered in connection to the context of this research. This

hypothesis has dominated the field of SLA by theorizing language acquisition in connection to

input that is comprehensible. It states that exposure to sufficiently intelligible input is required

for second language acquisition. Comprehensible input according to Krashen is "input whose

structural complexity slightly exceeds learners' current level of competence" and "all other

factors considered to facilitate or prompt second language acquisition is effective only when they

contribute to comprehensible input and/or a low affective filter".

According to Krashen, structures that provide previously known input to learners have no

function in language learning. If a student is at acquisition level a, he can only go to the next

level of learning if he achieves a+1. In this scenario, a represents the learner's present level of

competence, whereas a+1 represents the learner's next level of competence. This is normally

achieved by providing extra-linguistic information, and the best possible input is aimed explicitly

at a+1. To recap, Krashen argues that simplified input by teacher input and learner utilization of

context for language acquisition improve input comprehension.

The Input Hypothesis and Corrective Feedback based on the theories described above, a

teacher should consider the learner's subconscious learning processes, followed by the system

that the learner has already mastered and while providing corrective feedback, the predictable

sequence of learning must be assumed. ESL teachers should offer feedback that is demanding

but not tough, and a teaching technique that elicits pleasant emotions in the learners.

The only driving factor underlying second language learning is comprehensible input, according

to the Krashen in Input Hypothesis. He asserts that any information obtained intentionally by

explicit learning and reinforced by corrective feedback (CF) does not affect second language
 43

acquisition. He contends that no explicit language, grammar, or drill instruction is required for

language learning.

2.5.4 Krashen Input Hypothesis and Oral Corrective Feedback

Krashen's Input Hypothesis suggests that optimal language acquisition occurs when

learners are exposed to comprehensible input that is marginally more advanced than their current

level of proficiency (Krashen, 1985). The input hypothesis posits that learners can enhance their

language acquisition through exposure to language input that incorporates accurate language

forms and feedback that facilitates comprehension and aids in the acquisition process, as it

pertains to oral corrective feedback. The input hypothesis posits that the acquisition of language

is facilitated by comprehensible input. According to Lightbown and Spada (2013), it is essential

for learners to be exposed to language input that is both meaningful and contextually rich. This

input should be comprehensible to learners while also providing a challenge that allows them to

advance to the next level of proficiency. The provision of comprehensible input to learners can

enable them to extract linguistic patterns and establish correlations between form and meaning,

thereby promoting the internalisation of language structures.

The input hypothesis underscores the significance of furnishing learners with precise and

fitting language models in the realm of oral corrective feedback. In the context of language

learning, instructors have the ability to provide learners with corrective feedback during oral

interactions, which can facilitate the acquisition of accurate language structures. Diverse

methods can be employed to provide feedback to learners, including but not limited to recasts,

clarification requests, or explicit error correction, which are determined by the learner's

requirements and the communication context (Van Patten & Williams, 2015).
 44

Furthermore, according to the input hypothesis, it is recommended that feedback be

delivered in a manner that preserves the continuity of communication and reduces any emotional

barriers that may impede the process of language acquisition (Long, 1996). Effective feedback

should be provided in a timely manner, be relevant to the learner's needs, and be integrated into

the ongoing interaction. This approach can enhance learners' comprehension and enable them to

immediately apply and adjust their language production.

Teachers may give students intelligible input that incorporates appropriate language

forms by combining the Input Hypothesis's principles into oral corrective feedback, and they can

utilise feedback strategically to make the input more approachable and conductive to language

learning. Vygotsky's sociocultural theory places a strong emphasis on the significance of social

interactions and cultural context in the process of cognitive development. Sociocultural theory

emphasises the significance of social interaction and collaboration in language acquisition as

well as the impact of the sociocultural milieu on learners' language proficiency when applied to

the domain of oral corrective feedback.

2.5.5 Noticing Hypothesis by Schmidt (1990).

The concepts of attention, awareness, and noticing in second language learning, were

popularised by cognitive psychology. The most well-known proponent of this concept of

noticing was Richard Schmidt. He defines consciousness as three degrees of awareness:

perception, noticing, and comprehension.

Schmidt 1990, 1995 summarising noticing states that "the only linguistic elements in the input

that learners can acquire are those elements that they notice" or "nothing is learned unless it has

been 'noticed." He proposed that "subliminal language learning is impossible" and that "noticing

is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input into intake".
 45

He believes that students must be aware of their intake and what they hear or see and

what they produce as an output. When input is noticed by the ESL learner it converts into intake

and Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis is based on this process of converting input into intake.

In contrast to Krashen's (1985) assertion, the noticing hypothesis defined language

learning as a conscious activity. Input is essential in language acquisition, which is why it has

been recognized and examined by numerous perspectives on SLA. Krashen characterizes the

input process in language acquisition as follows:

Schmidt (1990) defines the input in terms of intake. According to Izumi (2009), input is

most effective when a student recognizes the combination of form, interpretation, and function.

Furthermore, he claims that output makes "noticing" and "noticing the gap" easier. Schmidt's

noticing hypothesis outlines the connection between input, noticing, and intake and the

relationship between input and conscious learning. In other words, learners must recognize the

input and translate it into the intake for language learning to occur. According to Doughty and

Williams (1998), "different kinds of learning occur with differing attention".

2.5.6 Noticing Hypothesis by Schmidt and Oral Corrective Feedback

The possible function of the Noticing Hypothesis is conceptually strongly tied to

corrective feedback since various theorists have always taken attention, noticing, and awareness

into consideration for perceiving various sorts of feedback and maximizing their advantages for

L2 learners. Schmidt (1990) found that instruction, engagement, and correction had a good

impact on form acquisition because they allowed learners to recognize the discrepancy between

their interlanguage forms and target input. Schmidt's personal experience as an American

learning Portuguese in Brazil led him to make this observation.

 46

CF serves an important function in learning a second language since it encourages

noticing. The "noticing hypothesis" put forward by Schmidt (1990) is the foundation for the most

frequently stated justifications of the beneficial effects of recasts in studies on second language

learning. According to this theory, learners must start by recognizing certain forms in the input

and transform them into the intake before they may learn new linguistic characteristics.

The researchers are interested in how CF can support noticing and supporting the

development of learned structures because this hypothesis relates to phonetics and how input is

interpreted. The Noticing Hypothesis always encompasses noticing when it is reframed as an oral

error correction technique. By increasing awareness of the value of noticing through corrective

feedback by making it more accessible to students, CF may improve teaching practices.

2.5.7 Output Hypothesis (1985) Swain’s

Several scholars claim that the target language output produced by learners is essential

for L2 acquisition. According to Swain (1985, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2005), the output is critical in

L2 learning for both practicing the current language knowledge and producing new linguistic

information. She claims that when L2 learners are given adequate opportunities to produce and

practice L2 output, they detect new language elements, new grammatical forms, and structures to

develop hypotheses and evaluate these hypotheses.

The Output Hypothesis was pioneered by Swain (1985) and was based on a thorough

assessment of a Canadian French immersion program. She concluded that students were not

forced in terms of output produced in their learning process and that there was minimal social or

cognitive pressure to generate more target-like language after analysing the observation data

from these large-scale immersion classrooms. As a result, they were less effective at reading and

listening, and they performed poorly when engaged in productive tasks.

 47

According to Swain (1985), comprehensible output—described as "output that extends

the learner's linguistic repertoire as he or she attempts to create precisely and appropriately the

meaning desired"—is an important aspect of L2 learning. A chance to improve one's

performance is presented to learners based on comprehensible output or language creation.

Additionally, she contends "the act of producing language (speaking) constitutes, under certain

circumstances, part of the process of second language learning" (Swain, 2005, p. 471).

According to Swain (1995, p. 128), learners may be forced to switch from strategic

processing that distinguishes understanding to the thorough grammatical processing needed for

precise production. The production of L2 output by learners is facilitated if they are given

enough opportunities to do so and those opportunities successfully affect cognitive processes like

metalinguistic reflection, noticing, hypothesis testing, and syntactic processing, according to

Swain's Output Hypothesis, which was mentioned by Muranoi (2007).

First is noticing which anticipates that output will enhance noticing, which is an

important aspect of second language acquisition (SLA).

In certain scenarios, ESL learners may recognize a form in second language input that varies

from their interlanguage (Swain, 1998; Schmidt, 1990, 2001). The second point is Hypothesis

formulation and testing, which claims that output supports students in testing their hypotheses.

L2 learners can recognize their weaknesses in grammatical knowledge and utilize their output to

try new language forms (hypothesis) to communicate their messages using hypothesis

development and testing techniques (Swain, 1998).

Third is the Metalinguistic function through which Swain suggests that negotiating on

forms can help learners get a deeper understanding of forms and linguistic rules. In a highly

context-sensitive scenario, this metalinguistic function assists individuals in understanding the

 48

link between meaning, forms, and function (Swain, 1998). Fourth is Syntactic processing:

According to Swain (1985), this stage involves learners processing the target language

syntactically. This means that learners must direct their attention toward the methods of

expression required to convey their intended meaning. By doing so, learners are able to develop

the target language effectively.

2.5.8 Swain’s Output Hypothesis and Corrective Feedback

Swain's Output Hypothesis posits that the production of output can facilitate the language

acquisition process for learners (Swain, 1985). This theory contends that language learners gain

through active language production, meaningful communication, and input comprehension and

reception in addition to comprehension and reception. The output hypothesis, when applied in

the context of oral corrective feedback, underscores the significance of learners' language

production and the function of corrective feedback in promoting language acquisition.

According to Swain (1985), the output hypothesis posits that language learners can

enhance their linguistic knowledge by engaging in language production, which enables them to

identify deficiencies in their language proficiency and subsequently engage in self-monitoring

and self-correction. As language learners engage in language production, they develop an

awareness of the discrepancies that may arise between their intended message and the actual

linguistic output they produce. The recognition of one's own linguistic limitations leads to a state

of cognitive dissonance, prompting individuals to actively pursue methods to enhance their

language proficiency and address any deficiencies in their linguistic abilities. The output

hypothesis posits that language acquisition can be enhanced through the provision of

opportunities for learners to engage in active language production, communication, and feedback

reception within the framework of oral corrective feedback. The provision of corrective feedback
 49

is deemed essential in facilitating learners' identification and resolution of their mistakes or areas

that require enhancement, as per Swain's (1993) perspective. Through the reception of feedback

on their language output, learners can enhance their language production and make necessary

modifications in their subsequent oral assignments.

According to Swain (2000), learners can benefit from opportunities to produce output

and receive feedback by participating in significant conversations and interactions with their

peers and more skilled speakers. Collaborative interactions, such as working in pairs or groups,

facilitate the process of meaning negotiation, idea exchange, and feedback reception among

learners, thereby augmenting their language acquisition. The application of the output hypothesis

in the delivery of oral corrective feedback by educators can facilitate the creation of occasions

for learners to participate in language production and significant communication, and obtain

feedback that fosters their language proficiency.

The effect of output in second language acquisition has been the subject of substantial

research. When learners change their output during hypothesis testing, it is considered that they

improve their language proficiency (Gass, 1997; Swain, 1995). The opportunity to give reactive

feedback is frequently presented by the learners' production.

Learners can be "pushed" to identify the gap and create more accurate, pertinent,

complex, and comprehensible output by receiving feedback from the interlocutor (Swain 1993,

Swain 1995; Long 1996 Gass 1997).

The learners can evaluate their language and improve the grammatical and pragmatic

elements of their output when their teacher draws attention to an incorrect statement. Giving

students interactional feedback while they are already engaged in meaningful discourse, claims

Long (2006), increases the likelihood that they will notice the mistake in their work.
 50

With the aforementioned in mind, the output hypothesis offers a basis for receiving

feedback from peers and instructors since this may enlighten students about their first incorrect

utterance. Additionally, this process of noticing, testing hypotheses, and reflecting on output

gives students the chance to produce language accurately.

In this chapter, the research was evaluated, and it demonstrated how various educators

looked at feedback in language instruction differently. Additionally, we have emphasized

another viewpoint in the context of teaching second languages, namely oral corrective feedback.

We additionally considered into account speaking, feedback, and the numerous methods

employed in this field.

 51

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
 52

CHAPTER THREE

Research Methodology

In this chapter important components of the study are highlighted, including experimental

variables, participants, data collection procedures, and methodologies. A conceptual framework

that identifies the constraints of educational research is known as research design and for smooth

research procedure an effective research design must be developed. According to Trochim

(2006), in research, a design is an important framework that discusses how all the fundamental

components, including samples or groups, measurements, treatments, and research methods,

come together to address the primary research objectives. This tool helps researchers

systematically plan and execute their studies, ensuring that all the necessary elements are in

place to achieve their research goals. Kothari (2004) asserts that a research design must

integrate observational, experimental, statistical designs to properly provide the following in a

noteworthy manner:

a) It must include information about the objectives of the study, as well as clear details regarding

the research problem and the relevance of research questions to the research objectives.

b) Procedural methods for data collection.

c) Identifying the population for the study under consideration.

d) Statistical techniques and instruments used in data processing and analysis. Following

Korthari's (2004) recommendations, this chapter likewise addresses all four essentials indicated

above. Grotjahn (1987) classified research into non-experimental vs experimental data

gathering techniques, qualitative versus quantitative data, and statistical versus interpretative data

analysis methodologies. In terms of Grotjahn's (1987) classification, the present study is

 53

experimental in terms of data gathering technique, quantitative both statistically and in terms of

data categories and methods of data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

Flow Chart of Methodology Used

Pre- speaking test was conducted with three groups. Two groups
received implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback and one group
was control group which received no feedback. At the end of the
treatment post-speaking was conducted. A survey questionnaire was
used to investigate the perceptions of students regarding usefulness of
oral corrective feedback.

Group 1 Explicit Group 2 Implicit Control group (No

OCF OCF feedback)

14 participants 14 participants 15 participants

Ss’, were appeared in Ss, were appeared in Ss, were appeared

pre speaking test pre speaking test in pre speaking test

Ss’, received explicit Ss, received implicit Ss, received no

oral corrective
feedback in English
speaking classes
Ss’, were appeared in
post speaking test
oral corrective feedback in English
feedback in English speaking classes
speaking classes
Ss, were appeared
Ss, were appeared in in post speaking
post speaking test test

A survey A survey A survey

questionnaire was
used to investigate the
perceptions of Ss’,
regarding oral
corrective feedback
questionnaire was
used to investigate
the perceptions of Ss,
regarding oral
corrective feedback
questionnaire was
used to investigate
the perceptions of
Ss, regarding oral
corrective feedback
 54

Research Design

Oral CF NO CF

Group Group Control Group

A B
E

Pre Test
Group A.B.C

Treatment Treatment Treatment

Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes

Post Test
Group A.B.C

Questionnaire Survey
Group A.B.C
 55

For this study, a quasi-experimental research design with a pre-test and post-test was used

to examine the effectiveness of oral CF methods. The sampled participants in this study were not

allocated to different treatment groups randomly; rather, three intact classes from a private

Cambridge school with a total number of 43 students were chosen for the investigation. A pre-

speaking and post-speaking test was administered to 43 seventh-grade students. Two groups

were provided explicit and implicit oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes and one

control group did not receive any feedback. Metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction were

used to address the errors of group Explicit OCF-A learners, recast and elicitation techniques

were used to address the mistakes of group Implicit OCF-B learners, and no feedback to address

the errors of Control group-C learners.

The test as a first research instrument utilized to collect data for the current experimental

research. The utilization of test as a research tool is prevalent in educational research,

functioning as a "gateway" to investigate learners' consistent progress and giving recorded

evidence of the achievement of individual learners. Tests are often used in second language

acquisition (SLA) to measure learners' progress in L2 learning, according to Brown (2004).

Teachers mostly utilize it to identify students' areas of difficulty. According to McNamara

(2000), similar to other tests, language tests are planned samplings of participant knowledge or

behaviour in the language for researchers to conclude the most likely overall level of that

person's skill or knowledge. According to Heaton (1990), the test is a useful tool for determining

how well learners can enhance their language skills. Additionally, the design and pattern of any

test is its most beneficial characteristic; this becomes much more obvious by just considering a

few fundamental rules.

 56

For the pre-test, the researcher used the TOEFL junior speaking test to analyse the

speaking skills of 43 ESL students. For 8 weeks two groups of ESL students were given a

treatment of implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback methods and control group did not

receive any kind of feedback. In the post-test students appeared in the same post speaking test.

The scoring rubric checklist was used for evaluating the distinction between the pre-test and

post-test. The result of the pre and post-test helped us to investigate the effect of oral corrective

feedback on ESL students speaking skills and the comparative difference between implicit and

explicit oral corrective feedback methods. For further investigation of students’ preferences, a

survey questionnaire was utilized to examine the ESL students’ perceptions for oral corrective

feedback methods.

The questionnaire was chosen as a research tool for data collection in this study

considering the following reasons. According to Dörnyei (2007), the questionnaire is the

technique that educational researchers most often use to collect significant amounts of data in a

short period. According to Davidson (1970), a questionnaire is "helpful for data collection by

engaging participants' interest, encouraging their cooperation, and eliciting answers as close to

the reality as possible." It is easy to investigate the general population's ideas and attitudes

toward any problem with a questionnaire. To investigate students' preferences regarding the

relative effectiveness of oral OCF methods, this tool was utilized in this study.

For the current study, a questionnaire was utilized to survey ESL students' perceptions

regarding the usefulness of oral corrective feedback methods, as well as learners' preferences for

OCF methods. A questionnaire was considered as an effective instrument for gathering data from

43 participants. Furthermore, using data analysis tools, it is feasible to assess the respondents'

responses statistically through a questionnaire. The questionnaire developed for the present study
 57

is based on relevant, carefully planned factual questions on the subject that highlight respondents'

preferences and enable realistic conclusions when evaluating the research findings.

3.2 Variables of the Study

A condition or feature that changes due to a factor or that affects another characteristic or

situation is referred to as a variable. Variables are the features or conditions that the researcher

manipulates, controls, or observes in experimental research. Additionally, in experimental

research settings, the researcher applies or observes independent variables defining one or more

causes in a systematic sequence to evaluate the impacts on other dependent variables.

Nunan (1992) defines research as "the investigation of the significance of the cause-and-effect

relationship between independent and dependent variables." In research, independent variables

are traits or circumstances that the researcher either modifies or observes; in this study, the OCF

methods are the independent variables. Dependent variables are the conditions, values, and

characteristics that change or disappear when the researcher adds, removes, or modifies an

independent variable. The dependent variable in the current study is ESL students' speaking

competence. The independent and dependent variables are connected by a cause-and-effect

connection in this quasi-experimental study. The "cause" is produced in this study by using

independent variables e.g. oral corrective feedback methods (Explicit and Implicit) and the

"effect" is measured by the speaking skills of ESL students.

3.3 Sampling and Population

A generalized area comprising objects/subjects with a particular quantity and attributes

established by the researcher to be researched is called population. The ESL students at the
 58

Private Cambridge school system were the population of this study. The population of the

research included student in grade 7 at a private Cambridge school.

Intact class sampling method is utilized in this research (Sheen 2010). Non-probability sampling

techniques like intact sampling are used to provide findings that can only be broadly generalised

based on the sample or samples themselves. An already-formed group is referred to as an intact

group. Examples include political organisations, or student classes. The complete group can be

used to represent a bigger population, with no selection process being employed.

Use of intact classrooms for research is discussed in the Cambridge Handbook of Corrective

Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching. It is employed in this case to

investigate the effectiveness of various feedback forms and characteristics in classroom-based

research that emphasize oral feedback.

A subset of the entire population selected for use in the study is called a sample. A

sample selection from a population is critical because it enable findings to be viable concerning

the entire population. Accurate and proper sampling is the first and most important entity to

acquire the particular objective outcomes of research. Milroy and Gordon (2003) state that

three variables are critical in choosing a good sample. These are used to compute the sample

size, define the sample universe, and evaluate the relevant dimension of variances within the

community. The sample is a smaller number representing the participants in the research. The

intact class sampling method is used and the sample of the study consisted of a total number of

43 participants with three groups of respondents for the experimental study.43 ESL students’

survey questionnaires were conducted to investigate their preferences regarding oral corrective

feedback methods.
 59

3.4 Participants

This section describes the study's selected sample or participants. The participants were

chosen for a survey and an experimental investigation. In this quasi-experimental study, the

sampled participants weren't assigned into groups randomly but rather three whole classes from a

private Cambridge school (a total of 70 students) were chosen. At the seventh-grade level, it was

not possible to divide the students into different groups due to the daily academic activities of the

curriculum.

In the oral corrective feedback treatment, there were three groups. The number of students in

groups were as follows: Group A Explicit OCF N= 14, Group B Implicit OCF N = 14, and

Control Group N = 15. The experimental groups were provided with explicit and implicit oral

corrective feedback techniques, whereas the control group received no input. Three classes of

grade 7 students (43) were chosen to complete a survey questionnaire to assess their perceptions

of the use of oral corrective feedback (OCF) methods.

3.5 Timeline of the Study

The research was conducted in the 7th grade at the Private Cambridge School System.

The study investigated how speaking abilities of ESL students in English classrooms were

enhanced by both implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback. The foundation of every

research work lies in the proper planning for data collection and analysis. It is imperative to have

a well-structured plan in order to collect accurate and reliable data. Without an effective plan, the

research may lack direction and may not yield the desired results. Therefore, it is important to

invest time and effort in planning the data collection process to ensure the success of the research
 60

project. In the present study, a suitable population was selected and appropriate samples of

students were gathered. A well-planned timeline was then developed to carry out the project.

The academic year for schools and colleges typically commences in the month of July and

concludes in the June of the following year. The allocation of time for each activity was done

with careful planning and thoughtful consideration, taking into account the busy schedules of

both students and teachers. In order to ensure the smooth running of experiment, and

questionnaire, a specific time frame was chosen between the months of Feb and May in 2023.

This allowed for any necessary adjustments to be made to the plan following the pilot study,

which would take place before experiment. The experimental study was conducted from March

to May, during a carefully selected time frame. During this period, researcher conducted survey

and experiment with minimal disruption to classroom activities. Table 3.1 displays the chart

outlining the data collection activities for the study at hand.

Table 3.1 Timeline of the study

Activity Months Feb Mar Apr May

Weeks 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

Consent form

Pilot study

Pre test

Experiment

Post test

Questionnaire Survey
 61

3.6 Pilot Study

Prior to the start of the main investigation, a pilot study was carried out in two groups of

8 students’ from one Cambridge school. The pilot study had several objectives, including:

(i) To determine whether the various CF techniques mentioned in the research questions might

actually be implemented.

(ii) To evaluate the effectiveness of testing instruments used for pre-testing, and post-testing.

(iii) To determine the best method for evaluating how well students have learned the CF-related

elements.

Following an analysis of the pilot study's findings, adjustments were made to the testing

procedures and the frequency of CF episodes.

3.7 Instruments

The data for this investigation were gathered using the following techniques. Speaking

test: -Pre and post-test, and questionnaire survey.

Pre-test:

Before starting the treatment class students were provided with a speaking test to gauge

their degree of English competence in speaking. During class time, the test took place in the

classroom. The coordinators and supervisor communicated the test date. At the scheduled time,

pupils were tested one by one. The students were not informed about the speaking topics

beforehand. The subject cards were arranged face down on the examiner's desk. The ESL

learners got the paper to take notes on. Each applicant selected a subject from a deck of cards,

took a few papers for taking notes, and then seated down at a desk next to the examiner. After

they were prepared, students had to deliver their monologues in turns. Two examiners
 62

administered the test to each applicant individually. The examination had taken little more than

eight minutes.

Treatment

Once the pre-test was done, pupils were given oral corrective feedback treatment. One

group of students were given explicit oral corrective feedback and the other group were provided

with implicit oral corrective feedback whereas no feedback was provided to control group. 16

English speaking classes were conducted during eight weeks of study.

Post-test

The pupils received the same test they took at the beginning of the treatment to assess

how much they have improved their speaking abilities. The procedures and guidelines remain the

same.

3.8 The procedure of the Speaking Test

The researcher adapted a speaking test for this study's purposes, and the supervisor

evaluated it (Appendix A). The Cambridge Young Learners English (YLE) speaking test was

used as the model for the test format. The Cambridge Young Learners English (YLE) speaking

test was divided into four sections and lasted for around 7-9 minutes. The test was divided into

four parts, and every student would take around 7-9 minutes to complete speaking test since the

study will be conducted with young ESL learners. The examiner provide questions to the

students in four parts 1)The examiner had shown two pictures to the student and ask him/her to

identify four differences. 2) In second part the examiner had shown two different pictures and

asked questions to the students about picture and then student asked question to examiner about

the picture. 3) The examiner showed 4 pictures to the student and ask to make the story and

give a title to story 4) In this part examiner asked students questions about his/her hobbies,

school, favourite game etc.. The test format was adopted from
 63

http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/165873-yle-sample-papers-flyers-vol-1. Just after the

pre-test, pupils completed sixteen sessions of English instruction utilizing various methods of

oral corrective feedback. We administered the same test that was given at the start of the trial as

a post-test at the end of the experiment.

One group of 43 ESL students in grade seven was given a pre-test on speaking to

investigate their proficiency in speaking. A placement test was used to establish their speaking

proficiency and Students were assigned marks to speaking proficiency and accuracy levels based

on the exam results. After the pre-test students were given a treatment of multiple oral corrective

feedback methods for 8 weeks, two sessions of experimental English speaking classes each

week. The duration of the speaking class was 40 minutes. A post-test was used to evaluate the

effect of various oral corrective feedback methods on ESL students speaking skills. To examine

the attitudes and preferences of oral corrective feedback, a survey questionnaire was utilized with

43 ESL students.

3.9 Description of Scoring Rubric Checklist

The Cambridge Young Learners English (YLE) speaking test and scoring rubric checklist

was adapted in this research to evaluate students' speaking abilities. The grading rubric checklist

has evaluation criteria for pupils' speaking abilities. The criteria include scoring rubrics for

fluency and grammar, fluency, pronunciation, response and understanding, a 5 -point scale where

5 is "excellent," 4 is "Good, " 3 is “Average” 1 is Weak, and 2 is Satisfactory, were employed.

3.10 Validity and Reliability of Research Tools

Validity and reliability are critical challenges in quantitative data analysis. These two

factors are regarded as critical in ensuring the quality of data collection. Quantitative researchers

use these aspects to demonstrate that their chosen techniques successfully measure, what they
 64

intend to measure, and that their measurements are reliable and consistent. The difficulties in

validity and reliability linked to the data collection in this study are described below.

Validity

The instruments of research validity indicate that "it measures what it is intended to

measure" (Ross, 2005). According to Joppe (2000), "validity determines whether the research

truly measures what it was intended to measure or how accurate the research results are". In a

nutshell, can the researcher gather data from research tools to find relevant answers to the study

questions? According to Ross (2005), while employing a test or task as a research instrument, the

three following crucial criteria should be met.

1. Content validity is the degree to which a test captures the characteristics of a

representative sample.

2. Criteria-related Validity is a term used to describe the ability of test results to forecast

future performance.

3. Construct Validity describes how well test results may be explained in terms of certain

logic structures.

In quantitative research, Brown (1996) defines validity as construct validity, which shows

that the test is truly assessing the concept it is designed to measure. Which data to gather and

how to acquire it depend on how valid the construct is. The validity of research tools is crucial in

experimental investigations. The treatments, tasks, grouping, and data-collecting process in this

study were done following the design of previous studies that have been described in the

literature review. For instance, Bitchener et al. (2005; 2008a; 2008b; 2009), Faqeih, (2012),

Mubarak, (2013), and Dabaghi (2006) all used pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test in their

studies.
 65

The Bitchener et al. (2009) and the Sheen (2010) study served as inspiration for the

speaking task approach. Sheen (2010) employed oral corrective feedback, and Faqeih (2012)

provided the questionnaire to support the experimental investigation performed in the present

study.

In this study to increase the validity of data, all elements (such as pretest, posttest, tasks,

questionnaire, etc.) were utilized in the pilot study to assess the questionnaire and the tool’s

quality that were employed. Numerous factors might threaten an experimental or quantitative

study's internal validity.

Kaplin (2009) advises "adding a group that does not receive the intervention—the so-called

control group" to help reduce these risks. To defend against challenges to internal validity, the

control group is added in addition to the treatment group. In this study, a control group was

established in addition to the experimental groups.

Reliability

To measure a certain data collection, the research tool's consistency and stability are

required. The reliability of a research instrument indicates that "if it was administered

independently on several occasions, it would provide a consistent set of scores/measurements for

a group of individuals" (Ross, 2005). According to Creswell (2005), reliability indicates "that the

scores of an instrument are stable and consistent."

If the tool is used frequently at various periods, the results should remain the same. In the current

investigation, a pilot study was carried out in a school with individuals who were not involved in

the actual investigation to evaluate reliability. The goal of the pilot project was to evaluate the

validity of the methods and technologies used for data gathering. The reliability of the pre-test
 66

and post-test as well as the survey questionnaire regarding the preferred forms of oral corrective

feedback by ESL students were both assessed in the pilot project. The average amount of time

needed by participants to complete a speaking activity and determine whether they could finish it

in 8 minutes.

3.11 Description of Questionnaire

On 15th May 2023, a total of 43 questionnaires were distributed in 7 th grade students.

These questionnaires consisted of 9 items, including open-ended, close-ended, and Likert scale

questions. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section, titled "The

Student's Perception of Teacher's Oral Corrective Feedback," aimed to examine the students'

perceptions towards a teacher's error correction. The second section, named "The Student's

perceptions towards Teacher's Oral Corrective Feedback Types," revealed the students'

preferences for teachers' correction strategies.

3.12 Data Analysis Techniques

The quantitative data were investigated using the IBM SPSS software using mixed

ANOVA. The speaking proficiency score of the three groups was compared to investigate the

impact of oral corrective feedback methods. In quantitative survey research, the preferences and

attitudes of ESL students were examined using quantitative content analysis.

3.13 Ethical Consideration

In conducting a study, it is imperative to obtain informed consent from the participants.

This entails clearly explaining the nature, purpose, and potential risks and benefits of the study to

ensure that the participants fully understand what they are consenting to. By doing so, the

participants can make an informed decision on whether or not to participate in the study. This

ethical practice is crucial in upholding the rights and welfare of the participants and maintaining
 67

the integrity of the study. As per the guidelines set by the American Psychological

Association 2017, it is imperative that all participants possess a clear understanding of their

voluntary participation in any kind of study or research. Additionally, they must be informed of

their right to quit from the research at any time without encountering any negative consequences.

At the Cambridge school, participants were given a thorough introduction on the nature and

advantages of the current research. Additionally, they were granted the option to quit from the

study at any point.

Maintaining the privacy and anonymity of participants' data and information is of utmost

importance. It is imperative to ensure that the privacy of the participants is protected throughout

the research process. This can be achieved by implementing appropriate measures to safeguard

the data and information collected from the participants. Confidentiality refers to the protection

of the participants' data from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. Anonymity, on the other

hand, refers to the protection of the participant's identity. It is imperative to ensure the protection

of participants' identities and any personally identifiable information during the course of a study

and in the subsequent reporting process. This is in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the

British Educational Research Association in 2018. It is crucial to maintain the confidentiality of

participants' information to uphold ethical standards and prevent any potential harm or negative

consequences. Therefore, researchers must take necessary measures to safeguard the privacy of

their subjects and ensure that their data is handled with the utmost care and discretion. The

utilization of data and information from participants in the present study was only for research

purposes.

When conducting any research involving human participants, it is crucial to prioritise

their safety and well-being. This is where the principle of minimization of harm comes into play.
 68

It is researcher’s responsibility to take all necessary precautions to minimise any potential

physical, psychological, or emotional harm that may arise during the course of the study. To

achieve this, you must first identify any potential risks that participants may face and take steps

to mitigate them. This may involve implementing safety measures, providing adequate training

and support, and ensuring that participants are fully informed about the study and it’s potential.

According to the International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans

2016, it is imperative to ensure that the research design and feedback procedures do not cause

any form of undue stress, embarrassment, or discomfort to the participants. This is a crucial

aspect of conducting ethical research, as it ensures that the participants are treated with the

utmost respect and dignity. Therefore, researchers must take great care in designing their studies

and feedback procedures to ensure that they do not cause any harm to the participants. By doing

so, they can uphold the ethical standards of research and ensure that their findings are valid and

reliable. In the current research, precautionary measures were implemented to prevent any

potential psychological or emotional harm to the participants. These measures were taken to

ensure the safety and well-being of the individuals involved in the study.

When conducting a study, it is important to take into account the principle of

beneficence. This principle involves carefully considering the potential benefits and risks

associated with the study. Researchers must weigh the potential benefits of the study against any

potential risks to the participants. This ensures that the study is conducted in an ethical manner

and that the well-being of the participants is prioritized. According to the National Commission

for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research in 1979, it is

important to prioritize the benefits to participants, such as enhancing their speaking skills, while
 69

simultaneously minimising any potential risks or negative outcomes. This approach ensures that

the welfare of the participants is safeguarded and that the research is conducted ethically.

In order to maintain a high level of ethical standards, it is crucial to ensure that all

participants are treated fairly and equitably. This means that there should be no discrimination

based on factors such as gender, ethnicity, or language background. It is important to create an

environment where everyone feels valued and respected, regardless of their background or

personal characteristics. By upholding these principles of fairness and equity, we can ensure that

our research is conducted with integrity and that our findings are reliable and valid. As per the

guidelines set forth by the American Educational Research Association in 2014, it is imperative

to uphold a respectful and inclusive atmosphere throughout the course of the study. This entails

creating an environment that is welcoming to all participants, regardless of their background or

beliefs. By doing so, we can ensure that everyone feels valued and heard, which can ultimately

lead to more productive and meaningful research outcomes. Ensuring fairness and equity while

avoiding discrimination is a crucial aspect of current research.

When conducting a study, it is crucial to maintain researcher integrity. This involves

adhering to professional standards and accurately reporting the findings. It is essential to conduct

the study with honesty and transparency, ensuring that the results are reliable and trustworthy.

By upholding these principles, researchers can maintain the credibility of their work and

contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. As per the guidelines set forth by the

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural

Research in 1979, it is imperative to explicitly disclose any conflicts of interest or potential

biases that may have an impact on the research. This is a crucial step in ensuring the integrity

and credibility of the research findings. Therefore, it is highly recommended that researchers
 70

adhere to this guideline and provide a clear and transparent account of any such conflicts or

biases. The latest study has ensured that professional standards were upheld and no biases were

present.

Research ethics should be focused on while conducting any research study. So, keeping

in view the norms and values of research this study was conducted impartially without the

manipulation of any research work. Thus, this research work provided the basic facts and figures

with great concern for participants' privacy. However, all research work was carried out with the

scientific process of research studies.

 71

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
 72

Chapter

Data Analysis

This chapter focuses on the statistical results of the investigation. The inquiry started with

an experiment statistical analysis. The close ended question was used in after post speaking test

to investigate the perceptions of students regarding oral corrective feedback. The results of

mixed ANOVA analysis yielded a statistical significance level of p < 0.01, which suggests that

there exist notable variations in the speaking abilities among the groups subjected to the

experiment. When reporting the results of a study, it is important to provide readers with a clear

understanding of the impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable. While the

significance level is a commonly reported statistic, it is often insufficient in providing a complete

picture of the relationship between the variables. To address this, researchers may also report an

effect size measure, such as eta-squared (η²) or partial eta-squared (η²p). These measures indicate

the proportion of variance in the dependent variable (in this case, speaking skills) that can be

attributed to the independent variable (experimental groups), while controlling for the covariate.

By including effect size measures in study reports, researchers can provide readers with a more

nuanced understanding of the relationship between variables and the practical significance of

their findings. When conducting a research study, it is important to consider the effect size of the

independent variable on the dependent variable. Essentially, the effect size indicates the strength

of the relationship between these two variables. A larger effect size suggests a stronger impact of

the independent variable on the dependent variable. This information can be valuable in

interpreting the results of a study and drawing conclusions about the relationship between the
 73

variables being examined. Therefore, researchers should carefully consider effect size when

designing and analysing their studies.

When it comes to analysing quantitative data collected through questionnaires,

researchers rely on a range of methods to effectively present their findings. These methods are

crucial in helping to make sense of the data and draw meaningful conclusions. When it comes to

calculating percentages of questionnaire survey, one commonly used method is the Rule of

Three. This method involves finding the value of one variable based on the value of another

variable and the percentage relationship between them. By applying the Rule of Three, one can

easily determine the percentage of a given quantity in relation to another quantity e.g. X = (z / y)

* 100

When working with this particular formula, it's important to keep in mind the variables

involved. X is used to represent the calculated percentage, while z is representative of the

number of similar answers and y is used to denote the total number of participants. By

understanding the role each variable plays in the formula, one can more effectively utilise it in

their calculations.

When analysing data from a group of participants, it is often useful to calculate the

percentage of individuals who provided a particular response. To do so, one must first determine

the number of participants who provided the desired response and divide that number by the total

number of participants. This ratio can then be multiplied by 100 to obtain the percentage. For

instance, if there were 50 participants and 20 of them provided a similar answer, the percentage

would be calculated as follows: X = (20 / 50) * 100 = 40%.

The aforementioned calculation enables one to ascertain the proportion of individuals

who have given a particular response.

 74

When researchers seek to analyse open-ended questions that allow for diverse responses, they

often turn to a method known as Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA). This approach enables

them to make sense of the data by identifying patterns and themes that emerge from the

participants' answers. By using QCA, researchers can gain valuable insights into the attitudes,

beliefs, and experiences of their study population, which can inform future research and

decision-making. Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) is a methodical approach to analysing

responses by categorising them according to predetermined themes or codes. This process

involves a thorough examination of the data to identify patterns and themes that emerge from the

responses. By using this approach, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the data and

draw meaningful conclusions from it. QCA is a valuable tool for researchers in a variety of

fields, including social sciences, psychology, and marketing research. The utilisation of this

approach enables the identification of patterns, trends, and relationships within qualitative data.

This, in turn, permits a quantitative analysis of the qualitative responses.

4.1 Experimental Data Analysis

A summary of findings provides details of the quasi-experimental investigation of the

pre-and post-test results and a close ended questionnaire, respectively. Using a mixed ANOVA

the outcomes of the pre-test and post-test were examined. Mixed ANOVA may be employed

with the pre-test and post-test in subjects within factor and explicit, implicit and no feedback

group in subjects between factors. The pre- and post-speaking tests, identified a statistically

significant difference. This investigation compares how giving feedback to students has affected

their speaking development.

This study's design included two dependent variables and three categorical independent

factors. The pre-test and post-test in the explicit, implicit, and no-feedback groups, which were
 75

conducted at the start and the end of the treatment to assess the level to which speaking skills

improved were served as dependent variables. The checklist scale ranged from 0 to 16. The

dependent variable, 'post-test score,' was the final speaking test results of three groups of

students, include explicit oral corrective feedback, implicit oral corrective feedback, and no

feedback group.

The following presumptions must be taken into consideration for the mixed ANOVA to

be valid:

1. When analysing data, it is important to ensure that the normality assumption is met. Two

commonly used tests for assessing normality are the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Shapiro-

Wilk test. These tests are used to determine whether a given dataset follows a normal distribution

or not. By assessing normality, researchers can make informed decisions about which statistical

tests to use and how to interpret their results. When conducting statistical tests, it is common to

choose a significance level, such as 0.05, to determine whether the results are statistically

significant. In the case of testing for normal distribution, if the p-value associated with the test is

greater than the chosen significance level, it is generally interpreted as evidence that the data is

normally distributed. In statistical analysis, the p-value is a crucial measure that helps determine

the significance of a hypothesis test. When the p-value is less than the predetermined

significance level, it indicates a deviation from normality. This finding can have important

implications for the validity of the statistical analysis and the conclusions drawn from it.

Therefore, it is essential to carefully consider the p-value in any statistical analysis to ensure

accurate and reliable results.

Upon analysing the results provided, it appears that the majority of groups do not display

any significant deviations from normality in regards to both their pre-test and post-test scores.
 76

The post-test scores of the implicit OCF group were subjected to the Shapiro-Wilk test, which

resulted in a p-value of 0.069. This value is greater than the predetermined significance level,

indicating that the data follows a normal distribution.

2. There must be variance homogeneity. In SPSS Statistics, you may test this assumption

using Levene test for variance homogeneity. If the result of Levene test of Equality of Error

Variance under sig. the column is less than 0.05, the researcher has invalidated the assumption.

In order to assess the homogeneity of variance assumption, various methods are employed.

These methods include those based on mean, median, median with adjusted degrees of freedom,

and trimmed mean. Each of these techniques serves to evaluate the homogeneity of variance

assumption in a distinct manner. The following are the results that have been obtained.

The homogeneity of variance test is a statistical analysis that evaluates whether the variances of

different groups are equivalent. This test is commonly used in research to determine if the

variance between groups is significant or not. By examining the homogeneity of variance,

researchers can better understand the distribution of data and make more accurate conclusions

about their findings.

Before using Mixed ANOVA, one can make sure that none of these assumptions have

been violated. If we do not run these tests on described assumptions before one-way ANCOVA

analysis our results might not be valid. All assumptions were fulfilled in the current study, and

the mixed ANOVA results can be regarded as valid.

Table 4.1. Descriptive statistics

Group Mean Std. Deviation N

pre-test 1 10.86 1.657 14

2 10.64 1.008 14
3 10.67 1.175 15
 77

Total 10.72 1.278 43

post-test 1 13.79 1.369 14
2 12.07 1.141 14
3 11.00 1.195 15
Total 12.26 1.677 43

The table provides an analysis of the means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for the

pre-test and post-test scores of each group, based on the data provided. The pre-test mean was

calculated to be 10.72.The table reports on the statistical analysis of a sample of 43 participants,

examining the mean post-test score of 12.26. The pre-test standard deviation is 1.278 and post-

test standard deviation of 1.677. The current study investigated the impact of an intervention on

the scores of a pre-test and post-test among a sample of 43 participants. These findings suggest

that the intervention may have had a positive effect on the participants' scores.

The descriptive statistics reports the central tendency and variability of scores within each group.

Specifically, the means are utilised to represent the average scores, while the standard deviations

are utilised to indicate the extent of variability of scores within each group.

The overall results of the multivariate test indicate significant differences between

groups. The various multivariate effects investigated and all have extremely low sig-values

("<.001").The multivariate analysis show that there are statistically significant differences among

the groups. This indicates that at least one dependent variable varies significantly based on the

grouping variable.

In summary, the analysis suggests that the overall differences among groups are

statistically significant, and there is a significant interaction between the test variable and the

categorical variables. This analysis provides strong evidence for the existence of significant

relationships and interactions in the data.

 78

Table 4.2 Multivariate Tests

Effect Value F Hypothesis Error df Sig.
df
Test Pillai's Trace .856 237.422b 1.000 40.000 <.001
Wilks' Lambda .144 237.422b 1.000 40.000 <.001
Hotelling's Trace 5.936 237.422b 1.000 40.000 <.001
Roy's Largest 5.936 237.422b 1.000 40.000 <.001
Root
test * Pillai's Trace .735 55.405b 2.000 40.000 <.001
Group Wilks' Lambda .265 55.405b 2.000 40.000 <.001
Hotelling's Trace 2.770 55.405b 2.000 40.000 <.001
Roy's Largest 2.770 55.405b 2.000 40.000 <.001
Root

The first set of values in the table corresponds to the test variable effects on the outcome

variable. Each type of multivariate effect e.g. Pillai's Trace, Wilks' Lambda, Hotelling's Trace,

and Roy's Largest Root—has Eta Squared value of approximately 0.856. The provided

multivariate analysis suggests that both the test variable and its interaction with the categorical

variable Group play crucial roles in explaining the variations in the dependent variables. The

high Partial Eta Squared values for both the main effect and the interaction effect indicates that

these variables collectively account for a substantial proportion of the observed variance.
 79

Effect Partial Eta Squared

Test Pillai's Trace .856
Wilks' Lambda .856
Hotelling's Trace .856
Roy's Largest Root .856
test * Group Pillai's Trace .735
Wilks' Lambda .735
Hotelling's Trace .735
Roy's Largest Root .735
Table 4.3 Multivariate test

Table 4.4 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Source Type III Sum df Mean F Sig.
of Squares Square
test Sphericity Assumed 52.501 1 52.501 237.422 <.001

Greenhouse- 52.501 1.000 52.501 237.422 <.001

Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 52.501 1.000 52.501 237.422 <.001
Lower-bound 52.501 1.000 52.501 237.422 <.001
test * Sphericity Assumed 24.504 2 12.252 55.405 <.001
Group
Greenhouse- 24.504 2.000 12.252 55.405 <.001
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 24.504 2.000 12.252 55.405 <.001
Lower-bound 24.504 2.000 12.252 55.405 <.001
Error(test) Sphericity Assumed 8.845 40 .221

Greenhouse- 8.845 40.000 .221

Geisser
 80

Huynh-Feldt 8.845 40.000 .221

Lower-bound 8.845 40.000 .221

The first row under "test" tells us about the impact of the type of test students took on the

feedback they received for their speaking skills. The p-value ("<.001") indicates that this effect is

very significant, meaning that the type of test had a substantial influence on the feedback

students got.

The "F" value (237.422) is very large, which reinforces that the differences in feedback

between different types of tests are meaningful and not random.

The next set of rows under "test * Group" explains how the interaction between the type

of test and the group of students affects the feedback. The p-value ("<.001") suggests that this

interaction effect is highly significant, indicating that the way feedback varies isn't just by

chance. The "F" value (55.405) is also substantial, reinforcing the idea that the connection

between different tests and different groups is important in understanding the feedback students

receive

The final set of rows under Error deals with the parts of the feedback that can't be

explained by the type of test or the interaction with groups. These values (around .221) are a

measure of the differences that are left after considering the test and group effects. These values

are relatively smaller compared to the previous ones, suggesting that the test and group effects

explain a significant portion of the variation in feedback. To sum it up, the results tell us that the

type of test and the interaction between test and group significantly affect the feedback students

get for their speaking skills. In conclusion, the findings show that the feedback students receive
 81

for their speaking abilities is significantly influenced by the type of test and the interaction

between test and group.

Source test Type III df Mean F Sig. Partial Eta

Sum of Square Squared
Squares
test Line 52.501 1 52.501 237.42 <.001 .856
ar 2
test * Line 24.504 2 12.252 55.405 <.001 .735
Group ar
Error(tes Line 8.845 40 .221
t) ar
4.5. Test of within subject

1. Test Effect on Feedback:

The "test" factor refers to the type of test students took and how it affects the feedback

they got for their speaking skills. The "Linear" contrast is a way to understand if there's a

consistent trend in feedback scores across different test types. It's like checking if there's a

straight-line pattern. The "Type III Sum of Squares" (52.501) represents the portion of the total

variability in feedback scores that's connected to this linear trend in test types. The p-value

("<.001") is very small, indicating that the relationship between test types and feedback scores is

not random; it's highly significant. The "F" value (237.422) is large, indicating substantial

differences in feedback scores between different test types. The "Partial Eta Squared" (0.856) is

also large, which means around 85.6% of the changes in feedback scores can be explained by

different test types.

 82

2. Interaction Effect of Test and Group on Feedback:

The "test * Group" factor is about how the interaction between the type of test and the

group of students impacts feedback. The "Linear" contrast examines whether there's a consistent

linear pattern in feedback scores across different combinations of test and group. The "Type III

Sum of Squares" (24.504) shows how much of the total variability in feedback scores is due to

this linear pattern in the interaction between test and group. The p-value ("<.001") is very small,

indicating that the interaction between test types and groups significantly affects feedback

scores. The "F" value (55.405) is large, implying substantial differences in feedback scores due

to the interaction between different test types and groups. The "Partial Eta Squared" (0.735) is

also large, which means about 73.5% of the changes in feedback scores are explained by this

interaction.

3. Error (Residual) Variation:

The "Error (test)" section represents the unexplained differences in feedback scores that

weren't accounted for by the factors we studied. The "Linear" contrast here is the measure of

these remaining differences. The values (around .221) indicate the average unexplained

differences in feedback scores. The type of test students took significantly affected the feedback

they received, and this relationship followed a clear linear pattern. How feedback worked

depended on both the specific test and the groups of students, and again, this relationship

followed a linear pattern. A significant proportion of the variations in feedback scores could be

attributed to these effects, and the results are strong and not due to chance. Overall, these results

confirm that the type of test and its interaction with student groups play a crucial role in the

feedback students receive for their speaking skills. The relationships found are significant and

meaningful.
 83

Table 4.6. Test of subject between effects

1. Intercept

Source Type III Sum df Mean F Sig. Partial Eta

of Squares Square Squared

Intercept 11369.320 1 11369.320 3767.72 <.001 .989

0
Group 32.786 2 16.393 5.433 .008 .214
Error 120.702 40 3.018

The "Intercept" row usually represents the overall average or baseline value in the data.

The "Type III Sum of Squares" (11369.320) shows the variability in the data explained by just

the overall average. The p-value ("<.001") indicates that this difference from the average is

highly significant and not due to chance. The "F" value (3767.720) is quite large, suggesting a

significant difference from the baseline.

2. Group Effect:
 84

The "Group" row indicates the effect of different groups on the "feedback" variable. This

factor might represent different categories or groups of subjects in your study. The "Type III

Sum of Squares" (32.786) tells us the variation in feedback scores specifically due to the

different groups.

The p-value (.001) shows that the differences in feedback scores among groups are

significant. The "F" value (5.433) is moderate, suggesting that the differences in feedback scores

among different groups is significant.

3. Error Variation:
The "Error" row represents the unexplained variation or error in the data that the model

couldn't account for. The "Type III Sum of Squares" (120.702) represents this unexplained

variability. These values (around 3.018) show the average unexplained differences in feedback

scores within groups.

The "Intercept" is about the overall average feedback score. The "Group" factor, which

might represent different subject categories, has a significant impact on feedback scores, but this

effect is less pronounced than the overall average. The unexplained variation or error exists,

showing that not all differences in feedback scores are explained by the factors in the model.

Overall, this table helps us understand how different groups impact the feedback received

for speaking skills. The results are statistically significant and tell us that different groups show

variations in feedback scores.

1.1 Questionnaire Results Presentation:

Questionnaire Results for Students

Section One: Students' Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback from Teachers.

 85

Table: Preferences of teachers for oral corrective feedback

Q.1 Does your teacher provide you with oral corrective feedback when you make error?

A) Yes B) No

B(N
A(Yes) o) Total
Number 43 0 43

Percentage 100% 0 100%

The results in the table indicate that an overwhelming majority of students, specifically

43 of the total sample, reported that their teachers provide them with oral corrective feedback

when they make errors in their spoken language. It is worth noting that this percentage represents

all of the student population surveyed. It was found that every student who participated in the

study reported receiving oral corrective feedback from their teachers. None of the students

indicated that they did not receive such feedback.

If yes, how often?

A. Always B. Often C. Sometimes D. Rarely

A(Always) B(Often) C(Sometimes) D(Rarely) No

Answer Total
Number 5 33 4 1 0 43

Percentage 11.43% 77.14% 10% 1.43% 0% 100%

According to the table, the answer that closely aligns with the majority of responses is

option B, which states that teachers frequently provide oral corrective feedback to their students.

This conclusion is drawn from the fact that a significant percentage (77.14%) of respondents
 86

selected this option. According to the survey results, a total of eight students, which accounts for

11.43% of the participants, indicated that they consistently receive oral corrective feedback, as

per option (A) of the survey question. In addition, a small percentage of students, specifically

seven individuals comprising 10% of the total respondents, reported that they receive OCF on an

intermittent basis. According to the data, a mere 1.43% of the students opted for the answer (D)

"rarely", with only one individual selecting this option.

Q.2 Do you like it when your teacher correct your errors?

A(Yes) B(No) Total

Number 43 0 43

Percentage 100% 0% 100%

As per the data presented in the table, it can be concluded that the teachers corrective

feedback were well-received by all the students, with 100% positive feedback. Notably, there

were no indications of any negative sentiments towards the corrections among the pupils.

According to a recent survey, a significant number of students expressed their gratitude towards

instructors who correct their mistakes during class. The reason behind this appreciation is that it

helps them identify their speaking errors and avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

Q.3. When making errors, do you like your teacher gives you?
 87

Direct Indirect
correctio correctio Tota
n n l
41 2 43
Number
95.70% 4.30% 100
Percentag %
e

Based on the data presented in the table, it can be observed that a significant proportion

of students, precisely 41 individuals, which accounts for 95.7% of the total sample, favour the

method of direct correction. Out of the total number of students surveyed, only two (2) of them,

which accounts for 4.3% of the group, expressed a preference for indirect correction. According

to a recent survey conducted among students, the majority of respondents expressed a preference

for receiving direct feedback. The rationale behind this preference is that direct feedback helps

students to avoid uncertainty, remember their mistakes, and avoid the need for further

conversation with their teachers. According to a small but notable group of students, indirect

correction is the preferred method of receiving feedback on oral errors. These students argue that

this approach is more advantageous as it provides them with valuable information about their

mistakes.

Q.4. Do you like it when your teacher asks you to reformulate your errors?

A) Yes B) No

A(Yes) B(No)
Total
Number 39 4 43

Percentage 91.40% 8.60% 100%

According to the results of the study, it has been observed that a significant proportion of

students (91.4%) tend to respond positively when their instructor requests them to rephrase their
 88

incorrect statements. However, a small number of only six students (8.6%) did not approve of the

reformulation approach.

Q.5. Do you like it when your teacher asks you to clarify your answer?

A( Like) B( Dislike) Total

Number 38 5 70
Percentage 88.60% 11.40% 100%

The findings in table indicate that a majority of the participants, specifically 38 students

(88.6%), expressed a preference for their teacher to request clarification of any erroneous

statements made, while a minority of 5 students (11.4%) reported a dislike for this approach.

Q.6. How do you feel when your teacher repeats your own error by raising her/his voice?

The majority of students report that they experience feelings of unease and nervousness

whenever their teacher raises their voice to correct their wrong speech. This is because the

teacher is pointing out the students' errors in speaking. A small number of students find it

beneficial since the teacher inspires them to reflect on their performance and make adjustments

by pointing out where they went wrong.

Q.7. Do you like it when your teacher asks you to elicit correct form of your errors?

A) Yes B) No

A( like) B(Dislike) Total

Number 41 2 43
 89

Percentage 95.70% 4.3 100%

According to the data presented in the table, elicitation was the preferred method of error

correction chosen by the vast majority of students (41), representing 95.7% of the total. Only two

students, or 4.3% of the class, expressed displeasure with the elicitation method of error

correction.

Q.8. Do you like it when your teacher provides you with a rule in order to correct your wrong

utterance?

A(like) B(Dislike) Total

Number 39 4 43

Percentage 90% 10% 100%

According to the findings, a majority of students (39) have a preference for learning the

correct response to their incorrect speech based on a given rule. According to the survey results,

only a small minority of students, specifically four individuals comprising 10% of the total

respondents, expressed their dislike towards the corrective method.

Q.9. How much do you Agree/ Disagree with the following statement. “I like it when my teacher

asks me to find where my error is”

A(Strongly B(Disagree C(Neither D(Agree) E(Strongly Total

disagree) ) agree nor agree)
disagree)
Number 0 4 5 17 17 43

Percentage 0 10% 12.80% 38.60% 38.60% 100%

 90

The results of the study reveal that a significant proportion of students, precisely 38.6%,

expressed their agreement with the notion that the instructor requests them to specify the location

of their mistake(s), while an equal percentage of students completely agreed with the statement.

A proportion of 12.8% of the respondents neither expressed agreement nor disagreement with the

given statement. However, 10% of the participants expressed disagreement, while none of the

participants strongly disagree.

 91

Findings and Discussion

This research aimed to evaluate the impact of explicit and implicit oral corrective

feedback methods on the speaking abilities of ESL students. The following goals were set for

this study:

1. To examine the possible effect of oral corrective feedback techniques on the speaking

abilities of ESL learners.

2. To identify which OCF approach, among those used for oral corrective feedback, is most

helpful in enhancing ESL students' speaking skills.

3. Determine students' preferences and perceptions regarding the effectiveness of oral

corrective feedback methods.

For this research, a quasi-experimental research design including a pre-test and post-test

was used to examine the impact of oral corrective feedback procedures. Three intact classes of

grade 7 students from a private Cambridge school (composed of a total of 70 students) were

chosen, with two experimental groups (OCF-A group N = 14, OCF-B group N = 14), and one

control group (N = 15) as the sampled participants were not allocated randomly to various

treatment groups. The first step involved a pre-test. Participants in the experimental groups were

provided either the implicit, explicit OCF or no CF treatment conditions.

Over a period of eight weeks, each group received 16 OCF episode sessions with specific

treatment conditions. Following that, a post-test was performed. Furthermore, an attitudinal

questionnaire was used as a research instrument to determine the perceptions and beliefs of

students in grade 7 regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback methods. Data were

analysed using SPSS. The statistical analysis of the data yielded the following results.
 92

5.1 Results of the study

According to the study results and findings, different forms of oral corrective feedback

given to ESL learners have diverse but substantial effects on speaking abilities. After statistical

analysis, research question-wise findings of the study are presented.

Research Findings of Question 1

The independent variable "Group" and the dependent variable "feedback" estimations are

displayed in the following table. The estimates for each group include the mean, standard

deviation, and 95% confidence range.

Table 4.7 Group Estimates

Group Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 12.469 .373 11.716 13.222

2 11.600 .386 10.822 12.378
3 11.100 .386 10.322 11.878

The results showed that there were differences in response scores between the three groups.

The mean response score of Group 1 was higher than the mean response score of Groups 2 and

3. The 95% confidence intervals for the mean response scores did not overlap, indicating that the

difference between the means was significant statistical. The standard error provides information

about the precision of the estimate, with smaller standard errors indicating a more accurate

estimate. A 95% confidence interval provides a range of plausible values for the population

mean, with 95% confidence that the population mean actually lies within the interval. The

following graph shows the estimated difference between three groups.

 93

Estimated Marginal Means

Estimated Means of Feedback

Estimated Marginal Means of feedback

14.0 Group
1
2
13.5
3

13.0

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

1 2
test

Research Findings of Question 2

The table you provided shows the results of pairwise comparisons between different groups

(group 1, group 2, and group 3) for the feedback variable. These pairwise comparisons are often

performed after performing an analysis of variance (ANOVA) or similar statistical test to

determine whether there is a significant difference between the means of the different groups.
 94

Table 4.8 Pairwise comparison

(I) (J) Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for
Group Group Difference Error Difference
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .869 .537 .039 -.469 2.206
3 1.369* .537 .043 .031 2.706
2 1 -.869 .537 .039 -2.206 .469
3 .500 .545 .01 -.859 1.859
3 1 -1.369* .537 .043 -2.706 -.031
2 -.500 .545 .01 -1.859 .859

Group 1 had a statistically higher mean value for the “feedback” variable compared to group 2.

The mean “feedback” value for group 1 was estimated to be 0.869 units higher than group 2, and

this difference was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Group 1 showed statistically higher

mean values for the “feedback” variable compared to group 3. Group 1's mean “feedback” score

was estimated to be 1.369 units higher than group 3, and this difference was statistically

significant at the 0.05 level. Group 2 had statistically higher mean values on the feedback

variables than group 3. Group 2's mean “feedback” score was estimated to be 0.500 units higher

than group 3, and this difference was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Group 1

outperformed both Group 2 and Group 3 on the feedback variables, with statistically significant

differences. Group 2 achieved a higher mean “feedback” score than group 3, and this difference

was also statistically significant.

These results suggest that Group 1 generally received higher feedback ratings than the other

groups in the study, and Group 2 received higher ratings than Group 3. These differences are not
 95

due to chance and are supported by statistical evidence. The following paragraph shows the

pairwise comparison of three groups in pre and post-test.

Pairwise comparison

The finding of Question 3

What are the attitudes and perceptions of ESL students regarding oral corrective

feedback?

The results of question number one indicated that most of the students expressed that when they

commit error their teachers correct them by providing them with oral corrective feedback.

The majority of students in question number two stated why they appreciate teachers

“correction by saying that it enables them to know about their spoken errors and to avoid making

the same mistake again.

In response to question number three, the majority of students stated that they favour

direct correction because it makes it easier for them to prevent ambiguity, remember the error,
 96

and eliminate teacher’s chat. In contrast, a small group of students’ preferred indirect correction

defended their answer by arguing that it is more useful as it alerts them about their errors.

The results of question number four showed that the most of students respond favourably when

their teacher encourages them to rephrase incorrect utterances.

The result of question number five indicates that most of the students liked it when their

teacher requested that they explain the incorrect utterance. The majority of students in question

number six stated that they feel uncomfortable and shy when their teacher repeats their wrong

utterances by raising his or her voice. The results of question number seven show that the

majority of students favoured elicitation as a corrective strategy. The results of question number

eight reveal that the majority of students like it when they infer a proper response to an incorrect

utterance by providing a particular rule.

The results of question number nine demonstrate that most of the students agreed that the

teacher request them to identify where they made a mistake. The results of the survey revealed

that most ESL students like when they are provided with oral corrective feedback on their

spoken errors moreover they like to be corrected explicitly or directly by their teachers because

they can easily understand their spoken errors while they have given negative responses toward

implicit or indirect oral corrective feedback methods e.g. repetition and elicitation. Further, the

survey questionnaire revealed that ESL students have a positive attitude toward explicit oral

corrective feedback methods and they are most effective for ESL students speaking skills.

The analysis of the results has led to the interpretation of findings. The findings of this

investigation suggest that both implicit and explicit forms of oral corrective feedback yielded

favourable outcomes on the speaking proficiency of English as a Second Language (ESL)

learners. The individuals who were provided with implicit feedback exhibited progress in their
 97

speaking precision and fluency, whereas those who were given explicit feedback showed an

improvement in their linguistic accuracy. The aforementioned results indicate that both forms of

corrective feedback possess the capability to significantly enhance language acquisition and

progress.

These results imply that both forms of corrective feedback can positively influence

language acquisition and development. According to research conducted by Lyster and Ranta in

1997, implicit feedback has a positive impact on speaking accuracy and fluency. This finding

highlights the significance of implicit feedback in enhancing language learning outcomes. The

study conducted by the researchers has highlighted the significance of implicit feedback in

enhancing the learners' ability to identify errors and rectify them on their own. The research has

shed light on the crucial role played by implicit feedback in promoting self-correction among

learners. In language learning, implicit feedback is a technique that offers learners subtle cues to

help them identify their linguistic errors without directly pointing them out. These cues may

come in the form of reformulations or recasts, which draw the learner's attention to their mistakes

in a discreet manner. By using implicit feedback, learners can improve their language skills

without feeling embarrassed or discouraged by explicit correction. By actively engaging in the

learning process, learners are able to make adjustments to their spoken language. This is a highly

effective way to improve language skills as it allows individuals to actively participate in their

own learning. By taking an active role in the learning process, learners are able to identify areas

where they need improvement and make necessary adjustments to their speech. This approach to

language learning is highly recommended for individuals who are looking to improve their

spoken language skills.

 98

When examining the findings of a study, it is important to consider how they compare to

previous research in the field. In this regard, the current study's results align with previous

research on oral corrective feedback. The findings of the study align with prior research that has

explored the impact of corrective feedback on the process of language acquisition. A study

conducted by Sheen in 2007, it was found that providing explicit corrective feedback had a

noteworthy and beneficial effect on the acquisition of specific linguistic features among ESL

learners. In a study conducted by Nassaji and Swain (2000), the significance of negotiated

feedback was emphasised. This type of feedback involves learners taking an active role in the

feedback process, resulting in a more profound comprehension and incorporation of the

corrections provided. The idea that the efficacy of corrective feedback is impacted by the level of

engagement and involvement of learners in the feedback exchange is well-supported.

In a study conducted by Wong (2005), it was highlighted that learners' beliefs regarding

the role of corrective feedback hold great importance. According to recent research, learners who

maintain positive beliefs and view corrective feedback as advantageous are more inclined to

actively engage with the feedback and apply it to enhance their language skills. This highlights

the importance of a positive mind-set and attitude towards feedback in the language learning

process. Creating a supportive learning environment that fosters effective utilisation of corrective

feedback is crucial for language instructors. Learners must be encouraged to value and utilise

such feedback to enhance their language skills.

 99

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION
100
 101

Chapter V

Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications

The objective of the current research was to examine how implicit and explicit oral

corrective feedback influences the speaking abilities of ESL students. According to the study's

results, both forms of feedback had a significant impact on the speaking performance of the

participants. In this section, we will delve into the interpretation of the results, draw comparisons

with previous research, analyse their implications, address any limitations, and put forth potential

avenues for future research.

According to the findings of the study, several practical and theoretical problems

involving oral corrective feedback methods emerge. The current study design was not intended

to investigate any learning theory, but rather to justify where results of the study are compatible

or incompatible with various theories. In a private Cambridge school, explicit and implicit oral

corrective feedback methods were compared to investigate the effectiveness of various oral

corrective feedback techniques in the classroom, which may involve the use of specific OCF

methods for spoken errors. In light of the study findings, this section discusses theoretical

implications, instructional implications, and recommendations for further research.

5.1 Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications

According to the findings of the study, several practical and theoretical problems

involving oral corrective feedback methods for oral output emerge. It is important to note that the

current research design was not intended to investigate any particular learning theory, but rather

to highlight on provide justification where study results are either compatible or inconsistent

with various theories. In a private Cambridge school, explicit and implicit oral corrective
 102

feedback methods are compared to investigate the impact of different oral corrective feedback

techniques in the classroom, which may involve the use of specific OCF methods for spoken

mistakes. In light of the study findings, this section discusses theoretical implications,

instructional implications, and recommendations for further research.

Theoretical Implications

The current research supports the interaction hypothesis by Long (1996) which states that

corrective feedback and modified output have a simultaneous role in facilitating L2

development. Interaction, particularly feedback in interaction, is essential for second language

learning. The usefulness of CF techniques in improving ESL students' speaking skills was

demonstrated in this study for the following reasons.

To begin, OCF techniques focused students' attention on language features that appeared

unintentionally in speaking sessions. Second, interactional feedback received by learners while

negotiating input assisted in identifying the gap between their incorrect L2 oral utterances and

the right forms offered. Third, interactional corrective feedback was an essential factor in

language development because it encouraged learners to predict and test correct forms.

In addition, it encouraged students to revise their inter-language and production. The

research demonstrated differing findings from the input hypothesis by Krashen (1985) which

states that learning can only occur if information, particularly "comprehensible input," is

marginally above the learner's present stage. In other words, if there has been adequate input,

they will acquire grammar rules naturally, eliminating the requirement of error correction. He

claims that any information obtained intentionally through explicit instruction and reinforced by

corrective criticism does not affect learning a second language. The findings indicated that both

explicit and implicit OCF was effective in speaking tasks for both pre and post-test.
 103

Theoretically, the study's results are consistent with Schmidt's (1990) noticing

hypothesis, which is linked closely to oral corrective feedback because teaching, communication,

and rectification all have a positive impact on form acquisition and aid learners in noticing the

discrepancy between the intended feedback and their linguistic forms. The level to which OCF

techniques are explicit might have a significant impact on how useful they are. The focus of

learners' attention was drawn to important language patterns using explicit OCF methods.

Furthermore, the noticing hypothesis always encompasses noticing as an error-correcting

method in the form of recasting or elicitation. The most often reported reasons for the advantage

of recasts in second language acquisition research are based on the noticing hypothesis by

Schmidt (1990), which holds that to acquire new features of linguistics, learners need to initially

recognize these features in the input and modify them as intake.

Similarly, Swain's Output Hypothesis (1995, 1998) provides some evidence for the

usefulness of feedback methods, stating that performance improves when learners adjust their

output during hypothesis evaluation (Swain, 1995; Gass, 1997). The opportunity to get

constructive criticism from the teacher is frequently provided by the learners' production. The

output hypothesis provides some support for teachers providing feedback as this may notify ESL

learners about their inaccurate oral statements. Additionally, this procedure of noticing, testing

hypotheses, and reflecting on output, offers learners a chance to improve their language output.

Pedagogical Implications

The study's findings have the following pedagogical implications:

1. Regardless of the oral corrective feedback strategy employed for correction, it is

important to note that oral corrective feedback plays a useful role in improving ESL students'

speaking abilities by raising awareness among ESL students of correct and incorrect forms.
 104

To benefit from the positive effects of OCF tactics, language instructors and teachers

should be aware of the possible roles of different OCF kinds and properly apply these OCF

approaches in the classroom.

2. Another finding from the study is that all OCF techniques (implicit and explicit) were

effective in reducing L2 mistakes and improving ESL students' speaking abilities, implying that

explicit OCF outperformed implicit OCF. As a result, the use of OCF techniques must be carried

out with their efficiency.

3. Corrective Feedback methods that encourage self-learning allow learners to make

predictions about the language they are learning and aid in the long-term retention of learned

knowledge. Implicit OCF techniques are associated with these characteristics because they

encourage students to be autonomous and accountable for their learning. The study results

demonstrated that these tactics are also beneficial, thus language instructors should employ them

when they want to encourage their pupils to rectify their own mistakes.

4. The findings from this research suggest that explicit oral corrective feedback performed

better than the other. As a result, teachers must be thoughtful in determining which form of oral

corrective feedback to use, considering the error category.

5. Furthermore, the study results demonstrated that both the explicit and implicit OCF

groups upgraded their scores in subsequent speaking tests following oral corrective feedback

treatment sessions. This demonstrates that both implicit and explicit oral corrective feedback

methods can help ESL learners improve their speaking abilities. As a result, the following

recommendations may be given for the employment of explicit and implicit OCF techniques.

1. The study's findings have pedagogical implications that teachers in the context of English

as a Second language must use explicit corrective feedback methods more frequently than
 105

implicit corrective feedback methods because they are more effective in both oral corrective

feedback.

2. The supporting effective aspects of OCF in the L2 teaching process should be known to

ESL instructors. It would be beneficial to provide seminars for teachers to keep them aware of

current pedagogical development to increase teacher understanding of the effectiveness of OCF

approaches. Workshops should emphasize the value of OCF approaches and train instructors to

use a variety of methods when providing oral CF feedback.

3. The study's findings can prove useful to teachers and trainers as well. They can educate

their community about the specific OCF method in various situations, as well as their

effectiveness in ESL speaking abilities.

4. The current study has important implications for L2 curriculum designers and material

creators. They can incorporate the syllabus to make the OCF procedures more elaborate,

particularly concerning the educational background and age of learners at various levels. This

will increase teachers' academic abilities for pupils' speaking skills. As a result, material

producers and curriculum designers may assist instructors in developing their potential and self-

belief by offering relevant resources and programs connected to OCF approaches and their

efficacy.

5.2 Research Limitations and Future Research Recommendations

Because the present research was conducted in a classroom setting, it, like all previous

classroom studies, had limitations in design and methods. Based on the limitations of the

research following recommendations for further research are highlighted:

1. The first research constraint is connected to the length of the experimental investigation.

The current quasi-experimental research was only 8 weeks long and included two sessions of
 106

OCF treatment in one week. If oral corrective feedback systems are used for an extended period

or with more sessions of CF treatment, the outcomes of the research may alter.

The study was not conducted on a big scale: just 43 students participated. As a result, the

conclusions of this study are confined to a private Cambridge school, and their implications for

other educational institutions are limited.

The practical implications of the study's findings have significant relevance for language

teaching practises. Incorporating regular feedback opportunities into classroom instruction is a

crucial step for language instructors seeking to enhance the speaking skills of ESL students. By

providing consistent feedback, instructors can help students identify areas for improvement and

build their confidence in communicating in a new language. This approach can be particularly

effective in helping students overcome common challenges such as pronunciation, grammar, and

vocabulary. Overall, integrating feedback into classroom instruction is an essential strategy for

language instructors seeking to support the success of their ESL students. In the realm of

education, it is widely acknowledged that learners have unique needs and preferences when it

comes to receiving feedback. As such, it is important for educators to provide both implicit and

explicit corrective feedback in order to cater to these individual differences. Implicit feedback

refers to the subtle cues and hints that educators provide to learners in order to guide them

towards the correct answer or behaviour. This type of feedback is often nonverbal and can

include gestures, facial expressions, or tone of voice. Implicit feedback is particularly useful for

When it comes to language learning, there are two types of feedback that teachers and learners

can use: implicit and explicit. Implicit feedback is more focused on promoting fluency and self-

correction, while explicit feedback is geared towards addressing specific linguistic errors and

improving accuracy. Both types of feedback have their own unique advantages and can be used
 107

in different situations depending on the learner's needs and goals. Ultimately, the choice between

implicit and explicit feedback will depend on the teacher's teaching style and the learner's

learning style. In the realm of language instruction, a multi-faceted approach to feedback can

prove highly effective. By incorporating a variety of feedback types, learners can benefit from a

well-rounded educational experience.

Establishing a classroom environment that is both supportive and communicative is of

utmost importance. This is the second key factor that contributes to a successful learning

experience. When students feel supported and encouraged, they are more likely to engage in the

learning process and take risks. Additionally, fostering open communication channels between

students and teachers can help to build trust and promote a sense of community For ESL

students, it is crucial to feel at ease with making mistakes and receiving constructive feedback.

This approach fosters their active involvement and commitment to spoken language production.

Creating a positive learning environment is crucial for teachers who want to help their students

succeed. One way to achieve this is by highlighting the significance of feedback as a valuable

tool for learning. By providing constructive and encouraging feedback that focuses on learners'

progress, teachers can help their students feel motivated and supported in their educational

journey.

Although the study has yielded noteworthy results, it is important to acknowledge that

there are certain limitations that must be taken into consideration. The study's sample size was

relatively limited, which could potentially restrict the applicability of the findings. To gain a

more comprehensive understanding of the impact of implicit and explicit oral corrective

feedback on the speaking skills of ESL students, future research should consider a larger and

more diverse participant pool. This would enable researchers to draw more robust conclusions
 108

about the effectiveness of different types of feedback in improving the speaking abilities of non-

native English speakers. By expanding the scope of the study, researchers can better understand

how feedback affects language acquisition and tailor their teaching methods accordingly.

Furthermore, the study was carried out within the confines of a controlled classroom

environment, which may not accurately capture the intricacies of language production in genuine

communicative situations. In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the

acquisition of spoken language, it may be beneficial for future studies to delve into the effects of

corrective feedback in naturalistic settings. This could involve observing conversation groups or

authentic language exchanges, which would provide a more accurate representation of the

complexities involved in acquiring spoken language. By exploring these dynamics, researchers

may be able to gain valuable insights into the most effective methods for facilitating language

acquisition in real-world scenarios.

Expanding on the constraints highlighted in the aforementioned study, there exist various

potential paths for forthcoming investigations. Exploring the enduring impact of implicit and

explicit corrective feedback on the speaking abilities of ESL students would yield valuable

insights into the durability of the enhancements observed. Such an investigation would shed light

on the long-term effects of these feedback methods and their potential to foster sustained

progress in language learners' speaking proficiency. In the realm of education research, there is a

growing interest in the effectiveness of corrective feedback on learners. While some studies have

been conducted on this topic, there is still much to be learned about the persistence and durability

of these effects over time. To gain a more comprehensive understanding, experts suggest that

longitudinal studies that track learners over an extended period would be the most beneficial
 109

approach. By doing so, researchers can gather valuable insights into the long-term impact of

corrective feedback and it’s potential to enhance learning outcomes.

In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of feedback, it

would be beneficial to delve into the impact of individual differences. Factors such as language

aptitude, motivation, and learning styles could all play a role in how individuals respond to

various types of feedback. By examining these nuances, we can gain a deeper understanding of

how feedback can be tailored to better meet the needs of diverse learners. When it comes to

feedback, learners have varying preferences and responses to both implicit and explicit forms of

feedback. As such, it is important to identify the factors that influence these preferences and

responses in order to inform instructional practises. By doing so, educators can tailor their

feedback strategies to better meet the needs of their learners.

In order to enhance the speaking skills of ESL students, it is important to investigate the

relationship between corrective feedback and other instructional factors. For instance, analysing

the impact of task complexity or the frequency of feedback could provide valuable insights into

the most effective conditions for improving language proficiency. By exploring these variables,

educators can gain a better understanding of how to optimise the learning experience for ESL

students and facilitate their progress in spoken English. Tailored feedback approaches may be

necessary in various instructional contexts, and gaining insights into the interplay between

different factors can be beneficial for language educators. By examining these factors, educators

can better understand how to provide effective feedback to their students.

In conclusion, it is recommended to broaden the scope of research to examine the effects

of corrective feedback on various language domains, including listening comprehension and

 110

writing skills. This approach would offer a more comprehensive understanding of the overall

impact of feedback interventions on language acquisition. The transferability of corrective

feedback's effects across various language skills is a crucial aspect to consider when it comes to

informing instructional practises and promoting integrated language development. By

comprehending this concept, educators can better understand how to effectively teach language

skills and ensure that students are able to apply what they have learned across different language

domains.

5.3 Conclusion

As an Integral component of second language instruction, corrective feedback is a

complicated phenomenon that has been the subject of several academic studies in the field of

second language acquisition (SLA). The effect of oral corrective feedback techniques for

improving speaking skills in ESL students was the purpose of this experimental investigation.

According to the study's findings, OCF was successful in developing L2 speaking abilities when

applied in the Cambridge education system. In this study, explicit and implicit oral corrective

feedback methods in a private Cambridge school were used to enhance the speaking skills of

students. It was further established that various OCF techniques have varying effects on different

kinds of mistakes.

. The theoretical and statistical advantage of explicit OCF over implicit OCF methods

suggests that oral corrective feedback plays a positive function in SLA and explicit OCF

methods are more effective pedagogical options for ESL instructors than implicit OCF methods

in an ESL classroom. The findings of the study also demonstrated that the implicit OCF

techniques had favourable potential impacts on incorrect oral utterances. The present study

aimed to add to the body of knowledge on oral corrective feedback by comparing the relative
 111

effectiveness of several OCF methods in oral corrective feedback, which has only been

experimentally examined or theorized by a few researchers.

This study, by identifying methods to improve feedback practices in a private Cambridge school

system, allows ESL learners and teachers to reassess their understanding of second language

input through oral corrective feedback (OCF). It forces teachers to reconsider how they respond

to pupils' incorrect statements. Furthermore, investigating oral CF methods within the SLA

research framework, with the primary objective of determining the impact of OCF methods, will

assist ESL learners in improving their speaking skills.

The study's results shed light on the noteworthy influence that implicit and explicit oral

corrective feedback have on the speaking abilities of ESL students. In summary, the findings

suggest that such feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing the students' speaking skills. The

findings of this study align with prior research that highlights the efficacy of corrective feedback

in the acquisition of language. Incorporating regular feedback opportunities in language

instruction and creating a supportive learning environment that values feedback as a valuable

tool for language development are crucial, as the practical implications suggest. This highlights

the significance of providing learners with ample opportunities to receive feedback and fostering

an environment that encourages the use of feedback to enhance language skills. In the realm of

language acquisition, corrective feedback has been a topic of much interest and investigation.

While much has been learned about this phenomenon, there are still many avenues for future

research to explore. Specifically, researchers should delve into the long-term effects of corrective

feedback, as well as individual differences in how learners respond to it. Additionally, it would

be beneficial to study how instructional interactions impact the effectiveness of corrective

feedback, and how it may impact other language domains. By pursuing these lines of inquiry, we
 112

can continue to deepen our understanding of corrective feedback and its role in language

acquisition.

References

Akiyama, Y. (2017). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal

investigation. System, 64, 58-73.

Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of error. In M.
K. Burt & H. D. Dulay (Eds.), new directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual
education. Selected papers from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention. Washington, D.C: TESOL .

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 17(2), 102–18.

Bitchener, J. and Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition
and writing. New York: Routledge

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J.
Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41-68). New York:
Cambridge University Press. 26

Braidi, S. M. (1995). Reconsidering the role of interaction and input in second language
acquisition. Language Learning, 45, 141-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 1770.1995.tb00965.x

Brown, A. V. (2009). Students' and teachers' perceptions of effective foreign language teaching:
A comparison of ideals. The modern language journal, 93(1), 46-60.

Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A
meta-analysis. Language teaching research, 20(4), 436-458.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom Practices. US. Longman.
 113

Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. J., & Schumann, J. H. (1974). Testing hypotheses about second
language acquisition: the copula and negative in three subjects. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No.
3. ERIC Document, 123-873.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’

errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.

Coskun, A. (2010). A Classroom Research Study on Oral Error Correction. Online Submission.

Dabaghi, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effect of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed

correctivefeedback on learners' performance in tailor-made test (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from:
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/55?show=full

Davidson, Joan & Great Britain Countryside Commission (1970). Outdoor recreation surveys: the
design and use of questionnaires for site surveys. Countryside Commission, London (1 Cambridge
Gate, Regents Park, N.W.1).

Davis A. (2003). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding aspects of language

learning. Evaluation & Research in Education, 17, 207–222.

Dehgani, Q., Izadpanah, S., & Shahnavaz, A. (2017). The effect of oral corrective feedback on
beginner and low intermediate students’ speaking achievement. Jordan Journal of Modern
Languages and Literature, 9(3), 279-294.

Development. Language Learning, 55(2), 227-285.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed
methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroomoriented

research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64-80.

Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In Corrective
feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 3-18). Routledge.
 114

Ellis, R. (2019) Implicit and Explicit Instruction in Second Language Acquisition Bristol, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition.
SSLA, 28, 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(2), 339-368.

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to
be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184

Ferris, D.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.

Gamlo, N. H. (2019). EFL Learners‟ Preferences of Corrective Feedback in Speaking

Activities. World, 9(2).

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gipps, C. (1995). Teacher assessment and teacher development in primary

schools. Education 3-13, 23(1), 8-12.

Grotjahn, R. (1987). On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In C. Faerch & G.

Kasper (Eds.). Introspection in second language research (pp. 54—81). Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual
Matters.

Ha, X. V., & Nguyen, L. T. (2021). Targets and sources of oral corrective feedback in English as
a foreign language classrooms: are students' and teachers' beliefs aligned?. Frontiers in Psychology,
2479.

Ha, X. V., Murray, J. C., & Riazi, A. M. (2021). High school EFL students’ beliefs about oral
corrective feedback: The role of gender, motivation and extraversion. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 235-264.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). London: Longman.
 115

Heaton, J. B. (1990). Classroom testing. London: Longman.

Izumi, S. (2009): Naiyo-jushi no input to output wo toshita focus on form no shido [‘Focus on
form’ instruction through content-based input and output]. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 57 (12),
28-30.

Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and
teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465-492.

Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in
relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428-452.

Korthari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology methods & techniques, Second Edition. New Delhi:
New Age International publisher

Krashen, S (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication. Longman.

Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J.E. Alatis (Ed), Current Issues in Bilingual Education.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second
language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei Lectures.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lee, E. J. E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL
students. System, 41(2), 217-230.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language

learning, 60(2), 309-365.

Li, S. (2017). Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback. Corrective feedback in
second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications.

Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback
in System. System, 84, 93-109.
 116

Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it

affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational

Research, 37, 271–283.

Loewen, S. (2011). Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the acquisition of L2
Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(3), 339-368.

Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). The effect of oral corrective feedback on implicit and explicit L2
knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition: A series
of empirical studies. (pp. 361-378). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second
language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language
Journal, 93(1), 91-104.

Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. In H. Brown, C.

Yorio, and R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 278–93). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de

Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds), Foreign Language Research in CrossCultural Perspective (pp.
39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.
Ritchie, & T. Bhatia, Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–68). New York: Academic
Press. 366

Long, M. (2006). The story so far. In M. Long(Ed), Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, UCLA.

Long, M.H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second language Acquisition. In W.C.

Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of Second language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
 117

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 32 (Special issue 2), 265–302.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in
second language acquisition, 28(2), 269-300.

Lyster, R., & Ranta L. (2013). Corrective Feedback in Communicative Classrooms; A

Pedagogical Perspectives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), Acquisition, 35(1), 1-25.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language teaching, 46(1), 1-40.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms.
Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.

Martin, S., & Alvarez Valdivia, I. M. (2017). Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online
foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14,
1-15.

Martinez Agudo, J. D. D. (2015). How do Spanish EFL learners perceive grammar instruction
and corrective feedback?. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 33(4), 411-
425.

McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Milroy, L. and M. Gordon. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation. Malden, MA:
Blackwell
 118

Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a

second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 51-84).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and
learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535-562.

Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2
grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353-368.

Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2020). 12 Corrective Feedback and Good Language
Teachers. Lessons from good language teachers, 151.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian Perspective on Corrective Feedback in L2: The
Effect of Random Versus negotiated Help on the Learning of English Articles. Language Awareness,
9(1), 34-51.

Nguyen, T. M. H. (2018). Perceptions of Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback in

Vietnamese EFL Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 216-239.

Nguyen, T. M. H. (2018). Perceptions of Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback in a

Vietnamese EFL Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 216-239.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press

Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learner's preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 71-
89.

Panova I., & Lyster, R. (2016). Student Preferences for Corrective Feedback and Teacher
responses in an advanced –level university French Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20 (2),
161-183.

Panova, I., & Lyster R. (2016). Student Preferences for Corrective Feedback and Teacher
Responses in an advanced- level University French Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20(2),
161-183.
 119

Papangkorn, P. (2015). SSRUIC students’ attitude and preference toward error

corrections. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1841-1846.

Quinn, P. G., & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Corrective feedback
in second language teaching and learning (pp. 35-47). Routledge.

Reber, A. S. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic learners: The role of instructional set. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, Human Learning and Memory, 6, 88-94.

Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F. & Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective feedback in SLA: Classroom practice and
future directions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 21- 29

Richards ,J. C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge University
press.
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to
oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of
attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed), Attention and awareness in foreign language
learning. (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed), Cognition and second language instruction
(pp. 1-32). New York: Cambridge university press.

Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students' and teachers'
views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364.

Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of
grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA‐Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2),
244-258.

Sheen, Y. & Ellis R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, (vol. 2). New York: Routledge, 593–
610.
 120

Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL
classroom. Studies in second language acquisition, 32(2), 203-234.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language
Aptitude on ESL Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.

Sheen, Y. 2007. “The Effects of Corrective Feedback, Language Aptitude, and Learner Attitudes
on the Acquisition of English Articles.” In Conversational Interaction in Second Language
Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies, edited by A. Mackey, 301–322. Oxford: Oxford
University Press

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some rules of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development. In S. Madden, & C. Gass (Eds), Input and second
language acquisition (pp. 91-103). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds), Principle and Practice in applied Linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University
Press

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Catherine Doughty and Jessica
Williams, eds. focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 64– 82. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-
114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed), Hand book of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 97-114). Mahwah, NJ.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://
www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching (Vol. 1, No. 998, p. 41). Cambridge: Cambridge
university press.

Van Ha, X., & Murray, J. C. (2021). The impact of a professional development program on EFL
teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. System, 96, 102405.
 121

Van Ha, X., Nguyen, L. T., & Hung, B. P. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a
foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon, 7(7), e07550.

Varosyan, N. (2015). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in Language Learning (Doctoral

dissertation).

Vgotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Harvard University Press.

Wong, J. (2005). Learners’ beliefs about the role of explicit negative feedback in Second
Language

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

Zhang, S. (2015). The Effects of Corrective Feedback on ESL Students Accuracy in Speaking.
English Language Teaching 8(7), 66-76.

Zhu, Y., & Wang, B. (2019). Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral
corrective feedback at Chinese universities: a large-scale survey. Language awareness, 28(2), 139-
161.
 122

Appendix A
Checklist

A2 Grammar and Vocabulary Pronunciation Interactive

Communication

1 Shows a good degree of Is mostly intelligible, Maintains simple

control of simple
grammatical forms. Uses a
range if appropriate
vocabulary when talking
about everyday situations.
and has some control of exchanges. Requires very
phonological features at tittle prompting and
both utterance and word support
levels.

2 Performance shares features of Bands 3 and 5.

3 Shows sufficient control of Is mostly intelligible, Maintains simple

simple grammatical forms. despite limited control exchanges, despite some
Uses appropriate vocabulary of phonological difficult. Requires
to talk about everyday features. prompting and support
situations.

4 Performance shares features of Bands 1 and 3.

5 Shows only limited control
of a few grammatical from.
Uses a vocabulary of isolated
works and phrases.
Has very limited control Has considerable difficulty
of phonological features maintaining simple
and is often exchanges. Requires
unintelligible additional prompting and
support

6 Performance below Band 1.

 123

Appendix B

A-2 Flyers Speaking Test

PART INTERACTION TASK TYPE TASK DESCRIPTIOON

1 Interlocutor-candidate
2 Interlocutor-candidate
3. Interlocutor-candidate
4. Interlocutor-candidate
To Similar pictures Indentify six differneces in
(one is the examiner’s)
cadidate’s picture from
Oral statements aboutstatements about examiner’s
examiner’s picute picture.
One set of facts and one
Answer and ask questions
set of question cues about two people, abjects or
situations.
Picture sequence Describe each picture in
turn.
Open-ended questions Answer personal questions.
about candidate

The Speaking Exam for A2 learners takes from 7-9 minutes. Children are assessed by
their knowledge related to vocabulary, pronunciation, and interaction. They can get a total
of 15 marks for this exam, which grants them up to 5 shields.

For this exam, the researcher introduces the child to the examiner, then she left the room.
The children took this exam by themselves. Now, let’s dig into the tasks:
 124

Part 1: Two Similar Pictures

The examiner greets the candidate telling his/her own name and asks the candidate’s
name, surname (last name), and age. This part is unassessed. Then, the examiner starts the test by
demonstrating what is required.

The examiner shows two colorful pictures that look similar but have some differences.
Then he makes a series of statements about his picture and expects the child to point out the
differences in her picture, e.g. “Here are two pictures. My picture is nearly the same as yours, but
some things are different. For example, in my picture, the man is pointing at a cloud on the map.
But in your picture, he is pointing at the sun. Okay? I’m going to say something in my picture,
and you tell me how your picture is different“. With this sentence, the examiner expects that the
candidate points out the differences according to his statements. This part of the tests
understanding statements and responding with differences. Here is a sample:

YLE A2 Flyers Speaking Part 1 Sample

 125

Practice tips: Practice listening to statements about a picture, relating that to another
picture, and commenting on the difference in number, color, position, appearance, activity,
shape, and relative size, etc. For example: In my picture the clock is square but in your picture,
the clock is round.
 126

Part 2: Information Exchange

The examiner removes the pictures from the previous task and shows two sets of cards. In
one set, there is a picture of a boy and some information about him below, and a picture of a girl,
with question marks associated with her information. On the other set, the information is
inverted: there is some information about the girl and missing information about the boy.

The examiner asks the candidate questions about a person, place or object, based on a set
of question cues. The candidate is expected to respond, using a set of information cues. Then, the
candidate should ask the examiner questions based on a set of different question cues, to provide
the missing information.

This task tests responding to and forming questions. By providing the questions first, the
examiner expects that the children ask the same, or similar questions. Here is a sample:

Robert’s favorite restaurant Sarah’s favorite restaurant

Name The Block Cot Name ?

Like eating Pasta Like eating ?

Where North Street Where ?

Time / Open 12 O’clock Time / Open ?

Cheap / expensive expensive Cheap / expensive ?

Robert’s favorite restaurant Sarah’s favorite restaurant

Name ? Name Rainbows

Like eating ? Like eating Pizza

Where ? Where Hill Street

Time / Open ? Time / Open 12-30

Cheap / expensive ? Cheap / expensive Cheap

A 2 FLAYERS SPEAKING. INFORMATION EXCHANGE

 127

YLE A2 Flyers Speaking Part 2 Sample

Practice tips: Practice asking and answering questions, about people, things, and
situations. This will include information about time, place, age, appearance, etc. Candidates
 128

should be able to ask ‘question-word questions’ using Who, What, When, Where, How old, How
many, etc. For example: What is the name of Robert’s favorite restaurant? They should also be
able to ask ‘Yes/No questions’, for example: Has Harry’s teacher got a car? Additionally, they
need to be comfortable asking questions with two options. For example: Is the restaurant cheap
or expensive?

Part 3: Picture Story

The examiner removes the sets of pictures from the previous task and shows the
candidate a sequence of five pictures that show a story. The examiner tells the candidate the
name of the story and describes the first picture in the story, by saying, for example: “These
pictures tell a story. It’s called “The Brave Teacher”. Just look at the pictures first. (Pause) Nick
and Anna are looking out of the classroom window. The teacher isn’t happy because they’re not
doing their work. Now you tell the story“. Then the candidate is expected to describe the other
four pictures. The title of the story and the name(s) of the main character(s) are shown in the
story.

This task tests describing things and events. Here is a sample:

 129

YLE A2 Flyers Speaking Part 3 Sample

Practice tips: Practice telling similar simple picture stories. Also, advise candidates to
look at each picture, in turn, to get a general idea of the story before they start to speak.
However, examiners are not looking for evidence of storytelling skills. Candidates are only
expected to say a few words about each picture in the sequence, without necessarily developing
these comments into a narrative. It is perfectly acceptable just to say a few words about each
picture in the sequence without developing these comments into a story. The examiner will
prompt by asking a question if a candidate needs help.

The structures candidates will need most frequently are there is/are, the present tense of
the verbs be and have (got), the modals can/can’t and must/mustn’t and the present continuous
tense of some action verbs (for example: come, go, buy, put on, carry, open, laugh). They may
 130

also need to use the present perfect tense or going to. They should be able to say things
like: Nick and Anne are in the classroom. They are looking out the window.

Part 4: Personal Information

The examiner removes the sets of pictures from the previous task and asks some personal
questions on topics such as school, holidays, birthdays, family and, hobbies. For example, what
time do you get up on Saturday? What do you do on Saturday afternoon?

This part tests understanding and responding to personal questions.

Practice tips: Practice simple answers to a phrase or one or two short sentences about
topics related to personal information. Make sure candidates feel confident answering questions
about themselves, their families and friends, their homes, their school and free-time activities,
their likes and dislikes, and other topics related to their everyday lives. Questions will normally
be in the present tense but candidates should also be prepared to use the past and present perfect
tenses and going to, and to answer questions about, for example, what they did yesterday or are
going to do at the weekend.

As I mentioned, the A2 Flyers Speaking Exam takes from 7-9 minutes. The examiners
usually wait a couple of seconds to see if the child is going to respond to the questions/tasks. If it
takes too long for the child to reply, examiners start asking some questions. For example, if the
children don’t respond to the first part which they have to spot the differences, after a couple of
seconds, the examiner will point to one of the differences – e.g. the fish – and ask “How many
fish are there?“, to help the children answer and avoid them getting anxious and freeze.
 131

Appendix C: Lesson plan

Level: Pre- Intermediate

Aim: practice in speaking

Secondary aim: practice to know about communication skills

Time: 55minutes

Aids: handouts, blackboard, picture, book Procedure:

Introduction (5m)

Teacher enters the class and greets.

Activity1 (10 min)

1. Distribute students’ handouts with the list signs of body language to express emotions.

2. Discuss them

Activity 2 (20 min)

Group work

1. When they have finished their discussion, ask them on which emotion they are going to
mime. Let them practice for a few minutes. Then take it in turn to perform mime.

a. Can their group participants understand their emotion?

b. Whose mime was most successful and why?

Activity 3 (20 min)

Teacher shows them printed pictures of Marcel Marceau

Students will recognise the picture and discuss it in class?

Then ask the students following questions:

1. Talk about marcels views on communication

 132

2. Which emotions or what Marceau called moving moments, do you think would be
difficult to express in words?
3. Can you think of a situation in which you were lost for words?

Activity 4 (5 min)

Ask the students to write key points in each paragraph of chapter

 133

Appendix D

Student’s Questionnaire

Dear students,

This questionnaire investigates the use of Oral Corrective Feedback in developing the
speaking skill of 7th grade ESL students of private Cambridge School System Thus, you are kindly
requested to answer this questionnaire as it is an important part of our research study.

Section one: Student’s Perception on Teacher’s Oral Corrective Feedback.

1. Does your teacher provide you with oral corrective feedback when you make errors?

Yes □ No □

If yes, how often?

Always □ Often □ Sometimes □ Rarely □

2. Do you like it when your teachers correct your errors?

Yes □ No □

Please would you explain your answer!

.......................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

3. When making errors, do you like your teacher gives you:

Direct correction □ indirect correction □

Would you justify your answer?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Do you like it when your teacher reformulates your wrong utterance (s) by replacing the
error?

Yes □ No □
 134

5. Do you like it when your teacher asks to clarify your answer?

Yes □ No □

6. How do you feel when your teacher repeats your own error(s) by raising his/her voice?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………...

7. Do you like it when your teacher asks you to elicit the correct form (s) of your error (s)?

Yes □ No □

8. Do you like it when your teacher provides you with a rule in order to correct your wrong
utterance(s)?

Yes □ No □

9. How much do you agree/ disagree with the following statement: “I like it when my teacher
asks me to find where my error is”?

a. Strongly disagree □ b. Disagree □ c. Neither agree nor disagree □ d. Agree □ e. strongly agree□
135