Final Manuscript

THE ART OF CORRECTION: INVESTIGATING
TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND TYPES OF

ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ
Thesis Manuscript Submitted to the Department of Secondary Education,

University of Southern Mindanao, Libungan Campus, Libungan Cotabato
in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

Major in English
NOVEMBER 2023
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO
Kabacan, Cotabato
Philippines
APPROVAL OF THESIS MANUSCRIPT

Name HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ
Major ENGLISH
Degree Sought BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
Specialization
Thesis Title THE ART OF CORRECTION: INVESTIGATING TEACHERS’ BELIEFS
AND TYPES OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
APPROVED BY THE GUIDANCE COMMITTEE
JACINTA T. PUEYO, PhD

Adviser Co-Adviser
(Optional)
______________ _____________
Date Date
____________________________ ______________________________
Statistician Department Research Coordinator
(Optional)
______________ _____________
Date Date
____________________________
Department Chairperson
______________
Date
KARIZZA JANE B. PEJANER, MST KAUTIN S. KULANO, EdD

College Research Coordinator Dean
______________________ ______________________
Date Date
Study No: PALMA2023-BSE0018
Index No: LC-CED-010169
Recorded by: _____________
RECORDED:
LYDIA C. PASCUAL, PhD
Director for Research and Development Office
_________________
Date
Recorded by: __________
USM-EDR-F05-Rev.4.2020.11.16
ii
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO Colleg
e Seal
Kabacan, Cotabato
Philippines
ACCEPTANCE OF THESIS
The thesis attached hereto, entitled “THE ART OF CORRECTION:
INVESTIGATING TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND TYPES OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK”
prepared and submitted by HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION is hereby
accepted.
JACINTA T. PUEYO, PhD

Adviser
________________________
Date
KARIZZA JANE B. PEJANER, MST

College Research Coordinator
_________________________
Date
iii
USM-EDR-F10-Rev.3.2020.02.24
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
Honey Gene V. Valdez was born in Midsayap, Cotabato on September
25, 2002. She is the only child of Ernesto Valdez and Lellibeth Valdez.
She graduated from B. Bernardez Elementary School in 20133. She
took up her Junior High School at Sinawingan High School and completed it in
2017. At the same school, she graduated taking the track Technical,
Vocational, and Livelihood (TVL) in 2019.
She pursued her tertiary education at the University of Southern
Mindanao – Libungan Campus in Libungan. Cotabato taking Bachelor of
Secondary Education, Major in English.
HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ

Researcher
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher expresses gratitude to the which served as the
foundation and motivation for the completion of this study.
To God Almighty, the fount of all knowledge, the researcher lifts
everything in His name and bows down for His love has consistently provided
support financially, emotionally, and spiritually, contributing to the success of
this study;
Her research adviser, Dr. Jacinta T. Pueyo, for granting the opportunity
to delve into the realm of research and offers guidance in the field of research;
Her panel members, Sambay P. Mla and Kevin Ray V. Abesamis
together with the Department Research Coordinator Dr. Gideon S. Sumayo
and College Research Coordinator Karizza Jane B. Pejaner. Special thanks
are extended to her statistician, Eziel Mae E. Ursabia, for their expertise that
significantly contributed to refining and enhancing the quality of the paper;
Her parents, Mr. Ernesto Valdez and Mrs. Lellibeth Valdez for their
undying support. Their encouragement has been instrumental in enabling her
to persevere in life and studies, instilling a belief in herself regardless of the
challenges life may present;
Lastly, the researcher extends gratitude to everyone who has made
meaningful contributions to her life, believed in her capabilities, and offered
prayers for her success.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
([SHORTCUT to create page numbers: right click the table of contents below and select UPDATE FIELD,
then UPDATE ENTIRE TIABLE. Delete this instruction in your final paper.]
Page
PRELIMINARIES
Title Page
Approval of Thesis Manuscript.........................................................................ii
Acceptance of Thesis.................................................................................. iii
Biographical Data........................................................................................iv
Acknowledgement........................................................................................v
Table of Contents........................................................................................vi
List of Tables.............................................................................................. vii
List of Figures..............................................................................................ix
List of Appendices........................................................................................x
Abstract....................................................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................................................2
Topic 1 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................2
METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................4
vi
Statistical Analysis.......................................................................................5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.........................................................................6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................10
LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................11
APPENDICES.................................................................................................13
CURRICULUM VITAE.........................................................................................18
vii
LIST OF TABLES
(Delete this page if you do not have tables)
Table Title Page
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
(Delete this page if you do not have figures)
Figure Title Page
ix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Title Page
A Application for Change of Research Adviser............................14
B Application for Change of Research Title..................................15
C Actual Budget of the Research.................................................16
D Application for Thesis Manuscript Defense...............................17
x
ABSTRACT
VALDEZ, HONEY GENE V. 2023. The Art of Correction: Investigating

Teachers’ Beliefs and Types of Oral Corrective Feedback. BSE Thesis.
College of Education, University of Southern Mindanao, Libungan,
Cotabato. 68pp
Adviser: JACINTA T. PUEYO, PhD
Oral corrective feedback is a practice in classroom dynamics where
teachers aim to improve language proficiency of students through its various
types namely explicit correction, recast, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation,
repetition, and clarification request. This study aimed to determine the beliefs
and types of oral corrective feedback strategies employed by teachers beyond
classroom dynamics. Survey questionnaire was used to determine teachers’
beliefs and observation checklist was utilized to determine the type of oral
corrective feedback used. Descriptive analysis was used to determine
teachers’ beliefs and linear regression was used to determine the significant
relationship of socio-demographic characteristics and beliefs of oral corrective
feedback, and beliefs of oral corrective feedback to the type used. The data
shows that there is no significant influence between socio-demographic
characteristics to beliefs on oral corrective feedback. Moreover, it was also
found that there is a significant relationship between teachers’ beliefs and the
types of oral corrective feedback used.
Keywords: Corrective Feedback, Teachers’ Beliefs, OCF techniques
xi
INTRODUCTION
Oral corrective feedback is recognized as a crucial aspect of second
language acquisition. It is considered one of the most effective ways to help
learners improve their linguistic accuracy and fluency. This concept is being
referred as an act of providing a response to the errors committed by a learner
during communicative exchanges (Lyster & Ranta, 2013). This is a common
practice in language education, where teachers aim to improve the language
proficiency of their students by identifying and addressing their linguistic
inaccuracies through targeted corrective feedback. However, within the purview
of this study, specifically in our context, there are instances wherein students
who commit errors during recitation are disregarded or even subjected to
derision. These occurrences are of particular interest to the study as they can
have a negative impact on learners’ motivation, academic performance, and
language learning development (Bhuana and Fauziah, 2021).
The importance of oral corrective feedback has been emphasized
in recent studies, as it has been shown to contribute to students improved
linguistic ability. Choi (2018) has suggested that OCF can be highly beneficial in
enhancing students’ pronunciation accuracy. This is because learners may
struggle to identify their own error and may continue to repeat these errors
unless they receive targeted feedback from their instructor. Providing feedback
on specific mistake can help learners to develop more accurate and natural
12
sounding spoken language. This can have an opportunity to learn and use new
vocabulary which will help them improve their language proficiency. The result
of incorporating oral corrective feedback (OCF) allow students to be more
motivated to engage in speaking activities and experience a decreased anxiety
in speaking situations (Otham, 2017). Receiving feedback can have a positive
impact on students’ self-efficacy, as it fosters a positive attitude towards tackling
more different situations regarding language learning.
This study may help identify challenges of teachers when
providing feedback and can be used to develop training programs or resources
that help teachers improve their feedback practices. Dealing with its
pedagogical implication, the result of this study may shed light on the factors
that may influence the success of oral corrective feedback strategies in the
Philippine context which may contribute to the development of a more nuanced
and context-specific understanding of oral corrective feedback. This paper may
add to the existing knowledge on oral corrective feedback. The study’s findings
may allow policy makers to implement instructional strategies that promote the
use of oral corrective feedback. This will be disseminated through a peer-
reviewed publication to reach a wider audience of scholars and experts on the
same field.
This present study aimed to investigate the beliefs, and types of oral
corrective feedback strategies employed by teachers beyond classroom
13
dynamics. Specifically, this study aimed to determine teachers’ socio-
demographic characteristics in terms of age, sex and length of service;
determine the beliefs of teachers towards the use of oral corrective feedback in
response to learners’ spoken errors; identify types of oral corrective feedback
that teachers utilize in the classroom; determine the significant relationship of
socio-demographic characteristics to their beliefs in oral corrective feedback
used in the classroom; and determine the significant relaionship of teachers’
beliefs to oral corrective feedback.
Therefore, the paper is expected to yield the following outputs: teachers’
socio-demographic characteristics, including their age, sex, and teaching
experience, the teachers’ beliefs towards the use of oral corrective feedback,
and the types of corrective feedback administered in the classroom. Moreover,
this study will provide a comprehensive analysis on the relationship between
teachers’ socio-demographic characteristics and their beliefs and types of oral
corrective feedback used in the classroom. This descriptive-comparative
research is conducted at USM Libungaan, Alamada, and Aleosan campus. The
study gathered data from October to December of the academic year 2023-
2024.
14
Operational Definition of Terms
The given terms are defined based on how they will be used in the
study.
Beliefs - refer to respondents’ preconceived ideas regarding oral corrective
feedback in the classroom.
Corrective Feedback - refers to how the respondents correct the learners’
error while speaking which could be any of the following:
a. recast- refers to the correction of a respondent that is delivered
immediately after the students’ error.
b. elicitation- the way that the respondent prompts the learner to
produce language by asking questions or providing cues.
c. clarification request- refers to the question used by a
respondent to let the student clarify/explain what have said.
d. meta-linguistic feedback- the way that the respondent
encourages the student to reflect on their language use.
e. explicit correction- the way that the respondent directly points
out a learners’ error.
f. repetition- a technique used by respondent to let the student
repeat his/her error to reinforce correction.

15
Teacher - refers to the respondents of this study who teach at the University of
Southern Mindanao-PALMA Cluster Campuses.
16
Hypotheses of the Study
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between teachers’ socio-demographic
characteristics and their beliefs in oral corrective feedback.
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between teachers’ beliefs and the
types
of oral corrective feedback used in the classroom.

Theoretical Framework
The study will be anchored on the Skill Acquisition Theory of
DeKeyser, (1998). It will be employed to see the role of OCF in assisting
learners to understand the process on how they gain knowledge on second
language learning. This theory emphasizes the importance of practice and
feedback in skill development, with learners receiving feedback on their
performance to guide their next step towards improvement. To analyze the
impact of oral corrective feedback, it will be necessary to look at a wider range
of its types, focus on each form, and look on how it contributes to an in-depth
development of second language (DeKeyser, 1998). This theory can be used
to investigate how language teachers’ feedback can contribute to the
development of students’ procedural and conditional knowledge on their
second language. Specifically, this theory will be used by the researcher to
examine the different types of feedback, namely: explicit correction, recast,
metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, clarification. By looking into
these areas, the researcher can determine which type of oral corrective
feedback aids in the development of students’ knowledge. Moreover, this
theory can also be a key in investigating whether a feedback targets specific
linguistic features.
Finally, Theory of Planned Behavior of Ajzen (1991) will be
employed to understand the teachers’ beliefs towards oral corrective
feedback. This theory suggests that behavior is influenced by beliefs thus, the
aim of this theory in this study identify the fundamental beliefs that affect
teachers’ utilization of oral corrective feedback. Specifically, the researcher will
examine teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback by investigating
their beliefs about its effectiveness which includes exploring the perceptions of
the benefits and potential drawbacks of providing oral corrective feedback. In
addition, subjective norms such as colleagues’ opinions, institutional
guidelines, and societal expectations will also be explored to determine
teachers’ behavior towards oral corrective feedback. Finally, teachers’ training
experience, and their ability to manage classroom dynamics will also be
considered to examine teachers’ beliefs on oral corrective feedback.

Conceptual Framework
Beliefs in Oral
Socio-demographic Corrective
characteristics Feedback
a. age;
b. sex; and
c. length
of service.
Oral Corrective
Feedback
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for the independent and dependent variable
The figure presented above delineates the influence of independent
variable to dependent variables. The independent variable pertains to the
respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, which include their age, sex,
and length of service. On the other hand, dependent variable is the
respondents’ beliefs on oral corrective feedback and its types used in the
classroom. The framework shows the influence of socio-demographic
characteristic on the teachers’ beliefs and utilization of various forms of oral
corrective feedback during classroom instruction.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter discussed the related literature of the study. This part
presents the set of authors and their studies related to oral corrective
feedback
Oral Corrective Feedback
There is a plethora of studies that have dealt with the beliefs and
practices provided by teachers when it comes to Oral corrective feedback in
classroom context employing different theories. In Rassaei’s (2018) study, the
researcher employed Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development
as a theoretical framework to investigate the perceived effects of teachers’ oral
corrective feedback. The Zone of Proximal Development theory posits that
learning occurs when an individual is challenged to perform a task that is
beyond their current level of knowledge, but with the assistance of a more
knowledgeable other, they can accomplish the task successfully. In the
context of OCF, this means that feedback should not merely provide the
correct answer or metalinguistic knowledge, but instead it should be a
collaborative effort between the teacher and the learner to identify and solve
the learners’ linguistic problems. By employing the Zone of Proximal
Development theory, Rassaei’s study highlights the importance of providing

7
feedback that is tailored to the learners’ individual needs and abilities. This
approach to corrective feedback can help learners develop their language
skills in a way that is more meaningful and relevant to their own learning
goals. Li (2013) offers an alternative perspective of the role of corrective
feedback in language learning. The study suggests that learners should be
prompted to self-correct rather than rely solely on recasts, which are less
effective in addressing the underlying linguistic issue.
This approach is consistent with sociocultural theory, which emphasizes
the importance of tailoring corrective feedback to the individual needs of
learners. In line with sociocultural theory, the “prompt-and-provide” approach
encourages learners to take an active role in their own linguistic development
by engaging in self-monitoring and self-correction. By providing the learners
with prompts and guidance, teachers can create a supportive learning
environment that empowers learners to take control of their own learning. This
theory also recognizes the importance of providing feedback only when
necessary, as excessive or unnecessary feedback may be counterproductive
or demotivating to learners. Li’s study highlights the value of a more interactive
and learner-centered approach to CF, which allows learners to take
responsibility on their own linguistic development and promotes a more
engaging and effective language learning experience. Moreover, Ellis (2021)
introduces the theory of DeKeyser (2007), which is based on the principles of
skill-acquisition theory. This theory suggests that simply correcting the original
8
error is not sufficient for language learning acquisition, as the effectiveness of
the correction depends upon primarily on the input provided. In other words, it
is not enough to simply point out the error; rather, the correction should be
presented in a way that enables learners to strengthen their control over
relevant linguistic forms.
Second language learners encounter different challenges in their
stages of learning a language specifically in English. In the Philippines,
English has become one of the languages used for instruction thus students
make errors mostly in oral conversation in terms of grammar, pronunciation
and syntax. The study of Sa’adah et., al (2018) revealed the efficacy of
corrective feedback has become a contentious topic, with considerable debate
surrounding its effectiveness when employed in classroom setting. Chu (2011)
found that the provision of oral corrective feedback yielded a favorable
outcome in enhancing the oral English accuracy of learners. However, the
study of Ellis (2021) pointed out that the perception that oral corrective
feedback carries a potential risk of impeding learners’ willingness to engage in
language learning is prevalent. In this instance, language teachers need to be
exposed to the knowledge on using the corrective feedback in order to
increase their awareness on its importance (Sawaluddin & Tajuddin, 2017). As
a result of this, instructors need to have the capacity to furnish learners with
insight into their language inaccuracies and guide them with direction on how
to refine their speaking fluency and accuracy.

9
Teachers’ Beliefs on Oral Corrective Feedback
Teachers’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback can be influenced by
a range of factors, including their educational background, teaching
experience, and some pedagogical norms. According to Mulati et al (2020),
the beliefs of teachers may be shaped by their academic qualifications and
practical experiences which supports the idea that one’s background and
experiences can influence their beliefs. Research has shown that teachers’
belief about oral corrective feedback can influence their teaching practices,
including the types and frequency of feedback provided.
As revealed on the study of Alkhammash and Gulnaz (2019), revealed
that teachers hold the view that is to rectify students’ oral inaccuracies. By this
means, teachers provide learners with information about their errors and helps
them notice the gap between their own utterances and the target language
form or structure. This pedagogical practice can facilitate the process of
allowing learners to develop their metalinguistic awareness and understand
the rules and patterns on the underlying language. Similarly, teachers in the
study of Sakrak-Ekin and Balcikanli (2019) believes that they play a crucial
role in correcting their students’ spoken errors. This belief is often grounded in
the idea that language accuracy is important for effective communication and
10
that the teacher has a responsibility to help students achieve this goal. In
addition, teachers view error correction as an essential part of their job and
failure to correct errors may lead to negative consequences including
reinforcing incorrect language use or hindering students’ progress in language
learning. Along with this, Mendez and Cruz (2012) concluded that teachers of
Universidad de Quintana Roo hold a positive beliefs and attitudes towards
OCF, as they perceive it as an essential component in language learning.
According to the data gathered in this study, majority of the teachers,
approximately 80%, agreed that correcting learners’ errors is necessary for the
development of their fluency and accuracy in the target language. This finding
is in line with the assertion made by Kartchava et al (2018) that teachers have
a responsibility to provide corrective feedback to their students in order to
facilitate language learning. In response to this claim, McLellan (2021) found
out that in Asian pedagogy, and in general, teachers should exercise caution
in providing excessive feedback, particularly for beginner students, rather than
highlighting every single error made by students. This was suggested since
during the initial stages of learning, students frequently experience a need for
guidance, and it can be more advantageous to offer them comprehensive
feedback and correction until they develop greater proficiency and confidence.
However, the study of Mendez and Cruz (2012) discovered that a
minority of teachers, specifically 20% of the teachers or 3 out of 15, held the
belief that oral corrective feedback does not hold significant value in facilitating
11
language learning. In some studies, it was insinuated that OCF creates
anxiety in some learners, especially if they feel singled out or embarrassed by
their mistakes. The study of Kartchava et al (2018) revealed the provision of
oral corrective feedback is language learning may lead to affective
consequences that can disrupt the natural flow of conversation and have a
negative impact on learners’ motivation to continue learning. These affective
variables may include increased stress and anxiety level, a decrease in
confidence, and lack of willingness to participate. This factor is deemed
essential to consider in order to balance the correction and preservation of
learners’ motivation. Moreover, the OCF was perceived as ineffective
due to time limitations and the demanding curriculum requirements (Al-Faki,
2013). This was seen as a hindrance in the effectiveness of oral corrective
feedback because if the curriculum is heavy and the time is limited, there may
not be enough time for teachers to provide individualized and meaningful
feedback to each learner. In such cases, oral corrective feedback may be
rushed or inadequate, which can limit its effectiveness in helping the learners
to improve their language skills.
Furthermore, in a curriculum that is heavily focused on coverage, there
may be a tendency to prioritize breadth over depth of learning. This can lead
to a focus on completing tasks and activities rather than on engaging in
meaningful language practice and feedback.

12
In contrast the findings on the study of Yuksel (2020) showed that
learners prefer to correct their own mistakes rather than relying on the
teachers’ feedback to improve their language skills. This preference of self-
correction was supported by the data gathered from the participants of this
study. When learners are encouraged to self-correct, they become more
autonomous in their learning and take greater responsibility for their own
language development. This can help learners to develop more effective
learning strategies and become independent language learners. Apart from
this, when learners correct their own errors, they are more likely to remember
the correct form of structure than if the correction comes from the teacher.
This is because self-correction engages the leaners’ own cognitive processes
and helps to consolidate the learning in their memory.
Types of Oral Corrective Feedback
The types of oral corrective feedback by Lyster and Ranta (1997) were
cited on the study of Yang (2016), which are: explicit correction, recasts,
elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, and repetition.
Explicit correction. In the study of Sultana (2015), he stated explicit
correction arises when a teacher explicitly informs the students that their
verbal expression is incorrect, and subsequently provides the appropriate
form. This type of OCF is important especially in fast-paced language learning
environments like classrooms since it is considered to provide clear and

13
unambiguous feedback. Moreover, when used as an explicit approach, oral
corrective feedback has the potential to alleviate learners’ confusion,
especially those who have lower proficiency levels as it could demonstrate
grater effectiveness in addressing complex speaking errors. Sakiroglu (2020)
studied the oral corrective feedback preference of university students. In this
study, 65 students enrolled at Kafkas University took part. The respondents
were given questionnaires and self-report to determine their preferred form of
corrective feedback when receiving corrections. The analysis of the data
revealed that the respondents prefer explicit correction since 90% of them
likes to be corrected when they had errors during the process of speaking.
On the contrary, Harmer (2007) believed that there it is unnecessary to
interrupt students during communicative activities to correct their errors, as
such actions could potentially heighten their anxiety levels. With this, it is
perceived that explicit correction is negative or discouraging especially if it is
not given in a supportive and constructive way. It can also be less effective for
learners who are more sensitive to criticism or who prefer to learn through trial
and error. This finding is similar of Westmacott (2017) which concluded that
explicit correction does not allow students to study why the utterance said is
wrong and the supplied correction was right. Through the questionnaire and
semi-structured interview administered by the researcher of this study, it was
founded that only 28% of the respondents prefer explicit correction.

14
Recasts. This type of correction happens when the teacher restates
the students’ utterance, incorporating the necessary correction for any
mistakes made, without explicitly highlighting that the original utterance was
incorrect. The findings on the study of Brown (2016), indicated that recasts
have emerged as the most favored category of corrective feedback employed
by teachers as it enables them to furnish corrective feedback in a discreet and
efficacious manner. It is deemed to be a gentle approach for rectifying errors
without causing students to feel as if they are being censured or humiliated.
The study of Sepehrinia et al. (2020) wherein their researchers conducted
classroom observation and interview founded that teacher provided more
corrections through recasts, avoiding explicit forms of correction. The
respondents are composed of 5 teachers and 84 students and 81% of them
agreed that recast is done to value affective aspect of students while doing
oral corrective feedback. This result is parallel to the study of Tavakoli and
Zarrinabadi (2016) in which they concluded that teachers consider how
learners might react to the corrections made. In this type of oral corrective
feedback, the teacher could lead students’ uptake in maintaining interaction
(Mulati et al, 2020). By this means, when the teacher offers the correct form to
the learners, it enables them to immediately engage in a cognitive comparison
between their own utterance and that of the teacher.
Elicitation. In the context of language teaching, this method is utilized
by teachers to extract correct answers or forms from students by prompting

15
them to reformulate their initial utterance, which involves the use of three
distinct methods for eliciting desired response from the learner (Sultana,
2015). This involves asking questions to the learners and waiting for them to
respond. In some instances, this type of feedback demands for a luxury of
time and students that are not yet proficient in the language may not be able
to self-correct their errors. Due to this, the study of Calsiyao (2015) concluded
that teachers tend to utilize elicitation less frequently as a form of oral
corrective feedback. This conclusion is similar to the study of Knutsson and
Koster (2020) in which it was determined through interview and classroom
observation that elicitation is the least effective approach learner’s uptake.
During the classroom observation, the researchers found that this type of oral
corrective feedback was done twice in a year only.
Metalinguistic feedback. According to Sultana (2015) as the
teachers’ use of questions or comments that are related to the formation of the
students’ utterances, without necessarily supplying the accurate terminology.
In the classroom context, it is considered to be the most prevalent type since it
provides students with specific information about the language, they are using
which involves focusing on the form, meaning, and appropriateness of
students’ language use, rather than just the content of their message. In the
study of Amoli (2020), 60 learners were randomly divided into two groups;
one received metalinguistic feedback, and the other group explicit correction
feedback. The researcher used a grammatical judgment test through reading

16
a passage as pre-test and post-test to determine which type of corrective
feedback works best for learners’ improvement. It was revealed on the result
of the study that metalinguistic feedback was influential on pronoun
improvement of the Iranian EFL students. Learners’ exposure on
metalinguistic feedback allowed them to increase their knowledge of the
language by this technique as it gives information on their sentence structures.
Moreover, metalinguistic feedback helps students to develop their self-
monitoring and self-correcting skills, which are essential for independent
language learning. Along with this, the study of Sa’adah et, al. (2018) showed
that metalinguistic feedback is the prevailing type of oral corrective feedback
employed by teachers in a language classroom. Finally, the study of Ha et al.
(2021) revealed that metalinguistic feedback received the highest mean score
of 4.12. The result was gathered through giving questionnaires to 250
students, and 15 of those who completed the questionnaire underwent
interviews along with 24 teachers at four public secondary schools of Vietnam.
Clarification request. This type of oral corrective feedback occurs
when a teacher asks the student to repeat or rephrase their utterance because
it was unclear or not fully understood, which often arises when a learner
produces an erroneous or inaccurate utterance (Sultana, 2015). In this
instance, the teacher is not seeking for clarification because he or she has
trouble in understanding the students’ sentence, but because an error was
identified in the sentence. The teacher may ask the student to reformulate the
17
sentence to correct the error and reinforce the correct grammar or language
use. The finding on the study of Suryoputro and Amaliah (2016) revealed that
clarification request was preferred by only 12.1% of the respondents making
this type of oral corrective feedback less effective unlike explicit correction with
45.5%.
This result is consistent to the study conducted by Fathimah, (2019)
which revealed through observing 4 teachers in Bandung and interviewing 12
students that clarification request has least occurrences compared to the other
types of oral corrective feedback. On the interview conducted by the
researcher, it was found that only 1 utterance out of 132 moves was corrected
by this type of corrective feedback which indicates that clarification request is
less effective.
Repetition. Known as a repetition with intonation, this type involves
the teacher to repeat the students’ error while changing the intonation to
highlight the mistake and draw the students’ attention to it (Sultana, 2015).
Amongst the types of oral corrective feedback, this is the most used by
teachers since it allows for immediate correction of an error. The qualitative
study of Sari et al. (2022) revealed that repetition appeared as the type of oral
corrective feedback dominantly used by the teachers. Through interview, it
was known that the respondents of the study usually repeated student’s ill-
formed sentence and allows the student to repeat the correct form afterwards.
This helps to focus learners’ attention on the specific form or structure that
18
needs to be corrected since the learner can able to notice the difference
between their own incorrect for and the correct one.
In the study of Secil (2010) where 30 students in two classes
participated in the study, it was found that repetition leads to students’ own
repair. This allows effective learning repair and increases students’ critical
thinking ability. The result of the grammar test conducted by the researcher
revealed that repetition positively affects the result of the test that is why
teachers are encourages to use this type of corrective feedback more often.
Apart from grammar, it was concluded by the author that repetition can also be
used for the repair of vocabulary and pronunciation. However, this type of
OCF becomes tedious or monotonous for learners, particularly it is used too
frequently or exclusively. This can lead to disengagement or lack of
motivation, which can hinder language learning progress. As a result, this form
of oral corrective feedback has become the least used by English language
teachers at Taif University in Saudi Arabia. According to a study conducted by
Alkhammash and Gulnaz (2019), only 5% of 57 instructors in the university
used this type of feedback.
Oral Corrective Feedback in the Philippines
Previous studies have revealed a gap in research related to the
beliefs, types of corrective feedback among language teachers in the

19
Philippines. One possible reason for this is that the focus of research in this
area has been primarily on the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback rather
than on teachers’ beliefs about it. Additionally, research in this area may be
limited by the challenges of conducting studies that involve observing and
analyzing teacher-student interactions in real-time. Despite the growing body
of research on corrective feedback, there is a notable lack of studies that
focus specifically on this topic beyond classroom dynamics (Bulusan et. al,
2019). This gap represents a significant challenge for language educators
seeking to design effective oral corrective feedback strategies that are tailored
to the unique needs and perspectives of the Filipino learners. To address this
gap, it is vital to conduct further research on the teachers’ beliefs and types of
oral corrective feedback in the local context.
Bulusan et al (2019) considered Philippine as a melting pot of diverse
culture and backgrounds, it is a challenge for teachers to provide feedback
since certain cultures may find it difficult to accept criticism or negative
feedback, as it may be perceived as a threat to their personal and cultural
identity. Along with this, the findings of this study indicated that in a
multicultural context, individuals tend to prefer frequent error correction due to
embarrassment and negative emotional consequences when errors are
pointed out.
On the other hand, the study of Asonto et., al (2021) revealed that oral
corrective feedback does not stimulates disinterest in lessons or cause

20
embarrassment to students. In relation with this, the research findings on the
study of Fahim and Montazeri (2013) indicates that providing oral corrective
feedback to language learners enhances their proficiency in using and
applying the language correctly.
The descriptive correlational study of Dela Cruz and Wong (2022)
found out that those who prefer oral and positive corrective feedback has the
higher metacognitive awareness that those who prefer negative and written
one. However, it was found that their preferred corrective feedback has no
effect on their critical thinking ability since both types of feedback has a
significant impact on their metacognitive level.
Finally, the data from the study of Gornez (2022) indicated that various
strategies were employed to provide corrective feedback on students. These
strategies included indirect, direct, metacognitive, focused, and reformulation
feedback. Among these, indirect feedback was the most commonly used,
while reformulation feedback was the least utilized. Almost all the given
corrective feedback was incorporated and addressed by the students, with
only a few instances where the feedback was not repaired.
By gaining a better understanding of the beliefs and types of language
teachers in this context, this research can help identify effective feedback
strategies in a multicultural classroom. This research can also contribute to the
development of more culturally responsive and effective language education
programs in the Philippines and beyond. As oral corrective feedback is widely

21
regarded as a crucial component second language acquisition, it is essential
to examine the beliefs, and types of such feedback from the perspective of
language teachers.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The employed a descriptive research design for the collected
numerical data. Quantitative methods prioritized the use of objective
measurements to collect data through questionnaires or surveys, employing
computational techniques for analysis (Babbie, 2010). The research used the
descriptive research approach to scrutinize the socio-demographic
characteristics, beliefs, and types of oral corrective feedback. Additionally, the
regression design evaluated the significant influence among variables
categorized as the socio-demographic characteristics and the beliefs and
types of oral corrective feedback used by the respondents of the study.

22
Respondents of the Study
The study focused on teachers as the target population and utilized the
complete enumeration method to gather data from all eligible respondents
who have given their informed consent form. The respondents are from the
University of Southern Mindanao-PALMA Cluster Campuses.
Sampling Procedure
The study utilized the convenience sampling method, where the
participants were chosen based on their availability and accessibility Simkus,
2023). In this study, the sample consisted of teachers who engage in
discussion and reporting activities within the classroom setting.
Research Instrument
The data of this study is gathered through combination of adapted
questionnaire which will elicit the participants’ basic demographics (e.g. age,
sex), and information on their educational background, training, and teaching
experiences they have.

23
To uncover the language teachers’ beliefs on oral corrective feedback,
the study adapted survey questionnaires. The reason for doing so is to obtain
much information within a limited timeframe (Tasnuva, 2019). Survey
questionnaire contained 16 statements from Kartchava et al (2018) and 4
statements from Alkhammash and Gulnaz (2019) that expressed opinions
about corrective feedback. The survey questionnaire was pilot tested to
ensure its reliability, it has an internal consistency of r=0.735 that was
determined using Cronbach’s alpha. At the beginning of the questionnaire,
essential details such as the purpose of the study, the definition of oral
corrective feedback, and its various types is presented to facilitate participants’
comprehension. Participants indicated how they strongly agree or disagree
with each statement, using the scale of one to five, where 5 indicates strongly
agree, 4 indicates agree, 3 for neutral, 2 disagree, and 1 strongly disagree.
Moreover, this study employed a classroom observation checklist in order to
discern the various types of oral corrective feedback used by teachers in a
natural setting. The same method was used in the study of Sultana (2015).
Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher gathered data for this study by initially sending a letter
addressed to the Campus Director to request approval for the research. Once
24
the letter is approved, the researcher distributed it to seek permission on the
teachers to participate in the study. Using the method of complete
enumeration, all teachers listed in the schools’ teaching force is included as
participants.
The researcher submitted a formal request to USM-RECO for an
application for an ethical review process. This is an essential step to ensure
compliance with ethical guidelines and standards, and to obtain the necessary
documentation for the study. In addition, the researcher provided an informed
consent form (ICF) to the respondents, allowing them to voluntarily participate
or decline. The researcher intended to request a classroom observation
schedule from the respondents to be utilized as a means of data collection for
the study.
Furthermore, the survey questionnaire is distributed to the teachers to
gather relevant information regarding their socio-demographic characteristics
and beliefs on oral corrective feedback. In this study, a comprehensive data
gathering procedure is implemented to investigate the types of oral corrective
feedback provided by teachers and their beliefs about this. To achieve this,
classroom observations is conducted and the researcher took detailed notes
to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. The data gathered from
the classroom observation is rewritten to ensure clarity and precision. To
ensure the accuracy of data gathered, the researcher provided an opportunity
for the respondents to verify the correctness of the notes. This verification
25
process enhanced the reliability and validity of the data that contributed to the
overall rigor of the study.
Finally, the data collected from the classroom observation is integrated
with the data obtained from the survey questionnaire to provide a more
comprehensive understanding on the study. Specifically, types of oral
corrective feedback identified during classroom observations is used to
contextualize the responses obtained from the survey questionnaire. This
approach enabled the researcher to triangulate the data, strengthen the
validity of the findings, and provide a more in-depth analysis of the results.
The integrated data analysis is complemented by the use of appropriate
statistical techniques and visualization tools to enhance the interpretability and
presentation of the results.
Statistical Analysis
This study used two types of statistical analysis. A descriptive analysis
is used to determine the frequency, mean, and percentage of the socio-
demographic characteristics, the respondents’ belief towards oral corrective
feedback, and the type of feedback used in the classroom. On the other hand,
Spearman Rho correlation was used to examine the significant relationship

26
between the teachers’ socio-demographic characteristics and the beliefs and
types of oral corrective feedback used in the classroom.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the results and discussion of the study. The first
part includes the descriptive statistical analysis of the socio-demographic
characteristics, teachers’ beliefs and types of oral corrective feedback used in
the classroom. On the other hand, the last part includes the significant
influence of socio-demographic characteristics to teachers’ beliefs of oral
corrective feedback and the significant influence of teachers’ beliefs to the
types of oral corrective feedback using linear regression.
Socio-demographic Characteristics of Teachers

27
The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, which
included their sex, age, and length of service are shown in Table 1. Surveyed
teachers with 58% (14) identified as female, while 42% (10) as male. Majority
or 58% (14) of the respondents, composed of 9 male and 5 female, were
between the ages of 26-30. On the other hand, 13% or 3 of the respondents
were age 20-25 and 31-35, 8% or 2 of the respondents are aged 41-45 and
46-50. Lastly, the result shows that in terms of length of service, 87% or 21 out
of 24 of the respondents are in the field of service for 1-5 years. A smaller
percentage, 13% of the respondents are in between 16-20 years of service.
Table 1. Frequency of the socio-demographic characteristics of the teachers.

Socio-demographic
Frequency Percentage
Characteristics 1
Age
20-25 3 13
26-30 14 58
31-35 3 13
36-40 0 0
41-45 2 8
45-50 2 8
Sex
Female 14 58
Male 10 42
Length of Service
1-5 years 21 87.5
6-10 years 0 0
11-15 years 0 0
16-20 years 3 12.5
28
Teachers’ Beliefs on Oral Corrective Feedback
Table 2 presents the set of teachers’ beliefs on oral corrective
feedback. The result of this study revealed that teachers expressed a strong
belief that reading is the best way to increase one’s vocabulary in
second/foreign language with the highest mean of 4.2. This is primarily
because reading exposes students to a wide range of linguistic nuances which
enhances learners’ ability to use and comprehend the language effectively. In
relation to this is the study conducted by Pellicer-Sanchez (2020) which stated
that second and foreign language learners can acquire some of the unknown
vocabulary they encounter during reading.
Similarly, the second highest mean value of 4.2 was recorded as
explaining grammar rules helps in gaining competence needed to
communicate. This indicates that teachers value the role of explicit grammar
instruction in enhancing learners’ competence in the second language. This
result is in accordance to the mixed-method study conducted by Ha et al.,
(2021) which showed that understanding and applying grammatical rules is
integral to the process of improving communication skills. The respondents
revealed that the necessity in explaining grammar rules enhances the
accuracy in speaking. However, explaining grammar rules, especially during
class discussions can potentially lead to a loss of focus on the main topic
which could impact the overall engagement and participation of students. This
is parallel to the study conducted entitled Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions

29
and Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback which stated that correcting
every grammatical error have adverse effects on the exchange of ideas during
discussions (Saeb, 2017).
In addition, teachers also feel it is important to use a particular
technique to correct learner’s spoken errors which got the mean of 4. Even
with a slightly lower mean compared to the previous statement, this still
suggest a recognition that effective oral corrective feedback fosters language
development. This is parallel to the study conducted by Sakrak-Ekin and
Balcikanli (2019) wherein respondents believes that oral corrective feedback
they play a crucial role in correcting their students’ spoken errors. Another
study is providing that the implications of the researcher and the result of the
study is valid; this belief got the second highest mean value on the study titled
Oral Corrective Feedback Techniques: An Investigation of the EFL Teachers'
Beliefs and Practices at Taif University. This stated concluded that learner’s
spoken errors require the use of appropriate technique that best address
particular types of error (Alkhammash and Gulnaz, 2019) because one type of
oral corrective feedback can never address the needs of all learners equally.
Furthermore, teachers believe that the use of bilingual dictionary
promotes learner’s success in learning the second language garnered a
notable mean score of 4. This holds implications for instructional practices,
emphasizing the perceived benefits of incorporating bilingual dictionaries into
the language learning process. This implication and result are supported by
30
the study conducted by Ezeh et al. (2022), where teachers believe that
bilingual dictionaries help in ameliorating challenges in terms of unfamiliar
vocabularies, mixing words with different textual meanings, and difficulties in
adopting the mechanics of effective speaking. The result of this quantitative
study revealed the indispensable role of bilingual dictionary as a learning
resource in an ESL environment, and its maximal benefits when students are
proactively trained to use it. With similar statement from Kauffmann (2018), the
efficiency and clarity of bilingual dictionaries in providing quick hints for
understanding new content have been highlighted.
On the other hand, the belief with the lowest belief had the mean score
of 2.04, signaling disagreements on the statement that teaching pronunciation
is a waste of time. This suggests a prevailing belief in the importance of
addressing pronunciation in language instruction, likely recognizing its role in
effective communication and overall language proficiency. This implication is
supported by the study conducted by Gilakjani and Ahmadi (2021), it stated
that pronunciation is an integral part of communication thus it should be
incorporated into classroom activities where teacher can highlight its elements
such as sounds, syllables, stress and intonation. By doing so, teachers aim to
help learners develop clear and accurate pronunciation skills, enhancing their
ability to communicate more effectively.

31
Moreover, this holds true by O’brien and Levis (2017) found out in their
study that integrating pronunciation awareness through classes gradually
builds skills in pronunciation. With the mean of 2.71, the belief that correcting
learners can negatively affect their self-esteem and discourage them ranked
second to the lowest with a neutral stance. This means that teachers have
mixed views on whether corrective feedback has significant negative
consequences on learner’s self-esteem. However, some studies suggest that
corrective feedback can have detrimental effect on students’ self-esteem and
motivation to learn the language. This implication is supported by the study
conducted by Torres et al. (2020) which found that the act of pointing out
errors in class has adverse effects on learners which hinder rather than help
the language learning.
The result of this study in linked through the Theory of Planned
Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) where it posits that individuals’ behavior is influenced
by their attitudes and subjective norms. For instance, the findings on
disagreements regarding teaching pronunciation and mixed views on the
potential impact of corrective feedback illustrate the variability in teachers’
beliefs. This aligns with the Theory of Planned Behavior, acknowledging that
beliefs can differ among individuals, influencing their instructional decisions.
Table 2. Teachers’ beliefs on oral corrective feedback.

Statement Mean Description
Reading is the best way to 4.2 Agree
increase one’s vocabulary in
32
L2/FL.
Explaining grammar rules helps
in gaining competence needed 4.2 Agree
to communicate.
I feel it is important to use a
particular technique to correct 4 Agree
learner’s spoken errors.
The use of bilingual (L1-L2)
dictionary promotes learners’ 4 Agree
success in learning L2.
Teachers should correct
learners’ error immediately 3.79 Agree
after the error has been made.
A teacher should correct
3.75 Agree
learners’ spoken errors.
Error correction is essential in
3.71 Agree
promoting L2/FL.
The study of grammatical rules
is essential to learning a 3.67 Agree
second language.
I feel students commit
excessive errors in extempore 3.54 Agree
speaking tasks.
Teachers should correct
persistent errors in the 3.54 Agree
learners’ language production.
Teachers should deal learners’
3.46 Agree
errors at the end of a lesson.
Teacher providing correct form
without signaling the error 3.33 Neutral
keeps the anxiety level low.
Second language (L2)/Foreign
language (FL) learners are 3.08 Neutral
afraid of being corrected.
Working in groups with
classmates who do not speak 2.83 Neutral
English well is detrimental.
Most learners like being
2.83 Neutral
corrected in class.
Pointing out learners’ errors
2.83 Neutral
raises their anxiety level.
Learners like the study of
2.79 Neutral
grammar.
Teachers should never use the 2.75 Neutral
33
learners’ native language in the

classroom.
Correcting learners’ can
negatively affect their self- 2.71 Neutral
esteem and discourage them.
Teaching pronunciation in a
language classroom is a waste 2.04 Disagree
of time.
Legend:
1.00-1.80-Strongly Disagree
1.81-2.60-Disagee
2.61-3.40-Neutral
3.41-4.20-Agree
4.21-5.00-Strongly Agree
Types of Oral Corrective Feedback
Elicitation
Table 3 shows the types of oral corrective feedback that teachers utilize
in the classroom. With the frequency of 22, elicitation ranked the most used
type of corrective feedback in the classroom. This implies that teachers extract
correct answers from students by prompting them to reformulate their initial
utterance. The result of this study is similar to Ayouni and El-Sukny (2022),
which found that classrooms only used elicitation where teachers prompted a
question to request students to reformulate initial respond which successfully
led them to the correct answer.

34
During the classroom observation, the student pronounced the word
“live” as [laɪv] even if she is referring to the verb form [lɪv] and not the
adjective. As a result, the teacher asked “is it [laɪv] or [lɪv] ?” then eventually,
the students corrected the pronunciation. Similarly, the teacher provides
corrective feedback on students' grammar, recommending the use of the term
"religion" instead of "religious" since student's intention was to convey the
existence of various religions beyond Catholicism. Moreover, when students
are discussing Life and Works of Rizal, it was noted that one student struggle
to pronounce the word “juventud” then the teacher guide the student through
saying “say it by syllable first before reading the word, say ju-ven-tud.”
However, oral corrective feedback extends beyond English classes and
finds application in diverse contexts. According to Gornez (2023), teachers
must have knowledge about corrective feedback and consider it not just in
learning English language. In a classroom setting where students are
conducting a reporting about Contemporary World, one student has an
incorrect explanation when asked about the fundamentals of religion. To
integrate elicitation in the correction, the teacher said “can you tell more about
the content you mentioned?”, “what are the religious practices of Hinduism?”
and “so when we say fundamentals of religion, from the word fundamental,
what does it mean?”. Through interruption, the teacher applied this type of
corrective feedback on the same class by prompting students to provide for

35
further explanation for their answer by saying “is there a universal religion? Do
you think we should insist our beliefs to others?”
Apart from this, in teaching Slaughter of Animals and Animal Production
Processing, the teacher was observed using this type of oral corrective
feedback when prompting students to provide correct meaning of the acronym
DBM by saying “it is Department of… Bud.. get.. and what? Manage… yes,
Department of Budget and Management.” In the same class, the teacher
asked about the type of slaughterhouse present in the municipality of
Alamada. A student initially responded with "class double A." Upon
recognizing the inaccuracy of the answer, the teacher promptly clarified,
stating, "Double A means a slaughterhouse with semi-automated facilities and
operational procedures. Are you sure that Alamada is already double A?"
Subsequently, the student corrected their response to "class A"
after realizing that Alamada had only minimal adequacy, allowing the
slaughtered livestock to be distributed solely within the city.
High usage level of elicitation, as evidenced in this study, suggest that it
is a useful tool for teachers looking to improve student learning and correct
errors. Therefore, teachers can consider integrating elicitation into their
teaching techniques, regardless of the grade level or subject. In the study
conducted by Thompson et al. (2022), the authors revealed that upon
elementary and high school pre-service teachers prefer this type of corrective
36
feedback because they can pose questions that can help students share their
initial ideas wherein teachers can just add probing questions to further
understand their thoughts. This nature of elicitation can contribute to an
effective classroom dynamic, benefiting the language learning experience of
students.
Explicit Correction
With a frequency of 20, the result showed that explicit correction, which
involves directly pointing out and correcting errors is second most frequently
used type of corrective feedback. This implies that teacher value immediate
and direct feedback as a means to guide learners towards more accurate
language use. This implication and result is supported by the study of
Suryoputro and Amaliah (2016), which found that explicit correction is used by
teachers frequently since students preferred to obtain the feedback
immediately after they found the error rather than in the end of discussion. In
this study, this type of oral corrective feedback was observed in a Technical
Writing class when the teacher asked the students to describe the brochure
presented, and one student said that it is crowded. Then the teacher affirmed
the response and further ask to elaborate their observation by saying “correct,
it is crowded because… what have you observed from the text? What about
images?” Then the student said that there’s an excessive amount of text and
visual elements, making it overwhelming. In correcting mispronunciation, the

37
teacher said “it’s [ˈbʊd.ɪ.zəm], do not emphasize the sound of letter h” when
the student pronounced the word “Buddhism” as “Budd-hism.” Moreover, the
pronunciation of the word “vital” was corrected into by saying “say [vaɪ.təl] not
vi-tal.” Furthermore, the teacher said “its [sæl.ər.i] not [sel.ər.i]” after the
student pronounced the word that refers to a vegetable with long pale green
stalks even when referring to a fixed regular payment often made by an
employer.
On the other hand, this type of corrective feedback used beyond
English language teaching. In the study conducted by Zubaidah et al. (2021),
it was found that mathematics learning outcomes of students who were
corrected with direct feedback was higher than the outcomes of students
corrected indirectly. Similarly, in a classroom setting where the teacher is
delivering lessons on Mathematics in the Modern World, when the students
said that the next step is called “cancellation”, the teacher corrected them
through saying “when you divide any number by itself, it is always equals to 1,
and not about cancellation. In this case, 3 divided by 3 equals 1.” Another
correction done by the teacher saying “No, the answer is 500 and not 525.”
With this, it can be implied that the teacher is considering this type of
corrective feedback as an effective way to address misconceptions and
improve student understanding.
Furthermore, the study conducted by Banwart (2020) revealed that
agriculture students demonstrated a strong preference towards immediate

38
feedback that is provided to them by their instructor. This result contradicts the
findings of this study wherein the teacher only provides oral corrective
feedback once. This instance occurred during a class discussion on the
history of Asian Agriculture when a student was unable to provide the correct
term for the place where people exchange goods, and the teacher supplied
the term “dockyard”.
Repetition
On the other hand, with a frequency of 6, the data suggest that
repetition, where the teacher repeats students’ error while changing intonation
to highlight the mistake, is the least frequently used type of oral corrective
feedback by teachers. The result of this study is parallel to the study of
Alkhammash and Gulnaz (2019), which found that only 5% of 57 instructors
used this type of feedback because it can result to disengagement if used
more often.
In this study, it was noticed that the teacher frequently provided oral
corrective feedback to students who mispronounced words. For instance,
when student said "my-rad" instead of "myriad", the teacher would say the
word correctly as "/ˈmɪr.i.əd/" to correct the student's mistake. Another
example is when students mispronounced "locale" as "/ˈlōkəl/". The teacher
repeated the error with a different intonation, leading the student to correct
their pronunciation to "/ˌlōˈkal/". This holds true with the study conducted by
39
Park (2010), where it stated that when it comes to mispronunciation, repetition
of the error and substituting it through the correct pronunciation is a type of
corrective feedback frequently used by teachers since it highlights the contrast
between the students’ mispronunciation and the correct one. This contrastive
focus draws attention to the specific phonetic elements that need correction,
making it clear for the student what aspect of their pronunciation needs
improvement.
The result has been validated by Skill Acquisition Theory. According to
this model, it determines which type of oral corrective feedback aids in the
development of students’ knowledge.
Table 3. Types of oral corrective feedback that teachers utilize in the

classroom.
Type Frequency
Elicitation 22
Explicit Correction 20
Recast 18
Clarification Request 16
Metalinguistic Feedback 14
Repetition 6
Socio-demographic characteristics to their beliefs in oral corrective
feedback used in the classroom.

40
The result shows that there is a very weak positive relationship between
age and corrective feedback (0.121), sex and corrective feedback (0.113), as
well as length of service and corrective feedback (0.066).
With a correlation coefficient of 0.121, the study revealed that that
relationship of sex and teachers’ beliefs on oral corrective feedback is not
significant. This indicates that regardless of gender, teachers hold similar
beliefs and approaches when it comes to correcting errors in the classroom.
This result contradicts the study of Wood (2012), which stated that female
teachers are more inclined to provide feedback that is nurturing and sensitive
to their students’ needs compared to the male teachers.
On the other hand, it shows that older teachers and teachers with
longer length of service are more likely to provide corrective feedback in the
classroom. This is parallel to the study conducted by Zaire (2015), which
revealed that older individuals have a higher tendency to correction compared
to the younger ones. This is primarily because older teachers are more familiar
with teaching strategies, influencing how they approach oral corrective
feedback in the classroom.
However, results revealed that there is no sufficient evidence to reject
the null hypothesis which indicates that there is no significant relationship
between socio-demographic characteristics and corrective feedback (p-
value>0.05). Therefore, results are only limited to the respondents and cannot
be generalized.
41
Table 4. Socio-demographic characteristics to their beliefs in oral corrective
feedback used in the classroom.
Variable correlation coefficient interpretation p-value Relationship

Age and
Corrective 0.121 very weak 0.574 Not Significant
Feedback
Sex and
Corrective 0.113 very weak 0.598 Not Significant
Feedback
Length of service
And Corrective
Feedback 0.066 very weak 0.761 Not Significant
Teachers’ beliefs to oral corrective feedback
Table 5 shows that there is a very strong positive relationship between
beliefs and corrective feedback (0.824), this tells us that that teachers with
positive beliefs in corrective feedback are more likely to provide corrective
feedback in the classroom. This finding aligns with the research carried out by
Al-Bakri (2016), which asserted that practices are influenced by specific
beliefs.
42
For instance, some educators identified spelling difficulties among
students in this specific setting, leading them to believe that offering correct
spellings is necessary. Similarly, in this study, it was found that teachers
disagree in the notion that teaching pronunciation is a waste of time thus, it
was observed that teacher corrects students’ pronunciation most of the time
especially when the medium of instruction used is English. Thus, results
revealed that there is very strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis since
p-value is lesser than 0.01 or 1% which indicates that there is a highly
significant relationship between beliefs and corrective feedback. It also
revealed that beliefs are highly associated with corrective feedback.
On the other hand, this result contradicts the study conducted by Kim
and Mostafa (2021) which revealed that teachers’ beliefs are not always in line
with their actual classroom practices related to the use of different types of oral
corrective feedback. With this it was suggested that other factors may play
substantial role in influencing teachers’ practices regarding oral corrective
feedback. These factors could include error type, instructional context, and
cognitive abilities (Sheen, 2010).
Table 5. Teachers’ beliefs to oral corrective feedback.
Variable correlation coefficient interpretation p-value

Relationship
Beliefs and 0.824 very strong 0.000 Significant
Corrective
43
Feedback
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study.
This study was conducted at USM PALMA Cluster Campuses and
aimed to determine the beliefs and types of oral corrective feedback employed
by teachers beyond classroom dynamics. Specifically, the study sought to
determine if the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
influence their beliefs and types of oral corrective feedback used in the
classroom. The respondents were twenty-four teachers selected through the
complete enumeration method. The adapted survey questionnaire was
distributed face-to-face and collected after respondents finished the survey.
Moreover, classroom observation was conducted to determine the type of
corrective feedback used by the teachers.
The study shows that teachers strongly believe in the effectiveness of
reading for vocabulary development learning English language and value
explicit grammar instruction for improving communication skills. They
emphasize the need for specific techniques to correct spoken errors and
recognize the importance of bilingual dictionaries in language learning.
Moreover, it is also highlighted that teaching grammar rules is essential and
teaching pronunciation in a language classroom is not a waste of time. Mixed
views exist on the potential negative impact of corrective feedback on learners'

44
self-esteem. These findings align with the Theory of Planned Behavior,
illustrating the diversity in teachers' beliefs and how these beliefs influence
instructional decisions. Furthermore, the result showed that the frequently
used type of oral corrective feedback is elicitation which involves prompting
students to reformulate responses. Moreover, based on the results of this
study it was found that there is no significant relationship between socio-
demographic characteristics and teachers’ beliefs on oral corrective feedback.
Lastly, this study found that there is a significant relationship between
teachers’ beliefs and the types of oral corrective feedback used in classroom.
In conclusion, the study provides valuable insights into the relationship
of socio-demographic characteristics and beliefs, and types of oral corrective
feedback in language learning. Despite the variation in socio-demographic
characteristics, teachers share common beliefs regarding language instruction
where the majority, regardless of sex or age, emphasize the efficacy of
reading for vocabulary development. This consensus suggests the presence
of pedagogical common ground that transcends demographic differences
among teachers. Overall, the findings contribute a knowledge for fostering
effective language learning environments that consider both individual beliefs
and instructional practices. Moreover, the study underscores the importance of
recognizing specific techniques for error correction. This implies that a one-
size-fits-all approach may not be optimal in language instruction.

45
On the other hand, teachers can greatly enhance their effectiveness in
providing oral corrective feedback by engaging in professional development
opportunities tailored to the diverse needs and learning styles of their
students. These opportunities can offer insights into differentiated feedback
strategies, enabling educators to customize their approaches based on
individual language proficiency levels and learning preferences. Emphasizing
the importance of personalized oral corrective feedback within the realm of
professional development underscores its role as a dynamic and adaptable
tool for instructors, contributing to improved language acquisition and
communication skills among students.
Lastly, further studies could delve into analyzing potential variations in
teachers’ beliefs and practices across different educational levels. Further
studies cold expand scope of studies to include perspectives from different
context and investigate how cultural factors my influence teachers’ beliefs and
practices in oral corrective feedback.

46
LITERATURE CITED
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749 5978(91)90020-
Al-Faki, I. (2013). Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(10),1770-1783.
Alkhammash, R., & Gulnaz, F. (2019). Oral corrective feedback techniques:

An investigation of the EFL teachers' beliefs and practices at Taif
university. Arab World English Journal, 10(2), 40–54.
https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no2.4
Amoli, F. (2020). The effect of oral metalinguistic corrective feedback on

learners’ knowledge of pronoun among Iranian EFL learners. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 10(6), 672-677.
https://dx.doi.org/10.17507//tpls.1006.07.
47
Asonto, S. M., Calleja, S. J., Panza, C. A., Reynoso, Z., & Rocha, N. E.
(2021). Effects of corrective feedback to improve second language (l2)
learners’ performance in communication.
Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. Doing quantitative

research in education.
Banwart, H. (2020). Examining the role of feedback on agricultural

communications students’ writing, self-efficacy and self-
determinedmotivation. Iowa State University.
https://doi.org/10.31274/etd2020090211
Bhuana, G. P., & El Fauziah, U. N. (2021). Affective damage from teachers’

corrective feedback. EduLite: Journal of English, Literature and Culture,
6(2), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.015
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the
L2.
Bulusan, F., Antonio, R., & Gabriel-Dumaga, S. (2019). Correct me if I’m

wrong: exploring the attitudes and preferences of ESL learners on oral
corrective feedback in a multicultural milieu. Asian ESP Journal, 15(2),
83-104.
Calsiyao, I. (2015). Corrective feedback in classroom oral errors among

Kalinga-Apayao state college students. International Journal of Social
Science and Humanities Research, 3(1), 394-400.
Chen, W., & Liu, G. (2021). Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback: Teachers’

Perspectives. Iranian Journal or Language Teaching Research.
10.30466/ijltr.2021.120974
Choi, S.-Y., & Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child
ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), 331–351.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212463274
Chu, R. (2011). Effects of teacher's corrective feedback on accuracy in the

oral English of English-majors college students. Amanote Research.
DeKeyser. (2007). Skill acquisition theory and its important concepts in SLA.
Dela Cruz, G. & Wong, J. (2022). Exploring the role of corrective feedback
preference on the senior high school’s metacognition and critical
thinking skills. Professional Journal For, By and Of Teachers, 3(1), 12.
48
Ellis, R. (2013). Corrective feedback in teacher guides and SLA. Routledge.
Ezeh, N., Anyanwu, E. & Onunkwo, C. (2022). Dictionary as an effective

resource in teaching and learning of English as a Second Language:
Complementing Instructions. Canadian Center of Science and
Education. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n4p108
Gilakjani, A. & Ahmadi, M. (2021). Why is pronunciation so difficult to learn?

English Language Teaching. https://doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n3p74
Gornez, B. (2022). Teacher’s corrective feedback and learners’ uptake

EngEd400 undergraduate thesis.
Ha, X., Nguyen, L., & Hung B. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a
foreign language classroom: A teaching and learning perspective.
Heliyon. 7(7), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Professional

Development.
Kartchava, E., Gatbonton, E., Ammar, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2018). Oral
corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language
teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research,
24(2), 220– 249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818787546
Kim, Y & Mostafa, T. (2021). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs and perspectives
about corrective feedback. Cambridge University Press.
Knutsson, M. & Koster, S. (2020). Oral corrective feedback in Swedish primary

schools.https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1490480/
FULLTEXT01.pdf.
Li, S. (2013). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. The TESOL

Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0247
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Corrective feedback and learner’s uptake.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66.
https://doi.org/10/1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00019.x.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2012). Oral corrective feedback in second
language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000365
49
McLellan, J. (2014). Codeswitching in University English-Medium Classes:

Asian perspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Méndez, E., & Cruz, M., (2019). Teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective
feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms.
Mulati, D. F., Nurkamto, J., & Drajati, N. A. (2020). The teachers’ beliefs in
teacher written corrective feedback on the students’ writing. Journal of
Applied Linguistics and Literature, 5(1), 1-10.
https://dx.doi.org/10.33369/joall.v5i1.7644e
O’Brien, M. G. & Levis, J. M. (2017). Proceedings of the 8th Pronunciation in

Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference. Pronunciation
and Technology, ISSN 2380-9566,
Otham, W. M. (2017). The role of feedback in Malaysian ESL secondary

school
Classrooms University of Tasmania Malay.
Park, H. S. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction.

California State University, California, United States of America.
Pellicer-Sanchez, A. (2020). Expanding English Vocabulary Knowledge

through
Reading: Insights from Eye-tracking Studies. RELC Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220906904
Rassaei, E., & Moinzadeh, A. (2018). Recasts, metalinguistic feedback, and

learners' perceptions: A case of Persian ESL learners. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 39–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2012.744411
Sa'adah, L., Nurkamto, J., & Suparno, S. (2018). Oral corrective feedback
exploring the relationship between teacher’s strategy and students’
willingness to communicate. Studies in English Language and
Education, 5(2), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i2.11532
Saeb, F. (2017) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions and preferences for Oral
corrective feedback: Do they match? International Journal of Applied
Linguistics & English Literature 6(4).
http://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.4p.32.
50
Sakiroglu, H. (2020). Oral corrective feedback preferences of university

students in English communication classes. International Journal of
Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 172-178.
Sakrak-Ekin, G., & Balcikanli, C. (2019). Written corrective feedback: EFL

teachers’ beliefs and practices. Reading Matrix: An International Online
Journal.
Sari, D., Kasim, U., & Achmad, D. (2022). An analysis of oral corrective
feedback applied by the English teachers in EFL classrooms. Research
in English and Education, 7(4), 180-187.
Sawaluddin, S., & Tajuddin, A. J. (2017). Oral Corrective Feedback: teachers’

selection in actual practices. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(5).
https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v7-i5/2976
Secil, B. (2010). The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback.

Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), https://
doi.104304/jltr.1.3.181-193.
Sepehrinia, S., Fallah, N., & Torfi, S. (2020). English language teachers’ oral
corrective preferences and practices among proficiency groups. Profile:
Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 22(2), 163-177.
https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v22n2.82369.
Simkus, J. (2023). Convenience sampling: Definition, method, and examples.

Simply Psychology.
Suryoputro, G., & Amaliah, A. (2016). EFL students’ responses on oral

corrective feedbacks and uptakes in speaking class. International
Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(5), https:// doi.102374.8869.
Sultana, R. (2015). The survey on using oral corrective feedback in ESL

classroom in Bangladeshi context.
Tasnuva, S. (2019). Oral corrective feedback: use and impact on junior

secondary level students.
Tavakoli, M., & Zarrinabadi, N. (2016). Differential effects of explicit and

implicit corrective feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to
communicate. Innovation in Language learning and teaching, 12(3),
247-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1195391.
51
Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect corrective feedback: student

perceptions. Ikala Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(2), 17-32.
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.6.1256-1262.
Wood, T. D (2012). Teacher Perceptions of Gender-Based Differences among

Elementary School Teachers. International Electronic Journal of
Elementary Education 4(2). ISSN:1307-9298
Yang, J (2016). Learners' oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to

their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error.
Yuksel, D. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs and practices about oral corrective

feedback in university EFL classes. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics. 31(3). https://doi.org/10.111/ijal.12336
Zaire, N. (2015). The relationship between genre and age and corrective
feedback. ICT for learning.
Zubaidah, R., Fitriawan, D., Yusmin, E., Nursangaji, A & Mirza, A. (2021).
Corrective feedback, Self-Esteem and Mathematics Learning
Outcomes. Al-Jabar: jurnal Pendidikan Matematika 12(132). ISSN:
2540-7562
APPENDICES
53
If applicable
Appendix A. Application for Change of Research Adviser

e Seal
Kabacan, Cotabato
Philippines
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE RESEARCH ADVISER
Date: ______________________
___________________ (Name of Proposed Adviser)

Department of _____________________________
College of ______________
USM, Kabacan, Cotabato
Sir / Madam:
I would like to request for change of thesis adviser for the following reasons:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________.
I am hoping for your favorable approval on this request. Thank you very much.
Very truly yours,
_________________________________
Printed Name and Signature of Student
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL NOTED
______________________________ _______________________________
Department Research Coordinator Department Chairperson
_______________ _______________
Date Date
APPROVED CONFORME
_________________________________ _____________________________________
Adviser (New) Adviser (Old)
______________ ______________
Date Date
USM-EDR-F12-Rev.3.2020.02.24
54
Appendix B. Application for Change Research Title (if applicable)

e Seal
Kabacan, Cotabato
Philippines
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE RESEARCH TITLE
(Date) __________________
______________________________________________
Chairperson, Department of ______________________
SIR/MADAM:
I would like to request your office to allow me to research on the study entitled
“____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________.”
The study has the following objectives:

1.
2.
3.
Very truly yours,
_________________________________
Printed Name and Signature of Student
NOTED
______________________________ ________________
Adviser Date
______________________________ ________________
Department Research Coordinator Date
_____________________________ ________________
College Research Coordinator Date
APPROVED
_____________________________ ________________
Department Chairperson Date
Appendix
USM-EDR-F03-C. Actual Budget of the Research (additional form)
Rev.3.2020.02.24
55

e Seal
Kabacan, Cotabato
Philippines
ACTUAL BUDGET OF THE RESEARCH
Title of Study
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________.
ITEMS/DESCRIPTION ACTUAL COST
Grand Total
Prepared and submitted by:
_______________________________________
Printed Name and Signature of the Student
NOTED
_______________________________________ ___________________________
Adviser Date
_______________________________________ ___________________________
Department Research Coordinator Date
_______________________________________ ___________________________
Department Chairperson Date
Appendix D. Application for Manuscript Defense
56
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO

Kabacan, Cotabato Colleg
e Seal
Philippines
APPLICATION FOR MANUSCRIPT DEFENSE

Name HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ
Degree/Major BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION MAJOR IN ENGLISH
Thesis Title THE ART OF CORRECTION’ INVESTIGATING TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND
TYPES OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Date of Examination JANUARY 25, 2023
Time 4:00P.M-4:30P.M
Place USM LIBUNGAN CAMPUS
MEMBERS OF THE EXAMINING COMMITTEE

Name Signature Date
GIDEON S. SUMAYO, PhD __________________ __________________
SAMBAY P. MLA, MAEng __________________ __________________
KEVIN RAY V. ABESAMIS __________________ __________________
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL:
JACINTA T. PUEYO, PhD _______________________________
Adviser Co-Adviser (Optional)
APPROVED:
_______________________________ GIDEON S. SUMAYO, PhD

College Statistician Department Research Coordinator
(Optional)
GIRLIE D. BATAPA, MMME

Department Chairperson
REPORT ON THE RESULT OF EXAMINATION

Name Signature Remarks
GIDEON S. SUMAYO, PhD __________________ __________________
SAMBAY P. MLA, MAEng __________________ __________________
KEVIN RAY V. ABESAMIS __________________ __________________
APPROVED:
GIDEON S. SUMAYO, PhD

Department Research Coordinator
_____________________
Date
USM-EDR-F08-Rev.3.2020.02.24
CURRICULUM VITAE
57

e Seal
Kabacan, Cotabato
Philippines
CURRICULUM VITAE
(You may add
HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ some more
Batiocan, Libungan, Cotabato appendices for
raw or processed
09751971289 data, pictures
hvvaldez@usm.edu.ph etc.. as Appendix
E, Appendix F
and so and the
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Last Name
First Name
Middle Name
Nickname
Age
Nationality
Religion
Civil Status
Father’s Name
Mother’s Name
Educational Background
Elementary
Junior High School
Senior High School
Tertiary
58

Final Manuscript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Manuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE ART OF CORRECTION: INVESTIGATING

TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND TYPES OF

HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ

Thesis Manuscript Submitted to the Department of Secondary Education,

BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

APPROVAL OF THESIS MANUSCRIPT

APPROVED BY THE GUIDANCE COMMITTEE

JACINTA T. PUEYO, PhD

KARIZZA JANE B. PEJANER, MST KAUTIN S. KULANO, EdD

The thesis attached hereto, entitled “THE ART OF CORRECTION:

INVESTIGATING TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND TYPES OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK”

prepared and submitted by HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION is hereby

JACINTA T. PUEYO, PhD

KARIZZA JANE B. PEJANER, MST

Honey Gene V. Valdez was born in Midsayap, Cotabato on September

She graduated from B. Bernardez Elementary School in 20133. She

Vocational, and Livelihood (TVL) in 2019.

She pursued her tertiary education at the University of Southern

Mindanao – Libungan Campus in Libungan. Cotabato taking Bachelor of

Secondary Education, Major in English.

HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ

The researcher expresses gratitude to the which served as the

foundation and motivation for the completion of this study.

To God Almighty, the fount of all knowledge, the researcher lifts

support financially, emotionally, and spiritually, contributing to the success of

Her panel members, Sambay P. Mla and Kevin Ray V. Abesamis

together with the Department Research Coordinator Dr. Gideon S. Sumayo

and College Research Coordinator Karizza Jane B. Pejaner. Special thanks

significantly contributed to refining and enhancing the quality of the paper;

undying support. Their encouragement has been instrumental in enabling her

to persevere in life and studies, instilling a belief in herself regardless of the

challenges life may present;

Lastly, the researcher extends gratitude to everyone who has made

meaningful contributions to her life, believed in her capabilities, and offered

prayers for her success.

Approval of Thesis Manuscript.........................................................................ii

Acceptance of Thesis.................................................................................. iii

List of Tables.............................................................................................. vii

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................................................2

Topic 1 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................2

Topic 2 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................3

Topic 3 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................3

Topic 1 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................4

Topic 2 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................4

Topic 3 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................4

Topic 4 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.........................................................................6

Topic 1 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................6

Topic 2 Subheading (Heading Level 2).......................................................8

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................10

Table Title Page

Figure Title Page

Appendix Title Page

A Application for Change of Research Adviser............................14

B Application for Change of Research Title..................................15

C Actual Budget of the Research.................................................16

D Application for Thesis Manuscript Defense...............................17

VALDEZ, HONEY GENE V. 2023. The Art of Correction: Investigating

Adviser: JACINTA T. PUEYO, PhD

Oral corrective feedback is a practice in classroom dynamics where

teachers aim to improve language proficiency of students through its various

types namely explicit correction, recast, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation,

and types of oral corrective feedback strategies employed by teachers beyond