Volume 2, Issue 2 (6-2017)                   IJREE 2017, 2(2): 10-15 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Behroozi B, Karimnia A. Educational Context and ELT Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Preference: Public and Private School Teachers in Focus. IJREE 2017; 2 (2)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-42-en.html
Fasa Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran
Abstract:   (8739 Views)

This study investigated the possible relationship between educational context and English Language Teaching (ELT) teachers’ corrective feedback preference. To this end, 42 Iranian EEFL teachers from some private language institutes and 39 Iranian EFL teachers from different schools in Shiraz, Iran participated in the study. The Questionnaire for Corrective Feedback Approaches (QCFAs) was used as the instrument in this study. The questionnaire consisted of five different approaches of error correction: repetition, recast, elicitation, explicit correction, clarification, and request. In order to compare the preferred corrective feedback perceived by the institute instructors and school teachers, the researchers ran the Mann-Whitney’s U test. The results revealed that the school teachers preferred the repetition approach most frequently, followed by clarification request, elicitation, explicit correction, and recast. On the other hand, the institute instructors chose the recast approach, clarification request approach, elicitation, explicit correction, and repetition in the order of their preference for error correction. The findings also showed that the school teachers significantly preferred the explicit correction and repetition more than private (institute) teachers.

Full-Text [PDF 396 kb]   (3127 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

1. Abbasi, M., & Karimnia, A. (2011). An analysis of grammatical errors among Iranian translation students: Insights from interlanguage theory. European Journal of Social Sciences, 25(4), 525-536. http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com
2. Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.
3. Chu, R. (2011). Effects of teacher's corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English-majors College students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), 454-459. www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol01/05/03.pdf [DOI:10.4304/tpls.1.5.454-459]
4. Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction: Longman keys to language teaching. Harlow: Longman.
5. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1-36. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0272263103000019]
6. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. New York: Oxford University Press. Second Edition.
7. Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL Lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00251.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00251.x]
8. Lyster, L., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/-?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=19364&silo_library=GEN01 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263197001034]
9. Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81. doi:10.1017/S027226319800103X [DOI:10.1017/S027226319800103X]
10. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060128 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263106060128]
11. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365 [DOI:10.1017/S0261444812000365]
12. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100004010
13. Maftoon, P., Shirazi, M. A., & Daftarifard, P. (2011). The effect of recast vs. self-correction on writing accuracy: The role of awareness. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2(1), 17-28.
14. Moroishi, M. (2002). Recasts, noticing, and error types: Japanese learners' perception of corrective feedback. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, 5, 24–41.
15. Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL students' second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 1-43. doi:10.1080/09658410208667045 [DOI:10.1080/09658410208667045]
16. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. Verplaeste (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition process in the classroom, learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [DOI:10.4324/9781410604712]
18. Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–533. doi:10.1111/1540-4781
19. Paccapaniccia, D. (2002). Making the most of assessment feedback. Healthcare Executive, 17(1), 60. PMid: 11822251 PMid:11822251 [PMID]
20. Park, H. S. (2010). Teachers' and learners' preferences for error correction. Unpublished MA Thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
21. Sharwood, S. M. (1994). Second language learning: Theoretical foundation. Harlow: Longman.
22. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392. doi:10.1191/1362168806lr203oa [DOI:10.1191/1362168806lr203oa]
23. Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93. doi:10.2167/la429.0 [DOI:10.2167/la429.0]
24. Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293-314. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01022.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01022.x]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb