Preferencias acerca de la Retroalimentación Oral Correctiva en las
aulas de inglés como lengua extranjera en la ESPOCH
Maikel Aguilera Leyva. [1]
Recibido: 14-08-2020 / Revisado: 18-0=
9-2020
/Aceptado: 22-10-2020/ Publicado: 06-11-2020
Abstract.=
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33262/cienciadigital.v=
4i4.1.1454
Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) is considered a key
tool to improve students’ skills in EFL classrooms worldwide. Therefore, it=
is
important to identify in which ways students prefer to be corrected, as wel=
l as
how professors prefer to amend students’ errors. In this context, more accu=
rate
techniques can be implemented in the classroom to improve the teaching-lear=
ning
process. This investigation aims to analyze preferences for Oral Corrective
Feedback (OCF) in EFL classrooms at ESPOCH. Qualitative-quantitative methods
are employed in this study, considering also descriptive, analytical, and c=
orrelational
aspects of research. The results reveal that students as well professors
believe that OCF is necessary and effective. Likewise, students and profess=
ors agree
that OCF should be given after the student has finished his participation.
Moreover, content and form errors should be corrected according to students’
and professors’ points of view. Furthermore, recast and repetition of error
were chosen by pupils and lecturers as the favorite types of OFC. Consequen=
tly,
it is recommended to continue using OCF as a tool to improve the
teaching-learning process of English. Additionally, professors should offer=
OCF
with a positive and respectful attitude toward students. Moreover, it is ad=
visable
to favor recast and repetition of error over other types of O=
CF.
Keywords:
Oral corrective
feedback (OCF), elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, recast.
Resumen.
La
Retroalimentación Correctiva Oral (ROC) se considera una herramienta clave =
para
mejorar las habilidades de los estudiantes en las aulas de inglés como leng=
ua
extranjera en todo el mundo. Por lo tanto, es importante identificar de qué
manera los estudiantes prefieren ser corregidos, así como la forma en que l=
os
profesores prefieren corregir los errores de los estudiantes. En este conte=
xto,
se pueden aplicar técnicas más precisas en el aula para mejorar el proceso =
de
enseñanza-aprendizaje. Esta investigación tiene como objetivo analizar las
preferencias hacia la Retroalimentación Oral Correctiva en las aulas de ing=
lés
como lengua extranjera en la ESPOCH. Los métodos cualitativos-cuantitativos=
se
emplean en este estudio, considerando también los aspectos descriptivos, an=
alíticos
y correlativos de la investigación. Los resultados revelan que tanto los
estudiantes como los profesores creen que la Retroalimentación Oral Correct=
iva
es necesaria y efectiva. Asimismo, estudiantes y profesores coinciden en qu=
e la
ROC debe darse después de que el estudiante haya terminado su participación.
Además, los errores de contenido y forma deben ser corregidos de acuerdo con
los puntos de vista de los estudiantes y profesores. Además, la
reformulación y repetición del error fueron elegidos por los alu=
mnos
y los profesores como los tipos favoritos de ROC. En consecuencia, se
recomienda seguir utilizando la ROC como herramienta para mejorar el proces=
o de
enseñanza-aprendizaje del inglés. Además, los profesores deberían ofrecer la
ROC con una actitud positiva y respetuosa hacia los estudiantes. Además, es
aconsejable favorecer la reformulación y repetición del error=
sobre
otros tipos de ROC.
Palabras claves: Retroalimentación Oral Correctiva (ROC), estimu=
lación,
retroalimentación metalingüística, reformulación.
=
Introduction
English =
learning
is considered a priority by the Ecuadorian government. Hence, this language=
has
been established as a mandatory subject for elementary, secondary, and high=
er
education in this country. Therefore, the undergraduate students at ESPOCH =
are
asked to obtain a B1 level of English before graduation. In this context, O=
ral Corrective
Feedback (OFC) gains more relevance due to its paramount importance for imp=
roving
students’ proficiency in the L2. Also, it is necessary to amend students’
errors, otherwise this incorrect language becomes a habit, which as time pa=
sses
becomes more difficult to correct and produces negative effects on the
acquisition of L2. For instance, Levine (1975) addresses this issue and highlights the positives
effects of error correction and emphasizes the negative consequences of lea=
ving
errors uncorrected. This
author states that if an error is not corrected, not only the speaker, but =
the
rest of the class will assume the student’s utterance is a good example to =
be
imitated. This issue will hinder acquisition and mastering of the foreign
language because students will be unaware of their errors, thus they will n=
ot
be able to fix them. Furthermore, Horwitz (1988)=
states
that instructors need to know students’ beliefs about language teaching and
learning because a mismatch between students’ expectation and the reality t=
hey
encounter in the classroom can hinder successful acquisition.
Consequently, finding the most appropriate means to
correct errors in EFL or ESL classrooms has been the aim of several
investigations conducted by second language acquisition scholars who have
studied preferences for OCF Cathcart & Olsen (1976)=
, Chenoweth, Day, Chun, & Luppescu (1983), Oladejo (1993)=
, Schulz (1996)<=
/span>, Musayeva (1998), Yao (2000), Schulz (2001)<=
/span>, Lee (2004), among others. In this regard, OFC has been considered an important
tool to boost
the teaching-learning process of L2 education.
Regarding this matter, Fungula (2013) expresses that most learners n=
eed
OCF because it helps them to improve the L2. However, the effectiveness of
correcting errors remains a controversial topic among academics.
The current investigation aims to analyze the preferences towards Or=
al
Corrective Feedback in EFL classrooms at Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo- ESPOCH. Also, this
investigation determines the more favored ways to provide and receive Oral
Corrective Feedback by professors and students respectively in this institu=
tion.
The most accurate means to provide Oral Corrective Feedback are identified.
Furthermore, the outcomes from the data analysis will be disseminated within
the educational community which will contribute to enhancing OCF in this hi=
gher
education center, and the overall improvement of the teaching- learning
process. Oral Corrective Feedback can be defined as judgment on others’ per=
formance
in order to fill gaps in terms of knowledge and forms Askew (2004). According to =
Suzuki (2005), correc=
tive
feedback is a technique utilized by teachers to attract students’ attention=
to
erroneous phrases so as to lead to modified output. Likewise, Ellis (2006) defines
corrective feedback as “responses to learner utterances containing an error”
(p.28). A questionnaire was created
and included in a survey that was completed voluntarily by undergraduate
students and English professors at ESPOCH. The data collected through this
survey helped to analyze the preferences regarding OCF at ESPOCH. Based on =
the
results, better decisions can be made to favor the teaching – learning proc=
ess
of English as foreign language at ESPOCH. =
Theoretical framework Corrective feedback can be defined as systematic practice that invol=
ves
the learner and the person who formally or informally provides the feedback.
This person can be a professor or a classmate, it depends on the situation =
and
the rules of the classroom. Also, the main purpose of corrective feedback i=
s to
improve the performance of the person who is receiving it. Consequently, Hattie & Timperley (2007) express=
ed
that feedback is a consequence of performance. The following types of OCF
have been identified as the most frequent ways to correct students’ errors.
This list is based on Lyster & Ranta (1997) and =
Yao (2000)=
. These kinds of errors were the ones taken into
consideration to conduct the current investigation. 1-Recast: The teacher
repeats what the learner has said replacing the error. Some recasts can be =
of
one word, a grammatical or lexical modification or translations in response=
to
a student’s use of the L1. When recast is used, the teacher does not use
phrases such as, “You mean…” or “you should say…” Lyster & Rant=
a (1997). Example: A student asks a question as part of an exercise to practice the us=
e of
Past Simple. S: Do you go to Ambato yesterday?
(error-grammatical) T: Did you go to Ambato yesterday?
(feedback-recast) 2-Clarification request:
The teacher asks for repetition or reformulation of what the learner has sa=
id.
This is a feedback type that can refer to problems in either comprehensibil=
ity
or accuracy, or both. A clarification request includes phrases such as “Par=
don
me” Lyster & Rant=
a (1997). Example:
T: What’s your name? =
S :
Martinez =
T :
“pardon me” ? What’s your name? S:
Alberto T:
Excellent! 3-Metalinguistic feedback:
The teacher provides information or questions related to an error the stude=
nt
has made without explicitly providing the correct form Lyster & Rant=
a (1997). Example:
Students talk about someone else’s daily routine. S:
He always watch TV in the evening. T:
Do we say “he watch TV”? S:
Oh, no. He watches TV. T:
That’s right. 4-Elicitation:
This technique is used to make students produce the correct form, either by
completing the statement provided by the teacher, asking the student the
correct the way to say something, or asking the student to repeat a
reformulated version of the statement. Lyster & Rant=
a (1997) state that teachers provi=
de a
sentence and strategically pause to allow students to “fill in the blank”, =
then
if the students give an incorrect answer, he/she makes a comment such as “N=
o,
not that. It’s a…” or just repeats the error. Example:
S: I eat some fish yesterday. T:
eat? (emphasis) S:
ate 5-Repetition of error:
The teacher repeats the learner’s error in isolation, in most cases, teache=
rs
adjust their intonation so as to highlight the error Lyster & Rant=
a (1997). Example: S: Pedro have three childrens. T:
Pedro have (emphasis) three childrens (emphasis=
). S:
Pedro has three children. 6- Interruption:
The teacher corrects students’ error in the middle of their sentences before
they have a chance to finish them Yao (2000). Example:
T: Where does your mother cook dinner? S:
My mother cooks dinner in the chic……. T:
In the kitchen. 7-Body Language: The teacher does not use an oral response to indi=
cate
an error. He/she uses either a facial expression or body movement instead <=
/span>Yao (2000). Example: A student is talking in front of the class
about his future plans and says the following phrase: S: I going to travel to Canada next month. T: (moves her head indicating something is wrong)<=
o:p> S: I am going to travel to Ca=
nada
next month. Feedback can be considered positive or negative. For instance, when a
professor points out the correctness of a student’s utterance, the feedback=
is
deemed to be positive. On the other hand, if the feedback is to indicate th=
e correctness
extend of the student’s utterance, it is considered negative. Therefore,
corrective feedback is used as synonym of negative feedback category. As a =
case
in point, Lochtman (2002) express=
es
that all foreign language teacher provide their learners with negative feed=
back
on formal error and uses the term corrective feedback as a synonym of the aforementioned term. Moreover, in
Regarding the effectiveness of OCF, several academics and investigat=
ors
have theorized about the role of corrective feedback in second language
acquisition. Some of them firmly state that CF should be excluded from the
teaching- learning process because it hinders language acquisition. By
contrast, some scholars and researchers argue against those points of view,
highlighting the key role that corrective feedback can play in the correct
mastering of a second language. Among the first ones Krahnke & Krashen (1983) maintain
that error correction is not of use for acquisition. However, in Garcia & Gass (2000),=
the role of negative evidence (direct and indirect) is repeated. The=
se
authors maintain that negative evidence makes learners focus their attentio=
n on
form which direct them to grammatical restructuring. This is something that
Krashen’s model does not recognize.
Additionally, Schwartz (1993) express=
es
that negative feedback has impact solely on performance, it doesn‘t lead to=
any
change in language competence, and therefore its effect is minimal.<=
/span>
Furthermore, Tatawy (2002)
establishes that for the different types of feedback to be effective, the have to
result in uptake and successful repair. This author defines some necessary
corrective feedback standards that should be accomplished in order to be
successful and effective.
1- Teachers need to be systematic and consistent in t=
heir
provision of feedback.
2- Corrective feedback should be clear.
3- The techniques employed should allow for time and
opportunity for self and peer repair and modified output.
4- Feedback
should be fine-tuned in the sense that there should be as close a match as
possible between teacher’s intent, the targeted error, and learners’ percep=
tion
of the given feedback.
5- Feedback
provided should focus on one error at a time, over a period of time. i.e. t=
he
feedback should be intensive and consistent in intent.
6- The
learners’ developmental readiness to process the feedback provided should be
taken into consideration.
Furthermore, Margolis (2007) summari=
zes
some relevant studies conducted on error feedback preferences, as it can be
appreciated in (Table 1).
Table 1. Error
Feedback Preference Studies
|
<=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk50327780'>Investigators |
<=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk50327780'>Focus |
<=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk50327780'>Subjects |
<=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk50327780'>Approach |
<=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk50327780'>Findings |
|
|
Learner EF preferences for the classroom |
149 adult ESL students |
Survey about classroom EF preferences |
Lea=
rners
strongly desire EF |
|
|
Preferences for EF in NS-NNS conversations |
400 adult ESL students |
Survey EF preferences for interactions with NS friends |
Strong preference for more EF in social encounters |
|
|
Alignment of learner preferences with=
teacher practices |
500 EFL Ss at the National University of
Singapore |
Survey based on Hendrickson’s (1978) =
5 questions |
Consistent with prior research, strong preference for EF |
|
|
Differences between T & Ss beliefs across different L2s |
824 Ss + 92 T Of multiple FL courses at U of Arizona |
Study included observation and a survey of Ss preferences |
Ss: favored FonF regardless of TL but T beliefs were not aligned |
|
|
Create a "corrective
profile” of Ts to compare against Ss preferences |
2 Teachers with 2 EFL classes each, 74 Ss in university prep
class in Turkey |
Observed classes per Chaudron’s
(1977) model; interviewed Ts; surveyed Ss |
Found small amount of parity between EF
practices and EF preferences |
|
|
Learner view of EF, preferences, &
alignment w/ Teacher practices |
18 1st & 2nd year undergraduates (3=
per
class—6 diff. classes) ESL |
Observed 24 hours of classes (4hrs per =
T);
interviewed Ss for preferences |
Learners regarded EF as necessary, but =
did
not always like it |
|
|
Compare Colombian students & teache=
rs
with the 1996 study’s data |
607 Ss + 122 Ts from language classes at
univ. in Colombia, plus 824 Ss & 92 Ts from 1996 |
Survey |
Ss & Ts from both cultures, all L1s=
/L2s,
had similar attitudes as Schulze (1996), above |
|
|
Proficiency level effects on learner
preferences and teacher practices |
280 EFL university students in Korea &a=
mp; 31
English NS Teachers |
2 studies, 1 survey of EF preferences; =
the
2nd journal & interview data on 2 teachers |
Ss wanted more EF; Ts feared providing =
too
much. High & low proficiency Ss answered similarly |
|
EF=3DError Feedback, NS=
=3Dnative
speakers, Ss=3Dstudents, Ts=3DTeachers |
Source: =
Margolis (2007)
Referential framework.
Several investigations have been conducted regarding the students and
professors’ preferences toward Oral Corrective Feedback. For instance,
regarding the question: Which
leaners errors should be corrected=
? Oladejo (1993) found t=
hat:
Although learners generally want their errors corrected, they also h=
ave
preferences in terms of how much emphasis each error type should attract. T=
he
majority of the learners believe that errors relating to organization of id=
eas
should receive the highest attention for correction.
Grammatical errors rank next in order of preference for correction, =
with
more than 96% of the learners indicating that this error type deserved high
attention, or some attention. Learners' preference for error correction sho=
ws
that grammatical errors is followed closely by vocabulary errors, while
pronunciation errors comes after it in order of priority. Receiving the lea=
st
priority for correction are spelling and punctuation errors which the major=
ity
of the learners would like to be given little or no attention.
In this investigation is evident that students favored content errors
over form errors and spelling and punctuation errors were given less
importance.
Another interesting research comes from Ünsal Şakiroğlu (2020) who fou=
nd
the following results regarding the questions: Would you like to be correct=
ed?
How would you feel when being corrected?
When student responses were assessed based on the queries, the first
analyses were conducted on the question would you like to be corrected? The
student responses indicate that 44 attendees/interviewees (86%) were positi=
ve
about getting oral correction when they have speaking errors. While 6 out o=
f 51
learners (12%) were even eager to be corrected for every single error, 2
participants (4%) preferred to be corrected only when they are not understo=
od
and five of them (10%) indicated that they did not desire to be corrected at
all (see Table 1).
Addition=
ally,
the study conducted by Hulya Unsal
Sakiroglu, Ünsal Şakiroğlu (2020) reveals
that 39% of the students that participated in the investigation would feel
happy to be corrected. Also, 14% of them expressed that despite being
uncomfortable when being corrected they thought amendment was necessary to
enhance their English. Furthermore, 23% of the students in this investigati=
on
said that they felt bad about correction and the rest left this question
unanswered.
Moreover, a scientific paper publish by Martínez (2014) entitled
“An investigation into how EFL learners emotionally respond to teachers’ or=
al
corrective feedback”, some interesting findings concerning the students fee=
ling
when being corrected, can be appreciated.
In response to the question of how EFL learners
actually feel when their teachers immediately correct their mistakes, sever=
al
choices were considered. As illustrated in Figure 2, we can see that `feeli=
ng
satisfied´ becomes the top choice (34.65%), followed by `feeling embarrasse=
d´
(14.85%) and then `feeling angry´ (12.87%).
Fi=
gure
1. How do you feel when the teacher immediately corre=
cts
your mistakes?
Source: =
Additionally, another relevant study conducted by =
Roothooft & Breeze (2016)
about the students and professors’ preferences toward OCF found that Met=
alinguistic
Feedback was the students’ favorite form of being corrected.
Regarding CF types, students expressed
themselves much more positively about explicit types of CF such as
metalinguistic feedback than teachers did. Furthermore, teachers’ worries a=
bout
possible negative reactions to CF were not confirmed by the students, who
indicated that they would react positively to receiving immediate CF on the=
ir
oral production.
Furthermore, Lyster &
Ranta (1997) summarized some interesting data regarding =
the
different types of OCF.
Preferences for different feedback types are
displayed for each teacher in Table 2 as well as the total distribution of
feedback types for all four teachers. Across the four teachers, the single
largest category is the recast, which accounts for just over half (55%) of =
the
total number of teacher turns containing feedback. The other feedback types=
are
distributed in decreasing frequency as follows: elicitation (14%),
clarification request (11%), metalinguistic feedback (8%), explicit correct=
ion
(7%), and repetition (5%).
The low figure for repetition is somewhat
deceptive because teacher repetitions can, and frequently do, co-occur with=
the
other feedback categories. From these findings, it appears that recasting t=
he
learner’s ill-formed utterance is the feedback method of choice of these Fr=
ench
immersion teachers. This is true for all four teachers, although T3 tends to
recast less than the others. Other differences are noted in the small amoun=
t of
elicitation used by T6, as well is in the small amount of metalinguistic
feedback used by T4 and T6 (p.53).
Table 2. Distribution of feedback types
|
|
T3 (n=3D243) |
T4 (n=3D146) |
T5 (n=3D194) |
T6 (n=3D103) |
Total (n=3D686) |
|
Recast |
93 (39%) |
96 (66%) |
116 (60%) |
70 (68%) |
375 (55%) |
|
Elicitation |
45 (18%) |
18 (12%) |
26 (13%) |
5 (5%) |
94 (14%) |
|
Clarification
request |
37 (15%) |
9 (6%) |
14 (7%) |
13 (13%) |
73 (11%) |
|
Metalinguistic
feedback |
32 (13%) |
3 (2%) |
20 (10%) |
3 (3%) |
58 (8%) |
|
Explicit correc=
tion |
16 (7%) |
15 (10%) |
9 (5%) |
10 (10%) |
50 (7%) |
|
Repetition |
20 (8%) |
5 (3%) |
9 (5%) |
2 (2%) |
36 (5%) |
Source: Lyster &
Ranta (1997)
Methodology.
The current investigation was carried out with a population of five hundred undergraduate students (eighteen years old and o= lder) and twenty-six English teachers who study and work respectively at Escue= la Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo- ESPOCH,= Riobamba, Chimborazo province. These people were part of this study voluntarily and t= hey were not remunerated in any form. All participants had a high school level = of study or above. The participants were divided into two groups: lecturers an= d students. All the participants were presented with a questionnaire containing the same questions, except for an extra question in the students’ survey. The survey= was conducted from July 8th, 2020 to August 20th, 2020. <= o:p>
To create the questionnaire, the following framing
questions introduced by Hendrickson (1978) were taken into consideration:
1- Should learners’ errors=
be corrected?
2- When should learners’
errors be corrected?
3- Which errors should be
corrected?
4- How should errors be
corrected?
5- Who should do the
correcting?
In addition to those questions, some others were added to have a bro=
ader
idea of the situation concerning OCF at ESPOCH:
7- Do students and professors think that OCF is neces=
sary?
8- Do students and professors believe in the
effectiveness of OCF?
9- How do students feel when OCF is provided?
10- Which are students and professors’ preferences tow=
ard
the different types of OCF?
The abovementioned insight
into the preferences toward OCF allow professors to make better decisions
regarding the teaching- learning process of English at ESPOCH.
The questionnaire was created considering <=
!--[if supportFields]>ADDIN CSL_CITATION
{"citationItems":[{"id":"ITEM-1","itemDa=
ta":{"DOI":"10.1111/j.1540-4781.1978.tb02409.x",&q=
uot;ISSN":"15404781","author":[{"dropping-par=
ticle":"","family":"Hendrickson","g=
iven":"James
M.","non-dropping-particle":"","parse-names&q=
uot;:false,"suffix":""}],"container-title":&q=
uot;The
Modern Language
Journal","id":"ITEM-1","issued":{"d=
ate-parts":[["1978"]]},"title":"Error
Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and
Practice","type":"article-journal"},"uris&quo=
t;:["http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=3Df00a45d8-5978-4627-975b=
-698a838c0d5a"]}],"mendeley":{"formattedCitation":=
"(Hendrickson,
1978)","manualFormatting":"Hendrickson
(1978)","plainTextFormattedCitation":"(Hendrickson,
1978)","previouslyFormattedCitation":"(Hendrickson,
1978)"},"properties":{"noteIndex":0},"schema&=
quot;:"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/cs=
l-citation.json"}Hendrickson (1978=
) framing questions as well as some others added by=
the
author . Similarly, the types of errors identified by Lyster & Ranta (1997) and Yao (2000)=
were included in this questionnaire. Once these
aspects were defined, 15 questions were included in the students’
questionnaire, while the professors’ questionnaire contained 14 questions. =
The
difference consists of an extra question added to the students’ questionnai=
re
to have a better impression about how students feel when they are being
corrected.
The questionnaires contain some general items about
the participants’ opinions concerning Oral Corrective Feedback. There were =
also
seven specific questions about the preferences regarding ways of providing =
OCF
such as: recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitatio=
n,
repetition of error, interruption, and body language. These specific questi=
ons
were formulated using the Likert scale. Furthermore, the survey was applied
through Google Forms.
The data collected were analyzed using descriptive
methods, and the results are presented in the following section.
Results.
=
Students and professors’ preferences about the nee=
d for
OCF (Figure
2)
Most participants consider the need for OCF, speci=
fically
96,20% of teachers and 92,10% of students believe that OCF is necessary. St=
ill,
a very low percentage of them think differently.
Figure 2. Do you believe oral corrective feedback is necessa=
ry?
Source: The
author
Students and professors’ preferences about the
effectiveness of OC=
F (Figure 3)
When asked about the effectiveness of OCF, 100% of
professors believe that it produces positive results. Similarly, the majori=
ty
of the students are convinced of the efficacy of OCF (87,50%), although 1,2=
0%
of them think otherwise and 11,40% are not sure.
Figure 3. Do you think oral corrective feedback produces
positive results?
Source:
The author
=
Students and professors’ preferences about when OCF
should be given by the professor (Figure 4)
This question offered four possible answers. The p=
referred
option for students and professors was to let the student finish and then
correct the error, 75,50% and 65.4% respectively, in favor of it. The second
preferred option was to provide OCF at the end of the lesson; students 11,2=
0%
and professors 23,10%. Moreover, only 8.5% of students like to be interrupt=
ed
to correct the error and 3,80% of professors agree with that opinion.
Furthermore, 4,50% of students want to receive OCF at the end of the lesson=
and
0% of professors think that is a valid option. Finally, 0,20% of students
provided another option, while 7,60% of professors gave their own ideas.
However, those options are considered not relevant=
for
the investigation because the opinions provided coincide with the options g=
iven
in the survey or were colloquial expressions without validity.
Figure 4. When should the professor provide oral corrective
feedback?
Source:
The author
=
Students and professors’ preferences about how OC=
F
should be provided (Figure 5)
Regarding this matter, there is a great difference
between students and professors’ opinions. For instance, 61,20% of students
prefer to receive OCF in private, while only 4% of professors think the sam=
e.
By contrast, 72% of professors believe that OCF should be provided both way=
s;
in private and in front of the students’ classmates, but just 26,1% of stud=
ents
agree. Other figures show that 11,90% of students like to receive OCF in fr=
ont
of their classmates and 12% of professors agree with them. Moreover, 0,80% =
of
students and 12% of professors contributed with other options.
Figure 5. How do you consider OCF should be provided?=
Source: The
author
Students’ and professors’ preferences about how ma=
ny
errors should be corrected (Figure 6)
In this regard, there is a noticeable difference
between students’ and professors’ preferences.
For example, professors’ opinions are divided; 50% of them think that
all errors should be corrected and the other 50% believe that only important
errors should. On the other hand, students’ opinions are more disperse, but=
the
majority (78,50%) think that all errors should be amended, 19,70% think that
only important errors should, 1% only important errors, 0,20% no errors and
0,60% provided other options.
Figure 6. How many errors should be corrected?
Source: The
author
Students’ feelings when their errors are corrected
orally by the professor (Figure 7)
In this part, students’ feelings are varied. Speci=
fically,
27,30% of them feel ashamed, 1,60% feel upset, 10,30% feel confused, 18,80%
feel motivated, 35,20% feel O.K, 5,70% do not care and 1,10% stated a diffe=
rent
opinion.
Figure 7. How do you feel when a professor corrects your err=
ors
orally?
Source: The
author
Students’ and professors’ preferences about who sh=
ould
correct errors in the classroom (Figure 8)
Concerning the question about who should correct t=
he
errors, the results show that 56,30% of students think that the professor
should correct the errors, 2,20% believe that students themselves should
correct the errors, 40,90% think that both students and professors should
correct the errors, and 0,60% think that nobody should correct the errors. =
By contrast, 34,60% of professors think that they
should correct the errors and the remaining 65,40% think that both students=
and
professors should correct the errors.
Figure 8. Who should correct errors in the classroom?
Source: The
author
Students’ and professors’ preferences about what t=
ypes
of errors should be corrected (Figure 9)
Regarding what types of errors should be corrected=
, most
of the students (79,80%) and professors (96,20%) think that both types of
errors, content (meaning) and form (grammar), should be corrected. Besides,
9,30% of students think that only content errors should be corrected, 9,70%
think that only form errors and 1,20% think that no errors should be correc=
ted.
Instead, the rest of professors (3,80%) think that only content errors shou=
ld
be corrected.
Figure 9. What types of error should be corrected?
Source: The
author
=
Students' preferences toward the different types of
OCF (Table 3)
The findings regarding the students’ preferences
toward the different types of OCF reveal that most of the students like to =
be
corrected through recast; 56,80% strongly agree and 34,10% agree.
Inversely, only 1,40% strongly disagree and 1,80% disagree. Also, clarif=
ication
request is regarded as positive way to provide OCF: 51,90% strongly agr=
ee
and 39,40% agree, but 0,20% of them strongly disag=
ree
and 3,40% disagree. Additionally, metalinguistic feedback is also
favored by the students: 47,30% strongly agree and 43,30% agree, while 1%
strongly disagree and 4.20% disagree. Moreover, elicitation is anoth=
er
fairly likable type of OCF for students: 56.80% strongly agree and 34,10%
agree, just 0,80% and 3% strongly disagree and disagree respectively. Besid=
es,
another highly appreciated type of OCF is repetition of error, where
56.40% strongly agree and 34% agree. Therefore, just 1% and 4,80% of studen=
ts
strongly disagree and disagree correspondingly. On the other hand, inter=
ruption
got less conclusive results, 24,70% strongly agree and 37,40% agree, while
10,50% strongly disagree and 23,10% disagree. Finally, 30,40% of students
strongly agree with body language and 42,30% agree. By contrast, 5% =
of
students strongly disagree and 17,10% disagree.
Ta=
ble
3. Students' preferences toward the different types of oral corrective feed=
back
|
Types
of Oral Corrective Feedback |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Strongly disagree<= o:p> |
Disagree |
|
Recast |
56,80% |
34,10% |
5,90% |
1,40% |
1,80% |
|
Clarification requ=
est |
51,90% |
39,40% |
5,20% |
0,20% |
3,40% |
|
Metalinguistic
feedback |
47,30% |
43,30% |
4,20% |
1% |
4,20% |
|
Elicitation |
48,30% |
42,90% |
5% |
0,80% |
3% |
|
Repetition of erro=
r |
56,40% |
34% |
3,80% |
1% |
4,80% |
|
Interruption |
24,70% |
37,40% |
4,20% |
10,50% |
23,10% |
|
Body language |
30,40% |
42,30% |
5,40% |
5% |
17,10% |
Source: The
author
Professors' preferences toward the different types=
of
OCF (Table 4)
Concerning the professors’ preferences toward the
different types of OCF, the results show that most lecturers consider re=
cast
a good method to correct students’ errors; 84,60% strongly agree and 11,50%
agree. Conversely, 3,80% strongly disagree. Likewise, clarification requ=
est
is viewed as a favorable technique to provide OCF, 69,20% strongly agree an=
d 23,10%
agree, just 3,80% of them strongly disagree. Moreover, metalinguistic
feedback is also highly appreciated by the professors: 65,40% strongly
agree and 26,90% agree, while 7,70% disagree. However, elicitation
provided very defined results because 53,80% strongly agree and 42,30% agre=
e,
none of the professors were against this method. In addition, repetition=
of
error is valued as an effective form of providing OCF: 73,10% strongly
agree and 19,20% agree, just 7,70% disagree. As it was expected, interru=
ption
got a high degree of objection by professors, 15,40% strongly agree and 19,=
20%
agree, while 30,80% strongly disagree and 34,60% disagree. Finally, 46,20% =
of professors strongly agree with body language and
42,30% agree. By contrast, 3,80% of professors strongly disagree and 7,70%
disagree.
Table 4. Students'
preferences toward the different types of oral corrective feedback
|
Types
of Oral Corrective Feedback |
Strongly
agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Strongly
disagree |
Disagree |
|
Recast |
84,60% |
11,50% |
0,00% |
3,80% |
0,00% |
|
Clarification request |
69,20% |
23,10% |
3,80% |
3,80% |
0,00% |
|
Metalinguistic feedback |
65,40% |
26,90% |
0,00% |
0% |
7,70% |
|
Elicitation |
53,80% |
42,30% |
3,80% |
0,00% |
0% |
|
Repetition of error |
73,10% |
19,20% |
0,00% |
0% |
7,70% |
|
Interruption |
15,40% |
19,20% |
0,00% |
30,80% |
34,60% |
|
Body language |
46,20% |
42,30% |
0,00% |
3,8% |
7,70% |
Source: The
author
Although the effectiveness Oral Corrective Feedback has never been
categorically proven, most students as well as professors believe in the ef=
ficacy
of it. Therefore, both groups of people express being in favor of receiving
OCF, this coincides with several studies conducted before on this matter su=
ch
as Oladejo (1993)
· =
Regardi=
ng
the emotional effect of Oral Corrective Feedback on students, mixed results
were obtained. However, the overall results show that OCF produces more
positive than negative feelings in students. Nevertheless, and important nu=
mber
of students feel ashamed, upset, and confused when receiving OCF.
· =
Taking =
into
consideration the types of errors to be corrected, the majority of students=
and
professors think that both content and form errors should be corrected.
Therefore, it is evident that meaning as well as grammar are regarded as an
important part of the correct mastering of English.
· =
Relatin=
g to
who should correct errors in the classroom, students are divided between on=
ly
the professor and both professors and students. On the other hand, professo=
rs
favor the option of both, professors and students, over just the professors=
.
· =
Concern=
ing
the different types of OCF considered in the present investigation, the
opinions of students and professors have a high degree of coincidence. The
favorite types of OCF for students and professors are recast and =
repetition
of error. Moreover, it can be concluded that professors seem more convi=
nced
than students about the type of OCF that they want to use. On the other han=
d, the
least favorite type of OCF for students and professors is interruption. Thought,
students are a little bit more inclined to be interrupted. By contrast, the
option of interrupting students is almost ruled out by professors.
Recommendations.
·&nb=
sp;
Professors should contin=
ue
providing Oral Corrective Feedback in the classroom because it is positive =
for
students and boosts the teaching- learning process.
·&nb=
sp;
Professors should be car=
eful
with their attitude when providing Oral Corrective Feedback because some
students may feel discouraged rather than encouraged.
·&nb=
sp;
Errors regarding meaning=
and
grammar should be corrected in the classroom.
·&nb=
sp;
The errors in the classr=
oom
should be corrected by professors and students, but always in a kind way and
obeying the rules settled by the professor.
·&nb=
sp;
Recast and repetition of error should be used in the classroom whene=
ver
possible, to correct students’ errors.
·&nb=
sp;
Future investigations sh=
ould
be conducted on the effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback to determine =
if
it actually produces positive results.
Bibliographic references.
Ananda, D. R., Febriyanti, E. R., Yamin, M., & Mu’in, F. (2017). <=
/span>Students’ Preferences toward Oral
Corrective Feedback in Speaking Class at English Department of Lambung
Mangkurat University Academic Year 2015/2016. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0703.03
Askew, S. (2004). Feedback for learning.
Routledge.
=
=
Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J. (19=
76).
Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation
errors. On Tesol, 76, 41–53.
=
Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chu=
n,
A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and Preferences of ESL Students=
to
Error Correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100000310
=
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the
Effects of Form-Focussed Instruction on L2 Acquisition. AILA Review.
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.04ell
=
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feed=
back
and Teacher Development. =
L2
Journal. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.90=
54
=
Fungula, B. N. (2013). Oral
Corrective Feedback in the Chinese EFL Classroom. Degree Project). Karls=
tad:
Karlstads Universitet. Retrieved on November, 6, 2015.
=
Garcia, P., & Gass, S. (2000).
Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. TESOL Quarterly.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587793
=
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H.
(2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. https=
://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
=
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error
Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Pract=
ice.
The Modern Language Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1978.tb02409.x
=
HORWITZ, E. K. (1988). The Beliefs
about Language Learning of Beginning University Foreign Language Students. =
The
Modern Language Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb041=
90.x
=
Krahnke, K. J., & Krashen, S.=
D.
(1983). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. TESOL
Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586656
=
Lee, H. (2004). Grammar Teaching =
in
Communicative Classrooms: Focused on Teachers’ Theories and Practice. EN=
GLISH
TEACHING (영어&#=
44368;육), 59(1), 3–26.
=
Levine, M. (1975). A cognitive
theory of learning: Research on hypothesis testing. A cognitive theo=
ry
of learning: Research on hypothesis testing. Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
=
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral correct=
ive
feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in
analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational
Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00005-3
=
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997=
).
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197001034
Margolis, D. P. (2007). Impacts of oral error
feedback in Korean university EFL classrooms. ProQuest.
Marina Vásquez Carranza, L. (2007=
).
Correction in the ESL classroom: What teachers do in the classroom and what
they think they do. Pensamiento Actual.
Martínez, J. D. D. (2014). An investigation into how
EFL learners emotionally respond to teachers’ oral corrective feedback. =
Colombian
Applied Linguistics Journal.
https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a08
=
Musayeva, G. (1998). Corrective d=
iscourse
in Turkish EFL classrooms. IRAL - International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching.
=
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error
Correction in ESL: Learner’s Preferences. TESL Canada Journal.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v10i2.619
=
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R.
(2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral
corrective feedback. Language Awareness.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580
=
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on fo=
rm
in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error c=
orrection
and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x
=
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural
differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of gramm=
ar
instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journ=
al.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107
=
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explic=
it
and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavio=
r. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02722631000119=
31
=
Suzuki, M. (2005). Corrective
feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. … College, Columbia
University Working Papers in ….
=
Tatawy, M. (2002). Corrective
feedback in SLA Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition. Stud=
ies
in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, 2.
https://doi.org/10.7916/salt.v2i2.1645
=
Ünsal Şakiroğlu, H. (20=
20).
Oral corrective feedback preferences of university students in english
communication classes. International Journal of Research in Education and
Science, 6(1), 172–178.
=
Yao, S. S. (2000). Focus on fo=
rm
in the foreign language classroom: EFL college learners’ attitudes toward e=
rror
correction. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
|
Sailema A., Maqueira, Sailema, M., & Sailema, AD.,
“Estrategia metodológica, esquema corporal y actividad física adaptada: U=
na
trilogía para la inclusión social. Revista Ciencia Digital. ISSN: 2602-8085 Vol. 3, N°2.5, p. 186=
-196,
abril - junio, 2019.DOI https://doi.org/10.33262/cienciadigital.v3i2.5.53=
Alonso,
G. (2020), Competencias del doce=
nte en
la atención a estudiantes con conductas disruptivas de 8vo año de Educaci=
ón
General Básica. Tesis en Opción al grado de Magister en Inclusión Educati=
va y
Atención a la Diversidad Universidad Universidad Laica Vicente Rocafuerte.
Guayaquil. ( próxima a sustentación) Campoverde, M. (2014). Desempeño docente en el proceso =
de
enseñanza aprendizaje en el nivel de Educación Básica de la Unidad Educat=
iva
"Belisario Quedo" en la ciudad de Pujilí, provincia de Cotopaxi,
Año lectivo 2013-2014. Cotopaxi-Ecuador: Universidad Técnico Particular de
Loja. Cépedes, A. (2012). Niños en Pataletas.adolescentes
desafiantes, Como manejar los trastornos de conductas en los hijos.Santia=
go
de Chile: Ediciones Básicas Chile SA Cuberes, R (2013) Causas de las conductas desafiantes en
alumnos de primaria.Trabajo de fin de Grado Universidad Internacional de =
la
Rioja.Facultad de Educación. Duarte, J. (2017). Formación permanente de docentes en
servicio, alternativa para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la lengua esc=
rita
en la educación básica integral. México: Universidad Rovira. Freire, C. (2012). Factores que inciden en la presencia=
de
conductas disruptivas de los estudiantes de los 8°, 9° 10° años en educac=
ión
básica de la Unidad Educativa experimental FAE N°3 Taura del Cantón Yagua=
chi
durante el período lectivo 2012. Milagro: Universidad Estatal de Milagro.=
Flores, G. (2018).
Programa de capacitación psicológica a padres de familia para la
atención de niños con conductas disruptivas de 6to EGB. Tesis en opción al
grado de Magister en Inclusión Educativa y Atención a la Diversidad.
Universidad Laica Vicente Rocafuerte. Guayaquil. Espinoza, G. (2014). Desempeño docente en el proceso de
enseñanza aprendzaje en el nivel de Educación Básica Superior del Centro
Educativo Colegio de Bachillerato Ciudad de Portovelo. Loja: Universidad
Técnica Particular de Loja. Equipo Dide, 2017,
Conductas disruptivas. La asertividad, una competencia docente
primordial. =
http://educaryaprender.es/conductas-disruptivas-comportamiento/ Expasa. (2018). Diccionario Enciclopédico. En T. I.-t.
Edición-. Barcelona: Expasa Calpe. Jiménez, J. (2017). Conductas disruptivas en el Aula y
desempeño docentes en la Institución Educativa Técnica General Roberta Le=
yva
del Municipio de Saldaña Tolima. Ibague: Universidad del Tolima. Jurado, P. (Coord.)(2015), Informe “Influencia de los
comportamientos disruptivos en el fracaso escolar de los alumnos de ESO H=
acia
un modelo de intervención centrado en la institución educativa” Barcelona: UAB
(Proyecto I+D-2010. EDU2010-20105 (subprograma EDUC) Jurado, P & Justiano MD(2015), “Las conductas
disruptivas y los procesos de intervención en la educación secundaria”
Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (España) Cooperación Técnica Alemana
(Bolivia) Morazán, S. (2013). Competencias docentes y su relación=
con
el rendimiento académico en la asignatura de matemáticas en las instituci=
ones
de educación media del municipio de Danlí. Tegucigalpa: Universidad
Pedagógica Nacional "Francisco Morazán". PARA CITAR EL ARTÍCULO INDEXADO. Aguilera Leyva, M. (2020). Preferences toward Oral Corrective Feedback in EFL classrooms at ESPOCH .= Ciencia Digital, 4(4.1), 58-80. https://doi.= org/10.33262/cienciadigital.v4i4.1.1454
El artículo que se publica es de exclusiva responsabili=
dad
de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan el pensamiento de la Revista
Ciencia Digital. El artículo queda en propiedad de la revista y, por tan=
to,
su publicación parcial y/o total en otro medio tiene que ser autorizado p=
or
el director de la Revista Ciencia Digital. |
[1] Pontificia Universidad Catól=
ica
del Ecuador Sede Ambato, Ambato, Ecuador, maikel.aguilera.l@pucesa.edu.ec
www.cienciadigital.org
Vol. 4, N°4.1, p. 58-80, noviembre, 20=