EFL Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Oral Corrective Feedback: A Case Study

Published

2019-01-01

Actitudes de los profesores de inglés como lengua extranjera hacia la retroalimentación oral correctiva: un estudio de caso

Keywords:

Corrective feedback, English as a foreign language, Mexico, oral communication, teachers’ attitudes (en)
actitudes de profesores, comunicación oral, inglés como lengua extranjera, México, retroalimentación correctiva (es)

Downloads

Authors

Lizbeth Gómez Argüelles
Edith Hernández Méndez
Moisés D. Perales Escudero

Abstract (en)
Abstract (es)

This paper reports a qualitative case study of college-level English as a foreign language teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback. Our goal is to characterize such attitudes considering a model which integrates cognitive, affective and conative components as well as different aspects of oral corrective feedback. Six English instructors working in English language teaching at a university in southern Mexico were interviewed. Directed qualitative content analysis shows that (1) participants prefer implicit corrective feedback strategies, and (2) considerations of students’ feelings guide their overall attitudes toward corrective feedback. The participants seem unaware of most corrective feedback strategies and consideration of students’ cognition is absent in the composition of their corrective feedback attitudes. This finding suggests a need for more theory-based corrective feedback training and practice.

Reportamos los resultados de un estudio de caso acerca de las actitudes de los profesores universitarios hacia la retroalimentación oral correctiva en un contexto de inglés como lengua extranjera. Perseguimos describir tales actitudes usando un modelo de actitudes que integra los componentes cognitivo, afectivo y conativo, así como diferentes aspectos de la retroalimentación correctiva oral. Un análisis cualitativo dirigido de contenido muestra que los participantes prefieren estrategias implícitas y sus conductas acerca de la retroalimentación correctiva son guiadas por preocupaciones por los sentimientos de los estudiantes. Los participantes no conocen varias estrategias de retroalimentación correctiva y no toman en cuenta aspectos cognitivos de los estudiantes. Esto sugiere la necesidad de mayor fundamentación teórica en la capacitación y práctica de la retroalimentación correctiva.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aydoğan, H. (2016). A psycholinguistics case study: A tool for measuring self-efficacy in EFL at tertiary level in Balkans. Journal of World of Turks, 8(2), 257-273.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1994a). Advanced methods of marketing research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Business.

Bagozzi, R. P. (Ed.). (1994b). Principles of marketing research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Business.

Bristi, N. L. (2015). Bangladeshi engineering EFL learners’ attitudes towards learning English: A comparison between public university and private university students. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 15(11), 6-16.

Byrnes, D. A., Kiger, G., & Manning, M. L. (1997). Teachers’ attitudes about language diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6), 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(97)80006-6.

Castro, W. (2016, March). An activity theory approach to study barriers of Faculty regarding technology integration in higher education. Paper presented at INTED2016, Valencia, Spain.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Faqeih, H. I. (2015). Learners’ attitudes towards corrective feedback. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 664-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.101.

Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007.

Firwana, S. (2010). Impact of Palestinian EFL teachers’ attitudes towards oral errors on their students’ attitudes and choice of error treatment strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Boston College, United States of America. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2345/1398.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hernández Méndez, E. & Reyes Cruz, M. R. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75.

Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C. & Baptista Lucio, P. (2006). Metodología de la investigación. Mexico, D.F.: McGraw-Hill.

Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology (4th ed.). London, UK: Prentice-Hall.

Jain, V. (2014). 3D model of attitude. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 3(3), 1-12.

Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01143.x.

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2012). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 74-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.705571.

Kavaliauskienė, G., & Anusienė, L. (2012). Case study: Learner attitudes towards the correction of mistakes. Social Technologies, 2(1), 88-101.

Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 4(1), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022.

Lee, H. (2016). Askaan: Academic accommodations network for community college faculty (Project of master’s degree). California State University, United States of America.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520.

Miranda-Calderón, N. (2013). EFL learner and teacher perspectives on corrective feedback and their effect on second language learning motivation (Master’s thesis). McGill University, Canada.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136.

Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v10i2.619.

Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2004). Consumer behaviour. New York, US: Pearson Education.

Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364. 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 grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107.

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York, US: Springer.

Sholihah, Q., & Hanafi, A. S. (2017). Prevention of nosocomial infection through application of housekeeping. International Journal of Public Health Science, 6(1), 94-98. https://doi.org/10.11591/.v6i1.6538.

Surakka, K. (2007). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in an EFL classroom (Master’s thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437- 456. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.4.437.

Tsang, W. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Regional Language Centre Journal, 35, 187-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820403500207.

Valezy, J. R., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam, NL: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.09val.

Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421- 443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375365.

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93. https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0.

Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01022.x.

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You are authorized to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format as long as you give appropriate credit to the authors of the articles and to Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development as original source of publication. The use of the material for commercial purposes is not allowed. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

Authors retain the intellectual property of their manuscripts with the following restriction: first publication is granted to Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development.