https://doi.org/10.37815/rte.v35n3.1076
Original articles
Percepción de los estudiantes universitarios de inglés como lengua
extranjera sobre la corrección oral inmediata en dos instituciones privadas
costarricenses
Graciela
Ferreiro Santamaria=
1
1Uni=
versidad
graciela.ferreiro@ulatina.net =
Sent: <=
/span>2023/09/26 Accepted: 2023/12/14 Published: 2023/12/30
Abstract
Summary: Introductio=
n, Research
Design and Method, Results and Discussion and Conclusions and Implicat=
ions. How to cite: Ferreiro, G=
. (2023).
EFL University Students’ Perception of Immediate Oral Corrective Feedb=
ack
in Two Costa Rican Private Institutions. Revista
Tecnológica - Espol, 35(3), 181-192.
In
recent years, there has been extensive research focusing on oral corrective
feedback (CF), an essential aspect of English as a second/foreign language
(ESL/EFL) learning from the teachers' and the linguists' point of view, but
very little on the students' perspective. Most higher education programs in
Latin America make great efforts to reinforce their EFL programs because of=
the
language's relevance to most professional development. Aiming to contribute=
to
improving strategies for corrective feedback that foster better oral
communication, this research gathers learners' insight about oral corrective
feedback given by teachers in EFL courses at two private universities from =
San
Jose, Costa Rica. This research is descriptive, transversal and quantitativ=
e in
nature. The data collection required the implementation of an online
questionnaire, which was answered voluntarily by 160 A1/A2 students of the =
EFL
program from these universities. They were interrogated on their general
attitude towards CF and the importance they give to it, the frequency with
which they like to receive feedback, which type of errors they consider sho=
uld
be corrected and the preference for error correction from a selection of se=
ven
standard error correction types. The obtained results demonstrate positive
perceptions regarding the feedback received from teachers on all types of
errors. The participants expressed a desire to be permanently corrected when
there is a deviance in grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation. The preferred
method of corrective feedback was explicit correction, followed by recast a=
nd
clarification; metalinguistic correction and non-verbal cues were the least
liked. The findings corroborate the necessity to include oral corrective
feedback on grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation as expected by the studen=
ts.
=
Keywords: c=
orrective
feedback, perception of feedback, frequency of feedback, type of corrective
feedback.
Resumen
En los últimos años, ha habido una amplia investiga=
ción
centrada en la realimentación correctiva oral (CF), un aspecto esencial en =
el
aprendizaje del inglés como segunda lengua/lengua extranjera (ESL/EFL) desd=
e el
punto de vista de los profesores y los lingüistas, pero muy poco desde la
perspectiva de los estudiantes. La mayoría de los programas de educación
superior en América Latina hacen grandes esfuerzos para reforzar sus progra=
mas
de EFL debido a la relevancia del idioma para la mayoría del desarrollo pro=
fesional.
Con el objetivo de contribuir a mejorar las estrategias de realimentación
correctiva que promueven una mejor comunicación oral, esta investigación re=
coge
la percepción de los estudiantes sobre la realimentación correctiva oral da=
da
por los profesores en los cursos de EFL en dos universidades privadas de San
José, Costa Rica. Esta investigación es de carácter descriptivo, transversa=
l y
cuantitativo. La recolección de datos requirió la aplicación de un cuestion=
ario
en línea, el cual fue respondido voluntariamente por 160 estudiantes A1/A2 =
del
programa EFL de estas universidades. Se interrogó sobre su actitud general
hacia la CF y la importancia que le conceden, la frecuencia con la que les
gusta recibir realimentación, qué tipo de errores consideran que deberían
corregirse y la preferencia por la corrección de errores de entre una selec=
ción
de siete tipos estándar. Los resultados obtenidos demuestran percepciones
positivas respecto a la realimentación recibida de los profesores sobre todo
tipo de errores. Los participantes expresaron su deseo de ser corregidos
permanentemente cuando se produce una desviación en la gramática, el
vocabulario o la pronunciación. El método preferido de realimentación
correctiva fue la corrección explícita, seguida de recast y la
clarificación; la corrección metalingüística y las señales no verbales fuer=
on
las que menos gustaron. Los resultados corroboran la necesidad de incluir
comentarios correctivos orales sobre gramática, vocabulario y pronunciación,
tal y como esperan los estudiantes.
Introduction
The topic of feedback and error correction has been debated extensiv= ely by second language teachers and researchers for decades. While some schools= of thought, like Behaviorism, saw errors as something negative and recommended immediate correction, other experts such as Krashen (1982) and Truscott (19= 99) have argued its limited contribution to language acquisition. With the emergence of communicative approaches, errors are seen as evidence of learn= ers' linguistic development, not as an obstacle to avoid (Rezaei et al., 2011).<= o:p>
Whether or not to correct students' oral errors and how to do so is a
constant concern for most EFL teachers. Even though errors in oral performa=
nce
are expected in the classroom as part of the natural acquisition process (E=
dge,
1989, as cited by Eyengho & Fawole, 2017, p=
.46),
there is also a general sense that teachers must promote good communication=
in
their students.
Most of the literature about strategies for corrective feedback is b=
ased
on teachers' and linguists' criteria. For example, extensive research has
examined the values of corrective feedback, revealing that it has a positive
role in L2 learners' language development (Russell & Spada, 2006; Mackey
& Goo, 2007; Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster et al., 2013; <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Nassaji, 2016 as mentioned by Ha & Nguyen, 2021; =
Tavacoli, & Nourollah=
, 2015).
Most investigations have explored facilitators' perspectives on oral
correction and the correlation between their pedagogical practices and
learners' learning preferences (Ha & Nguyen, 2021; Inci-Kavak, V., 2019=
; Tsuneyasu, 2016; Kahir, 2015; Tomczyk, 2013; Cathcart=
&
Olsen, 1976; Hawkey, 2006; McCargar, 1993; Oladejo, 1993; Peacock, 2001;
Schulz, 1996, 2001 all cited by Katayama 2007;). Most of them have revealed=
a
mismatch. On the other hand, learners' opinions and preferences for error
correction seem to be disregarded (Oladejo,1993).
As error signaling could cause some anxiety in learners, thus increa=
sing
the affective filter, this research aims to examine students' perception to=
ward
immediate oral corrective feedback to contribute to developing their
communicative skills. The main objective of this study is to describe the
attitude of EFL students and their perception towards immediate oral correc=
tive
feedback employed by language teachers in private university classroom
situations.
Literature review
Errors
In 1967, Corder introduced the distinction betw=
een
systematic and non-systematic errors; he indicated that “errors of performa=
nce
are considered as mistakes, reserving the term error to refer to the system=
atic
errors of the learner from which we can reconstruct his knowledge of the
language to date” (Corder, 1967, p. 167).
Addressing every single error made in the class=
room
would be useless and time-consuming. The purpose of correction is to make s=
ure
that incorrect structures, vocabulary, and pronunciation are not construed =
as
appropriate by learners. Four major categories are described regarding the =
type
of errors made in EFL classrooms.
a) Grammatical (morpho-syntactic) errors, which, according to Nancy Lee
(1991), are tackled by teachers who tend to emphasize grammatical accuracy =
and
to provide immediate corrective treatment to morpho-syntactic errors.
b) Discourse errors, especially in spoken discourse, are analyzed to
promote accurate communication without undermining the learners’ confidence.
So, feedback is usually provided at the end of the speech.
c) Phonologically induced errors are, as the term suggests, pronunciati=
on
and/or intonation errors. This type of error is a sensible area where
fossilization tends to take place and where there is a risk of communication
breakdown if the unattended error is severe enough to affect intelligibilit=
y.
d) Lexical errors: Like morpho-syntactic errors, lexical errors are
habitually corrected by teachers, as they are easily pointed out and usually
are significant in the conveyance of meaning (Lee, 1991).
Only grammatical, lexical, and phonological err=
ors
were considered for this investigation since delayed feedback was not the
primary concern.
Corrective
feedback
There are several ways to approach corrective
feedback. Yang and Lyster (2010, p. 237) defined corrective feedback as &qu=
ot;a
reactive type of form-focused instruction which is considered to be effecti=
ve
in promoting noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning" (as cited by
Milla Melero 2011, p. 20).
Suzuki (2004) defined corrective feedback as a
pedagogical technique teachers use to draw attention to students' erroneous
utterances with the intention of modified output (cited by Lee, 2013).
Undeniably, this complex phenomenon serves seve=
ral
functions (Chaudron, 1988, cited by Tavacoli &a=
mp; Nourollah, 2016). The most evident one is showing the
learners, who might need to be made aware of the situation, that there is a
problem in their production. Corrective feedback helps the teachers provide
scaffolding and improves the learners' use of the L2. Past research has sho=
wn
that giving feedback effectively contributes to learners' grammatical,
morphological, and phonological development (Carroll & Swain, 1993;
DeKeyser, 1993; Havranek & Cesnik, 2003; Rosa & Leow, 2004 as cited=
by
Tavakoli & Nourollah, 2016).
Types of
corrective feedback
Lyster and Randa (1997) have distinguished six
types of oral corrective feedback. The first is explicit correction, which
refers to a clear indication that the word or utterance is incorrect and the
provision of the correct form. The second form is recast, which involves the
teacher reforming the part or all of the student's utterance minus the erro=
r.
The third type is clarification request, when instructors indicate to learn=
ers
either that the teacher has misunderstood their utterance or that the utter=
ance
is ill-formed in some way. Usually, this involves using a question for
clarification, thus its name. The fourth type, elicitation, refers to three
techniques that professors use to elicit the correct form from the student
directly: 1) teachers elicit completion of their utterance by strategically
pausing to allow students to "fill in the blank"; 2) teachers use questions to elicit cor=
rect
forms (e.g., "how do you say…?"),
and 3) teachers occasionall=
y ask
students to reformulate their utterances. The fifth type of error correctio=
n is
repetition, which refers to the instructors' repetition of the erroneous
utterance, usually adjusting their intonation to highlight the error. Final=
ly,
metalinguistic feedback contains either comments, information, or questions
related to the correctness of the student's utterance without explicitly gi=
ving
the correct form.
Metalinguistic information generally provides
grammatical metalanguage that refers to the nature of the error (e.g., &quo=
t;An
adjective is needed") or a word definition for lexical errors. In addition to the preceding six feedb=
ack
types, the authors included a seventh category called multiple feedback, wh=
ich
referred to combinations of more than one type of feedback in one teacher's
turn (Lyster & Randa, 1997).
For this investigation, the combination of types
was not considered. A seventh option for corrective feedback was included in
the survey: using non-verbal cues to indicate a problem with the utterance,=
the
words used, or the pronunciation of a word. Professors often shake their he=
ads,
signal a no with their fingers, or frown their eyebrows as an indication of
error, expecting the learners to react and self-correct the problem. Delayed
feedback was not taken into consideration for this investigation.
Attitudes
and perception
Attitude, according to Dr. Pickens (2020), “is a
mindset or a tendency to act in a particular way due to both an individual’s
experience and temperament” (p.44). Generally, attitudes are described as
positive or negative towards an issue. Attitude surveys are usually designed
using 5-point Likert-type (“strongly agree–strongly disagree”) or frequency
(“never–very often”) response formats (Pickens, 2020).
On the other hand, Pickens considered that
perception is closely related to attitude, which, as explained by Lindsay a=
nd
Norman (1977), is “a process by wh=
ich
organisms interpret and organize sensations to produce a meaningful experie=
nce
of the world” (as cited by Pickens, 2020 p. 52).
Studies such as Schultz’s (1996) done on foreign
language students at a higher-education level and Anker’s (2000), which
expanded over four years (as cited by Gutierrez et al. 2020, pp. 12-13) have
found that most of the learners have a positive attitude towards error
correction.
Ryan’s (2012) research
revealed that survey respondents complained about the eventual absence of
correction because that would deprive them of learning (cited by Gutierrez =
et
al. 2020, p. 13).
<= o:p>
Rese=
arch
Design and Method
This is descriptive
research aiming at addressing the following research questions:
=
1. What is the general attitude toward oral correcti=
ve
feedback among EFL students in two Costa Rican private universities?
2. To what extent do students prefer to be corrected=
?
=
4. What are the students’ preferences for types of e=
rror
correction methods?
=
5. Do students perceive corrective feedback as effec=
tive
for the improvement of oral communication?
The data collection to=
ok
place from August 2022 to February 2023 and the participants were 160
university EFL students ranging from 18 to over 40 years of age who were at=
the
time taking one of the courses of the program offered by two private univer=
sities
as part of the curricula for majors not related to education. All of the
participants’ native language is Spanish and their level of proficiency is
A1/A2. The sample represents the students who were willing to participate in
the on-line survey voluntarily.
Instrument
The instrument was app=
lied
to all the participants in their native language (Spanish) to avoid
misunderstanding. Because classes were conducted mainly remotely, the
instrument was digital (See appendix 1).
The first section includes general information about the learners’
background such as gender, age group, major and course level.
The second section
addressed research questions 1, 2 and 5 about the students’ general opinion=
s on
the correction of oral errors in the classroom and its effectiveness. The section contained five statements:
whether or not learner errors should be corrected, how students feel when t=
hey
are corrected, and when learner errors should be corrected (i.e., constantly or selectively)=
. The
participants were asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreeme=
nt
using a Likert scale from 1 to 5.
The third section
addressed research question 3 and asked about students’ preferences for
classroom error correction of different aspects of the language, such as
grammar, phonology, and vocabulary. Instead of the term phonology, the words
“pronunciation, and intonation,” were used in the questionnaire. Participan=
ts
rated each item on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing never and 5
representing always with respect to frequency of correction.
The last section addre=
ssed
research question 4 and asked learners to rate eight different methods of e=
rror
correction frequently used by EFL teachers. The rating for students’ opinio=
ns
about each method was measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 represent=
ing
bad to 5 representing excellent.
The instrument was
validated through expert judgement (Esc=
obar-Pérez&
Cuervo-Martínez, 2008).
<= o:p>
Most of the
participants were young adults ranging from 18 to 25 years old; 56,9% were
female, 44,5% male and 0.6% identified as non-binary, who were at the time =
A1
/A2 level (CEFR) at a private university in San Jose, Costa Rica.
Figure 1<= o:p>
Students’ opin=
ion
about the importance of oral corrective feedback in the classroom
The overall at=
titude
of the participants to corrective feedback, as seen in Figure 1<=
!--[if gte mso 9]>
Figure 2<= o:p>
S=
tudents’
opinion about corrective feedback contributing to the improvement of their
proficiency
Figure 3
Students’ opinion on the frequency of error correction
Regarding the frequency of correction (Figure 3), 91% of the participants considered that
teachers should always correct oral production. This seems to confirm the i=
dea
that learners are expecting some corrective feedback, and they perceive it =
as
part of the learning process.
Figure 4
Students’ opinion on the amount of correction
As seen in Figure 4, 87% reported their desire to have all t=
he
mistakes corrected which is later confirmed in the following question about
which type of errors should be corrected (figure 6).
In terms of the moment of correction, displayed in Figure 5, 78% of the participants agreed that the
correction should be immediate, 13% disagreed or strongly disagreed and 10%
were neutral. This seems to be
consistent with Alamri and Fauwzi’s (2016) rese=
arch
in Saudi Arabia which pointed out that “the majority of students prefer
immediate correction for all types of errors including fluency and accuracy
errors.” (p. 63). Ananda et.al (20=
17)
also conclude that students' preference for oral error corrective feedback =
in
the classroom is immediately when the error is committed.
Figure 5
Students’ opinion on the time of correction
On the other hand, Tomczyk’s study (2013) done with secondary schools
and technical colleges where English is taught as a foreign language in Pol=
and
revealed that 45,2% of the students preferred immediate correction
(p.928). The discrepancy may be
attributed to cultural aspects or maturity of the learners.
The questionnaire also gathered
the opinion about which aspect requires more attention, grammar,
vocabulary, or pronunciation. The results were very similar, as can be obse=
rved
in Figure 6. Grammar and vocabulary have 57.6% and
pronunciation has 59.7%. Tomczyk’s=
study
(2013) revealed that 64.4% of learners considered pronunciation errors to be
more important; 57.6% grammatical errors and 39.6% lexical errors (p.927) w=
hich
seems to be consistent with the present results.
Most learners want correction in the three areas mentioned. Many teachers would be tempted to focus=
on
global errors which hinder communication and be more lenient about local
errors. But from the learners’ perspective it appears that they consider
grammar, lexicon, and phonology as equally important.
Figure 6
Student’s opinion on which errors require more attention
This result is consistent with Oladejo’s
research (1993) in Singapore and Katayama's (2007) study in Japan as well as
Tomczyk’s study (2013) conducted in Poland.
Zhang and Rahimi (2014) looked at Iranian undergraduate students’
beliefs and found that they valued the errors influencing communication the
most, followed by frequent errors (cited in Lee, 2013 p. 2). Similar results
were obtained by Espinoza Murillo and Rodríguez Chaves (2016) in a public
university in Costa Rica.
Figure 7
Learners’ opinion about types of error
correction used by their professors
The participants of this stu=
dy were
asked to categorize seven types of error correction used by professors rati=
ng
them from bad to excellent, the six defined by Lyster and Randa (1997) and
non-verbal cues. As shown in Figure 7, the three most preferred were explicit correction (54.1% of
participant considered it excellent), recast (49.4% excellent) and
clarification (44.7% excellent) followed by elicitation (42.1% excellent).<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Metalinguistic feedback and non-verbal =
cues
were considered bad methods of giving oral feedback, while no correction was
the least preferred by the learners.
This lack of interest in metalinguistic corrective feedback could be
attributed to the level of the participants who were primarily at A1/A2. In=
beginner
levels it seems natural that students feel more comfortable when they are
directly indicated what is wrong with their utterances or given the correct
form rather than having to figure it out by themselves. Non- verbal cues co=
uld
be less obvious to the learners and therefore perceived not as effective as
other methods.
This finding is similar to w=
hat
Alamri and Fawzi (2016) reported: “recast and explicit correction were
considered helpful by the majority of students. While approximately 60% of
students reported that repetition of error and clarification request are he=
lpful
techniques. Elicitation and ignoring were the two least preferred technique=
s”
(p. 64).
Gutierrez et al (2020), on t=
he other
hand, reported that the subjects of their study in Chile preferred
metalinguistic corrective feedback in the first place, followed by recast a=
nd
explicit correction.
Lwin & Yang (2021) found=
that
Chinese EFL university learners in their study preferred elicitation the mo=
st
and metalinguistic feedback the least.
Anandaet.al.
(2017) in their study conducted with univ=
ersity
students indicated “that most of the students agree to prefer to Repetition
(65%), Elicitation (56%), Clarification Request (52%), Explicit correction
(46%), Metalinguistic Feedback (43%), and prefer for being neutral on Recast
(36%)”.
A=
s for the
first research question, related to what the general attitude toward oral
corrective feedback among EFL students in two Costa Rican private universit=
ies
is, it can be concluded that learners in this context have a positive attit=
ude
to corrective feedback, which is consistent with Gutierrez et al. (2020),
Tomczyk (2013) and Ananada et al. (2017). Students are aware of its relevan=
ce
for improvement and consider it essential.
<= o:p>
F=
or the
second research question, "To what extent do students prefer to be
corrected?" it can be concluded that they expect constant feedback on
grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation from their instructors. The participa=
nts
viewed all types of errors as requiring equal attention, consistent with the
results reported by Katayama in Japan (2007) and Alamri and Fawzi (2016) in
Iran.
<= o:p>
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Corrective feedback plays a vital role i=
n the
learning process, and most students want to be constantly corrected. This
aligns with the conclusions of Alamri and Fawzi (2016) in Iran, Ha and Nguy=
en
(2021) in Vietnam, Gutierrez et al (2020) in Chile, Tomczyk (2013) in Polan=
d,
Ananda et al. (2017) in Indonesia and Abarca (2008) in Costa Rica.
<= o:p>
R=
egarding
the best time for correction, most of the participants of this study indica=
ted
their desire to be given feedback when making a mistake. Similar results we=
re
reported by Abarca (2008): "However, it can be concluded from the resu=
lts
that these students feel confident if they are (1) informed about their err=
ors
and (2) allowed to correct them immediately" (p.26).
<= o:p>
R=
egarding
learners' preferences towards a specific approach or corrective feedback,
explicit correction is the best evaluated, followed by recast and
clarification. This finding indicates that beginner-level learners favor a =
more
direct approach to feedback and are less responsive to more subtle forms of
error indication.
<= o:p>
U=
nderstandably,
students will react more positively to clear indications of errors, which do
not leave room for doubt or confusion. This reaction is aligned with Alamri=
and
Fawzi's (2016) and Abarca's (2008) findings. Furthermore, Tavakoli and Zarrinabadi (2016) reported that explicit corrective
feedback leads to lower anxiety in students.
<= o:p>
P=
rofessors
need to seriously consider the use of oral corrective feedback, considering=
the
learners' needs and expectations, not just their professional criteria. As
suggested by Espinoza and Rodriguez (2016), it would be advisable to inform=
the
students about the corrective techniques to be applied.
<= o:p>
F=
urther
research might explore more advanced students' perspectives on oral correct=
ive
feedback as they might have different preferences. The students' background=
and
level of competence in the language can influence the preference for correc=
tive
methods.
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
Refe=
rences
Abarca Amad=
or, Y.(Enero-julio 2008) Learner attitudes toward error corr=
ection
in a beginners English class Revista Comunicación,
Aguilera Le=
yva, M.
(Nov 12, 2020) Preferences toward Oral Corrective Feedback in EFL classroom=
s at
ESPOCH . Ciencia Digital, 4(4.1), 58-80. https://doi.org/10.33262/cienciad=
igital.v4i4.1.1454
Alamri, B.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> & Fawzi, H. (2016) Students’ Prefer=
ences
and Attitude toward Oral Error Correction Techniques at Yanbu University
College, Saudi Arabia. English Language Teaching, Vol. 9, No. 11, 59-65.
Ananda, D. =
R., Febriyanti, E. R., Yamin, M., & Mu'in,
F. (2017). 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, 7(3), 176-186.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.070=
3.03
Corder, S.P=
(Nov.
1967) The Significance of Learners’ Errors. IRAL International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Vol. 4, 161-170.
Escobar-Pérez, J. & Cuervo-Mart=
ínez, A.
(2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: una aproximación a su
utilización. Avances en Medición, 6, 27-36.
Espinoza Murillo, L. & Rodríguez
Chaves, J.D. (2016) Corrective Feedback in Conversation Courses at C=
EIC,
Alajuela Site. Revista de Lenguas Modernas, N° 24, 2016, 295-316.
Eyengho, T. & Fawole,O.
(2017) Students’ Attitude towards Oral Error Correction Techniques Employed=
by
Secondary School Language Teachers in South Western Nigeria. Journal of Soc=
ial
Science for Policy Implications, June 2017, Vol. 5, No. 1, 46-51. DOI: 10.15640/10.15640/jsspi.v5n1a5
Gutiérrez, A., Arancibia, C., Busto=
s, C.,
Mora, F., Santibáñez, X., & Flores, M. (2021). Students’ perceptions of=
oral
corrective feedback given by teachers in communicative approach English cou=
rses
from an EFL pedagogy program at a private university. Lenguas Modernas, (56), 9–26. Recovered from https://revistas.uchile.cl/index.=
php/LM/article/view/61507
Ha, X.V. &a=
mp;
Nguyen L.T. (June 2021) Targets and Sources of Oral Corrective Feedback in
English as a Foreign Language Classrooms: Are Students' and Teachers' Belie=
fs
Aligned? Frontiers in Psychology. =
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.202=
1.697160
Inci-Kavak,=
V. (January 2019) Exploring the Gap between
Instructors’ and Learners’ Preferences about Error Correction. ELT. Journal=
of
Theoretical Educational Science, 13(1), 116-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.537175
Junfei Li, & =
Dingliang Tan, ( 2022)
Resurveying Corrective Feedback Meta-Analysis, Mobile Information
Systems, vol. 2022, Article ID 3444160, 9 pages, =
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3444160=
Katayama A. (2007) Japanese EFL Students`
Preferences toward Correction of Classroom Oral Errors. The Asian EFL
Journal, 9(4), 289-305.
Krashen, S.=
D.
(1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Lee, E. ( J=
une,
2013) Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL
Students. Science Direct, 41(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
Lee, N. (19=
91)
Notions of “error” and appropriate corrective treatment. Hong Kong Papers in
Linguistic and Language Teaching, v14, 55-70 =
https://www.semanticscholar.org/p=
aper/NOTIONS-OF-%27ERROR%27-AND-APPROPRIATE-CORRECTIVE-Lee-Baptist/27698674=
ccdeb7d4bf8b80ce2fe5761ca516f791
Lizazi-Mbanga, B. &
Mapulanga, P. (Aug 2021) Factors that influence attitudes to and perception=
s of
public libraries in Namibia: user experiences and non-user attitudes. SA
Lorincz, K =
(2014)
L2 Learner Perceptions of Interactional Feedback, 1: Vol. 3 , Article 10.
Available at: https://repository.stcloudstate.e=
du/stcloud_ling/vol3/iss1/10
Lwin, S. M.=
, &
Yang, D. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in a chinese=
university EFL classroom context. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 18(2),
32-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.52696/WIVS9084
Lyster, R.,=
&
Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of fo=
rm
in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1),
37-66.
Milla Meler=
o, R
(2011) Corrective feedback in oral interaction:
A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. Master Thesis. Universi=
dad
Pais Vasco.
Oladejo J. =
(1993)
Error correction in ESL Learners` preferences. TESL Canada Journal, (10)2,
71-89.
Pickens, J.=
(2020)=
Attitudes and Perceptions Chapter 3
in Borkowski, N. and Meese, K.A., 2020. Organizational behavior in
health care. Jones & Bartlett Learning . https://pdf4pro.com/view/attitude=
s-and-perceptions-jblearning-com-45ed70.html
Rezaei, S.,
Mozaffari, F., & Hatef, A. (March 2011) Corrective Feedback in SLA:
Classroom Practice and Future Directions. International Journal of English
Linguistics.1(1).
Tavacoli, M &
Tomczyk, E.
(September 2013) Perceptions of Oral Errors and Their Corrective Feedback:
Teachers vs. Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, N=
o.
5, pp. 924-931.
Truscott, J.
(1999). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Lang=
uage
Review, 55(4), 437-456. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.4.437
Tsuneyasu, M. (2016)
Teacher’s tendencies and Learner’s preferences regarding corrective feedback
types. International Christian University Repository.
oai:icu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004450
5
EFL University Students’
Perception of Immediate Oral Corrective Feedback in Two Costa Rican Pri=
vate
Institutions