The objective of the present research paper is to describe the beliefs and the perceptions of Tunisian EFL teachers regarding the nature and the purpose of oral corrective feedback (OCF) used in teaching speaking. The method relies on the use of a questionnaire survey which is made up of seven items. 20 EFL teachers participated in this study and they were invited to fill in the questionnaire which seeks to elicit their opinions and preferences concerning the particular type of feedback they deliver as a response to their students’ spoken errors. The results of the study found out that EFL teachers hold positive attitudes towards OCF, as the majority of the informants seem to embrace the benefits of OCF and its importance in the language learning process. However, the findings show that the respondents’ opinions concerning the timing of using OCF, its impact on developing speaking skills and on learners’ feelings and emotions vary significantly. The results also display some discrepancy in teachers’ responses to some items and reveal that the dominant types of OCF used in teaching speaking were explicit correction, recasts and elicitation.
| Published in | Communication and Linguistics Studies (Volume 5, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12 |
| Page(s) | 45-53 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2019. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Oral Corrective Feedback, Teachers’ Perceptions, Speaking, Types of Corrective Feedback
| [1] | Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research. March 2007, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 81–112. |
| [2] | Crystal, D., & Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. |
| [3] | Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63 (3), 18-24. |
| [4] | Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2012). Student Self-assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.). The SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment (pp. xx-xx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. |
| [5] | Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 153-189. |
| [6] | Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46. |
| [7] | Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53 (2), 361-382. doi: 10. 2307/413107. |
| [8] | Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46 (1), 1-40. |
| [9] | Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned? (2ND edition). Oxford. Oxford University press. |
| [10] | Russell, J., &Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. |
| [11] | Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368. |
| [12] | Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. |
| [13] | Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [14] | Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research. |
| [15] | Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum. |
| [16] | Richards, J. C., Platt, J., and Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman. |
| [17] | Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisiti, 26, 399-432. |
| [18] | Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher's treatment of error. In M. K. Burt & H. D. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education. Selected papers from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention. Washington, D. C: TESOL. |
| [19] | Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley- Blackwell. |
| [20] | Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery –based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32. 99-113. |
| [21] | Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course Third Edition). New York: Routledge. |
| [22] | Dlaska, A. & Krekeler, C. (2013). The short-term effects of individual corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. System, 41, 25–37. |
| [23] | Lyster, R and Ranta, L. (1997). ‘Oral Corrective Feedback and Student Uptake; Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms.’SSLA. pp. 44-55. |
| [24] | Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. |
| [25] | Brown, G. T. L. (2008). Conceptions of assessment: Understanding what assessment means to teachers and students. New York: Nova Science Publishers. |
| [26] | Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). New York: MacMillan. |
| [27] | Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed). New York: Open University Press. |
| [28] | Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332. |
| [29] | Rubie-Davies, C. M., Flint, A., & McDonald, L. G. (2011). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British Journal of Educational Psychology, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02025. x. |
| [30] | Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., &Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 715-737). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. |
| [31] | Shinde, M. and Karekatti, T. (2012). Re-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching English to primary school children. International Journal of Instruction, Vol. 5, No. 1, 69-86. |
| [32] | Hsieh, H-J. & Chang, S-J. (2002). Elementary school English teachers’ beliefs about EFL learning. Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching/ Fourth Pan-Asian Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 116-124). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co. Jersey: Prentice Hall. |
| [33] | Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507-535. |
| [34] | Kern, R. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28 (1), 71-85. |
| [35] | Liao, P. & Chiang, M. (2003). The study of students’ and teachers’ beliefs about English learning. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 65-76). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co. |
| [36] | Yang, N-D. (2000). What do prospective teachers think about teaching English to children? Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 556-565). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co. |
| [37] | William, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. |
| [38] | Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109. |
| [39] | Crookes, G. & Arakaki, L. (1999). Teaching idea sources and work conditions in an ESL program. TESOL Journal, 8 (1), 15-19. |
| [40] | Johnson, K. (2008). Precision Teaching. In N. Suskind (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology, 2, 809-813. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. |
| [41] | Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. |
| [42] | Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22, (4), 389-404. |
| [43] | Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. Longman Handbooks for Language Teachers. London/New York. |
| [44] | Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253), Rowley, MA: Newbury House. |
| [45] | Kosar, G. and Bedir, H. (2014). ‘Strategies- Based Instruction: A means of Improving Adult EFL Learners’ Speaking Skills.’ International Journal of Language Academy, 2/3: 16-17. |
| [46] | Sarwar, M. Ashfaque, A. S. and Mehlah Jabeen. (2014). ‘Assessing English Speaking Skills of Prospective Teachers at Entry and Graduation Level in Teacher.’ Language Testing in Asia; A Springer Open Journal, 4/5: 1. |
| [47] | Shumin, K. (2010). In Jack Richards and Willy A. Renandya (Ed.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 205-206. |
| [48] | Elsaghayer, M. (2014). ‘Affective Damage to Oral Corrective Feedback among Students in Libyan Secondary Schools. IQSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IQSR- JRME), 4/6: 76. |
APA Style
Ounis Tesnim. (2019). Tunisian EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions About Oral Corrective Feedback. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 5(2), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12
ACS Style
Ounis Tesnim. Tunisian EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions About Oral Corrective Feedback. Commun. Linguist. Stud. 2019, 5(2), 45-53. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12
AMA Style
Ounis Tesnim. Tunisian EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions About Oral Corrective Feedback. Commun Linguist Stud. 2019;5(2):45-53. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12,
author = {Ounis Tesnim},
title = {Tunisian EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions About Oral Corrective Feedback},
journal = {Communication and Linguistics Studies},
volume = {5},
number = {2},
pages = {45-53},
doi = {10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cls.20190502.12},
abstract = {The objective of the present research paper is to describe the beliefs and the perceptions of Tunisian EFL teachers regarding the nature and the purpose of oral corrective feedback (OCF) used in teaching speaking. The method relies on the use of a questionnaire survey which is made up of seven items. 20 EFL teachers participated in this study and they were invited to fill in the questionnaire which seeks to elicit their opinions and preferences concerning the particular type of feedback they deliver as a response to their students’ spoken errors. The results of the study found out that EFL teachers hold positive attitudes towards OCF, as the majority of the informants seem to embrace the benefits of OCF and its importance in the language learning process. However, the findings show that the respondents’ opinions concerning the timing of using OCF, its impact on developing speaking skills and on learners’ feelings and emotions vary significantly. The results also display some discrepancy in teachers’ responses to some items and reveal that the dominant types of OCF used in teaching speaking were explicit correction, recasts and elicitation.},
year = {2019}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Tunisian EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions About Oral Corrective Feedback AU - Ounis Tesnim Y1 - 2019/06/29 PY - 2019 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12 DO - 10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12 T2 - Communication and Linguistics Studies JF - Communication and Linguistics Studies JO - Communication and Linguistics Studies SP - 45 EP - 53 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2380-2529 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20190502.12 AB - The objective of the present research paper is to describe the beliefs and the perceptions of Tunisian EFL teachers regarding the nature and the purpose of oral corrective feedback (OCF) used in teaching speaking. The method relies on the use of a questionnaire survey which is made up of seven items. 20 EFL teachers participated in this study and they were invited to fill in the questionnaire which seeks to elicit their opinions and preferences concerning the particular type of feedback they deliver as a response to their students’ spoken errors. The results of the study found out that EFL teachers hold positive attitudes towards OCF, as the majority of the informants seem to embrace the benefits of OCF and its importance in the language learning process. However, the findings show that the respondents’ opinions concerning the timing of using OCF, its impact on developing speaking skills and on learners’ feelings and emotions vary significantly. The results also display some discrepancy in teachers’ responses to some items and reveal that the dominant types of OCF used in teaching speaking were explicit correction, recasts and elicitation. VL - 5 IS - 2 ER -
Email: