A Study Of Types Of Oral Corrective Feedback Strategies Used By Efl Teachers At Secondary Schools In Duhok City / Kurdistan Region Of Iraq

  • Mohamed B. Kasim Al-Azzawi Department of English, College of Humanities, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region- Iraq
  • Angela O. Zaya Al-Barwari Department of English, College of Humanities, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region- Iraq

Abstract

This study aims to investigate types of oral corrective feedback strategies used by EFL teachers at secondary schools in Duhok city/Kurdistan region of Iraq. It also explores teachers’ attitudes towards the use of oral corrective feedback inside classrooms based on the three variables of gender, years of teaching experience, and the type of school (public or private). For these purposes, a classroom observation checklist was designed based on Panova and Lyster’s (2002) model of study in order to confirm the types of oral corrective feedback strategies used by the teachers, to highlight learners’ errors, and to examine the learners’ response to these strategies. Besides, a closed-ended questionnaire was distributed to the teachers to explore their attitudes about the effective use of oral corrective feedback. Fifty EFL teachers from twenty-five public and private secondary schools in Duhok were asked permission to attend their classes and observe the ways they correct their learners' errors. The data obtained from classroom observations and teachers’ responses to the questionnaire were identified, analysed quantitatively. The findings revealed that EFL teachers used different types of oral corrective feedback to learners’ errors. However, the most preferred correction strategy type used by them for correcting learners’ pronunciation errors was ‘recast’, and for grammatical errors was ‘metalinguistic explanation’. As for lexical errors, the strategy used most was ‘translation’. In terms of ‘learners’ uptake’, most of the corrective feedback provided resulted in ‘Repair’. Moreover, the study found out that EFL teachers have positive attitudes towards the use of oral corrective feedback. There were also no significant differences in their responses based on the three variables of gender, years of teaching experience and the type of school.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
2. Press.
3. Allwright, R. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics,
4. 5(2), 156-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.2.156
5. Allwright, R. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied
6. Linguistics, 5(2), 156-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.2.156
7. Alzeebaree, Y., Ahmed , H. & Hasan, I. (2018). Oral corrective feedback: Investigating Kurdish high school
8. teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(6), 115-119.
9. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n6p115
10. Bartram, M. & Walton, R. (1991). Correction: A positive approach to language mistakes. Hove,
11. England: Cengage.
12. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
13. Burt, M. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53-63.
14. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586012
15. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
16. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18.
17. https://dx.doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
18. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). London: Longman.
19. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
20. Hendrickson, J. (1978) Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent, theory, research,
21. and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398.https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/326176
22. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, England: Oxford
23. University Press.
24. Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT
25. Journal, 44(4), 94-304. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294
26. Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal,
27. 66(2), 140-149. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
28. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, England: Oxford University
29. Press.
30. Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
31. communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 20, 37-66.
32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197001034
33. Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms.
34. Language Teaching, 46(01), 1-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
35. Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An
36. exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35-66.
37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00210
38. Mendez, E. H., Cruz, M. R. (2012) Teachers’ perception about oral corrective feedback and their practice
39. in EFL classrooms. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75. Retrieved
40. from http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902012000200005
41. Panova, I. and R. Lyster (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL
42. classroom. TESOL Quarterly. 36 (4), 573-595. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588241
43. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the
44. organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.
45. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041
46. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across
47. instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300
48. https://dx.doi.org/10.1191%2F1362168804lr146oa
49. Ur, P. (1991). A course in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50. Westberg, J. & Hilliard, J. (2001). Fostering reflection and providing feedback: Helping others learn from experience. New York, NY: Springer.
Published
2020-07-17
How to Cite
KASIM AL-AZZAWI, Mohamed B.; ZAYA AL-BARWARI, Angela O.. A Study Of Types Of Oral Corrective Feedback Strategies Used By Efl Teachers At Secondary Schools In Duhok City / Kurdistan Region Of Iraq. Academic Journal of Nawroz University, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 3, p. 129-142, july 2020. ISSN 2520-789X. Available at: <http://journals.nawroz.edu.krd/index.php/ajnu/article/view/770>. Date accessed: 08 aug. 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.25007/ajnu.v9n3a770.
Section
Articles