A Study Of Types Of Oral Corrective Feedback Strategies Used By Efl Teachers At Secondary Schools In Duhok City / Kurdistan Region Of Iraq
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.
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.
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.
15. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
16. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18.
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
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.
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.
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.
46. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across
47. instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300
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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0] that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
AJNU is committed to protecting the privacy of the users of this journal website. The names, personal particulars and e-mail addresses entered in this website will be used only for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available to third parties without the user's permission or due process. Users consent to receive communication from the AJNU for the stated purposes of the journal. Queries with regard to privacy may be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.