Learners’ oral corrective feedback perceptions and preferences in Thai as a foreign language tertiary setting

Abstract

The goal of this research is to investigate the existence of perceptions and preferences among East Asian undergraduate students of Thai. To fill this gap, ninety-nine L2 learners having experience of studying Thai speaking courses at five universities completed an online questionnaire reporting on their recognitions and attitudes. The findings revealed that recast was the most frequently perceived strategy of oral corrective feedback (OCF) that Thai as a foreign language (TFL) students were provided. Explicit correction was the most favoured technique in TFL teaching situations. In a speech, they inclined to be provided with the error correction in private places and would like to be corrected by peers. Considering in terms of the nationalities. An analysis further suggested that some OCF opinions between Chinese and the Korean learners were similar; they tended to prefer clarification request and repetition techniques. In contrast, inattention to error, peer correction, and error correction in public were less preferable among them.

Keywords

• corrective feedback; perceptions; preferences; second language; East Asian students

Kaynakça

1. Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011). Exploring the teachers’ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859-1868. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.435
2. Alhaysony, M. (2016). Saudi EFL preparatory year students’ perception about corrective feedback in oral communication. English Language Teaching, 9(12), 47-61. doi:10.5539/let.v9n12p47
3. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060268
4. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
5. Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. doi:10.1177/1362168814563200
6. Calsiyao, I. S. (2015). Corrective feedback in classroom oral errors among Kalinga-Apayao State College students. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 3(1), 394-400.
7. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners; errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x
8. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). New York: Routledge.

9. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classroom. In H. Nasaaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 3-18). New York: Routledge.
11. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060141
12. Fanselow, J. (1977). Beyond Rasomon – conceptualizing and describing the teaching act. TESOL Quarterly, 11(1), 17-39.
13. Faqeih, H. I. (2015). Learners’ attitudes towards corrective feedback. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 664-671. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.101
14. Fu, T., & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 159-181. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.8
15. Genc, Z. S. (2014). Correction spoken errors in English language teaching: Preferences of Turkish EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Education and Science, 39(174), 259-271. doi:10.15390/EB.2014.1438
16. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom (Vol. 106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A teacher’s choices. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 31-50. doi:10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1054
18. Kirgoz, Y., & Agcam, R. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions on corrective feedback in Turkish primary schools. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 574-581. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.096
19. Lee, J. (2007). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in English immersion classrooms at the primary level in Korea. English Teaching, 62(4), 311-334. doi:10.15858/engtea.62.4.200712.311.
20. Li, H., & Iwashita, N. (2019). The role of recasts and negotiated prompts in an FL learning context in China with non-English major university students. Language Teaching Research, 1-15. doi:10.1177/1362168819839727
21. Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 275-295. doi:10.1111/modl.12315
22. Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus of form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Loh, C. Y. R., & Teo, T. C. (2017). Understanding Asian students learning styles, cultural influence and learning strategies. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 7(1), 194-210.
24. 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. doi:10.1017/S0272263197001034
25. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. doi:10.1017/S0272263104263021
26. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060128
27. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 46(1), 1-40. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365
28. Ölmezer-Öztürk, E., & Öztürk, G. (2016). Types and timing of oral corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Voices from students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 10(2), 113-133.
29. Ozmen, K. S., & Aydin, H. Ü. (2015). Examining student teachers’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: Insights from a teacher education program in Turkey. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(12), 141-164. doi:10.14221/ajte.2015v40n12.10
30. Öztürk, G. (2016). An investigation on the use of oral corrective feedback in Turkish EFL classrooms. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 22-37.
31. Panova, I, & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. doi:10.2307/3588241
32. Paulhus, D. L., Duncan, J. H., & Yik, M. S. M. (2002). Patterns of shyness in East-Asian and European-heritage students. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(5), 442-462. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00005-3
33. Sakiroglu, H. Ü. (2020). Oral corrective feedback preferences of university students in English communication classes. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 172-178.
34. Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00107
35. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research 8(3), 263–300. doi:10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
36. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392. doi:10.1191/1362168806lr203oa
37. Spada, N. (2013). Corrective feedback (oral). In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 139-142). London: Routledge.
38. Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Wang, W., & Loewen, S. (2015). Nonverbal behavior and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 459-478. doi:10.1177/1362168815577239
40. William, D. (2018). Feedback: At the heart of – but definitely not all of – formative. In A. A. Lionevich & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235-263. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990519
42. Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93. doi:10.2167/la429.0
43. Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429-439. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.01.012