Oral Corrective Feedback: Kurdish EFL Students’ Preferences and Attitudes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53103/cjess.v2i5.71Keywords:
Oral Corrective Feedback, Kurdish EFL Learners’ Attitudes, Errors and MistakesAbstract
The present study aimed to assess the learners’ attitudes and preferences concerning the provision of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) for effective learning of a second language. The study utilized a sample of 51 Kurdish EFL undergraduates as respondents. For this purpose, the data were collected using an attitudinal questionnaire. Therefore, since the collected data were numeric, they were subjected to quantitative analysis. Then for a clearer understanding of the participants’ responses, the collected data were analyzed in percentage using SPSS. The findings figured out that most participants showed positive attitudes towards OCF and regarded it as an effective tool for better learning. It is also discovered that many of them prefer the teacher to provide the correction rather than self or peer correction. In terms of the timing, it is indicated that a significant number of participants chose to be corrected after they are being finished with the speech. Regarding the types of OCF, the study established that the participants were in preference of explicit correction rather than implicit strategies, which is surprising.
Downloads
References
Abukhadrah, A.Q. (2012). Arab male students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback: A case study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. the Patton College of Education of Ohio University, 140-155.
Ababakr, A. (2022). Global trade governance and WTO: Beyond the model of the club. Asian Social Science, 18(2), 32-44. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v18n2p32
Altun, M., & Sabah, R. (2020). The effect of cooperative learning strategies in the enhancement of EFL learners’ speaking skills. Asian EFL Journal, 27(2), 144-171.
Ali, F.S. (2021). Overlap and repair of turn-taking system during collaborative oral peer-feedback in an EFL writing course. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 8(2), 128-134.
Alamri, B., & Fawzi, H. H. (January 01, 2016). Students’ preferences and attitude toward oral error correction techniques at Yanbu University College, Saudi Arabia. English Language Teaching, 9(11), 59-66.
Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice approaches. Forum, 38(4), 20-25. (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ahmad, R. A., Barzani, S. H. H., Meena, R. S., & Ali, H. F. (2021) Common problems in translation of political texts: The case of English and Kurdish Languages. Canadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 1(2), 11-23.
Aslam, M. Z., Barzani, S.H. H., Aslam, T., & Rasool, U. (2021). teachers and students perceptions towards online esl classrooms during Covid-19: An empirical study in North Cyprus. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(4), 1071-1525.
Ananda, D. R., Febriyanti, E. R., Yamin, M., & Mu’in, F. (March 01, 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.
Altun, M. (2015). The integration of technology into foreign language teaching. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(1), 22-27.
Barzani, S. H., Aslam, M. Z., & Aslam, T. (2021). The role of technology in ELL Classes in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. IJOLE-International Journal of Language Education, 5(2), 30-39.
Babanoğlr, M. P., & Ağçam, R. (2015). Explicit and implicit types of corrective feedback in Turkish primary education. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 3(2), 126-132.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-163.
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514.
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.
Faqeih, I. H. (2015). Learners’ Attitudes towards Corrective Feedback. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 664-671.
Fuad, H. A., & Ulker, V. (2020). The effect of inquiry-based approach on the development of reading and writing skills of university EFL students. Asian EFL Journal, 27(2.3), 84-100.
Fateme, S. (2017). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions and preferences for oral corrective feedback: Do they match? International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(4), 32-44.
Genç, Z. S. (2014). Correcting spoken errors in English language teaching: Preferences of Turkish EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Egitim ve Bilim, 39, 259–271.
Gómez, A. L., Hernández, M. E., & Perales, E. M. D. (2019). EFL teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback: A Case Study. Profile Issues in Teachers` Professional Development, 21(1), 107-120.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 387–398.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kanar, Z. H. C., & Lanja, A. D. (2020). The effects of embedded learning on students’ performance in EFL classes, foundation year, college of education, Tishk international university. Qalaai Zanist Journal, 5(1), 353–383.
Keshavarz, M. H. (2015). Contrastive analysis & error analysis (Revised Edition). Tehran: Rahnama Press.
Lizbeth, G. A., Edith, H. M., & Moisés, D. P. E. (2019). EFL teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback: A case study. Profile Issues in Teachers` Professional Development, 21(1), 107-120.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. M. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1977). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition, 2, (pp. 413-468). Second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (1990). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177-193.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, Leila. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. McGill University.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 79–103.
Osei, M., Adom. D., Twene, A., & Tetteh, N. (2021). Burnout syndrome during the covid-19 pandemic among visual art teachers in Ghana. Studies in Learning and Teaching (SiLeT), 2(3), 115-129.
Sadiq, D. A. (2022). The function of code-switching in EFL classroom at Tishk International University. International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, 9(2), 219-229.
Pasaribu, M. A., Suprapto, N. (2020). Experiences in Chinese class for Indonesian elementary students in Taiwan. Studies in Learning and Teaching (SiLeT), 1(1), 12-17
Tomczyk, E. (2013). Perceptions of oral errors and their corrective feedback: Teacher’s vs students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(5), 927-929.
Tasdemir, M. S., Arslan, F. Y., & Khajavi, Y. (2018). Feedback preferences of EFL learners concerning their learning styles. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1-17
Ünsal, Ş. H. (2020). Oral corrective feedback preferences of university students in English communication classes. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 172-178.
Ulker, V. (2017). The design and use of speaking assessment rubrics. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(32), 135-141.
Yasen, M. (2016). Effect of corrective feedback on writing accuracy of SSC level EFL students in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 13(2), 1-27.
Rasool, U., Aslam, M. Z., Qian, J., & Barzani, S. H. H. (2022). The effects of online supervisory feedback on student-supervisor communications during the covid-19. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 1569-1579. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.3.1569
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., & Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective feedback in SLA: Classroom practice and future directions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 22-24.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G., & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.
Jain, V. (2014). 3d model of attitude. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 3(3), 1-12.
Zhang, L., & Ma, L. (2010). A brief analysis of corrective feedback in oral interaction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 287-307.
Zirak, H. C. K. (2021). Embodied learning implementation in EFL classroom: A qualitative study. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 8(1), 51-58.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Sami Hussein Barzani, Muhammad Zammad Aslam, Hewa Fouad Ali
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published by CJESS are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This license permits third parties to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon the original work provided that the original work and source is appropriately cited.
