The Relationship between EFL Teachers’ Preferences of Corrective Feedback and Their Attitudes towards Communicative Language Teaching

Ali Zangoei, Ali Derakhshan

Abstract


Despite a laissez-faire approach to errors nowadays, appropriate corrective feedback makes an educational environment more communicative and effective. The present correlational study sought to scrutinize the relationship between EFL teachers’ preferences of corrective feedback (CF) and their attitudes towards principles of communicative language teaching (CLT). To do so, 108 EFL teachers completed a questionnaire containing three parts, e.g. demographic information, attitudes towards principles of CLT (24 items adopted from Chang, 2011) and CF preferences. Results of Chi Square Test confirmed the relationship between these two variables. It was also found that elicitation and metalinguistic feedback were the most frequently selected types by the participants as well as preferences of those EFL teachers who gained higher scores in CLT attitude scale. The findings can provide pedagogical implications to employ particular types of CFs in English classrooms to pave the ways for effective communication in EFL settings. 

 


Keywords


Corrective Feedback (CF); Communicative Language Teaching (CLT); EFL Teachers

Full Text:

PDF

References


Agudo, J.D.D.M. (2012). Investigating Spanish EFL students’ beliefs and preferences regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback.International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(19),121-131.

Ammar, A., &Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.

Ansarey, D. (2012). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Teachers attitude and perception in Bangladesh. ASA University Review, 6 (1),61-78.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.

Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U. (2009). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193-214.

Chang, M. (2011).EFL teachers’ attitudes toward communicative language teaching in Taiwanese college. Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles Volume, 53, 17-34.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., &Erlam, R. (2005).Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.

Fahim, M., &Montazeri, M. (2013).The impact of metalinguistic corrective feedback on EFL learners’ levels of lexical resource and grammatical range and accuracy in their oral proficiency. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4(7), 1776-1782.

Farrokhi, F. (2007). Teachers’ stated beliefs about corrective feedback in relation to their practices in EFL classes. Research on Foreign Languages Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities.49 (2),91- 131.

Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers' attitude to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50(3), 187-198.

Kartchava, E. (2006). Corrective feedback: Novice EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices. Retrieved February 2014 from: http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/8938/1/MR14169.pdf.

Krejcie, R.V.,& Morgan, D.W. (1970).Determining sample size for research activities.Educational andpsychological measurement. 30, 607-610

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 (2),309–365.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.

Lyster, R., &Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in SLA classroom research: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 265-302.

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Mai Ngoc, K., &Iwashita, N. (2012).A comparison of learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 7, 25-49.

Panova, I.,&Lyster,R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly,36,(4), 573- 595.

Rezaei, S., &Derakhshan, A.(2011). Investigating recast and metalinguistic feedback in task-based grammar instruction.Journal of Language Teaching and Research,2,(3), 655-663.

Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1),21-31.

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 and teaching (pp. 133-164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Samar, R.G.,&Shayestefar, P. (2009). Corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Learner negotiation strategies and uptake. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52(212),107-134.

Shaofeng, L. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 62(2), 309-365.

Sheen, Y.H. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Retrieved January 2014 from: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/8/3/263.abstract.

Sheen, Y. H. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.82

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2018 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.