Teachers’ Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback in Form-focused Language Classrooms: Why do they Correct the Way they do?

Eman Alshammari, Rachel Wicaksono


This study focuses on Saudi teachers’ motivations regarding their choice of oral corrective feedback (OCF) forms, such as recasts, elicitations, and metalinguistic feedback in foreign language (FL) contexts. Many previous studies of teachers’ choices of OCF forms, and motivations for these choices, have been conducted in more communicative contexts where recasts are most commonly used, with the aim of keeping the communication going. The current study, in contrast, aims to explore teachers’ choices of, and motivations for, OCF forms in a more accuracy-focused context. The study uses rigorous methods to investigate 207 Saudi teachers’ perceptions of OCF, including 100 classroom observations, and 100 stimulated recall (SR) sessions with 10 teachers to further investigate their choices of, and motivations for, particular types of OCF, with reference to their learners’ uptake. The findings demonstrate that the teachers consider recasts to be the most effective method of correction for their students’ learning, especially in the case of pronunciation errors, in a context where the emphasis is placed on accuracy rather than on maintaining the flow of communication. This is in contrast to previous studies of OCF in more meaning-focused contexts, where recasts were used to maintain the flow of communication. The current study concludes by offering insights into some challenges that teachers in FL contexts might face and suggests some possible implications for teachers’ practice in these contexts.


Oral Correction, Teachers’ Perception, Students’ Error, Mixed Methods, Motivations

Full Text:



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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.435.

Al-Faki, I. M., & Siddiek, A. G. (2013). Techniques Used by Teachers in Correcting Students’ Oral Errors in an Omani Boys School. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(10), 1770-1783. 10.4304/tpls.3.10.1770-1783.

Alharbi, H. (2015). Improving Students' English Speaking Proficiency in Saudi Public Schools. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1), pp. 105-116. 10.12973/iji.2015.818a.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2005). Teaching English in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Slowly but steadily changing, In Braine, G. (Ed.), Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and practice, (pp. 123-142). New York: Routledge.

Al-Seghayer, K. S. (2014a). The four most common constraints affecting English teaching in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(5), 17-26. 10.5539/ijel.v4n5p17.

Al-Seghayer, K. S. (2014b). The actuality, inefficiency, and needs of EFL teacher-preparation programs in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(1), 143-151. 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.1p.143.

Alshammari, E. (2012). An investigation into Saudi teachers’ perceptions of CLT and students’ preferences for teaching practices, (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Essex, Colchester.

Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers' stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.05.001.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200.

DeKeyser, R. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In DeKeyser, R. (Ed.), Practice in a second language (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(02), 339-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141.

Faruk, S. (2014). English Textbooks and the Objectives of ELT in Saudi Arabia: Gaps and Rationale. Scientific Bulletin of the Politehnica University of Timişoara Transactions on Modern Languages, 13(1), pp. 47-56. https://www.academia.edu/10472523/English_Textbooks_and_the_Objectives_of_ELT_in_Saudi_Arabia_Gaps_and_Rationale.

Feryok, A. (2008). "An Armenian English language teacher’s practical theory of communicative language teaching." System, 36(2), 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.004.

Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in second language acquisition, 35(1), 127-165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000708.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Harmer, J. (2003). Popular culture, methods, and context. ELT, 57(3), 288-294. 10.1093/ELT/57.3.288.

Kamiya, N. (2016). "The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback." Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 206-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.939656.

Kim, J-H., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap. In Alison, M. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, (pp. 269-297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230. 10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021.

Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (2013). "Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research." Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167-184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311200071X.

Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development: Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x

Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511-548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00427.x.

Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79. 10.1016/j.system.2014.07.012.

Safari, P. (2013). A descriptive study on corrective feedback and learners’ uptake during interactions in a communicative EFL class. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1165-1175. 10.4304/tpls.3.7.1165-1175.

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa.

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03310.

Yüksel, D., Soruç, A., & McKinley, J. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs and practices about oral corrective feedback in University EFL Classes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 362–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12336.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.11n.4p.58


  • There are currently no refbacks.

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

2012-2023 (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.