Male and Female Students’ Preferences on the Oral Corrective Feedback in English as Foreign Language (EFL) Speaking Classroom
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v10i1.5248Keywords:
male students, female students, student preferences, oral corrective feedback, OCF, EFL, speaking classroomAbstract
This research aimed at investigating the male and female students’ preferences on the six types of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF). This qualitative research used observation and interview to collect data. The observation was done to know the practice of the six types of OCF in speaking class and the interview was conducted to reveal the students’ preferences for OCF. The result from the observation shows that the lecturer mostly uses Explicit Correction to correct the students’ error. Then, the result from the interview indicates that male students prefer to have Explicit Correction because this type is the easiest type to know the error and correction clearly. Whereas the female students prefer to have Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback because Recast does not encourage them and Metalinguistic Feedback can make them think critically under the lecturer’s clue. Subsequently, both male and female students perceive Clarification Request and Repetition as the ambiguous type to grasp what the lecturer’s mean. The result of this current research is expected to provide an additional information about the practice of OCF strategies in speaking classroom which is appropriate with the students’ preferences.
Plum Analytics
References
Alamri, B., & Fawzi, H. (2016). Students’ preferences and attitude toward oral error correction techniques at Yanbu University College, Saudi Arabia. English Language Teaching, 9(11), 59–66. https://doi.
org/10.5539/elt.v9n11p59.
Anggraeni, W. (2012). The characteristics of teacher’s feedback in the speaking activities of the grade nine students of SMP N 2 Depok (Undergraduate Thesis). Yogyakarta: Yogyakarta State University.
Behroozi, B., & Karimnia, A. (2017). Educational context and ELT teachers’ corrective feedback preference: Public and private school teachers in focus. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(2), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.2.10.
Carvalho, C., Santos, J., Conboy, J., & Martins, D. (2014). Teachers’ feedback: Exploring differences in students’ perceptions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.351.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. California: SAGE Publications.
Elçin, Ö., & 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.
Fitriana, R., Suhatmady, B., & Setiawan, I. (2016). Students’ preferences toward corrective feedbacks on students’ oral production. Script Journal: Journal of Linguistic and English Teaching, 1(1), 46-60. https://doi.org/10.24903/sj.v1i1.17.
Harward, S., Peterson, N., Korth, B., Wimmer, J., Wilcox, B., Morrison, T. G., Black, S., Simmerman, S., & Pierce, L. (2014). Writing instruction in elementary classrooms: Why teachers engage or do not engage students in writing. Literary Research and Instruction, 53(3), 205–224.
Havnes, A., Simth, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvisgen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21–27.
Jabu, B., Noni, N., Talib, A., & Syam, A. (2017). Lecturers’ use of corrective feedback and students’ uptake in an Indonesian EFL context. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 82–87.
Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289–305.
Khorshidi, E., & Rassaei, E. (2013). The effects of learners’ gender on their preferences for corrective feedback. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 1(4), 71–83.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper & Row.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liskinasih, A. (2016). Corrective feedbacks interaction in CLT-adopted classrooms. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i1.2662.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Third Edition). California: SAGE Publications.
Milicev, J. (2014). Correct me if i’m wrong, but do it right: Error correction and learner uptake in university level EFL classrooms. Athens Journal of Philology, 1(4), 259–271.
Motlagh, L. N. (2015). Iranian EFL teachers’ preferences for corrective feedback types, implicit vs explicit. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 364–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.052.
Mungungu-Shipale, S. S., & Kangira, J. (2017). Lecturers’ and students’ perceptions and preferences about ESL corrective feedback in Namibia: Towards an intervention model. World Journal of English
Language, 7(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v7n1p11.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Hodder Education.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241.
Papangkorn, P. (2015). SSRUIC students’ attitude and preference toward error corrections. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1841–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.244.
Park, G. (2010). Preference of corrective feedback approaches perceived by native English teachers and students. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(4), 29–52.
Rastegar, M., & Homayoon, H. (2012). EFL learners’ preferences for error correction and its relationship with demotivation and language proficiency in the Iranian context. Issues in Language Teaching, 1(2),
-341.
Russel, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131–164). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Sopin, G. (2015). Perceptions and preferences of ESL students regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback in Libyan secondary schools. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(4), 71–77.
Suryoputro, G., & Amaliah, A. (2016). EFL students’ responses on oral corrective feedbacks and uptakes in speaking class. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(5), 73–80.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x.
Walt, W. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit micro speech. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistic.
Xia, X. (2013). Gender differences in using language. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(8), 1485–1489. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.8.1485-1489.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0.
Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (Fourth Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhao, W. (2015). Learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback and their effects on second language noticing and learning motivation (Master Thesis). Montreal: McGill University.
Zhu, H. (2010). An analysis of college students’ attitudes towards error correction in EFL context. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p127.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - Share Alike that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. 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.
c. 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.
USER RIGHTS
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA)
