Learners' Proficiency Level and Teachers' Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback: Orientation versus Implementation

Document Type : Original Article


1 Nahavand Higher Education Complex, Buali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

2 Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch



The question of whether oral corrective feedback (CF) produces a positive impact on linguistic development has been the focus of recent interaction research. Despite the large body of knowledge in this regard, few studies have investigated the factors teachers take into account in correction particularly learners’ proficiency level. Accordingly, observations and interviews were used to examine Iranian EFL teachers’ attitude to oral CF and the role of proficiency level in their correction. Teachers’ preferences were compared with their actual practice to find the areas of mismatch and the possible reasons behind these mismatches. The participants included four observed and 26 non-observed teachers and their learners who were from two proficiency groups, lower-intermediate and advanced. The results confirmed the role of proficiency level in teachers' corrective behavior in different ways. Certain mismatches were also found between their beliefs and practice. The issues of concern and importance to teachers were found to be different from those of researchers being more emotional in nature. The results pointed to the need for making teachers aware of the cognitive aspects of learning from error correction in teacher education programs.


Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 183-210.
Busch, D. (2010). Pre-services teacher beliefs about language learning: The second language acquisition course as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 318-337.
Fu, M. & Li, S. (2022). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 44, 2–34.
Jean, G. & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: necessary, but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467-494.
Kamiya, N. (2014). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-14. DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2014.939656. 
Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 423-452.
Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: a teacher’s choices. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 31-47.
Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217-230.
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22.
Lin, Y. & Hedgcok, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among High-proficiency and low- proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46(4), 567-611.
Lyster, R. & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453–498.
Lyster, R. & L. Ranta (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19
(1), 37–66.
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.
Lyster, R. (1998). The ambiguity of recasts and repetition in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.
Mackey, A. Polio, C. & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers' use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301-327.
Nakatsukasa, M. (2021). Gesture-enhanced recasts have limited effects: A case of the regular past tense. Language Teaching Research, 25(4), 1–26.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.
Polio, C., Gass, S. & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 237–267.
Rassaei, E. (2013). The effects of foreign language anxiety on EFL learners’ perceptions of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2013.837912
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural Differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-248.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 8(4), 361–392.
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning 58(4), 835–874.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 144-171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.
Zyzik, E. & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature courses, The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 53-70.