This study aims to explore the impact of oral corrective feedback types on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ willingness to communicate across proficiency levels. It also investigates how EFL learners view different types of feedback in relation to their willingness to communicate. Sixty Iranian EFL learners were tracked in four proficiency levels. Initially, the participants filled in a questionnaire to measure their attitudes to oral CF and their willingness to communicate. Subsequent to the teachers’ employment of explicit correction, recasts, and prompts, the learners’ willingness to communicate was measured anew. A semi-structured interview was also conducted. The results revealed learners’ high preference for prompts. A two-way mixed between-within ANOVA demonstrated a significant effect for both oral corrective feedback and proficiency level on willingness to communicate. Furthermore, elicitative types of feedback were ranked as the most contributory feedback type to L2 willingness to communicate.
AlemiM.TajeddinZ.MesbahZ. (2013). Willingness to communicate in L2 English: Impact of learner variables. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 4, 42–61.
2.
AllanD. (2004). Oxford placement test 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
AmmarA. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.
4.
BooneH.N.BooneD.A. (2012). Analyzing likert data. The Journal of Extension, 50, 1–5.
5.
BrandlK. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error, feedback options and responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 194–211.
6.
BrownA.V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60.
7.
ChenowethN.A.DayR.ChunA.E.LuppescuS. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of ESL students to error correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 79–87.
8.
HopkinsF. (2003). Get ready. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
HorwitzE.K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.
10.
Iranian Ministry of Education. (2011). National curriculum. Tehran: Ministry of education.
11.
KaivanpanahS.AlaviS.M.SepehriniaS. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 74–93.
12.
KangS. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277–292.
13.
KartchavaE.AmmarA. (2014). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86–109.
14.
KatayamaA. (2007). Students’ perceptions toward corrective feedback to oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9, 289–305.
15.
KhajavyG.H.GhonsoolyB.FatemiA.H. (2014). Willingness to communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 154–180.
16.
KrashenS. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
17.
LanuzziS. (2015). First friends. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
LasagabasterD.SierraJ.M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14, 112–127.
19.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
20.
LiS.VuonoA. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109.
21.
LiuM.JacksonJ. (2009). Reticence in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels. TESL Canada Journal, 26, 65–81.
22.
LysterR. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.
23.
LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
24.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
25.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
26.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
27.
MacIntyreP.D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11, 135–142.
28.
MacIntyreP.D.CharosC. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26.
29.
MacIntyreP.D.BurnsC.JessomeA. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. Modern Language Journal, 95, 81–96.
30.
MacIntyreP.D.BakerS.C.ClémentR.ConrodS. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388.
31.
MacIntyreP.D.ClémentR.DornyeiZ.NoelsK.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
McCarthyM.McCartenJ.SandifordH. (2006). Touchstone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
McCroskeyJ.C.BaerJ.E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO, USA. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED265604.
35.
McCroskeyJ.C.RichmondV.P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing cultural perspectives. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 72–77.
36.
NassajiH. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
37.
PanovaI.LysterR. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.
38.
PhilpJ. (2003). Constraints on ‘noticing the gap’: nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
39.
RassaeiE. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 Development. System, 49, 98–109.
40.
RiversS.TayamaS. (2015). English time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
RoothooftH.BreezeR. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25, 318–335.
42.
RussellJ.SpadaN. (2006).The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43.
SaitoK.LysterR. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.
44.
SchulzR.A. (1996). Focus-on-form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343–364.
45.
SchulzR.A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA–Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 244–258.
46.
SheenY. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
SheenY. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
48.
SheenY.EllisR. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Volume 2 (pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.
49.
TavakoliM.ZarrinabadiN. (2016). Differential effects of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12, 247–259.
50.
TrofimovichP.AmmarA.GatbontonE. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 144–171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
TruscottJ. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437–455.
52.
YangJ. (2016). Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error. System, 61, 75–86.
53.
YangY.LysterR. (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, 235–263.
54.
YilmazY. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
55.
YoshidaR. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17, 78–93.
56.
ZarrinabadiN. (2014). Communicating in a second language: Investigating the effect of teacher on learners’ willingness to communicate. System, 42, 288–295.
57.
ZarrinabadiN.AbdiR. (2011). Willingness to communicate and language learning orientations in Iranian EFL context. International Education Studies, 4, 206–214.
58.
ZhangL.JRahimiM. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429–439.
59.
ZhuY.WangB. (2019). Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback at Chinese universities: a large-scale survey. Language Awareness, 28, 139–161.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
