Oral corrective feedback: Exploring the relationship between teacher’s strategy and students’ willingness to communicate

Lailatus Sa'adah, Joko Nurkamto, Suparno Suparno


This study seeks to investigate the types of oral corrective feedback implemented in class and its effect on students’ willingness to communicate. As many as 35 senior high school students as well as the teacher were involved in the observation stage of this study and shared their perspectives about the relationship between teacher’s feedbacks on the students’ willingness to communicate through interview. The findings show that there are three types of oral corrective feedback given in the class, i.e. explicit correction, metalinguistic, and clarification request feedback. The students insist that the teacher’s oral corrective feedback does not make them reluctant to communicate to their peers or teacher in the class. Therefore, it can be concluded that teacher’s oral corrective feedback strategy does not disturb the interaction between the teacher and students in the class. It can be inferred that oral corrective feedback is necessary to be implemented in the class because it assists their second language learning. 


corrective feedback; willingness to communicate; EFL learners

Full Text:



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

Agudo, J. D. M. (2013). An investigation into how EFL learners emotionally respond to teachers’ oral corrective feedback. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(2), 265-278.

Ahmad, I., Saeed, M., & Salam, M. (2013). Effect of corrective feedback on academic achievements of students: Case of government secondary schools in Pakistan. International Journal of Science and Research, 2(1), 36-40.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Ayhan, Ü., Arikan, M., & Akbarov, A. (2011). Positive impact of corrective feedback in SLA. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. May 5-7, Sarajevo.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson Education Inc.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.

Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5), 1-17.

Chu, R. (2011). Effects of teacher’s corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English-majors college students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), 454-459.

Dilans, G. (2015). Corrective feedback in L2 Latvian classrooms: Teacher perceptions versus the observed actualities practice. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 479-497.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner, revisited. New York: Routledge.

Eini, M., Gorjian, B., & Pazhakh, A. (2013). The effect of corrective feedback modalities on second language post-speaking activities among Iranian pre-intermediate EFL Learners. Advance in Asian Social Science, 4(2), 810-814.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ellis, R. (2013). Corrective feedback in teacher guides and SLA. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 1-18.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.

Faqeih, H. (2015). Learners’ attitudes towards corrective feedback. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 664-671.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education.

Leontjev, D. (2014). The effect of automatic adaptive corrective feedback: L2 english questions. Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8(2), 43-66.

Li, S. (2013). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 1-24.

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.

MacIntyre, P., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.

MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564–576.

Méndez, E. H., & Cruz, M. d. R. R. (2012). Teachers’ perception about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75.

Naziri, I., & Haghverdi, H. R. (2014). The effect of corrective feedback on iranian EFL learners’ pronunciation: The case of /v/ w/. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Science, 4(S4), 925-935.

Pfanner, N. I. (2015). Teacher corrective oral feedback in the classroom. Journal of Language and Education, 1(2), 46-55.

Rashidi, A., Basiro, S. R., & Motlaq, H. S. (2016). The effect of corrective feedback strategy types on iranian EFL learner’s willingness to communicate. The Caspian Sea Journal, 10(1), 56-65.

Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., & Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective feedback in SLA: Classroom practice and future directions. International journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 21-29.

Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79.

Shabani, K., & Safari, F. (2016). The effect of immediate and delayed error correction on accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral production. Journal of Studies in Education, 6(3), 93-112.

Taipale, P. (2012). Oral errors, corrective feedback and learner uptake in an EFL setting. (Master), University of Jyväskylä, f Jyväskylä, Fi.

Tavakoli, M., & Zarrinabadi, N. (2018). Differential effects of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 247-259.

Vongsila, V., & Reinders, H. (2016). Making asian learners talk: Encouraging willingness to communicate. RELC Journal, 47(3), 331-347.

Yang, J. (2016). Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level, and types of error. System, 61, 75-86.

Zadkhast, M., & Farahian, M. (2017). The impact of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on iranian EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(6), 28-39.

Zarrinabadi, N., & Abdi, R. (2011). Willingness to communicate and language learning orientations in Iranian EFL context. International Education Studies, 4(4), 206-214.

Zohrabi, K., & Ehsani, F. (2014). The role of implicit and explicit corrective feedback in Persian speaking EFL learners’ awareness of and accuracy in English grammar. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 2018-2024.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i2.11532


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

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