Speak Up! Empowering Vocational EFL Students through Oral Corrective Feedback
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v8i3.27446Keywords:
Oral corrective feedback, speaking skills, EFL classroom, student confidence and motivationAbstract
Given the significance of corrective feedback in enhancing language learners’ speaking skills, especially in boosting accuracy and motivation, this study aims to examine the impact of direct oral corrective feedback (OCF) on Indonesian EFL learners. While research has shown that teacher feedback plays a crucial role in student performance, there is limited insight into how students interpret and engage with feedback—a factor essential to its effectiveness. Employing a descriptive qualitative research method, this study involved 39 vocational school students from SMK Medikacom in Bandung, Indonesia. Data were collected through classroom observations and semi-structured interviews, enabling a thorough exploration of students’ responses, behaviours, and attitudes toward Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF). Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) improved students' speaking skills, with Recast, Clarification Request, and Repetition being the most common types and Recast being the most effective for error correction without disrupting communication. Students reported gains in pronunciation, grammar, fluency, confidence, and teacher-student rapport. Some students, however, felt discomfort with feedback, highlighting the need for a supportive, non-judgmental approach to prevent negative emotional impacts. This study suggests that while implicit feedback benefits advanced learners, lower-proficiency students may need more explicit correction. To maximise OCF’s impact, educators are encouraged to tailor feedback to individual proficiency levels and focus on fostering supportive, adaptive classroom environments.
References
Argüelles, L. G., Méndez, E. H., & Escudero, M. D. P. (2019). EFL teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback: A case study. PROFILE Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 21(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n1.69508
Behroozi, B., & Karimnia, A. (2017). corrective feedback, educational context, Iranian EFL teachers. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(2), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.2.10
Bozorgian, H., & Kanani, S. M. (2017). Task repetition on accuracy and fluency: EFL learners speaking skill. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 6(2), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.23.2017.62.42.53
Chin, C. S., Pillai, S., & Zainuddin, S. Z. (2021). Recasts, prompts and noticing: A comparative study. Studies in English Language and Education (SiELE), 8(2), 416–441. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i2.18546
Darabad, A. M. (2014). Corrective feedback interventions and efl learners’ pronunciation: A case of –s or –es ending words. International Journal of Learning and Development, 4(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v4i1.5010
Ergül, H. (2021). Mitigating oral corrective feedback through linguistic strategies and smiling. Journal of Pragmatics, 183, 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.07.018
Esmaeili, F., & Behnam, B. (2014). A study of corrective feedback and learner’s uptake in classroom interactions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(4), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.204
Geckin, V. (2020). Do gender differences affect foreign language anxiety and preferences for oral corrective feedback? Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(3), 591-608.
Gedamu, A. D., & Gezahegn, T. H. (2021). EFL supervisors’ written feedback focus and language functions: a mixed methods study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00125-2
Ghahari, S., & Piruznejad, M. (2017). Recast and explicit feedback to young language learners: Impacts on grammar uptake and willingness to communicate. Issues in Language Teaching, 5(2), 209–187. https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2017.8058
Haifaa, F., & Emma, M. (2014). Oral Corrective Feedback and Learning of English Modals. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.337
Hartono, D., Basthomi, Y., Widiastuti, O., & Prastiyowati, S. (2022). The impacts of teacher’s oral corrective feedback to students’ psychological domain: A study on efl speech production. Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2022.2152619
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Li, H. (2018). Recasts and output-only prompts, individual learner factors and short-term EFL learning. System, 76, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.05.004
Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback in l2 speech production. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0247
Martin, S., & Valdivia, I. M. A. (2017). Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0056-z
Matthews, B. and Ross, L. (2010) Research Methods. Pearson Longman.
Morgan, S. J., Pullon, S. R. H., Macdonald, L. M., McKinlay, E. M., & Gray, B. V. (2016). Case study observational research: A framework for conducting case study research where observation data are the focus. Qualitative Health Research, 27(7), 1060–1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316649160
Mufidah, Z. M. (2018). The impact of oral corrective feedback on the level of language anxiety. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 145, 219–227. https://doi.org/10.2991/iconelt-17.2018.48
Nassaji, H., Bozorgian, H., & Golbabazadeh, E. (2023). Teachers’ stated cognition and its relationship with oral corrective feedback practices in EFL classrooms. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.102993
Nurhartanto, A. (2016). The effect of recast on students’ speaking skill based on their learning strategies. LLT Journal a Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 18(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v18i2.250
Ölmezer-öztürk, E., & 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.
Prapawadee, N. (2021). The elimination of anticipated written errors from L1 interference through flipped classrooms. Journal of Research on English and Language Learning (J-REaLL), 2(1), 216. https://doi.org/10.33474/j-reall.v2i1.9524
Priya, A. (2020). Case study methodology of qualitative research: Key attributes and navigating the conundrums in its application. Sociological Bulletin, 70(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318
Rassaei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.002
Rohmah, D. W. M., & Halim, A. (2023). Corrective feedback in EAP speaking class. Journal on Education, 5(3), 6332–6346. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v5i3.1411
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580
Sa’adah, L. (2019). Oral corrective feedback: Exploring the relationship between teacher’s strategy and student’s willingness to communicate. JSSH (Jurnal Sains Sosial Dan Humaniora), 2(2), 251. https://doi.org/10.30595/jssh.v2i2.2953
Sato, Y. (2023). The relationships between individual differences in working memory and language analytical ability and the effectiveness of different types of corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Studies, 6(1), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.22012.sat
Soruç, A., Yuksel, D., McKinley, J., & Grimshaw, T. (2024). Factors influencing EFL teachers’ provision of oral corrective feedback: the role of teaching experience. Language Learning Journal, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2024.2338346
Suzuki, S., & Kormos, J. (2019). Linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and perceived fluency: An investigation of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language argumentative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263119000421
Tasdemir, M. S., & Arslan, F. Y. (2018). Feedback preferences of EFL learners with respect to their learning styles. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1481560. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2018.1481560
Van Ha, X., & Nguyen, L. T. (2021). Targets and sources of oral corrective feedback in english as a foreign language classroom: Are students’ and teachers’ beliefs aligned? Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697160
Vold, E. T. (2022). Learner spoken output and teacher response in second versus foreign language classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 136216882110686. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211068610
Wiboolyasarin, K., Wiboolyasarin, W., Jinowat, N., & Kamonsawad, R. (2022). EFL learners’ preference for corrective feedback strategies in relation to their Self-Perceived Levels of Proficiency. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 5(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v5i1.4403
Yüksel, B. (2021). Professional development challenges experienced by language instructors at a foundation university: a case (Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University). https://hdl.handle.net/11511/89674
Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2022). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person-s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903343
Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Muhammad Andriana Gaffar, Raisya Azzahra Syaidina, Devi Farida
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with the VELES Journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the 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.
- 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.
VELES Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
