Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback: Are Language Proficiency, First Language, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety, and Enjoyment Involved?
3
Issued Date
2023-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
24117390
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85159319977
Journal Title
Journal of Language and Education
Volume
9
Issue
1
Start Page
172
End Page
184
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Language and Education Vol.9 No.1 (2023) , 172-184
Suggested Citation
Wiboolyasarin W., Tiranant P., Khumsat T., Ngamnikorrr T., Wiboolyasarin K., Korbuakaew S., Jinowat N. Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback: Are Language Proficiency, First Language, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety, and Enjoyment Involved?. Journal of Language and Education Vol.9 No.1 (2023) , 172-184. 184. doi:10.17323/JLE.2023.16141 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82821
Title
Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback: Are Language Proficiency, First Language, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety, and Enjoyment Involved?
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background. The effectiveness of oral corrective feedback (OCF) in language learning is influenced by learners' comprehension and response to various OCF techniques. Therefore, it is essential for teachers to consider learners' preferences for OCF strategies. Purpose. This quantitative study aimed to investigate the preferences of Thai as a foreign language (TFL) learners for ten commonly discussed types of OCF. Specifically, it examined whether these preferences are influenced by four learner variables: proficiency level, first language (L1), foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA), and foreign language enjoyment (FLE). Method. The study involved 288 university students from Chinese, Japanese, and Korean TFL settings, and the data from questionnaires were analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Results. The findings indicate that, regardless of proficiency level, L1, FLCA, or FLE level, learners prefer more explicit OCF techniques, such as metalinguistics feedback and explicit correction. However, Korean undergraduates scored lower in the majority of OCF strategies (i.e., ignoring, elicitation, recast, explanation, and public feedback) compared to the other participants. The MANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in ignore, peer correction, recast, and private feedback based on proficiency level and L1 background. Although the differences between the FLE and FLCA approaches were not statistically significant, high FLE and FLCA groups tended to prefer more OCF strategies than the low groups. Conclusion. This study has significant implications for instructional practices in TFL settings and for L2 lecturers in the classroom. By understanding learners' preferences for OCF, educators can tailor their instructional approaches to meet the specific needs of their students.