http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 7, No.

1; 2017

Lecturers’ and Students’ Perceptions and Preferences about ESL

Corrective Feedback in Namibia: Towards an Intervention Model

Saara S. Mungungu-Shipale1 & Jairos Kangira1,*

1
Department of Language and Literature Studies, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia
*Correspondence: Department of Language and Literature Studies, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia.
E-mail: [email protected]

Received: January 4, 2017 Accepted: January 19, 2017 Online Published: February 26, 2017
doi:10.5430/wjel.v7n1p11 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v7n1p11

Abstract
This study investigated tertiary lecturers’ and students’ perceptions and preferences on the provision of Corrective
Feedback (CF) in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom at the Namibia University of Science and
Technology. The study focused on students’ speaking and writing skills in the Language in Practice English course.
The findings revealed that both lecturers and students perceive CF as an essential aspect of developing ESL productive
skills. Both lecturers and students were of the perception that CF is more focused on English grammar than form.
Students preferred more correction than their lecturers provided. Both lecturers and students concurred that
metalinguistic feedback is the best practice for CF in English. The contribution this study made is the ten-stage
Intervention Model that works towards the effectiveness of ESL CF at tertiary level in Namibia. The model
recommends that lecturers should carefully scrutinise the specific ESL target language features; practise a variety of
suitable CF techniques; and cater for individual students’ specific needs and preferences in learning English as a
Second Language at tertiary level.
Keywords: corrective feedback; perceptions; preferences; intervention model

1. Significance of the study

Error correction and provision of feedback are important aspects of L2 teaching and learning, because making errors
is actually inevitable in the language learning process. The major focus of this paper is to present the ten-stage
Intervention Model that is proposed for the effectiveness of English as a Second Language (henceforth ESL)
Corrective Feedback (henceforth CF). The purpose of the study was to seek answers to the following research
questions: 1) How do ESL lecturers and students perceive CF at tertiary level? 2) How do ESL tertiary level students
respond to the CF provided to their errors? 3) What do ESL lecturers and students prefer as far as error treatment
practice is concerned and why? 4) How can ESL students’ errors be treated to promote the correct use of the English
language? It is therefore imperative to first look at how the findings respond to these research questions before the
presentation of the Intervention Model.

2. Findings of the Study

The findings revealed that CF for both speaking and writing skills is perceived by both lecturers and students as an
essential aspect of developing ESL productive skills. Generally reporting, half the number of ESL lecturer
participants in the present study reported to be confident with how they deal with their students’ errors, while the
other half showed that they sometimes hesitate and experience trouble with correcting errors of their students.
Otherwise, the results illustrated that, overall, CF for both spoken and written errors takes place one way or another,
in the ESL class.

Published by Sciedu Press 11 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 7, No. 1; 2017

3. Lecturers’ and Students’ Perceptions about ESL CF at a Tertiary Level

3.1 Findings about Spoken Errors
Despite the fact that both the lecturer and student participants agree with the fact that students’ spoken errors are
corrected in the ESL class, a mismatch was found between students’ and lecturers’ perceptions regarding lecturers’
CF practice. A vast majority of students indicated that whenever a student makes an error when speaking in class, a
lecturer’s typical reactions are corrections. On the contrary, the lecturers’ felt that immediate CF is provided at a
minimal rate.
Findings about who corrects errors the most, reveal that students feel lecturers are the most likely agents of providing
CF in class; otherwise, students self-correct, and if they cannot correct themselves, other students correct them. On
the contrary, lecturers are of the view that correction is mostly done either by the same student or by other students in
class. A majority of lecturers indicated that the lecturer’s CF is the least common in the ESL class. The survey results
further show that lecturers sometimes avoid providing immediate CF to prevent offending students and disrupting
their train of thought, otherwise they correct explicitly. A majority of lecturers indicated that they usually correct
after the student has stopped talking, at the end of the activity, otherwise they do correction at another planned time.
The findings further indicate that both types of respondents believe that CF should be done collaboratively by
lecturers, the student who made an error and peers. However, the findings show a gap in the lecturers’ and students’
preferences about the main agent of correction. Students believe they learn English better when their errors are
corrected by the lecturer, whereas, lecturers suggest that students should self-correct. According to these results,
none of the respondents was ready to take CF responsibility.
During speaking activities in class, a majority of lecturers correct errors that affect the message rather than grammar
errors or any other type of error. Student respondents specified the three most frequently corrected errors, wrong tense
used, wrong verb form and wrong word used; and lecturers identified the most frequent corrected error type as wrong
or irrelevant answer, wrong verb form, concord (subject-verb-agreement). Students indicated three least frequent
corrected errors in class as pronunciation, wrong or irrelevant answer, and style and register (acceptability in the
given situation), while lecturers identified concord (subject-verb-agreement), wrong word order and style and
register (acceptability in the given situation). A discrepancy was, however, noticed in these findings when the two
types of respondents expressed quite different perceptions. They only agreed on two types of errors, first that wrong
verb form receive the most correction, and second that style and register (acceptability in the given situation) is
given the least attention when it comes to CF.
Both types of respondents identified slightly different strategies of CF as the most frequently practised in class;
students identified explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback, whereas lecturers indicated explicit correction and
recasts or reformulations. The next two choices of lecturers were metalinguistic feedback and clarification request;
while students chose clarification request and repetition respectively. These findings highlight some level of
agreement between lecturers’ and students’ perceptions about CF strategies used in class, with a slight gap regarding
repetition and recasts or reformulation. The findings, further, reveal that some lecturers are not always confident
with correcting errors of their students. Both the lecturers and students believe that almost all the ESL CF strategies
are practised in class but at different rates.
3.2 Findings about Written Errors
Both lecturers and students agreed that the common practice for CF on students’ written work is underlining errors;
however, some lecturers claimed to use correction codes. Lecturers complained that due to time constraints, they
only provide CF without comments.
According to students, the three most corrected errors are wrong tense used, wrong verb form and wrong word used;
while lecturers indicated that the most frequent corrected error types are wrong or irrelevant answer, wrong verb form
and concord (subject-verb-agreement). On the other hand, students pointed out that the least frequent corrected errors
as pronunciation, wrong or irrelevant answer and style and register (acceptability in the given situation). In the
lecturers’ opinion, the least frequent corrected errors are concord (subject-verb-agreement), wrong word order and
style and register (acceptability in the given situation). Overall, both types of respondents only agreed on two types
of errors that wrong verb form receives the most correction and style and register (acceptability in the given situation)
receives the least correction.

Published by Sciedu Press 12 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 7, No. 1; 2017

4. How Students Respond to the ESL Spoken Errors CF: Lecturers’ and Students’ Perceptions
A majority of both lecturers and students agreed that when students make errors in class which are corrected, most of
the time they admit the error, think about it, and then continue speaking. Students said that they are not offended by
immediate correction and want their errors to be corrected when they make them. Surprisingly, a contradictory
finding emerged that even lecturers who were most of the time concerned that they do not correct their students’
errors in order not to offend them, also claimed that correction does not frustrate or distract the students’
concentration when it is provided instantly, while they speak. Both groups of respondents uniformly agreed that the
majority of students are by no means threatened or depressed by CF as it is argued by some scholars and use their
argument to oppose the CF practice.

5. How students respond to the ESL written errors CF: Lecturers’ and students’ perceptions
Both lecturers and students highly agreed with the statements that, Lecturers must make a follow up on the feedback
they give on students’ work and Students must revise their work on their own, paying attention to the feedback provided.
Lecturers however expressed a strong sentiment that they do not find time to follow up on the feedback they give to
students. Students also explained that they only respond to some of the feedback they receive, when sometimes they
make time to go through it. Both lecturers and students agreed that students tend not to revise their work after getting
corrections back from their lecturers.
Despite the fact that students wanted their lecturers to revise their work with them, they also emphasised that doing
corrections on their own, instead of just depending on the lecturers, would help them not only to understand the
concepts better but also not to forget what they learn.
There was a mismatch in the perceptions of students and lecturers when they indicated whether students understand
the correction codes their lecturers use when marking their work. Lecturers had an impression that their students
understand the marking codes and that students are able to respond easily to the feedback given to them. On the
contrary, students said that they do not understand all the codes that their lecturers use when marking their work.
The findings concluded that students devote little time to studying English, and as a result they gain little from the CF
they receive. Hence, they keep repeating the same errors over and over, regardless of how often they are corrected.

6. Findings about ESL Speaking Error Correction: Lecturers’ and Students’ Preferences
When it comes to the question who should treat errors, both lecturers and students agreed that errors should be
mostly treated by the lecturer, and then peers or the student-self who made an error. However, some students seem to
have low self-confidence to correct their own errors, and their opinion was for the lecturer to correct their errors.
However, the lecturers’ opinion is that students learn language the best if they are able to self-correct. So, they
suggest that a student who made an error should, at least, first self-correct before receiving assistance from either the
lecturer or other students.
Further, students prefer to receive immediate CF on their spoken errors from their lecturers in class, while lecturers
advocate for delayed CF. Both lecturers and students concur that providing corrections to errors accompanied by
comments is the best practice for CF. So, students have high expectations of receiving explicit CF with
metalinguistic explanations from their lecturers; nevertheless, lecturers deem explicit CF to be the best practice. A
discrepancy between the lecturers and students, however, occurs when lecturers rate pronunciation as the second
highest type of error that needs correction, while students rank pronunciation to be the least to receive correction.
Two CF strategies explicit and recasts are the most favoured methods of ESL CF among the students. Lecturers prefer
explicit correction, otherwise they opt for recasts. Finally, students prefer to be corrected mostly by their lecturers but
they also value peer-correction, otherwise self-correction is their last preference.

7. Findings about ESL writing Error Correction: Lecturers’ and Students’ Preferences
The findings indicate the gap between lecturers’ and students’ opinion about who should correct written errors in
students work. A majority of students who responded to the statement that it was the lecturer’s duty to correct all
errors partly agreed with the point. On the contrary, a majority of lecturers totally disagreed that it is their duty to
correct all errors. Only a few students who partially agreed with the statement, still believed in collaborative
participation when they asserted that a lecturer is there to guide the students, but not to do everything for them. Both

Published by Sciedu Press 13 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 7, No. 1; 2017

lecturers and students strongly recommended wrong or irrelevant answer to receive the highest attention when it
comes to CF. Both respondents also agreed that wrong tense used, wrong verb form, and concord
(subject-verb-agreement) should also receive great priority for CF.
Both respondents highly agreed with the following three CF strategies: providing explicit CF in ESL writing is
useful because students can improve their writing by noticing the corrections that the lecturer provided; the
lecturer should show where the error is and give a clue about how to correct it; and comments with corrections are
best. A discrepancy came in when students strongly felt, lecturers should give detailed comments; the length does not
matter, while lecturers highly believed in the use of correction codes rather than writing long comments.

8. A proposed Intervention Model towards the Correct use of the English Language
This study was a form of complementary research that drew on skill-acquisition theory, not only concentrating on
instances such as practice and preferences of CF, but also focusing on the opportunities afforded for consolidating
emergent ESL knowledge and skills, and therefore enhancing students’ ESL proficiency. As Ranta and Lyster (2007)
put it, Skill Acquisition theory critically contributes to CF, specifically in the context of practice that leads students
from effortful to more automatic second language use. Advocating for feedback provided as a form of instruction,
Hattie and Timperley (2007) argue that “feedback and instruction are intertwined in ways that transform the process
into new instruction rather than informing the learner only about correctness” (p. 82). Therefore, the last research
question of this study sought to find practical ways of CF that could be employed to promote the correct use of the
English language.

9. Synergic Relationships between this Study and Other Empirical Studies on ESL CF
The results of other various studies emphasise that CF should be made relevant to the recipient (Lyster & Ranta,
1997; Fukuda, 2004). The findings urge lecturers to engage in continuous research to enable them to know the status
of their students, such as language proficiency level, prior knowledge and special needs.
Findings of other ESL empirical studies recommend the use of a variety of CF strategies such as the implementation
of feedforward and sandwich feedback (Lillis, 2003; Boud & Molloy, 2013). They further recommend that CF
practices should be made part of the curriculum and the notion of teaching language across the curriculum should be
effectively reinforced. Lecturers and teachers should undergo continuous in-service training in order to be fully
equipped with relevant skills that enable them to respond effectively to CF (Spencer, 2007). These skills enable them
to maintain adequate student-lecturer information exchanges regarding CF, in order to act effectively upon the CF
and to promote effective language learning.

10. Stages in the Intervention Model Proposed for ESL CF

Figure 1 below presents a diagram of a ten-stage Intervention Model that works towards the effectiveness of ESL CF.
The content of the model was informed by the findings of this study alongside those of other previous studies that
investigated CF (e.g. Prabhu, 1989; Han, 2002; Ellis, 2009; Nicholas, Lightbown & Spada, 2001; Wieczorek, 1991;
Diab, 2005; Brown, 2007, 2009; Lillis, 2003; James, 2008; Chaudron, 1977; Long & Robinson, 1998; Harmer, 2007;
Ur, 1996; Sheen & Ellis, 2011; Loewen, 2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Lyster & Mori,
2006; Egi, 2010; Sheen, 2010; Ferris & Hedgecock, 2005; Truscott & Hsu, 2008; Farrell & Lim, 2005; Ng &
Farrell, 2003; Schulz, 1996, 2001; Tomková, 2013; Park, 2010; Zaman & Azad, 2012). The model consists of three
main divisions with ten stages. The arrows between the stages suggest that at any stage of the process the lecturer can
reflect and consider other points indicated at any other stages of the model that may help him or her to make
well-informed decisions. The points below the ten-stage Intervention Model diagram shed some light on what each
stage of the model suggests for a lecturer who is in the process of deciding his or her own strategies of providing CF
that enhances learning.

Published by Sciedu Press 14 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 7, No. 1; 2017

STAGE SUBJECT ACTION

standards; objectives;
1. TASK
CLARIFICATION goals; criteria

context; effect;
2. DETECTION
NOTICING seriousness; new/old
concept

clarity; why an error;

3. DETERMINE
PROMPTING correct/not correct

language level and tone;

4. IDENTIFICATION proficiency; individual
WHO ERRED
needs

error/slip/mistake;
5. SOURCE timing; seriousness;
NATURE OF ERROR instantly/delay

student-self; peers;
6. AGENT lecturer; level of
WHO TO CORRECT
command

spoken/written; activity;
7. REMEDIAL indiv/group; strategy;
FEEDBACK
level; expand

8. EVALUATION reoccur; effected; similar

FOLLOW UP task; class/indiv.

9. REFLECTION reaction; class/indiv.;

REINFORCEMENT discussion
ON (CF)

problems; revelations;
10. SELF-
COMPETENCY share
REFLECTION

Figure 1. A Ten-Stage Intervention Model towards Effective ESL CF

Source: Own

Published by Sciedu Press 15 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 7, No. 1; 2017

Stage 1: TASK
This is a trigger that initiates performance. Effective CF starts the process and generates the planning stage of the
task. CF can be more effective when it is focused on specific linguistic targets than when it does not have a specified
language focus. CF strategy should, therefore, be informed by standards; objectives; goals; and criteria directed to
the task. Lillis (2003) suggests the “feedforward” strategy of cultivating effective CF. When using the “feedforward”
strategy, all the feedback to be given to students should relate to the original assessment criteria.
Stage 2: DETECTION
CF is all about guidance and motivation. Feedback should stipulate vivid and unambiguous guidance that is aimed
at improving students’ performance. Proper guidance can be realised through the concept of noticing. Svalberg (2007)
states that noticing embodies cognitive linguistic notions of attention and awareness. To notice the existence of an
error requires conscious attention. In order to provide effective CF, a lecturer needs to pay attention consciously and
be aware of the circumstance in order to notice the gap between what is produced and what needed to be produced.
Stage 3: DETERMINE
Find a justification why that error is an error. Decide whether it is worth correcting at this point. Spoken CF can
either be given instantly or it can be delayed; otherwise written CF seems to always be delayed. Does the error
affect the target language item and objective of the lesson? Students do not appreciate being interrupted while talking,
such as when the lecturer tries to point out grammar or pronunciation issues in the student’s utterance, which may
clarify the theoretical understanding of the concept but less frequently its usage. Correcting every error, pinpointing
everything that is wrong and disregarding what is correct can often prevent students from taking risks and
participating in the ESL class freely, unless they are precisely sure of what and how they should say something.
Stage 4: IDENTIFICATION
A lecturer should consider the cognitive and affective needs of the individual student to decide on how to correct;
hence, procedures for correcting different students vary. Lyster and Ranta (1997) urge that teachers need to
“carefully take into account their students’ level of L2 proficiency when making decisions about feedback” (p. 56).
CF should indicate what a student has done well, what he or she needs to improve and how he or she can improve.
CF is not about pinpointing errors. A positive comment dilutes resentment involved with erring. The “feedback
sandwich” technique enables giving sincere praise regarding a specific area of development together with an
indication of where improvement is needed (Boud & Molloy, 2013).
Stage 5: SOURCE
Diagnosis of an error type and possible origin should be considered in the process of CF. Whether it is an error,
slip or mistake, it should be identified and clearly explained so that students can understand why it is an error. The
findings of this study emphasise the need for the provision of comments for improvement and to stipulate what is
wrong and how to rectify it.
Stage 6: AGENT
Situational variables such as classroom atmosphere, type of classmates’ behaviour or student-lecturer relationship or
background should be considered when deciding on the agent of correction. CF should be decipherable by the
intended audience. Different students have different needs and abilities, so feedback should be suitable for both
strong and struggling students. A lecturer needs to adapt his or her spoken or written CF strategies for each
individual student as per the student’s specific needs. Feedback should be expressed in a specific and clear language,
free of jargon.
Stage 7: REMEDIAL
“One size does not fit all” in providing CF. Identify a relevant feedback strategy that suits the circumstance. The
effects of feedback depend on the nature of the CF provided. CF should be coupled with some instructional cues
such as a variety of possible extra activities that further clarify the concept of the problematic target language feature.
Nevertheless, CF should not be too overwhelming in quantity. Students usually view CF as critical and judgemental.
Refrain from too negative feedback which is deficient in tone. The findings suggest that direct feedback benefits
students to improve accuracy (Ferris 2006; Bitchener, 2008; and Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005), while indirect
feedback equips students with long-term improvement that enables them to self-correct because they get more time
to ponder on their errors (Ferris, 2006). Findings affirm that students do not only need to receive a mark or grade for
their work, but also need a motivation for why they obtained that mark.

Published by Sciedu Press 16 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 7, No. 1; 2017

Stage 8: EVALUATION
Following up on feedback is highly recommended through the findings of empirical studies. Knowing the students’
behaviour and considering their reactions towards the CF they received, a lecturer can decide on the follow-up
strategy. At this stage, give students a similar task or question to assess their sustained concept gains.
Stage 9: REFLECTION (CF)
As highlighted in the findings, CF is one of the instructional methods, intended to assist students develop their ESL
acquisition. So, it is vital for a lecturer to not only have principles for CF implementation but also to hold discussions
about those guiding principles, for instance, why it is necessary to sometimes correct selectively or not correct at all.
Some students prefer all their errors to be corrected and may become frustrated or even doubt their lecturer’s
competence, if their errors are not corrected. Engaging students in discussions about feedback would not only
enhance their understanding of the importance of CF but also promote student autonomy. Obviously, some
discussion sessions would be necessary on the rationale for CF and when it is appropriate.
Stage 10: SELF-EVALUATION
A lecturer should have a critical reflection evaluating the whole processes involved in the whole CF process. This
stage intends to serve as a platform where a lecturer seeks to understand his or her own strategies and skills of
providing feedback, through evaluating and making decisions whether to make adjustments on his or her own CF
practices. A lecturer should, for instance, monitor the level of anxiety that was caused by a certain CF strategy and
make some adjustments accordingly. This study recommends the on-going development of lecturers or teachers and
in-service training to sharpen their teaching skills. If a lecturer discovers any feedback strategy that works
successfully towards the learning of ESL, he or she should share his or her discovery with other ESL lecturers.

5. Discussion
Providing CF to students’ productive tasks should be considered an essential skill and talent that requires high levels
of expertise for lecturers to be able to balance and cater for both lecturers’ and students’ preferences about CF
practice, which are at times contradictory. Therefore, the ten-stage Intervention Model recommends three major
general practical aspects for CF at tertiary level. In order to reach a verdict on how CF can be best practised, lecturers
should: carefully scrutinise the particular ESL target language feature that is dealt with in class; practise a variety of
suitable CF techniques aimed at producing student-generated repairs; and then provide suitable cues that encourage
self-repair and cater for individual students’ specific needs and preferences. Nonetheless, at times class sizes at
tertiary institutions are too huge, which may become a challenge for lecturers to easily implement this Intervention
Model. It is therefore recommendable that tertiary institutions consider the distribution of smaller manageable L2
class groups to create an environment conducive for the implementation of the Intervention Model. This Intervention
Model should, however, not be regarded as mandatory to lecturers but rather as a series of stages that
lecturers can consider when deciding their own CF policies that suit their students circumstances. The model therefore
is intended to contribute to the development of ESL lecturers. Hence, in-service training for lecturers may serve as a
remedy to handling CF confidently and effectively (Spencer, 2007).

6. Conclusion
In the final analysis, the findings of this study show that both the students and lecturers concurred, ESL students’ errors
should be corrected. The results of the survey, generally, illustrate that the students and lecturers had significantly
different perceptions and preferences about ESL CF. Students yearned for more CF than lecturers provided on both
spoken and written errors.
Overall, the findings about lecturers’ and students’ preferences seem to highlight significant discrepancies. These
findings should, however, be taken cautiously by ESL lecturers not to cause confusion and generate more discomfort in
their practice of providing CF. Even though students desired to receive as much CF as possible and identified their
preferences about what errors should be corrected, lecturers should still tap their own experience with CF either as
lecturers or even as students at their time. In fact, flexibility and open-mindedness are strong qualities of a good
instructor or lecturer. Of course, it is imperative for lecturers to discover their students’ perceptions and preferences
about CF. Nonetheless, lecturers should be cautious and critically sieve their findings so that ultimately they retain
what they deem relevant for their practices. James (1998) suggests that “students’ preferences for certain types of
correction cannot be ignored of course; nor should they be put on a pedestal, because they are not necessarily more

Published by Sciedu Press 17 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 7, No. 1; 2017

effective for being preferred” (p. 253). In essence, even though students’ preferences can be underscored, the fact
remains, such preferences may not be ideal or more effective than other practices. The final verdict should therefore be
left in the individual lecturer’s court to determine what is most apposite to his or her particular students’ circumstances.

References
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17,
102–118.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten
month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of
ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93, 46-60.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A description model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language
Learning, 27, 29-46.
Diab, R. L. (2005). Teachers' and students' beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada
Journal, 23, 28-43.
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness.
The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x
Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1): 3-18.
Farrell, T. C., & Lim, P. C. P. (2005). Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of teachers’ beliefs and
classroom practices. TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1-13.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of
written error correction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts
and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Han, Z. H. (2002). Rethinking of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 33, 1-33.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed.). London: Longman.
Hattie, J., & Timperley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Longman.
James, C. (2008). Errors in Language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Longman: The University of
California.
Lillis, T. (2003). Student Writing as “Academic Literacies”: Drawing on Bhaktin to Move from Critique to Design.
Language and Education, 17(3), 192-207.
Loewen, S. (2012). Instructed Second Language Acquisition (Ed.). The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0545
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 19, 1-14.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty and J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28, 269-300. http://dx.doi.org/10+10170S0272263106060128

Published by Sciedu Press 18 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 7, No. 1; 2017

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative
classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Ng, J., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Do teachers’ beliefs of grammar teaching match their classroom practices? (A
Singapore case study.) In D. Deterding, A. Brown and E. L. Low (Eds.), English in Singapore: Research on
grammar. (pp. 128-137). Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning,
51, 719-758.
Park, H. S. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction. California State University,
Sacramento.
Prabhu, N. S. (1989). Three models in second language pedagogy. Journal of English and Foreign Languages, 3,
1-13.
Ranta, L., & Lyster R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The
Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In R. De Keyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives
from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (pp.141–160).
Schulz, R. 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(3), 343-364.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar
teaching and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244−58.
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203-234.
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in Language teaching. Handbook of Research in Second
Language Teaching and Learning, 2, pp. 593-610. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: New York and London.
Spencer, B. (2007). Towards greater equality: Power and role relations involved in response to student writing.
Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa, 38(2), 299–315.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228190701794640
Svalberg, A. M-L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching 40(4), 287-308.
Tomková, G. (2013). Teaching English Language and Literature for Secondary Schools: Error Correction in Spoken
Practice. (Master’s thesis, Masaryk University.) Retrieved from:
http://is.muni.cz/th/261663/ff_m/Tomkova_error_correction_in_spoken_practice.pdf
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17,
292–305.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wieczorek, J. A. (1991). Error evaluation, interlanguage analysis, and the preterit in the Spanish L2 classroom. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 47(3), 497-511.
Zaman, M., & Azad, A. B. (January–June 2012). Feedback in EFL Writing at Tertiary Level: Teachers' and Learners'
Perceptions. ASA University Review, 6(1), 371–383.

Published by Sciedu Press 19 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711