METHODOLOGY AND APPROACHES
Fundamental questions
regarding oral
corrective feedback
Thu H. Tran discusses the importance of this activity in improving learners’ accuracy.
D eveloping students’ accuracy and
fluency in oral communication
is one of the main tasks for language
teachers. Whereas fluency activities
focus more on the message meaningfully
delivered, accuracy activities help
students use the language naturally,
correctly and appropriately. During
accuracy activities, teachers need to
show learners what is problematic with
their language use, and if learners are
unable to self-correct, teachers need to
help them use the target structure right.
The natural inclination to focus on the
content of the message coupled with the
emphasis on developing students’ oral
fluency may result in having students
who can speak fluently but their speech
is laden with incorrect language use.
Oral corrective feedback (OCF) is,
therefore, needed to assist learners in
improving their accuracy.
Hattie (2012) pointed out that the
purpose of feedback is not focusing on
the deficit, imperfection or negative,
but it is to increase opportunities for
growth and success, because feedback
is designed to enable learners to know
where they are and where they need to
be. In second language learning, support
for the effectiveness of corrective
feedback has been found (Russell &
Spada, 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Li,
2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster et
al, 2013), so what Hattie elaborated
justifies the practice of and necessity
for corrective feedback, as learners
need to know what they do correctly
n Volume 26 n Issue 4 www.modernenglishteacher.com 21
by teachers’ praise and confirmation.
They also need to know what mistakes
they make to improve their language
use accuracy. Corrective feedback is
more than just informing students of the
issues they have regarding the linguistic,
pragmatic or cultural correctness or
appropriacy of their utterances, it is
giving students opportunities for growth
by learning from their less than perfect
utterances to use language with greater
clarity, accuracy and appropriacy.
This article discusses common issues
regarding OCF.
What errors need
correction?
Feedback can attempt to correct
problematic language use related to
lexis, syntax, pragmatics, pronunciation
or culture. Regarding what to correct,
based on Hedge’s (2000) suggestion,
Li (2013) advises teachers to offer
correction to errors that impede
comprehension and ignore ones
that do not. The decision regarding
specific errors that need correction
depends on the speaking contexts.
Errors which may prevent listeners from
fully understanding the message may
run the whole gamut of possibilities,
which defies any attempt to specify. For
example, if a student places a stress on
the wrong syllable which may totally
change the meaning of a word such as
unique /yuˈnik/ and eunuch
/ˈyunək/ or dessert /dɪˈzərt/ and desert
/ˈdɛzərt/, then correction is necessary. If
a student tells a story about a man and
a woman and she confuses the listeners
by using he and she interchangeably,
then correction about subject pronouns
he and she is of necessity. Under certain
circumstances, although comprehension
may not be an issue, correction
feedback may too be supplied if the
errors made are the focus of the lesson.
When should OCF be
provided?
Knowing how to correct is important,
but knowing when to correct is also
important, because correction may
inadvertently turn the conversation
in class into an awkward or even
embarrassing moment.
Li (2013) points out that in terms of
timing of corrective feedback, it can
be online, responding to the errors
during the conversation or offline,
responding to them after the events.
While Long (2007) seems to prefer
online corrective feedback, Willis &
Willis (2007) have a preference for
offline corrective feedback. There are
advantages and disadvantages for online
and offline OCF. Online OCF can give
students signals while they are using
the problematic language constructions
so they are aware that there is an error
and can make an effort to self-correct
immediately or work on improving the
target construction later. The drawback
is that the continuity of the conversation
or presentation is partially interrupted
METHODOLOGY AND APPROACHES
which may or may not affect the
effectiveness of the overall message
conveyed. The student being corrected
and other students may be distracted,
as the attention is shifted from getting
the message to getting the language
construction correct. This depends
on the focus of the lesson. If the goal
of the lesson is to be able to use the
target construction correctly, it may be
appropriate to provide some corrective
feedback. If the target construction is
not the focus of the lesson, offline OCF
may be a better option. A possible issue
with offline corrective feedback is that
when the student receives the corrective
feedback, he or she may not be able
to recall the particular error made. As
a result, offline or delayed corrective
feedback may be more beneficial for
presentation classes where interruption
is not usually expected. It can also be
a useful method to provide corrective
feedback when students are required
to record their speech and submit for
accuracy development.
Who should participate in
the offering of corrective
feedback?
Ellis (2009) noted that it has been
suggested that teachers should
encourage learners to self-correct errors
first and if needed other students may
be asked to help with the correction.
Corrective feedback can come from
the classroom teacher or other students
in the class. When feedback is indirect
(e.g. the teacher repeats the erroneous
utterance or reformulating the utterance
in a correct way), learners may not see
the teacher’s utterance as corrective
feedback. In such cases, the teacher
may have to explicitly tell the learner
what the error is and how to improve
it. Sometimes other students are able
to see that the student being corrected
fails to recognise the correction and
may voluntarily engage in the corrective
process. The following example
happened in one of my classes where
learners were children aged six and
seven. After two recasting attempts
from the teacher, the student was
not able to identify the problem in
their interlanguage; another student
voluntarily tells the student: ‘you should
22 www.modernenglishteacher.com n Volume 26
say went, not go’. The student, ‘oh yeah,
I went to a wedding yesterday’.)
How can OCF be given?
Lyster & Ranta (1997) provided six types
of OCF as follows (I have created the
examples to illustrate each type).
1. Recast (reformulating learner’s
erroneous language to make it
correct)
S: The man leave last night.
T: Oh, the man left last night.
2. Explicit correction (providing model
language and tells learner what is
wrong with his or her language use)
S: The man leave last night.
T: You should say: ‘the man left last
night’, because last night is in the
past and the past form of leave is left.
3. Clarification request (asking
learner to clarify and provide more
information)
S: Me brother bought a new car.
T: I am not sure if I understood you
correctly. Who bought a new car?
4. Metalinguistic feedback (using terms
such as tense and preposition in the
feedback given)
S: The president kill by the assassin.
T: You need to use the passive voice.
5. Elicitation (asking learner a question
to help him or her provide the
correct language)
S: I was able to swim when I am
eleven.
T: I was able to swim when I …
(How old were you when you were
able to swim? What is the past form
of ‘am’?)
6. Repetition (repeating the erroneous
utterance)
S: I have took the test.
T: I have TOOK the test?
Built on the types of OCF Lyster & Ranta
(1997) identified, Sheen & Ellis (2011)
proposed another taxonomy of OCF
which shows the distinction between not
only reformulations and prompts but also
implicit and explicit corrective feedback.
OCF can also be classified as explicit or
implicit, immediate or delayed, recasts
or prompts. When students receive
explicit corrective feedback, they know
they are corrected. When students
receive implicit corrective feedback,
they may not know they are corrected.
The degree of explicitness is less, so
learners may think the teacher is simply
repeating, confirming or asking for more
information about what has been said.
OCF may also be given immediately after
an erroneous language construction
is made during the conversation or it
may be given after the conversation
or presentation (delayed). OCF can
also be categorised as recasts, which
include recast and explicit correction,
and prompts, which include clarification
requests, metalinguistic feedback,
elicitation and repetition.
While in recast and explicit correction,
correct language is provided to students;
in clarification request, metalinguistic
feedback, elicitation and repetition,
students are expected to be able to self-
correct their erroneous language use.
A possible problem with recast is that
sometimes learners may not know they
are being corrected. Tarone & Swierzbin
(2009) noted that in reality interlocutors
may simple repeat what they just
heard to show they are following the
conversation. Students also may think
their teacher simply repeats what they
just said. Also, in many cases students’
utterances may include multiple issues,
making it difficult for them to know
all the corrected parts in the recast. A
good example is when a student says, ‘I
am in library this morning search some
materials for our class presentation.’
In response, the teacher says, ‘So you
were in the library this morning to
search for some materials for our class
presentation.’ The student replies with a
smile, ‘yes’. In this example, the teacher
corrects by changing the correct verb
form ‘were’, adding article ‘the’ to
library, ‘to’ to search and preposition
‘for’ to provide the correct collocation
for the verb to search. With a smile and
a confirmation ‘yes’ from the student, it
is not clear whether the student is able
to identity all the corrective changes
made to his original utterance; or the
confirmation ‘yes’ simply means ‘yes,
that was what I just said’. Although
recasts seem more natural and less
likely to disrupt or divert the focus of the
conversation, it is possible that students
n Issue 4

may not easily notice subtle corrective
changes made to their utterance.
What are the factors to
keep in mind when offering
OCF?
Brown (2001) offers ten factors to
consider when dealing with OCF.
1. Types of problematic language:
problematic language is of various
forms. It could involve problems with
vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics,
cultural relevance or appropriacy.
2. Source of problematic language:
problematic language may be used
due to native language influence, the
unique feature of the target language
(e.g. a corner stone, but not a corner
rock; a double-edged sword, but not
a double-edged knife; a freshman, but
not a freshwoman; in my opinion, but
not according to me).
3. Complexity of the problematic
language: problematic language
may be too complicated to explain
quickly, or it is too complicated and
may distract the student and the
whole class from the content being
conveyed.
4. Whether the problematic language
impedes comprehension or not:
problematic language that may
not prevent listeners from fully
understanding what is being
conveyed could be ignored, whereas
problematic language that clearly
impedes comprehension may need
to be treated immediately to facilitate
the flow of communication.
5. Whether the problematic language is
a mistake or an error: if problematic
language is a mistake, it may not
need corrective feedback since
the learner knows how to use it
correctly, but under time constraint
and the simultaneous nature of oral
communication he or she may not
always use it correctly. In this case,
a mistake may not need corrective
feedback from the teacher. On the
other hand, if the teacher knows
from observation that the student
consistently has issues with the
problematic language, it should be
n Volume 26 n Issue 4 www.modernenglishteacher.com 23
METHODOLOGY AND APPROACHES
“Sometimes other
students are able
to see that the
student being
corrected fails
to recognise the
correction and
may voluntarily
engage in the
corrective
process.”
treated as an error and deserves
some form of corrective feedback to
enable the learner to be aware of the
issue and work on it.
6. Individual learner’s factor:
depending on the learner’s personal
characteristics, the teacher may
choose to provide OCF or not. If the
problematic language is produced
by an outgoing and talkative
learner, corrective feedback may be
appropriate for the learner. On the
contrary, if the problematic language
is made by a shy and reticent student
who rarely speaks up in class,
ignoring the deviant language use
may be a way to foster further active
participation and language use.
7. Level of learner’s language
proficiency: the level of learner’s
language proficiency may play an
important role in helping the teacher
to decide the type of OCF given. If
learners are at the beginning stage
of their target language acquisition,
oral metalinguistic feedback or
elicitation may not be an optimal
approach because they do not know
much about the language. Explicit
corrective feedback with a sample
correct substitution of the erroneous
language use may be more effective.
For example, if a beginning learner
of English says: ‘I go shopping this
morning with my friend,’ the teacher
may say: ‘This morning is in the past
so you need to say: “I went shopping
this morning with my friend”.’
8. Focus of the lesson: the decision
whether to offer OCF or to ignore the
deviant language use may depend
on the lesson objective. If the focus
of the lesson is about the simple
past tense, erroneous language use
related to the simple past tense is
corrected while other problematic
linguistic features are not corrected
on the grounds that they are not the
focal points of the lesson.
9. The context in which problematic
language is used also affects the
decision whether to correct or ignore
the deviant language use as well as
the types of OCF provided. If a student
is having a one-on-one conversation
with the teacher and other students
are working on a different task,
explicit corrective feedback may
not be the best approach. Another
example could be deviant language
use during a class presentation.
Explicit corrective feedback may
break the natural flow and nature of
the presentation. Delayed or offline
corrective feedback given at the end
or after the presentation via oral or
written communication may be more
appropriate.
10. Finally, the teacher’s instructional
stylistic preference may be the key
factor in giving OCF. If a teacher is
inclined to emphasise the quality of
ideas conveyed, he or she may not
see many issues with the linguistic
features the student uses. Another
teacher, however, who is keen
on ensuring that students use the
target language correctly as a prime
emphasis is likely to see students’
language use laden with incorrect
language use and may feel a stronger
need to help students improve
language use by offering more OCF.
What are scholars’
suggestions regarding
best practices in OCF?
The question of which OCF is more
effective than others is hard to answer.
 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACHES
Mackey & Goo (2007) found in their
meta-analysis of 15 laboratory and quasi-
experimental studies that recasts were
more effective than prompts, whereas
Lyster & Saito (2010) found in their meta-
analysis of 15 quasi-experimental studies
that prompts were more effective. Lyster
& Izquierdo (2009, cited in Lyster et al,
2013) found that recasts and prompts are
equally effective. Ellis (2010, as cited in
Li, 2013) suggests getting students to self-
correct first (prompts), and if they fail to
correct on their own, teachers can then
offer the correct version of the utterance
(recast & explicit correction). Sarandi
(2016), however, suggests that students
may be given explicit correction and
metalinguistic information before
giving students feedback in the form of
prompts such as elicitation or repetition
to see if students can gradually self-
correct without external feedback
information. With respect to age, in a
meta-analysis of 15 quasi-experimental
(classroom-based) studies, Lyster &
Saito (2010) found that younger learners
benefit more from corrective feedback
than older learners.
Several researchers have emphasised
that because it is not easy to prove the
effectiveness of one particular type
of negative feedback over another,
instead of using one corrective
feedback strategy extensively, it is
advisable to employ a wide array of
various strategies for OCF (Loewen,
2012; Lyster et al, 2013). In a similar
fashion, Lyster & Ranta (2013: 181)
cautions that ‘the CF research is so
broad and ranging that it is inadvisable
to make generalizations about the
benefits of any particular type of
corrective feedback’. In fact, Ellis (2012)
even suggested that it is impossible to
find the single most effective method
for corrective feedback. What is
needed is probably to ensure that
classroom teachers are cognisant of the
diverse OCF types and key factors to
consider when offering OCF. Teachers
interested in guidelines to help them
reflect on the practice of giving
corrective feedback may find Ellis’
(2009) propositions worth considering
when seeking input and suggestions
regarding corrective feedback.
24 www.modernenglishteacher.com n Volume 26
Concluding remark
Hattie & Timperley (2007) note that
feedback may have a powerful impact
on learning and achievement in a
positive or negative way. They also note
that the types of feedback provided and
the manner in which it is given may
have an impact on the effectiveness of
feedback. Classroom teachers will have
to make their own choices depending on
their personal instructional philosophy,
teaching contexts and learners. It is
hoped that the questions raised and
issues discussed in this article can serve
as food for thought for teachers who
desire to better assist their learners in
perfecting their oral language use.
References
Brown HD (2001) Teaching by principles: An
Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy
(2nd edition). White Plains: Longman.
Ellis R (2009) Corrective Feedback and
Teacher Development. L2 Journal 1 (1)
3–18. Retrieved on May 2, 2016 from http://
escholarship.org/uc/item/2504d6w3#page-1
Ellis R (2010) Cognitive, social, and
psychological dimensions of corrective
feedback. In R Batstone (Ed.) Sociocognitive
Perspectives on Language Use and Language
Learning (pp151–165). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis R (2012) Language Teaching Research
and Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Hattie J (2012) Visible Learning for Teachers:
Maximizing Impact on Learning. New York:
Routledge.
Hattie J & Timperly H (2007) The power of
feedback. Review of Educational Research 77
(1) 81–112.
Hedge T (2000) Teaching and Learning in
the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Li S (2010) The effectiveness of corrective
feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language
Learning 60 (2) 309–365.
Li S (2013) Oral corrective feedback.
ELT Journal. Retrieved from http://
eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/
early/2013/12/12/elt.cct076.full.pdf+html
Loewen S (2012) The role of feedback. In
SM Gass & A Mackey (Eds) The Routledge
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition
(pp24–40). New York: Routledge.
Long MH (2007) Problems in SLA. Mahwah:
Erlbaum.
Lyster R & Izquierdo J (2009) Prompts versus
recasts in dyadic interaction. Language
Learning 59 453–498.
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.
Lyster R & Ranta L (2013) Counterpoint
piece: The case for variety in corrective
feedback research. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 35 (1) 167–184.
Lyster R & Saito K (2010) Oral feedback in
classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 32 (2) 265–302.
Lyster R, Saito K & Sato M (2013) Oral
corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching 46 (1) 1–40.
Mackey A & Goo J (2007) Interaction
research in SLA: A meta-analysis and
research synthesis. In A Mackey (Ed.)
Conversational Interaction in Second
Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical
Studies (pp 407–452). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Russell J & Spada N (2006) The effectiveness
of corrective feedback for the acquisition
of L2 grammar. In J Norris & L Ortega (Eds)
Synthesizing Research on Language Learning
and Teaching (pp133–162). Amsterdam: John,
Benjamins.
Sarandi H (2016) Oral corrective feedback:
A question of classification and application.
TESOL Quarterly 50 (1) 235–246. Doi:
10.1002/tesq.285
Sheen & Ellis (2011) Sheen Y & Ellis R (2011)
Corrective feedback in language teaching.
In E Hinkel (ed) Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (Vol
2, pp. 593-610). New York: Routledge.
Tarone E & Swierzbin B (2009) Exploring
Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Willis D & Willis J (2007) Doing Task-Based
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thu H. Tran is the Senior Academic
Advisor of the Intensive English
Programme at Missouri University of
Science and Technology. He earned
a doctorate in TESOL from Alliant
International University, San Diego,
CA. Prior to working in the United
States, he taught English in Vietnam.
He is also the editor of the MIDTESOL
Annual Conference Proceedings and
the co-chair elect of the Adult Education
Interest Section of TESOL International
Association.
n Issue 4