The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This study did not require formal ethics approval.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Scholars' findings on corrective feedback in their empirical studies show the use of written or oral corrective feedback in university classrooms. The study focuses on examining the effectiveness and learners' perception of oral O/WCF respectively in the university classroom to check to what extent written and oral OCF are used with L2 learners at the BS level and the second aim is based on learners' perceptions, which feedback is viewed more effective and why? Observation data were collected from the classroom. Six lessons have been observed using a structured observation checklist. For OCF teacher-learner interaction has been observed. Observational points were noted in the checklist and WCF learners' assignments have been assessed. Semi-Structured interviews were conducted to know the perceptions of the learners. The study employed a Mixed Method Research approach with a pragmatism paradigm. The findings of this study show, teachers use OCF more compare to WCF. Learners found WCF more effective than OCF.
In this section, I presented CF and its types in detail. I also focused on the detailed process of this research.
Background of the study
To learn a foreign language effectively, one should set some required priorities which need to be established gradually and systematically during his learning process. L1 learners always face challenges while learning L2, English as a foreign language. Such challenges sometimes cause hindrances in learners learning performance. In an EFL classroom, teachers-students interaction plays a vital role in enhancing learners' proficiency level. Primarily teachers' feedback can also be used as a tool for developing learners' interest in SLA. By adopting this strategy teachers build learners' motivation levels. Feedback can be positive and negative. As the topic is concerned with corrective feedback so, the researcher is to pay attention to negative feedback (evidence). Corrective feedback can be written or oral. Both feedbacks have importance in the SLA classroom. The researcher relates her discussion with an interactional point of view whether it is written or oral (corrective feedback).
Corrective Feedback
Teachers and learners interaction during SLA
classrooms develop when teachers give feedback to their learners. There are different types of feedback, like positive and negative feedback. Positive feedback tells the learners what they are doing well. In positive feedback, only positive remarks are given. While on the other hand, Negative feedback tells the learners what they are not doing well. Corrective feedback is also a kind of negative feedback that tells the learners what they are not doing well but it mainly focuses on the improvement part where the learners need to improve. Corrective feedback can cause learners demotivated or defensive but it is powerful feedback that corrects a specific area. Corrective feedback is simply defined as responses to learners' utterances containing an error (Ellis, 2006). It is also a complex phenomenon with several functions (Chaudron, 1988). Russell and Spada defined CF as “Any feedback provided to a learner, from any source, which contains evidence of learner errors of language form”.
Oral Corrective Feedback
Teachers use different ways of giving oral feedback in SLA classrooms. Sometimes they appreciate and encourage them by giving good remarks or sometimes they use negative remarks which make their learners embarrassed. A teacher cannot correct errors teachers give feedback. Providing correction is more effective than not giving corrective feedback. Feedback is very important during an interactional moment. That is the best time to give feedback. Lyster, & Ranta. (1997) proposed a conceptual framework for investigating teachers' feedback on an error in communicative feedback that has been widely adopted by classroom researchers and teachers. These types were reorganized in 2007.
Reformulations
Reformulations Corrective feedback is provided to learners with the correct form through explicit corrections or recasts.
i. Explicit correction
ii. Recasts
Prompts
Corrective feedback prompts learners to self-repair without providing the correct form, including repetition of error, clarification requests, metalinguistic clues, and elicitations.
i. Clarification request
ii. Repetition of error
iii. Metalinguistic clue
iv. Elicitation
Written Corrective Feedback
Giving feedback is one of the important methods in assessing the students writing. There are different types of written corrective feedback proposed by Rod Ellis.
i. Direct corrective feedback
ii. Indirect corrective feedback
iii. Metalinguistic written corrective feedback
iv. The focus of the feedback. Focused and unfocused corrective feedback
v. Electronic written corrective feedback
vi. Reformulation of written corrective feedback
Statement of the Problem:
There is a lack of understanding or not having clear conceptual knowledge of the use of corrective feedback in the SLA classroom at the BS level in the Pakistani context. In addition, to check the effectiveness of the use of O/W corrective feedback, interview data were collected and SLA classrooms were observed. The following problems were kept in mind.
i. How do learners perceive O/W corrective feedback and which feedback seem to them more effective?
ii. Which corrective feedback is used by teachers in the SLA classroom?
Research objectives/Purpose of the study/Aim of the Research
The purpose of this study is twofold one focuses on the use of O/W corrective feedback in SLA classrooms and the second one is to check the perception of learners about the effectiveness of O/W corrective feedback.
Following were the objectives of this particular study.
1. To what extent oral and written corrective feedback is used with L2 learners at the BS level
2. To know the learners’ perceptions, which feedback is viewed more effective and why?
Research questions
This empirical study examined the following two questions,
1. At what level oral and written corrective feedback is used with L2 learners at the BS level?
2. What are the learners' perceptions, which feedback is viewed as more effective and why?
Significance of the study
The results of this study may help teachers to include corrective feedback in their teaching plans a mandatory part of the education system. Without giving corrective feedback learners cannot enhance their learning.
Delimitations of the Study
This study has the following delimitations,
I. This study was delimited to the Abbottabad University of science and technology
II. Students of BS semester departments were selected.
III. The teaching faculty of English departments were selected.
IV. Focus is paid only to knowing the learners' perceptions and teachers' use of O/W corrective feedback in SLA classrooms.
Teachers' views about error correction are being changed as time passes. Some teachers have the view that erroneous utterances should be corrected, and some are not in favour of error correction of learners' erroneous utterances. This is the dilemma that how learners can be corrected if they make errors in their utterances. Feedback in case of erroneous utterances can correct the learners in an SLA classroom. In this regard, many researchers did their research on the use of corrective feedback. Lyster, R. & Ranta (2015) proposed the model of oral corrective feedback in the immersion classroom. In the observational study, the analytical model was proposed in an immersion classroom setting in 1997 where they found the overwhelming use of recast by teachers. They identified six types of OCF which are used implicitly and explicitly by teachers.
In my point of view, there are two limitations to this study. At first, the number of participants is less it could be increased for more effective results. Secondly, limited time was given to perform the experiments which could be increased in order to gain more results for setting examples for future researchers. One more important point is that other types of CF can also be utilized to check the effects on learners learning.
The main focus of this study is to bare the concept that there is a difference between grammatical correct and incorrect forms and how learners can get feedback with the purpose of correcting them. The research question of this study is, what are the main focuses of written corrective feedback provided by Turkish EFL teachers? This study is important in the sense that the same researcher with the same topic followed the quantitative method in 2016 and now the researcher is following the qualitative method. In data collection and analyzing data, 171 teachers were provided with the essays for getting feedback which they had to give back after one week. When essays were collected back, it was seen that 55 teachers did not prefer to give written feedback just 116 teachers gave written feedback. EFL teachers gave feedback keeping in mind the fixed perceptions/aspects of writing.
I found a gap in it in that this study only focuses on teachers' feedback and how they give feedback but it could be made more effective if the researchers involved learners to check the impact of feedback on their learning style.
In Zin Wang's (2017) study the researcher quotes the definition of CF. Russell and Spada defined CF as "Any feedback provided to a learner, from any source that contains evidence of learner errors of language form".
The researcher discussed in his article the views of other different researchers regarding CF. Some researchers consider CF an ineffective source of improvement and some consider it an effective source in the SLA classroom. Those who follow the ineffective stance say CF cannot bring change in developing writing accuracy and those who follow the other stance say CF enhance learners learning abilities. The researcher Truscott (1996) gave arguments against CF. He stated that CF has harmful effects on learners themselves. The other researcher like Feriss (1999) evaluated that Truscott's views about CF are premature because CF is a tool that can be beneficial for learners in SLA classrooms. She points out that L2 learner who receives more CF produce more accurate work. Researchers divide CF into two types direct feedback and indirect feedback. They relate direct feedback to short-term improvement in students' L2 learning and indirect feedback to long-term improvement in students' L2 learning. This study shows the limitation/gap which I found during reading. No doubt this study follows the systematic procedure as very first present the arguments of different researchers about CF and later defined the types of CF from the theoretical point of view. Nevertheless, this article raises ambiguity related to the concept because there was no clarity in the use of the types of CF. It also did not highlight which type of CF occurs the most. In my point of view if the researcher divided the participants into two groups instead of three, then their comparative analysis would have been better. In this way, it could also set the future direction for coming researchers that how they can compare the different types of CF for enhancing learning accuracy in writing in SLA classrooms.
Corrective feedback always occurs in EFL or ESL classrooms. The researcher involved 100 participants as a sample. He used the recording of the conversation as an instrument between teacher and student and student to student. The researcher's role was an observer he just came into class and got the recording of the session. After getting the raw data, he transcribed the audio data in written form. Later, the researcher categorized the data according to the types of CF i.e. Recast, repetition, clarification request, explicit correction, elicitation and paralinguistic. After all these things data were formed in tables. Here in this research, it was found that the teacher used the clarification strategy the most. Its findings reveal that CF minimizes mistakes and enhances learners learning abilities.
After reading this article I observed that teachers' knowledge about CF is very important because teachers with the knowledge of CF can teach the learners in a proper way. Learners do not know the mistakes but when teachers highlight and correct the mistakes with proper uptake, it leads the learners to the right track in the SLA classroom.
Introduction
This section will provide the detail of
the methodology adopted for conducting the research.
Research Design
The research design is the complete map of the research. I used the pragmatics paradigm and qualitative and quantitative methods for conducting research with a mixed-method approach.
Paradigm
Paradigm is primarily a philosophical view of the researcher which is used to gain an understanding of the research question. A paradigm is a broad framework of perception, understanding, and belief within which theories and practices operate. This study adopts the pragmatics paradigm. This paradigm utilizes qualitative and quantitative methods.
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
Quantitative method data is in numbers and qualitative method data is in words. The quantitative method employs an inflexible process while the quantitative method employs a flexible method. In this study qualitative method is used for analyzing the interview data and the quantitative method is used to analyze the checklist data.
Mixed method Approach
For conducting this research I applied a mixed-method approach. The mixed method approach is a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. There are three mixed methods in applied linguistic research. First MMR complements another, second is the dominance design that one method result cause of the other method and last one is side by side method. In this study, I followed the third mixed method i.e. side by side MMR. As I have two research questions in this research so for answering them I used side-by-side MMR. For the first research question, I used the qualitative method and for answering the second research question I used the quantitative method.
In this research, I used the qualitative method for analyzing interview data and the quantitative method for analyzing checklist data. Qualitative data is used for interpreting codes and themes and its data is collected through interviews and observation. Qualitative data is used to identify new theories. For interviews, I did the thematic analysis. While on the other hand in the quantitative method, data is analyzed and quantified through statistics. Its data is numerical.
Data Collection Process
For the data collection process, I adopted the following ways.
Classroom Observation
I collected data through classroom observation in order to know to what extent teachers use oral corrective feedback during their teaching. For this purpose, I used a checklist.
Checklist
In this research, I used a checklist for observing the teachers in SLA classrooms.
Assignment
Written assignments were collected for knowing/analysing to what extent teachers use written corrective feedback.
Administered Interviews
For knowing learners' perceptions about the effectiveness of O/W corrective feedback I conducted semi-structured interviews with 6 learners.
Informed Consent
Before conducting the interviews I got signed the permission letter by the participants. I followed the ethical code in order to prevent
the issues.
Participants
Population
The main population is the overall targeted point. I specified the population for the study as "the teaching staff of the English department of Abbottabad University".
Sample
The researcher chose 6 Lecturers as a sample from the English department. I selected only those teachers who take allied courses (English I, II, III) in different departments. Also, I chose 6 learners for conducting interviews.
Sampling Techniques
I used convenience sampling techniques for choosing participants.
Data Collection Tools
I used two data collection tools in my research.
Checklist
I used a checklist in the SLA classroom in order to check the use of O/W corrective feedback.
Interview
Interviews were administered to six students. A total of 9 questions were asked from each learner in order to get the answer for comparison. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with open-ended questions. Later interview data were transcribed and thematic analysis was done.
Reliability and Validity
As I myself collected the qualitative and quantitative data so it is the most reliable and valid I conducted the interview face to face. For the reliability of the data, I recorded the interviews. Data is credible. In quantitative data all the numbers are valid. Data is also reliable.
In this section, I will analyze the data in the following ways. The first research question based on which feedback is written/oral is used in SLA classrooms. For this purpose, I observed the SLA classes of six teachers. During observation, I used a checklist which comprises two sections. One section is about oral corrective feedback and the second one is about written corrective feedback. As my research question is about examining the oral/written feedback in the SLA classroom. So, for the first section of the checklist, I observed the teachers' lectures. During lectures, my focus was on student-teacher interactions and if learners give a response to the teacher's question which type of oral corrective feedback was being used by the teacher? I kept a record of this interactional oral feedback in checklist section one. The second section of the checklist was about the types of written corrective feedback for which I collected the marked assignments of six students. Later I analyzed all assignments in detail according to the types of written feedback with the object to check which type is used more.
To what extent are Oral and Written Corrective Feedback used in SLA classroom
I utilized a checklist for observing the use of oral corrective feedback in the SLA classroom. The first section of the checklist consisted of the types of oral corrective feedback. The checklist's scoring guide contained a yes/no option. The following data shown in the table/chart was gathered during a classroom observation.
| | |||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 1 | Recast | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | 5 | 1 |
| 2 | Explicit correction | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | 2 | 4 |
| 3 | Repetition | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | 2 | 4 |
| 4 | Elicitation | No | No | No | No | No | No | 0 | 6 |
| 5 | Clarification request | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 2 | 4 |
| 6 | Metalinguistic clue | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | 1 | 5 |
Chart of the Types of OCF
Data in the above table and chart clearly show the use of OCF in the SLA classroom. As there are six types of oral corrective feedback. In the SLA classroom, 5 teachers used Recast. Explicit correction, repetition, and clarification requests were used by two teachers. The metalinguistic clue was used by one teacher. And last but not least elicitation type was not used by any teacher.
To inspect the use of written corrective
the feedback I made use of Rod Ellis's theoretical framework/modal. As claimed by him there is six written corrective feedback direct, indirect, metalinguistic, focused/unfocused, electronic, and reformulation. For having knowledge relating to the use of WCF I deployed the checklist (Appendix). Already in 5.1.1 point, I have mentioned the detail of the checklist. For perusing section B of the checklist I looked over the marked assignments of six students and I found the detail of the use of WCF in the SLA classroom shown in the following table.
| | |||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 1 | Direct | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | 1 | 5 |
| 2 | Indirect | No | No | No | No | No | No | 0 | 6 |
| 3 | Metalinguistic | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6 | 0 |
| 4 | Focused/unfocused | No | No | No | No | No | No | 0 | 6 |
| 5 | Electronic | No | No | No | No | No | No | 0 | 6 |
| 6 | Reformulation | No | No | No | No | No | No | 0 | 6 |
Chart of the types of WCF
In the above table and chart, it is clear that teachers' exercise of WCF is not too much. All six teachers made use of metalinguistic WCF during examining the assignments. Only one teacher exercised direct WCF. The rest of the teachers did not use any type of WCF as indirect, focused/unfocused, electronic, or reformulation.
Here I present the percentage of both types of corrective feedback i.e. oral and written. This comparison shows that OCF is used more in the SLA classroom as compared to WCF.
| | | |
| OCF | 12 | 33% |
| WCF | 7 | 19% |
| Difference | 5 | 14 % |
Comparison chart
In dealing with the first research question I found that teachers use more OCF than WCF. But it does not mean that teachers have full command over giving CF. During classroom observation, I also found that teachers do not have a clear idea or concept of corrective feedback. They are not familiar with the types of CF. If they do not know then how they can use it effectively in their classroom? They used comments as a habit. They are not trained they lack knowledge related to giving feedback.
To have knowledge referring to the learners' perceptions I conducted interviews with the same learners who received O/W feedback from their concerned teachers. I followed the sequential process for administering interviews. I employed a permission letter. I got signed the informed consent from each participant. After getting it signed I started administering interviews with the participant one by one. Side by side I recorded the interview. After finishing this step I transcribed the interview. I had qualitative data for analyzing this data I used the thematic analysis method. There are various approaches to conducting thematic analysis but here I followed the following steps developed by Braun and Clark.
I used thematic analysis with the motive to find out the learners' views, and knowledge. The thematic analysis method is flexible and quite subjective it is totally based on the researchers' interpretation. I used the latent approach because I was interested in what learners' statements reveal about their assumptions and social context. After finalizing the approach I walked behind the steps developed by Braun and Clark.
Simultaneously I collected data and then transcribed the whole data. Later I went through the whole text to get a complete understanding. I took key notes to get familiar with it.
Now I highlighted the important sentences and phrases of the interviews one by one.
| | ||
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| Interview one | In the classroom, mostly verbal comments are employed. But by this method, some students learn. I think teachers must write on the class board so that the students who are not mentally present in class could see and read what feedback is given to other students. Teachers need to understand the students well. Some teachers do not understand the level of the students. This is the reason students do not want to learn. They lose interest in studies because teachers are unable to understand their students. In the SLA classroom, teachers want to improve the grammar of their students but from earlier times we are not paying attention to our grammar skills. Students learn from their teachers. Teachers want to improve their students 100 per cent. The role of teachers' feedback in learners' performance is quite significant. The teachers mostly support intelligent students. In this way, students become confident but by this, some of the students who are not appreciated become depressed. Teachers should use the board for giving feedback so that mentally absent students can also understand the comments. Oral corrective feedback also plays an important role in learning but if teachers give written feedback on board this will be more beneficial. When teachers write on the board the students understand well. In verbal feedback, some students do not understand. Yes, students, who give more priority to their studies understand well rather than those who do not. | § Verbal comments § Suggesting written comments § Understandability § Teachers’ priorities § Learners' lack of interest in learning § Learners’ expectations § Learners’ observation § Emphasis on written feedback § Emphasis on written feedback § Emphasis on written feedback § Concerned learners |
| Interview two | | § Priorities given to written comments § Importance of teachers’ feedback. § Importance of teachers’ feedback § Importance of written feedback § Role of teachers’ feedback § Teachers’ role § Importance of written feedback § Oral feedback for improving pronunciation § Written feedback for solving problems § Learners' priorities for learning |
| Interview 3 | | § Employed written comments § Use of verbal comments for interpretation. § Learners’ opinion § Teachers’ capabilities § Learners’ ideal teachers § Use of O/W feedback § Importance of written feedback § Opinion about oral feedback § Importance of written corrective feedback |
| Interview 4 | | § Verbal comments § Qualities of teachers § The absolute answer of not using feedback. § Importance of written feedback § No clarity of feedback § Opinion about the importance of written feedback § Importance of written feedback § Effectiveness of written feedback § No surety |
| Interview 5 | | § Verbal comments employed § Teachers lack of training § Understandability § Teaching techniques § Importance of written feedback § Importance of written feedback § Importance of written feedback § Equality in giving feedback |
| Interview 6 | | § Verbal comments are employed § Teachers’ role § Understandability § Teachers ‘role § Understandability § Importance of written feedback § Importance of written feedback § Influence of good relation |
| | ||
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| Interview 1 | § Verbal comments § Suggesting written comments § Understandability § Teachers’ priorities § Learners' lack of interest in learning § Learners’ expectations § Learners’ observation § Emphasis on written feedback § Emphasis on written feedback § Emphasis on written feedback § Concerned learners | § Verbal comments § Understandability § Learners’ expectations § Emphasis on written feedback |
| Interview 2 | § Priorities given to written comments § Importance of teachers’ feedback. § Importance of teachers’ feedback § Importance of written feedback § Role of teachers’ feedback § Teachers’ role § Importance of written feedback § Oral feedback for improving pronunciation § Written feedback for solving problems § Learners' priorities for learning | § Importance of written feedback § Teachers’ role |
| Interview 3 | § Employed written comments § Use of verbal comments for interpretation. § Learners’ opinion § Teachers’ capabilities § Learners’ ideal teachers § Use of O/W feedback § Importance of written feedback § Opinion about oral feedback § Importance of written corrective feedback | § Importance of written feedback § Teachers’ capabilities |
| Interview 4 | § Verbal comments § Qualities of teachers § The absolute answer of not using feedback. § Importance of written feedback § No clarity of feedback § Opinion about the importance of written feedback § Importance of written feedback § Effectiveness of written feedback § No surety | § Verbal comments § Qualities of teachers § Importance of written feedback |
| Interview 5 | § Verbal comments employed § Teachers lack of training § Understandability § Teaching techniques § Importance of written feedback § Importance of written feedback § Importance of written feedback § Equality in giving feedback | § Verbal comments § Understandability § Importance of written feedback § Teachers’ lack of training |
| Interview 6 | § Verbal comments are employed § Teachers’ role § Understandability § Teachers ‘role § Understandability § Importance of written feedback § Importance of written feedback § Influence of good relation | § Verbal comments employed § Understandability § Teachers’ role § Importance of written feedback |
In this step, I reviewed the themes and chose the most appropriate themes.
| Interview 1 | § Verbal comments § Understandability § Learners’ expectations § Emphasis on written feedback |
| Interview 2 | § Importance of written feedback § Teachers’ role |
| Interview 3 | § Importance of written feedback § Teachers’ capabilities |
| Interview 4 | § Verbal comments § Qualities of teachers § Importance of written feedback |
| Interview 5 | § Verbal comments § Understandability § Importance of written feedback § Teachers’ lack of training |
| Interview 6 | § Verbal comments employed § Understandability § Teachers’ role |
In this section, I define and name the themes.
| | | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Interview 1 | § Verbal comments § Understandability § Learners’ expectations § Emphasis on written feedback | § This learner has expectations to have a good teacher who can understand the learners. § This learner considers written feedback more effective. | § Impact of teachers' understanding of learners' level § Effectiveness of written feedback |
| Interview 2 | § Importance of written feedback § Teachers’ role | § This learner considers written feedback effectively. § Also demands teachers teach the learners according to the level of the learners | § Effectiveness of written feedback § Impact of teachers' understanding of learners' level |
| Interview 3 | § Importance of written feedback § Teachers’ capabilities | § This interviewee considers written feedback effectively. § Teachers’ abilities play an important role in giving feedback. | § Effectiveness of written feedback § Impact of teachers' understanding of learners' level |
| Interview 4 | § Verbal comments § Qualities of teachers § Importance of written feedback | § This interviewee also considers capable teachers to play important role in giving feedback. § It prefers written feedback. | § Impact of teachers' understanding of learners' level § Effectiveness of written feedback |
| Interview 5 | § Verbal comments § Understandability § Importance of written feedback § Teachers’ lack of training | § Teachers understanding of the level of the students enhance the learners learning level. § Prefers written feedback | § Impact of teachers' understanding of learners' level § Effectiveness of written feedback |
| Interview 6 | § Verbal comments employed § Understandability § Teachers’ role | § Teachers’ role is very important. | § Impact of teachers' understanding of learners' level |
I conducted interviews for perceiving the perceptions of the learners. After doing a thematic analysis I found the following two common themes.
Almost every interviewee stressed the point that teachers need to understand the level of their learners. If they understand in this way they will teach in a better way and will give feedback in a better way too. According to the level of the learners, teachers will give feedback which will be effective for learners.
The second theme is related to the effectiveness of written feedback. Almost every interviewee gave a response in the favor of written feedback.
In response to the second research question, interviewee gave their statements in favour of written feedback. They claimed that written corrective feedback is more effective. There are a few reasons behind this statement. They think WCF is hidden from other class fellows. It is only shown to the concerned learners. We also cannot forget the written feedback as compared to OCF because verbal comments can be forgotten but written comments cannot.
I personally faced problems while administering interviews. As interviewees are the students of BS level but unfortunately neither have an exact or clear knowledge of W/O feedback nor they can express their thoughts, and experience with regard to CF. Without showing my expressions I completed interviews and recorded the session whatever they narrated. Another problem I faced while naming themes was because the answers of the interviewee were not according to the asked questions but I used the data for thematic analysis. It is not the fault of the learners that they could not clear the sense of the questions.
Regarding the second research question, I conducted an interview in order to know the perceptions of the learners and which feedback is viewed as more effective and why? I found that learners' perception is not clear about the CF. They gave illogical answers to asked questions. But according to their understanding, they only differentiated the written and oral feedback. They differentiated on the basis of their experiences. They all said written feedback is more effective because it is in written form and cannot be forgotten.
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA classrooms and to check the perceptions of the learners about O/W CF in the Pakistani context. In response to the first question, I found that teachers mostly prefer OCF in SLA classrooms. Njafis's (2015) study also investigated that types of OCF recast and elicitation also enhance the learning abilities of learners. These types supply the correct form. In the response to the second research question, I found that learners found WCF more effective. The gap I found in Zin Wang's (2017) study was that he did not focus on the perception of the learners. Keeping in mind this I conducted interviews through which I concluded that learners perceived WCF more effective.
It is concluded that learners' perceptions should be kept in mind while giving feedback in an SLA classroom.
Limitation /Recommendation / Suggestions
The present study had a limited number of participants moreover a limited time to perform the research. As the sample was small so we may not generalize the results.
I recommend the following points to future researchers. Individual learner perception should be taken in large numbers. So that it can be helpful in generalizing the results.
Suggestions regarding CF in SLA classrooms teachers should be trained or given training properly that how they can give CF for effective use. Because while conducting this research I observed teachers and students as well do not know what corrective feedback is and how they can use it in the classroom.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This study did not require formal ethics approval.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article.