Home⇛The Rizalian Researcher⇛vol. 10 no. 1 (2023)

RECTIFYING FEEDBACK IN ONLINE CLASS: THROUGH THE LENSES OF STUDENTS’ VIEWS

Jenny Lyn Bantilan | Marciano B. Melchor

 

Abstract:

This study aimed to explore the students’ perception toward teachers’ corrective feedback in online classes at the Senior High School Level. The participants of this study were the 6 Senior High school Students of Puntalinao National High School, Davao De Oro Division. This study employed a phenomenological research design which aims to determine the experiences and perceptions of the participants. There were three themes that emerged in the views of students’ on oral corrective feedback in class: academic encouragement, develop or reducing self-esteem and self-regulation, and preference for peer learning modelling. Meanwhile, in how students cope with the challenges in oral corrective feedback, the generated themes were strategically analyzing feedback, applying and following up feedback, and reflecting on feedback. Further, the following are the themes generated from the insights of the participants strategically analyzing feedback, applying and following up on feedback, and reflecting on feedback. This study implied that teachers provide constructive oral feedback, which is not just commentary about what has been done but suggestions for what can be done next. Moreover, the results generated provided comprehensive data for conducting future research with similar or relevant scope.



References:

  1. Alkhammash, R., & Gulnaz, F. (2019) Oral Corrective Feedback Techniques: An Investigation of the EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Practices at Taif University. Arab World English Journal, 10 (2). 40 -54. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no2.4
  2. Alsolami, R. (2019). Effect of Oral Corrective Feedback on Language Skills. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 672-677. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0906.09
  3. Amalia, Zaky & Fauziati, Endang & Marmanto, Sri. (2019). Male and Female Students’ Preferences on the Oral Corrective Feedback in English as Foreign Language (EFL) Speaking Classroom. Humaniora. 10. 25. 10.21512/humaniora.v10i1.5248.
  4. Balçıkanlı, C, (2010). Learner autonomy in language learning: Student teachers’ beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), pp. 90-103. doi:10.14221/ajte.2010v35n1.8
  5. Borg, S. & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. ELT Research Paper 12-07. British Council: University of Leeds, U.K.
  6. Brookhart (2008). The effects of teacher and peer corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy in writing among the L2 learners. The Royale Bintang Resort & Spa, Seremban, 2, 19-20.
  7. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York, N.Y.: Routledge: Taylor & Francis
  8. Butler and Winnie (1995). The effects of repair techniques on L2 learning as a product and as process: A CA-for-SLA investigation of classroom interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne
  9. Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (ed.), 339 360.
  10. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, Volume 1, pp. 3-18. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/content/qt2504d6w3/qt2504d6w3.pdf
  11. Elsaghayer, M. (2014). Affective Damage to Oral Corrective Feedback among Students in Libyan Secondary Schools. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 4(6), 74–82.
  12. Eriksson, E., Björklund Boistrup, L., Thornberg, R., (2018), A qualitative study of primary teachers classroom feedback rationales, Educational research (Windsor. Print), 60(2), 189-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1451759
  13. Fidan, D. (2015). Learners’ Preferences of Oral Corrective Feedback: An Example of Turkish as a Foreign Language Learners. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(9), 1311-1317.
  14. Fisher & Frey (2012). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 4th ed. NY: Longman.
  15. Fungula, B. N. (2013). Oral Corrective Feedback in the Chinese EFL Classroom. (Degree Project). Karlstad: Karlstads Universitet. Retrieved on November 6, 2015 from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:693017/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  16. Giantika, S. (2019). Students’ preferences toward oral corrective feedback in speaking class of the English department of Iain Kediri. Thesis. Retrieved from http://etheses.iainkediri.ac.id/1147/1/932203515-part.pdf
  17. Grant (2016). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 671-691). Mahwah (New Jersey), London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Gron (2013). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536-556. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00465.x.
  19. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
  20. Harris (2000). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107.
  21. Hattie (2009). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14, 112-127. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668828.
  22. Irons (2008). The knowledge, beliefs, and attitude of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, (1), 13-33
  23. Johnston (2012). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practice. Educational Research, 38, (1), 47-65.
  24. Kajee et. al. (2003). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134-1169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00726.x.
  25. Kaufman, SR(n.d). Improving Students' Relationships with Teachers to Provide Essential Supports for Learning. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/education/k12/relationships
  26. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Student Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
  27. Mackey, A., Gass S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 471-497.
  28. Mastang, A. 92019). Students’ perceptions toward teacher’s oral corrective feedback in students speaking English. Thesis. Retrieved from https://digilibadmin.unismuh.ac.id/upload/5949-Full_Text.pdf
  29. Masterminds (2001). Feedback is explicit, positive, and corrective. Retrieved from http://www.calhoun.k12.al.us/makes%20sense/Adobe%20Reader/DO%20NOT%20OPEN%20program%20files/Skill%20instruction/HOW%20to%20teach%20skills/During%20Tactics/SKILL%20Feedback.pdf
  30. Mattson, J. (2017).A qualitative case study examining the impact of teacher feedback during the research writing process in a ninth grade honors class. MSU Graduate Theses. 3070. https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3070
  31. Musashoha, A.B & Sugianto, A. (2019.). The students’ perception towards oral corrective feedback in speaking class. Proceedings of the 3rd INACELT (International Conference on English Language Teaching). Retrieved from http://e-proceedings.iain-palangkaraya.ac.id/index.php/INACELT/article/view/79
  32. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006). Learners’ perception toward oral error correction. In: K. Bradford Watts (Ed.). JALT2006 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT, 284-299.
  33. Ölmezer-Öztürk, E., & Öztürk, G. (2016). Types and timing of oral corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Voices from students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 10(2), 113-133.
  34. Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed Versus Immediate Corrective Feedback on Orally Produced Passive Errors in English. Thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto.
  35. Robinson, Wilson, & Robinson (1981). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181-194.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic