Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton June 8, 2021

The relationship between university EFL teachers’ oral feedback beliefs and practices and the impact of individual differences

  • Dogan Yuksel , Adem Soruç EMAIL logo and Jim McKinley


This study investigated Turkish EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices about the aspects of oral corrective feedback (OCF). It explored the impact of individual differences, namely educational background, special training, and teaching experience, on the relationship between the beliefs and practices. Data on teachers’ practices were collected via 153 h of classroom observations from 51 Turkish EFL teachers at two different universities, and teachers’ beliefs were gathered by a task about OCF. The results showed that teachers’ beliefs and practices were consistent on the aspects of perceived effectiveness, grammatical errors, implicit and explicit feedback. However, their beliefs and practices were inconsistent regarding lexical, phonological errors, and timing of OCF. The results also revealed that of the three individual differences, teaching experience most impacted the consistency between beliefs and practices, thus showing the greater role of teaching experience over special training and educational background on the consistency between beliefs and practices about OCF.

Corresponding author: Adem Soruç, Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, UK, E-mail:


Task on OCF (abridged version for publication)

  1. Rate the effectiveness of giving CF on your students’ language mistakes in a percentile scale [100 = extremely important and effective in your students’ language development]:

  2. How often do you correct your students’ mistakes in classroom oral communication? [Scale 0–100%, 10 point intervals]

  3. How often would you provide CF on your students’ grammar, pronunciation or vocabulary mistakes?

    1. Grammar [Scale 0–100%, 10 point intervals]

    2. Pronunciation [Scale 0–100%, 10 point intervals]

    3. Vocabulary [Scale 0–100%, 10 point intervals]

  4. There are (at least) three sources in providing OCF to learners’ mistakes in a classroom setting. The learners can correct their mistakes on their own (self-correction), their peers can correct these mistakes (peer correction) or teachers can treat them (teacher correction). On a weighted scale of 100, how would you distribute the three sources of feedback provider? Here, you are asked to give percentages for each source and your total percentage should be 100.

Learners themselves
Their peers
  1. Teachers can give OCF to their students’ mistakes immediately after the mistake (immediate feedback) or sometime later (delayed feedback). On a weighted scale of 100, how would you distribute the timing of feedback?

Immediate feedback
Delayed feedback
  1. Please choose the feedback that you think most effective in the following examples (Note: Actual task included ten examples)

Teacher: What did you do at home last night?

Student: I goes home late so I couldn’t do much.

  1. A) Teacher: No, not goes, went.

  2. B) Teacher: You went home late? Why? What did you do?

  3. C) Teacher: I am sorry?

  4. D) Teacher: You need to use the past form of the verb

  5. E) Teacher: You… (pausing)? (rising intonation)

  6. F) Teacher: I GOES home late. (stressing the mistake, with rising intonation)

Teacher: Where did you stay in London?

Student: I stayed in a hotəl [hotel]

  1. A) Teacher: No, not hotəl, hotel (correct pronunciation).

  2. B) Teacher: You stayed in a hotel (correct pronunciation)

  3. C) Teacher: I am sorry? Can you say that again?

  4. D) Teacher: I stayed in a HOTəL (stressing the mistake).

  5. E) Teacher: I stayed in a… (pausing)? (rising intonation).

  6. F) Teacher: We pronounce the hotel with /e/sound not schwa sound.

Student: I didn’t remember him to come to the party. I should have called him in advance.

  1. A) Teacher: Remember and remind have different meanings. Remind is making someone remember. Be careful.

  2. B) Teacher: No, not remember, it should be remind.

  3. C) Teacher: You didn’t remind him to come to the party.

  4. D) Teacher: I didn’t… (pausing)? (rising intonation).

  5. E) Teacher: Can you repeat again?

  6. F) Teacher: I didn’t REMEMBER him to do come to the party. (stressing the mistake).


Amrhein, Hannah R. & Hossein Nassaji. 2010. Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 13. 95–127.Search in Google Scholar

Arroyo, Diana C. & Yucel Yilmaz. 2018. An Open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning 68(4). 942–972. in Google Scholar

Atai, Mahmood Reza & Zahra Shafiee. 2017. Pedagogical knowledge base underlying EFL teachers’ provision of oral corrective feedback in grammar instruction. Teacher Development 21(4). 580–596. in Google Scholar

Bao, Rui. 2019. Oral corrective feedback in L2 Chinese classes: Teachers’ beliefs versus their practices. System 82. 140–150. in Google Scholar

Basturkmen, Helen. 2012. Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System 40(2). 282–295. in Google Scholar

Basturkmen, Helen, Shawn Loewen & Rod Ellis. 2004. Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 25(2). 243–272. in Google Scholar

Berliner, David C. 2001. Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research 35(5). 463–482. in Google Scholar

Borg, Simon. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36(2). 81–109. in Google Scholar

Breen, Michael P., Bernard, Hird, Marion, Milton, Oliver, Rhonda & Anne, Thwaite. 2001. Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 22(4). 470–501. in Google Scholar

Canals, Laia, Gisela Granena, Yucel Yilmaz & Aleksandra Malicka. 2020. Second language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of delayed immediate corrective feedback in an asynchronous online setting an exploratory study. TESL Canada Journal 37(2). 181–209. in Google Scholar

Corder, Stephen P. 1975. Error analysis, interlanguage and second language acquisition. Language Teaching 8(4). 201–218. in Google Scholar

Cundale, Nigel. 2001. What we preach? Stated beliefs about communicative language teaching and classroom questioning strategies. The Language Teacher 25(5). 4–9.Search in Google Scholar

Dong, Zhixin. 2012. Beliefs and practices: A case study on oral corrective feedback in the teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (TCFL) classroom. Tempe: Diss. Arizona State University.Search in Google Scholar

Dornyei, Zoltan. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2008. The study of second language acquisition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Erlam, Rosemary & Shawn Loewen. 2010. Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review 66(6). 877–905. in Google Scholar

Ferlazzo, Larry & Katie Hull Sypnieski. 2018. Teaching English language learners: Tips from the classroom. American Educator 42(3). 12–16.Search in Google Scholar

Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura K. 2010. Factors influencing oral corrective feedback provision in the Spanish foreign language classroom: Investigating instructor native/non-native speaker status, second language acquisition education, and teaching experience. Doctoral dissertation. Washington, DC, USA: Georgetown University. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Ha, Xuan Van & Jill, C. Murray. 2020. Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers. Language Teaching Research. in Google Scholar

Hendrickson, James M. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal 62(8). 387–398. in Google Scholar

Hernández Méndez, Edith & María del Rosario Reyes Cruz. 2012. Teachers’ perception about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. Profile 14(2). 63–75.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Keith E. 2003. Designing language teaching tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. in Google Scholar

Junqueira, Luciana & YouJin Kim. 2013. Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers’ corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review 69(2). 181–206. in Google Scholar

Kamiya, Nobuhiro. 2016. The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 10(3). 206–219. in Google Scholar

Kartchava, Eva. 2006. Corrective feedback: Novice ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices. Master’s thesis. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Concordia University. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Landis, J. Richard & Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1). 159–74. in Google Scholar

Lasagabaster, David & Juan Manuel Sierra. 2005. What do students think about the pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native English teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, 217–241. New York: Springer. in Google Scholar

Lee, Eun Jeong Esther. 2013. Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System 41(2). 217–230.10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng. 2017. Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback. In Hossein Nassaji & Eva Kartchava (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning, 143–157. New York: Routledge. in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng & Alyssa Vuono. 2019. Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System 84. 93–109. in Google Scholar

Loewen, Shawn, Shaofeng, Li, Fei, Fei, Amy, Thompson, Kimi, Nakatsukasa, Seongmee, Ahn & Xiaoqing, Chen. 2009. L2 learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal 93(1). 91–104. in Google Scholar

Long, Avizia Yim 2017. Investigating the relationship between instructor research training and pronunciation-related instruction and oral corrective feedback. In Laura Gurzynski-Weiss (ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and researchers, 201–223. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/aals.16.09lonSearch in Google Scholar

Lyster, Roy & Hirohide Mori. 2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 269–300. in Google Scholar

Lyster, Roy, Kazuya Saito & Masatoshi Sato. 2013. Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching 46(1). 1–40. in Google Scholar

Mahalingappa, Laura, Nihat Polat & Rui Wang. 2021. A cross-cultural comparison in pedagogical beliefs about oral corrective feedback: The case of English language teachers in China versus the U.S. Language Awareness. 1–21. in Google Scholar

McKinley, Jim & Heath Rose (eds.). 2019. The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780367824471Search in Google Scholar

McNeill, Arthur. 2005. Non-native speaker teachers and awareness of lexical difficulty in pedagogical texts. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, 107–128. New York: Springer. in Google Scholar

Mercer, Sarah & Achilleas Kostoulas (eds.). 2018. Language teacher psychology. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783099467Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, Erin Wagner. 2005. The influence of beliefs on the teaching practices of high school foreign language teachers. Doctoral dissertation. Amherst, MA, USA: University of Massachusetts. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Mok, Waiching Enid. 1994. Reflecting in reflections: A case study of experienced and inexperienced ESL teachers. System 22. 93–111. in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein. 2016. Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research 20. 535–562. in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein & Eva Kartchava. 2017. Conclusion, reflections, and final remarks. In Hossein Nassaji & Eva Kartchava (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications, 168–174. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315621432-13Search in Google Scholar

Ölmezer-Öztürk, Elçin. 2019. Beliefs and practices of Turkish EFL teachers regarding oral corrective feedback: A small-scale classroom research study. The Language Learning Journal 10. 1–10. in Google Scholar

Quinn, Paul Gregory & Tatsuya Nakata. 2017. The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Hossein Nassaji & Eva Kartchava (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications, 35–47. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. in Google Scholar

Rahimi, Muhammad & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2015. Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers’ cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication. System 55. in Google Scholar

Roothooft, Hanne. 2014. The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System 46. 65–79. in Google Scholar

Sarandi, Hedayat. 2016. Oral corrective feedback: A question of classification and application. Tesol Quarterly 50(1). 235–46. in Google Scholar

Sato, Kazuyoshi & Robert C. Kleinsasser. 1999. Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. Modern Language Journal 83. 494–517. in Google Scholar

Sato, Kazuyoshi & Robert C. Kleinsasser. 2004. Beliefs, practices and interactions of teachers in a Japanese high school English department. Teaching and Teacher Education 20(8). 797–816. in Google Scholar

Sheen, Younghee & Rod Ellis. 2011. Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, vol. 2, 593–610. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Tsui, Amy. 2003. Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. in Google Scholar

Warrens, Matthijs J. 2015. Five ways to look at Cohen’s Kappa. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy 5(4). 1–4.Search in Google Scholar

Yuksel, Dogan, Adem Soruç & Jim McKinley. 2021. Teachers’ beliefs and practices about oral corrective feedback in university EFL classes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 1–21. in Google Scholar

Zhu, Yan & Beilei Wang. 2019. Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback at Chinese universities: A large-scale survey. Language Awareness 28(2). 139–161. in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-10-10
Accepted: 2021-04-28
Published Online: 2021-06-08
Published in Print: 2023-06-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 29.9.2023 from
Scroll to top button