Esra Harmandaoğlu Baz, Cem Balçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe


Corrective feedback has always been popular in English as a foreign language (EFL) settings and its effectiveness in language learning has been widely debated. An increasing number of second language acquisition studies (SLA) indicate that there is a dilemma in the effectiveness of corrective feedback in terms of EFL instructors’ and learners’ perceptions. Although the effectiveness of corrective feedback is a point at issue, there is not much research related to investigating instructors’ and learner’ perceptions. It is the aim of this study to examine the perceptions of instructors and learners about corrective feedback in learning English as a foreign language (EFL). The findings of the study show that the instructors and learners seem to have almost similar ideas about corrective feedback. However, the instructors and learners seem to have one contradicting perspective that is about oral error correction: the instructors do not seem to favor oral correction all the time, but the learners do. Furthermore, the interviews display that while the instructors prefer non-direct feedback, the learners prefer direct and explicit feedback. Language instructors need to know what their learners expect in corrective feedback and to form a common understanding with their learners for increasing the effectiveness of corrective feedback.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter


corrective feedback, instructors’ perceptions, learners’ perceptions, English as a foreign language

Full Text:



Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.

Chaudron, C. (1977). Teachers' priorities in correcting learners' errors in French immersion classes. Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1-5. doi: 10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y

Chenoweth, N., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of ESL students to error correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 79-87.

DeKeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501-514.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.

Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple‐draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126.

Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317.

Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second‐language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2-3), 112-127.

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college‐level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218..

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1994). Student perspectives of peer response: How useful is it? Prospect, 9, 17-29.

Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104.

Lyster, R. (1998a). Form in immersion classroom discourse: In or out of focus?. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 1(1-2), 53-82.

Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A Meta-Analysis, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990520.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. doi: 10.1017/S0261444812000365.

Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers' intentions and learners' perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 129-152.

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think?. ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.

McCargar, D. F. (1993). Teacher and student role expectations: Cross‐cultural differences and implications. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 192-207.

Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.

Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119-151.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.

Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.

Polio, C., & Fleck, C. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). Corrective feedback makes a difference: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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 instruction and corrective feedback: USA‐Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.

Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47(3), 547-583.

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.

Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835-874.

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language teaching, 30(2), 73-87.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93.

Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.


  • There are currently no refbacks.





Copyright © 2015. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (ISSN 2537-1754) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).