European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching ISSN: 2537 - 1754 ISSN-L: 2537 - 1754 Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu 10.5281/zenodo.166782 Volume 1│Issue 1│2016 PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK Esra Harmandaoğlu Baz1i, Cem Balçıkanlı2, Paşa Tevfik Cephe3 Research Assistant, English Language Teaching Department, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey 1 2,3 Assoc. Prof. Dr., English Language Teaching Department, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey Abstract: 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. “lthough 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. Keywords: corrective feedback, instructors’ perceptions, learners’ perceptions, English as a foreign language Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved Published by Open Access Publishing Group ©2015. 54 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK Introduction Corrective feedback can be seen as an umbrella term to cover implicit and explicit negative feedback occurring in both natural conversational and instructional settings Sheen, , p. 264). Corrective reaction can be assumed as any reaction by the teacher which transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of, a student s behavior or utterance (Chaudron, 1977, p. 24). Although more than a decade has passed and continuous research has been presented on journal articles and conference papers (Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Chen, Nassaji, & Liu, 2016; Ferris, 1995; 1997; 1999; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Kepner, 1991; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2012; Mackey et al., 2007; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998), ongoing discussion is still carried out about providing corrective feedback in the classes. It can be stated that corrective feedback has benefits in L2 learning process (Russell & Spada, 2006). For instance, Ashwell (2000) points out that teachers have different ways to deal with student errors in writing. Focusing on form in giving corrective feedback at later drafts of writing may be better for the improvement of L2 students because accuracy can be said to subordinate meaning or content. In addition, Lyster and Saito (2010) examined the impact of corrective feedback on language development. Doing a meta-analysis with 15 classroom-based research studies, the researchers found out that corrective feedback has an important and longterm impact on language development. Chen et al. (2016) carried out a study on the perceptions of learners about written corrective feedback. The results exhibit that the learners favor and value the use of corrective feedback. Despite the benefits that corrective feedback has in the literature, Truscott (1996, p. 327) in his paper against the grammar correction in L2 writing classes suggest that we should abandon error correction due to three reasons: a Substantial research shows it to be ineffective and none shows it to be helpful in any interesting sense; (b) for both theoretical and practical reasons, one can expect it to be ineffective; and (c) it has harmful effects . According to Truscott (1996), side effects of grammar correction are neglected. In response to Truscott, Ferris overly strong . Ferris , p. thinks that Truscott’s argument is premature and emphasizes that the type of error correction, the profile of the students, and the design of the studies carry an important role in error correction’s efficiency and generalizability. Ferris (1995) found out in her study that 155 students enrolled in ESL composition program give more importance to teacher feedback given to earlier versions rather than final drafts of their writing. The students think that the feedback contributes to their writing development. Another study conducted by Bitchener and Knoch (2010) emphasizes the importance of written corrective feedback on improving language accuracy of advanced European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 55 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK L2 learners. The study was carried out with 63 advanced L2 learners by utilizing three experimental groups and one control group. Experimental groups were designed in three ways: corrective feedback with written metalinguistic explanation, 2) indirect circling of errors, and 3) written meta-linguistic feedback and oral form-focused instruction (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010). The findings reveal that all three experimental groups had improved accuracy scores immediately after getting corrective feedback on their pretest writings contrary to the control group. Schulz found in her study about teachers’ and students’ perceptions about the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback that Colombian and U.S. teachers have a strong belief about continuous correction of written errors. On the other hand, only about half of them believe that oral error correction should be carried out in the class. While teachers’ perceptions about correcting written errors ally with those of the students, the students prefer oral correction in the class (94% of U.S. and 95% of Colombian students). Schulz (2001) relates this to the notion that the teachers generally do not want to break the flow of communication. The findings go along with those of Lasagabaster and Sierra’s study. It was found in their study that while the students strive for more explicit error correction, the teachers generally prefer to do less oral error correction in order to keep up the communication. McCargar (1993) found in his study that there is a disagreement between the teachers and learners. Whereas teachers disagree that language teachers should correct every student error p. , students consider otherwise. “dditionally, while teachers gently shared the belief that language teachers should point out a student error without correcting it p. , the learners except a group Korean obviously refuse it. Schulz (2001) found that the learners in her study were sympathetically inclined to error correction. The findings of this study that are parallel with those of other studies indicate that corrective feedback is demanded by most learners (Chen et al., 2016; Ferris, 1995; 1997; 1999; Leki, 1991; McGargar, 1993). Furthermore, some students may not prefer to be corrected constantly in order to communicate freely as in the sample of Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005). One can assume that when there is a mismatch between what the students expect and teachers’ behaviors, learner motivation can be affected from this negatively (Schulz, 2001). The students in this study preferred a more selective correction in which two aspects should be fundamental: a) more time should be devoted to each ECM (Error correction moves); and b) a wider use of resources and strategies to improve the efficiency of the correction (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005, p. 124). Mackey et al. (2007) examined the perceptions of teachers and learners about corrective feedback based on the linguistic target of feedback, type of feedback, and the nature of learner participation. The findings display European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 56 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK that learners understand the corrective feedback when morphology/lexis is the linguistic target of corrective feedback. The more explicit the feedback is, the more similar teachers’ and students’ perceptions about corrective feedback become. What is more, the learners benefit more if the corrective feedback is for them rather than their classmates. Taking all these into consideration, one can easily agree that there is a gap in the literature regarding students’ and teachers’ perceptions about error treatment (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Lyster & Mori, 2006) and be a need to investigate the learner and teacher perceptions about corrective feedback (Sheen, 2004). Furthermore, it was found in Schulz’s (1996) study that there were remarkable differences in the perceptions between teachers and students about the role of error correction. It is highly prominent to know what teachers think while giving corrective feedback and what students understand from the teachers’ actions. This study can provide an invaluable perspective to this process and might give important contributions to understanding corrective feedback. In this respect, research questions of the study can be seen below: 1. What are the perceptions of English learners and instructors about corrective feedback in an EFL setting in Turkey? 2. What are the similarities and differences of English learners’ and instructors’ perceptions about corrective feedback in an EFL setting in Turkey? Research Design This study aims to investigate the perceptions of English instructors and learners about corrective feedback in learning English as a foreign language. The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey because its aim is to collect information from a sample that has been drawn from a predetermined population Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, , p. . The pre-determined population is the instructors and learners at the preparatory class of a state university in Turkey. Participants Purposive sampling was applied due to being feasible (Fraenkel et al., 2011, p. 430). The participants were at a state university in Turkey studying and teaching at preparatory class during 2015-2016 fall semester. A hundred Turkish EFL learners and ten instructors took part in the study. The level of the learners was intermediate (n=89) and upper-intermediate (n=11) based on the placement test of the preparatory school. The European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 57 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK learners were from English Language and Literature and English Language Teaching Departments. The instructors have been teaching English to these learners. They have different years of teaching experience. Table 1: Participant profile Participants Instructors Learners Number 10 100 Instrumentation Two different versions of questionnaires were used in the study: teacher questionnaire and student questionnaire. They were used in a study by Schulz (1996) previously. The permission was taken from Schulz by e-mail. Since the focus of this study is corrective feedback, the grammar instruction part of the questionnaire was not used in the study. The last three items were added by the researcher to the teacher questionnaire based on the items on the student questionnaire. The items which were added to the teacher questionnaire are as follows: 7T. Students prefer to be corrected by their fellow students in small group rather than by me in front of the entire class.; 8T. Students learn a lot when I correct the errors made by their fellow students rather than the peer correction. 9T. Students learn a lot when I correct the error the student makes in the class. The expert judgment was taken for these three items in order to make sure that the items are clear and do not break the unity of the questionnaire. The questionnaires were arranged as the 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree). The questionnaires were administered to the participants in English. Another instrument was used in the study. The written interview form (in English) was applied to both students and teachers. The expert judgment was taken for the written interview questions before the application. The learners were asked Do you like to be corrected by the teacher, how and why? and Do you dislike to be corrected by the teacher, how and why? . The instructors were asked What factors do you take into consideration in error correction? and How do you handle both oral and written errors? . Data Analysis Data were analyzed checking the numbers and percentages of learners and instructors on the same question by using SPSS 15.0 software program. In the tables below, both the numbers and the percentages of the results were displayed. The written interview European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 58 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK was presented in the discussion part and direct quotations from both instructors and learners were given. Findings and Discussion The aim of this study is to find out the perceptions of instructors and learners about corrective feedback in learning English. The findings are illustrated in table 2 in order to discuss the research questions. Table 2: Perceptions of instructors and learners about corrective feedback Items Teachers & Students SD 1T. Most students dislike it when they are corrected in the class. 1S. I dislike it when I am corrected in the class. 2T. Teachers should not correct students when they make errors in class. 2S. Teachers should not correct students when they make errors in class. D N A SA 2 20 4 40 1 10 1 10 2 20 31 31 36 36 20 20 9 9 4 4 1 10 8 80 - - 1 10 - - 56 56 34 34 4 4 3 3 3 3 - - 3 30 2 20 4 40 1 10 45 45 30 30 18 18 6 6 1 1 - - 1 10 2 20 5 50 2 20 11 11 22 22 24 24 29 29 14 14 - - 3 30 2 20 5 50 - - - - 5 5 11 11 41 41 43 43 - - - - 2 20 1 10 7 70 - - 1 1 5 5 38 38 56 56 - - 5 50 3 30 - - 2 20 11 11 34 34 34 34 17 17 4 4 3T. Teachers should not correct students’ pronunciation or grammatical errors in class unless these errors interfere with comprehensibility. 3S. Teachers should not correct students’ pronunciation or grammatical errors in class unless these errors interfere with comprehensibility. 4T. Most students feel cheated if a teacher does not correct the written work they hand in. 4S. I feel cheated if a teacher does not correct the written work I hand in. 5T. Generally, when students make errors in speaking the target language, they should be corrected. 5S. When I make errors in speaking this language, I would like my teacher to correct them. 6T. Generally, when students make errors in writing the target language, they should be corrected. 6S. When I make errors in writing this language, I would like my teacher to correct them. 7T. Students prefer to be corrected by their fellow students in small group rather than by me in front of the entire class. 7S. I prefer to be corrected by my fellow students in small group work rather than by my teacher in front of the entire class. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 59 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK 8T. Students learn a lot when I correct the errors made by their fellow students rather than the peer correction. 8S. I learn a lot when my teacher corrects the errors made by my fellow students in class. 9T. Students learn a lot when I correct the error the student makes in the class. 9S. I learn a lot when my teacher corrects the errors I make in class. - - 1 10 2 20 6 60 1 10 2 2 6 6 20 20 52 52 20 20 - - 1 10 1 10 7 70 1 10 - - 4 4 11 11 53 53 32 32 The first research question is: 1. What are the perceptions of English learners and instructors about corrective feedback in an EFL setting in Turkey? The results indicate that learners (70% of the instructors and 43% of the learners) feel cheated if the teacher does not correct the error. The instructors and learners like corrective feedback in the class, which has also been revealed in many studies (Leki, 1991; McGargar, 1993; Schulz, 2001). What is more, it can be understood from learner interviews that some learners in this study want the instructor to be friendly, direct and explicit when the instructor gives corrective feedback (Lyster, 1998b; Seedhouse, 1997; Spada, 1997), and to correct the errors gently. In this regard, the learners mention in the written interview that The teacher should be friendly and tell me the correct form with a smooth tongue . The teacher s attitude is very important . Errors should be corrected and this is a good thing . On the other hand, there are a small number of learners and instructors who are not so favorable about corrective feedback (30% of the instructors and 13% of the learners). It can be observed from the written interview results that some learners in this study feel that the instructor may be critical (n=16), be the only authority in the class (n=12), not be sincere (n=10) and be friendly (n=14), and not be the only source (n=12). Furthermore, some learners in this study (n=15) feel like that the instructors criticize themselves not the errors. One of the learners reports in the written interview If the teacher targets me all the time, I do not like it. I feel a bit guilty if the teacher always targets me and tries to correct me all the time because there are other students in the class . ”esides, some learners feel shy (n=25) and anxious (n=37) while receiving corrective feedback. A learner expresses in the interview that If the self-confidence of the students is low, then they may feel offended in the class. Due to this, the teacher should encourage that student. However, if a student has a high level of self-confidence, that student does not get hurt in error correction . Because of these factors, a small number of learners do not seem to like error correction in the class. In this respect, an instructor mentions her technique about how she gives feedback There are some students who are not open to criticism and other who think European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 60 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK that they did everything wrong. Firstly, I try to increase the motivation by saying You did it well! “fter that, I give some feedback . “nother instructor explains her technique that Generally, if I give oral feedback, I write down the errors to remember. Then, I speak to the whole class like friends, generally your friends do these kinds of mistakes . While they are having a group work activity, I wander around and I take some notes. If there is an error made by only one student, there is no meaning in telling it. But, if the error is recurring, then I tell the whole class like friends, our students generally make that kind of error . I do not tell them in person. Generally, it is effective and sometimes the student says it was me . They notice themselves . It can be concluded from the comments that the instructors seem to believe the importance of such learner variables as motivation (DeKeyser, 1993) and anxiety (Horwitz, 2001; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Sheen, 2008) in the effectiveness of corrective feedback and language learning process. In addition, the perceptions of the instructors ally with Calve’s targeted as cited in Lyster, proposition that errors that recur frequently should be a, p. . “s is easily seen in the comments that the instructor’s preference in this study to give non-direct feedback and to encourage to talk before giving corrective feedback can be assumed as a good way of giving corrective feedback to such learners who feel shy and anxious. Another point that seems clear in this study is that the instructor should be the one who gives corrective feedback because the learners believe that they learn a lot when the instruction does the correction (80% of the instructors and 85% of the learners). It can be understood from the written interview that the learners see the instructor as the one who improves their English (n=90), is trustable in error correction (n=54), and is the one showing the error (n=82). A learner comments in the interview that The teacher should emphasize the error and correct all the time . What is more, the learners think that the instructor should help and guide them in a positive way (n=8). The last point that must be highlighted is that both most instructors and learners would prefer teacher correction to peer correction (70% of the instructors and 72% of the learners). An instructor comments in the interview that I accept them all whatever they say in terms of logic and accuracy in speaking. I get very angry when peers make such comments as do not be ridiculous . I am careful about not offending them. “nd I express that the content is important for me . “nother instructor says that We have some codes beforehand. We sign an agreement and when something goes wrong, we show them the agreement and they do not do any offensive behavior in the class . “ learner expresses that Peer correction is sometimes good but the peer correction after the teacher has corrected it is not pleasant. In writing that happens but I do not correct it most of the time. It also depends on the person. I prefer teacher correction to peer correction much more. I do not like to be corrected by my peers all the time. “nother learner explains that I like it when it happens with my partner or a European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 61 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK close friend of mine. But if it is out loud in the class, I do not like it . These expressions of the learners in this study regarding their preference for teacher correction seem to be parallel with some studies (Nelson & Carson, 1998; Zhang, 1995). Furthermore, it can be understood from the comments that both sides prefer teacher correction. On the other hand, this contradicts with the suggestions of peer correction (Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, & Huang, 1998; Lockhart & Ng, 1992; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Paulus, 1999) and self-correction (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Yoshida, 2008). It can be suggested that the instructors and learners in this study are inclined to a traditional method in which the teacher is seen as an authority to correct the errors (Schulz, 2001). The second research question is: 2. What are the similarities and differences of EFL learners’ and instructors’ perceptions about corrective feedback in learning English as a foreign language in a Turkish setting? The findings display that the instructors and learners in this study share almost similar ideas about corrective feedback. Both instructors and learners seem to believe that students like corrective feedback. Additionally, they think that instructors but not peers should correct the errors because both instructors and learners think that when the instructor corrects the errors, the learners learn a lot, instructors should correct learners and instructors should correct written errors. In terms of writing, both the instructors and the learners in this study prefer corrective feedback (80% of the instructors and 94% of the learners). A learner expresses his opinion about corrective feedback as The teacher should write clearly, show the error, underlie the wrong one, and correct the word or collocations . “ learner expresses that I usually use checklist for writing. However, there are recurring written errors, I write them down and show the correct one like not this, but this is the correct one . I again talk to the whole class without targeting a person . “nother instructor expresses that she does not show any tolerance for written errors because In written feedback, we have a checklist and we deal with many issues. We are a bit harsher in writings because this is the most informal course we had in this institution . One can agree that both instructors and learners in this study seem to give much importance to the written feedback. In addition, it should be pointed out that explicit correction seems to be desired by learners in this study as in some studies (Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Seedhouse, 1997; Spada, 1997). On the other hand, there is a perception contradicting between instructors and learners in this study. It can be acknowledged from the findings that the learners in this study expect both oral and written feedback from the instructor. A learner in the interview comments that In writing, spelling, grammar, any mistake should be corrected. If European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 62 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK the teachers do not correct my errors, I start to make more errors. I like explicit correction because I cannot understand some parts. Coding is good but there are some codes we understand clearly and some we cannot . However, the instructors (50% of them) in this study think that they should not correct learners’ pronunciation or grammatical errors in class unless these errors interfere with comprehensibility, which is disagreed by the majority of the learners (75% of the learners) in this study. An instructor comments in the interview that The oral feedback I give depends on the task . This perception can indicate that the instructors should take the instructional setting into consideration (Lyster & Mori, 2006; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004). The findings of this study seem to be parallel with McCargar and Schulz ’s studies which show that the learners opt for both oral and written corrective feedback. On the other hand, while the instructors seem to have a strong belief to give written feedback, they do not prefer oral correction in the class in order not to disrupt the communication. Also, it can be understood from the comments that while the learners in this study expect direct and explicit feedback, the instructors in this study prefer non-direct feedback. From another point of view, the findings of this study from the aspect of learners contradict with those of Lasagabaster and Sierra ’s study because the students in that study demanded not to be corrected all the time in order to be able to communicate however they want. Conclusion The purpose of this study is to find out the perceptions of EFL instructors and learners about corrective feedback in learning English. It was revealed in the findings that the instructors and learners share similar perceptions. Both think that the learners like corrective feedback and prefer teacher correction to peer correction. Furthermore, both agree that when the instructors correct the errors, the learners learn a lot. In addition, both believe that the students feel cheated when the instructors do not correct the learners’ written work. However, they have a disagreement on one statement. While both instructors and learners think the instructors should correct written errors, only instructors agree that teachers should not correct students’ pronunciation or grammatical errors in class unless these errors interfere with comprehensibility but the learners desire to be corrected. Furthermore, the learners in this study prefer to be corrected explicitly. What is more, the learners see the instructor as an authority in corrective feedback and expect the instructors to be friendly, guiding, and direct while the instructors prefer non-direct feedback. Also, it can be understood that the European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 63 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK instructors in this study seem to take learner anxiety, motivation, and instructional setting into consideration. All in all, the findings of this study may suggest that the instructors and learners seem to share similar ideas possibly due to the similar language learning experience. In addition, there can be some implications for language instructors from this study. Firstly, it seems important for language instructors 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. Secondly, it is good to consider some other non-language influences such as motivation and anxiety in corrective feedback and language learning process. Finally, it is advised for language instructors to give place to their learners’ opinions in order to increase their engagement in language learning process. References 1. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multipledraft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257. 2. 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. 3. Chaudron, C. (1977). Teachers' priorities in correcting learners' errors in French immersion classes. Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 4. Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. . 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 5. 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. 6. DeKeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501-514. 7. 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. 8. Ferris, D. R. . Student reactions to teacher response in multiple‐draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 64 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK 9. 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. 10. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill. 11. Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. . Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2-3), 112-127. 15. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college‐level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218. 16. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1994). Student perspectives of peer response: How useful is it? Prospect, 9, 17-29. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. 21. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. 22. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A MetaAnalysis, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990520. 23. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. doi: 10.1017/S0261444812000365. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 65 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK 24. 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. 25. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think?. ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284. 26. McCargar, D. F. . Teacher and student role expectations: Cross‐cultural differences and implications. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 192-207. 27. 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. 28. Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119-151. 29. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. 30. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289. 31. Polio, C., & Fleck, C. . If I only had more time: ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 4368. 32. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). Corrective feedback makes a difference: A metaanalysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 33. 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. 34. Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: US“‐Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. 35. Seedhouse, P. . The case of the missing no : The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47(3), 547-583. 36. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300. 37. Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835-874. 38. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language teaching, 30(2), 73-87. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 66 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK 39. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. 40. Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93. 41. Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 67 Esra Harmandaoğlu ”az, Cem ”alçıkanlı, Paşa Tevfik Cephe – PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTORS AND LEARNERS ABOUT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK Creative Commons licensing terms Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violations and inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and noncommercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching - Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 68