Cover not available

Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 43:3 (2020) ► pp.247–276

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

How do learners engage with oral corrective feedback on lexical stress errors?

Effects of learner engagement on the working of corrective feedback

ORCiD logo with link | The University of Tennessee at Knoxville
 | Northern Arizona University
 | Oklahoma State University
Published online: 24 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.19010.sae
Abstract
This study explored the affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement of 18 Iranian EFL learners with oral corrective feedback on lexical stress errors. The data were collected using questionnaires, pretests, posttests, and interviews. The questionnaire responses showed that the participants held various perceptions about direct feedback. Additionally, the pretest and posttest results indicated that the learners with positive perceptions about direct feedback had significant lexical stress accuracy gains. Also, the students who viewed direct feedback favorably showed positive affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement with it. These learners, for instance, frequently reviewed the provided feedback and used cognitive resources when utilizing it. In contrast, the students with negative perceptions about direct feedback showed negative engagement with it. The findings suggest that learners’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement can determine the working of feedback. Also, students’ perceptions seem to filter the feedback they receive, thereby helping shape how they engage with feedback.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Background
    • 1.2Effects of OCF on L2 pronunciation accuracy
    • 1.3Learners’ engagement with feedback
    • 1.4Target structure: Lexical stress
    • 1.5The present study
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Operationalization of variables
    • 2.2Study context, participants, and participant selection
    • 2.3Data collection instruments
    • 2.4The tutoring sessions: OCF on lexical stress errors
    • 2.5Data collection and data analysis
  • 3.Findings and discussion
    • 3.1The learners’ questionnaire responses
    • 3.2Learners’ pretest and posttest lexical stress accuracy
    • 3.3The effects of learner engagement with feedback on the efficacy of direct OCF on lexical stress errors
      • 3.3.1Patterns of Learner Engagement with Feedback for the Favorable Group: Bita, Mina, and Peji
      • 3.3.2Patterns of learner engagement for the unfavorable group: Amin, Sara, and Ziba
  • 4.Conclusion
  • References
References (33)
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Sprouse, R. A. (2018). Negative versus positive transfer. In J. I. Lionitas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–6). Wiley- Blackwell: NJ, USA. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 931, 46–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 391, 379–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2007). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 291, 359–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 481, 393–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C. (2013). The short-term effects of individual corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. System, 411, 25–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 335–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1957). Word stress in Persian. Language, 33(2), 123–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gooch, R., Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 601, 117–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 381, 201–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 691, 133–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 301, 31–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jodaie, M., Farrokhi, F., & Zoghi, M. (2011). A comparative study of EFL Teachers’ and intermediate high school students’ perceptions of written corrective feedback on grammatical errors. English Language Teaching, 41, 36–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 381, 301–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2015). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 381, 35–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation Instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 361, 345–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lesley, T., Sandy, C., Hansen, C., & Zukowski, J. (2005). Interchange Passages placement evaluation package (3rd ed.). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 681, 196–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 191, 37–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 265–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 461, 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 221, 471–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahjani, B. (2003). An instrumental study of prosodic features and intonation in modern Farsi (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, L. (2006). Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 261, 219–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (2004). Interchange 2 (3rd ed.). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2013). Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 351, 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 621, 595–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, Y., & Saito, K. (2017). Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 211, 589–608. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 371, 217–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 303–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effects of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 1-30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vojdanoska, M., Cranney, J., & Newell, B. R. (2010). The testing effect: The role of feedback and collaboration in a tertiary classroom setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(8), 1183–1195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 371, 13–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Dalman, Mohammadreza
2025. Second Language (L2) Learners’ Perceptions of Online-Based Pronunciation Instruction. Languages 10:4 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Jing & Wei Su
2025. Student engagement with oral feedback on second language learning: A methodological review. System 133 ► pp. 103752 ff. DOI logo
Saeli, Hooman, Payam Rahmati & Mohammadreza Dalman
2024. Oral Corrective Feedback: Perceptions of Iranian Learners. In The Handbook of Cultural Linguistics [Springer Handbooks in Languages and Linguistics, ], ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Hua, Congchao
2023. Pronunciation assessment of learners, by learners, and for learners: Effects, validity and reliability, and learners’ perception. Language Teaching Research DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue