Rui Bao*
Hui Wang*- College of International Culture and Social Development, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China
This study reports on the preferences of teachers and students of Chinese as a second language (CSL) for corrective feedback (CF) and the reasons underlying their preferences. Data was collected from 328 students and 46 teachers through a questionnaire and interviews, and the results showed that CSL students had a strong overall preference for explicit correction and metalinguistic clues, while teachers favored recasts. Moreover, students and teachers significantly varied in their preferences for metalinguistic clues, explicit correction, and clarification requests across error types. A difference was also identified in recasts regarding phonological and lexical errors. Explanations for these variations are attributed to the characteristics of the Chinese language, learner proficiency, teachers’ entrenched beliefs in teaching, and the features of some given CF types. Additionally, the interview data also revealed the different reasons that teachers and students consider when it comes to CF provision. Finally, pedagogical implications for language teachers are discussed.
1. Introduction
Corrective feedback (hereafter CF) refers to “responses to learner utterances containing an error” (Ellis, 2006, p. 28) in both oral and written modes. The focus of the present study is on oral CF; over the past two decades oral CF has been the subject of considerable research in the field of second language education. Earlier scholars focused on the critical role of oral CF in preventing learners from fossilizing their L2 errors, a phenomenon considered damaging to L2 learning (DeKeyser, 1993), while subsequent scholars have highlighted the role of CF in stimulating learners to notice gaps between their interlanguage and the target norm, prompting them to reformulate their utterances in a more target-like manner (Long, 1996). Increasing evidence has revealed the overall efficacy of CF on L2 learning (Li, 2010; Lyster et al., 2013), but it has been also found that the pattern and efficacy of CF relate to various contextual variables (Zhu and Wang, 2019). In recent years, teacher and student beliefs as one variable has attracted much attention in CF research (Ha and Murray, 2023). Beliefs refer to the attitudes, views, opinions, or stances that teachers and learners hold about the tasks or strategies used in second language teaching and learning (Li, 2017). Given the difficulty in distinguishing beliefs from other constructs such as perceptions, attitudes, preferences, etc., the term belief in the present study is used interchangeably with these constructs.
It has been long recognized that teacher and student beliefs about L2 teaching and learning exert a profound impact on their perceptions and judgments, which in turn influence what they do and say during classes (Borg, 2003). In addition, the relationship between the two belief systems also plays a big role in L2 learning, with consistency leading to “harder work and greater gains in students’ learning” (Plonsky and Mills, 2006, p. 55), while inconsistency may result in students’ dissatisfaction, anxiety, and even the cessation of further study (Horwitz, 1999; Brown, 2009). Importantly, belief as a social construct is context-dependent (Barcelos, 2003), which means that teachers and students from different contexts may vary in their beliefs about L2 teaching and learning. Thus, it merits more inquiries, which is particularly true in the context of Chinese as a second language (CSL), since knowledge about this area is scant.
The present study seeks to examine CSL teachers’ and students’ preferences for different CF types regarding grammatical, phonological, and lexical errors and the reasons for their CF preferences. Data was collected by means of questionnaires and interviews. The results are expected to yield an in-depth understanding of CSL teachers’ and students’ CF preferences so as to inform teachers about how to make their CF practices more effective and efficient for teaching and learning.
2. Literature review
2.1. Research on oral corrective feedback
One seminal study on oral CF was carried out by Lyster and Ranta (1997), identifying six types of oral CF: recasts, explicit correction, metalinguistic clues, repetition, elicitation, and clarification requests. According to whether the correct form was directly provided or withheld, they further categorized these types of CF into two broad groups: reformulations (i.e., recasts and explicit correction), and negotiation of forms (i.e., elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, and repetition), also referred to as prompts (Lyster, 2004). Another way to segment these CF types was given by Ellis et al. (2006), who classified them into explicit and implicit types according to whether the learner was drawn to their error overtly. In this segmentation, implicit CF constitutes clarification requests, repetition, recasts, and elicitation, while explicit CF includes metalinguistic clues and explicit correction.
Despite the existence of different classifications, Lyster and Ranta’s taxonomy has been widely used to code CF. To date, extant CF research falls mainly into two paradigms: observational and experimental (Li and Vuono, 2019). Research in the observational line has focused on describing CF patterns in terms of the distribution of different types of CF and their links to learner uptake (Brown, 2016; Wang and Li, 2020), while experimental research has emphasized CF efficacy in regards to whether CF is conducive to L2 learning and which type is most effective (Li, 2010; Lyster et al., 2013; Nassaji, 2017). In summary, both lines of research have shown a clear tendency for the efficacy of CF on L2 learning and also noted a host of mediating factors contributing to the patterns and efficacy of CF (Nassaji and Kartchava, 2020), of which is teacher and student preferences for CF.
2.2. Teacher and student preference for corrective feedback
Early research on teachers’ and students’ preferences for CF was mainly conducted with broader surveys of general beliefs about L2 teaching and learning, using Likert-type questionnaires that included only a few items related to CF (Schulz, 2001; Davis, 2003; Brown, 2009). However, more recent research has focused exclusively on CF beliefs in terms of attitudes, perceptions and preferences, the results of which have shown that teachers’ and students’ beliefs do not always align (Lee, 2013; Kaivanpanah et al., 2015; Roothooft and Breeze, 2016). For instance, Ha and Nguyen (2021) found that students are disposed toward having CF for all error types and desired to use peer correction during class. However, teachers were found to have less confidence in peer correction and more reluctance in giving CF. There are also discrepancies between teachers’ and students’ beliefs concerning CF timing, as Ha et al. (2021) reported that Vietnamese students appreciated immediate CF while their teachers were less favorable about this CF techniques out of concern for students’ emotional state and disruption of CF on the flow of students’ speech.
In addition, discrepancies have also been identified between teachers’ and students’ preferences for different types of CF. For instance, Yoshida (2008) showed that Japanese EFL learners preferred to be given time to rethink and self-repair their errors, as opposed to their teachers’ preference for recasts. ESL teachers in Lee (2013) also favored recasts, but their advanced-level learners preferred explicit correction. This also held true for Roothooft and Breeze (2016), who revealed that Spanish learners of EFL appreciated explicit CF in terms of explicit correction and metalinguistic clues, but their teachers preferred elicitation. However, unlike the studies reviewed above, Kaivanpanah et al. (2015) found that Iranian EFL learners showed a positive view of recasts and metalinguistic clues, while their teachers tended to use different types of CF depending on the circumstances. Taken together, this research shows that teachers and students in different contexts may hold varied preferences for CF types.
Explanations for these differing preferences have been related to a number of contextual variables, proficiency being one of them. Brown (2009) revealed high-proficiency students were more favorable to being corrected indirectly than lower-proficiency students. Similar findings were also found by Kaivanpanah et al. (2015), who noted that Iranian learners with higher proficiency responded more positively to elicitative types of CF that required self-correction compared to those with lower proficiency. Another study worth noting is Zhang et al. (2022), which compared CF beliefs between high- and low- proficiency CSL learners and found that low-proficiency learners preferred delayed correction more than those with high proficiency. Furthermore, proficiency also affects learners’ preferences for CF regarding error types, as Yang (2016) indicated that intermediate CSL learners are more confident in the efficacy of clarification requests on pronunciation errors than beginning learners. In addition, individual learning experiences (Schulz, 2001; Loewen et al., 2009), instructional settings (Lee, 2013; Kaivanpanah et al., 2015), and learner affect (Yoshida, 2008) also have contributed to the variance of CF-related preferences. This again highlighted the context-specific nature of beliefs, which suggests a need for more inquiries to examine the effects of other factors on teacher and learner CF preferences.
2.3. Effect of error types on teacher and student preference for corrective feedback
Previous research has shown that error type is a factor affecting learners’ perceptions of CF. For instance, a number of studies have reported a tendency for learners to perceive phonological and lexical CF more accurately than grammatical CF (Nabei and Swain, 2002; Yoshida, 2010). However, there are exceptions, as Mackey et al. (2007) reported that learners of Arabic were more likely to notice teachers’ CF of lexical and grammatical errors than phonological ones. In addition, there is also a discrepancy between learners’ perceptions of and teachers’ intentions for CF with respect to error types. This line of research has shown an overall tendency that teachers tend to provide more CF for grammatical errors, while learners perceive phonological and lexical errors more accurately (Mackey et al., 2000). Discrepancy is also noted between teachers’ preferences for and learners’ responses to CF. This was demonstrated by Lyster (1998) who discovered that teachers preferred to recast grammatical errors, whereas learners generated more successful grammatical repairs as a result of negotiation of forms. Nonetheless, CF research in the context of Chinese as a second language is rather limited, especially in terms of comparisons between teachers’ and learners’ preferences for different types of CF and the underlying reasons. This dearth of material makes the present study essential.
2.4. Research on Chinese as a second language
Mainstream CSL research has long focused on the characteristics of the Chinese language from a linguistic perspective. Over the past decade, with the growing number of Chinese language learners and the global demand for effective Chinese pedagogy both in and outside China (Orton, 2008; Moloney and Xu, 2015), increasing attention has been paid to issues related to classroom teaching and learning, CF being one of the most prominent. It has been found that as with other languages, recasts are also the most frequently used type of CF in CSL classrooms (Bao, 2019), and the efficacy of CF on CSL learning has also been confirmed (Lu and Gao, 2015). Regarding the efficacy of different types of CF, prompts have been found to be more effective than recasts in the long term (Cao and Mu, 2013), echoing the findings of Ammar and Spada (2006). Likewise, variance also exists, as some studies show that phonological errors received CF most (Bao, 2019), whereas other research reports that CSL teachers provide the largest amount of CF for grammatical and lexical errors (Duan and Sun, 2015). In addition, Yang (2016) explored CSL learners’ preferences for six types of CF in relation to specific error types and found learners’ general preferences for explicit correction, metalinguistic clues, and recasts across error types. This research casts some light on CF-related beliefs in the context of CF. However, research on comparing CSL teachers’ and learners’ preferences for CF is scant. This justifies the need for the present study, especially considering the features of the Chinese language and the source of Chinese teachers’ pedagogical beliefs.
It is widely accepted that the unique sound, grammar, and orthography systems of the Chinese language not only distinguish it from many other languages but present challenges for foreign learners, in particular its pronunciation and tone (Orton, 2008). These linguistic features might lead to different preferences for CF between CSL students and those of alphabetic languages. Additionally, it is well-known that Chinese teaching beliefs have been significantly influenced by Confucian thoughts (Hu, 2002). As a result of this influence, the teacher is seen as an authority figure, taking on primary responsibility to transmit knowledge and supervise learner performance, while students are expected to be obedient and maintain a high level of receptiveness (Li, 2003). This conceptualization of the teacher’s role may lead to Chinese teachers’ CF preferences differing from their counterparts under the Western education schema and students coming from a background unrelated to Confucian culture. The reasons outlined above provide another justification for the need for the present study by focusing on the following research questions:
(1) What are CSL teachers’ and students’ preferences for CF types in terms of grammatical, lexical, and phonological errors?
(2) Are there any significant differences between CSL teachers’ and students’ preferences for CF types?
(3) What might account for the CSL teachers’ and students’ respective preferences for CF?
3. Methodology
3.1. Instructional context
This study was conducted at two southern Chinese universities, which were selected through convenience sampling, since the authors worked in one, and had a personal connection with the other. Both universities provided a Chinese language program with an aim to help foreign students’ improve their Chinese proficiency. The respective programs at both universities had the same curriculums, textbooks, teaching methods, and assessment techniques. Specifically, they included listening, speaking, reading, writing, and comprehensive Chinese courses. In order to accommodate individual participant proficiency, three levels of modules were established according to students’ placement tests; these were elementary, intermediate, and advanced, each of which had two subcategories (i.e., lower and upper). All modules constituted 4 to 6 teaching sessions per day. Teaching at both universities was delivered by full-time university teachers, part-time teachers, and second-year intern graduate students majoring in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages. A series of textbooks titled ‘Developing Chinese’ was used for all courses. At the end of each semester there was a written test, which was designed by the corresponding teacher of each course.
3.2. Participants
A total of 328 students and 46 teachers participated in this study. The students came from various cultures; over half of them (53.8%) were from Asia, with African students being the next largest group, and a small percent from Western nations. Among them, there were 193 females and 135 males. They aged from 18 to 39 years old, with a mean age of 34 years. In terms of Chinese proficiency, students varied in their HSK level1, ranging from HSK1 to HSK6. Specifically, participants with HSK1-3 were classified as elementary (n = 120), those with HSK4–6 were treated as intermediate (n = 208). Despite these differences, all the participants at both universities studied in a similar language program. Meanwhile, they shared a target-language learning context, which exposed them to plentiful Chinese input and had access to use Chinese in their daily life. In addition, as reported in the interviews, participating students have not been treated differently in class regardless of their various backgrounds. Given these commonalities, participating students were treated as one group. Certainly, any differences will be reported.
As for the 46 teachers, 34 of them were female and the rest (n = 12) were male. All were full-time, and their age ranges from 25 to 60 years old with a mean age of 40 years. They all had more than 5 years of experiences in teaching CSL, classifying them as experienced teachers according to Gatbonton (2008). All majored in Chinese linguistics; some of these (n = 15) were at PhD level while the rest (n = 31) were Masters. As such, the teachers were also treated as one group.
3.3. Data collection
In order to capture the varying and dynamic nature of beliefs, the present study drew on the methods of questionnaires and interviews.
3.3.1. Questionnaires
A Likert-type questionnaire was used for this study given the efficacy of this technique in eliciting respondent beliefs on a large scale (Barcelos, 2003). Both teachers’ and students’ questionnaires had two parts. Part one in students’ and teachers’ questionnaires each had six questions related to their backgrounds. Part two in both questionnaires was mainly adapted from Yang (2016), which constituted 18 Likert-type questions focusing on teachers’ and students’ preferences. In order to make comparison in the responses between teachers and students, these questions in both questionnaires were presented identically and in the same order. Respondents were asked to rate each question on a 4-point Likert-type scale, with 1 being the most negative and 4 being the most positive. The teachers’ questionnaire was written in Chinese, as all of them are native Chinese speakers. As for the students’ questionnaire, Part one was presented in English, while Part two was in both Chinese and English together in order for students to understand the specific examples of errors and the given CF. To ensure the validity of the two questionnaires, the initial versions were pilot-tested with 55 students and 15 teachers, respectively. Comments from these pilot samples were incorporated and three questions were reworded for clarity. The final questionnaires (see Appendix A) were electronically administered to 420 students and 57 teachers, and the responses were received back within one week. After excluding some incomplete questionnaires, 328 questionnaire responses from students and 46 from teachers were used for this study. Cronbach’s alpha for teacher and student questionnaires were 0.781 and 0.873 respectively, indicating sufficient reliability.
3.3.2. Semi-structured interview
Because of the drawbacks of Likert-type questionnaires in eliciting respondents’ deeper insights into the phenomenon under study (Barcelos, 2003), semi-structured interviews were also used given their utility in assessing people’s perceptions and opinions (Punch, 2009). Considering the difficulty of interviewing a large number of participants’ perspectives, 14 students, with different proficiencies and cultural backgrounds, and 8 teachers were randomly selected for the interview. Among these, 8 students and 4 teachers from the authors’ university took part in face-to-face interviews, and the rest from another university were interviewed online. The interviews were individual, which were all audio-recorded. The interview questions (see Appendix B) focusing on the reasons behind teachers’ and students’ CF preferences were presented naturally during the conversation between the interviewees and the first author. Each interview lasted for 15 to 20 min, all of which was transcribed by the first author. Tables 1, 2 present the teacher and student interviewees’ backgrounds, respectively.
Table 1. The teacher interviewees’ backgrounds.
Table 2. The student interviewees’ backgrounds.
3.4. Data analysis
In response to Question 1, SPSS22.0 was used to carry out descriptive statistics to calculate the mean scores of the 18 items asked in both questionnaires. To answer Question 2, an independent t-test was carried out to examine whether there are significant differences between the teachers’ and students’ CF preferences. As for Question 3, a qualitative analysis of the interview data was analyzed inductively and coding was grounded in the data. Firstly, we iteratively read through the students’ interview transcripts and used open coding to assign codes to pieces of data pertinent to the reasons for their CF preferences (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). These codes provided an index to store and retrieve the data by recursive examination. Secondly, through many rounds of repetitive reading of the transcripts and those assigned codes, we merged the related codes into categories and developed them into a number of themes. Once these themes were established, we pooled all data touching on these themes. Finally, we moved iteratively from the data to the established themes and conceptualized the ultimate themes for the current study through axial coding. The same coding process was also carried out on the teachers’ interview transcripts to identify the reasons underlying their CF preferences. To enhance the reliability of this coding, member checking was used by sharing the coding with each interviewee, who agreed with the interpretations of their responses.
4. Findings
4.1. Chinese as a second language teachers’ and students’ preferences for different types of corrective feedback
As for this question, the mean scores for the eighteen questions asked in the teacher and student questionnaires were calculated (see in Table 3). The results indicated CSL students’ preferences for explicit correction and metalinguistic clues across error types, mean scores of which were all over 3.00 (out of a maximum score of 4.00). However, they were less disposed toward repetition, elicitation, and clarification requests, with repetition having the lowest rating, regardless of error types. This seems to suggest CSL students’ preference for explicit types of CF over implicit ones. In terms of recasts, the mean scores for all three error types were relatively high, with phonological error being 2.79 and grammatical and lexical errors both being over 3.00. This seems to indicate that CSL students somewhat favored recasts, especially for the correction of grammatical errors (M = 3.27).
Table 3. Teachers’ and students’ preferences for different types of CF.
With regard to CSL teachers, they showed strong preferences for recasts across error types, the mean scores all being over 3.00. However, they were less disposed toward explicit types of CF and prompts; the mean scores for all these types were around the baseline (M = 2.5).
4.2. Significant differences between the Chinese as a second language teachers’ and students’ preferences for corrective feedback types
To answer this question, an independent t-test was performed to examine whether there were significant differences between CSL teachers’ and students’ preferences for different types of CF regarding the three error types. The results identified 11 items that showed significant differences (see Table 4), which are only reported here briefly due to space limitations.
Table 4. Items with significant differences between the teachers’ and students’ preferences for CF.
As can be seen, significant differences were found between CSL teachers and students with regard to their preferences for explicit correction, metalinguistic clues, and clarification requests across error types. Interestingly, as for these items, the mean scores from the CSL students were all higher than those from the teachers, indicating that CSL students have a greater preference for these types of CF than teachers, especially in terms of explicit correction and metalinguistic clues. Significant difference is also found in recasts with regard to phonological and lexical errors; in the case of both items, the CSL teachers were more confident than students. This indicates that CSL students approve more of explicit types of CF and clarification requests, while CSL teachers embrace recasts.
4.3. Reasons for the Chinese as a second language teachers’ and students’ corrective feedback preferences
To answer this question, a qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts from the teachers and students was conducted, concentrating on the reasons for their preferences for oral CF. The results were presented, respectively.
4.3.1. Reasons for teachers’ corrective feedback preferences
In relation to the CSL teachers, the findings showed seven reasons behind their CF preferences. Table 5 gives a nuanced overview of these reasons, while illuminating examples of teachers’ comments for each reason are presented in Table 6.
Table 5. Reasons for the teachers’ CF preferences.
Table 6. Comments from the teachers for their CF preferences.
As can be seen from Table 5, CSL teachers’ CF preferences relate very much to their concern for learner affect, the gravity of errors, and learner participation in the process of error correction. From the interview data, only one teacher expressed preference for explicit CF, while the rest (n = 7) expressed more favor for different techniques of implicit CF, regardless of error types. They argued that these CF types not only provided space for learners to rethink and self-identify their errors, but also propelled learners to self-repair, the process of which is conducive to learning. Another important reason was their concern about learner affect, which has been pointed out nineteen times in the interview, as all the eight teachers emphasized that their way of giving CF should protect students’ confidence and enthusiasm and avoid causing students’ fear, discouragement or frustration. In addition, teachers also weigh the gravity of errors when using CF, as six teachers were reluctant to correct all errors but focused exclusively on those that impact understanding. Also, teachers’ concern about the pace of instruction and the flow of students’ speech affects the timing for their CF given. As shown in the interview comments, the eight teachers expressed that their favor for delayed correction was due to their concerns about limited class time and disruption of CF on the flow of students’ speech. Last but not least, teachers’ individual experiences color their CF preferences as well. One teacher linked her dislike for metalinguistic clues to her own negative language learning experiences of not receiving grammar explanation.
4.3.2. Reasons for students’ corrective feedback preferences
As for the CSL students, the results showed six reasons for their CF preferences (see in Table 7), Table 8 gives illuminating examples of students’ comments for each reason.
Table 7. Reasons for the students’ CF preferences.
Table 8. Comments from the students for their CF preferences.
As shown in Table 7, CSL students’ CF preferences are ascribed to their concern about the efficacy of the given CF on learning, errors identification, affect, teacher role, the entirety of communication, and class time. They indicate an overall preference for explicit CF by arguing that this type of CF is most effective for their learning. For example, two interviewees attributed their preferences for explicit CF to its efficacy in helping them memorize the correct form and avoid committing the same error again. Moreover, eleven interviewees commented that explicit CF not only helped them immediately identify what and where the errors were, but also provided target reformulations or explanations. This also gave one reason for the CSL students’ less favorable attitude toward implicit CF, as ten of them argued that this type of CF confused them. They did not fully understand the teacher’s corrective intentions and failed to identify the errors, which was not conducive to learning. Another reason underlying CSL students’ CF preferences was born out of their concern about instructional issues, since six interviewees attributed their favor for explicit CF to its trait in time saving. In addition, all the student interviewees highly favored error correction by teachers because of their authoritative role and knowledge. In relation to the timing of CF given, seven student interviewees preferred delayed correction given that this type of CF allows them to focus on completing their speech without being interrupted.
Additionally, social impact is frequently mentioned by the student interviewees. For instance, five of them attributed their dislike for implicit CF to the fact that this type of CF is more likely to make them feel embarrassed by exposing them to the whole class. Also, since the teacher has to focus on the student who committed an error when using implicit CF they cannot engage the other students in the class which leads to boredom. Interestingly, it should be noted that in spite of CSL students’ strong preferences for explicit CF, three of them highlighted the need for teachers to have a care with their attitude when using these CF types, as explicit CF with an unfriendly attitude may result in students being too scared and embarrassed to speak.
In a nutshell, the interview data identified various reasons behind CSL teachers’ and students’ respective preferences for oral CF, which reveals more details about the discrepancies between their CF preferences. These results are further discussed below.
5. Discussion
The first research question asked about CSL teachers’ and students’ preferences for CF types in relation to grammatical, lexical, and phonological errors. The results added support to the existence of a discrepancy between teachers’ and students’ preferences for CF as reported by previous studies (Yoshida, 2008; Lee, 2013; Roothooft and Breeze, 2016). Specifically, CSL students in this study had more desire for explicit types of CF, which is consistent with previous studies (Roothooft and Breeze, 2016; Yang, 2016; Zhu and Wang, 2019), while teachers more preferred recasts, corroborating the findings of Lee (2013) and Yoshida (2008).
One possible explanation for CSL students’ CF preferences for explicit CF may be attributed to the characteristics of the Chinese language. As shown by Li and Zhang (2016), some distinctive features in the Chinese phonological system are difficult for students to judge and recognize, let alone make error corrections. In addition, the Chinese lexical system with its large number of synonyms is also hard for students to master them appropriately, which was well reflected in the interview data. These difficulties may have contributed to CSL students’ greater reliance on teachers when it comes to CF provision. This helps to explain why they appreciated explicit CF, since this type of CF entail teachers’ involvement in the error correction process. The interview data further elaborates CSL students’ preferences for explicit CF by arguing that this type of CF is effective for them to identify errors and facilitates them to memorize the correct form. Nonetheless, students expressed gratitude towards teachers using a friendly attitude when giving explicit CF so as to protect their positive emotional state, which is in accordance with the findings of Ha and Nguyen (2021). The message implied here is that there may be a tension between students’ pedagogical and affective concerns when it comes to how CF should be given. This further highlights the complexity of learners’ CF beliefs, as argued by Brown (2009), learners’ beliefs represent an interactive interplay of multiple variables at social, cognitive, linguistic, affective, and contextual levels.
With regard to CSL teachers’ preferences for recasts, it may lie in Chinese teachers’ entrenched beliefs about their authoritative role in classroom. Under the influence of Confucian thinking, the teacher enjoys absolute authority, and expects not to be challenged or interrupted during teaching (Li, 2003). Recasts, characterized by a teacher’s direct reformulation of learner’s error, well establish this authoritative role of Chinese teacher during class. What’s more, their unobtrusive and implicit features protect teacher from being interrupted when giving CF. This may explain CSL teachers’ preference for recasts instead of inducing learners to self-repair through prompts.
As for the answer to the second research question about whether there are significant differences between CSL teachers’ and students’ preferences for CF types, this study showed that CSL students had more preferences for clarification requests than their teachers across error types. Two explanations are suggested, one may relate to students’ proficiency level. As described above, the majority of the students (63.4%) were at least at intermediate level, while a small percentage of them (36.6%) were elementary. This majority of relatively more proficient students may explain why CSL students’ viewed clarification requests more favorably, as the better their proficiency, the greater the preference learners have for implicit CF (Jean and Simard, 2011; Kaivanpanah et al., 2015; Roothooft and Breeze, 2016; Yang, 2016). Another reason may be ascribed to the features of clarification requests themselves; as compared with other types of implicit CF. Clarification requests may be more salient due to the teacher’s clear demand for students to repeat their utterances (Lyster, 1998). It is this saliency that helps raise learners’ awareness of teacher’s corrective intentions when using a clarification request, which was also evident in the interviews, as two interviewees commented that they could become aware of something wrong in their speech immediately upon receiving a clarification request. This is perhaps another reflection of CSL students’ preferences for clarification requests, although it functions as implicit CF.
When it comes to the third research question regarding the reasons underlying CSL teachers’ and students’ preferences for CF, the results revealed diverse reasons related to their CF preferences, which highlights the complexity of how CF should be given. For instance, the interview data showed that CSL teachers’ favor for recasts relate to their concern for learner affect, as recasts, featured by unobtrusive and implicit nature, protect learners from suffering embarrassment or fear which is mostly generated by explicit CF. Nevertheless, the teachers also desired to use implicit CF such as repetition, elicitation, etc., out of their intention to encourage learners to participate in the process of error correction. This seems to suggest a tension between CSL teachers’ cultural beliefs about their dominant role during class and their intention to have learners participated. This tension projects a long-standing impact of teachers’ beliefs on changes in their teaching practices, since teachers’ beliefs “act as a gatekeeper as to whether or not to let changes happen in [the] classroom” (Mori, 2011, p. 454). In addition, given CSL students’ divergent CF preferences and their multiple reasons behind, it becomes highlighted that teacher should have awareness of combining different types of CF to better satisfy individual student’s learning needs.
In sum, the results of this study have important implications for teachers and teacher education programs. First, recasts should be provided in a salient manner so as to maximize their value. Although recasts are implicit in nature, they may become more salient for students if they are provided intensively, partially, or using a stressed intonation in order to better facilitate L2 learning (Ellis et al., 2006). Second, teachers should draw more frequently on explicit types of CF, but they should do so in a friendly tone to make them more acceptable for students. Third, teachers should be wary of using implicit CF such as clarification requests, elicitation, and repetition, since these CF types are more likely to confuse learners due to their ambiguity and to make learner feel embarrassed by exposing them to the whole class. With this knowledge, teachers could communicate with students in advance about their theoretical rationale and their intention when using these types of CF, in order for students to better understand teachers’ intentions and then react to them positively. Fourth, teachers should listen to learner voices in order to increase congruity between their CF practices and learners’ expectations, which would clearly make CF more effective for learning. As Muranoi (2000) argued, what matters for learning is not the exact type of feedback itself, but how learners approach it and use it. Finally, these results cast some light on teacher education programs by encouraging teachers to reflect on their teaching beliefs and use their insights to innovate or ameliorate their teaching practices.
6. Conclusion
This study investigated CSL teachers’ and students’ preferences for different types of CF in terms of grammatical, lexical, and phonological errors, and the reasons behind their respective CF preferences. The results showed CSL teachers’ overall preferences for recasts, while students preferred explicit types of CF across error types. In addition, teachers and students varied significantly in their preferences for some CF techniques. Specifically, CSL students were more favorable toward explicit types of CF and clarification requests, regardless of error types, while teachers appreciated recasts, especially in terms of phonological and lexical errors. Explanations for these differences may be attributed to the characteristics of the Chinese language, teachers’ culture-rooted role in classroom, student proficiency, and the features of the given CF type. In addition, the interview data identified various reasons behind CSL teachers’ and students’ respective preferences for CF. The results of this study shed light on second language teachers in terms of how to make good use of their CF practices to better serve teaching and learning.
As with most research, the present study also has limitations. First, the items in both questionnaires were carefully designed and the tools were piloted using sample participants, however, there still may be no guarantee that individual participants understood them clearly. Given this, there is the possibility that some responses may not have exactly reflected the perceptions of the participants. Second, the small number of participants in the interview phase may have prevented us from achieving a holistic picture of why CSL teachers and students have such different CF preferences. Third, participating students may vary in CF preferences in terms of their different cultural backgrounds and proficiencies. Further studies are warranted to examine whether there are individual differences in CF preferences. Fourth, it may not fully elaborate teachers’ and students’ CF preferences, as we have not considered the emotional load of the given CF, which warrants further inquiry. Finally, it remains unknown whether CSL teachers apply their CF preferences as reported in the data during their actual teaching, as teachers’ beliefs may not always be a reliable representation of the teaching reality in the classroom (Pajares, 1992). Given this potential mismatch, other methods such as classroom observation could be used in future research. These limitations will function as a driving force for further inquiries in CF-related beliefs.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Author contributions
RB wrote the original manuscript. HW revised the manuscript. All authors were analyzed the data, contributed to the article, and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work was funded by China National Social Science Grant (NO.19BYY038).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^HSK is an international standardized exam used to assess non-native Chinese speakers’ abilities in using the Chinese language in their daily, academic and professional lives. HSK consists of six levels, namely from HSK1 to HSK6 in an ascending order. http://english.hanban.org/node_8002.htm
References
Ammar, A., and Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 28, 543–574. doi: 10.1017/S0272263106060268
Bao, R. (2019). Oral corrective feedback in L2 Chinese classes: teachers’ beliefs versus their practices. System 82, 140–150. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2019.04.004
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). “Researching beliefs about SLA: a critical review” in Beliefs About SLA: New Research Approaches. eds. P. Kalaja and A. M. F. Barcelos (Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic), 7–33.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Lang. Teach. 36, 81–109. doi: 10.1017/S0261444803001903
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: a comparison of ideals. Mod. Lang. J. 93, 46–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: a meta-analysis. Lang. Teach. Res. 20, 436–458. doi: 10.1177/1362168814563200
Cao, X., and Mu, L. (2013). Chinese L2 learner’s language repairs in response to feedbacks of recast and elicitation and its relationship with the acquisition of target forms. World Chin. Teach. 27, 86–94. doi: 10.13724/j.cnki.ctiw.2013.01.008
Corbin, J., and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, A. (2003). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding aspects of language learning. Eval. Res. Educ. 17, 207–222. doi: 10.1080/09500790308668303
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Mod. Lang. J. 77, 501–514. doi: 10.2307/329675
Duan, Y., and Sun, Q. (2015). A comparative analysis on the manners of error-corrections towards different types of errors in the listening and speaking class of TESL. Chin. Lang. Learn. 3, 89–95.
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Rev. 19, 18–41. doi: 10.1075/aila.19.04ell
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 28, 339–368. doi: 10.1017/S0272263106060141
Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers' classroom behaviour: novice and experienced ESL teachers' pedagogical knowledge. Lang. Teach. Res. 12, 161–182. doi: 10.1177/1362168807086286
Ha, X. V., and Murray, J. C. (2023). Corrective feedback: beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers. Lang. Teach. Res. 27, 137–167. doi: 10.1177/1362168820931897
Ha, X. V., and Nguyen, L. T. (2021). Targets and sources of oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: are students' and teachers' beliefs aligned? Front. Psychol. 12:697160. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697160
Ha, X. V., Nguyen, L. T., and Hung, P. B. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon 7, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550
Horwitz, E. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System 27, 557–576. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00050-0
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: the case of communicative language teaching in China. Lang. Cult. Curr. 15, 93–105. doi: 10.1080/07908310208666636
Jean, G., and Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: necessary, but boring? Foreign Lang. Ann. 44, 467–494. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01143.x
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., and Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. Lang. Learn. J. 43, 74–93. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2012.705571
Lee, E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System 41, 217–230. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
Li, J. (2003). U.S. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 258–267. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.258
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Lang. Learn. 60, 309–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Li, S. (2017). “Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback” in Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning. eds. H. Nassaji and E. Kartchava (Abingdon, VA: Routledge), 143–157.
Li, S., and Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in system. System 84, 93–109. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
Li, Y., and Zhang, Z. S. (2016). “CFL education at the college level” in Chinese Language Education in the United States. eds. J. Ruan, J. Zhang, and C. B. Leung (New York: Springer), 141–167.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., et al. (2009). Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Mod. Lang. J. 93, 91–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
Long, M. (1996). “The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition” in Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. eds. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 413–468.
Lu, X., and Gao, L. (2015). Impact of corrective feedback on language acquisition of Chinese L2 classroom interaction. World Chin. Teach. 29, 95–109. doi: 10.13724/j.cnki.ctiw.2015.01.009
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Lang. Learn. 48, 183–218. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00039
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 26, 399–432. doi: 10.1017/S0272263104263021
Lyster, R., and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 19, 37–66. doi: 10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R., Saito, K., and Sato, M. (2013). Oral feedback in second language classrooms. Lang. Teach. 46, 1–40. doi: 10.1017/S0261444812000365
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., and Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 1, 129–152. doi: 10.2167/illt047.0
Mackey, A., Gass, S., and McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 22, 471–497. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100004022
Moloney, R., and Xu, H. (2015). Transitioning beliefs in teachers of Chinese as a foreign language: an Australian case study. Cogent. Educ. 2, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2015.1024960
Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System 39, 451–467. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.10.014
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in ESL classrooms. Lang. Learn. 50, 617–673. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00142
Nabei, T., and Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: a case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Lang. Aware. 11, 43–63. doi: 10.1080/09658410208667045
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2grammar. Mod. Lang. J. 101, 353–368. doi: 10.1111/modl.12387
Nassaji, H., and Kartchava, E. (2020). “Corrective feedback and good language teachers” in Lessons from Good Language Teachers. eds. C. Griffiths and Z. Tajeddin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 151–163.
Orton, J. (2008). Chinese Language Education in Australian Schools. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Rev. Educ. Res. 62, 307–332. doi: 10.2307/1170741
Plonsky, L., and Mills, S. (2006). An exploratory study of differing perceptions of error correction between teacher and students: bridging the gap. Appl. Lang. Learn. 16, 55–74.
Roothooft, H., and Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Lang. Aware. 25, 318–335. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA–Colombia. Mod. Lang. J. 85, 244–258. doi: 10.1111/0026-7902.00107
Wang, W., and Li, S. (2020). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in American ESL and Chinese EFL classrooms: a comparative study. Lang. Cult. Curr. 34, 35–50. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2020.1767124
Yang, J. (2016). Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error. System 61, 75–86. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2016.08.004
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Lang. Aware. 17, 78–93. doi: 10.2167/la429.0
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Mod. Lang. J. 94, 293–314. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01022.x
Zhang, J., Cao, X., and Zheng, N. (2022). How learners’ corrective feedback beliefs modulate their Oral accuracy: a comparative study on high- and low-accuracy learners of Chinese as a second language. Front. Psychol. 13:869468. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.869468
Zhu, Y., and Wang, B. (2019). Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback at Chinese universities: a large-scale survey. Lang. Aware. 28, 139–161. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2019.1620755
Appendix A: Questionnaires for students and teachers
Students’ questionnaire
Part 1 Background information
1. Your nationality:
2. Your age:
A. 18–23 B. 24–29\u00B0 C. 30–35 D. 36–40 E. Over 40
3. Gender
A. Male B. Female
4. Current education:
5. Years of Chinese study:
A. 0–1 B. 2\u00B0 C. 3 D. 3–5
6. Chinese level
A. HSK1 B. HSK2 C. HSK3 D. HSK4 E. HSK5 F. HSK6
Teachers’ questionnaire: background information
P art 1 Background information
1. 您的性别:A 男 B 女
2. 您的年龄:A 18–25 B 26–30\u00B0C 31–40 D 41–50 E51-60\u00B0F 60岁以上
3. 您所学专业
4. 您的最后学历
5. 您目前从事汉语教学时间
6. 您是否有海外留学经历? A是 B 否
Part 2
Please rate the level of your preferences for the following six corrective feedback each
Grammatical error
Student: 他不有哥哥(*he does not have an older brother. Incorrect use of the verb “bu”)
Teacher:---------.
A. very like B. like C. dislike D. very dislike
1. 他…(he…)
2. 不有?(incorrect verb repetition)
3. 他没有哥哥(he has not elder brother with the correct verb “you”)
4. 这里动词是“有”(the verb here is “to have/has”)
5. 不对，应该说“他没有哥哥”(it is wrong, you should say “he has not older brother by using the correct verb”)
6. 请再说一遍?(please say it again)
Phonological error
Student: 今天很(hèn)冷(*Today is very cold. Incorrect tone of ‘很(very)’.)
Teacher:---------.
7. 恩，很冷(yes, very cold. With correct tone of 很(very).)
8. hèn?(incorrect tone repetition)
9. 不是 ‘hèn’，是 ‘hěn’,(It is not ‘hèn’, it is ‘hěn’)
10. 今天….(Today….?)
11. 注意“很”是第三声(pay attention to the tone of “很,” it should be the third tone)
12. 请再说一遍?(please say it again)
Lexical error
Student: 他去家了(*he went home, including an error in the vocabulary “去”)
Teacher:---------.
13. 去家?(incorrect word repetition)
14. 恩，他回家了(yes, he went home, with correct word)
15. 不对，应该说“他回家了” (It is not correct, you should say ‘he went home’ by correcting the wrong word ‘去’)
16. 我们说过‘家’前面的词不是去 (we mentioned before the word with ‘home’ is not ‘qu’….?)
17. 他….(he….)
18. 请再说一遍?(please say it again)
Appendix B: Interview guidelines for teachers and students
1. Do you think CF is necessary? Why?
2. When do you like to receive CF? Why?
3. Do you think who should provide CF? Why?
4. To what extent do you like to be corrected? Why?
5. What types of corrective feedback do you prefer? Why?
Keywords: oral corrective feedback, teacher and student preference, Chinese as a second language, error types, the efficacy of feedback
Citation: Bao R and Wang H (2023) A comparison between the preferences for oral corrective feedback of teachers and students of Chinese as a second language. Front. Psychol. 14:1112136. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1112136
Edited by:
Ehsan Rassaei, Majan University College, OmanReviewed by:
Andrew Schenck, SUNY Korea, Republic of KoreaParisa Abdolrezapour, Salman Farsi University of Kazerun, Iran
Copyright © 2023 Bao and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Rui Bao, 793405950@qq.com; Hui Wang, hui.wang@zjnu.edu.cn