Perceptions of Scaffolded and Unscaffolded Corrective Feedback in the Portuguese EFL Context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22333/ijme.2025.10420Keywords:
English as a Foreign Language (EFL), corrective feedback (CF), beliefs, 3rd cycle learners.Abstract
The present study investigated the beliefs English as a Foreign Language (EFL) 9th grade learners (n=166) and teachers (n=5) hold about scaffolded and unscaffolded corrective feedback (CF). Participants completed a Likert-scale questionnaire that dealt with the necessity, frequency and timing of error correction, types of errors and their correction, effectiveness of CF strategies and who was responsible for the CF. Results indicate that both learners and teachers value CF, though learners prefer immediate correction while teachers favor feedback after the learner’s turn. Both groups prioritize correcting communication-hindering and grammar- or vocabulary-related errors. Learners perceive explicit corrections and recasts as the most effective strategies, whereas teachers favor recasts and prompts. Learners regard the teacher as the main source of CF, followed by self-correction, while teachers opt for promoting self-correction, but also provide CF themselves and resort to peer feedback. These findings are discussed in light of the distinction between scaffolded and unscaffolded CF, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence between learners’ and teachers’ beliefs and their implications for promoting learner development within the Zone of Proximal Development.
References
Agudo, J. (2014). Beliefs in learning to teach: EFL student teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, 27, 209.Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice. English Teaching Forum, 38(4), 20-24.
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.
Bell, T. (2005). Behaviours and attitudes of effective foreign language teachers: Results of a questionnaire study. Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 259-270.
Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39, 370-380.
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 46-60.
Cathcart, R. & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom and conversation errors. In J. Fanselow & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’76 (pp. 41-53).
Chu, R. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on Taiwanese adolescents’ English speaking practices and development. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. The University of Edinburgh.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/
Davis, A. (2003). Teachers’ and Students’ beliefs regarding aspects of language learning. Evaluation & Research in Education, 17(4), 207-222.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-113). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Direção Geral da Educação. (2018). Aprendizagens essenciais / articulação com o perfil dos alunos, 9º ano inglês https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Curriculo/Aprendizagens_Essenciais/3_ciclo/ingles_3c_9a_ff.pdf
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-59). Ablex.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Doughty, C. (2001). The cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge University Press.
Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction. Longman.
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: what we know so far. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3-18). Routledge.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.
Fadilah, A., Anugerahwati, M., Prayogo, J.A. (2017). EFL students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in speaking instruction, Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 5(2), 76-87.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching, fourth edition. Longman.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press.
Iwashita, N. & Dao, P. (2021). Peer feedback in second language oral interaction. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 275-299). Cambridge University Press.
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465–492.
Kartchava, E. (2016). Learners’ beliefs about corrective feedback in the language classroom: perspectives from two international contexts. TESL Canada Journal, 33(2), 19-45.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.1-26). Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: state of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 67-109.
Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201-224). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2-3), 112-127.
Lee, J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback on SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakasukasa, K., Ahn, S. & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 91-104.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Effects of oral feedback in SLA classroom research: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1-40.
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: the effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Nassaji, H. (2021). Corrective feedback from a sociocultural perspective. In In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp.85-107). Cambridge University Press.
Park, H. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction. A thesis [Unpublished master’s thesis]. California State University.
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: reconsidering the issues. Springer Verlag.
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness–practice–feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141-160). Cambridge University Press.
Roothooft, H. & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335.
Roothooft. H. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: A comparison of secondary and adult education. Filología y Didáctica de la Lengua, 18, 151-176.
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591-626.
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Scrivener, J. (2005) Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. Macmillan Education.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp.301-322). Oxford University Press.
Tanaka, K. (2004). Changes in Japanese students’ beliefs about language learning and English language proficiency in a study-abroad context [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Auckland.
Tasdemir, M. & Arslan, F. (2018). Feedback preferences of EFL learners with respect to their learning styles. Cogent Education, 5, 1-17.
Tomczyk, E. (2013). Perceptions of oral errors and their corrective feedback: teachers vs. students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4(5), 924-931.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293-314.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) - Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Authors may enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to a repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
