English Teaching & Learning

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 147–164 | Cite as

L2 Teachers’ Beliefs About Corrective Feedback: the Mediating Role of Experience

  • Nahid FallahEmail author
  • Mostafa Nazari
Original Paper


Although research on corrective feedback (CF) is well-visited in second language acquisition, the exploration of teachers’ cognitions of CF has not moved in tandem with this thick literature. On this ground, the present study aimed to investigate the mediatory role of experience in language teachers’ beliefs about CF. To this end, 137 novice and experienced L2 teachers were asked to fill out a questionnaire, followed by interviews with 10 teachers (five per group) in order to obtain a detailed picture of their CF-related cognitions. The results of data analyses indicated that among the components of the questionnaire, novice teachers were significantly disposed toward immediate feedback provision, and their experienced counterparts preferred peer and delayed feedback. The results of the follow-up interviews showed that while novice teachers viewed feedback as a more affective, personalized consideration, the experienced teachers considered it as a developmental learning aid. Also, both groups referred to a number of challenges in employing CF, especially those pertaining to learner self-correction. The findings of the study have been situated and discussed within the terrain of teacher education and a number of empirical implications have been suggested.


Teachers’ beliefs Novice teachers Experienced teachers Corrective feedback 

第二外語教師對糾正回饋之信念 : 經驗的中介角色


儘管在第二外語習得的研究領域中已經有相當多關於糾正回饋的研究, 但針對教師對糾正回饋的認知仍待深究。本研究旨在探討經驗在第二外 語教師對糾正回饋的信念中所扮演的中介角色。 本研究對137名新手和資深的第二外語教師進行問卷調查, 並訪談十名教師(新手與資深教師各五名) 以深入了解教師對糾正回饋的認知。 分析結果顯示新手教師顯著傾向於立即提供糾正回饋, 而資深教師則偏好同儕回饋和延遲回饋。後續訪談的結果表明, 雖然新手教師認為糾正回饋是較為情感及個人化的考量, 但資深教師將其定位為發展性的學習輔助。 此外, 兩組教師都提到在提供糾正回饋上的困難, 尤其是在學習者自我糾正回饋上。 本研究結果主要針對教師教育領域進行討論, 並提出實證結果之啟示。


教師信念 新手教師 資深教師 糾正回饋 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ahmadianzadeh, B., Seifoori, Z., & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2018). Exploring EFL teachers’ beliefs about and practices of learner autonomy across experience and licensure. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40, 282–295.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beigi Rizi, A. R., & Ketabi, S. (2015). A close look at sixty years of corrective feedback. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(1), 63–67.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borg, M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 55, 186–187.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 163–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown, D. (2014). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: a meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burkhauser, M. A., & Lesaux, N. K. (2017). Exercising a bounded autonomy: novice and experienced teachers’ adaptations to curriculum materials in an age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49, 291–312.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan, D. W. (2008). General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1057–1069.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chu, R.-X. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on Taiwanese adolescents’ English speaking practices and development (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coggins, M. D. (2008). Error attitudes and responses: a survey of teachers’ perceptions and decisions about errors in the ESL classroom. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crookes, G., & Arakaki, L. (1999). Teaching idea sources and work conditions in an ESL program. TESOL Journal, 8, 15–19.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Guerrero, M. C. (2017). Going covert: inner and private speech in language learning. Language Teaching, 51, 1–35.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 161–186.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farrell, T. S. C. (2008). Insights and perspectives for the first year of language teaching. In T. S. C. Farrell (Ed.), Novice language teachers: insights and perspectives for the first year (pp. 1–10). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farrell, T. S. C. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher expertise: a case study. System, 41, 1070–1082.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from North American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language Teaching, 35, 1–13.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gholami, J., & Mousavi, K. (2014). Corrective feedback and the story of EFL teacher’s experience. ELT Voices, 4(2), 183–199.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harmer, J. (1997). How to teach English. Harlow: Longman Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Havranek, G. (2003). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255–270.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form of –te i (ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311–394.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: differential effects of L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 465–492.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2018). Informing and transforming language teacher education pedagogy (pp. 1–12). Language Teaching Research.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Junqueira, L., & Kim, Y. (2013). Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers’ corrective feedback practices: a case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 181–206.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kainvanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 1–20.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Karimi, M. N., & Norouzi, M. (2018). ‘Cognitive aging’ in teachers: L2 teachers’ cognitive performance across various stages in their teaching career. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–18.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kasoutas, M., & Malamitsa, K. (2009). Exploring Greek teachers’ beliefs using metaphors. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 64–83.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: a modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing, and seeing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Li, W., & Zou, W. (2017). A study of EFL teacher expertise in lesson planning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 231–241.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: how it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271–283.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301–327.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Masuda, A. (2012). Critical literacy and teacher identities: a discursive site of struggle. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 9, 220–246.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mori, H. (2002). Error treatment sequences in Japanese immersion classroom interactions at different grade levels (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nassaji. (2018). Errors versus mistakes. In H. Nassaji (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, Grammar Teaching Volume. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Northcote, M. (2009). Educational beliefs of higher education teachers and students: implications for teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 69.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Olteanu, C. (2017). Reflection-for-action and the choice or design of examples in the teaching of mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29, 349–367.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pica, T., & Long, M. (1986). The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 85–98). Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2015). Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers’ cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication. System, 55, 111–122.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    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, 591–626.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    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, 244–258.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 688–705.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Siyyari, M. (2005). A comparative study of the effect of implicit and delayed, explicit focus on form on Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy of oral production. (Unpublished MA thesis). Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Srichanyachon, N. (2014). Self-revision method of EFL writers. International Proceeding of Economics Development Research, 77, 58–62.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Tsui, A. B. M. (2009). Teaching expertise: approaches, perspectives and characterizations. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 190–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Varnosfadrani, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effects of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed corrective feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wakabayashi, R. (2013). The effects of the peer feedback process on reviewers’ own writing. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 117–192.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wallace, T., Sung, H., & Williams, J. (2014). The defining features of teacher talk within autonomy-supportive classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 42, 34–46.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Yoshida, K. (2002). Fish bowl, open seas and the teaching of English in Japan. In S. Baker (Ed.), Language policy: lessons from global models (pp. 194–205). Monterey: Monterey Institute.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17, 78–93.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Lundstorm, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Richards, J. C., Li, B., & Tang, A. (1998). Exploring pedagogical reasoning skills. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education (pp. 86–102). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Taiwan Normal University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureUniversity of KashanKashanIran
  2. 2.Department of Foreign LanguagesKharazmi UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations