The role of feedback in the english language teaching at the faculty of foreign languages

2. Disagree

3. Neutral

4. Agree

5. Completely agree

Individualized approach to CF

To what extent do you agree with the statement "Teachers should adjust their correcting strategies to the needs of an individual student"?

(Likert scale)

1. Completely disagree

2. Disagree

3. Neutral

4. Agree

5. Completely agree



Section 3. Questions about OCF strategies

Oral correction can take many forms, therefore we supported each CF technique with examples of its implementation. However, the exact names of the strategies were not provided.

Oral CF strategies
Your oral task contains some errors. Which type of correction would you prefer? Choose 2 variants.	1. The instructor repeats the student's erroneous oral production but in the correct form. 2. (e.g. Student: I went to Saint Petersburg three times; Teacher: You have been in Saint Petersburg three times). Recast 3. Teacher indicates student's errors and provides the right variant. 4. (e.g. Student: in 6 p.m.; Teacher: No, in 6 p.m. is incorrect, at 6 p.m. We say “I usually have dinner at 6 p.m.”) Explicit correction 5. Teacher uses pauses to attract student's attention to an erroneous part of an oral production. 6. (e.g. Student: At the moment I arrived she made a dinner; Teacher: At the moment I arrived…?) Elicitation 7. Teacher uses verbal and non-verbal signals to emphasize the error, however the instructor doesn't correct it. 8. (e.g. Student: Last year I make a project; Teacher: Uses gestures to show that this action was done in the past) Metalinguistic clue 9. Teacher uses questions which indicate that the s/he didn't understand the student's linguistic output. 10. (e.g. Student: How do we prefer home?; Teacher: What do you mean by that?) Clarification request 11. Teacher repeats the learner's output emphasizing the error with the help of intonation and stress. 12. (e.g. Student: I have did it before my mother came; Teacher: I have DID it) Repetition

1. Timing of oral CF
2. Correction of oral productions can be immediate or delayed. Choose the variant that you prefer.	3. Immediate (in the moment of speaking or right after it) 4. Delayed (given minutes/hours after the output)



Section 4. Questions about WCF strategies

We decided to divide two forms of metalinguistic CF in order to provide more accurate results. Moreover, focused/unfocusedstrategies were separated from the other CF techniques to avoid confusion and to be able to design the questionnaire.

Written CF strategies
Your written task contains some errors. Which type of correction would you prefer? Choose 2 variants.	5. Teacher marks an error and corrects it (the correct form is provided).Direct 6. Teacher marks that there is an error without correcting it. Indirect 7. Teacher marks an error and provides a code to specify its type (for example, gr. for grammar). Metalinguistic 8. Teacher marks an error without correcting it, but gives a brief grammatical description at the end of the task. Metalinguistic 9. Teacher reformulates an erroneous output to make it more natural and native-like. Reformulation

The focus of the CF is represented by two contrasting types, therefore this category was separated from the other written correction strategies.

10. Focused and unfocused WCF
11. In my writing tasks i want teacher to correct...	12. All types of errors (e.g. grammatical, lexical, sociolinguistic) 13. Only specific types of errors

2.4 Questionnaire for L2 teachers

Naturally, the questions for the L2 teachers should be modified to represent the attitude of the L2 instructors as well as their usage of different CF strategies. We automatically assume that the teachers at HSE linguistic department have a high level of proficiency in English, therefore the survey does not include the general questions section. This part of the research is mostly focused on the teachers' implementation of various CF techniques. Thus, the study proposes the following questionnaire.

Section 1. General questions about CF for L2 instructors

13. The choice of corrector
14. Corrective feedback can be provided by teachers or peers. Choose the variant that you prefer to use in the EFL classroom 15.	16. Teacher-initiated 17. Peer-initiated
18. 19. The role of CF in acquisition
20. To what extent do you agree with the phrase "corrective feedback provided by a teacher promotes L2 learning"?	21. (Likert scale) 22. Completely disagree 23. Disagree 24. Neutral 25. Agree 26. Completely agree
27. Individualized approach to CF
28. To what extent do you agree with the statement "Teachers should adjust their correcting strategies to the needs of an individual student"?	29. (Likert scale) 30. Completely disagree 31. Disagree 32. Neutral 33. Agree 34. Completely agree

Section 2. Questions about OCF strategies for L2 instructors

35. Oral CF strategies
36. Which type of CF do you prefer for the correction of the student's oral productions? Choose 2 variants. 37. 38.	39. Repetition of the student's erroneous oral production but in the correct form. 40. (e.g. Student: I went to Saint Petersburg three times; Teacher: You have been in Saint Petersburg three times). Recast 41. Indication of the student's errors and provision of the right variant. 42. (e.g. Student: in 6 p.m.; Teacher: No, in 6 p.m. is incorrect, at 6 p.m. We say “I usually have dinner at 6 p.m.”) Explicit correction 43. The usage of pauses to attract student's attention to an erroneous part of an oral production. 44. (e.g. Student: At the moment I arrived she made a dinner; Teacher: At the moment I arrived…?) Elicitation 45. The implementation of verbal and non-verbal signals to emphasize the error, but without the actual correction. 46. (e.g. Student: Last year I make a project; Teacher: Uses gestures to show that this action was done in the past) Metalinguistic clue 47. The usage of questions which indicate that the instructor didn't understand the student's linguistic output. 48. (e.g. Student: How do we prefer home?; Teacher: What do you mean by that?) Clarification request 49. The repetition of the learner's output emphasizing the error with the help of intonation and stress. 50. (e.g. Student: I have did it before my mother came; Teacher: I have DID it) Repetition

51. Timing of oral CF
52. Correction of oral productions can be immediate or delayed. Choose the variant that you prefer to implement in the classroom.	53. Immediate (in the moment of speaking or right after it) 54. Delayed (given minutes/hours after the output)

Section 3. Questions about WCF strategies for L2 instructors

55. Written CF strategies
56. Which CF strategy do you prefer for the correction of the student's written productions? Choose 2 variants.	57. Teacher marks an error and corrects it (the correct form is provided). Direct 58. Teacher highlights that there is an error without correcting it. Indirect 59. Teacher marks an error and provides a code to specify its type (for example, gr. for grammar). Metalinguistic 60. Teacher marks an error without correcting it, but provides a brief grammatical description at the end of the task. Metalinguistic 61. Teacher reformulates the student's erroneous output to make it more natural and native-like. Reformulation

62. Focused and unfocused WCF
63. According to your opinion, what types of errors should an instructor correct in the student's written output?	64. All types of errors (e.g. grammatical, lexical, sociolinguistic) 65. Only specific types of errors



2.5 Results

The collected data is analyzed and presented in charts and graphs through MS Excel. The information obtained is organized so as to illustrate the central tendencies in CF. corrective strategy feedback

Before discussing the findings of the research, we would like to move back to the proposed hypotheses. It suggested that students and instructors favor teacher-initiated correction, and prefer implicit forms of CF.

The results of the L2 students illustrated that most of the respondents have relatively high proficiency level of English. The currents survey used CEFR scale to identify learners' level in the target language. 63 percent of participants stated they have C1 (advanced), while 27 percent identified their level as B2, and only 10 percent claimed they are at C2. Naturally, no students chose A1-B1 options, because all of them study linguistics. However, some differences in the knowledge can be observed. For instance, most of the B2 level respondents are first year students of HSE, and the vast majority of C2 learners are forth year students.

The participants were asked to state their level in order to reveal if there is an interconnection between the proficiency in English and the preferences for correction. The findings indicated that there is no noticeable interrelation, hence it is possible to outline that the students' knowledge in the target language do not significantly influence their attitude towards various CF strategies.



Table 2. Year of study of the students.

Table 3. English proficiency level of the respondents.

Having discussed the general questions, now we are ready to focus on the CF-related aspects of the survey. The choice of corrector still one of the most debatable issues in L2 teaching, therefore the current work addresses two common types of other-initiated CF. The collected data demonstrated the strong preference for teacher-initiated feedback with more than 90 percent of participants who consider this option to be more beneficial. Besides, the results indicated that the one of the hypotheses put forward in this paper is correct.

Table 4. CF initiator.

Another essential question in this section is closely connected to the role of CF in the process of L2 learning. The participants were asked to express their opinion on the statement about CF using the Likert scale. The table contains the number of respondents who chose each option, however this statistics can also be presented in percent: Neutral - 18%; Agree - 59%; Completely agree - 23%. According to the collected data, we can conclude that the vast majority of the students acknowledge the positive contribution of CF to the acquisition. Despite the fact that almost one fifth of the respondents answered “neutral”, no one held the view that CF doesn't influence or harms the process of acquisition.



Table 5. The Role of CF in Acquisition.

According to the primary principles of correction formulated by Ellis (2009), one of the integral components of CF is its individualization. In other words, L2 instructors may adapt their correcting techniques to the needs of an individual learner, thus increasing the efficacy of CF. This section of the research seeks to find out if the participants agree with the statement made by Ellis. The data demonstrated that students consider individualization of CF to be of the foremost importance. A half of the respondents expressed that they are completely agree (51 %), 27 learners answered “agree” (33%), while only 13 individuals chose the “neutral” option (16%).



Table 6. Individualization of CF.

The next section of the questionnaire was dedicated to the more precise questions about the oral CF strategies. Each correcting technique was briefly described and accompanied by an example of its usage, thus avoiding possible confusion. The participants could choose two options out of six in order to provide an accurate understanding of the L2 students. To illustrate the results we shorten the description of the CF techniques leaving only the terms. The collected data indicates that elicitation is considered to be the most effective in accordance with the participants' view. Surprisingly, all other correcting strategies received approximately equal number of votes with the exception of clarification request which has the lowest rate (16).



Table 7. OCF Strategies

As it was previously discussed timing can be considered one of the prominent features of OCF and is represented by immediate and delayed correction. The key aim of this question was to identify which timing is preferable and considered to be more effective. The findings illustrated that their ratio is almost equal, however immediate correction is viewed as more advantageous (56% for immediate and 44% for delayed). Naturally, there is no universal answer about what timing works best because both of them are able to promote acquisition (Ellis, 2009).



Table 8. Timing of OCF.

The last part of the survey is dedicated to the issue of written CF. Basing on the principles outlined in the previous section, we provide only terms instead of CF strategies descriptions. Participants were given an opportunity to choose two options. The principle objective of the question is an identification of the students' preferences for the correction of written productions. The data collected in the course of the research demonstrated that the large part of respondents appreciates direct CF (62), and metalinguistic CF in form of coding takes the second line (49). At the same time, metalinguistic CF based on grammatical explanation and reformulation are viewed as less preferable. The last position belongs to indirect form of CF with only 9 respondents who expressed a desire to be corrected in that way.



Table 9. WCF Strategies.

Then, the participants were asked about their attitude towards focused and unfocused CF. Being a subtype of WCF, this correcting strategy provoked heated debates. Ellis (2009) outlined that focused correction is more effective in the L2 learning, nevertheless the results of our study are completely opposite. Only twenty percent of the learners want their instructors to correct specific errors, while the majority of respondents expressed a wish for unfocused WCF.

Table 10. Focused & Unfocused WCF.

Generally, the results of the L2 teachers showed less controversy. As it was previously mentioned, we skipped the questions about proficiency level starting directly with instructors' attitude towards various CF practices.

The respondents unanimously assumed that a teacher should take the role of corrector in ESL classroom.

Table 11. Initiator of CF (L2 teachers)

The respondents were also asked if they support the statement that CF contributes to acquisition. The instructors used the Likert scale to express their opinion. The results illustrated that more than a half of L2 teachers admit that this statement is true by choosing “Agree” (4) and “Completely agree” options. Only one participant voted for “Neutral”.

Table 12. The Role of CF in Acquisition (L2 teachers)

Similarly, respondents indicated their attitude towards individualized CF. The collected data demonstrated that all participants to some extent support this statement. Two individuals claimed that they are “completely agree”, and the rest of the instructors answered “agree”.

Table 13. Individualization of CF (L2 teachers)

Having discussed the general CF features, the respondents selected two oral CF techniques that they find the most advantageous in ESL classroom. According to the collected data, teachers equally favor elicitation and recast for correction of oral productions. Such techniques as metalinguistic clue, repetition, and clarification request received little attention. Explicit correction took the last position with zero teachers preferring it over the other CF strategies.



Table 14. OCF Strategies (L2 teachers)

As it was previously noted, timing is an inevitable component of correction, especially if it is performed in oral form. The survey revealed that all respondents prefer immediate correction.

Table 15. OCF Timing (L2 teachers)

Further on, questions presented in the last section focus on the written CF. Each L2 Instructor chose two strategies for WCF. The findings illustrated the general perception of various WCF techniques. Surprisingly, five participants preferred metalinguistic CF in form of error coding and zero selected metalinguistic CF with explanation. According to the results, direct WCF is considered to be quite effective , while indirect feedback and reformulation received limited attention.

Table 16. WCF Strategies (L2 teachers)

In case of focused and unfocused WCF the vast majority of the participants finds that correction of all errors in the students' written outputs may be more beneficial as compared with focused, specific CF.



Table 17. Focused & Unfocused CF (L2 teachers)

One of the proposed objectives of the study is to compare teachers' and students' attitudes towards CF. Hence, the following table encompasses the key findings.

Table 18. CF main findings.

	L2 students	Instructors
The initiator of CF	Teacher	Teacher
CF promotes acquisition	Agree	Agree
Individualized CF	Completely agree	Agree
OCF strategies	Elicitation	Elicitation, recast
OCF timing	Immediate (56%); Delayed (44%)	Immediate
WCF strategies	Direct	Metalinguistic (coding)
Focused & Unfocused WCF	Unfocused	Unfocused

Having analyzed the data collected in the survey, it is possible to emphasize that there is no significant distinctions between what CF teachers give to their students and what type of CF learners would like to receive. Thus, we conclude that L2 teachers at the HSE linguistic department understand the needs of their students. Besides, even though there are minor differences in the WCF preferences, the positive attitude towards strategies implemented by the instructors is able to contribute to the process of acquisition.

Additionally, our hypotheses were only partially correct. The current study pointed out that both instructors and students prefer teacher-initiated feedback, and the obtained data supported this opinion. Nevertheless, the assumption that both sides of the learning process favor implicit correction was incorrect. The findings from the study brought into notice that students prefer direct correction for their written productions and elicitation for oral tasks. However, the instructors favor metalinguistic error coding in WCF; elicitation and recast serve for correction of oral outputs.

Taking into account the number of the survey participants, we can outline the principle limitation of the study. Since we deal only with a part of the HSE students and teachers, the data will not demonstrate the whole picture. Nevertheless, the research (a) outlines the primary classifications of CF and (b) highlights the general attitude towards correction at the linguistic department of HSE.



Conclusion

At present, the field of error correction is of the utmost importance in L2 teaching because it naturally promotes SLA. CF appeared as a logical step in the process of feedback types development, bringing into notice the variety of correcting techniques. Naturally, the CF strategies are able to influence the learning process. Thus, to take an advantage of correction, instructors need to be aware of its components and approaches to CF.

We emphasize that students' knowledge of the target language can be significantly improved with the provision of the corrective feedback. Nevertheless, CF is a complex phenomenon that encompasses numerous techniques, that is why its further investigation is needed. Despite the great body of literature on the issue of CF, scholars still characterize it as controversial and ambiguous. What is evident to the researchers is that CF has a great potential in promoting acquisition.

Besides, CF didn't receive a lot of attention among Russian scholars, as the result there wasn't any attempts to investigate correction in ESL classroom. It is only natural that no Russian researchers focused on the students' and teachers' preferences for CF, especially at the university level.

The implementation of CF strategies might contribute to the learner's motivation, if the instructor uses the techniques favored by the receiver of feedback. We do not automatically believe that students know what works best in the process of L2 learning, however teachers need to monitor students' attitudes towards various CF techniques.

Hence, the current paper analyzed different correcting approaches and strategies, and performed a survey in order to reveal the CF preferences of the instructors and their L2 students at the linguistic department of HSE.

We found out that two sides of an educational process share the same view on many CF aspects. The teachers and learners favor teacher-initiated feedback, and assume that it should be individualized to better address students' gaps in knowledge. L2 instructors and learners also prefer immediate CF in form of elicitation, nevertheless their opinions on WCF are different. The students emphasized the importance of direct WCF, while teachers suggested that metalinguistic coding has the greatest potential for acquisition.

This research shed some light on the issue of CF strategies by outlining the main classifications and approaches to correction in ESL classroom. Additionally, we created a questionnaire based on the primary classifications of oral and written CF proposed by Lyster&Ranta (1997; 2007) and Ellis (2009). The findings from the study illustrated the general tendencies in HSE students' and instructors' preference for correction. We suggest that the results can be useful for ESL teachers who want to gain a better understanding of correcting strategies and learners' attitude towards their implementation at the university level.

In the 21^st century correction became an integral part of L2 learning, because it contributes to the acquisition. That is why teachers should be able to provide CF on various tasks and in different situations. We believe that the issue of correction will only develop in the future, establishing new norms and approaches.

We suggest that the findings from the research may help ESL teachers to identify the most beneficial strategies for the correction of linguistic students' erroneous tasks. Thus, the collected data may contribute to the successful choice of CF types in the ESL classroom.



References

1. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition, 28, 543-574.

2. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.

3. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated belief about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243-272.

4. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.

5. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

6. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

7. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. EnglishLanguageTeachingJournal, 63, 97-107

8. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 1(1).

9. 3-18

10. Ellis, R. and Shintani, N. (2013).Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research.London, England: Routledge

11. Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.

12. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., &Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(02), 339-368.

13. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008).The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371.

14. Eslami, E., (2014). The Effects of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback Techniques on EFL Students' Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Science, 98, 445 - 452

15. Faqeih, H. I. (2015). Learners' attitudes towards corrective feedback. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 664-671.

16. Fedor, D. B. (1991). Recipient responses to performance feedback: A proposed model and its implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9(73)

17. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. EngineeringEducation,78(7), 674-681.

18. Ferris, D. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8(1), pp. 1-11

19. Gass, S. M., &Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York: Routledge.

20. Gуmez Argьelles, L., Hernбndez Mйndez, E., & Perales Escudero, M. D. (2019). EFL teachers' attitudes towards oral corrective feedback: A case study.Pro?le: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 21(1), 107-120.

21. Harmer, J. (1983). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman

22. Harmer,J. (2007).The Practice of English Language Teaching.London: Longman

23. Hattie J. &Timberley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112

24. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress

25. Hong Yun. (2011). Corrective Feedback in the Second Language Acquistion. Beijing: Minzu University of China Press

26. Hyland, F.& Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101

27. Hyland, F., Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the Pill: Praise and Criticism in Written Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212

28. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349-371.

30. Jurma, W. E., & Froelich, D. L. (1984). Effects of immediate instructor feedback on group discussion participants. Central States Speech Journal, 35(3), 178-186.

31. Kluger, A. N., &DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. PsychologicalBulletin, 119(2), 254-284.

32. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. p. 74-75

33. Kulhavy, R. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(5), 505-512.

34. Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2005). What do students think about the pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? New York: Springer.

35. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress

36. Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

37. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). SanDiego, CA: AcademicPress.

38. Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. LanguageLearning, 48, 183-218

39. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition, 26, 399-432.

40. Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake; negotiation of form in communicative classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 37-66.

41. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 40.

42. Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press

43. Mackey, Alison and Goo, J. (2007) Interaction research in SLA : A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: Conversational interaction in second language acquisition : a series of empirical studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford,407-453

44. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

45. Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. London: Prentice Hall

46. Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. TheModernLanguageJournal, 87(4), 519-533.

47. Roothooft, H. & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers' and students' attitudes to oral corrective feedback. LanguageAwareness, 25(4)

48. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133-164.

49. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133-164.

50. Savani, R., Nemati, M. (2014) The Effect of Six Different Corrective Feedback Strategies on Iranian English Language Learners' IELTS Writing Task 2. SAGE Open, April-June 2014: 1-9

51. Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47, 547-583.

52. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

53. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. LanguageTeachingResearch, 8(3), 263-300.

54. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.

55. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. LanguageTeachingResearch, 10, 361-392.

56. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.

57. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York, US: Springer.

58. Shute, V. J. (2008) Focus on Formative Feedback, Review of Educational Research 78(1):153-189

59. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. LanguageLearning, 46, 327-369.

60. Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437-455.

61. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of SecondLanguageWriting, 16, 255-272.

62. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

63. Ur, P. (2006). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

64. VanPatten, B. (1992). Second-language acquisition research and foreign language teaching, part 2. ADFL Bulletin, 23, 23-27.

65. VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher's guide to second language acquisition. Mahwah, MJ: Erlbaum.

66. Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' Choice and Learners' Preference of Corrective Feedback Types, Language Awareness, 17 (1), 78-93.

67. Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners' anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429-439.

68. Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Ma, L. (2010). A brief analysis of corrective feedback in oral interaction. Journal of LanguageteachingResearch, 1, 306- 308.

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...