Investigating Students Attitudes on Oral Corrective Feedback: Small-scale Survey in Academic Speaking Class

International Journal of English Linguistics, Literature, and Education (IJELLE) Vol. 6, No. 1, June 2024, pp. 26-38 ISSN 2686-0120 (print), 2686-5106 (online) 26 http://journal.univetbantara.ac.id/index.php/ijelle/index Investigating Students' Attitudes on Oral Corrective Feedback: Small-scale Survey in Academic Speaking Class Muti’ah a,1*, Vanya Maulidia Azizaha,2 a,b Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia *; 2 * Corresponding Author 1 Received 25 December 2023; accepted 2 June 2024; published 31 June 2024 ABSTRACT Due to the essentiality of oral presentation, giving corrective feedback was gaining potential discussion, especially in oral language. Thus, this study investigated the attitudes of graduate students within the English department at a university in Central Java, Indonesia, towards teachers' oral corrective feedback (OCF) during academic speaking presentations. Utilizing a quantitative descriptive survey design, a 6-item questionnaire developed by Ur (1999) was administered using probability sampling (n = 23). This research explored preferences among students regarding explicit and implicit OCF, peer criticism, and meta-linguistic feedback. Results indicated a predominant preference (73.9%) for explicit OCF, reflecting a strong tendency toward direct and honest correction from teachers. While implicit OCF obtained positive responses, students exhibited reluctance towards peer criticism and expressed a preference for teacher feedback. However, there was notable enthusiasm (69.6%) for meta-linguistic OCF, which highlighted students' receptiveness to linguistic nuances and novel perspectives. These findings underscored the significance of understanding students' preferences in OCF contexts, emphasizing the value placed on explicit teacher correction and the appreciation for meta-linguistic insights within academic speaking classes. KEYWORDS Academic Speaking Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) Presentation Students Attitudes This is an openaccess article under the CC–BY-SA license 1. Introduction Oral presentation has become essential in both industry and university education. The success of academic and professional careers depends on this (Gedamu & Gezahegn, 2022). The oral presentation, which includes debates, role plays, thesis/dissertation mock and viva, projects, seminars, and small group and individual presentations, is one of the most important aspects of the curriculum (Zivkovic, 2014). It has also happened in the educational curriculum in Indonesia. Most Indonesian university students have done oral presentations in their academics. Seven elements were established for the development of oral presentation competency: tasks, behaviour modelling, practice opportunities, learning objectives, feedback timing and intensity, peer assessment, and self-assessment. Combined with these findings, we can say that one of the seven guidelines for enhancing this competency is feedback-giving (Ginkel et al., 2015). In order to acquire complicated behaviours, like mastering oral presentations, feedback and assessment are crucial components of the learning cycle. Feedback can have numerous effects depending on its form and delivery method, even though it is one of the primary factors influencing learning and achievement (De Grez, 2009; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Nassaji et al., 2023). The feedback on the appropriateness or correctness of learners' doi :10.32585/ijelle.v6i1.4824 International Journal of English Linguistics, Literature, and Education (IJELLE) Vol. 6, No. 1, June 2024, pp. 26-38 27 ISSN 2686-0120 (print), 2686-5106 (online) production or comprehension of a second language is referred to as corrective feedback (CF) (Li & Vuono 2019). When language learners engage in conversation both within and outside of the classroom, they increase their chances of receiving corrective feedback (CF) regarding their language production from a communication partner (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021). Corrective feedback (CF) can be effectively integrated into communicative language learning environments to improve linguistic correctness as well as encourage a deeper understanding and application of language skills. This can ultimately increase the overall competency of second language (L2) learners. Corrective feedback (CF) is important in second language (L2) learning, and a large body of research has examined its function in L2 acquisition. Corrective feedback is helpful for L2 acquisition, according to the findings of these studies, which have been compiled into several reviews and meta-analyses (Cheng & Yan, 2022; Cheng & Zhang, 2022; Nassaji, 2016; Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021). Additionally, they have demonstrated that different kinds of feedback have various degrees of effectiveness and that different factors, such as the type of feedback, the kinds of errors, and individual learner differences, may influence their usefulness (Nassaji, 2016; Li, 2018). For instance, Li and Vuono (2019) reviewed studies on oral and written corrective feedback carried out over the last 25 years and found differences in the application and impact of the two types of feedback in the classroom. Furthermore, oral corrective feedback (OCF) itself is the response given by teachers or other discussion partners to language learners whose output is inaccurate, nontarget-like, inappropriate, or confusing (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021). Here, they receive an oral cue from the teacher that something is wrong with what they stated, either expressly or implicitly, during the presentation process. Six main categories of oral CF were found in Lyster and Ranta's groundbreaking work from 1997: elicitation, clarification requests, explicit correction, recasts, and metalinguistic signals. The six types of feedback can be divided into two categories: input-providing vs. output-prompting and implicit vs. explicit. The former is based on whether the learner's attention is explicitly brought to the error, while the latter is based on whether self-repair is encouraged (Li & Vuono, 2019; Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021). These types of feedback have various degrees of effectiveness. Who gives the feedback—teachers, fellow students, or native speakers—also affects how effective it is. For instance, Mackey, Oliver, and Leeman (2003) discovered that while native speakers gave more feedback than other students, students were more likely to give feedback to one another in a way that promoted uptake or repair (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021). In this case, we focused on teacher feedback. According to Nassaji & Kartchava (2021), teachers must consider the role of CF in their classrooms, such as providing extensive or intensive CF for all errors or targeting only a few. They must strike a balance between providing sufficient CF without reducing learner motivation and autonomy. They must also decide when to provide feedback, whether immediately or later, depending on the teaching context. The type of feedback used should (...truncated)