Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL Number 8. July 2022                       Pp.56-69

Full Paper PDF

 Saudi Female EFL Teachers’ Cognition and Practices Regarding Online Corrective
Feedback in Speaking Class

Reem Essa Aloud
Department of English language and Literature
College of Languages and Translation
 Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Received:02/13/2022              Accepted:06/24/2022              Published:  07/25/2022

The study of teachers’ cognition and classroom practices about online corrective feedback in English language teaching is a recent trend in research. However, there is a paucity of studies on teachers’ practices and cognition of online corrective feedback in speaking class. Therefore, this study attempts to bridge this research gap by investigating Saudi female English language teachers’ cognition and practices related to corrective feedback in an online speaking setting. The main question of this study is What are Saudi female EFL teachers’ practices and tacit beliefs about online corrective feedback? The participants of the study were five Saudi female teachers. This study applied a qualitative case study approach dealing with in-depth data collection instruments, including online class observations followed by face-to-face semi-structured and stimulated recall interviews, which interacted with each other through a practical argument process. The results revealed how the teachers’ online corrective feedback beliefs shaped their practices. The observational data revealed that all five teachers corrected most of their students’ errors using various online corrective feedback strategies. The observational data revealed that most teachers used output-prompting strategies more commonly than input-providing strategies, reflecting teachers’ interest in prompting self-correction discovery and reducing the students’ need for assistance.  This study thus provides a deeper insight into the complexity of teachers’ cognitions and practices regarding online corrective feedback. Implications of the findings of this study in teacher education are highlighted, and recommendations for further research are suggested.
Keywords: Corrective feedback, online corrective feedback, speaking, tacit belief teacher cognition

Cite as:  Aloud, R. E.  (2022).  Saudi Female EFL Teachers’ Cognition and Practices Regarding Online Corrective Feedback   in Speaking Class.  Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL (8)56-69.


Althobaiti, N. S. (2012). EFL teachers’ beliefs, instructional practices and professional development about corrective feedback
in Saudi universities.
Australia, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Queensland University.

Alkhammash, R., & Gulnaz, D. (2019). Oral Corrective Feedback Techniques: An Investigation of   the EFL Teachers’ Beliefs
and Practices at Taif University. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) 10.(2),40-54.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Oxford, England: Jossey-Bass.

Atai, M. R., & Shafiee, Z. (2017). Pedagogical knowledge base underlying EFL teachers’ provision of oral corrective feedback in
grammar instruction. Teacher Development, 21(4), 580–596.

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ Stated Beliefs about Incidental Focus on Form and their Classroom
Practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243–272.

Borg, M. (2004). The apprenticeship of observation. ELT Journal, 58(3), 274-276.

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum.

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.

Borg, S. (2009). Introducing language teacher cognition. Retrieved November 15, 2016from &hl=en&oi=scholarr

El-Okda, M. (2005). EFL student teachers’ cognition about reading instruction. The Reading Matrix,, 5(2), 43-60.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18

Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.

Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (1993). The elicitation and reconstruction of practical  arguments in teaching.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(2), 101– 114.

Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice.
The modern language journal, 387–398.

Ab Hamid, H., & Romly, R. (2021). Teachers’ perception of giving feedback to students’ online writing assignments during
movement control order (MCO). In First International Conference on Science, Technology, Engineering and Industrial
Revolution (ICSTEIR 2020)
 (pp. 461-464). Atlantis Press.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Torrance, CA: Laredo Publication Company Inc.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of second
language acquisition, 2
(2), 413-468.

Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System37(3), 514-525.

Lyster, R. (1998). Recast, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom second discourse. Studies in language
acquisition, 20
(1), 51-81.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (01), 37–66.

Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39(4), 451–467.

Martin, S., Alvarez, I. M., & Espasa, A. (2022). Video feedback and Foreign Language Anxiety in online pronunciation tasks.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education19(1), 1-16.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. New York: Prentice Hall.

Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language
29(4), 724-748

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices.
System, 37(3), 380–390.

Putnam, R. T. Borko, H. (2000). What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say about Research on Teacher
Learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

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

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. in E. Hinkel (ed. Handbook of Research in Second
Language Teaching and Learning, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shafiee, Z., Nejadghanbar, H., & Parsaiyan, S. F. (2018). Transformation of an EFL Teacher’s Cognition Underlying Oral Corrective Feedback: A Case of Reflective Inquiry. Teaching English Language, 12(1), 1–30.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,, 11(2), 129-158.

Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research,, 7(2), 89-102.

Tseng, S.S., & Yeh, H.C. (2019). The impact of video and written feedback on student preferences of English-speaking practice.
Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 145–158.

Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal
of Educational Research
, 35(5), 441– 461.

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

Woods, D., & Çakır, H. (2011). Two dimensions of teacher knowledge: The case of communicative language teaching.
System, 39(3), 381–390.

Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language teaching research10(2), 157-180.





Received: 02/13/2022 
Accepted: 06/24/2022 
Published: 07/25/2022

Dr. Reem Essa Aloud is an assistant professor of applied linguistics at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Saudi Arabia. Her research interest includes language acquisition and learning, foreign language teaching and learning, pragmatic competence, and corpora. ORCID: