Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 14. Number 3 September 2023                       Pp. 406-417

Full Paper PDF

Students Attitudes Towards Oral Corrective Feedback: A Case Study from Oman

 Mahmood AlGhafri
Department of Foreign Languages, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Nizwa, Oman

 Chahrazed Mirza
Department of Foreign Languages, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Nizwa, Oman
Corresponding Author:

 Cécile Gabarre
Department of Foreign Languages, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Nizwa, Oman


Received:05/15/2023         Accepted:09/17/2023                 Published: 09/24/2023

Understanding students’ attitudes toward oral corrective feedback is pivotal. This case study explored English Language Omani students’ attitudes toward teachers’ oral corrective feedback strategies to check the congruence between teachers’ and students’ preferences. We raised the following questions: What types of oral corrective feedback are used by teachers and preferred by students? Observational data were collected from two Omani English teachers to discern the types and frequencies of Oral Corrective Feedback utilized. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with six students were conducted to gain a holistic view of their perspectives and preferences. Classroom observations were quantitatively scrutinized for data analysis, whereas the interview data underwent a grounded theory procedure. The data demonstrated that teachers predominantly employed the ‘recast’ type of feedback. Notably, students showcased a generally positive attitude towards Oral Corrective Feedback. They preferred the ‘repetition’ and ‘elicitation’ feedback types.
Moreover, internal factors, like personal motivation and language proficiency, and external factors, such as curriculum challenges and teacher personalities, emerged as significant influencers of their attitudes and choices. The study unearthed an incongruence between students’ preferences and the teachers’ actual Oral Corrective Feedback practices. This incongruence suggests potential impediments to the effectiveness of feedback in facilitating optimal learning experiences. There is a need to bridge the gap between teaching practices and student preferences to improve learning outcomes and feedback.
Keywords: Oral Corrective Feedback, teaching practices, congruence, teachers’ perceptions, Students’ preferences

Cite as: AlGhafri, M., Mirza, C., & Gabarre, C. (2023). Students Attitudes Towards Oral Corrective Feedback: A Case Study from Oman
Arab World English Journal, 14 (3) 406-417.


AlAbri, S., Mirza, C., &Forouzani, M. (2022). Teachers’ beliefs about grammar teaching within the context of Omani secondary schools. Arab World English Journal, 13(2), 401-411. DOI:

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.

Al Ghaıthı, A., &Behforouz, B. (2023). The effect of corrective feedback via a computerized course on Omani EFL learners’ writing performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 74–87. DOI: 10.17718/tojde.1025572

Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice. English Teaching Forum, 38(4), 20–25. Retrieved from

Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong, and loops – linking feedback and learning. In S. Askew (Ed.), feedback for learning (pp. 1–18). Routledge.

Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.

Çoban, Z., &İnanKaragül, B. (2021). Unraveling the beliefs and practices of EFL teachers related to corrective feedback in Turkey. RumeliDEDilveEdebiyatAraştırmalarıDergisi, (25), 1103-1119. DOI: 10.29000/rumelide.1037126.

Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th Ed.). SAGE Publications.

Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19(1), 18–41.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.

Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL Composition. 2nd Edition. Mahwah, p. 61 New Jersey: LEA.

Fukuda, Y. (2004). Treatment of spoken errors in Japanese high school oral communication classes (Unpublished Master’s thesis). San Francisco State University, USA. Retrieved from

Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53.

Ha, X. V., & Murray, J. C. (2023). Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers. Language Teaching Research, 27(1), 137–167.

Han, Z. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 582–599.

Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1(1), 99–122.

Katayama, A. (2007). Students’ perceptions of oral error correction. Japanese Language and Literature, 41(1), 61–92.

Köroğlu, H., &Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2022). Turkish EFL pre-service teachers’ oral corrective feedback practices.Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (24), 127-139. DOI: 10.29029/busbed.1037181

Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164.

Lewis, M. (2002). Giving feedback in language classes. SEMEO Regional Language Centre.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.

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

Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mirza, H., Mirza, C., &Bellalem, F. (2023). Ethical considerations in qualitative research: Summary guidelines for novice social science researchers. Social Studies and Research Journal, 11(1), 441-449.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A 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.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.

Rassaei, E. (2019). Tailoring mediation to learners’ ZPD: Effects of dynamic and non-dynamic corrective feedback on L2 development. The Language Learning Journal, 47(5), 591–607.

Saeb, F. (2017). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions and preferences for oral corrective feedback: Do they match? International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(4), 32–44.

Schulz, R. A. (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.

Tayebipour, F. (2019). The impact of written vs. oral corrective feedback on Omani part-time vs. full-time college students’ accurate use and retention of the passive voice. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(1), 150.

Vahdani Sanavi, R., & Nemati, M. (2014). The effect of six corrective feedback strategies on Iranian English language learners’ IELTS writing task 2. SAGE Open.

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preferences of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.




Received: 05/15/2023
Accepted: 09/17/2023
Published: 09/24/2023 

Mahmood Al Ghafri is a senior teacher of English language in one of the governmental schools in Oman. His research interests include English language teaching and learning in Omani educational context. ORCID:

Chahrazed Mirza is an Assistant Professor of Education and Educational Technology. She is the Head of the English Language Section at the University of Nizwa, Oman. Her research interests include Online Education, Synchronous and Asynchronous language teaching environments, Multimodality, and Socio-constructivism. ORCID:

Dr. Cécile Gabarre is an Associate Professor at the University of Nizwa. Her scholarly interests include educational technology, teacher professional development, mobile learning, digital learning environments, and qualitative research. Cécile regularly conducts workshops on CALL, qualitative research, and foreign language European certifications in language assessment. ORCID: