Oral feedback as a teaching technique in the foreing language primary classrooms while working on the SDGs.

Final Degree Project DEGREE IN PRIMARY EDUCATION 2022/2023 ORAL FEEDBACK AS A TEACHING TECHNIQUE IN THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE PRIMARY CLASSROOMS WHILE WORKING ON THE SDGS Author: Patricia Rodrigo del Campillo Director: Ruth Milla Melero Leioan, 2023ko irailaren 12an Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao I N D E X Introduction and justification.........................................................................................3 1. Theoretical Framework...............................................................................................4 1.1. Oral corrective feedback in primary classrooms..................................................4 1.1.1. The nature of the errors and types of errors.................................................5 1.1.2 Types of corrective feedback........................................................................6 1.1.3 Which errors should be corrected, by whom and when?..............................9 1.1.3.1. Correction of pronunciation errors................................................... 10 1.2 Learners beliefs and anxiety................................................................................ 11 1.2.1 CF and Anxiety...........................................................................................12 2. Methodology...............................................................................................................13 3. Results and discussion...............................................................................................14 3.1. Rubric with errors in pronunciation....................................................................14 3.1.1. Observations of the rubric......................................................................... 15 3.1.2. Comparison of the graphs..........................................................................16 3.2. Learners´ beliefs about OCF...............................................................................16 3.2.1. Observations of the pre-test.......................................................................17 3.2.2. Observations of the post-test and comparison...........................................19 4. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 21 5. Professional ethics and data protection................................................................... 23 6. Bibliography...............................................................................................................23 1 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao Oral feedback as a teaching technique in the FL primary classrooms while working on the SDGs Patricia Rodrigo del Campillo UPV/EHU The aim of this work is to explore oral corrections, specifically the treatment of pronunciation errors, using two different types of corrective feedback, recast and prompts (in the form of repetitions), and evaluating to what extent the type of correction context affected students' beliefs. In order to work on Goal 3 of UNESCO's Agenda 2030 in the Primary EFL classroom, an intervention was designed and implemented for the 4th year of Primary Education in a public school, using oral communication and two correction strategies as a basis. Although the results are not fully consistent, there is a tendency in the students' responses to show a positive attitude towards the correction of their pronunciation errors. Oral corrections; Recast; Repetitions; Beliefs; EFL classroom El objetivo de este trabajo son las correcciones orales, concretamente el tratamiento de los errores de pronunciación, utilizando dos tipos diferentes de feedback correctivo, la reformulación y los prompts (en forma de repeticiones), y evaluando en qué medida el tipo de contexto de corrección afectaba a las creencias de los estudiantes. Con el fin de trabajar el Objetivo 3 de la Agenda 2030 de la UNESCO en el aula de EFL de Primaria, se diseñó e implementó una intervención para 4º de Educación Primaria, utilizando como base la comunicación oral y dos tipos de corrección. Aunque los resultados no son del todo consistentes, existe una tendencia en las respuestas de los alumnos a mostrar una actitud positiva hacia la corrección de sus errores de pronunciación. Correcciones orales; Reformulación; Repetición; Creencias; Aula EFL Lan honen helburua ahozko zuzenketak aztertzea da, zehazki ahoskera-akatsaren tratamendua, bi feedback zuzentzaile mota erabiliz: barregitea eta prompt-ak (errepikapen moduan), eta zuzenketa-testuinguruak ikasleen sinesmenetan zer neurritan eragiten zuen ebaluatuz. UNESCOren 2030 Agendaren 3. helburua Lehen Hezkuntzako Lanbide Heziketako ikasgelan lantzeko, Lehen Hezkuntzako 4. mailarako esku-hartze bat diseinatu eta ezarri zen, ahozko komunikazioa eta bi zuzenketa-mota oinarri hartuta. Emaitzak sendoak ez diren arren, ikasleek beren ahoskera-akatsak zuzentzeko jarrera positiboa erakusteko joera dute. Ahozko zuzenketak; Berregitea; Errepikapena; Sinesmenak; EFL gela 2 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao Introduction and justification Globalization has obviously modified multiple aspects of human life. In the case of linguistics, this phenomenon has led to the fusion, evolution and, in an extreme case, the disappearance of languages and their cultural values that have historically been in contact with others. English has positioned itself as the lingua franca, that is, the world's leading global vehicular language (Villalobos, 2017). English teaching methodologies have evolved from more grammar-based to communicative approaches. However, some focus on form is also needed, especially when teaching/learning a foreign language, since the quality and quantity of input provided is limited as they are the opportunities for actual interaction and learners’ production. This study aims to explore oral corrective feedback (OCF), a phenomenon that occurs in language learning classrooms, and to capture all the nuances that come into play when this teaching technique appears in a formal learning environment. There has been a great deal of research on which types of OCF are most effective for each type of error. Most studies have focused on morphosyntax or vocabulary errors, so, in the present study, we will only consider pronunciation errors. Moreover, all studies on CF in pronunciation are conducted at secondary or higher education levels, unlike the present one, which has been carried out in primary education classrooms. In relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the didactic sequence used in this study consisted of an intervention focused on SDG number 3 (good health and well-being). With the intention of responding to the main objective of this experiment, this Final Degree Project has been divided into 5 parts. Firstly, the theoretical framework, where topics about oral corrective feedback, pronunciation errors and students' beliefs about errors are discussed. Secondly, the methodology, which will report on the process used to carry out this project: the design of the intervention, participants, etc. Thirdly, the procedure of the work includes the objective of the research, the study carried out and its characteristics, the tools used for data collection, the results and the interpretation of the latter. Finally, there will be a final conclusion, followed by the annexes. 3 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao 1. Theoretical Framework This first part of the paper will first briefly outline the key elements of the didactics of foreign language (FL) teaching that must be taken into consideration before analyzing the phenomenon of oral error correction, to be more precise, the types of errors that can arise, the types of corrections that can be used and the results that can be predicted. Studies conducted by experts in the field and their conclusions will then be discussed. It should be noted that the works on which this theoretical framework is based contemplate both the perception of errors from the perspective of the teacher and that of the student, as the student's perception is transcendental to understand the phenomenon of the correction of oral errors in the classroom, as what the student thinks, feels and expresses is as important as what the teacher perceives. 1.1. Oral corrective feedback in primary classrooms Corrective feedback (CF) is found in natural learning environments as well as in formal learning contexts, though it is much more common and probably more beneficial, and even needed, in the latter. SLA investigators have centered on CF in formal environments, finding beneficial effects of this approach for L2 learning. Referring to CF, in the past there was a trend that affirmed that CF was not useful. However, there is a current consensus that it has positive effects on SLA by promoting the noticing of target exemplars and consolidating learner skills through contextualized practice as well as by other means (Ha & Murray, 2020). The input given to the learner about the target language can be positive, which consists of showing correct grammatical rules and structures of the target language, or negative, which consists of teaching the learner implicitly or explicitly what is incorrect in the target language. CF falls into the latter category, and is therefore also referred to as "negative feedback" (Moyano, 2019). Irons (2008) and Hernández (2009) explain the differences between feedback and correction, arguing that while correction is a response to error, feedback aims to respond holistically to the learner's practice, including his or her linguistic successes and, above all, the communicative intention of the practice. This should be constructive 4 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao in improving learner performance, encouraging self-regulation, developing intrinsic motivation and positive self-esteem, helping learners to recognize and fill gaps in their current and future understanding, and fostering dialogue between teachers and learners. Thus, a key aspect of effective feedback, whether written or oral, is that learners must understand what they are being asked to learn. In this dissertation we have focused on oral corrective feedback (OCF), the feedback that takes place in oral teacher-student interaction in a formal setting of a classroom (Milla, 2017). There are two types of CF, oral and written (Milla, 2017). Over the past two decades, research has given a great deal of attention to OCF. Most of the prior research on the efficacy of OCF has demonstrated that it is both beneficial and necessary for L2 learners' linguistic development (Xuan Van, 2021). 1.1.1. The nature of the errors and types of errors Understanding the nature of linguistic errors is very useful for knowing how to deal with them, and even for deciding whether or not to correct them. To do this, it is necessary to know what is considered an error in the classroom. Blanco (2002), defines an error as a transgression, deviation or incorrect use of a norm, which in this case can be linguistic, but also cultural, pragmatic, and of a great variety of other types. The author argues that the teacher's attitude towards errors depends on how he or she conceives language acquisition. It can be said that there is a direct relationship between errors and acquisition. If we know how a language is learned, we will be able to know why errors occur and thus establish the means to repair them. Mendez, Arguelles and Castro (2010) propose the following classification of errors according to their form: TYPE OF ERROR EXPLANATION Morphosyntactic errors When word order, verb tenses, conjugation or other sentence elements are incorrect. 5 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao Lexical errors When inappropriate words or even words from the learner 's native language are used due to insufficient vocabulary in the target language. Semantic errors When the oral or written textual production lacks meaning. Phonological errors When the pronunciation of a word or segment is not correct. Table 1: Classification of errors (adapted from Mendez, Arguelles & Castro, 2010) Categories 1-3 of errors can occur in oral texts as well as in written texts, while category 4 belongs exclusively to oral texts, hence when speaking of a correction of an oral error, one of these 4 categories may be involved (Mendez, Arguelles & Castro, 2010). Phonological errors, or pronunciation errors, must be treated with special care, since the pronunciation of each learner is perceived as a personal trait, and asking the learner to correct his/her pronunciation may be perceived as a threat to his/her self-image, and he/she may feel criticized (Mendez, Arguelles & Castro, 2010). 1.1.2 Types of corrective feedback Considering the participant(s) in the CF interaction Mendez, Arguelles and Castro (2010) say that there are the following possibilities: - Self-correction: Students are conscious of the errors they make and repair them. It seems to be the preferred one for the learners as it saves their faces (Mendez, Arguelles & Castro, 2010). - Peer correction: Students are corrected by each other in a face-to-face interactive, safe and secure environment that helps them to safeguard 6 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao their egos, build their self-confidence and helps them to become more independent (Mendez, Arguelles & Castro, 2010). - Teacher-correction: The teacher is seen as a professional who has a high level of English proficiency. She is the one who fixes the students' errors and provides them with instructions in a way they can understand the error (Mendez, Arguelles & Castro, 2010). Regarding the type of correction required and the point of view considered, it is necessary to mention the implicit and explicit dichotomy. On the one hand, implicit correction is meant to indirectly correct learners' errors. On the other hand, explicit correction includes, for example, grammatical explanation or overt error correction. Below, we can see the six types of CF from more implicit to more explicit. 1. Recast: The teacher replays the learner's utterance in place of the error. Some of the teacher's recasts may be a word, a grammatical or lexical modification, or translation in response to the learner's use of L1. When recasts are used, the teacher does not use sentences such as "you mean..." or "you should say..." (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). 2. Clarification request: The teacher may ask the student to repeat or reformulate what he/she has said. This is a kind of feedback that can refer to problems of understanding, or accuracy, or both. A request for clarification involves phrases like "Sorry" (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) 3. Repetition of error: The teacher reiterates the student's mistake in isolated form and, in the majority of cases, rising intonation to emphasize the mistake (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). 4. Elicitation: According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) in this kind of feedback the teachers give a sentence and strategically break to let the students "fill the blank". If the students give a wrong answer he/she makes a remark like "No, that's not it. That's a..." or just repeating the mistake (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). 5. Metalinguistic feedback: The teacher offers information or asks questions in connection with a learner's possible error without explicitly providing the correct answer (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). 7 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao 6. Explicit error correction refers to the explicit provision of the correct form. As the teacher provides the correct form, he or she clearly indicates that what the student had said was incorrect. (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). With the above in mind, it is necessary to mention that the types from 1-5 can be made more or less implicit, depending on length, emphasis… Lyster (2002) later integrated four of them (clarification request, repetition, elicitation and metalinguistic feedback) into a category called prompts. Therefore, in Lyster's sense, prompts include both implicit and explicit forms of feedback. Thus, focusing on the way the feedback is given, it is necessary to make a distinction between two groups: reformulations and prompts. The first (recast or explicit correction) would consist of a correction provided immediately with the correct form for the error, while the second (clarification request, repetition, elicitation and metalinguistic feedback) consists of giving the student clues so that he/she realizes the mistake made and repairs it by him/herself (Hanh & Tho, 2018). Among them, recasts have gained the most attention from researchers, partly because the techniques help to address important issues related to acquisition. Studies on recasts have investigated their effectiveness or ineffectiveness in L2 development (Sung-Soo, 2011). However, even though teachers are not too keen on error correction, the observation made by Yoshida (2010, in Roothooft & Breeze, 2016) demonstrated that it is true that most of the teachers do prefer prompting learners to self-correct, but that in reality they mainly use recasts, because in the end these are “conducive to maintaining a supporting classroom environment” (Saito & Sato, 2013, p. 89). This theory supports Lyster and Ranta (1997) findings, as their analysis proved that recasts accounted for 55% of the total number of teachers, whereas the rest: elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction and repetition were used very little. Recasts are thought to be useful when learners respond to these by modifying their initial output, but this does not always take place. Regardless, as Carpenter et al., (2006) mention, recasts have been shown to be beneficial. With reference to students’ beliefs, even though some might claim that they would rather be corrected implicitly, most of them prefer to be corrected explicitly. Additionally, Roothooft and Breeze (2016) also found out that students were most positive about explicit correction, although they also expressed their preference for metalinguistic feedback too. As a matter of fact, even those students with high anxiety 8 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao 3.1.1. Observations of the rubric As previously mentioned, two different types of corrective feedback, prompts and recasts were used in two different classrooms of 4th grade of primary education. Firstly, in 4.A the type of corrective feedback used was recast, where the teacher replays the learner's utterance in place of the error (see annex 3). As we can observe (see graph 1) most of the students changed their answer once they heard the teacher's correction. Graph 1. Recast. In this case, taking into account that there were a total of 18 students, they made 35 errors. On one hand, out of 35 errors, 57,10%, i.e. 20 errors, were repaired by students. On the other hand, 31,40%, i.e. 11 errors, did not react to the correction. The rest, 11,40%, i.e. 4 errors, were incorrectly repeated, students made the same mistake again. Secondly, in 4.B the type of corrective feedback used was repetition, where the teacher reiterates the student's mistake in isolated form and, in the majority of cases, adds intonation to emphasize the mistake (see annex 4). As the graph shows (see graph 2) most of the errors were not answered by students. Graph 2. Repetition. 15 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao In this case, taking into account that there were a total of 17 students, they made 23 errors. On one hand, out of 23 errors, 23,80%, i.e. 5 errors, were corrected by students. On the other hand, 42,90%, i.e. 9 errors, were not answered. The rest, 33,30%, i.e. 7 errors, were incorrectly repeated, students made the same mistake again. 3.1.2. Comparison of the graphs As explained in the theoretical framework above, Ammar and Spada (2006) showed that the use of recast is more effective in pronunciation corrections , but when it comes to correcting errors in the English classroom, using prompts (repetitions) is more effective than using recast (Lyster & Mori, 2006). We must also take into account the academic objective and above all the knowledge of our students. That is why it is very important whether the students knew the words in which they made a mistake before or not. Looking at the graphs and taking into account the above mentioned, on the one hand, we can see how in the 4A class where recast was used, the students are able to repair the errors, since the teacher provides them with the correct form of the error. On the other hand, in 4B in which prompts (repetitions) were used, the students do not have the facility to repair the error made, because they do not know the correct form of the error. Unlike recasts, in prompts (repetitions) the teacher gives hints to the students to repair the errors. In this study, most of the students do not know the correct form of the word they have made a mistake in and often do not know how to repair it. Analyzing the results obtained in the graphs, it can be said that oral corrections are effective in correcting pronunciation errors, thus showing that the use of recasts is more effective than repetitions in correcting pronunciation errors. 3.2. Learners´ beliefs about OCF As mentioned in the methodology, a pre-test and a post test (see annex 5) were conducted to collect the beliefs that students had about oral corrections. 3.2.1. Observations of the pre-test 16 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao Graph 3: I worry about making pronunciation errors in English classes (pre-test) In response to the item “I worry about making pronunciation errors in English classes”, it is worth noting that in 4.A, the majority of students are concerned about making pronunciation errors, highlighting the yellow bar with 10 students out of 18 concerned about it. On the other hand, in 4.B the data are very divided, we have students who are worried about making mistakes and others who are not so worried. Graph 4: I like to learn from my pronunciation mistakes (pre-test) In response to the item “I like to learn from my pronunciation mistakes”, students say that they like to learn from the mistakes they make (see graph 4), so they are willing to be corrected by their teachers when they make mistakes, with the intention of learning from the errors. Graph 5: I like to be corrected on an individual basis (pre-test) 17 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao In general, regarding the students' beliefs, the graph in this case shows that most of the students prefer to be corrected on an individual basis and not in front of their classmates (see graph 5). Graph 6: When I mispronounce a word, I like my teacher to tell me how to pronounce it (pre-test) In response to the item “When I mispronounce a word, I like my teacher to tell me how to pronounce it “ in graph 6, students like to be corrected when they make mistakes in the pronunciation of words. This graph shows that there are no students who do not like to be corrected by their teachers. Graph 7: When I mispronounce a word, I like my teacher to give me hints to correct it on my own (pre-test) Finally, in contrast to the previous graph in which the teacher corrected the error and provided the correct form of the error. In this case (graph 7), students say they are satisfied when the teacher gives them clues to find the error and correct it. Likewise, after seeing the results in the graphs, we could say that the students' beliefs are positive about OCF. 18 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao 3.2.2. Observations of the post-test and comparison Now, in order to compare the beliefs of the students after the didactic intervention, a post-test was conducted. In the next graphs, the comparison of the tests will be made, as well as to see if the beliefs of the students have changed or not, once the intervention has been carried out. Graph 8: I worry about making pronunciation errors in English classes (post-test) In this graph 8, we can observe a great change in beliefs from graph 3 above. In this case, from being very concerned about making pronunciation errors, a change can be seen, showing that they are not so worried about making them. We could say that they are more relaxed about making mistakes once the intervention was implemented. Regarding being corrected on pronunciation errors, we shall look at graph 11 below. In this case, regarding graph 5 and graph 9, in both classes, students like to be corrected for pronunciation errors. In the case of 4B, the results have improved, but in 4A, on the other hand, the results have been notably distributed, thus showing the change in the students' beliefs. Graph 9: I like to learn from my pronunciation mistakes (post-test) 19 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao In general, students usually prefer to be corrected individually as the graph 6 above showed. However, it is true that in graph 10 the results have been somewhat dispersed in both classes. The graph shows that most of the students continue prefering to be corrected on an individual basis and not in front of their classmates. Graph 10: I like to be corrected on an individual basis (post-test) As we can observe in graph 11 below, there has been a change in students' beliefs regarding oral corrections. Just as in previous graphs, we have seen that students accept corrections very well and like them. Graph 11:When I mispronounce a word, I like my teacher to tell me how to pronounce it (post-test) Finally, as the graph 12 shows, students like the teacher to give them hints when they do not pronounce a word well. 20 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao Graph 12: When I mispronounce a word, I like my teacher to give me hints to correct it on my own. Looking at the graphs and taking into account the above mentioned in the literature about learners’ beliefs on OCF it was thought that learners preferred teachers to ignore their errors and focus on other aspects but form (meaning, content and fluency). However, although the literature on students' beliefs is still limited (Katayama, 2007), the results obtained in studies about students' beliefs about CF have shown that students' perceptions are not negative, on the contrary, students show their desire to be corrected, as well as being dissatisfied when teachers do not do it. In this study we have found similar results, although the results are not very consistent, there is a tendency in the students' responses to show a positive attitude towards having their pronunciation errors corrected through prompts (repetition) (graph 2) and also recasts (graph 1). As for the students' preference for one type or another and contrasting these results with the referenced information, we do not find a conclusive answer, as can be seen in graphs 1 and 2, it seems that the students understood the error better and had the facility to repair it when recast was used, unlike this, in the case of repetitions the students did not know well how to repair the error since they did not know the correct form of the error. Once again, this could be due to the small sample size, the age difference of the students in this and other studies and also the difficulty of some of the corrected words. 4. Conclusion The present section will elaborate on the conclusions linked to the objectives and hypotheses set out for this project, as well as a reflection on the whole experience of carrying out a study involving an intervention. The aim of this study was mainly to fill in the gaps that have not been thoroughly investigated, due to the fact that, as mentioned several times, not many studies have been conducted on OCF, nor has it been implemented in classrooms. The Practicum III internship has been the vehicle that has allowed me to carry out this intervention in a primary classroom context. By carrying out a didactic unit that has Goal 3 of the agenda 2030 as its axis, it has been possible to determine that oral 21 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao corrections are beneficial in the learning process of students, thus reflecting in them an increased positive attitude towards being corrected by teachers. In addition, the teaching of pronunciation has been verified to be crucial for FL learning. In fact, it seems to be even slightly more important than grammar, at least in the second and third years of secondary school. It has been observed that in fourth grade a number of teachers no longer focus so much on it and, instead, concentrate especially on grammar and its use in language teaching. Moreover, Roothooft and Breeze (2016) show that teachers' and students' beliefs about OCF are totally the opposite, as while students like to be corrected immediately and most of them prefers to have all mistakes fixed, teachers hold a different perspective on this issue, as they state they do not want to rudely interrupt their students and disrupt the communication flow. In all, this study has demonstrated the benefits of using one type of oral correction or another depending on what the academic goal is at the time. Besides this, we have corroborated what Ammar and Spada (2006) in their research comparing repetitions and recast found that one type is not necessarily superior to the other, as there are variables that influence their respective effects. Even so, in Lyster and Mori (2006) researches their analyses pointed out that, the use of recasts is more effective than the use of prompts, partly because the technique of repetition helps to address important issues related to acquisition, being this more effective in form-focused classrooms, such as the one in our study, while prompts were more beneficial in meaning-focused classrooms. However, it is true that this study also has its limitations, due to the short duration of the intervention, so we do not have all the information necessary to fully investigate all the errors that were not corrected in class. Nevertheless, this study has helped to explore OCF using two different types of corrective feedback, prompts and recasts, and to assess the extent to which the type of correction context affected students' beliefs. In addition, it has gathered quite a bit of information and has also presented several examples for a better understanding of the topic. In addition, this experiment has also contributed to further research on pronunciation errors. Therefore, this study may be of great use in the near future for those who wish to delve deeper into this topic. To conclude, I would recommend that researchers focus more on OCF teaching and gather more data on this field of instruction as well. In this way, smaller gaps will 22 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao remain and thus enough data will be collected on what should be done by teachers to provide their students with complete knowledge. In the meantime, I believe that educators should focus more on the teaching of pronunciation and also fix most of their students' mistakes, as long as this does not affect their self-esteem or put their learning on hold by discouraging them from continuing to participate in class. 5. Professional ethics and data protection Confidentiality and protection of the object of the work was used for the realisation of this project. To this end, the following principles of ethical professionalism have been respected: the principle of human rights, the principle of the subject's action, and the principle of responsibility for the information. Also, data protection guidelines have been applied, due to the fact that the anonymity of all the collaborating persons has been maintained. In addition, the project did not involve the collection of personal data, so this was also left out of the study. 6. Bibliography Amara, N. (2018). Correcting Students' Errors: Theory and Practice. Jour,1(57), 45-57. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,28(04), 543-574. 10.1017/S0272263106060268 Blanco Picado, A. I. (2002). El error en el proceso de aprendizaje. Instituto Cervantes in Warsaw. Online article, http://www.cuadernoscervantes.com/art_38_error.html Bley, R. (1990). The Logical Problem of Foreign Language Learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20(1-2), 5-49. Carpenter, H., Jeon, S. K., MacGregor, D. & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,28(2), 209-236. Couper, G. (2019). Teachers’ cognitions of corrective feedback on pronunciation: Their beliefs, perceptions and practices. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 84, 41-52. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of learner-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist,38(4), 207-234. 10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2 Derwing, M, T., Munro, J. M., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in Favor of a Broad Framework for Pronunciation Instruction. A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 48(3), 393-410. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal,1, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054 Gomez, L., Hernandez, E. & Perales, M. ( 2019). EFL Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Oral Corrective Feedback: A Case Study. Profile Issues in Teachers` Professional Development,21(1), 107-120. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1692/169257848008/html/ Ha & Murray (2020). Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers. Language Teaching Research,27(1), 137-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820931897 23 Final Degree Project. Faculty of Education in Bilbao Hanh, T. P. & Tho, X. P. Oral corrective feedback in EFL/ESL classrooms: classification models. Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(5), 40-48. Hasibuan, S & Yusriati, Y. (2019). The Analysis of English Pronunciation Errors by English Education Students of FKIP UMSU. Journal of English Education and Teaching,3(2), 230-448. Harmer, J. (1983). The practice of English language teaching.London: Longman. Hernández, A. L. (2009). Feedback y corrección de errores en el aula de L2 (I): actividades orales. Educación y futuro: revista de investigación aplicada y experiencias educativas, 20, 65-78. Irons, A. (2008). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback.New York: Routledge. Katayama, A. (2007). Learners’ perceptions toward corrective feedback to oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289-305. Li, S. (2013). Oral corrective feedback. ELT journal, 68(2), 196-198. Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,28(2), 269-300. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. SSLA, 20, 37–66. 10.1017/S0272263197001034 Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,32, 265–302. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition/article/o ral-feedback-in-classroom-sla/4999EE1C8379B2BF026B148EAF373CA1 Mendez, E., Arguelles, L., & Castro, A. (2010). Oral corrective feedback: Some ways to go about it. FEL International,33(1), 254-270. Milla, R. (2017). Corrective feedback episodes in CLIL and EFLl classrooms; teacher´s and learner´s beliefs and classroom behaviour. [Doctoral thesis]. España. https://addi.ehu.es/bitstream/handle/10810/26936/TESIS_MILLA_MELERO_RUTH.pdf ?sequence=1 Milla, R. & García Mayo, M. P. (2021). Teacher’s and learners’ beliefs about corrective feedback compared with classroom behaviour in CLIL and EFL. In K. Talbot, S. Mercer, M.T. Gruber and R. Nishida (Eds.), The Psychological Experience of Integrating Content and Language (pp112-132). Multilingual Matters. Moyano, E. (2019). Corrective Feedback in English as a foreign language. [End-of-degree Project]. University of the Basque Country (UPV), Spain. https://addi.ehu.es/bitstream/handle/10810/48406/TFG_Moyano.pdf?sequence=3&isAllo wed=y Roothooft, H. & Breeze, R. (2016) A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback, Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335. Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language teaching, 46(1), 1-40. Sung-Soo, J. (2011). Corrective feedback and language anxiety in L2 processing and achievement. English Teaching,66(2), 73-99. 10.15858/engtea.66.2.201106.73 Schaffer, D. E. (2005). To Correct or Not to Correct? Is Oral Error Correction Effective? The Internet TEFL Journal. 54, 1-6. UNESCO. (2017). UNESCO moving forward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://es.unesco.org/creativity/sites/creativity/files/247785en.pdf Villalobos, J. (2017). Linguistic Globalization: the Conflict between English and Spanish An update on the Case of Mexico and the United States. University of Guelph, 8, 4-15. Xuan Van, H. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Ha Tinh University, 1-8. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550 24