The Influence of Educational Programme on Teachers’ Error Correction Preferences in the Speaking Skill: Insights from English as a Foreign Language Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">In the area of language teaching, corrective feedback is one of the popular and hotly debated topics that have been widely explored to date. A considerable number of studies on students’ preferences of error correction and the effects of error correction approaches on student achievement do exist. Moreover, much on teachers’ preferences of error correction approaches has also been explored. However, less seems to be done with regard to teachers’ practices of error correction approaches, especially in the area of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The present study explored EFL teacher’s preferences of error correction approaches in the speaking skill, and further focused on whether the teachers were able to employ the approaches they preferred in their classrooms. Data were collected from a group of 17 EFL teachers, through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations. The findings revealed that although the teachers had clear preferences for error correction approaches, they could not employ them in their classrooms owing to the educational programme constraints. Furthermore, it was observed that they often had to adopt approaches that they were not actually in favour of. Implications for programme and curriculum designers are further discussed.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".