EFL Learners’ Preferences of Corrective Feedback in Speaking Activities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the preferences and perceptions of Saudi EFL learners concerning the use of Corrective Feedback (CF) during speaking activities. The participants consisted of sixty EFL pre-intermediate female learners in their preparatory year at the English Language Institute (ELI) in King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. The study utilized both quantitative and qualitative approaches, including a questionnaire to establish learners’ CF preferences when it came to the correction of errors during speaking activities, followed by interviews with ten learners to establish additional information on, and the reasons for, these preferences. The findings revealed that the students held a positive attitude to CF during speaking activities, strongly agreeing that their teachers’ CF could improve their speaking skills. The study also found that students preferred CF to be immediate and to be given by their teachers, who they considered the most qualified to provide such feedback. In addition, the majority of respondents favored receiving CF on their oral grammatical errors. This study provides beneficial information concerning students’ preferences towards the use of CF during speaking activities. This has the potential to contribute to EFL classroom practice, enabling teachers to reevaluate their instruction, particularly in relation to speaking skills, in order to improve speaking proficiency. Moreover, these results contribute to the literature focusing on EFL learners’ preferences when it comes to the use of the CF in English speaking classes in Saudi Arabia.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it