Oral Corrective Feedback and Error Analysis: Indonesian Teachers’ Beliefs to Improve Speaking Skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was to investigate Indonesian teachers’ beliefs about the application of oral corrective feedback in Indonesian students’ EFL classrooms. It was limited to oral corrective feedback given for lexical, phonological, and syntactical errors in English conversation class. The participants of this research were 36 English teachers and 65 Indonesian students of English as a foreign language. This research utilized both qualitative and quantitative approaches, including the use of a close-ended questionnaire, semi-structured interview, and audio-recording to find the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback on students’ errors in speaking skills. The data analysis revealed: (1) the grammatical errors in students’ oral proficiency, (2) the most type of English teachers’ oral corrective feedback, (3) the students’ uptake in speaking skills, (4) the analysis of the use of oral corrective feedback, (5) the kinds of the students’ error based on English teachers’ experiences, (6) the students’ self-awareness of language errors, (7) the way of English teacher when delivering oral corrective feedback, (8) the students’ reasons to use oral corrective feedback based on English teachers’ beliefs, and (9) English teachers’ motivations to use oral corrective feedback. These findings suggested that English teachers should understand the students’ diverse needs, concerns, and expectations toward error correction according to their level of language proficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".