Abbas Ali Rezaee; Mohammad Hussein Norouzi; Nafeeseh Aryaeian
Abstract
This qualitative study aimed to explore Iranian EFL teachers’ cognition of corrective feedback as one of the elements of classroom management in the EFL context of Iran’s language institutes. Participants of the study were 12 in-service Iranian EFL teachers who taught adult EFL learners. ...
Read More
This qualitative study aimed to explore Iranian EFL teachers’ cognition of corrective feedback as one of the elements of classroom management in the EFL context of Iran’s language institutes. Participants of the study were 12 in-service Iranian EFL teachers who taught adult EFL learners. The participants were selected through purposeful sampling, and the sample size was determined based on saturation. The main instrument of the study was a semi-structured one-to-one in-person interview, which aimed to elicit the participants’ cognition of corrective feedback. These individual interviews were audio-recorded and then they were transcribed. Thematic analysis of the data indicated that the participants considered corrective feedback an important element of classroom management in EFL classes. Moreover, the participants believed that corrective feedback should be provided for common errors and errors related to lesson objectives. They classified EFL learners’ errors in terms of the purpose of activities (communication vs. form, and fluency vs. accuracy). In addition, they knew about different timings for the provision of corrective feedback (delayed vs. immediate/on-the-spot). Furthermore, they highlighted the inclusion of teacher correction, peer correction, and self-correction for sufficiently providing corrective feedback in EFL classes. They also foregrounded EFL learners’ proficiency level and their affective factors for appropriate provision of corrective feedback. On the whole, the participants had a sound cognition of corrective feedback as one of the elements of classroom management in EFL classes in Iran. The findings of the present study have implications for language teacher educators, EFL teachers, and language institute supervisors.
