Abstract This study investigates the effectiveness of using Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) as a way of promoting young learners' language acquisition from an EFL (English As a Foreign Language) perspective. Furthermore, this study also looks at learners' and teachers' thoughts about oral corrective feedback and whether it serves its intended purpose in the classroom towards learners' language learning. My method is based on scientific articles and sets out previous studies to investigate how oral corrective feedback may be beneficial for young learners' EFL and L2 language development. Previous experimental research indicates that the use of oral corrective feedback has a positive effect on learners' L2 development and language acquisition. In this current study I provide an overview of the possible advantages and disadvantages of using oral corrective feedback in young learners' L2 development in an educational context which also includes an insight into teachers' attitude. The results show that OCF is beneficial for young learners’ L2 development if the learners are aware of the OCF that is being provided. The results also indicate that OCF is affected by the teachers' attitude towards OCF. Key terms: OCF, EFL, L2, corrective oral feedback, oral feedback types, teacher’s attitude OCF, learners' attitude OCF, teacher OCF and uptake.

<p>The aim of this paper is to investigate the amount of feedback given in language-focused exchanges and communicative exchanges. I also investigated if recasting is the feedback method most frequently used in communicative activities.<strong> </strong>Errors are natural parts of learning and cannot be avoided. However, corrective feedback is very important because fossilization can occur if students are not aware of their errors. Several different types of corrective feedback can be used to correct the students’ speech, but the most subtle one is recasts. Studies show that recasting is the method most common in communicative exchanges in the classroom.<strong> </strong>I have observed three different classes, at different levels of the Swedish school system, and also interviewed the teachers. It was shown that feedback was more frequently provided during the language-focused exchanges. It was also shown that two of the teachers were very reluctant to provide their students corrective feedback during communicative activities. All three teachers agreed that recasting is the best method to use for correcting the students’ speech because it does not interrupt the<strong> </strong>communication and does not inhibit the students. Communicating with students about feedback is something that I believe could help and facilitate some of the issues about giving corrective feedback. I believe that clarification requests and other types of feedback could be used more frequently without damaging the students’ self-confidence if there is a dialogue between the teacher and the students.</p>

The aim of this paper is to investigate the amount of feedback given in language-focused exchanges and communicative exchanges. I also investigated if recasting is the feedback method most frequently used in communicative activities. Errors are natural parts of learning and cannot be avoided. However, corrective feedback is very important because fossilization can occur if students are not aware of their errors. Several different types of corrective feedback can be used to correct the students’ speech, but the most subtle one is recasts. Studies show that recasting is the method most common in communicative exchanges in the classroom. I have observed three different classes, at different levels of the Swedish school system, and also interviewed the teachers. It was shown that feedback was more frequently provided during the language-focused exchanges. It was also shown that two of the teachers were very reluctant to provide their students corrective feedback during communicative activities. All three teachers agreed that recasting is the best method to use for correcting the students’ speech because it does not interrupt the communication and does not inhibit the students. Communicating with students about feedback is something that I believe could help and facilitate some of the issues about giving corrective feedback. I believe that clarification requests and other types of feedback could be used more frequently without damaging the students’ self-confidence if there is a dialogue between the teacher and the students.

Formative feedback is an active tool for a productive classroom. However, it may affect students’ written language positively or negatively. We all need confirmation from trusted peers or teachers to learn and develop knowledge and understanding. This project investigates what types of feedback teachers provide to students’ written texts and the reasons behind their choices. To collect the data required, four experienced teachers were interviewed. The study shows that it is valuable to give feedback orally to communicate. In spoken situations, teachers can make sure that the students have understood. The problem with written feedback is that it is often not understood or used by the learners. Regardless of whether the feedback appears in speaking or writing, it needs to communicate an understandable and specific message to the learners. The study shows that all teachers prefer providing oral feedback. However, because of time constraints, they use more written feedback. Furthermore, all teachers prefer not to correct all errors in the text. Instead, they focus on one issue at a time. Otherwise, students lose their interest in writing. Moreover, this study highlights the importance of focusing the feedback on an essay’s content, structure, and coherence rather than on grammar. The rationale given by the teachers concerns the students’ willingness to develop as a writer. Too much focus on grammar and incorrect uses of language may have a negative impact on this willingness. The conclusion of this study is that the four teachers prefer to give feedback several times. Firstly, they give informal and oral formative feedback before the task. Secondly, they provide written formative feedback on the students’ drafts. Thus, before submitting their completed texts for final assessment, they have the opportunity to revise their texts with the support of the teacher’s responses.

English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers use different strategies to support language acquisition when teaching. This study focuses on one particular strategy: Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF). It is provided to support learners’ oral language skills, and takes numerous potential forms which can either be implemented implicitly and/or explicitly. According to many studies, recast is the type of OCF most commonly used by EFL teachers. Studies demonstrate however, that recast is the least effective approach for EFL learners’ uptake. The aim of this research study is to investigate how Swedish EFL teachers provide students with OCF. In addition, the intention is also to explore teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the usefulness of OCF for their skills development in English. The focus of this research study is on Swedish primary schools of grades 4-6. Two types of data-gathering methods were used in this study: interviews and observations. The results confirm that both explicit and implicit OCF was provided when observing the teachers’ approaches and strategies in classroom settings. Surprisingly, this research study reveals that recast was not favoured by the Swedish EFL teachers as they considered other types of OCF to be more beneficial to EFL classroom settings.

Lärare använder sig av olika metoder för att hjälpa studenter att utveckla de verktyg de behöver för att lära sig engelska, eller något annat ämne. En metod här är muntlig feedback, som används för att uppmuntra elever eller korrigera dem när de utför språkliga fel. Vårt mål med detta examensarbete är därför att undersöka vilka typer av muntlig feedback som kan hittas i ett klassrum där man lär sig engelska som främmande språk och vilka attityder som både lärare och studenter kan ha gentemot muntlig feedback. Tre typer av undersökningsmetoder har använts: observationer, intervjuer och enkäter. Resultatet visar på att studenter förhåller sig positivt till muntlig feedback i klassrummet, särskilt explicit corrective feedback. Däremot var denna typ av feedback minst använd i klassrummet på grund av att lärarna tror på andra typer av feedback vara mer fördelaktiga. / Teachers use different methods to help students acquire the tools needed to learn English, or any other subject for that matter. One method is oral feedback, which is used to immediately encourage students or correct them when making an error. Our aim is therefore to investigate what kind of oral feedback can be found in a EFL-classroom and what attitudes both teachers and students have towards oral feedback. Three types of research tools were used: observation, interviews and questionnaire. The results show that the students were positive to oral feedback in the classroom, especially explicit corrective feedback. On the other hand, this type of feedback was the least used one in the classroom due to the teachers’ believing that other kinds of oral feedback are more beneficial.

<p>In Sweden we come in contact with the English language almost daily; in television shows, radio commercials and at work. English is also mandatory in the Swedish curriculum; therefore it is important that the students learn as much as possible in school, to be able to use English in their daily life. Teachers use different methods to help students acquire the tools needed to learn English, or any other subject for that matter. One method is oral feedback, which is used to immediately encourage students or correct them when making an error. My aim in this study is therefore to investigate if students find oral feedback in the classroom valuable and if not, how they would like it to be changed. To investigate this I handed out a questionnaire to five classes. The questions were divided up into three categories: if the students had noticed oral feedback being given to them, what their experiences of oral feedback were and how they would like the feedback to be delivered. I also made observations and recorded three classes. The results of this investigation showed that the students were positive to oral feedback in the classroom. Most of the students had noticed oral feedback being given to them, and the teachers had mostly corrected the students’ grammar and pronunciation. These were also the areas where the students felt they had developed the most from oral feedback. In the questionnaire the students pointed out that they wanted the feedback to be delivered privately and that the teachers have to be careful how they give the feedback, they have to always remember to give positive feedback as well as corrective feedback.</p>

<p>The aim of this investigation was to find out how students react to and make use of oral and written feedback given to them in class. Another aim was to find out if they preferred one form over the other and whether they make more use of that form. The investigation was conducted at a Swedish upper secondary school and consisted of a questionnaire survey and interviews with groups of students and with their teachers. The interviews with the students focused on clarifying some of the results from the questionnaire. The teacher interviews gave the teachers a chance to give their version of what they thought worked better and why they chose to work that way.</p><p> </p><p>The results showed that students welcome feedback, especially positive feedback used for encouragement. However, they also thought that there was a higher limit to the amount of feedback they could benefit from. Too much of one sort could be ignored or perceived as discouraging. The feedback mostly used in class was oral feedback. This was also what the students thought they benefited from the most since it invited to discussion about their work. Most of the students thought the feedback should be delivered in private because it could be embarrassing to receive feedback in front of their peers. Nevertheless, feedback on pronunciation and smaller errors that could be of use for their peers as well was acceptable in front of the class.</p>

The aim of this investigation was to find out how students react to and make use of oral and written feedback given to them in class. Another aim was to find out if they preferred one form over the other and whether they make more use of that form. The investigation was conducted at a Swedish upper secondary school and consisted of a questionnaire survey and interviews with groups of students and with their teachers. The interviews with the students focused on clarifying some of the results from the questionnaire. The teacher interviews gave the teachers a chance to give their version of what they thought worked better and why they chose to work that way.   The results showed that students welcome feedback, especially positive feedback used for encouragement. However, they also thought that there was a higher limit to the amount of feedback they could benefit from. Too much of one sort could be ignored or perceived as discouraging. The feedback mostly used in class was oral feedback. This was also what the students thought they benefited from the most since it invited to discussion about their work. Most of the students thought the feedback should be delivered in private because it could be embarrassing to receive feedback in front of their peers. Nevertheless, feedback on pronunciation and smaller errors that could be of use for their peers as well was acceptable in front of the class.

When teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), teachers use feedback in order to help students to improve their English skills. They can use both oral and written feedback to encourage students to make progress. Oral and written feedback play a significant role in second language acquisition, and this study could raise teachers' awareness of the different feedback strategies that can be employed in EFL classrooms. This could benefit their teaching performance and students’ learning. This study aims to examine the different types of oral and written feedback used in the EFL classroom, as well as teachers’ own perceptions of feedback. The approach used to conduct this study was both quantitative and qualitative. Three types of data material were collected in a secondary school (grades 7-9) for the analysis: three secondary school teachers were interviewed; their English lessons were observed; and their feedback on student essays was collected. The material collected was used in the analysis, which indicated that the teachers used different types of feedback. The most frequent oral feedback types used were recast, elicitation, and praise. However, the teachers employed different strategies regarding to how they provide this feedback. Two of the teachers provided feedback in the traditional way by using corrective types of feedback frequently, while one teacher chose not to correct students too often and instead encouraged them by giving them praise. The evaluation of different feedback types performed in this study suggests that recast as an implicit feedback type provided orally could be more effective in a communicative classroom setting, as it does not interrupt the communicative flow. In writing, on the other hand, explicit feedback combined with face-to-face sessions could lead to better results. It would be interesting to investigate in further research the effects of different oral and written feedback types.