The teacher was the principal provider of oral corrective feedback, with peer and self-correction rarely proactively promoted¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer3·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? All participants reported being the primary OCF providers; only two instructors promoted peer or self-correction, and peer correction was seen as risking discord without good rapport. → Gómez Argüelles 2019
Evidence¶
Gómez Argüelles 2019¶
Gómez Argüelles, L., Hernández Méndez, E., & Perales Escudero, M. D. (2019). EFL Teachers' Attitudes Towards Oral Corrective Feedback: A Case Study. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 21(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n1.69508
q2 · i? · qualitative · r3
In the provider analysis of the interview study, "the teacher was the principal agent who provided ocf. Only two instructors promoted the use of peer and self-correction"; others said learners initiated peer or self-correction spontaneously.
"the teacher was the principal agent who provided ocf. Only two instructors promoted the use of peer and self-correction"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Teachers' attitudes towards oral corrective feedback are guided mainly by considerations of students' feelings, which override cognitive and other components — related
- Instructors focused OCF on pronunciation and grammar errors and withheld correction unless errors impeded communication — related
- Instructors favored delayed over immediate oral corrective feedback, believing immediate correction intimidates students — related
- EFL instructors were unaware of most OCF strategy types and did not consider students' cognition when deciding on corrective feedback — related
- College EFL instructors in a Mexican case study showed more positive attitudes towards implicit oral corrective feedback strategies (recast, body language) than explicit ones — related
- Teachers adjusted their OCF provision in response to learner reactions, providing feedback when accepted and stopping when it was challenged or ignored — related
- Qualitatively, AI-peer integrated feedback was associated with a broader repertoire of revision operations and more agentive cognitive strategies than peer feedback alone — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
teacher-is-principal-ocf-provider |
title |
The teacher was the principal provider of oral corrective feedback, with peer and self-correction rarely proactively promoted |
description |
The teacher was the principal provider of oral corrective feedback, with peer and self-correction rarely proactively promoted |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — gómez-argüelles-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.