EFL instructors were unaware of most OCF strategy types and did not consider students' cognition when deciding on corrective feedback¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer3·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? Participants recognized only recast, body language, and repetition among OCF strategies, and considerations of students' cognition were absent from their attitude composition. → 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
Content analysis of the six instructors' interviews showed limited strategy knowledge; the authors report that "they are unaware of most strategy types except recast, body language, and repetition" and that practices reproduced former teachers' practices without reflection on effectiveness.
"they are unaware of most strategy types except recast, body language, and repetition."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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
- Instructors focused OCF on pronunciation and grammar errors and withheld correction unless errors impeded communication — related
- Teachers' attitudes towards oral corrective feedback are guided mainly by considerations of students' feelings, which override cognitive and other components — related
- The teacher was the principal provider of oral corrective feedback, with peer and self-correction rarely proactively promoted — related
- Teachers adjusted their OCF provision in response to learner reactions, providing feedback when accepted and stopping when it was challenged or ignored — related
- Instructors favored delayed over immediate oral corrective feedback, believing immediate correction intimidates students — related
- Classroom interactional structures such as questions, recasts, and feedback influence students' processing of targeted content — related
- Discussion board interactions generated no negative feedback at all, suggesting synchrony is required to foster corrective feedback — related
- The literature is supportive of recasts, but recast effectiveness varies with the language area and learner knowledge, focus, and aptitudes — related
- The frequency of oral corrective feedback differs across instructional contexts — related
- Learners prefer receiving corrective feedback more than teachers feel they should provide it — related
- Awareness of how learners' conceptual representations deviate from native-speaker preferences can help teachers decide where to focus classroom attention, promoting conceptual fluency — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
teachers-unaware-ocf-strategies-cognition-absent |
title |
EFL instructors were unaware of most OCF strategy types and did not consider students' cognition when deciding on corrective feedback |
description |
EFL instructors were unaware of most OCF strategy types and did not consider students' cognition when deciding on corrective feedback |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
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.