| dc.description.abstract | There has been a shift in the attitudes towards the errors that language learners make. Previously they were indicators of sin or failure, however presently researchers recommend that "errors [should be] viewed as an integral part of the language learning" (Salikin, 2001, p. 29). When it comes to correcting the learner's errors, million of ways might emerge according to what the philosophy of the teacher is, what his or her attitude towards correction is, what method of teaching is being used, and a host of other variables which play a significant role in the correction process. Some teachers don't pay attention to students' attitudes toward teaching practices, however, "it is beneficial for teachers to discover their students' perceptions toward instructional practices" (Katamaya, 2007, p. 389). Those teachers experience some difficulties when treating their students' oral errors. Matching the expectations of teachers and students is important for successful language learning (Katamaya, 2007, Katamaya 2006, Lasagabster and Sierra 2005, Schulz 2001). "Although much has been published on error taxonomies, detection, analysis, and evaluation, there is a dearth of research studies comparing teachers' and students' perceptions" note Lasagabster and Sierra (2005, p. 112). This study endeavors to fill this void. It explores teachers' choices of oral corrective feedback for high, average, and low achieving students and it investigates students' attitudes with their different levels toward oral corrective feedback patterns. It tries to answer the following questions: (1) What kind of oral corrective feedback do the teachers think can lead to learning? Why? (2) What kind of oral corrective feedback do the participating teachers in Masafi School in Fujairah use? (3) What difference is there, if any, in the kinds of feedback given by the teachers to high, average, and low achieving students? (4) What kind of oral corrective feedback do students prefer? Why? To triangulate my findings, I used several data collection methods. The participants in my study were two teachers and their students from Masafi School for Fundamental and Secondary Education School in Fujairah. The teacher and the student populations were all female. The findings of my study indicate that the teachers used a variety of the different corrective feedback strategies identified by Lyster and Ranta (1997). The results show that students of different proficiency levels prefer certain patterns of error correction. High achieving students prefer their teachers to recast their errors, while average and low achieving students want their teachers to explain why their utterance is erroneous and to give them a time to correct the error themselves. | en_US |
