FACULTY OF EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT COVERSHEET

Unit Number and Name Oral Communication PG (11391)

Assessment Item Critical Review of Literature

Lecturer Name Dr. Jeremy KOAY

Word Count (if applicable) 1276 words

You must keep records of the development of the work submitted for the assessment, and
any drafts of works submitted for a work-in-progress review, in a learning portfolio or
equivalent. Access to these may be requested during a Learning Validation Conversation.

Declaration

I certify that the attached assignment is my own work. Material drawn from other sources has
been appropriately and fully acknowledged as to author/creator, source and other bibliographic
details.

Gen AI Acknowledgement Statement

I have not used any Gen AI tools/services in the preparation of this assessment. I understand
that providing false or misleading information in this Gen AI Acknowledgement Statement may
constitute a breach of the University of Canberra (Student Conduct) Rules 2023.

Signature

Student Name and ID Nguyen Son Tung – UC3316383

Date June 08th, 2026

1. Introduction

Feedback on learners’ spoken output is among the overarching issues within the field of oral

communication. Oral corrective feedback (OCF), as responses to learners’ erroneous utterances (Ellis

2006), is not a single act but a sequence of moment-by-moment, minute-by-minute judgments about when

and how to address learners’ errors (Lyster & Ranta,1997; Sheen & Ellis, 2011). These judgments involve

both cognitive and affective dimensions and, as Vigil and Oller (1976) argued, the affective quality of

feedback matters as much as the content it conveys. Within this context, this review examines three recent

studies that approach OCF from different angles, including learners’ perception of teacher’s corrective

choices (Ölmezer-Öztürk & Öztürk, 2016), teacher’s actual correction practices in the classroom (Demir

& Özmen, 2017) , and the effect of incorporating peer feedback into classroom activities (Fang, Cassim,

Hsu, & Chen, 2018). The review also considers the implications of these studies for the teaching of

IELTS Speaking to Vietnamese students at intermediate level.

2. Summary

Ölmezer-Öztürk and Öztürk (2016) examines how 12 elementary-level Turkish EFL learners perceived

the types and timing of their teacher’s OCF. Their study employed a classroom research design with

qualitative data collection methods, including the use of video-recorded observations, stimulated recall

interviews, and a focus group interview. Their findings revealed that recasts, a type of feedback that

involves teacher reformulating learner’s utterance with errors eliminated (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Ammar

& Spada, 2006), were the most used feedback type, yet were perceived by learners as ambiguous and

ineffective. Instead, they preferred elicitation, a strategy to stimulate learners’ self-correction (Lyster &

Ranta, 1997). In terms of timing, delayed feedback was more well-received compared to immediate

feedback, which was perceived as anxiety-provoking and obtrusive to the flow of learners’ speech.

Demir and Özmen (2017)'s study, on the other hand, explored how teachers' OCF practices differ between
FACULTY OF EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT COVERSHEET

7 native English-speaking teachers with an average of 2.3 years of teaching experience and 7 non-native

English-speaking teachers with approximately 10 years of experience in Turkish EFL classrooms,

following a mixed-methods approach. The data collection involved audio-recorded structured classroom

observation throughout 55 course hours and follow-up interviews with observational data being analyzed

to identify differences in the types and frequency of OCF between two groups. The findings spanned

across 7 categories, the first of which showed that both groups overwhelmingly relied on recasts but non-

native teachers showed a greater tendency to use output-prompting feedback. Another noteworthy finding

was the divergence of both groups in the preferences regarding the timing of corrective feedback, with

some favoring immediate correction and others preferring delayed feedback to avoid lowering learners’

confidence.

Peer feedback, although absent in the scope of Ölmezer-Öztürk and Öztürk (2016), was central in Fang et

al. (2018). A five-week quasi-experiment with 40 Taiwanese students was conducted with the control and

the experimental groups consisting of 20 students each. The findings revealed that the experimental

group, through mobile-mediated reciprocal peer feedback and follow-up reflective discussions, improved

significantly in their overall oral performance.

3. Critical Evaluation

The three studies are evaluated on the grounds of Long (1996)’s Interaction Hypothesis and Lyster and

Ranta (1997)’s theoretical distinction between feedback that provides input and feedback that prompts

self-correction. Long (1996)’s Interaction Hypothesis posits that second language acquisition is facilitated

by learners’ interactions with their environment, which allows them to notice mismatches between their
FACULTY OF EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT COVERSHEET

interlanguage forms and the target language and provide them opportunities to modify their output for

more accurate language production. Building on this foundation, Lyster and Ranta (1997), despite

acknowledging the overwhelming tendency among teachers to use recast in regular classrooms, argued in

favor of feedback that prompts self-correction such as elicitation, clarification requests, and

metalinguistic feedback, suggesting that these techniques stimulate learners’ engagement more deeply

and lead to more successful second language acquisition.

Despite Long (1996) ‘s and Lyster and Ranta (1997)’s endorsement for output-prompting techniques,

none of the studies finds such conditions in practice. Demir and Özmen's observation of 558 corrections

found that recasts accounted for 89% and 73% of corrections provided by native and non-native teachers

respectively. This dominance, through the lens of the Interaction Hypothesis, is rather problematic as it

fails to trigger the process of noticing gaps and modifying output accordingly, which is necessary for

more successful second language acquisition. Ölmezer-Öztürk and Öztürk (2016)'s learners confirmed

this, describing recasts as ambiguous and admitting their lack of engagement with the corrections. In Fang

et al. (2018)’s study, the failure presents in a different, more complicated form. Peer feedback, initially

structured to stimulate engagement and modifications of output, was rather vague and non-specific due to

learners’ lack of knowledge. Though peer feedback improved the experimental group’s overall oral

performance, the development in the target communication strategies (confirmation request, clarification

request, and circumlocution) showed no significant improvement. Collectively, these findings point to the

same direction, which is the lag between what theories suggest and practices in two distinctive countries

(Turkey and Taiwan).

There are several factors that explain why the theory-practice gap persists. In a classroom, recasts can be
FACULTY OF EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT COVERSHEET

cognitively less demanding than output-prompting techniques (Lyster, 1998). While reformulating a

learner’s utterance requires minimal planning and effort, given teachers’ high levels of English

proficiency, using prompts such as metalinguistic feedback, for example, necessitates teachers to

diagnose the errors, draw on the respective grammar rules and terms, and give hints that guide learners

toward appropriate self-correction. Under time pressure in real-life classrooms, recasts can be less time-

consuming and allow teachers more effective time management (Sheen & Ellis, 2011), thereby explaining

why recasts often win by default. Additionally, recasts may persist because many output-prompting

techniques carry affective risk. Certain forms of prompts, especially metalinguistic feedback as observed

in Ölmezer-Öztürk and Öztürk (2016), provoke anxiety and negative affective responses among learners.

Meanwhile, recasts, by nature, are more implicit and unobtrusive (Ammar & Spada, 2006; Roothooft,

2014), allowing learners to be more confident with uninterrupted speaking flows (Cullen, 2002). This is

empirically supported by Demir and Özmen (2017)’s interviews as several native teachers defaulted to

recasts because other forms of explicit corrective feedback were detrimental to learners’ self-confidence.

4. Implications and Application to My Teaching Context

In my context, which is teaching IELTS Speaking to intermediate-level Vietnamese high school students,

these findings hold immense value. Vietnamese students generally are overwhelmingly positive about

OCF and explicit feedback (Ha, Nguyen, & Hung, 2021). Despite that Ölmezer-Öztürk and Öztürk

(2016)’s Turkish learners strongly preferred delayed feedback, such a disagreement can be attributed to

different educational cultures between Vietnam and Turkey. Ha et al. (2021) reasoned that Vietnamese

learners’ preference for immediate explicit correction is due to their test-driven system where language

accuracy is prioritized and, therefore, explicit explanations can improve exam results. Based on this, I will
FACULTY OF EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT COVERSHEET

consider restrategizing my use of OCF. Following Lyster (1998), who found that recasts outperform other

types of feedback when addressing phonological errors, I will restrict the use of recasts to this domain to

improve learners’ intelligibility during in-class activities and, by extension, during the IELTS Speaking

test. Meanwhile, though metalinguistic feedback was poorly-received by Ölmezer-Öztürk and Öztürk

(2016)’s students, I will consider using this type of feedback to enhance my students’ language accuracy

in both grammar and vocabulary use, elements that are assessed in the IELTS Speaking test.

Fang el al. (2018)’s findings also inform my approach. Given how peer feedback empirically improved

learners’ overall oral performance, making use of this type of feedback can be beneficial to enhance my

students’ overall fluency. However, Fang et al. (2018) found that students showed minimal improvement

in the target communication skills. For this reason, I will pair the peer feedback with more explicit

instructions to more effectively guide them towards the target learning points.

References

Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56(2), 117–127.

Demir, Y., & Özmen, K. S. (2017). Exploring native and non-native EFL teachers' oral corrective

feedback practices: An observational study. Brock Education Journal, 26(2), 111–129.

Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19,

18–41.

Fang, W.-C., Cassim, F. A. K., Hsu, C.-N., & Chen, N.-S. (2018). Effects of reciprocal peer feedback on

EFL learners' communication strategy use and oral communication performance. Smart Learning

Environments, 5(1), 1–16.

Ha, X., Nguyen, L., & Hung, B. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language

classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon, 7.

Long, M. H. (1997). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.

Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468).

Academic Press.

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and

learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in

communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.

Ölmezer-Öztürk, E., & Öztürk, G. (2016). Types and timing of oral corrective feedback in EFL

classrooms: Voices from students. Novitas-ROYAL, 10(2), 113–133.

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of

research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 593–610). Routledge.

Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26(2),

281–295.