Experience Matters: Iranian EFL Teachers' Beliefs on Corrective Feedback

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Languages, Arak University, Arak, Iran

2 PhD Candidate in TEFL, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Languages, Arak University, Arak, Iran

Abstract

Corrective feedback (CF) is widely recognized as vital in second language acquisition, yet the evolution of teachers' beliefs about CF across experience levels remains insufficiently explored in the Iranian EFL context. This explanatory mixed‑methods study examined whether significant differences exist between novice and experienced teachers' beliefs regarding CF, and explored their views on types and effectiveness of strategies. Sixty Iranian EFL teachers completed a 36‑item questionnaire assessing beliefs about explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests, and repetition, followed by semi‑structured interviews with six teachers. Quantitative data were analyzed using t‑tests, while qualitative data underwent inductive thematic analysis. Results revealed statistically significant differences. Experienced teachers demonstrated a flexible, context‑aware orientation, adapting strategies based on learner proficiency, task demands, and instructional goals, prioritizing errors that hindered communication over comprehensive correction. Novice teachers favored a uniform approach with explicit, immediate correction of all errors to ensure standardization. Both groups acknowledged the value of immediate and delayed feedback depending on context. The findings carry implications for feedback pedagogy, pre‑service teacher training, and in‑service professional development.



Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Aisha, T., Malghani, M., Durdana, K., & Khosa, M. (2018). Efficacy of written corrective feedback as a tool to reduce learners’ errors on L2 writing. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(5), 166. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n5p166
Aydın, H. Ü., & Özmen, K. S. (2024). Novice and experienced teachers' beliefs and stated attitudes about oral corrective feedback. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(2), 1115–1144. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.1447219
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243-272. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.243
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.
   Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task‑based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Fallah, N., & Nazari, M. (2019). L2 teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback: The mediating role of experience. English Teaching & Learning, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00020-7
Farrell, T. S. C. (2008). Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. Continuum Press.
Farrell, T. S. C., & Farrell, A. H. (2025). Reflective practice in language teacher education: A systematic review. In Z. Tajeddin & T. S. C. Farrell (Eds.), Handbook of language teacher education: Critical review and research synthesis (pp. 3‑34). Springer.
Gholami, L. (2024). Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non‑formulaic vs. formulaic errors. Language Teaching Research, 28(3), 860–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211021560
Junqueira, L., & Kim, Y. (2013). Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers' corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.153
Kainvanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2012). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 1–20.
Kuzborska, I. (2011). Links between teachers' beliefs and practices and research on reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(1), 102-128. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/66660
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
Li, S., Ou, L., & Lee, I. (2025). The timing of corrective feedback in second language learning. Language Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000478
Long, M. H. (1993). Assessment strategies for second language acquisition theories. Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.3.225
Long, M. H. (1996). 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.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Feedback and corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (2020). Interaction, feedback and task research in second language learning: Methods and design. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589284
Moradkhani, S., & Goodarzi, A. (2020). A case study of three EFL teachers’ cognition in oral corrective feedback: Does experience make a difference? Issues in Language Teaching, 9(1), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2020.51449.482
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.). (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. Routledge.
Rezaee, A. A., Norouzi, M. H., & Aryaeian, N. (2024). Iranian EFL teachers' cognition of corrective feedback as an element of classroom management: A qualitative study. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 11(2), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2023.18807.2216
Sadeghi, K., & Richards, J. C. (2016). The idea of English in Iran: An example from Urmia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1080714
Soleimani, N., & Rahimi, M. (2021). (Mis)alignment of Iranian EFL teachers' written corrective feedback beliefs and practices from an activity theory perspective. Cogent Education, 8(1), Article 1901640. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1901640
Soori, A., Kafipour, R., & Soury, M. (2011). Effectiveness of different types of direct corrective feedback on correct use of English articles among the Iranian EFL students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 26(4), 494–501.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics