Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1743
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v13i1.2010
The Impact of Real-Time Corrective Feedback to Improve
Oral Skills in A2-Level Students
El impacto de la retroalimentación en tiempo real para mejorar habilidades orales en
estudiantes de nivel A2
Mary Patricia Sanmartín Puchaicela
mpsanmartinp@ube.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4232-4611
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Jaime Alejandro López Córdova
jalopezc_a@ube.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6071-7896
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Johnny Segundo Campoverde López
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0108-4755
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Josue Reinaldo Bonilla Tenesaca
jrbonillat@ube.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6748-2345
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Artículo recibido: 18 enero 2026-Aceptado para publicación: 20 febrero 2026
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar.
ABSTRACT
The objective of this mixed research is to investigate the impact of continuous corrective feedback
on reducing pronunciation and lexical errors in oral presentations, aimed at tenth-grade students
in General Basic Education at the Abdón Calderón Educational Unit in Quito, Pichincha Province,
during the 2024-2025 school year. A cross-sectional, multi-event field design was used. Data
collection was carried out using speaking papers from 60 upper secondary school students, three
upper secondary school teachers, and two high school English teachers. Descriptive analysis used
basic statistics, representing the results in tables and graphs. The diagnosis revealed that students
at the “Unidad Educativa Economista Abdón Calderón” face errors in communication and
vocabulary in English, identifying areas that require improvement, especially in oral
pronunciation and interactive communication. Although continuous corrective feedback is
effective, its development in class is limited. The implementation of continuous corrective
feedback is viable for reducing pronunciation and lexical errors, enhancing communication, and
solving real-life problems. The research guides teachers on how continuous corrective feedback
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1744
positively impacts the reduction of pronunciation and lexical errors, focusing on real-life
situations to facilitate effective communication development.
Keywords: corrective feedback, error reduction, pronunciation and lexicon
RESUMEN
La presente investigación mixta tiene como objetivo investigar el impacto de la retroalimentación
continua para reducir errores de léxico y pronunciación en presentaciones orales, dirigido a
estudiantes de décimo año de Educación General Básica en la Unidad Educativa Economista
Abdón Calderón, en Quito- Provincia de Pichincha durante el año escolar 2024-2025. Se empleó
un diseño de campo, transversal y multieventual. La recolección de datos se realizó mediante
speaking paper a 60 estudiantes de E.G.B superior, 3 docentes de básica superior y 2 docentes de
inglés de bachillerato. El análisis descriptivo utilizó estadística básica, representando los
resultados en tablas y gráficos. El diagnóstico reveló que los estudiantes de la "Unidad Educativa
Economista Abdón Calderón" enfrentan errores para comunicarse y léxico en inglés,
identificándose áreas que requieren mejora, especialmente en la pronunciación oral y la
comunicación interactiva. Aunque la retroalimentación correctiva continua es efectiva su
desarrollo en clase es limitado. La implementación de la retroalimentación correctiva continua es
viable para reducir errores de pronunciación y léxicos, potenciando la comunicación y resolviendo
problemas de la vida real. La investigación orienta al docente sobre cómo retroalimentación
correctiva continua impacta de manera positiva en la reducción de errores de pronunciación y
léxico, enfocándose en situaciones reales para facilitar el desarrollo eficaz de la comunicación.
Palabras clave: retroalimentación correctiva, reducción de errores, pronunciación y
léxicos
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
positively impacts the reduction of pronunciation and lexical errors, focusing on real-life
situations to facilitate effective communication development.
Keywords: corrective feedback, error reduction, pronunciation and lexicon
RESUMEN
La presente investigación mixta tiene como objetivo investigar el impacto de la retroalimentación
continua para reducir errores de léxico y pronunciación en presentaciones orales, dirigido a
estudiantes de décimo año de Educación General Básica en la Unidad Educativa Economista
Abdón Calderón, en Quito- Provincia de Pichincha durante el año escolar 2024-2025. Se empleó
un diseño de campo, transversal y multieventual. La recolección de datos se realizó mediante
speaking paper a 60 estudiantes de E.G.B superior, 3 docentes de básica superior y 2 docentes de
inglés de bachillerato. El análisis descriptivo utilizó estadística básica, representando los
resultados en tablas y gráficos. El diagnóstico reveló que los estudiantes de la "Unidad Educativa
Economista Abdón Calderón" enfrentan errores para comunicarse y léxico en inglés,
identificándose áreas que requieren mejora, especialmente en la pronunciación oral y la
comunicación interactiva. Aunque la retroalimentación correctiva continua es efectiva su
desarrollo en clase es limitado. La implementación de la retroalimentación correctiva continua es
viable para reducir errores de pronunciación y léxicos, potenciando la comunicación y resolviendo
problemas de la vida real. La investigación orienta al docente sobre cómo retroalimentación
correctiva continua impacta de manera positiva en la reducción de errores de pronunciación y
léxico, enfocándose en situaciones reales para facilitar el desarrollo eficaz de la comunicación.
Palabras clave: retroalimentación correctiva, reducción de errores, pronunciación y
léxicos
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1745
INTRODUCTION
Within English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning, being able to express oneself orally
in a correct manner is one of the main demands of this process, especially for students at the A2
level according to the requirements of the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR). At this level of English proficiency, students are expected to speak fluently.
According to Brown (2007), the A2 level requires fluent and highly accurate oral expression.
Despite this requirement, many students make pronunciation errors with basic words and misuse
vocabulary in very common contexts.
Conducting oral presentation exercises in the classroom among English language students
significantly helps build confidence in mastering spoken communication in EFL. According to
Ellis (2009), the feedback process does not provide positive reinforcement among students, and
permanent repetitions of pronunciation errors are evident, leading to fossilization—meaning the
permanent integration of pronunciation mistakes into the new vocabulary students acquire.
Teachers often do not interrupt presentations because they focus on the contextual handling of
content rather than properly guiding linguistic processes, resulting in lost opportunities to make
appropriate pronunciation corrections (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Consequently, students fail to
develop awareness and the ability to produce self-corrections for accurate word pronunciation.
In this regard, Lyster et al. (2023) argue that the lack of teacher intervention in correcting
mispronunciations can be a disadvantageous factor in the development of learners’ interlanguage
competence. Likewise, during the process of English acquisition, students need to become aware
of their errors through interaction and corrective feedback (Teimouri et al., 2024; Sato, 2023).
The feedback process that truly leads to correction in spoken English should be regarded as a
developmental mechanism that helps students identify their mistakes and work toward greater
clarity in oral expression (Bai & Lin, 2021; Fu & Li, 2025).
Main Objective: To investigate how corrective feedback impacts the reduction of
pronunciation and lexical errors during oral presentations among A2-level students.
Specific Objectives
• Identify the types and frequency of pronunciation errors made in students’ vocabulary
during oral presentations.
• Compare students’ performance before and after the application of continuous corrective
feedback.
• Demonstrate the effects of continuous corrective feedback on students’ oral accuracy.
Research question
How does corrective feedback impact the reduction of pronunciation and lexical errors
during oral presentations among A2-level students?
INTRODUCTION
Within English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning, being able to express oneself orally
in a correct manner is one of the main demands of this process, especially for students at the A2
level according to the requirements of the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR). At this level of English proficiency, students are expected to speak fluently.
According to Brown (2007), the A2 level requires fluent and highly accurate oral expression.
Despite this requirement, many students make pronunciation errors with basic words and misuse
vocabulary in very common contexts.
Conducting oral presentation exercises in the classroom among English language students
significantly helps build confidence in mastering spoken communication in EFL. According to
Ellis (2009), the feedback process does not provide positive reinforcement among students, and
permanent repetitions of pronunciation errors are evident, leading to fossilization—meaning the
permanent integration of pronunciation mistakes into the new vocabulary students acquire.
Teachers often do not interrupt presentations because they focus on the contextual handling of
content rather than properly guiding linguistic processes, resulting in lost opportunities to make
appropriate pronunciation corrections (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Consequently, students fail to
develop awareness and the ability to produce self-corrections for accurate word pronunciation.
In this regard, Lyster et al. (2023) argue that the lack of teacher intervention in correcting
mispronunciations can be a disadvantageous factor in the development of learners’ interlanguage
competence. Likewise, during the process of English acquisition, students need to become aware
of their errors through interaction and corrective feedback (Teimouri et al., 2024; Sato, 2023).
The feedback process that truly leads to correction in spoken English should be regarded as a
developmental mechanism that helps students identify their mistakes and work toward greater
clarity in oral expression (Bai & Lin, 2021; Fu & Li, 2025).
Main Objective: To investigate how corrective feedback impacts the reduction of
pronunciation and lexical errors during oral presentations among A2-level students.
Specific Objectives
• Identify the types and frequency of pronunciation errors made in students’ vocabulary
during oral presentations.
• Compare students’ performance before and after the application of continuous corrective
feedback.
• Demonstrate the effects of continuous corrective feedback on students’ oral accuracy.
Research question
How does corrective feedback impact the reduction of pronunciation and lexical errors
during oral presentations among A2-level students?
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1746
The feedback process in English language learning classes seeks to reduce the frequency
of communicative errors through the use of expository presentations at the A2 level. This strategy
is implemented weekly, recordings are kept, and evaluations are conducted using a self-
assessment rubric aligned with the B1 level. Teachers discreetly draw students’ attention in order
not to interrupt the content of presentations.
In this research, oral expression development is considered an intervening variable in
English language learning among tenth-grade students at the A2 level of Basic General Education.
In this sense, speaking fluently and accurately is one of the main demands placed on students.
Therefore, the feedback process plays a crucial role: guided by the teacher, students can correct
their mistakes while presenting, which strengthens their oral communication skills.
Correcting students’ oral expression errors in real time enhances their confidence and
ability to pronounce words properly within the A2 level. Furthermore, this research aims to
analyze how the systematic application of real-time corrective feedback influences the
improvement of A2 students’ oral skills, with the purpose of presenting theoretical and practical
elements that strengthen oral English teaching and promote more dynamic and effective learning
among the students under study.
Theoretical Framework
Real-time corrective feedback
Real-time corrective feedback is a fundamental aspect of effective language teaching. It
refers to the immediate corrective response offered to students while they are performing a task,
helping them identify and correct errors as they occur. Research on formative assessment
indicates that real-time corrective feedback consists of information provided by the teacher during
the learning process to guide and support skills development, rather than being given only at the
end of a task (Panadero, Andrade, & Brookhart, 2020; Wiliam, 2021). In EFL classrooms, real-
time feedback reduces the repetition of oral production errors by increasing students’ awareness
at the moment of speaking. This process encourages learners to self-regulate and facilitates
continuous oral development. As Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) point out, formative
feedback closes the gap between current performance and learning goals by offering specific and
timely guidance.
Timing and type of feedback
For feedback to be truly effective, teacher intervention must be timely. Immediate
feedback allows students to consciously identify their errors and correct them. Ammar and Spada
(2006) suggest that effective immediate feedback helps learners notice their errors while
simultaneously speeding up their English acquisition. Loewen (2005) also associates rapid
correction with increased metalinguistic awareness and a significant improvement in learners’
responsiveness.
The feedback process in English language learning classes seeks to reduce the frequency
of communicative errors through the use of expository presentations at the A2 level. This strategy
is implemented weekly, recordings are kept, and evaluations are conducted using a self-
assessment rubric aligned with the B1 level. Teachers discreetly draw students’ attention in order
not to interrupt the content of presentations.
In this research, oral expression development is considered an intervening variable in
English language learning among tenth-grade students at the A2 level of Basic General Education.
In this sense, speaking fluently and accurately is one of the main demands placed on students.
Therefore, the feedback process plays a crucial role: guided by the teacher, students can correct
their mistakes while presenting, which strengthens their oral communication skills.
Correcting students’ oral expression errors in real time enhances their confidence and
ability to pronounce words properly within the A2 level. Furthermore, this research aims to
analyze how the systematic application of real-time corrective feedback influences the
improvement of A2 students’ oral skills, with the purpose of presenting theoretical and practical
elements that strengthen oral English teaching and promote more dynamic and effective learning
among the students under study.
Theoretical Framework
Real-time corrective feedback
Real-time corrective feedback is a fundamental aspect of effective language teaching. It
refers to the immediate corrective response offered to students while they are performing a task,
helping them identify and correct errors as they occur. Research on formative assessment
indicates that real-time corrective feedback consists of information provided by the teacher during
the learning process to guide and support skills development, rather than being given only at the
end of a task (Panadero, Andrade, & Brookhart, 2020; Wiliam, 2021). In EFL classrooms, real-
time feedback reduces the repetition of oral production errors by increasing students’ awareness
at the moment of speaking. This process encourages learners to self-regulate and facilitates
continuous oral development. As Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) point out, formative
feedback closes the gap between current performance and learning goals by offering specific and
timely guidance.
Timing and type of feedback
For feedback to be truly effective, teacher intervention must be timely. Immediate
feedback allows students to consciously identify their errors and correct them. Ammar and Spada
(2006) suggest that effective immediate feedback helps learners notice their errors while
simultaneously speeding up their English acquisition. Loewen (2005) also associates rapid
correction with increased metalinguistic awareness and a significant improvement in learners’
responsiveness.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1747
Implicit feedback enables teachers to correct pronunciation errors during conversation,
maintaining interaction while promoting accuracy at the same time (Sato & Loewen, 2022; Lyster,
Saito, & Sato, 2023). In contrast, explicit correction allows teachers to provide direct information
about errors and helps students clearly understand the mistake made and the correct way to
pronounce words (Fu & Li, 2025; Teimouri, Goetze, & Plonsky, 2024).
According to Sato (2023), feedback becomes more effective when it is followed by an
immediate learner response (uptake), since this active reaction strengthens noticing and facilitates
oral development. In addition, prompts and elicitation techniques encourage self-correction and
foster meaningful learning in the acquisition of oral English (Bai & Lin, 2021; Lyster et al., 2023).
Student perception and learning effects
Students’ disposition is a determining factor in how they receive corrective feedback from
teachers at the very moment errors are made. According to Yoshida (2008), learners have specific
preferences regarding types of corrective feedback, which affects their engagement and progress.
A2-level students tend to welcome immediate and explicit corrections and regard them as
particularly useful for oral social interaction processes.
Schulz (2001) and Katayama (2007) point out that students’ prior experiences and
learning contexts shape the way they react to feedback and immediate correction. Dörnyei (2001)
also notes that motivational strategies in the language classroom help learners view corrective
feedback as a tool for improvement. These processes are crucial for creating appropriate
conditions so that students can perceive feedback positively and successfully overcome
pronunciation errors.
Saito and Hanzawa (2022) argue that oral feedback supports the development of accurate
English word pronunciation over time. Furthermore, real-time feedback is a way to promote
reflective teaching practices, as it allows teachers to adjust instruction according to students’
immediate needs (Carless & Winstone, 2023; Wiliam, 2021).
Pronunciation and lexical errors
These errors occur when students mispronounce an English word, which can affect the
understanding of the message they wish to convey. Such errors are frequent due to first language
interference, limited exposure to or communication in the second language, and linguistic transfer
factors present in English learning. Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (2010) explain that
pronunciation involves the production and perception of the meaningful sounds of a particular
language in order to convey meaning in contexts of language use (p. 2). Generally speaking,
communication errors often stem from deviations from these norms, which can affect the clarity
with which speakers convey meaning in conversation.
When referring to lexical errors commonly made by students when communicating in
English, this involves the inappropriate choice of a word or expression that does not correspond
to the intended meaning in context. These errors clearly result from several factors such as literal
Implicit feedback enables teachers to correct pronunciation errors during conversation,
maintaining interaction while promoting accuracy at the same time (Sato & Loewen, 2022; Lyster,
Saito, & Sato, 2023). In contrast, explicit correction allows teachers to provide direct information
about errors and helps students clearly understand the mistake made and the correct way to
pronounce words (Fu & Li, 2025; Teimouri, Goetze, & Plonsky, 2024).
According to Sato (2023), feedback becomes more effective when it is followed by an
immediate learner response (uptake), since this active reaction strengthens noticing and facilitates
oral development. In addition, prompts and elicitation techniques encourage self-correction and
foster meaningful learning in the acquisition of oral English (Bai & Lin, 2021; Lyster et al., 2023).
Student perception and learning effects
Students’ disposition is a determining factor in how they receive corrective feedback from
teachers at the very moment errors are made. According to Yoshida (2008), learners have specific
preferences regarding types of corrective feedback, which affects their engagement and progress.
A2-level students tend to welcome immediate and explicit corrections and regard them as
particularly useful for oral social interaction processes.
Schulz (2001) and Katayama (2007) point out that students’ prior experiences and
learning contexts shape the way they react to feedback and immediate correction. Dörnyei (2001)
also notes that motivational strategies in the language classroom help learners view corrective
feedback as a tool for improvement. These processes are crucial for creating appropriate
conditions so that students can perceive feedback positively and successfully overcome
pronunciation errors.
Saito and Hanzawa (2022) argue that oral feedback supports the development of accurate
English word pronunciation over time. Furthermore, real-time feedback is a way to promote
reflective teaching practices, as it allows teachers to adjust instruction according to students’
immediate needs (Carless & Winstone, 2023; Wiliam, 2021).
Pronunciation and lexical errors
These errors occur when students mispronounce an English word, which can affect the
understanding of the message they wish to convey. Such errors are frequent due to first language
interference, limited exposure to or communication in the second language, and linguistic transfer
factors present in English learning. Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (2010) explain that
pronunciation involves the production and perception of the meaningful sounds of a particular
language in order to convey meaning in contexts of language use (p. 2). Generally speaking,
communication errors often stem from deviations from these norms, which can affect the clarity
with which speakers convey meaning in conversation.
When referring to lexical errors commonly made by students when communicating in
English, this involves the inappropriate choice of a word or expression that does not correspond
to the intended meaning in context. These errors clearly result from several factors such as literal
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1748
translation and incorrect vocabulary use, which produce word forms that do not match what is
required.
Pronunciation accuracy
Being able to pronounce English words correctly is closely related to the use of the speech
apparatus that enables articulation, thus making words clear; students need regular exposure to
the basic vowel and consonant sounds. Derwing and Munro (1997) affirm that accurate word
pronunciation leads to high intelligibility in oral English communication. If a learner has excellent
grammatical foundations but poor pronunciation, this may create barriers to comprehension.
Lexical appropriacy
According to the British Council, using the correct English words and phrases in an
appropriate way requires taking into account both culture and language, which is what lexical
appropriacy involves: when communicating in English, it is important to ensure that the
vocabulary used is consistent with the communicative context. Molina (2018) states that
improving word use means learning and using them in different situations, which helps learners
speak clearly and make sense. Reyes (2019) adds that learning vocabulary correctly is not only
about memorizing words, but also about understanding and using them in real contexts where
fluent conversations can take place.
Error persistence
This phenomenon indicates that certain errors become consolidated or fossilized during
the acquisition process, making them difficult to correct in the future. Han and Odlin (2006)
describe fossilization as resistance to correction despite the use of different strategies such as
presentations or practice activities, which results in stagnation in English as a second language
learning. In the same vein, Selinker (1972) notes that some errors become consolidated and
resistant to correction, a phenomenon known as fossilization, which hinders progress toward full
linguistic competence.
Impact on oral communication
People’s socialization processes depend primarily on oral communication, which makes
mastery of English necessary for many activities directly tied to a globalized world. Martínez et
al. (2025) argue that the development of oral communication skills in English is essential for
improving social and cultural interaction and for opening up competitive job opportunities.
Students’ communicative actions stem from their skills in vocabulary control and grammar use,
which gradually supports accurate word intonation. Williams and Burden (1999), cited in Agudo
(2003, p. 140), point out that learning a foreign language is a direct consequence of the constant
need to relate to others.
Oral communication not only facilitates the transmission of ideas but also fosters the
development of essential social, cultural, and academic skills. Ortiz and Garma (2024) further
emphasize that this skill is fundamental for students’ academic and professional development and
translation and incorrect vocabulary use, which produce word forms that do not match what is
required.
Pronunciation accuracy
Being able to pronounce English words correctly is closely related to the use of the speech
apparatus that enables articulation, thus making words clear; students need regular exposure to
the basic vowel and consonant sounds. Derwing and Munro (1997) affirm that accurate word
pronunciation leads to high intelligibility in oral English communication. If a learner has excellent
grammatical foundations but poor pronunciation, this may create barriers to comprehension.
Lexical appropriacy
According to the British Council, using the correct English words and phrases in an
appropriate way requires taking into account both culture and language, which is what lexical
appropriacy involves: when communicating in English, it is important to ensure that the
vocabulary used is consistent with the communicative context. Molina (2018) states that
improving word use means learning and using them in different situations, which helps learners
speak clearly and make sense. Reyes (2019) adds that learning vocabulary correctly is not only
about memorizing words, but also about understanding and using them in real contexts where
fluent conversations can take place.
Error persistence
This phenomenon indicates that certain errors become consolidated or fossilized during
the acquisition process, making them difficult to correct in the future. Han and Odlin (2006)
describe fossilization as resistance to correction despite the use of different strategies such as
presentations or practice activities, which results in stagnation in English as a second language
learning. In the same vein, Selinker (1972) notes that some errors become consolidated and
resistant to correction, a phenomenon known as fossilization, which hinders progress toward full
linguistic competence.
Impact on oral communication
People’s socialization processes depend primarily on oral communication, which makes
mastery of English necessary for many activities directly tied to a globalized world. Martínez et
al. (2025) argue that the development of oral communication skills in English is essential for
improving social and cultural interaction and for opening up competitive job opportunities.
Students’ communicative actions stem from their skills in vocabulary control and grammar use,
which gradually supports accurate word intonation. Williams and Burden (1999), cited in Agudo
(2003, p. 140), point out that learning a foreign language is a direct consequence of the constant
need to relate to others.
Oral communication not only facilitates the transmission of ideas but also fosters the
development of essential social, cultural, and academic skills. Ortiz and Garma (2024) further
emphasize that this skill is fundamental for students’ academic and professional development and
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1749
that its strengthening requires pedagogical strategies that promote active participation,
confidence, and motivation in inclusive, technology-mediated contexts.
MATERIALS AND RESOURCES
The study used a mixed-methods approach with both descriptive and explanatory
characteristics. Its main objective was to investigate how corrective feedback impacts the
reduction of pronunciation and lexical errors during oral presentations in A2-level students at
Unidad Educativa Economista Abdón Calderón. The descriptive component focused on
characterizing the types and frequency of oral errors that students make during their presentations,
and it also documented the process of implementing feedback strategies and their impact on
students’ English learning.
On the other hand, the explanatory level sought to analyze the extent to which immediate
feedback influenced students’ oral performance. The results of the assessments before and after
the intervention were compared. As an applied study, the research also aimed to offer pedagogical
recommendations for teachers who wish to improve oral accuracy in similar EFL contexts through
classroom corrective feedback practices.
This research followed a field design, as a series of instruments were applied to the
subjects of study in their natural setting at Unidad Educativa Abdón Calderón, especially during
English classes. There was a process of collecting authentic data through diagnostic tasks, oral
presentations, weekly reflections, and peer and self-assessments. It was quasi-experimental in
nature, with feedback activities implemented over six weeks. A group of 50 students received
continuous real-time feedback and focused support, which allowed for comparisons between
initial and final assessment scores in order to observe the possible impact of the feedback
intervention.
The population considered in the study consists of approximately 1,500 students from
Unidad Educativa Economista Abdón Calderón, located at Av. Antonio José de Sucre 489 and
Emilio Uzcátegui 769, Quito – Pichincha – Ecuador. The sample corresponds to tenth-grade
students of Basic General Education at the A2 level; these three classes are made up of 35 students
each, and the study population is the first class of Upper Basic. This consistency in instruction
ensures that any variation observed in performance can be more accurately attributed to the
intervention rather than to differences in teaching style or classroom environment. The
participants were selected through non-probability criterion sampling, as they met specific
characteristics relevant to the study’s objectives.
that its strengthening requires pedagogical strategies that promote active participation,
confidence, and motivation in inclusive, technology-mediated contexts.
MATERIALS AND RESOURCES
The study used a mixed-methods approach with both descriptive and explanatory
characteristics. Its main objective was to investigate how corrective feedback impacts the
reduction of pronunciation and lexical errors during oral presentations in A2-level students at
Unidad Educativa Economista Abdón Calderón. The descriptive component focused on
characterizing the types and frequency of oral errors that students make during their presentations,
and it also documented the process of implementing feedback strategies and their impact on
students’ English learning.
On the other hand, the explanatory level sought to analyze the extent to which immediate
feedback influenced students’ oral performance. The results of the assessments before and after
the intervention were compared. As an applied study, the research also aimed to offer pedagogical
recommendations for teachers who wish to improve oral accuracy in similar EFL contexts through
classroom corrective feedback practices.
This research followed a field design, as a series of instruments were applied to the
subjects of study in their natural setting at Unidad Educativa Abdón Calderón, especially during
English classes. There was a process of collecting authentic data through diagnostic tasks, oral
presentations, weekly reflections, and peer and self-assessments. It was quasi-experimental in
nature, with feedback activities implemented over six weeks. A group of 50 students received
continuous real-time feedback and focused support, which allowed for comparisons between
initial and final assessment scores in order to observe the possible impact of the feedback
intervention.
The population considered in the study consists of approximately 1,500 students from
Unidad Educativa Economista Abdón Calderón, located at Av. Antonio José de Sucre 489 and
Emilio Uzcátegui 769, Quito – Pichincha – Ecuador. The sample corresponds to tenth-grade
students of Basic General Education at the A2 level; these three classes are made up of 35 students
each, and the study population is the first class of Upper Basic. This consistency in instruction
ensures that any variation observed in performance can be more accurately attributed to the
intervention rather than to differences in teaching style or classroom environment. The
participants were selected through non-probability criterion sampling, as they met specific
characteristics relevant to the study’s objectives.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1750
Table 1
Sample Population
Gender Number of Students Percentage
Male 30 60%
Female 20 40%
Total 50 100%
Note: gender distribution of the 50 A2-level students who make up the study sample
Research Stages
Documentary Analysis
The study began with an in-depth investigation of the main intervening variables in the
study, namely real-time feedback, pronunciation accuracy, and vocabulary management for A2-
level students. The theories associated with the research allowed for the appropriate selection of
tools and strategies to monitor progress, identifying the most effective methods and the common
obstacles that EFL students in Ecuador must face.
Planning and design
Based on the guidelines derived from the documentary research, a pedagogical
intervention was developed which, for its implementation, required selecting the participating
students, obtaining informed consent from their parents, and designing a series of rubrics aligned
with CEFR guidelines. An intervention was structured over six weeks, with teacher participation
to provide feedback and immediate correction of pronunciation errors in English words.
Implementation
Students took part in weekly oral presentations; during these sessions, the 50 A2-level
students received immediate corrections to their word pronunciation errors, thus generating
feedback processes with the teacher responsible for the English subject. As part of the feedback
process, students also completed self-assessments and peer assessments, and records were kept in
daily reflection instruments.
Monitoring and adjustment
Throughout the pedagogical intervention, the teacher continuously evaluated students’
participation, especially during feedback and the stages of correcting word pronunciation errors.
This formative assessment approach ensured that the intervention remained responsive and
adaptable.
Evaluation
In the final stage of the pedagogical intervention, the data obtained at the different stages
and through the various assessment instruments were analyzed. Quantitative and qualitative data
Table 1
Sample Population
Gender Number of Students Percentage
Male 30 60%
Female 20 40%
Total 50 100%
Note: gender distribution of the 50 A2-level students who make up the study sample
Research Stages
Documentary Analysis
The study began with an in-depth investigation of the main intervening variables in the
study, namely real-time feedback, pronunciation accuracy, and vocabulary management for A2-
level students. The theories associated with the research allowed for the appropriate selection of
tools and strategies to monitor progress, identifying the most effective methods and the common
obstacles that EFL students in Ecuador must face.
Planning and design
Based on the guidelines derived from the documentary research, a pedagogical
intervention was developed which, for its implementation, required selecting the participating
students, obtaining informed consent from their parents, and designing a series of rubrics aligned
with CEFR guidelines. An intervention was structured over six weeks, with teacher participation
to provide feedback and immediate correction of pronunciation errors in English words.
Implementation
Students took part in weekly oral presentations; during these sessions, the 50 A2-level
students received immediate corrections to their word pronunciation errors, thus generating
feedback processes with the teacher responsible for the English subject. As part of the feedback
process, students also completed self-assessments and peer assessments, and records were kept in
daily reflection instruments.
Monitoring and adjustment
Throughout the pedagogical intervention, the teacher continuously evaluated students’
participation, especially during feedback and the stages of correcting word pronunciation errors.
This formative assessment approach ensured that the intervention remained responsive and
adaptable.
Evaluation
In the final stage of the pedagogical intervention, the data obtained at the different stages
and through the various assessment instruments were analyzed. Quantitative and qualitative data
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1751
were processed and interpreted in order to evaluate the improved perception and production of
English word pronunciation by students, particularly during corrective feedback moments.
Table 2
Research Stages
Stage Description
1. Documentary
Analysis
A review of theoretical and empirical literature will be conducted to
establish a foundation for the study. It will inform the selection of
methods and tools.
2. Planning and
Design
Instruments and strategies will be designed based on the literature.
Parental consent will be obtained, and the six-week intervention will be
planned in detail.
3. Implementation
The corrective feedback strategies will be applied during oral
presentations. Students will participate in feedback, self-assessment,
and weekly reflections.
4. Monitoring &
Adjustment
The teacher will observe student engagement and adjust the intervention
as needed to improve effectiveness, maintaining responsiveness to
learner needs.
5. Evaluation
Pre- and post-data will be analyzed to assess improvement in
pronunciation and lexical accuracy. Results will support conclusions
and future recommendations.
Note: stages of the research process and the way in which the real-time corrective feedback intervention was
implemented
Instruments Based on the Research Approach
Description of the Instruments
The most appropriate technique for the topic of this study is the survey, which uses a
questionnaire as its instrument, composed of a series of open-ended, scaled, and screening
questions. These questions are related to the application of the principles of the communicative
method to the development of spoken expression in English.
Student Survey on English Speaking Effectiveness
This survey consisted of a questionnaire with open-ended and scaled questions. These
questions are related to the application of the principles of the communicative method for the
development of English speaking skills. The survey included questions related to interactive
communication, discourse management, and vocabulary. To evaluate the results, an analysis and
data interpretation matrix was created, which reflected the outcomes according to a Likert scale
with response options ranging from ALWAYS, ALMOST ALWAYS, SOMETIMES, RARELY,
and NEVER for each question in the questionnaire.
were processed and interpreted in order to evaluate the improved perception and production of
English word pronunciation by students, particularly during corrective feedback moments.
Table 2
Research Stages
Stage Description
1. Documentary
Analysis
A review of theoretical and empirical literature will be conducted to
establish a foundation for the study. It will inform the selection of
methods and tools.
2. Planning and
Design
Instruments and strategies will be designed based on the literature.
Parental consent will be obtained, and the six-week intervention will be
planned in detail.
3. Implementation
The corrective feedback strategies will be applied during oral
presentations. Students will participate in feedback, self-assessment,
and weekly reflections.
4. Monitoring &
Adjustment
The teacher will observe student engagement and adjust the intervention
as needed to improve effectiveness, maintaining responsiveness to
learner needs.
5. Evaluation
Pre- and post-data will be analyzed to assess improvement in
pronunciation and lexical accuracy. Results will support conclusions
and future recommendations.
Note: stages of the research process and the way in which the real-time corrective feedback intervention was
implemented
Instruments Based on the Research Approach
Description of the Instruments
The most appropriate technique for the topic of this study is the survey, which uses a
questionnaire as its instrument, composed of a series of open-ended, scaled, and screening
questions. These questions are related to the application of the principles of the communicative
method to the development of spoken expression in English.
Student Survey on English Speaking Effectiveness
This survey consisted of a questionnaire with open-ended and scaled questions. These
questions are related to the application of the principles of the communicative method for the
development of English speaking skills. The survey included questions related to interactive
communication, discourse management, and vocabulary. To evaluate the results, an analysis and
data interpretation matrix was created, which reflected the outcomes according to a Likert scale
with response options ranging from ALWAYS, ALMOST ALWAYS, SOMETIMES, RARELY,
and NEVER for each question in the questionnaire.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1752
Pre- and Post-Test Assessments
The pre- and post-test evaluations focused on students’ ability to use appropriate
vocabulary, sentence structures, and fluency when speaking. These assessments aimed to measure
students’ progress in their English speaking skills following the implementation of the
communicative method in class.
Oral Rubric
The rubric included four essential components: pronunciation, fluency, lexical accuracy,
and clarity. This tool was applied at two key moments: during the initial diagnostic task and in
the final presentation at the end of the intervention, in order to assess changes in students’ oral
performance. Scoring was based on a 4-point Likert scale, which provided both quantitative data
for statistical comparison and qualitative information for feedback.
Data Collection and Compilation
Data processing began with data collection, which was conducted through the survey
administered to English teachers and students. The oral evaluation sheet was also administered to
the students. The responses to the oral evaluation and surveys for this research were analyzed
using descriptive statistics, using frequency tables based on the information collected. Tables
were then constructed. The results of this analysis were presented in the form of frequency tables
and graphs. Similarly, the responses to the student survey, which covered the principles of the
communicative method, were collected and organized for further analysis.
Data Entry and Coding
Data processing began with information gathering, which was carried out through the
survey administered to English teachers and students. The oral evaluation form was also applied
to the students. The results of this analysis were presented in the form of frequency tables and
graphs. Likewise, the responses to the student survey, which covered the principles of the
communicative method, were compiled and organized for further analysis.
Descriptive Analysis
For this analysis, basic statistical measures such as frequencies, percentages, means, and
standard deviations were calculated to summarize participants’ performance on the diagnostic test
and the pre-test. These analyses provided an overview of students’ level of language competence,
as well as their strengths and areas for improvement.
Thematic Analysis
The coded items were systematically examined to identify key trends, recurring
narratives, and relevant patterns in the communicative principles applied to English teaching in
relation to students’ speaking skills. The thematic analysis made it possible to deepen the
understanding of the contextual factors that influence language learning in the specific
educational setting.
Pre- and Post-Test Assessments
The pre- and post-test evaluations focused on students’ ability to use appropriate
vocabulary, sentence structures, and fluency when speaking. These assessments aimed to measure
students’ progress in their English speaking skills following the implementation of the
communicative method in class.
Oral Rubric
The rubric included four essential components: pronunciation, fluency, lexical accuracy,
and clarity. This tool was applied at two key moments: during the initial diagnostic task and in
the final presentation at the end of the intervention, in order to assess changes in students’ oral
performance. Scoring was based on a 4-point Likert scale, which provided both quantitative data
for statistical comparison and qualitative information for feedback.
Data Collection and Compilation
Data processing began with data collection, which was conducted through the survey
administered to English teachers and students. The oral evaluation sheet was also administered to
the students. The responses to the oral evaluation and surveys for this research were analyzed
using descriptive statistics, using frequency tables based on the information collected. Tables
were then constructed. The results of this analysis were presented in the form of frequency tables
and graphs. Similarly, the responses to the student survey, which covered the principles of the
communicative method, were collected and organized for further analysis.
Data Entry and Coding
Data processing began with information gathering, which was carried out through the
survey administered to English teachers and students. The oral evaluation form was also applied
to the students. The results of this analysis were presented in the form of frequency tables and
graphs. Likewise, the responses to the student survey, which covered the principles of the
communicative method, were compiled and organized for further analysis.
Descriptive Analysis
For this analysis, basic statistical measures such as frequencies, percentages, means, and
standard deviations were calculated to summarize participants’ performance on the diagnostic test
and the pre-test. These analyses provided an overview of students’ level of language competence,
as well as their strengths and areas for improvement.
Thematic Analysis
The coded items were systematically examined to identify key trends, recurring
narratives, and relevant patterns in the communicative principles applied to English teaching in
relation to students’ speaking skills. The thematic analysis made it possible to deepen the
understanding of the contextual factors that influence language learning in the specific
educational setting.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1753
Ethical considerations
Informed consent was obtained from parents, and the student participants were informed
about the research purposes of the activities and their results. The confidentiality and anonymity
of the participants’ data were maintained in order to guarantee the integrity of the students
(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pronunciation and lexical errors
Table 2
Questions and answers
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY
Pre-test
FREQUENCY
Post-test %
Excellent 7 10 6%
Very Good 10 12 4%
Good 13 15 4%
Fair 12 10 -4%
Poor 8 3 -10%
TOTAL=> 50 50
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 1
Interview
Note. The graph represents the student population in communication, grammar, vocabulary, strategic conversation, and
interview fluency.
Interpretation
The results presented in Table 3 indicate a redistribution in students’ performance in
pronunciation and lexis after the continuous corrective feedback intervention. In this regard,
during the post-test, the number of students in the higher levels increases: Excellent rises from 7
to 10 (an increase of 3 students, equivalent to around 6% of the sample), Very Good from 10 to
12 (4%), and Good from 13 to 15 (4%), which shows that a significant portion of the group moves
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Series1 7 10 13 12 8
Series2 10 12 15 10 3
Series3 6% 4% 4% -4% -10%
7 10 13 12 810 12 15
10
3
6% 4% 4%
-4% -10%
Interview
Ethical considerations
Informed consent was obtained from parents, and the student participants were informed
about the research purposes of the activities and their results. The confidentiality and anonymity
of the participants’ data were maintained in order to guarantee the integrity of the students
(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pronunciation and lexical errors
Table 2
Questions and answers
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY
Pre-test
FREQUENCY
Post-test %
Excellent 7 10 6%
Very Good 10 12 4%
Good 13 15 4%
Fair 12 10 -4%
Poor 8 3 -10%
TOTAL=> 50 50
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 1
Interview
Note. The graph represents the student population in communication, grammar, vocabulary, strategic conversation, and
interview fluency.
Interpretation
The results presented in Table 3 indicate a redistribution in students’ performance in
pronunciation and lexis after the continuous corrective feedback intervention. In this regard,
during the post-test, the number of students in the higher levels increases: Excellent rises from 7
to 10 (an increase of 3 students, equivalent to around 6% of the sample), Very Good from 10 to
12 (4%), and Good from 13 to 15 (4%), which shows that a significant portion of the group moves
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Series1 7 10 13 12 8
Series2 10 12 15 10 3
Series3 6% 4% 4% -4% -10%
7 10 13 12 810 12 15
10
3
6% 4% 4%
-4% -10%
Interview
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1754
into higher proficiency categories. Likewise, the lower levels decrease: Fair drops from 12 to 10
(−4%) and Poor from 8 to 3 (−10%), showing that the participants with greater difficulties manage
to make progress and leave the lower performance categories.
These results in the data allow us to infer that real-time corrective feedback had a positive
effect on pronunciation accuracy and lexical use during oral presentations, especially by
benefiting students who were initially more behind. The research findings are consistent with the
results of Saeli et al. (2021), who state that immediate and frequent feedback improves
phonological and lexical accuracy, significantly reducing the occurrence of errors in EFL.
Table 4
Talk about their own Pre - Post test
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY
Pre-test
FREQUENCY
Post-test %
Excellent 5 8 6%
Very Good 7 12 10%
Good 15 17 4%
Fair 14 10 -8%
Poor 9 3 -12%
TOTAL=> 50 50
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 2
Talk about their own
Note. The graph represents the student population on communication, grammar, vocabulary, strategic conversation,
and fluency during the interview.
Interpretation
Table 4 shows results that reveal a significant improvement in students’ ability to “talk
about themselves,” while the total number of participants remains constant. In the post-test results,
an increase in the higher categories is evident: Excellent rises from 5 to 8 students (an increase of
approximately 6% of the sample), Very Good from 7 to 12 (around 10%), and Good from 15 to
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Series1 5 7 15 14 9
Series2 8 12 17 10 3
Series3 6% 10% 4% -8% -12%
5 7
15 14
98
12
17
10
3
6% 10% 4%
-8% -12%
Talk about their own
into higher proficiency categories. Likewise, the lower levels decrease: Fair drops from 12 to 10
(−4%) and Poor from 8 to 3 (−10%), showing that the participants with greater difficulties manage
to make progress and leave the lower performance categories.
These results in the data allow us to infer that real-time corrective feedback had a positive
effect on pronunciation accuracy and lexical use during oral presentations, especially by
benefiting students who were initially more behind. The research findings are consistent with the
results of Saeli et al. (2021), who state that immediate and frequent feedback improves
phonological and lexical accuracy, significantly reducing the occurrence of errors in EFL.
Table 4
Talk about their own Pre - Post test
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY
Pre-test
FREQUENCY
Post-test %
Excellent 5 8 6%
Very Good 7 12 10%
Good 15 17 4%
Fair 14 10 -8%
Poor 9 3 -12%
TOTAL=> 50 50
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 2
Talk about their own
Note. The graph represents the student population on communication, grammar, vocabulary, strategic conversation,
and fluency during the interview.
Interpretation
Table 4 shows results that reveal a significant improvement in students’ ability to “talk
about themselves,” while the total number of participants remains constant. In the post-test results,
an increase in the higher categories is evident: Excellent rises from 5 to 8 students (an increase of
approximately 6% of the sample), Very Good from 7 to 12 (around 10%), and Good from 15 to
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Series1 5 7 15 14 9
Series2 8 12 17 10 3
Series3 6% 10% 4% -8% -12%
5 7
15 14
98
12
17
10
3
6% 10% 4%
-8% -12%
Talk about their own
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1755
17 (4%), which indicates that more learners are able to describe or talk about themselves with
greater accuracy and confidence. At the same time, the lower levels decrease: Fair drops from 14
to 10 (−8%) and Poor from 9 to 3 (−12%), showing that a considerable portion of those who
initially had greater difficulties moved up to intermediate or higher levels.
This redistribution from Fair and Poor to Good, Very Good, and Excellent suggests that
the intervention based on continuous corrective feedback supported not only the correction of
pronunciation and lexical errors but also discourse organization and fluency when talking about
personal experiences. These results are consistent with the findings reported by Saeli et al. (2021)
and Guaygua et al. (2025), who point out that oral feedback is directly related to simultaneous
improvements in accuracy, fluency, and strategic language use in authentic communicative tasks.
Table 5
Tell the difference
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY
Pre-test
FREQUENCY
Post-test %
Excellent 10 18 16%
Very Good 7 12 10%
Good 12 15 6%
Fair 13 5 -16%
Poor 8 0 -16%
TOTAL=> 50 50
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 3
Tell the differences
Note. The graph represents the student population on the description of differences between two images.
Interpretation
The results shown in Table 5 indicate that in the post-test, the number of students at the
Excellent level increases from 10 to 18 (approximately +16% of the sample), Very Good rises
from 7 to 12 (+10%), and Good from 12 to 15 (+6%), which indicates that most students manage
to describe differences between two pictures with greater lexical precision, discourse
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Series1 10 7 12 13 8
Series2 18 12 15 5 0
Series3 16% 10% 6% -16% -16%
10 7
12 13
8
18
12 15
5
016% 10% 6%
-16% -16%
Tell the difference
17 (4%), which indicates that more learners are able to describe or talk about themselves with
greater accuracy and confidence. At the same time, the lower levels decrease: Fair drops from 14
to 10 (−8%) and Poor from 9 to 3 (−12%), showing that a considerable portion of those who
initially had greater difficulties moved up to intermediate or higher levels.
This redistribution from Fair and Poor to Good, Very Good, and Excellent suggests that
the intervention based on continuous corrective feedback supported not only the correction of
pronunciation and lexical errors but also discourse organization and fluency when talking about
personal experiences. These results are consistent with the findings reported by Saeli et al. (2021)
and Guaygua et al. (2025), who point out that oral feedback is directly related to simultaneous
improvements in accuracy, fluency, and strategic language use in authentic communicative tasks.
Table 5
Tell the difference
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY
Pre-test
FREQUENCY
Post-test %
Excellent 10 18 16%
Very Good 7 12 10%
Good 12 15 6%
Fair 13 5 -16%
Poor 8 0 -16%
TOTAL=> 50 50
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 3
Tell the differences
Note. The graph represents the student population on the description of differences between two images.
Interpretation
The results shown in Table 5 indicate that in the post-test, the number of students at the
Excellent level increases from 10 to 18 (approximately +16% of the sample), Very Good rises
from 7 to 12 (+10%), and Good from 12 to 15 (+6%), which indicates that most students manage
to describe differences between two pictures with greater lexical precision, discourse
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Series1 10 7 12 13 8
Series2 18 12 15 5 0
Series3 16% 10% 6% -16% -16%
10 7
12 13
8
18
12 15
5
016% 10% 6%
-16% -16%
Tell the difference
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1756
organization, and control of structures by the end of the intervention. In contrast, the lower levels
decrease markedly: Fair is reduced from 13 to 5 students (−16%) and Poor goes from 8 to 0
(−16%), so the lowest category disappears completely, which suggests that even those participants
with the greatest initial difficulties reach at least an acceptable level of performance after the
feedback process. This redistribution from Fair and Poor to Good, Very Good, and especially
Excellent shows that continuous corrective feedback supports the identification and correction of
pronunciation and lexical errors, as well as the more accurate use of descriptive resources
(adjectives, comparatives, contrast markers) needed to distinguish between two pictures, a pattern
that is consistent with Wang et al. (2025), whose results link immediate feedback to significant
improvements in oral description and comparison tasks.
Table 6
Interaction
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY
Pre-test
FREQUENCY
Post-test %
Excellent 8 15 14%
Very Good 5 13 16%
Good 10 10 0%
Fair 15 7 -16%
Poor 12 5 -14%
TOTAL=> 50 50
Note. Source: Authors.
Figura 4
Interaction
Note. The graph represents the student population that interacts with different types of questions and answers.
Interpretation
The results shown in Table 6 indicate a notable redistribution toward the higher
performance categories. In the post-test, the Excellent category increases from 8 to 15 students
(approximately +14%), and Very Good rises from 5 to 13 (+16%), which indicates that a
considerably larger number of learners manage to interact with greater fluency, accuracy, and
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Series1 8 5 10 15 12
Series2 15 13 10 7 5
Series3 14% 16% 0% -16% -14%
8
5
10
15
12
15 13
10
7 5
14% 16% 0%
-16% -14%
Interaction
organization, and control of structures by the end of the intervention. In contrast, the lower levels
decrease markedly: Fair is reduced from 13 to 5 students (−16%) and Poor goes from 8 to 0
(−16%), so the lowest category disappears completely, which suggests that even those participants
with the greatest initial difficulties reach at least an acceptable level of performance after the
feedback process. This redistribution from Fair and Poor to Good, Very Good, and especially
Excellent shows that continuous corrective feedback supports the identification and correction of
pronunciation and lexical errors, as well as the more accurate use of descriptive resources
(adjectives, comparatives, contrast markers) needed to distinguish between two pictures, a pattern
that is consistent with Wang et al. (2025), whose results link immediate feedback to significant
improvements in oral description and comparison tasks.
Table 6
Interaction
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY
Pre-test
FREQUENCY
Post-test %
Excellent 8 15 14%
Very Good 5 13 16%
Good 10 10 0%
Fair 15 7 -16%
Poor 12 5 -14%
TOTAL=> 50 50
Note. Source: Authors.
Figura 4
Interaction
Note. The graph represents the student population that interacts with different types of questions and answers.
Interpretation
The results shown in Table 6 indicate a notable redistribution toward the higher
performance categories. In the post-test, the Excellent category increases from 8 to 15 students
(approximately +14%), and Very Good rises from 5 to 13 (+16%), which indicates that a
considerably larger number of learners manage to interact with greater fluency, accuracy, and
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Series1 8 5 10 15 12
Series2 15 13 10 7 5
Series3 14% 16% 0% -16% -14%
8
5
10
15
12
15 13
10
7 5
14% 16% 0%
-16% -14%
Interaction
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1757
confidence when taking turns. For the Good category, the number remains stable with 10 students
in both the pre- and post-test (0%), suggesting that this group maintains an adequate performance,
while the greatest changes are concentrated in the upward movement from the lower levels to the
high and very high levels. In contrast, the lower categories decrease markedly: Fair drops from
15 to 7 students (−16%), and Poor from 12 to 5 (−14%). This redistribution from Fair and Poor
to Very Good and Excellent suggests that continuous corrective feedback contributed
significantly to strengthening oral interaction, supporting not only the correction of pronunciation
and lexical errors, but also the more appropriate use of interrogative structures, connectors, and
conversational strategies. These tendencies are consistent with the findings of Saeli et al. (2021),
who indicate that immediate and systematic feedback improves the quality of oral exchanges and
the ability to sustain more fluent and coherent conversations in EFL.
Real-Time Corrective Feedback
Table 7
Immediate corrective feedback
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY % ∑ %
Always 3 60
Almost always 1 20 4
Occasionally 1 20
Seldom 0 0 1
Never 0 0
TOTAL=> 5,0 100 5
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 5
Real-Time Corrective Feedback
Note. The graph represents the English teachers' population and the effectiveness of feedback in real time.
Interpretation
The data presented in Table 7 indicate that 60% of the teachers Always provide
immediate feedback to students, while 20% report doing so “Almost always” and another 20%
“Occasionally”; no responses were recorded for “Rarely” or “Never”. These results suggest a high
Always Almost
Always
Occasionalit
y Seldom Never
Series1 3 1 1 0 0
3
1 1 0 0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
FERCUENCIA
Real-Time Corrective
Feedback
confidence when taking turns. For the Good category, the number remains stable with 10 students
in both the pre- and post-test (0%), suggesting that this group maintains an adequate performance,
while the greatest changes are concentrated in the upward movement from the lower levels to the
high and very high levels. In contrast, the lower categories decrease markedly: Fair drops from
15 to 7 students (−16%), and Poor from 12 to 5 (−14%). This redistribution from Fair and Poor
to Very Good and Excellent suggests that continuous corrective feedback contributed
significantly to strengthening oral interaction, supporting not only the correction of pronunciation
and lexical errors, but also the more appropriate use of interrogative structures, connectors, and
conversational strategies. These tendencies are consistent with the findings of Saeli et al. (2021),
who indicate that immediate and systematic feedback improves the quality of oral exchanges and
the ability to sustain more fluent and coherent conversations in EFL.
Real-Time Corrective Feedback
Table 7
Immediate corrective feedback
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY % ∑ %
Always 3 60
Almost always 1 20 4
Occasionally 1 20
Seldom 0 0 1
Never 0 0
TOTAL=> 5,0 100 5
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 5
Real-Time Corrective Feedback
Note. The graph represents the English teachers' population and the effectiveness of feedback in real time.
Interpretation
The data presented in Table 7 indicate that 60% of the teachers Always provide
immediate feedback to students, while 20% report doing so “Almost always” and another 20%
“Occasionally”; no responses were recorded for “Rarely” or “Never”. These results suggest a high
Always Almost
Always
Occasionalit
y Seldom Never
Series1 3 1 1 0 0
3
1 1 0 0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
FERCUENCIA
Real-Time Corrective
Feedback
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1758
rate of use of immediate feedback in the English classroom and a strong level of commitment to
the timely correction of oral errors. The findings of this study are consistent with what Muñoz
and Mavrou (2020) report, as they state that immediate feedback is used as an effective technique
to promote awareness of errors, modification of learners’ output, and improvement of oral
accuracy in communicative situations.
Type of feedback
Table 8
Different Feedback Strategies
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY % ∑ %
Always 4 60
Almost Always 1 40 5
Occasionality 0 0
Seldom 0 0 0
Never 0 0
TOTAL=> 5,0 100 5
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 6
Feedback Strategies
Note. The graph represents the teachers who apply the feedback strategies in class
Interpretation
The results presented in Table 8 show that 60% of the teachers Always use different
feedback strategies, while 40% state that they Almost always do so; no responses were recorded
in the categories Occasionally, Rarely, or Never. These data allow us to infer that most teachers
in this institution generally use these types of strategies with their students to reinforce the content
taught, which is consistent with Rosado et al. (2024), who indicate that EFL teachers tend to
combine different types of feedback (implicit, explicit, recasts, metalinguistic, among others) to
address a variety of learner errors and needs, with the aim of improving students’ oral accuracy
and fluency.
Always Almost
Always
Occasionali
ty Seldom Never
Series1 4 1 0 0 0
4
1 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
FERCUENCIA
Different Feedback Strategies
rate of use of immediate feedback in the English classroom and a strong level of commitment to
the timely correction of oral errors. The findings of this study are consistent with what Muñoz
and Mavrou (2020) report, as they state that immediate feedback is used as an effective technique
to promote awareness of errors, modification of learners’ output, and improvement of oral
accuracy in communicative situations.
Type of feedback
Table 8
Different Feedback Strategies
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY % ∑ %
Always 4 60
Almost Always 1 40 5
Occasionality 0 0
Seldom 0 0 0
Never 0 0
TOTAL=> 5,0 100 5
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 6
Feedback Strategies
Note. The graph represents the teachers who apply the feedback strategies in class
Interpretation
The results presented in Table 8 show that 60% of the teachers Always use different
feedback strategies, while 40% state that they Almost always do so; no responses were recorded
in the categories Occasionally, Rarely, or Never. These data allow us to infer that most teachers
in this institution generally use these types of strategies with their students to reinforce the content
taught, which is consistent with Rosado et al. (2024), who indicate that EFL teachers tend to
combine different types of feedback (implicit, explicit, recasts, metalinguistic, among others) to
address a variety of learner errors and needs, with the aim of improving students’ oral accuracy
and fluency.
Always Almost
Always
Occasionali
ty Seldom Never
Series1 4 1 0 0 0
4
1 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
FERCUENCIA
Different Feedback Strategies
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1759
Student Perception
Table 9
Real-time correction facilitates self-correction in students
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY % ∑ %
Always 4 60
Almost Always 1 40 5
Occasionality 0 0
Seldom 0 0 0
Never 0 0
TOTAL=> 5,0 100 5
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 7
Real-time correction
Note. The graph represents the teachers' population who agree that corrections help students immediately.
Interpretation
The results presented in Table 9 show that 60% of the teachers Always feel that instant
correction consistently helps students’ self-correction, while 40% report that this Almost always
happens; no responses were reported in the remaining categories. These data allow us to infer that
the vast majority of teachers state that immediate correction stimulates self-correction in students.
This finding is related to the research by Chango (2025), where the authors point out that oral
feedback in EFL settings suggests that instant correction raises awareness of committing errors,
supports subsequent repair by the learner, and fosters the development of accuracy and autonomy
in language use.
Always Almost
Always Occasionality Seldom Never
Series1 4 1 0 0 0
4
1 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
FERCUENCIA
Real-time correction
facilitates students
Student Perception
Table 9
Real-time correction facilitates self-correction in students
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY % ∑ %
Always 4 60
Almost Always 1 40 5
Occasionality 0 0
Seldom 0 0 0
Never 0 0
TOTAL=> 5,0 100 5
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 7
Real-time correction
Note. The graph represents the teachers' population who agree that corrections help students immediately.
Interpretation
The results presented in Table 9 show that 60% of the teachers Always feel that instant
correction consistently helps students’ self-correction, while 40% report that this Almost always
happens; no responses were reported in the remaining categories. These data allow us to infer that
the vast majority of teachers state that immediate correction stimulates self-correction in students.
This finding is related to the research by Chango (2025), where the authors point out that oral
feedback in EFL settings suggests that instant correction raises awareness of committing errors,
supports subsequent repair by the learner, and fosters the development of accuracy and autonomy
in language use.
Always Almost
Always Occasionality Seldom Never
Series1 4 1 0 0 0
4
1 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
FERCUENCIA
Real-time correction
facilitates students
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1760
Effects on learning
Table 10
Corrective feedback
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY % ∑ %
Always 3 60
Almost Always 2 40 5
Occasionality 0 0
Seldom 0 0 0
Never 0 0
TOTAL=> 5,0 100 5
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 8
Feedback and development of oral competence
Note. The graph represents the teachers' population who consider that correct feedback is extremely important when
the development of oral competence.
Interpretation
In the results presented in Table 10 regarding “Corrective Feedback,” it is evident that
60% indicate they Always choose corrective feedback because it provides beneficial outcomes in
the students’ educational process. Meanwhile, the remaining 40% of teachers report that they
Almost always do so. These data suggest that there is a significant consensus among teachers
about how regular correction helps to increase performance, accuracy in language use, and
awareness of errors. This finding is consistent with what was proposed by Bailini (2020), who
states that continuous and formative correction promotes the assimilation of correct structures,
the gradual adjustment of interlanguage, and fosters greater autonomy in learning.
DISCUSSION
The data from the evaluations conducted before and after the intervention clearly
demonstrate a movement toward higher categories (Excellent, Very Good, and Good) and a
remarkable decrease in the Regular and Poor categories regarding pronunciation and vocabulary.
This suggests significant progress in oral accuracy after the intervention. Such a trend aligns with
the claims made by Celce et al. (2010) and Derwing and Munro (1997), who indicate that
Always Almost
Always Occasionality Seldom Never
Series1 3 2 0 0 0
3
2 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
4
FERCUENCIA
Feedback and development of
oral competence
Effects on learning
Table 10
Corrective feedback
ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY % ∑ %
Always 3 60
Almost Always 2 40 5
Occasionality 0 0
Seldom 0 0 0
Never 0 0
TOTAL=> 5,0 100 5
Note. Source: Authors.
Figure 8
Feedback and development of oral competence
Note. The graph represents the teachers' population who consider that correct feedback is extremely important when
the development of oral competence.
Interpretation
In the results presented in Table 10 regarding “Corrective Feedback,” it is evident that
60% indicate they Always choose corrective feedback because it provides beneficial outcomes in
the students’ educational process. Meanwhile, the remaining 40% of teachers report that they
Almost always do so. These data suggest that there is a significant consensus among teachers
about how regular correction helps to increase performance, accuracy in language use, and
awareness of errors. This finding is consistent with what was proposed by Bailini (2020), who
states that continuous and formative correction promotes the assimilation of correct structures,
the gradual adjustment of interlanguage, and fosters greater autonomy in learning.
DISCUSSION
The data from the evaluations conducted before and after the intervention clearly
demonstrate a movement toward higher categories (Excellent, Very Good, and Good) and a
remarkable decrease in the Regular and Poor categories regarding pronunciation and vocabulary.
This suggests significant progress in oral accuracy after the intervention. Such a trend aligns with
the claims made by Celce et al. (2010) and Derwing and Munro (1997), who indicate that
Always Almost
Always Occasionality Seldom Never
Series1 3 2 0 0 0
3
2 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
4
FERCUENCIA
Feedback and development of
oral competence
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1761
improvement in comprehension becomes evident when pronunciation errors are reduced and the
message becomes more understandable to the listener. Moreover, the decrease in vocabulary
errors corresponds with the British Council’s concept of lexical adequacy and with Molina’s
(2018) view, which holds that the correct use of lexis in real situations promotes effective
communication.
The students’ advancement from lower to intermediate and higher levels suggests that the
intervention helped prevent the appearance of errors that could become fossilized. This result
supports Selinker’s (1972) interlanguage framework along with Han and Odlin’s (2006) ideas,
which propose that consistent and timely correction prevents certain erroneous forms from
becoming established in the learner’s system. In this context, instant feedback functioned as a
mechanism for constantly adjusting the interlanguage, supporting the notion that frequent
correction is useful for “destabilizing” errors and replacing them with structures more aligned
with the linguistic target.
The improvements observed in tasks such as “talking about themselves,” “making a
difference,” and “interaction” indicate that feedback not only enhanced linguistic precision but
also boosted fluency, discourse structuring, and strategic use of language. This finding is
consistent with the research of Ammar and Spada (2006) and Loewen (2005), who argue that
immediate feedback fosters attention and accelerates the acquisition of grammatical and lexical
aspects, particularly when accompanied by opportunities for meaningful production. Likewise,
the combined use of recasts, prompts, and direct correction reported by teachers matches the
findings of Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (2004), who maintain that alternating between
implicit and explicit feedback increases the likelihood of retention and self-correction, especially
in initial stages.
Findings from the tables related to teachers’ perceptions indicate that most instructors
report frequently or almost always implementing instantaneous corrections and various feedback
techniques, considering that these help students self-correct. This perception aligns with what
Yoshida (2008) and Chango (2025) suggest—that when feedback is perceived as clear, frequent,
and improvement-oriented, students tend to take a more active role in correcting their errors and
managing their learning. At the same time, the emphasis teachers place on consistent correction
aligns with Bailini’s (2020) ideas, who argues that structured feedback fosters autonomy and
metalinguistic awareness, both essential for advancing oral proficiency.
The increase in students reaching advanced levels in tasks involving image comparison
and interaction confirms that instant feedback not only corrects isolated aspects but also enhances
their ability to sustain more fluid and coherent dialogues. This trend supports the proposals of
Swain and Lapkin (1995) and the revised Output Hypothesis, which posits that feedback during
the production process forces learners to “reprocess” their linguistic output, reassess hypotheses,
and adjust linguistic form in relevant communicative contexts. Furthermore, the improvement in
improvement in comprehension becomes evident when pronunciation errors are reduced and the
message becomes more understandable to the listener. Moreover, the decrease in vocabulary
errors corresponds with the British Council’s concept of lexical adequacy and with Molina’s
(2018) view, which holds that the correct use of lexis in real situations promotes effective
communication.
The students’ advancement from lower to intermediate and higher levels suggests that the
intervention helped prevent the appearance of errors that could become fossilized. This result
supports Selinker’s (1972) interlanguage framework along with Han and Odlin’s (2006) ideas,
which propose that consistent and timely correction prevents certain erroneous forms from
becoming established in the learner’s system. In this context, instant feedback functioned as a
mechanism for constantly adjusting the interlanguage, supporting the notion that frequent
correction is useful for “destabilizing” errors and replacing them with structures more aligned
with the linguistic target.
The improvements observed in tasks such as “talking about themselves,” “making a
difference,” and “interaction” indicate that feedback not only enhanced linguistic precision but
also boosted fluency, discourse structuring, and strategic use of language. This finding is
consistent with the research of Ammar and Spada (2006) and Loewen (2005), who argue that
immediate feedback fosters attention and accelerates the acquisition of grammatical and lexical
aspects, particularly when accompanied by opportunities for meaningful production. Likewise,
the combined use of recasts, prompts, and direct correction reported by teachers matches the
findings of Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (2004), who maintain that alternating between
implicit and explicit feedback increases the likelihood of retention and self-correction, especially
in initial stages.
Findings from the tables related to teachers’ perceptions indicate that most instructors
report frequently or almost always implementing instantaneous corrections and various feedback
techniques, considering that these help students self-correct. This perception aligns with what
Yoshida (2008) and Chango (2025) suggest—that when feedback is perceived as clear, frequent,
and improvement-oriented, students tend to take a more active role in correcting their errors and
managing their learning. At the same time, the emphasis teachers place on consistent correction
aligns with Bailini’s (2020) ideas, who argues that structured feedback fosters autonomy and
metalinguistic awareness, both essential for advancing oral proficiency.
The increase in students reaching advanced levels in tasks involving image comparison
and interaction confirms that instant feedback not only corrects isolated aspects but also enhances
their ability to sustain more fluid and coherent dialogues. This trend supports the proposals of
Swain and Lapkin (1995) and the revised Output Hypothesis, which posits that feedback during
the production process forces learners to “reprocess” their linguistic output, reassess hypotheses,
and adjust linguistic form in relevant communicative contexts. Furthermore, the improvement in
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1762
the ability to describe differences and manage conversational turns coincides with studies such as
those by Saeli et al. (2021), Guaygua et al. (2025), and Wang et al. (2025), which link immediate
oral correction with simultaneous improvements in accuracy, fluency, and strategic language use
in authentic situations.
CONCLUSIONS
Este apartado es optativo: cuando el autor o los autores lleguen a responder sus preguntas
de investigación u objetivos y discutan lo sugerido en el apartado anterior referente a la Discusión,
el apartado “Conclusiones” no será necesario.
the ability to describe differences and manage conversational turns coincides with studies such as
those by Saeli et al. (2021), Guaygua et al. (2025), and Wang et al. (2025), which link immediate
oral correction with simultaneous improvements in accuracy, fluency, and strategic language use
in authentic situations.
CONCLUSIONS
Este apartado es optativo: cuando el autor o los autores lleguen a responder sus preguntas
de investigación u objetivos y discutan lo sugerido en el apartado anterior referente a la Discusión,
el apartado “Conclusiones” no será necesario.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1763
REFERENCIAS
Agudo, J. de D. M. (Ed.) (2009). Oral Communication in the EFL Classroom. Campo Abierto,
Revista de Educación, 28(2), 191–193.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060250
Bailini, S. (2020). El Feedback como herramienta didáctica para el fomento de la autonomía en
la adquisición de lenguas extranjeras. Philologia Hispalensis, 34(1), 25–39.
https://doi.org/10.12795/PH.2020.v34.i01.02
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit correction and second-language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 199–321.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course
book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282
Chango, E., Pizarro, R., Puchaicela, P., Vinueza, G., León, S., y Anchatuña, V. (2025). Uso de la
inteligencia artificial en la corrección automatizada de producción escrita en inglés. South
Florida Journal of Development, 6(6), e5418. https://doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv6n6-015
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence
from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001010
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University
Press. (Print year 2001; online publication May 2010) Cambridge University Press &
AssessmentGoogle Libros
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.
https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the
acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060250
ERICCambridge University Press & Assessment
Guaygua, L., Guatatuca, Y., Baño, M., y Sierra, S. (2025). Efecto de la retroalimentación entre
pares en la producción oral del inglés en estudiantes A1. 2. Polo del Conocimiento,
10(10), 1902-1910. https://doi.org/10.23857/pc.v10i10.10957
Han, Z.-H., & Odlin, T. (2006). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. In A. Davies,
C. Criper, & A. R. Howatt (Eds.), Fifty years of language teaching: Reflections on the
REFERENCIAS
Agudo, J. de D. M. (Ed.) (2009). Oral Communication in the EFL Classroom. Campo Abierto,
Revista de Educación, 28(2), 191–193.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060250
Bailini, S. (2020). El Feedback como herramienta didáctica para el fomento de la autonomía en
la adquisición de lenguas extranjeras. Philologia Hispalensis, 34(1), 25–39.
https://doi.org/10.12795/PH.2020.v34.i01.02
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit correction and second-language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 199–321.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course
book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282
Chango, E., Pizarro, R., Puchaicela, P., Vinueza, G., León, S., y Anchatuña, V. (2025). Uso de la
inteligencia artificial en la corrección automatizada de producción escrita en inglés. South
Florida Journal of Development, 6(6), e5418. https://doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv6n6-015
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence
from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001010
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University
Press. (Print year 2001; online publication May 2010) Cambridge University Press &
AssessmentGoogle Libros
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.
https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the
acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060250
ERICCambridge University Press & Assessment
Guaygua, L., Guatatuca, Y., Baño, M., y Sierra, S. (2025). Efecto de la retroalimentación entre
pares en la producción oral del inglés en estudiantes A1. 2. Polo del Conocimiento,
10(10), 1902-1910. https://doi.org/10.23857/pc.v10i10.10957
Han, Z.-H., & Odlin, T. (2006). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. In A. Davies,
C. Criper, & A. R. Howatt (Eds.), Fifty years of language teaching: Reflections on the
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1764
field (pp. 247–264). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780194422247.003.0012
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263020
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.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Language anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and
to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning, 41(4), 513–534.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00691.x
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and second language development: An empirical study of
L2 classroom interaction. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml016
Martínez, J. de D. (2013). An investigation into how EFL learners emotionally respond to
teachers’ oral corrective feedback. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(2), 265–
278. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a08
Muñoz, E, y Mavrou, I. (2020). La iñflueñcia del compoñeñte ño verbal asociado al feedback
correctivo eñ la produccioñ oral eñ ELE. Revista signos, 53(103), 468-495.
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342020000200468
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588248
Rosado, S., Alvarado, E., y Alvarado, S. (2024). La utilizacioñ de la retroalimeñtacioñ recast
para poteñciar la habilidad de expresioñ oral. Sage Sphere International Journal,
1(2), 2. https://sagespherejourñal.com/iñdex.php/SSIJ/article/view/5
Saeli, H., Rahmati, P., y Dalmañ, M. (2021). Oral Corrective Feedback oñ Proñuñciatioñ
Errors: The Mediatiñg Effects of Learñers’ Eñgagemeñt with Feedback. Avances en
Lengua y Estudios Literarios , 12(4), 68-78.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12ñ.4.p.68
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 10(1–4), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A
step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371
field (pp. 247–264). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780194422247.003.0012
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263020
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.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Language anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and
to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning, 41(4), 513–534.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00691.x
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and second language development: An empirical study of
L2 classroom interaction. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml016
Martínez, J. de D. (2013). An investigation into how EFL learners emotionally respond to
teachers’ oral corrective feedback. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(2), 265–
278. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a08
Muñoz, E, y Mavrou, I. (2020). La iñflueñcia del compoñeñte ño verbal asociado al feedback
correctivo eñ la produccioñ oral eñ ELE. Revista signos, 53(103), 468-495.
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342020000200468
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588248
Rosado, S., Alvarado, E., y Alvarado, S. (2024). La utilizacioñ de la retroalimeñtacioñ recast
para poteñciar la habilidad de expresioñ oral. Sage Sphere International Journal,
1(2), 2. https://sagespherejourñal.com/iñdex.php/SSIJ/article/view/5
Saeli, H., Rahmati, P., y Dalmañ, M. (2021). Oral Corrective Feedback oñ Proñuñciatioñ
Errors: The Mediatiñg Effects of Learñers’ Eñgagemeñt with Feedback. Avances en
Lengua y Estudios Literarios , 12(4), 68-78.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12ñ.4.p.68
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 10(1–4), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A
step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371
Vol. 13/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1765
Wañg, Y., Ziweñ, P., y Solhi, L. (2025). Habilidades de habla de estudiañtes de L2 eñ el
apreñdizaje de idiomas asistido por robot: uñ metaaña lisis. European Journal
Education, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70416
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types.
Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0
Wañg, Y., Ziweñ, P., y Solhi, L. (2025). Habilidades de habla de estudiañtes de L2 eñ el
apreñdizaje de idiomas asistido por robot: uñ metaaña lisis. European Journal
Education, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70416
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types.
Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0