Abstract
Teacher cognition research has been the subject of scholarly investigation since the 1970s, but there has been a significant increase in research interest in this field in recent years. The beliefs of the language teacher are important factors in any specific classroom instructional decision, including the role and provision of oral corrective feedback (OCF). It is critical to comprehend the teacher’s mind and the influencing factors that shape the development of teacher beliefs, including teachers’ prior language learning experience. Through in-depth multiple case analysis, using multiple evidence, including in-depth interviews, scenario ratings, stimulated recalls, and classroom observation, the present study explored the facets of two English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers’ OCF beliefs and practices to provide more relevant and rich insights into how prior language learning experience and context interact in the development of teacher beliefs and impact their instructional practice. The findings of the case studies revealed, first, the beliefs of language teachers, which are complex in nature, and several beliefs regarding OCF have been expressed by the teachers. Second, although there is a relationship between teachers’ stated beliefs and classroom practices, different trajectories of the beliefs and practices in relation to OCF were also unfolded, and several mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and practices were found. Third, language teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices were influenced by the language learning experience of the teachers as language learners. The study concluded with conceptual and pedagogical implications.
1. Introduction
While the history of language teacher cognition research dates back to the 1970s, researchers have recently paid more attention to this line of study. This is mainly because teacher cognition is found to have a direct impact on their classroom practices [1]. The term teacher cognition explains “the unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching—what teachers know, believe, and think” ([2], p. 81), which is an overarching term that refers to any of its constructs (e.g., beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes) with respect to any aspect of language teaching. In this study, teachers’ beliefs were explored, as they are the most studied construct of language cognition. According to Johnson [3], it is essential to understand the mind of language teachers and what factors influence the development of language teachers’ minds. Language teaching methods have also evolved significantly during the past few decades. As a result, teachers also needed to adapt to changes in their teaching beliefs and classroom practices, especially unplanned aspects of language teaching, such as oral corrective feedback (OCF) [1].
According to several psycho-cognitive theorists, OCF is relevant in L2 teaching, claiming that providing OCF is necessary to enrich learners’ comprehension of the input given and generate meaningful output [4]. Given that the central focus of existing studies was on the efficacy of OCF in learning L2 attainment, rather than focusing on the efficacy of OCF types, this study investigated teachers’ beliefs about OCF, OCF types, and the extent to which those beliefs influence their OCF practices. Language teacher beliefs are key factors in any specific classroom instructional decisions (e.g., importance and provision of OCF in this study) since teachers often need to make decisions in their instruction. The relevance of OCF in L2 teaching has been claimed by L2 researchers, who claim that OCF is necessary to enrich learners’ input comprehension and facilitate meaningful output [4]. OCF researchers assume that the success or failure of OCF in the development of instructional L2 depends on the method of providing OCF, such as what teachers think about OCF and how they practice it in the classroom [5, 6, 7, 8]. However, the phenomenon that has not been investigated extensively is teachers’ classroom practices of providing feedback in relation to their beliefs [9]. OCF studies have sought to identify cognitive and theoretical aspects of how it can influence more effective learning or uptake, paying less attention to how teachers provide OCF in their day-to-day classroom practice [10]. A handful of existing studies on teachers’ OCF beliefs and classroom practices are not predictable and remain inconsistent. Although some studies have reported that teachers’ OCF beliefs and classroom practices are congruent (e.g., [11]), several other studies have documented language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices to be inconsistent [12, 13], indicating that there is a lack of unanimity in the existing research on teachers’ beliefs and practices of providing OCF. Therefore, there is still a paucity of existing research into teacher beliefs and practices of providing OCF, as Gurzynski-Weiss described it as “an understudied area in the descriptive OCF research domain” (2016, p. 255).
Although recent studies have also reported that several other factors, such as professional development programmes and contextual factors (e.g., lesson plans and curricula), influence teachers’ cognition about OCF [14, 15], the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices of OCF in the English as a foreign language (EFL) context needs to be further investigated from the perspective of teachers’ prior language learning experience. Borg [2] explained how language teachers’ beliefs can be influenced by different components, such as their schooling, personal history, and experience as a language learner, which defines the preconceptions of teachers and teaching. However, the results of previous research that has studied teacher cognition are not definitive specifically regarding how prior language learning experience influences, to what extent or how frequently the influence occurs, and what trajectories it takes [16, 17]. Implying a historical perspective on teacher beliefs is important, as teachers often refuse to incorporate new knowledge if teacher beliefs and prior language learning experience are not addressed (see the seminal work of Johnson [18]). However, a handful of studies in native English-speaking countries have been dedicated to studying the phenomenon, which is even rarer in ESL and EFL contexts [19]. Lortie’s [20] study indicated that apprenticeship of observation influences teacher beliefs, which is evident in the literature [21]. Studies have reported a strong influence of prior language learning in teaching [22] and have similarly reported an anti-apprenticeship observation [16]. Given the paucity of research that has investigated teachers’ belief in OCF in relation to prior language learning experience, it is premature to conclude what the impact of teachers’ language learning experience is on their beliefs and practice of providing OCF and how it may mediate in shaping teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices ([6] studied the phenomenon partly).
Given the paucity of research investigating the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices on OCF in relation to prior language learning experience, the objectives of the current study are as follows:(i)To determine the beliefs that EFL teachers have about the role and type of OCF.(ii)To investigate the relationship between the beliefs of English teachers about the role and provision of OCF and their classroom practices.(iii)To explore how prior language learning experience influences English teachers’ beliefs regarding the role and type of OCF.
2. Language Teacher Beliefs
Despite their long research history, there has not yet been a consensus on how to describe the beliefs of language teachers. Pajares [23] has seen belief as “an individual’s judgment of the truth or falsity of a proposition, a judgment that can only be inferred from a collective understanding of what human beings say, intend, and do” (p. 316). According to Skott [24], as summarised and cited in Borg and Alshumaimeri [25] (p. 11), “different definitions of belief highlight four core elements: (1) they refer to ideas that individuals consider to be true; (2) they have cognitive and affective dimensions; (3) they are stable and result from substantial social experiences; (4) they influence practice.” This lack of definable material left educational researchers with no choice but to rely on the stated beliefs extracted through interviews and questionnaires.
Although there is no underlined theory that can explain language teachers’ beliefs, Borg [2] created a model that forms the mindset of teachers and describes their interactions: including (a) classroom practice, including practice teaching; (b) professional coursework; and (c) schooling, described as personal education history. The model explains how teacher cognition interacts with different components, such as their schooling, professional coursework, and teachers’ classroom practices. Teacher beliefs play a major role in trying to shape teacher practices and, therefore, learning outcomes [15–17]. Thus, the significant theoretical contribution of Simon Borg’s work is that it establishes the relationship between teacher cognition, teacher learning, and classroom practice. Teachers’ learning embraces two primary dimensions: schooling and professional coursework [2]. Schooling, as defined by Borg [2], is the personal history and experience of the classroom, which defines the preconceptions of teachers and teaching. On the other hand, professional coursework, both preservice and in-service, impacts existing cognition. However, the effect might be limited if the teachers’ schooling is unacknowledged.
2.1. Language Teacher Beliefs and Prior Language Learning Experience
Borg [2] explained how language teachers’ beliefs can be influenced by different components, such as their schooling, personal history, and experience as a language learner, which defines the preconceptions of teachers and teaching. Borg [2] coined the term schooling, which is synonymously defined as previous language learning experience, and most second- or foreign-language teachers possess years of experience as language learners when they enter the classroom to teach. Similarly, the seminal work of Lortie [20] alluded to the phenomenon as the apprenticeship of observation. Previous experience of teachers learning language can impact teachers’ beliefs, shape their classroom practices, and impact the outcomes of professional coursework. As Borg [19] “suggests that the initial conceptualisation of teaching and learning that preservice teachers bring to teacher education is shaped by previous language learning experiences” (p. 164). It is also essential because teachers’ images of instruction are based on largely unarticulated yet deeply ingrained everyday assumptions and concepts about language, language learning, and language teaching that are shaped by their own foreign language instructional histories and lived experiences [26].
Although not in large numbers, the impact of schooling on teacher cognition is evident in recent existing imperial studies. However, the results are not yet definite regarding to what extent or how frequently the influence occurs and what trajectories it takes. For example, Moodie’s [16] study reported an anti-apprenticeship observation among the participants. Congruently, Yigitoglu and Belcher [22] found that teachers observed the same pattern in their teaching that they had experienced while learning language in their schools. Davin et al. [27] found that the impact of previous learning experiences forms a mixed trajectory in shaping teachers’ beliefs and practices. Davin et al. [27] indicate that the impact may vary from teacher to teacher. The study of Lucas et al. [28] found that a number of young teachers initially hold a deficit understanding regarding language teaching and language learners. Although not definitive, evidently, teachers do have a preconception about language teaching that they may accept or reject as a teacher.
2.2. OCF
In L2 teaching, while CF refers to the teacher’s response to learners’ errors [29], OCF is the teacher’s “response to learner utterances that contain an error” ([30], p. 28). The OCF addresses the gap between the problematic interlanguage and the target language form in case of any incorrect utterance. Theoretically, the rationale of OCF could be explained by drawing on Gass’s [4] framework of theoretical contributions to theoretically explain and argue the facilitative role of OCF in the development of L2 knowledge. Gass [4] reinforced the significance of OCF by capitalising on the place of input and interaction in SLA. Gass’s framework highlighted five stages that are involved in learning a second language: (1) apperception, (2) comprehended input, (3) intake, (4) integration, and (5) output. The learner begins to notice the disparity between what is his current state of knowledge and what he has yet to know during the appreciation stage. The characteristic of the comprehended input stage is the beginning of acquiring an awareness or comprehension of the elements of the feedback or input. Intake is an assimilation procedure in which learners generalise new knowledge by comparing it to prior knowledge. When input either leads to explicit knowledge development or transforms into brain storage for later use, the integration stage begins. Finally, in the output stage, learners test their hypotheses in language production, which is the explicit manifestation of the acquisition process.
As long as these five stages of processing are followed, OCF can be helpful in facilitating the development of L2. In the first phase, apperception, OCF attracts attention to the difference between input and incorrect language production. This occurs within the first stage. It is the first step toward the development of a second language because being aware of the gap motivates students to study [4]. In the received comprehension phase, the OCF is used as a comprehensible input, and the input is easier to understand, as it is little more than the current level of language proficiency. During the intake stage, the participants compare the new information they receive in the form of feedback with the grammatical rules that they have already internalised, and then they formulate hypotheses regarding the language (fourth stage: during integration). Learners have the opportunity to engage in conversation with their instructors and generate new linguistic output through the use of OCF. The research that has been conducted thus far indicates that OCF can also help with the development of L2. On the other hand, the usefulness of OCF and its effects depend on factors such as the type of OCF [7].
Grounded in the seminal work of Lyster and Ranta’s [31] taxonomy of six types of OCF, [32] incorporated the further distinction of OCF based on the study of Lyster and Saito [33] and Sheen and Ellis [34]. Lyster and Saito [33] divided them into two major categories based on the type of correction, based on input and output, where reformulations are more input-providers and prompts are output-prompting. Sheen and Ellis [34] introduced more distinctions based on the essence of CF’s implicitness and explicitness. Sheen and Ellis [34] have conceptualised reformulations and prompts for additional distinctions based on the explicit and implicit nature. They explained that clarification requests and repetition are examples of implicit prompts, whereas elicitation and metalinguistic clues are explicit prompts. This means that the type of CF learners who will notice more is explicit; in contrast, the types of CF that receive less notice tend to be implicit in nature. Furthermore, from the teachers’ perspective, Sheen and Ellis’s [34] taxonomy distinguishes between explicit and implicit CF based on their intention to provide correct forms. The continuum presented above (Figure 1) of the OCF taxonomies provided by Lyster et al. [32] was utilised for the OCF conceptual analysis in the current study of what teachers believe is effective in correcting the error of learners using these OCF types. These six types of OCFs are described here with relevant examples in Table 1.
2.3. Teacher Beliefs and Practices of OCF
While the literature explains the functionality of OCF in the development of L2, there are a variety of educational and teaching factors. One of them is the teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices of OCF, which may encourage or hinder the effectiveness of OCF in classroom practice [5]. Teachers develop beliefs about specific instruction practices with regard to providing input and often need to make decisions in their instruction on “Why” and “When” to provide OCF. This exposure to teacher beliefs was preceded by a growth in the proportion of OCF enquiries—teacher reactions to learner language errors—as demonstrated by several studies and meta-analyses on this subject (e.g., [5]). Pedagogically, teachers are familiar with OCF because most of them make use of OCF in their classroom practices [35]. In addition, it is important to understand the relationship between teacher beliefs and their classroom practices regarding OCF types since OCF can be influenced by teachers’ views about the utility and the best way of giving OCF to oral errors in the class. Teachers’ beliefs and practices are unpredictable in relation to OCF. For example, Roothooft [36] explored the relationship between OCF beliefs and classroom practices. The findings suggested that although teachers believed feedback is important, most teachers were unaware of the types of OCF and the amount of OCF they aimed to provide to students. Additionally, beliefs and practices also varied in terms of the types of OCF they provided. Studies, such as that of Olmezer-Ozturk [37], reported congruencies regarding the amount of feedback teachers would provide in the classroom. Prior studies found that teachers were inconsistent with the types of feedback they provided and believed they would provide. They reported favouring recasts while stating their beliefs; however, they provided more explicit corrections in their classroom practice (see [10]). Similarly, Ha and Murray [13] investigated EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding OCF beliefs and practices in Vietnam. Although teachers stated that pronunciation errors were the most important target for correction in the primary context, lexical errors accounted for the majority of total errors corrected in practice. Teachers also believe that recasting is the most effective OCF type because it facilitates communication and is less interrupting to learners, and these implicit OCF types, as they believe, promote learners’ autonomy [38]. The distribution of other OCF types, such as the explicit nature of corrections, has been shown to vary noticeably across contexts and infrequently in some studies [39]. The explicit type of reformulation, as the name suggests, explicit correction, has been found to be popular among learners; however, teachers hold a mixed opinion about its utility [40].
Several causes contributed to these disparities in teachers’ beliefs and practices of OCF. Kamiya and Loewen’s [41] study investigated the role of professional training on teachers’ OCF beliefs and practices and discovered that reading articles about OCF had a substantial impact on their cognition and practice. Curriculum, lesson focus, and learner individualities were also found to influence teachers’ OCF beliefs and behaviours [14, 15, 42]. Nonetheless, research on the impact of prior language learning experience on teachers’ OCF attitudes and practices is scarce. Junqueira and Kim [43] conducted the only study that examined the influence of apprenticeship observation on teachers’ beliefs and practices and discovered a strong association with apprenticeship observation influencing teachers’ attitudes more than professional training programmes. This study, therefore, was conducted to provide a more in-depth understanding and explanation of the impact of prior language learning experiences on EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices of OCF.
In the context of Bangladesh, issues related to teachers in the language classroom have been identified as a key issue [44–46]. However, issues related to teacher cognition have not been studied widely. The study of Rahman et al. [47] explored teachers’ beliefs and practices of communicative language teaching (CLT) through multiple case studies. The two case studies have been found to take several trajectories in regard to their belief and practice of CLT. Several of their beliefs are congruent with CLT concepts, including their beliefs and practices related to OCF [48]. However, in their classroom practice, some of the beliefs could not be implemented due to contextual impediments such as large classrooms and time. In a recent phenomenological study, Rahman et al. [49] explored this issue. Bangladeshi secondary teachers’ beliefs and practice of curriculum implementation employing Fullan’s [50] curriculum framework and Borg’s [2] framework of teacher beliefs. Their study, to an extent, was able to demonstrate the problem associated with teachers’ practices. Several contextual factors, such as lack of training, unacknowledged teacher needs, and mismatch between curriculum aim and assessment policy, prevented them from implementing the curriculum in practice. Since the impact of teacher education on the beliefs of Bangladeshi English is limited, it is important to determine the source of teachers’ beliefs. The sources of teacher beliefs have been explored. Karim et al. [51] explored teachers’ beliefs and practices and found that their beliefs are influenced by several factors, such as school environment and their experience as a learner. Their previous learning experience as a learner. Therefore, by problematising the issue related to prior learning among secondary English teachers in Bangladesh and its influence on their present belief in an essential aspect of instruction, such as OCF, this study will contribute to overall teacher development in this context.
3. The Multiple Case Studies
The research employed a multiple case study research design to collect data from two EFL teachers in Bangladesh. In the context of Bangladesh, issues related to teachers in English language classrooms have been identified as a key issue [45, 46]. However, issues related to teacher cognition have not been studied widely, especially in light of their prior language learning experience [52]. The study of Rahman et al. [47] explored teachers’ beliefs and practices of CLT through multiple case studies. The two case studies have been found to take several trajectories in regard to their belief and practice of CLT. Several beliefs of the teachers were found congruent with CLT concepts, including their beliefs and practices related to OCF [48]. However, in their classroom practice, some of the beliefs could not be implemented due to contextual impediments such as large classrooms and time. In a recent phenomenological study, Rahman et al. [49] explored this issue. Bangladeshi secondary teachers’ beliefs and practice of curriculum implementation employing Fullan’s [50] curriculum framework and Borg’s [2] framework of teacher beliefs. Their study, to an extent, was able to demonstrate the problem associated with teachers’ practices. Several contextual factors, such as lack of training, unacknowledged teacher needs, and mismatch between curriculum aim and assessment policy, prevented them from implementing the curriculum in practice. Since the impact of teacher education on the beliefs of Bangladeshi English is limited, it is important to determine the source of teachers’ beliefs. Therefore, by problematising the issue related to prior learning among secondary English teachers in Bangladesh and its influence on their present belief in an essential aspect of instruction, such as OCF, this study will contribute to overall teacher development in this context.
The case of Misha and Zayed (pseudonym) that has been reported in this study is part of a larger study that was initiated in September 2020. Qualitative analyses (e.g., case studies) provide in-depth understandings of any component of a teacher’s cognition through the use of qualitative data collection instruments, be it their beliefs, attitudes, or knowledge [2]. To select the case for the study, several criteria were established. These are as follows:(1)Aware of the corrective feedback and its role and could hold positive or negative views (see [4] for the theoretical underpinning of the noticing hypothesis).(2)Able to articulate their beliefs regarding the role and provision of OCF and their classroom practices of OCF in response to oral errors of the students (see [32] for OCF taxonomy).(3)Be possessed an educational history that could be able to demonstrate the influence of prior language learning on teacher beliefs and classroom practices in relation to OCF (see the concept of schooling by Borg [2]; apprenticeship of observation by Lortie [20]).
Taking these criteria into account, Misha and Zayed were selected as the case in this study. Written consent was obtained before the data collection. The anonymity and confidentiality of the institution and participants’ information will be assured throughout the research [53]. Any information provided by the research participants will remain anonymous and confidential to the researchers.
Misha’s school has been a high-performing secondary school in Bangladesh for the last 5 years, with a remarkable passing rate of 100%. English is a subject required for all grades, beginning in the first grade. He has been teaching English for 4 years at the same school. Misha holds a Master of Arts (MA) degree in teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) and a Bachelor of Arts degree in English. His undergraduate major was a combination of English literature and linguistics; therefore, he was unfamiliar with many aspects of English language teaching in EFL contexts. However, during his MA in TESOL, he had familiarised himself with many aspects of TESOL. He attended the government’s teaching training for secondary English teachers. He is well acquainted with the theory and methods of language learning and teaching, as well as OCF, and he provides students with OCF in his classroom practice. He also has OCF experience in his school while learning English. Misha also taught listening and speaking to the components of the textbook. Since he had taught the same teaching and material under the same curriculum, he could comment on his OCF beliefs about his practice.
Similarly, Zayed is an EFL teacher based in Dhaka. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in teaching English as a foreign language and an MA degree in English language. He teaches English in the context of the L2 programme and has 3 years of experience doing so. His school is the average high-performance secondary school. After graduation, he joined the current school and received further training under the National Curriculum and Textbook Board. During the initial conversation about the study between the researcher and the participant, Zayed was found to be an appropriate case for the study since he fulfilled all inclusion criteria based on the objective of the study mentioned above, which is that Zayed is aware of the OCF and provides OCF in his classroom to address student errors and is used to receiving OCF provided by his teachers while learning language.
3.1. Data Collection: Instruments and Procedures
Several sources of evidence have been introduced in this research to obtain a description of the phenomenon to ensure the in-depth nature of the case study [54] and to allow the results to be triangulated. Two types of data collection instruments were used, as indicated in Borg [2]: thought-based data (in-depth interviews, scenario ratings, and stimulated recalls) and practice-based data (classroom observation). Table 2 provides a summary of the procedures and instruments used to extract data for each research question.
When following a clear line of inquiry, key questions in a case study interview are likely to be flexible rather than fixed [55] and must include second-level (following) questions to determine why a particular phenomenon is happening (see [54]). Adopting that, questions remained flexible for follow-up questions to determine why and how. Interview 1, titled “Interview Questions on Teachers’ Beliefs Regarding Oral Corrective Feedback,” was instrumented to determine what teachers’ beliefs regarding OCF are and how they want to deal with them in the classroom (Appendix A). The interview question items were adapted and rephrased from several previous studies (see [37, 56, 36]).
The scenario rating instrument was developed to understand teacher beliefs regarding OFC (see Appendix B). Adopting this data-gathering technique allowed teachers to express their views in relation to concrete examples of OCF (see [12]). Several prompts were given to the teachers to address an error following an excerpt from Lyster et al.’s [32] typology, which consisted of eight types of OCF before taking the questions. To capture Misha and Zayed’s classroom practices, four nonparticipant classroom observations were conducted (see Appendix C). All the classes were audio-recorded, and simultaneous field notes were taken using a semistructured observation protocol based on the time interval. The aim of the observation and used tools was to capture the teacher and as many students as possible to see their verbal interactions. The researcher’s field notes from observation were included as an essential tool to capture activities in the classroom. Classroom observations were followed by stimulated recall interviews (Appendix D), which provided the means to prompt teachers’ recollective thinking [2]. Stimulated recalls represented the rationale for providing or restricting OCF, in this study after observing classroom practice, based on Lyster et al. [32]:(1)No OCF by the teacher to an error by the student.(2)OCF by the teacher to an error by the student.(3)Rationale for using a particular type of OCF to an error.
The aim of Interview 2 (Appendix E) was to determine what teachers’ experience as learners regarding OCF was and how their teachers used to deal with their errors in the classroom. By linking their experience in the school in relation to the OCF, these reflective interview questions will allow you to understand the influence of teachers’ experience on their beliefs and practices in relation to OCF [16]. In Interview 2, these questions are similar to the questions that they were asked in Interview 1. However, in Interview 2, the questions were rephrased in relation to their own OCF experience in the classroom and how they were provided OCF and corrected by their teachers at that time to determine the impact of teachers’ prior experience of language learning in their teaching (see [16, 27]). To establish qualitative instrument validity, as Creswell and Poth [57] suggested, two subject matter experts who are renowned professors in the field of instructed second language acquisition were consulted to review the thought-based instruments used in this study.
3.2. Data Analysis
The data analysis of this study was ongoing and recursive, a feature of a qualitative study [58]. Interviews, scenario ratings, and stimulated recalls were analysed based on qualitative content analysis (see [12]). The analytical approach to the data analysis procedure was guided by Miles and Huberman [59], Cresswell and Poth [57], and Yin [54]. These involve: first, the transcription of the data. All the audio-recorded data will be transcribed in the first place, and repetitive reading of the transcripts will be done to eradicate probable flows such as missing data or repetition. Subsequently, the transcripts were sent to the teacher to verify them through the data. Second, data display. In the stage of analysis, the display data create a compressed and organised set of data. It included developing a coding scheme [60] and allowing categories and patterns to emerge and conclusions to be drawn. Two rounds of coding were conducted. In the first round, the data were coded using the initial coding manual. In the second round of coding, focused coding was used. This allowed the creation of initial categories to emerge. In the current study, several predicted patterns have been identified through the initial focus of the assessment based on the literature on teacher beliefs and OCF. Finally, a cross-case analysis was conducted, and conclusions were drawn. A cross-case study was conducted to establish similarities and differences in the OCF beliefs between the two cases for each data set. At this point, the rival patterns and logics were discussed [54] to make the analysis robust and valid. For example, if the first case Misha believes that all errors should be corrected, this pattern of belief would be compared with the other case, Zayed, to determine if they held similar or different beliefs. Finally, conclusions were drawn to address the research questions by reviewing the data and examining the relationships repetitively.
The analysis of the practice-based data from the classroom involved combining the transcription of recorded data with field notes to develop codes and episodes to identify the characteristics of each episode. To transcribe the classroom observational data, the audio records of the classroom were listened to repeatedly. Together with the transcription and field notes taken during the classroom observation, all episodes that contained an error that the students had made during their oral production were identified. This is based on the criterion that only counts errors and OCF (or no OCF)—whether grammatical, lexical, or pronunciation were identified and included and excludes classroom data that do not contain a student oral error. Since the transcription and field notes are combined, the chances of missing the error episode are reduced to a minimum. OCF was treated as the same as reactive focus on form. The classroom data were then divided into two types: (1) an OCF for the error and (2) no OCF for the event. Teachers’ response (OCF or no OCF), followed by an oral error, was considered an episode. The OCF taxonomy of Lyster et al. [32] was used to code the OCF types in the classroom episodes.
3.3. Findings and Discussion
In this section, the findings of the case studies are reported. RO1 was asked to determine the OCF beliefs of two cases, Misha and Zayed, regarding the role and type of OCF. RO2 aimed to explore the relationship between their OCF beliefs and classroom practices in relation to OCF. RO3 aimed to find out how prior language learning experience influences beliefs of Misha and Zayed regarding the role and type of OCF.
4. RO1: To Determine the Beliefs that EFL Teachers Have about the Role and Type of OCF
4.1. Misha’s Beliefs about the Role of OCF and the Type of OCF Used
Misha expressed his preference to correct the oral errors of the learners during the interview and believes that OCF plays an important role in the language development of the learners. However, the scenario rating highlighted that at times they did not provide OCF on learner errors. As Misha stated by highlighting the importance of OCF in learning, “It is important for them to be aware of their errors, which will help them learn” (Misha). Misha believes accuracy is also important, and OCF helps in this regard. He stated, […] although the CLT approach focuses more on fluency, I think accuracy is important and to ensure accurate production of learners, as a teacher you must provide OCF. Misha also filled out the scenario ratting activity, where he mentioned his preference for OCF. The following excerpt has been taken from his response in scenario rating:
Extract 1 of Scenario Rating(1)T: Does he have any children?(2)S: He has only one child.(3)If you believe that you would correct the error, please explain why?(4)I would correct the student by highlighting the error, and it is important for learners to learn the singular form of children. (Misha)
Misha highlighted that in terms of effectiveness, explicit OCF outweighs implicit OCF. He believes in employing explicit corrections to alert learners to their mistakes and indicates places where they need to practise more. In his words, “Providing feedback that learners realise is essential, especially with weaker students” (Misha). He explained that students also want to know their flaws as explicitly as possible: they require a correction that indicates their flaws directly so that they can correct. This reason behind teachers’ beliefs about OCF correction has also been found to be popular among learners in the study of DeKeyser [40]; however, teachers have a mixed opinion about its utility. His beliefs regarding the explicit type of reformulation are also reflected in his scenario rating responses. In response to the scenario rating prompt, he chose to use an explicit correction with the following explanation.
Extract 2 of Scenario Rating(1)T: Does he have any children?(2)S: He has only one child.(3)T: “We do not say one child (stressed). You should say: he has only one child (stressed).”(4)I believe that all the abovementioned examples at times would be difficult to pick out by learners who commit such errors. I would categorically indicate that the use of the plural form was not grammatically right. In addition, I would directly provide him with the correct form.
In summary, the rationale for the use of OCF provided by Misha is primarily that students normally would not be able to realise that they have committed an error unless the teacher highlights it explicitly. Misha’s beliefs could be rationalised by the role of input and interaction.
4.2. Zayed’s Beliefs about the Role of OCF and the Type of OCF Uses
Zayed, on the other hand, was found to possess similar views regarding the importance of OCF in classroom teaching. As he mentioned, I make sure the learners do not repeat the same mistake again and again (Zayed). Although he argued similarly on behalf of the importance of teachers’ input in the form of OCF, he categorically explained, in the scenario ratting, how he avoids correcting any errors on the first occasion and only corrects the most frequent errors of the learners and those that impact the overall meaning. Emotional reactions to OCF can have a negative impact on the motivation and anxiety of learners. As he added in response to the same scenario rating question:
Scenario Rating Extract 3(1)T: Does he have any children?(2)S: He has only one child.(3)If you believe that you would correct the error, please explain why?(4)It will depend on whether the learner is making such errors regarding the singular or plural for the first time or if they happen frequently. If it is an occasional one, I would rather overlook it. Otherwise, it may negatively affect the learner’s motivation to communicate in class. However, as I mentioned, I would correct it if such errors occurred every time. As a teacher, I cannot allow him to commit the same mistake every time (Zayed).
Furthermore, Zayed also mentioned an important rationale that, being a teacher, he often provides feedback as it is expected by the learners, as well as popular beliefs in the context: “We need to give feedback. Most of the students expect to be corrected, and it is the culture of teaching and learning here. If you do not, you are not considered a good teacher” (Zayed).
Zayed’s beliefs about OCF differed greatly from Misha’s. Although he believes that the input-providing OCF is crucial, according to him, teachers should provide student correction implicitly. He is also familiar with the OCF-type, recast. According to him, “It is truly unfair to stop a student and say that you are wrong, and this is the correct one; it is humiliating and can negatively impact their motivation.” Instead of providing an explicit correction, he believes that he should reformulate an error with a recast. As he puts it, “I would provide the correct form with the correct form and the student will understand which part of his utterance was wrong.” Zayed’s beliefs about OCF are also reflected in his response to the scenario rating. In response to the scenario rating prompt, he chose to use recasting with the following explanation:
Scenario Rating Extract 4(1)T: Does he have any children?(2)S: He has only one child.(3)T: “Oh, he has only one child.”(4)Instead of explicitly highlighting the correct input to the learners’ errors in front of the entire class, I prefer to repeat the correct form of the answer. It will help the student to know that the singular form of children is child.
The importance of reformulation has also been demonstrated by Zayed’s interview and his responses in scenario ratings. In summary, although Zayed believed errors should be corrected, he also highlighted the importance of being as implicit as possible while providing OCF.
The first objective of the study was to determine the beliefs of EFL teachers regarding the role and type of OCF. Zayed’s beliefs differ from those of Misha in terms of explicitness. In regard to efficacy, reformulation, such as recasting, is beneficial to learning because it helps to avoid worries. Misha and Zayed were found to be influenced by the role of input and interaction. Both of the teachers were found to have positive beliefs about OCF. However, Zayed mentioned some crucial considerations while providing OCF, especially when he would provide error and when not; however, he believed that learners receive, process, and learn from the new input from the teachers through OCF. In addition, mismatches were found in terms of providing the type of OCF by both teachers. While both believe that reformulation is important to highlight learners’ errors, their beliefs differ in terms of the explicitness of reformulation.
5. RO2: To Investigate the Relationship between English Teachers’ Beliefs Regarding the Role and Provision of OCF and their Classroom Practices
5.1. The Relationship between Misha’s Beliefs and the Classroom Practices of OCF
Misha has provided OCF on almost all occasions. He provided a total of 37 OCF out of 43 errors that occurred during the observed lessons. His lessons went smoothly, as he confirmed in the postobservation interview. He added: “The entire lesson of the speaking class went well, I recon. I could achieve the overall goal of the session.” Regarding the missed or ignored errors, he explained it as follows during stimulated recall prompts:
Extract of stimulated recall 1(1)Researcher: Please listen carefully to the recording. This is an incident of error that occurred in the 27th minute of the session. You did not give OCF on the student’s error.(2)Misha: I somehow missed those errors; I think I would have corrected the learner on those occasions that you have indicated.
While stating his beliefs regarding the use of OCF, Misha mentioned explicitly that learners need OCF in the classroom. Misha corrected, although not every error, a larger proportion of oral errors in his classroom practices. However, in the case of Misha, strong beliefs regarding correcting oral errors of learners were reflected in his classroom practices, especially regarding the amount of OCF in learners’ errors.
Misha’s classroom practices revealed several incongruencies between his beliefs and practices of the OCF type. On several occasions, he provided a recast instead of explicit corrections while providing the OCF. For example:
Observation excerpt 1:(1)T: Did Rony do right or wrong?(2)S: Rony did right because his friend Tamim hit a motorcycle.(3)T: I see, Tamim was hit by a motorcycle.
Extract of stimulated recall 2(1)Researcher: Please listen to the recording. This is an incident of error that took place in the 14th minute of the session. You have provided an OCF to the learner on his error, however, as you can notice you did not use an explicit correction.(2)Misha: You saw how he, along with other students, was answering my queries. The class became communicative. I thought I should only highlight the correct form; he would realise his mistake.
In the stimulated recalls, he explained his actions of avoiding explicit correction as the demand of the classroom. He just did not want to break the momentum of the communication between the students by saying something that may have inhibited them from communicating. Although Misha holds a strong belief that errors should be corrected and should be corrected explicitly, considering learner factors such as motivation and probable communicative breakdown due to explicit correction, he could not use it.
5.2. The Relationship between Zayed’s Beliefs and the Classroom Practices of OCF
Zayed’s classroom instruction went as planned. His OCF practices also corresponded to his beliefs. He provided a total of 23 OCF out of 39 errors that occurred during the observed lessons, which indicates that he was selective while providing students with OCF. As he pointed out, “I believe the entire speaking class lesson went nicely.”
Regarding the missed or ignored errors, he described that some of those errors were skipped intentionally and that the rest were not intentional:
Extract of Stimulated Recall 3(1)Researcher: Please listen carefully to the recording. The first two incidents of error occurred in the 5th and 12th minutes of the session. No OCF was given by you to the student’s error.(2)Zayed: I somehow missed the first error. However, I decided to ignore the second one intentionally as it was not breaking the communication. I think I would have corrected the learner on the first occasion that you have indicated.
While stating his beliefs regarding the use of OCF, Zayed mentioned that learners need OCF in the classroom; however, he would provide them with implicit types of OCF to avoid anxiety and embarrassment in the class. Zayed corrected a larger proportion of oral errors in his classroom practices. However, in some instances, he did not correct the errors. Zayed’s strong beliefs regarding providing OCF to learners were reflected in his classroom practices as well, especially regarding the effect of the amount of OCF on learners’ errors.
Zayed’s classroom practices were largely congruent with his stated beliefs regarding OCF and the type of OCF he would prefer in the classroom.
Observation excerpt 2:(1)T: Where did Bangabandhu (the father of the nation) send the girls on that night?(2)S: They were sent to a safe place near Dhanmondi 15.(3)T: Thank you. Yes, they were sent to Dhanmondi 15.
In the stimulated recalls, Zayed explained that although he holds a strong belief that errors should be corrected, as he stated, he prefers avoiding explicit correction, as it breaks the momentum of the communication. Considering learner factors such as motivation and probable communicative breakdown, he used implicit correction.
RO2 explored the relationship between the OCF beliefs of Misha and Zayed and their classroom practices of OCF. They expressed their preference to correct oral errors of the learners during the interview and believe that OCF has an important role in the language development of the learners and their distinctive preference for OCF. Although Zayed’s beliefs were largely reflected in his classroom practices, Misha found that he ignored several errors and sought implicit correction, whereas his strong preference for explicit correction was evident in the interview and scenario ratings.
6. RO3: To Explore How Prior Language Learning Experience Influences English Teachers’ Beliefs Regarding the Role and Type of OCF
6.1. Influence of Misha’s Prior Language Learning Experience on His OCF Beliefs
The influence of Misha’s prior language learning experience, as indicated in Interview 2, is evident in his belief. His experience of learning a language was restricted to learning the rules of grammar and memorising composition, although at that time, CLT had already been introduced in secondary-level English education in Bangladesh. Because of the grammar-translation method’s (GTM) stronghold in language teaching at the time, GTM inspired many techniques and strategies for language teaching. As a result, the OCF practices of his teachers were very frequent. According to Misha: My belief originates from my personal experience of language learning. In particular, because the language teaching approaches were supplemented by GTM at that time and teachers were strongly adhering to these norms, students received careful attention for making errors. In addition, believe it or not, they not only provided us feedback but also scolded us and on occasion, physically punished us. (Misha)
He further added that “none of our errors were overlooked and all the errors were corrected in front of the entire class.” According to Misha, these corrections helped him eradicate his errors, both oral and written. As he stated, “I hold my teachers to a high standard and expect them to address my mistakes. When they noticed that I had made a mistake, they quickly came to my rescue and corrected me. Therefore, I also find it useful to use with my students.”
His rationale for providing students with OCF is largely due to students’ expectation that they will be corrected, which was also inspired by his language learning experience. According to him, as a language learner, he also expected OCF from his teachers. He feels that error correction can help L2 growth as a result of such experience:
I needed to be reminded of my flaws. I was not sure if I was saying anything correctly. Obtaining OCF from a teacher might be beneficial in these situations. It gave me confidence that my words were correct. I make an effort to do the same with my students (Misha).
6.2. Influence of Zayeds’s Prior Language Learning Experience on His OCF Beliefs
The influence of Zayed’s prior language learning experience is evident in his belief. However, it influenced negatively, which Moodie [16] suggested as anti-apprenticeship. Similar to Misha, Zayed’s experience of learning a language was also restricted to learning the rules of grammar and memorisation. Although CLT had already been introduced in secondary-level English education in Bangladesh, which emphasises fluency, due to the stronghold of the GTM in language teaching at the time, the OCF practices of his teachers were very frequent. Such practices of Zayed’s teachers compelled him to avoid such OCF practices, as he found those practices humiliating for language learners. According to Zayed: My negative opinion stems from my personal experience with language learning. We used to memorise grammar and vocabulary because GTM was the dominant language teaching approach at the time, and teachers were strict about these norms. As a result, we were warned not to make mistakes. They not only provided feedback but also scolded us, which was humiliating. In my class, I try to avoid such activities. These encounters are terrifying for students.
He further added that such corrective measures on oral language output negatively impacted motivation and increased anxiety. As he mentioned, “errors were treated negatively whenever there is any, and it restricted us from communicating in the classroom.” According to him, “those corrective feedbacks were devastating and negatively impacted my communicative competence as well.” From there, he developed his beliefs regarding OCF to correct students’ errors, and teachers should be cautious about their students’ psychology while using OCF in the classroom.
7. Discussion and Conclusions
The findings of the case study revealed the beliefs of two language teachers, which are complex in nature and mainly influenced the classroom practices of the teachers and are influenced by the language learning experience of language teachers. In the case of the present study, different trajectories of beliefs and practices in relation to OCF unfolded. Several mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and practices were explored regarding their OCF beliefs and practices. Furthermore, it was also found that OCF beliefs of the presented case were largely influenced by their experience as a language learner.
While the English curriculum in the context of Bangladesh has adopted CLT [45], which encourages fluency and communication (see [61]), Misha and Zayed were found to be influenced by the role of input and interaction. Both of the teachers were found to hold positive beliefs regarding OCF. The role of interaction and input has been clearly articulated in the work of Gass [4], which seems to be in line with the beliefs of Misha and Zayed regarding OCF. This line of belief was found to be prevalent among EFL teachers in relation to their OCF (see [36, 62]).
OCF researchers assume that the success or failure of OCF in the development of instructional L2 depends on the method of providing OCF, such as what teachers think about OCF and how they practice it in the classroom ([6, 8]). Although Zayed mentioned some crucial considerations while providing OCF, especially when he would provide error and when not, both believed that learners receive and process and learn from the new input from the teachers through OCF. It indicates the gap between the current situation of the learners (e.g., error-containing output) and the desired correct form of output. The role of interaction and input has been clearly articulated in the work of Gass [4], which seems to be in line with his beliefs regarding OCF. It indicates the gap between the current situation (e.g., error-containing output) and the desired correct form of output [4]. This line of beliefs was found to be prevalent among EFL teachers in relation to their OCF (see [36, 62]), where teachers reported that errors should be corrected and should be corrected as explicitly as possible.
In addition, mismatches were found in terms of providing the type of OCF by both teachers. While both believe that reformulation is important to highlight learners’ errors, their beliefs differ in terms of the explicitness of reformulation. Such mismatches are evident in the literature. Li and Vuono [10] found that teachers were generally consistent about recast: they reported favouring recasts and opposing explicit feedback. It is primarily since recasts are considered for their implicit nature [39] to avoid embarrassment for learners and create a communicative friendly environment that is less interrupting to learners, promoting learners’ autonomy [38]. On the other hand, reformulation, such as explicit correction, has been found to be popular among learners; however, teachers hold a mixed opinion about its utility [39], which is also the case in these multiple case studies. Both Misha and Zayed differ in terms of their beliefs regarding the type of reformulation they would use in the classroom.
According to Borg [2], teachers’ beliefs are often manifested (or not) in their practices. Several matches and mismatches between their stated beliefs and classroom practices have been reported, as discussed above. Although some studies have reported that teachers’ OCF beliefs and classroom practices are congruent (e.g., [11]), several other studies have documented language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices to be inconsistent (e.g., [13, 36]). The findings of Roothooft’s [36] study suggested that although teachers believed feedback was important, most teachers were unaware of the amount of OCF they were aiming to provide to students in the classroom. Both Misha and Zayed provided students with a smaller number of OCFs than they thought they would provide. Misha’s classroom practices largely varied with beliefs; in fact, Misha did the opposite. Instead of explicit correction, Misha used recasts in his OCF primarily because recasts are considered due to their implicit nature, to avoid the embarrassment of learners and create a communicative friendly environment that is less interrupting to learners and promotes learners’ autonomy [38]. Such anomalies between teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices of OCF are common in the literature. Several prior studies reported that teachers believed they were providing a recast; however, they ended up providing explicit correction [5, 10, 39]. Zayed’s classroom practices were largely consistent with his beliefs. He provided more implicit OCF than explicit OCF, which he stated earlier in his belief statements. This finding was also similar to previous studies in which teachers were found to be consistent with the type of OCF they preferred [62, 37].
The influence of Misha’s prior language learning experience—a structural approach to language teaching such as GTM (see [61])—seems to have a strong influence on his OCF beliefs and practices, although they have different trajectories. His beliefs are influenced by his teachers’ OCF practices, which are primarily due to the language teaching approach of that time, GTM, indicating the relevance of apprenticeship of observation [20]. Misha, although believed to use explicit correction, which corresponds to his teachers’ classroom OCF practices, avoided it and preferred to avoid scolding students. In contrast, Zayed’s prior language learning experience seemed to be negatively impacted, which, to some extent, encouraged him to use OCF more carefully to avoid any probable humiliation in the language classroom. Additionally, classroom practices, which were confirmed through stimulated recalls, were found to have taken a different trajectory; he rejected several strategies that were used by their teachers while teaching, which Moodie [16] termed anti-apprenticeship of observation.
The findings of the study have important pedagogical and empirical implications. Teaching strategies and efficiency depend largely on teachers’ classroom practices. Teachers’ cognition influences their classroom practices [2]. According to Brown [5], it is even more important in the case of OCF since the efficacy of OCF is highly dependent on the way teachers provide feedback, leading to the learner’s uptake of language. OCF provides learners with opportunities to interact with teachers and produce new linguistic output, and the literature also shows that OCF can facilitate the development of L2 [7]. The cases in this study were also found to have similar beliefs in terms of language development. However, teachers and teacher education programmes should consider the dynamics or factors that exist in their context. According to the stimulated recall results, the teachers stated that there were contextual restrictions that they needed to consider while providing appropriate corrective feedback to their students in classroom practices. This study has pedagogical value since it illustrates that shaping teacher cognition is difficult and depends on other factors, such as learner psychology, classroom dynamics, and management. Teacher training programmes should incorporate these issues for future research as well. Therefore, the change in the teacher after attending the programme could be highlighted. Teachers should reflect on their beliefs as a part of their continuous professional development. Therefore, they can know the congruence/incongruencies between their stated beliefs and practices about OCF (and other important aspects of language teaching).
The present study is not beyond limitations. The present study also observed that both teachers occasionally overlooked the errors. This begs the question of whether teachers’ CF practices may be influenced by their command of the target language. Since assessing language proficiency of teachers was beyond the scope of the study, it has not been investigated. Further study is required to examine the potential connections between discourse skills, teacher proficiency, and OCF delivery. Future research can study important aspects, such as the experience of teachers, that influence their beliefs and classroom practices.
Appendix
A. Interview Questions on Teachers’ Beliefs Regarding Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF)
The purpose of these interview questions is to determine what your beliefs are about OCF and how you want to deal with them in the classroom. Please think about the student you are teaching and answer the following questions.(1)To what extent do you think that OCF is effective in learning? Does this have a positive or negative effect on language learning, and how?(2)Tell us your thoughts about the emotional reactions to OCF.(3)When do you believe that you would interfere and provide OCF for student error in spoken output?(4)What factors affect your error correction practices?(5)How do these factors affect your correction?(6)What is your opinion of the students’ expectations about OCF on their errors?(7)What do you think has been the most powerful influence on your OCF?(8)Tell us briefly about your OCF beliefs. Do you usually correct the errors of your students?(9)What type(s) of feedback do you use? Why do you prefer this type of feedback?(10)Which method of correcting the errors, do you think, is not useful or appropriate? Why?
B. Scenario Rating 1: Teacher Beliefs Regarding the Concept of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) in the Classroom
Section A
Please read the following excerpt from the typology of Lyster and Ranta [31] (p. 46–48) consisting of six types of OCF before proceeding to the questions.(1)Explicit correction: “The explicit provision of the correct form” where the teacher “clearly indicates that what the student ha (s) said (is) incorrect.”(2)Recasts: “The teacher’s reformulation of all or part of the student’s utterance, minus the error.”(3)Clarification requests: “Indicate to students either that their utterance has been misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way.”(4)Metalinguistic feedback (MF): “Comments, information or questions related to the well-formedness of the students’ utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form.”(5)Elicitation: “Teachers elicit completion of their own utterance by strategically pausing to allow students to fill in the blank.”(6)Repetition: “The teacher’s repetition, in isolation, of the student’s erroneous utterance (usually with adjusted intonation).”
Section B
Please read the following statements. For each statement, state whether or not you would correct the corresponding error; if yes, how. Please give an explanation of your choice.(1)Please note that the underlined words in the statements below indicate the error.
Statement 1: “He has only one children.”
T: Does he have any children?
S: He has only one child.
If you believe you would correct the error, please explain why?
If you believe you would not correct the error, please explain why?
Please note that the following underlined words in the statements indicate the error(s). Please take a look at the wide range of options to correct the error(s). If you want to provide one would, which one you prefer and explain why in the space provided.
Statement 1: “He has only one children.”
T: Does he have any children?
S: He has only one child.(i)“One child.”(ii)“No, what is the singular form of “children”?(iii)“Oh, he has only one child.”(iv)“He has one child. Is it a boy or a girl?”(v)“We don’t say one child (stressed). You should say: he has only one child (stressed).”(vi)“How many children did you say he has?”
C. Observation Protocol for Collecting Field Notes from the Observed Lesson
Class Size:
Date:
Time:
Lesson:
Observation Description:
Description of Classroom:
| Time and structure | Students’ utterances containing errors | Teacher’s action | Comment on the Event. |
D. Stimulated Recall Interview Questions and Prompts on the Practices of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF)
Post-observational interview questions
The purpose of the following questions is to check that teachers could be able to demonstrate their beliefs and practices in relation to OCF.(1)Did you find anything challenging to implement in your speaking lesson plan?(2)In any case, did the lesson plan influence your OCF practices?(3)During the entire lesson today, have any external factors influenced your OCF practices?
Stimulated recall extracts
Please listen to the episodes from the audio-recorded lesson and field notes from today’s class, particularly when your students made oral errors and your OCF practices, regardless of whether you have provided OCF or not. You can comment on the audio extracts and field notes based on the following events:(1)No OCF by the teacher to an error of the student.(2)OCF by the teacher to an error of the student.(3)Rationale of using a type of OCF to an error.
Responses can be long or short, as you want it to be. You can say, “I don’t remember” if you cannot remember what your thoughts at that time were. Particularly, if you were not thinking about anything in particular, you can say, “I wasn’t thinking about anything.” Please feel free, there is no right or wrong answer.
E. Interview Questions 2 on the Influence of Schooling on Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) Beliefs and Practices
The purpose of these interview questions is to determine what your experience as a learner is with regard to OCF and how your teachers deal with classroom errors. Please think about the past experiences you have had in the classroom, your teachers, and think about the following questions:(1)Would you like to share your experience of learning English at school?(2)Would you try to reflect on the language teaching methodology or approach that was used in the classroom?(3)Have you received OCF from your teachers as a language learner?(4)Have you found the OCF that your teachers have provided useful? Did you expect to be corrected every time you make an error?
Data Availability
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Institute of Postgraduate Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia Vice-Chancellor Award 2019, awarded to Mohammad Mosiur Rahman.