Date received: 17/10/2019 Date reviewed: 23/10/2019 Date accepted: 25/11/2019

Introduction

It is a well-known fact among teachers of English as a foreign language that the acquisition of the skills is a process that must take place gradually and have the appropriate strategies, not only for learning and practicing them but also for teaching them (Brown, 2000). This has led both educators and researchers to look deeply into an important part of the teaching process of a new language, as it is the assessment: how learners are made aware of their mistakes and how teachers feel about this unavoidable role.

In the specific case of handwriting correction, many aspects take part and become both motivating and inhibiting agents for both sides of the equation. Students do not always know what correction pattern is used by the teacher on duty, and teachers do not have a solid criterion for deciding which errors to penalize and which not. For this reason, this research allowed us to look deeper into the teaching practices regarding corrective feedback of writing, in this specific case, in texts written in English (Ellis, 2009).

While it is important to know which are the pedagogical strategies applied to the evaluation of written texts, it is no less important to understand why teachers choose certain criteria and how they feel after using them. Kuzborska (2011) has found that teachers' practices are aligned with beliefs and that is why this study seeks to delve into the educators' perception of writing errors, how they approach them and what influences their decision-making when selecting some strategies over others.

In this sense, it is undeniable that the beliefs that a teacher brings to the classroom are a strong predictor of behavior and, therefore, they have educational implications. There is increasing evidence that teachers' epistemic cognition is related to the way they conceive and engage in teaching. Therefore, teachers must develop adaptive epistemic cognition, that is to say, teachers' beliefs are directly related to their practices and have an impact on students' educational experiences and outcomes (Lunn, Ferguson and Ryan 2017).

However, it is considered that few practical outcomes have emerged to guide language teachers in the classroom and that is why this research is undertaken. This supports Ferris's (2011) idea of guiding research and debate on how to approach error handling with a sense of when and why we should do so. This study makes considerable contributions in this area, as it investigates not only the written error correction strategies most used by teachers but also the reasons behind the decisions made by English teachers in this regard.

How teachers respond to their students' written productions is an interesting field not only for teachers but also for teacher trainers. Teachers are sometimes facing the uncertainty of how to provide effective and meaningful written corrections: what is a mistake that needs to be corrected immediately for some may not be considered as such by others.

For this reason, this research is justified, since it provides interesting and significant data that serve as a basis for important changes or innovations, not only in the curricular design of teacher training programs in Venezuela but also in the implementation of workshops and extra-curricular professional development activities offered by different teacher organizations that provide teachers with opportunities for professional improvement.

In this way, the results obtained in this work make it possible to show aspects referring to written corrective feedback of texts in English as a foreign language that should be included as essential content in these courses to strengthen such programs to satisfy the theoretical and practical knowledge needs of future English teachers.

This research promotes a search for a deeper vision to reflect on what teachers do and what is behind their decisions in general, particularly when providing corrective feedback in writing, in contexts where the language is seen as a means of verbal and written communication. Specifically, Richards and Schmidt (2002, p.90) explain that "the goal of language learning is communicative competence, which tries to create meaningful communication and the use of language as the focus of classroom activities". As understood, the goal is that learners can communicate effectively, and use English to communicate coherent and cohesive messages.

To begin discussing the strategies found in this study, it is necessary to define corrective feedback from written expression. From a conceptual point of view, corrective feedback can be defined as the information provided to students about the performance of a task. Hence, one of the objectives of feedback would be to improve future performance (Ur, 1996). According to Brookhart (2008), the benefits of feedback extend to a motivational and cognitive level, since, at the cognitive level, feedback gives students the information they need, so they can understand their progress in learning and what they should do to improve further. At the motivational level, once students feel that they understand what they should do and why most of them will develop control over their learning. These two factors are part of the framework that involves corrective feedback from texts written in English as a foreign language.

For this research, corrective writing feedback is defined as the strategies used to provide written responses to the student productions that contain errors. Below, Table 1 summarizes the types of corrective feedback strategies present in this study.

Finally, it is necessary to explore previous studies that have specifically investigated teachers' practices and beliefs regarding corrective feedback of written texts in teaching-learning contexts of English as a foreign language and that have served as a reference when carrying out this research.

This is the case of Jodaiey Farrokhi (2012), who carried out a study in Iran to explore the perspectives of English teachers on feedback and their reasons for selecting certain strategies. The results show that teachers have very positive perceptions of correction and its potential use in English language teaching. It also concludes that teachers prefer to use direct feedback strategies while tending to point out all grammatical errors.

Similarly, the correlational study by Zangoei and Derakshan (2014) tried to examine the relationship between foreign language teachers' corrective feedback preferences and their attitudes towards the principles of communicative language teaching. The results confirmed the relationship between these two variables and found that metalinguistic feedback was the most frequently type selected by the participants.

In their study, Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers' reflections on their practices, Bailey and Gardner (2010) addressed a group of teachers' perceptions of the role and effectiveness of writing corrective feedback. According to the results, teachers have a variety of perceptions and beliefs about the purpose of corrective writing feedback. Besides, they are unsure of what they achieve and what students get out of it.

Also, Lee, Mak, and Burns (2015) conducted a study to examine how teachers implemented innovative feedback approaches in their writing class and the extent to which these innovative approaches impacted student attitude and performance. The results suggest that focused feedback is a viable option for responding to student writing, especially for low proficient students in English as a foreign language context.

Also, Duran and Carrillo (2017) conducted a study where they tested the different types of corrective written feedback and its effectiveness. The study used a quasi-experimental design to demonstrate that written corrective feedback is beneficial to the process of acquiring grammatical structures in texts written in English as a foreign language in the participants' learning context, both in the short and long term.

For their part, Saavedra and Espinoza (2018) present a mixed study entitled: Combining strategies for using focused written corrective feedback: A study with Chilean EFL students at the Upper Primary Level, in which they compare the written production of 60 students divided into three control groups in an English teaching program at a university in southern Chile. Analyzing the results, it is shown that there was a significant improvement in terms of grammatical usage.

The studies mentioned above serve as a framework and reference for the analysis of the data obtained in this research since they address important variables for this research such as the corrective feedback of written texts, their effectiveness, and the beliefs of both teachers and students in this regard.

Method

Design

Taking into consideration the nature of the data collected (both qualitative and quantitative) and to achieve the objectives proposed, this study uses the research design called mixed methods (Hamui-Sutton; 2013, Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2009).

This research is based on the concept of triangulation, depth, diversity, interpretative richness, and understanding sense (Brannen, 2005). This basis opens the opportunity to study in greater depth the written corrective feedback provided by teachers of English as a foreign language in Venezuela. This is because the instrument for collecting qualitative and quantitative data, when working together, yields information that allows for understanding this reality for its transformation.

Participants

For this mixed study, the population consisted of approximately 400 teachers of EFL As access and participation are almost impossible for absolutely all members of the population studied, a non-probabilistic sample was taken for convenience. The 173 subjects, that took part in this study, were contacted by the researcher and selected because of their willingness to participate. For this reason, no statistical formula was applied to calculate the sample, because it was voluntary, non-exclusive participation.

Variables

The following figure illustrates the classification of the variables studied which, to guarantee the quality and effectiveness of this research, was operationalized, analyzed, and correlated.

Objectives

The general objective of this research is to analyze the practices, beliefs, and perspectives used by teachers in the correction of writing in EFL at different levels and in different educational contexts in Venezuela. The specific objectives are: to identify the most frequent practices and strategies of corrective feedback of written expression among teachers of EFL; to establish the frequency with which teachers give their students' written corrective feedback; to define the beliefs that teachers have, regarding the correction of errors in writing; to examine the perspective that teachers have regarding the role that errors play in the teaching of writing in English; and, to analyze the criteria or factors that influence the teacher when deciding to penalize or not a writing error.

Instrument

To collect both qualitative and quantitative data, an online questionnaire called "Written Corrective Feedback: Analysis of the Practices and Beliefs of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language in Venezuela" was used. It not only contains behavioral questions to find out what respondents are doing or have done in the past, regarding written corrective feedback in the teaching of writing in EFL but also includes attitudinal questions to analyze the perspectives, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes of these English teachers.

Regarding validity, the questionnaire was examined by a panel of 10 experts in the field. Through a meta-analysis of the instruments, they indicated the areas that needed amendment, which allowed for the rewriting of some questions that were not clear enough. Finally, after having modified the instrument, taking into consideration the recommendations received, the experts determined that it met the technical conditions and it was in line with the objectives set out in this research. Regarding construct validity, the instrument was correlated with the objectives proposed for this research.

To determine the instrument reliability, a pilot sample was selected. It was formed by 10 teachers with similar characteristics to those of the population in this study. The pilot results, together with the recommendations made by the experts who evaluated it, also allowed for the revision and redesign of a more robust, reliable, and valid questionnaire.

Data Analysis

We follow a procedure in which the results obtained were compared and contrasted, allowing for triangulation of information to reach relevant and practical results, conclusions, and recommendations that are close to the educational reality experienced by teachers in Venezuela.

The process and analysis of the data was carried out using N-Vivo. The participants were coded with numbers to guarantee anonymity. All the answers to the questions or items were organized in a spreadsheet with the idea of classifying and analyzing data in an accessible way. All data was automatically saved and stored not only on N-vivo but also on Google Drive allowing access to these documents at any moment.

The quantitative data was studied by analyzing the appearance frequency of significant and relevant categories, with percentage values, which were graphed for better analysis of the results obtained.

To examine the qualitative data, they were organized by questions to identify similar, different, and significant characteristics or categories. For the analysis, a mixed coding or categorization procedure of the qualitative data was used: Some codes or categories were predetermined, while others emerged from the collected data.

To triangulate the data, the data obtained from the quantitative items were compared with those obtained qualitatively. The instrument was designed so that certain categories could be corroborated by analyzing both types of data to verify whether there was a divergence between what teachers reported as practices and beliefs regarding the supply of corrective feedback in their students' written texts.

Finally, the aim was to guarantee the quality and effectiveness of this mixed study by different means:

• Appropriate research design and methodology that can be evident to the professional and academic community through a meticulous description and methodological justification, as well as sufficient information about the context and the issue of the research.
• The guarantee of honesty in the responses by the participants' anonymity and their possible withdrawal from the study, when necessary.
• Piloting of instruments, expert judgment, and redesign given the evidence.
• Triangulation of mixed data.

Results

Corrective feedback practices

Regarding the types of corrective feedback strategies used in their classes, all the respondents argue that, depending on the level, age of the learners, and modality in which the English classes are conducted, they use more than one strategy.

Of all the strategies offered to the students, providing the student with the correct form of speech where there is an error is the most commonly used, followed by underlining the error, but not giving the correct form. On the other hand, according to the data obtained, the least used corrective feedback strategy consists of listing all the errors and giving a description of each one (see Figure 3).

Regarding the frequency with which teachers provide corrective feedback, first of all, the data collected show that the highest percentage of teachers correct two drafts of texts written by students. A total of 108 out of 173 participants correct between one and two drafts of the same text (Figure 4).

This finding is related to one of the emerging variables found during the comprehensive data analysis: the time and limited availability of teachers to provide corrective feedback to their students. This fact, together with other factors that intervene in the teaching-learning process such as the number of students per class, the objectives, and the level that is taught, among others, causes most teachers to review and correct by assignment between one or two drafts per student.

Regarding the number of errors corrected, firstly, as illustrated in Figure 5, 150 teachers claim to correct in a comprehensive manner, which means that all errors present in their students' texts are corrected. The reasons given are varied. The most mentioned by the participants are three: to avoid students making the same mistakes innumerably; the teacher's role as a model and mediator of the process of acquiring written skills; and the idea of grammatical accuracy as the ultimate goal of English classes.

Teaching beliefs and perspectives

According to the individual concepts expressed in the data collection instrument and shown in Figure 6, for the 173 Venezuelan teachers participating in this study, written corrective feedback is an interactive and participatory process that involves both students and teachers. Within the teaching-learning process of a foreign language, the purpose of correction goes beyond correcting an error. The aim is to show or investigate the correct form and think critically about it to progress in the learning process (40.46%).

For these professionals, this learning tool should be used to allow students to understand, analyze and reflect on the mistakes made to prevent them from happening again, as well as to promote the development of writing skills in English (53.18%).

Also, written corrective feedback provides teachers with meaningful information needed to evaluate student progress, as well as to provide valid data that allows teachers to plan class sessions that address the real academic needs of students, based on teacher analysis of student errors (6.36%).

It is also concluded that most teachers surveyed believe that corrective feedback is effective in reducing the number of errors that students make when writing in L2 since it is a very important tool for the development of the learning process:

• • It gives students opportunities to reflect on and analyze the mistakes made to use strategies to avoid making them again. Therefore, that creates awareness of the error and its correct form.
• • It remains in time and serves as a written resource for consultation in case of doubt.
• • They control their students' progress.
• • Offers guidance to both students and teachers to improve writing skills.
• • Allows personalizing the learning process of a foreign language.

Besides, as shown in Figure 7, the results collected show that the vast majority of respondents (94.80%) consider that errors play an important, essential and vital role in the teaching-learning process of EFL. On the one hand, taking into account the student's perspective, an error is seen by 76.30% of teachers as an opportunity to learn, improve and reflect on the way English works for communicative purposes. For these teachers, it is necessary and inevitable that students make mistakes. On the contrary, they help in language skills development.

Interestingly, 18.50% believe that, apart from playing a key role in the process of improving written skills and being a learning opportunity for students, mistakes also provide teachers with meaningful information not only about the progress and level of learners but also about the weaknesses that need to be addressed. In this way, the findings show that participants consider the role of the error to be important and necessary, since it allows them, as teachers, to conceive and plan relevant strategies that help learners to develop their full potential while improving their writing skills in English.

Regarding the sources of teacher influence, as shown in Figure 9, the findings state that the personal notion or concept that they have concerning teaching, learning, and errors, learning by observation, teacher education, professional development activities, professional experience, curriculum, institution features, time available for correction, among others, are some of the most frequently mentioned influence factors by this study participants.

Consequently, the results show that a significant number of teachers (52) indicate that their concept with relation to teaching, learning, and the role of error within English classrooms, is what most interacts with their pedagogical practice in this sense. Also, the most mentioned sources of influence were these teachers' experiences as students (41 answers), the teacher training courses that the participants took to obtain their university degree in teaching (25 answers), the experience within the classroom as teachers of EFL (20 answers) and different professional development activities (11 answers).

In analyzing the data, the results show that, with less impact, other sources of influence are indicated as important by some teachers. They claim that both institutional guidelines and the curriculum they are working with at the time, as well as the level of English they believe they possess and the time they can spend correcting their students' written texts, influence the way they provide written corrective feedback.

The results of the data analysis also underline the time as a factor that influences not only teachers but also the way their students use the given corrections. This means that the lack of time available that teachers suffer, influences not only the supply of corrective feedback on written texts but also the later revisions that students must make to improve their English writing skills.

Discussion and Conclusions

Once the findings from the use of the questionnaire designed to collect the necessary data for this research have been analyzed, this section develops a clear and precise statement of this study's conclusions following the objectives set out. Also, we present the limitations found during the development of this research and the possible implications derived from the results obtained.

Regarding the first specific objective: "To identify the most frequent practices and strategies of corrective feedback of written expression among teachers of English as a foreign language". It concludes that, of all the corrective feedback strategies available in this study, the first is to provide the student with the correct form of the sentence where there is an error. Therefore, it is the most used, the second is to underline the error found, but not to give the appropriate form.

Initially, according to the findings reported in this research, the written corrective feedback practices that teachers use in writing follow the typology of correction established by Ellis (2009) and Ferris (2011) and explained in the introduction. The use or supply of not one, but several strategies was indicated by these participants when they chose more than one option in the questionnaire.

On the one hand, current evidence indicates that, when it comes to providing corrective feedback on students' written texts, teachers prefer to provide the correct form. In this sense, these seem to be consistent with the results of other research carried out by Jodaie and Farrokhi (2012) that also concludes that teachers prefer to use direct feedback strategies such as providing students with the correct form of the error found.

On the other hand, the study results contradict the findings of Zangoei and Derakshan (2014), who found that metalinguistic feedback, or the use of codes to point out the type of error made, is the strategy most commonly used by English language teachers. This divergence may be since teachers in Venezuela indicate that they have very little time to correct written texts. Therefore, providing the correct form or simply underlining the error, but not giving the appropriate form directly on paper, is a faster and more practical way.

In response to the objective: "To establish the frequency with which teachers provide their students with written corrective feedback". This study indicates that most Venezuelan teachers correct between one or two drafts per student of the same text. The results also conclude that teachers corrected absolutely all errors found. Also, when teachers must decide on the number of drafts or versions to be corrected, their notion of the use of corrective feedback on written texts, as well as the time available, are factors that influence the supply of corrective feedback on their texts to students as a means of revising and improving writing in EFL in the classroom in Venezuela.

This corroborates again the findings of Jodaie and Farrokhi (2012), who found that their study participants, apart from preferring to use direct corrective feedback strategies, tend to correct all the errors found. Nevertheless, it is contrary to the findings of Lee et al. (2015), who indicate that selective written corrective feedback is the most widely used option. This may also be related to the belief that teachers in Venezuela have regarding correction when they brand it as necessary, vital, and important so that all errors should be corrected.

Taking into account the objective: "To define the beliefs that teachers have regarding the correction of errors in writing"; one may conclude that teachers believe that corrective feedback of written texts serves to:

• Correct errors and provide the correct form of the error found. This turns out to be the notion of corrective feedback as an opportunity for correction and error analysis.
• Create the necessary conditions that allow students to learn in a meaningful way, reflecting on and analyzing the mistakes made. In other words, the process of learning and developing writing skills is more important than the final product (writing without errors). This leads to an understanding of corrective feedback as a learning tool.
• To make informed decisions regarding evaluation and pedagogical strategies to be carried out in the classroom, to facilitate the teaching-learning process. This turns out to be the understanding of correction as a pedagogical and evaluation tool. .

The results obtained in this research support the findings of Bailey and Gardner (2010). On one hand, their results confirm one of the findings explained in previous paragraphs. These states that educators have a variety of beliefs about the corrective writing feedback purpose.

Taking into account the objective: "To examine teachers' perspectives on the role of errors in the teaching of writing in English as a foreign language"; it is shown that teachers see errors not only as an opportunity for the student learning but also as a source of valid information that allows them to anticipate problems and solutions when designing meaningful and relevant classes, based on the failures found in written texts The error role within the teaching-learning process of EFL is seen as important, relevant, primary and vital. By making mistakes, students are given an invaluable opportunity to learn the correct forms of the language, while reflecting on how English works for communicative purposes (Richards and Schmidt, 2002).

Then, to respond to the objective: "To analyze the criteria or factors that influence the teacher when deciding to penalize or not a writing error"; both quantitative and qualitative data from this research show that this decision-making process is many-sided and multidisciplinary. Therefore, the personal notion or concept concerning teaching, learning, and error, the experience as a student (learning by observation), university academic training, professional development, teaching experience, curricular and institutional features combined with the level of English that teachers possess and the time available for correction, are the factors that influence teachers and predict their practices regarding the supply of corrective feedback on texts written by students of EFL in Venezuela.

This finding validates the studies OF Duran and Carrillo (2017), and Saavedra and Espinoza (2018), as they support the idea, as does this research, that there are a significant number of sources of influence that can exist in the field of the correction of written texts and their effectiveness in improving grammatical accuracy. Most importantly, it is clear that what most influences teachers' decision-making in designing corrective feedback strategies is their notions of teaching-learning a foreign language. We can add how they believe students should acquire English, the role that they, as teachers, and error, as a learning opportunity, play in that process.

In conclusion, this study shows that giving corrective feedback is complex and exhausting, but the value of providing it appropriately and effectively to students is crucial for their learning and the development of their language and writing skills. Understanding how the English language works, planning lessons to meet different learning styles, managing mixed-ability classrooms appropriately, promoting interaction, enhancing students' individual and diverse motivations, and providing efficient and effective feedback, seems like a lot for a teacher, but teaching is an art. It is a job, a way of life, and should be accepted and enjoyed as such. The data collected in this study should be used as a basis for critical reflection on teaching-learning, specifically on the supply of error correction in the writing of EFL.

Regarding the limitations found in that study and the proposals for continuity based on the findings of the study, several important exceptions presumed are considered necessary to indicate. First, due to time constraints, the almost non-existent access to the Internet by most Venezuelan teachers, the location of the respondents (Venezuela) and their availability (most work in several locations at the same time), as well as the location of the researcher (The Netherlands), this project used a convenience sample, so the findings of this study cannot be completely generalized.

Second, due to geography together with more advisable and practical access to the sample, an online questionnaire was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. Further studies with documentary evidence (reviewing written texts corrected by teachers), thinking aloud techniques along with interviews to corroborate the information provided by the respondents would be useful and interesting. In this way, it can be corroborated that what teachers say they do is actually what they put into practice in their classrooms, particularly in the written corrective feedback supply.

This research was successful, as it was able to distinguish the sources that mainly influence teachers' beliefs regarding corrective feedback from written texts: academic training, professional development, previous language learning experiences, views on language learning, and teaching, among others. Nevertheless, the findings did not mention anything about how the process of transforming those beliefs or perspectives into teaching practices takes place, nor specifically how their beliefs are modified. It would be interesting to conduct research to describe, evaluate, and determine the process of pedagogical transformation that teachers experience when trying to put their beliefs and perspectives into practice. This can usefully be the subject of further research.

Generally speaking, further research is also needed to determine why, if time is set as an influencing factor in providing written corrective feedback to the writing of EFL, teachers do not use more often peer feedback or self-assessment. The teacher would not have to review and correct all texts, two or three times as indicated by the findings, which would save a lot of time that could be spent on other important aspects of the teaching and learning process of a language. More research is needed regarding the frequency and actual practices of teachers concerning peer feedback or self-revision of errors, as well as their beliefs and perspectives on the usefulness and effectiveness of such feedback.

Finally, education does not end when teachers graduate, but it is a continuous journey that should never stop. It can be assumed the need to provide continuous learning. School authorities in Venezuela must provide up-to-date professional teacher development programs to meet the needs of educators and, therefore, improve education in this specific context where the study was conducted.

References

Bailey, R. y Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187-198.

Brannen, J. (2005) Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the Research Process, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 173-184. doi: 10.1080/13645570500154642

Brookhart, S. M. (2008). Feedback that fits. Engaging the whole child: Reflections on best practices in learning, teaching, and leadership, 65(4), 54–59.

Brown, H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Durán, J. L., & Carrillo, K. S. (2017). The effect of written corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Revista Signos, 50(94), 217-240. doi:10.4067/S0718-09342017000200217

Ellis, R. (2009) A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT, 63(2), 97-107.

Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing [Tratamiento del error en la escritura de un segundo idioma]. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Hamui-Sutton, A. (2013). Un acercamiento a los métodos mixtos de investigación en educación médica. Investigación en educación médica, 2(8), 211-216.

Jodaie, M., y Farrokhi, F. (2012). An Exploration of Private Language Institute Teachers' Perceptions of Written Grammar Feedback in EFL Classes. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 58-67. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n2p58

Kuzborska, I. (2011). Links between teachers' beliefs and practices and research on reading. Reading in a foreign language, 23(1),102-128.Recuperado de http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2011/articles/kuzborska.pdf

Lee, I., Mak, P., y Burns, A. (2015). Bringing innovation to conventional feedback approaches in EFL secondary writing classrooms: A Hong Kong case study. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(2), 140-163.

Leech, N. L., y Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & quantity, 43(2), 265-275.

Lunn Brownlee, J., Ferguson, L., & Ryan, M. (2017). Changing teachers' epistemic cognition: A new conceptual framework for epistemic reflexivity. Educational Psychologist, 52(4), 242-252. doi:10.1080/00461520.2017.1333430

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.

Saavedra, P. A., & Espinoza, M. C. (2018). Combinar las estrategias de uso de retroalimentación correctiva escrita enfocada: un estudio con estudiantes chilenos de EFL de nivel primario superior. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 20(1), 79-90.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zangoei, A., y Derakhshan, A. (2014). The relationship between EFL teachers’ preferences of corrective feedback and their attitudes towards communicative language teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(5), 82-90. doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.82