Directness and Dignity in EFL Speaking Feedback: Students’ Confidence Trajectories
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33096/tamaddun.v25i1.710Kata Kunci:
EFL speaking, oral corrective feedback, speaking confidence, language anxiety, willingness to communicateAbstrak
Oral corrective feedback is essential in English as a foreign language (EFL) speaking instruction, yet feedback that students experience as unusually firm, harsh, or direct may create a tension between linguistic improvement and confidence. This qualitative study examined how EFL undergraduates perceived strong lecturer feedback, how it influenced their confidence and participation immediately and over time, and which delivery conditions shaped constructive or harmful outcomes. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four themes were developed: (1) directness is not the same as harshness; (2) the evaluative spotlight produces an immediate affective shock; (3) one feedback event can fork into productive vigilance or protective silence; and (4) students want clarity with dignity and a usable next step. Public correction frequently generated embarrassment, anxiety, and an immediate decline in confidence. However, longer-term responses diverged. Some students converted discomfort into greater preparation, pronunciation, and grammar practice, and eventual confidence recovery, whereas others reduced volunteering, became quieter, or participated only when they felt safe. Clear correction was often welcomed when it was respectful, specific, and actionable; perceived humiliation was associated more strongly with tone, interruption, judgmental wording, and public exposure than with directness itself. The findings show that strong feedback does not have a uniformly negative influence. Its effect is appraisal-mediated and relational, depending on how learners interpret the lecturer's intent, preserve social dignity, and identify a feasible route for improvement. The study recommends confidence-preserving directness rather than either harshness or vague praise.
Referensi
Anandari, C. L. (2015). Indonesian EFL students’ anxiety in speech production: Possible causes and remedy. TEFLIN Journal, 26(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v26i1/1-16
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56, 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.016
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
de Saint Léger, D., & Storch, N. (2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37(2), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.01.001
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 237–274. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.5
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
Goo, J., & Takeuchi, T. (2021). Corrective feedback and affect. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 713–732). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.034
Hartono, D., Basthomi, Y., Widiastuti, O., & Prastiyowati, S. (2022). The impacts of teacher’s oral corrective feedback to students’ psychological domain: A study on EFL speech production. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2152619. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2152619
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8
Irfani, B., & O’Boyle, A. (2024). Teacher practices and student preferences of oral corrective feedback in Indonesian EFL classrooms: A Vygotskian perspective. Training, Language and Culture, 8(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-101-114
Kang, S.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33(2), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.10.004
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 86–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.101
Khajavy, G. H., Smid, D., Mercer, S., & Murillo-Miranda, C. (2025). Embarrassment in English language classrooms: Conceptualization, antecedents, and consequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 47(1), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312400072X
Lee, E. J. E. (2016). Reducing international graduate students’ language anxiety through oral pronunciation corrections. System, 56, 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.11.006
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). “I really need feedback to learn”: Students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the differential feedback messages. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(4), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9082-2
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami051
Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Peng, J.-E. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40(2), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.02.002
Rassaei, E. (2015a). The effects of foreign language anxiety on EFL learners’ perceptions of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2013.837912
Rassaei, E. (2015b). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.002
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 363–387. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000311
Weda, S., Atmowardoyo, H., Rahman, F., Said, M. M., & Sakti, A. E. F. (2021). Factors affecting students’ willingness to communicate in EFL classroom at higher institution in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 719–734. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14240a
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37(3), 308–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071315
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2026 Amra Ariyani, Muhammad Arham
Artikel ini berlisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Tamaddun journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain the copyright and grant Tamaddun the right of first publication. The work will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits others to share the work with proper acknowledgment of the authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors may enter into additional non-exclusive agreements for the distribution of the published version of their work (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or including it in a book), provided that the initial publication in this journal is acknowledged.
3. Authors are encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal websites) before and during the submission process. This can lead to productive exchanges and increase the visibility and citation of the published work.
