Pa ge 1 Pa ge 62 American Journal of Education and Technology (AJET) The Efficacy of Recast vs. Explicit Corrective Feedback on Students’ English Pronunciation of Common Words: The Case of English Department Students at Ibn Tofail University El Ghazi Bougataia1*, Hind Brigui2 Volume 2 Issue 4, Year 2023 ISSN: 2832-9481 (Online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v2i4.2179 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Article Information ABSTRACT Received: October 31, 2023 Accepted: December 02, 2023 Published: December 07, 2023 This study investigates the effectiveness of recast and explicit corrective feedback on students’ pronunciation improvement among first-year English university undergraduates at Ibn Tofail University, and compares these feedback types to determine the most effective one. A pilot study was conducted to give insights into the pronunciation difficulties faced by students. Based on this latter, the main study was done to address the aims of the investigation. A quasi-experiment was designed with 45 participants divided into three groups: Explicit, Recast and a Control group. The impact of recast and explicit corrective feedback was assessed through the Kruskal-Wallis Test, and the comparative assessment was done using Welch’s T-test. The results indicate that both recast and explicit corrective feedback positively influenced students’ pronunciation development. Yet, the explicit feedback appears superior and more effective than recast, demonstrating a high influence on students’ pronunciation errors. Hence, the investigation suggests that educators should be explicit enough to help students better develop their pronunciation. Keywords Oral Corrective Feedback, Explicit Corrective Feedback, Recast, Pronunciation 1 Faculty of Languages, Letters and Arts, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco 2 Applied Linguistics and TEFL, Department of English Studies, Faculty of Languages, Letters and Arts, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco * Corresponding author’s e-mail: elghazi.bougataia@uit.ac.ma INTRODUCTION Over the past decades, there has been a dramatic call and a demand for teaching English as a second or foreign language, owing to its essentiality as it allows people to learn and acquire the competencies and skills that are needed for today’s world (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). It is true that English has become an international language with many speakers worldwide (Crystal, 2012). However, the teaching of such global language could not escape from some challenges. While there are several ways and techniques to teach English and its skills and subskills, pronunciation remains one of the hardest elements to teach. And due to the globalization and internalization of English, however, perspectives on the teaching of pronunciation have completely changed. Consequently, the world witnessed a great change that has made it from teaching a native-like pronunciation to teaching an intelligible one, since the change emphasizes great use of English in communicative contexts in classroom (Tarone, 2005; Zheng, 2019). Yet, it is not necessary to sound like a native speaker with a perfect native-like accent, but clarity is what counts (Cahyalita, 2013). In fact, a clear pronunciation is the one that enables people to better understand each other without any misconceptions. Far from any pedagogy that targets a native-like accent, the goal of teaching pronunciation is to seek an intelligible accent by addressing some of its main elements, such as speech length, rhyme, pauses, segmental clarity, and stress (Hinkel, 2006). To help students better acquire and learn languages, as well as language features like pronunciation, several researchers suggested using oral corrective feedback (e.g., Couper, 2017; Karimi & Esfandiari, 2016; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Zohrabi & Behboudnia, 2017). As Zheng (2019) reported, a teaching approach that combines both oral corrective feedback and communicative language teaching activities is strongly recommended as it allows pupils to focus on and apply the linguistic forms within the communicative contexts, thereby enhancing their accuracy. Nevertheless, providing feedback, especially in the context of communication, was not immune to criticism from some researchers’ detractors. Krashen (1982, p. 74) thinks of error correction as a “serious mistake”. To support his claim, he noted that feedback makes students go defensive, as they concentrate more on the form rather than the meaning (p. 75). Xu (2009) thinks of correction as a process that makes students monitor themselves to not repeat the error rather than repair it. On the other hand, other researchers found oral corrective feedback to be advantageous and essential as it helps students better notice their errors, especially in communicative activities, learn and acquire languages and features like vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation (e.g., Alsolami, 2019; Ellis, 2009; Hartono et al., 2022; Russell & Spada, 2006; Sheen, 2007). The concern of providing feedback started a long time ago with the behaviorist theory. According to this theory, pupils are corrected right after they make a mistake since mistakes are seen as undesired behaviors and should be eliminated through a stimulus, mainly a punishment or a reward (Skinner, 1938). The stimulus is the teacher’s correction, whereas the response is the students’ error reparation. Taking these points to consideration, providing feedback is merely seen as a stimulus, mainly behavior, Pa ge 63 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 that is aimed at correcting learners’ errors through negative or positive reinforcement. Hence, students, according to this theory, are seen as recipients of stimuli. Years after, some researchers have proven that feedback, either oral or written, can trigger learners’ cognitive processes (e.g., Fujio, 2017). Far from the stimulus and response procedures, oral feedback can activate essential cognitive processes, such as self-correction and feedback recognition (Fujio, 2017). Further, oral corrective feedback has witnessed a great interest from another theory, namely interactionism, which underlines the importance of learners’ meaningful interactions to learn a language (Vygotsky, 1962). The interactionist approach was a result of the interactionist hypothesis, which states that breakdowns of communication could create a situation where learners receive feedback to correct their speaking errors, especially form-focused ones (Long, 1996, as cited in Abbuhl, 2021). Owing to its emphasis on learners’ attention to form in meaningful-based contexts, Abbuhl (2021) clearly states its positive outcomes through providing oral corrective feedback during a conversation to better help interlocutors develop their pronunciation, seeking significant improvements to understand and as well as to be understood. Years after, as oral feedback garnered considerable interest from various researchers of applied linguistics, there has been the first investigation on the oral corrective feedback, which conducted by Lyster and Ranta (1997). The researchers found that oral corrective feedback entails six categories, namely recast, explicit, metalinguistic corrective feedback, repetition, clarification request and elicitation. The study has aroused a strong interest and desire of several researchers as it necessitates further investigation on the efficacy of the oral feedback categories found by Lyster and Ranta (1997). There have been some studies which attempted to fulfill the gap needed concerning the oral feedback categories, yet most of them yielded contradictions, which resulted in a heated among researchers, especially those who tackled recast and the explicit corrective feedback. Some researchers claim that recast is more effective than the explicit feedback (e.g., Banaruee et al., 2018; Karimi & Esfandiari, 2016; Goo & Mackey, 2013). Conversely, other researchers found that the explicit feedback is more effective than recast (e.g., Alahmed & Jalal, 2022; Couper, 2017; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Lyster and Ranta, 2013; Sheen, 2004). However, in line with these results, some researchers found nearly no significant difference between the two feedback categories (e.g., Zohrabi & Behboudnia, 2017; Mirzaie & Valizadeh, 2021). But, one extremely all- important point to consider is that identifying the most effective oral feedback category poses great challenges, as the determination demands extensive considerations, such as the level of learners being corrected, teachers’ preferred correction technique, classroom contexts, the time provided to students to correct their mistakes, and more (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Yoshida, 2008). There have been, indeed, considerable studies on the impact of recast and the explicit corrective feedback, yet few studied investigated this latter regarding pronunciation (e.g., Alahmed & Jalal, 2022; Karimi & Esfandiari, 2016; Zohrabi & Behboudnia, 2017). This issue has also been previously alluded to by Pawlak (2012) a long time ago. The reasons for this loss could be due to the view of pronunciation as less important, lack of special training, confidence and more (Couper, 2017). Additionally, the studies which investigated the oral corrective feedback regarding other skills and elements of language, like grammar acquisition and writing are not yet fully settled, and sometimes the results of those investigations are insufficient when it comes to the implementation of feedback over a long period of time (Russell & Spada, 2006, as cited in Zheng, 2019). Regarding the fact that there were very few studies which dealt with the impact explicit corrective feedback and recast regarding pronunciation in the Moroccan context (e.g., Benhima & Slaoui, 2020), the present study will investigate the efficacy of these oral corrective feedback types on learners’ pronunciation, and it will compare their effect as well to identify the most effective one for correcting pronunciation mistakes. Further, the present investigation will explore some studies that examined oral corrective feedback on other language skills and components. However, the targeted pronunciation of this study is the pronunciation of some common words of English. This phenomenon, as Agung et al. (2021) stated, is known for many students of English who study it as a second and a foreign language, yet the reasons behind this issue varies according to one person to another. Research Questions The study attempts to answer the following research questions: - Do recast and the explicit corrective feedback have any significant impact on students’ pronunciation errors? - Which oral corrective feedback is more effective in eliminating errors of pronunciation? In order to find answers for the research questions above, the study suggested the following hypotheses: - The recast and explicit corrective feedback have a positive impact on students’ pronunciation errors - The explicit feedback type is more effective than recast in improving students’ pronunciation LITERATURE REVIEW Over the past decades, there has been a renewal of interest in investigating the efficacy of recast and explicit corrective feedback among researchers of applied linguistics. However, while there has been much research concerning this latter, few researchers have taken pronunciation into consideration in their studies. Therefore, the ultimate goal of this paper is to fulfill this gap and study the impact of recast and explicit feedback on pronunciation. The present chapter presents the importance of pronunciation, reviews different perspectives on oral Pa ge 64 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 corrective feedback, namely recast and explicit corrective feedback, and critically discusses the efficacy of those feedback types regarding pronunciation and other language components as well. Pronunciation Darcy (2018) made an eye-catching statement about the importance of pronunciation, in which she noted that no language could be animate without sounds. Further, she stressed that pronunciation is what enlivens the other components of language, such as grammar and vocabulary. Pronunciation is an essential component of language by which interlocutors interact and understand each other perfectly (Thomson & Derwing, 2015). Without smooth pronunciation, pupils might face various issues, like the incapability of being clear to listeners and some kind of prejudice (Gilakjani et al., 2011; Fayer & Krasinski, 1987). A study by Fayer and Krasinski (1987) showed that students with an unintelligible pronunciation were classified as low proficient by their jury members. Also, the investigation reported that some of the teachers who were listening to the audio of those who had pronunciation difficulties made their judgment without completing the audio. With that being said, the learning of pronunciation is found to be advantageous for learners’ speech intelligibility since this latter contributes to clear and facile communication between speakers and gives some positive stereotypes about speakers (Darcy, 2018; Thomson & Derwing, 2015). Thus, despite being aware of grammar and vocabulary, students with pronunciation difficulties still find issues when they try to be comprehended by listeners (Gilakjani et al., 2011). Oral Corrective Feedback Oliver and Adams (2021) define oral corrective feedback as a teacher or peer response that intends to correct learners when their production of language is faulty, inappropriate, ambiguous or unrelated to the language being learned. However, as a form of error correction and in a more detailed definition, oral corrective feedback, as various researchers agree, refers to any information, comments or acts, either explicit or implicit, verbal or non-verbal, made by teachers to intentionally repair learners’ errors (Richards & Schmidt, 2011; Lightbown & Spada, 1999; Oliver and Adams, 2021). Such feedback is a negative type, and it is used to correct students for their faulty language output, unlike the positive kind, which involves words and phrases that encourage students to produce more language (Richards & Schmidt, 2011). Concerning the effect of oral corrective feedback, there have been some investigations regarding this later on in the development of language learning. Many researchers of applied linguistics investigated the impact of oral corrective feedback on language learning and concluded that it is of great benefit to learners as it helps them enhance their learning of language and repair errors (e.g., Alsolami, 2019; Ellis, 2009; Hartono et al., 2022; Muslem et al., 2021). On the other hand, some other researchers oppose oral corrective feedback and consider it useless and harmful to learners (e.g., Krashen, 1982; Truscott, 2007; Truscott & Hsu, 2008; Xu, 2009). Truscott and Hsu (2008) conducted a study on the impact of oral corrective feedback on writing, and they concluded that feedback is of no to little use in the short term for students. However, they admitted that error correction may be beneficial to students in day-to-day classrooms. Considering these points, the researchers who are against oral corrective feedback are not opposing the act of correction itself. In fact, most of them have a contrary view of the way correction occurs and when. That is, it is when and how that matters. These issues were tackled by Hendrickson (1978) from the very beginning of error correction and feedback. In his article, he stated five extremely essential questions on error correction, and two of them were about when and how to correct errors. Types of Oral Corrective Feedback Lyster & Ranta (1997) have determined the types of oral corrective feedback. They concluded that this latter consists of six categories, namely recast, explicit correction, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, and clarification request. However, the explicit and recast oral feedback types are the ones that will be tackled in the next session since they are the main concern of the present study. Explicit Corrective Feedback The explicit feedback refers to teachers’ indication to students’ errors which is followed by a correction (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). See the following example: Student: I have a cat (/kʌt/). (Phonological error) Teacher: Well, it is pronounced as cat (/kæt/). The student, phonetically speaking, made two mistakes. The first one is the sound /k/ which was pronounced as a backed sound. The second mistake is the utterance of the vowel /æ/. However, the teacher in this example made the student aware of his or her mistake and provided the correct pronunciation of the word cat. Recast Recast is an implicit type of correction that merely involves teachers’ paraphrases of mistakes that are meant to correct students, without any indication to errors. (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Richards & Schmidt, 2011). See the following example: Student: I have a cat (/kʌt/). (Phonological error) Teacher: Okay, you have a cat (/kæt/). In this case, the educator indirectly provided the pupil with the correct pronunciation without indicating the error. The recast corrective feedback is known to be an implicit type of correction. Nevertheless, the issue with this category of feedback at hand is that it is multifaceted and requires a detailed approach to thoroughly understand its intricacies. As Sheen (2006) noted, recasts could sometimes be non-corrective or corrective, i.e., they can Pa ge 65 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 be positive or negative feedback. Also, they can sometimes be explicit, especially when they are clear and short (Sheen, 2006; Sato, 2011). To put it differently, recasts can be clear and direct as the explicit corrective feedback when teachers correct their students by reformulating the faulty utterances but adjusting their tone to make corrections noticeable (Sheen, 2006). Moreover, the directness of this latter depends on students’ recognition of recast as negative corrective feedback rather than positive, the context of the discourse, the length of the correction process, and more (Sheen, 2004, 2006; Sato, 2011). The Effectiveness of Recast and Explicit Corrective Feedback The determination of the efficacy of any strategy, whether it is feedback, a way of teaching and learning or any other pedagogical strategy, requires many considerations, such as learners’ levels, classroom context, educators’ knowledge of pedagogy, learners’ and teachers’ behaviors and attitudes, and so on (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Nevertheless, some researchers have tried to compare the efficacy of the explicit and recast feedback types on pronunciation through quasi-experiments. Yet, the results have been inconsistent, as some researchers reported that explicit feedback provides significant advantages for students more than recasts, while others have found no significant difference or even the opposite. A study conducted by Alahmed and Jalal (2022), which tackled the effect of using explicit and recast corrective feedback on students’ pronunciation, revealed that explicit correction was more beneficial than recasts. Conversely, Karimi and Esfandiari (2016) reported in their study, which investigated the stress patterns in English, that recasts were more effective than explicit corrective feedback. However, a study by Zohrabi and Behboudnia (2017), which tackled the effect of delayed and immediate explicit and recast feedback types on students’ pronunciation, revealed that there was no significant difference between the two corrective feedback types, and both of them were useful to students. Additionally, some studies have compared the impact of the explicit and recast feedback types, yet their focus was on other skills and components of language, such as students’ willingness to communicate, speaking, writing, grammar, and more. However, their results yielded contradictory and conclusive evidence too, with some studies supporting the efficacy of the explicit corrective feedback over recast (e.g., Yu, 2022; Zheng, 2019; Varnosfadrani & Basturkmen, 2009), while others suggesting the opposite (e.g., Banaruee et al., 2018; Li, 2010; Ayoun, 2001). Still, some studies found evidence to support them both (e.g., Mirzaie & Valizadeh, 2021). In light of these points, studying the efficacy of error correction or any other method in the field of teaching will never yield a singular outcome. As stated by Bingjie (2016), the question “Is recast the most effective corrective feedback type?” is controversial itself, though it seems to be simple. The divergence in the studies which tackled the explicit feedback and recast could be due to many factors, such as students’ level and recognition of this latter as corrective feedback, the difficulty of words and components being treated, and more (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Banaruee et al., 2018; Bingjie, 2016). As Banaruee et al. (2018) reported regarding the conflicting results on the impact of recast and explicit correction, it is rather difficult to assume that one feedback type would be effective in treating all errors; thus, it is essential to investigate several error categories to approximate a better result. The purpose of this literature review was to clearly show the importance of pronunciation and critically tackle its concern regarding recast and explicit feedback. As with any method or strategy in the field of teaching, there are opposers and supporters of oral corrective feedback, especially when it comes to communicative contexts. For instance, Krashen (1982) strongly attacks feedback and states that it hinders students’ communicative progress, while Hartono et al. (2022) claim that oral corrective feedback facilitates rather than interferes with students’ speaking performance, without denying the fact that oral corrective feedback indeed made some students worry about make mistakes. Concerning the issue with oral corrective feedback, the literature review presented previous studies that studied the recast and explicit feedback and elaborated on these two types more. However, while the study aims at finding a solution for the issue of oral feedback and pronunciation that has existed for a long time, it could be said that the efficacy of those feedback types, namely recast and explicit, could not be easily determined but at least an approximate and a better result could still be achieved. METHODOLOGY The goal of the present investigation is to study the effectiveness of recast and the explicit corrective feedback on students’ pronunciation errors, and compare the impact of those feedback types to determine the most effective one. So as to reach the objectives of this investigation and answer the research questions and test the hypotheses, the present paper carried a quantitative, quasi-experimental design. The participants in this experiment are assessed in three groups, mainly two experimental groups and one control group. The efficacy of the explicit corrective feedback and recast is assessed through the measures of pre-test and post-test. Concerning the variables of this investigation, there are 2 independent variables and 1 dependent variable. The independent variables are the feedback types which are the explicit corrective feedback and recast, while the dependent variable is students’ correction of pronunciation errors. Participants The participants were 45 undergraduate students. They were taken from the department of English at the university of Ibn Tofail, faculty of Languages, Literature and the Arts. The students shared the same level as all of Pa ge 66 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 them were S2 students. The students who made between 7 and 10 errors are the students were counted in this investigation. Those who made fewer mistakes, while not included in the study, were also corrected ethically speaking. Instrumentation The instruments that were used in this study were a pre- test and a post-test. The pre-test contained ten words which involve some common mispronounced words by students. The post-test contained the same words, yet their order was different. The use of isolated words outside of the context in tests was intentional, strategically speaking, so as to avoid any words’ influence on other words at the level of pronunciation. Thus, this ensures a well-focused evaluation on students’ phonetic features and makes their pronunciation clear to analyze. The words were chosen based on approximately 7 years of experience as a student. That is, throughout being a student at Ibn Tofail University, some words of English were mispronounced daily by students of English both inside and outside of the class. Pilot Study Before the main investigation, a pilot study was used to assess the appropriateness and as well as the effectiveness of the research instruments (see appendix C). It involved 10 most repeated errors of pronunciation, based on 7 years of experience as a student at Ibn Tofail university. Therefore, 15 participants were selected for this pilot investigation and divided into 3 groups: Explicit, recast and control group, to make sure that the chosen words were actually mispronounced. The participants sat for both a pre-test and a post-test as well. The aim of the pilot study was to potentially identify and account for any issues in the chosen words, and evaluate the clarity of the pronunciation assessment criteria. The results of the pilot study yielded feedback to make necessary modifications and adjustments to the instruments and used procedures, ensuring the validity and reliability for the main investigation. Data Collection and Procedures The participants of this investigation were first divided into 3 groups, namely explicit, recast and control group. Each group contained 15 students. All the groups were asked to read the selected words individually. After few days, approximately 5 days, the students individually sat for the post-test which includes the same words but in different order. The present investigation acknowledges the importance of statistical assumptions when it comes to ensuring the reliability of research. Therefore, 2 tests, namely normality and homogeneity, were conducted to test the assumptions, since those tests are ultimately essential for the chosen statistical method of this research paper which is one-way ANOVA. The one-way ANOVA is used to evaluate the impact of recast and explicit feedback on students’ pronunciation. Normality Assumption The ultimate goal of the normality test is to assess the data and see whether it meets the normality assumption. I.e., it tells whether the collected data follows a normal distribution. This test helps selecting the correct and appropriate methods for analyzing the data. Homogeneity Assumption The homogeneity assumption assesses whether the variability within each group is closely the same. It is very essential as it ensures the validity of the statistical analyses, especially those which rely on equal assumption variances. Thus, the test of homogeneity was deployed to determine if the variances within the groups are statistically comparable or not. The assumption tests are extremely crucial to the analysis of the data of the present investigation. Making sure that the data meets the required criteria makes the reliability of this study stronger to draw conclusions on the impact of recast and the explicit corrective feedback on students’ pronunciation. Data Analysis The data were collected, statistically analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics. Also, methods of inferential statistics were used to test the hypotheses of the present investigation. First, the data were prepared. The mean, median and mode of the pre-test and post-test were calculated. The first hypothesis (H1) was tested via one-way ANOVA, while the second hypothesis (H2) was tested though a T-test. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The following section shows the pilot study’s results and then moves to the results of the normality test, homogeneity test, the pre-test and post-test, descriptive and inferential statistics. Results of the Pilot Study Table 1 show the number of errors made the students. In the explicit group, the students made 45 errors with mean of 9. For those who received recast, they committed 47 errors with the mean of 9.4, yet those in the control group made 49 with 9.8 in the mean. Table 1: Pre-test results Groups Number of students Number of errors Mean Median Mode Std. Dev Explicit 5 45 9 9 9 0 Recast 5 47 9.4 9 9 0.45 Control group 5 49 9.8 10 10 0.44 Pa ge 67 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 Table 2 reveals the results of the post-test and the students’ repeated mistakes. The explicit group repeated 23 errors with the mean of 4.6. For the recast group, the students repeated 32 errors with 6.4 in the mean. As for the control group, the students made 48 errors with the mean of 9.6. Only one error was corrected by a student in this group, which did not receive any feedback. Table 3 shows the results of the post-test and students’ corrected errors. The students in the explicit group corrected 22 errors with the mean of 4.4. For those in the recast group, they corrected 15 errors with 3 in the mean. As for the control group, there was only one corrected error by a student, with the mean of 0.54. The pilot study provided essential insights and proved Table 2: Post-test Results of the Repeated Errors Groups Number of students Repeated errors Mean Median Mode Std. Dev Explicit 5 23 4.6 6 6 1.94 Recast 5 32 6.4 6 6 0.54 Control group 5 48 9.6 10 10 0.54 Table 3: Post-Test Results of the Corrected Errors Groups Number of students Corrected errors Mean Median Mode Std. Dev Explicit 5 22 4.4 6 6 2.3 recast 5 15 3 3 2 1 Control group 5 1 9.6 10 10 0.54 that the pronunciation of chosen words was challenging to the targeted students, and the explicit feedback and recast to be effective. Therefore, this pilot study has paved the way to the main investigation on the impact of oral corrective feedback, mainly explicit and recast on students’ pronunciation. Normality Test Results The normality test was conducted to assess the distribution of the data of the present investigation. In the test, 2 common normality tests were used, which are the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the Shapiro-Wilk. They assess whether the data is deviated from the normal Table 4: Normality Test Results Tests of Normality Feedback Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Explicit .172 15 .200* .909 15 .129 Recast .201 15 .106 .874 15 .038 CG .473 15 .000 .525 15 .000 *. This is a lower bound of the true significance. a. Lilliefors Significance Correction distribution. The results of the normal test are shown in Table 1. Based on table 4, the test of Kolmogorov-Smirnova shows 0.172 in statistics in the explicit group with the p value of 0.200*, 0.201 for the recast group with 0.106 in the p value and 0.473 for the control group with the p value of 0.000. As for the Shapiro-Wilk test, the explicit group got 0.909 in statistics with the p value of 0.129, 0.874 for the recast group with 0.038 in the p value and 0.525 for the control group with the p value of 0.000. Taking these points to consideration, as the p values of the explicit and recast groups are greater than the alpha value (α = 0.05), the data of those groups are normally distributed. However, the control group scored 0.000 in both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests, resulting in a low p value that is less than that of the alpha (α = 0.05). Hence, the data of the control group are not normally distributed. Homogeneity Test Levene’s test was done to assess the whether the groups’ variance is equal. Table 2 shows the results of the homogeneity test. According to those findings, the Levene statistic based on mean is 18.417 with 2 and 42 degrees of freedom and the p value of 0.000. Based on median, the statistic shows 11.438 with 2 and 42 degrees of freedom as well and the p value of 0.000. Based on Median and with adjusted df, statistic reveals 11.438 with 2 and 26.483 degrees of freedom and 0.000 in the p value. Last, based on trimmed mean, the statistic shows 19.202 with 2 and 42 degrees of freedom and the p value of 0.000. Therefore, as all of the methods’ results have 0.000 in the p value, which is a very low value (less than 0.05), they all indicate a high difference in variances among the groups. Based on the tests of normality and homogeneity, it appears that the explicit and recast groups are normally Pa ge 68 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 distributed, yet the control group is not. Also, the test of homogeneity shows that the groups’ variances are not equal. This is due to the control group which made more errors than those groups which received the oral feedback. Hence, the investigation opts for a non-parametric test (e.g., Kruskal-Wallis Test). Results of the Main Study Pre-test and Post-test Results Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the groups’ mean, median, mode and the standard deviation as well. Table 3 indicates the results of the pretest. For the post- test results, 2 tables were used to do the calculation for the repeated and corrected errors. Tables 4 indicates the results of the repeated errors in the post-test, whereas table 5 shows the corrected errors. Table 6 show the number of errors made by each group. As shown above, the total number of errors made by students in the Explicit group is 145 with mean of 9.66. In the Recast group, the students got 147 errors with the mean of 9.8, while the Control group made 149 with 9.93 in the mean. The is no big difference between the groups concerning this latter. The table 7 reveals the number of repeated errors by Table 5: Homogeneity Test Results Tests of Normality Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. Students’ Corrected Errors Based on Mean 18.417 2 42 .000 Based on Median 11.438 2 42 .000 Based on Median and with adjusted df 11.438 2 26.483 .000 Based on trimmed mean 19.202 2 42 .000 Table 6: Pre-test Results Groups Number of students Number of errors Mean Median Mode Std. Dev Explicit 15 145 9.66 10 10 0.48 Recast 15 147 9.8 10 10 0.41 Control group 15 149 9.93 10 10 0.25 Table 7: Post-test Results of the Repeated Errors Groups Number of students Repeated errors Mean Median Mode Std. Dev Explicit 15 62 4.13 5 6 2.44 Recast 15 110 7.33 7 9 1.49 Control group 15 146 9.73 10 10 0.59 Table 8: Post-test Results of the Corrected Errors Groups Number of students Corrected errors Mean Median Mode Std. Dev Explicit 15 88 5.86 5 4 2.44 recast 15 40 2.66 3 1 1.49 Control group 15 3 0.26 0 0 0.59 the groups. The Explicit group which has the mean of 4.13 repeated 62 errors. For the recast and the control group, the former has 110 repeated errors with the mean of 7.33, while the latter got 146 errors with the mean of 9.73. According to those calculations, the students who received explicit correction made less errors than those who received recast. For the control group, the students got 149 errors in the pre-test, yet they corrected 3 errors though they received no feedback. According to table 8 the errors that were corrected, the explicit group repaired 88 errors with the mean of 5.86. The students in the recast group fixed 40 errors with the mean of 2.66, while the control group with the mean of 0.26 corrected 3 errors without receiving feedback. Considering those findings, the students who received feedback corrected some of their errors, unlike those who received no impact. However, some students in the control group, while did not receive any correction, corrected a total of 3 errors. This latter surely was out of the investigation’s control, and the way these students corrected those words remains unknown. For the group that received the correction explicitly, they fixed more errors than those who were corrected implicitly using recasts. Kruskal-Wallis Test To test the first hypothesis (H1), the Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted as the study is dealing with a non- parametric measurement. A null hypothesis (H0.1) was Pa ge 69 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 made to test the first hypothesis (H1). Consider the following: H1: Recast and explicit corrective feedback have a positive impact on students’ pronunciation errors. H0.1: Recast and explicit corrective feedback have no positive impact on students’ pronunciation errors. Firstly, since the investigation deals with the efficacy of the corrective feedback types, the dataset of the corrected errors was taken into consideration regarding the Kruskal-Wallis Test (see table 7), and a post-hoc test was used to compare the pairwise of the feedback types. A test of the null hypothesis was done and the results are shown in table 9. In table 9, the null hypothesis (H0.1) assumes that there Table 9: Hypothesis Test Summary Results Hypothesis Test Summary Null Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision H0.1 The distribution of Groups is the same across categories of feedback. Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test .000 Reject the null hypothesis. Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .050. is no significant difference in the feedback distribution among the groups. The p value associated in Kruskal- Wallis test is less than the significance level (0.05). Therefore, there is a strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the other hypothesis, which states that the oral corrective feedback has a positive impact on students’ pronunciation errors. In table 10, total N represents the number of students, which is 45. Test statistic shows 32.944, which is a large score that indicates a big difference among the groups regarding the targeted variable. The degree of freedom is 2, and a very small value of p which is 0.000 in the Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided test), which indicates a strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Table 10: Kruskal-Wallis Test Result Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test Summary Total N 45 Test Statistic 32.944a Degree of Freedom 2 Asymptotic Sig. (2-sided test) .000 a. The test statistic is adjusted for ties. The table 11 reveals the comparisons between different pairs of feedback groups (explicit, recast and control group). The Sample 1-Sample 2 column shows which two groups are being compared in each row. For each comparison, a statistical test value is provided, which assesses the difference between the means of the two groups that are being compared. For the Std. Error column, it indicates the standard error associated with each comparison. The Std. test statistic shows standardized test statistic that helps assess the significance of difference between groups. While Sig is the p value, Adj. Sig. is the adjusted significance which allows to control the familywise error rate when dealing with multiple comparisons. In each row, the p value is less than the significance level (0.05). This indicates a significant difference, statistically speaking, between the groups. The adjusted significance level in the Adj. Sig. column is very low with the value of 0.000, stressing a statistical significance of the comparisons. According to these findings, the oral corrective feedback recast and explicit significantly influenced students’ pronunciation development. Hence, the explicit corrective feedback and recast, based on the present results, have a positive impact when it comes to helping students correct their pronunciation errors compared to the control group. Table 11: Post Hoc Test (Pairwise Comparisons of feedback) Pairwise Comparisons of feedback Sample 1-Sample 2 Test Statistic Std. Error Std. Test Statistic Sig. Adj. Sig.a CG-Recast 15.567 4.728 3.293 .001 .003 CG-Explicit 27.033 4.728 5.718 .000 .000 Recast-Explicit 11.467 4.728 2.425 .015 .046 Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same. Asymptotic significances (2-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is .05. a. Significance values have been adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. Pa ge 70 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 Welch’s t-test Since the present investigation is dealing with both normal and non-normal distributed groups with unequal variance, the study adopted The Welch’s t-test to test the second hypothesis (H2). The Welch’s t-test is a suitable test that is used to compare the mean of 2 groups, which have unequal variance. The results of the test are shown in table 12. A second null hypothesis (H0.2) was created to test the second hypothesis (H2), and they are represented as follows: H0.2: The explicit feedback type is less effective than recast in improving students’ pronunciation H2: The explicit feedback type is more effective than recast in improving students’ pronunciation Table 12: Welch’s T-test results Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Si g. t df Si g. (2 -t ai le d) M ea n D iff er en ce St d. E rr or D iff er en ce 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Feedback Equal variances assumed 6.531 .016 4.323 28 .000 3.200 .740 1.684 4.716 Equal variances not assumed (Welch’s t-test) 4.323 23.191 .000 3.200 .740 1.669 4.731 Since the investigation is dealing with 2 groups with unequal variance, the results that are considered are those of the “Equal variances not assumed” column, which is the Welch’s t-test. In the test, it seems that the t statistic is 4.323, the degrees of freedom are nearly 23.191, and the p value (Sig.) is very low as it is 0.000. The mean difference between the explicit and recast groups is 3.200, with the standard error of 0.740, and a confidence interval for the mean difference that ranges from 1.669 to 4.731. The Welch’s test indicates a significant difference between the groups, since the p value is very low (0.000). Also, as the mean difference of 3.200 on average, it suggests that the group which received an explicit feedback outperformed the group which received recast in correcting students’ pronunciation errors. Considering these points, there is a strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis (H0.2). All in all, the hypotheses (H1 and H2) were both confirmed. The first one which deals with the impact of the oral feedback, namely recast and the explicit feedback, was confirmed with the test of Kruskal-Wallis. The results show that the students who received oral corrective feedback corrected some of their pronunciation errors, yet those who were in the control group did not since they received no feedback. As for the second hypothesis, it was done by the independent T test, which was Welch’s test since the groups had unequal variances. The results of the Welch’s t-test revealed that the students who were corrected explicitly outperformed those who received recast. DISCUSSION This section presents the analysis, discussion and interpretation of the key findings of the present study. The objectives of the study were to investigate the impact of recast and explicit corrective feedback regarding students’ pronunciation and determine the most effective corrective feedback between the two types. The results came up with essential insights into the objectives and purposes of the study. Therefore, so as to provide a more comprehensive understanding and implications of the results, the section examines them in the context of existing literature and explains their significance as well. The investigation deals with the efficacy of recast and explicit corrective feedback as oral treatments regarding students’ pronunciation and also investigates the most effective type between those 2 treatments, namely recast and explicit. As indicated in the results, the students who were exposed to oral corrective feedback, either recast or explicit, repaired some of their pronunciation errors. Yet, the students who did not receive any feedback, namely the control group, did not repair their errors. But, few of them pronounced very few words correctly. The justification for this is that they either corrected the error by doing their own investigation to correct errors or met some students who received feedback, from whom they might get the corrected pronunciation. Hence, in line with the first hypothesis, which states that recast and the explicit have an impact on students’ pronunciation, recast and explicit indeed influenced students positively and helped them fix their pronunciation errors. As for the most effective type of feedback, the explicit corrective feedback type appears to be the dominant one compared to recast. Therefore, the second hypothesis, which says that the explicit feedback is more effective than recast when it comes to correcting students’ pronunciation errors, was also confirmed. Considering these points, the results of the first research objective, which is about the impact of recast and explicit feedback on students’ pronunciation, seem to be similar to those found by Zohrabi and Behboudnia (2017) and Mirzaie and Valizadeh (2021), as their results show that the use of oral corrective feedback, namely recast and explicit, Pa ge 71 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 helps students improve their pronunciation. Concerning the second research objective, which is about the most effective feedback type, the results are in line with those found by Alahmed and Jalal (2022), Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009), Yu (2022) and Zheng (2019). Their investigation shows that explicit corrective feedback is more beneficial to students compared to recast. However, this latter contradicts the findings of Karimi and Esfandiari (2016), which show in their investigation that the students who received recast benefited more than those who received the explicit corrective feedback. The explicit corrective feedback is a type of error treatment that involves clear indication of errors before the process of correction (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). It could also contain feedback only without any indication of errors, just like recast, but with an adjusted voice tone, which indicates that there is a faulty use of the target language (Sheen, 2006; Sato, 2011). As for the recast corrective feedback, it is done by paraphrasing the learners’ faulty language production (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). In the Results, students subjected to explicit corrective feedback demonstrated superior performance comparable to those exposed to recast. The superiority of the explicit type could be due to its ability to point out errors and give tutors more time to help students correct those errors. On the other hand, recast can be done most of the time quickly, and the learners may correct their mistakes instantly but forget them quickly owing to the short time they get when corrected through this type of correction. The results of the present investigation yielded essential significance in the process of oral error treatment regarding the mastery of pronunciation. Based on this study, recast and explicit corrective feedback are very crucial to students as they contribute to their pronunciation improvement. While the findings show that the explicit type is more effective than recast, still recast is a kind of feedback that could sometimes be a good choice, especially when dealing with students who can realize its corrective force. CONCLUSION The objectives of this investigation were to study and question the efficacy and impact of recast and explicit corrective feedback regarding students’ pronunciation errors and determine the most effective one. This study was conducted to fill the gap that was left a very long time ago (Pawlak, 2012), given the very limited investigations that were done regarding the efficacy of recast and explicit feedback on pronunciation (e.g., Alahmed & Jalal, 2022; Karimi & Esfandiari, 2016; Zohrabi & Behboudnia, 2017). The findings show that the students who received oral corrections, mainly recast and explicit feedback, repaired most of their pronunciation errors, unlike those who received no treatment. Yet, the learners who were corrected explicitly repaired more errors than those who were corrected through recast. This suggests strong evidence for teachers to be more explicit when correcting their students’ pronunciation. And because of the advantages that the explicit feedback type has over recast, being more explicit helps learners become more focused while receiving the correction and grants them more time to correct their specific errors after their teachers indicate them. Pedagogical Implications The investigation tackled the efficacy of recast and explicit corrective feedback regarding pronunciation. According to its findings, educators can use oral feedback to help students repair pronunciation errors. Also, the study recommends using explicit correction as it is a very direct and clear feedback type, which helps students notice their faulty utterances and correct them. While recast is also effective, explicit feedback seems to be more effective, according to this study, as it makes learners more focused and aware of their errors for better correction. Therefore, the more educators help students repair errors, the more correct and natural the students’ pronunciation will be. Recommendations for Further Research The study investigated recast and explicit feedback and compared their efficacy regarding students’ pronunciation improvement. However, while the results were essential, there were some areas that the investigation could not tackle, such as the examination of the other four corrective feedback types, namely metalinguistic corrective feedback, repetition, clarification request and elicitation, and the investigation of the other language skills and components. LIMITATIONS As with any investigation, this study has some potential limitations. The limitations help better understand and make good use of the implications of the results. This section discusses the limitations of this study and the areas that could not be tackled. The first concern in this study is the number of participants, which is a total of 45 students. While the results were significant, a larger number of participants could have yielded more sufficient results. Also, some participants had only five days between the pre-test and post-test, yet some had 7 seven days. Furthermore, while this investigation tried to create a homogeneous environment for all the participants by selecting only s2 students, this process still does not guarantee that all of them had the same proficiency level. Considering these points, stating the limitations helps refine further research on the used methods and strategies to correct students’ pronunciation and excel at facilitating language acquisition. REFERENCE Abbuhl, R. (2021). Interactionist approach to corrective feedback in second language acquisition. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 44-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781108589789.003 Agung, A., Laksmi, S., & Yowani, L. D. (2021). Common pronunciation problems of learners of English. Pa ge 72 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/355788555_Common_Pronunciation_ Problems_of_Learners_of_English Alahmed, K. I., & Jalal, B. R. (2022). The effect of explicit corrective feedback on improving the English pronunciation of Iraqi intermediate graders. Journal of Basic Science. https://www.iasj.net/iasj/download/ ecb72cdcb109948e Alsolami, R. (2019). Effect of oral corrective feedback on language skills. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(6), 672-677. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0906.09 Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the “passé compose” and the “imparfait”. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 226–243. https://doi. org/10.1111/0026-7902.00106 Benhima, M., & Slaoui, S. (2020). The effectiveness of prompt and recast on the pronunciation of Moroccan EFL learners: the case of English Department students in SAIS faculty. International Journal of English Language Studies, 2(5), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.32996/ ijels.2020.2.5.4 Bingjie, G. (2016). Is recast the most effective type of corrective feedback? - under cognitive and sociolinguistic approach. Sino-US English Teaching, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8072/2016.04.006 Cahyalita, R. D. (2013). Issue of intelligibility as a main goal in teaching pronunciation: teachers’ perspectives. Satya Wacana Christian University. https://repository.uksw. edu/bitstream/123456789/7273/1/T1_112008150_ Abstract.pdf Cambridge Dictionary: Find Definitions, Meanings & Translations. (2023). https://dictionary.cambridge. org/us/ Couper, G. (2017). Teacher cognition of pronunciation teaching: Teachers’ concerns and issues. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 820-843. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/44984794 Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press. Darcy, I. (2018). Powerful and effective pronunciation instruction: How Can We Achieve It?. The CATESOL Journal, 30, 13-45. http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/CJ30.1_darcy.pdf Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi. org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054 Fayer, J. M., & Krasinski, E. (1987). Native and nonnative judgments of intelligibility and irritation. Language learning, 37, 313-326. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.14671770.1987.tb00573.x Fujio, M. (2017). Cognitive processes triggered by oral corrective feedback in second language learning. McGill University Libraries. https://escholarship. mcgill.ca/downloads/8623j151r?locale=en Gilakjani, A., Ahmadi, S., & Ahmadi, M. (2011). Why is pronunciation so difficult to learn? English Language Teaching, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n3p74 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). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2022.2152619 Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.2307/326176 Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 109–131. https:// doi.org/10.2307/40264513 Karimi, L., & Esfandiari, N. (2016). The effect of recast vs. explicit corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ stress patterns learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0606.05 Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Institute of English. http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/ principles_and_practice.pdf Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University. 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 Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https:// www.saintdavid.net/uploads/1/0/4/3/10434103/ how_languages_are_learned.pdf Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of second language acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012589042- 7/50015-3 Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197001034 Mirzaie, H., & Valizadeh, M. (2021). A comparative study of recast vs. explicit and intensive vs. extensive correction regarding speaking ability. ResearchGate. Muslem, A., Zulfikar, T., Astilla, I., Heriansyah, H., & Marhaban, S. (2021). Students’ perception toward oral corrective feedback in speaking classes: a case at English Education Department students. IJoLE (International Journal of Language Education), 5(4), 244. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v5i4.19010 Oliver, R., & Adams, R. (2021). Oral corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 187-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781108589789.010 Pawlak, M. (2012). The effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on eliminating pronunciation errors. In Teaching and researching English accents in native and non-native speakers (pp. 85-101). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-24019-5_7 Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Pa ge 73 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 2(4) 62-73, 2023 methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R.W. (2011). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833835 Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A Meta-Analysis of the Research. In J. M. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 133-164). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.09val Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1–28. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/ index.php/CJAL/article/view/19864 Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300. https:// doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392. https://doi. org/10.1191/1362168806lr203oa Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255– 283. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264353 Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Appleton-Century. https:// archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.191112/page/ n3/mode/2up Tarone, E. (2005). Speaking in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 485-502). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thomson, R. I.; Derwing, T. M. (2015). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A Narrative Review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326–344. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/amu076 Varnosfadrani, A. D., & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82-98. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.04.004 Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270–275. https:// doi.org/10.6016/j.jslw.2009.05.005 Yu, W. (2022). Explicit vs. Implicit corrective feedback: Which is more effective? In Advances in social science, education and humanities research. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220401.123 Zheng, L. (2019). The effectiveness of different corrective feedback on college English learners’ acquisition of subjunctive mood. Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Social Science and Higher Education (ICSSHE 2019). https://doi.org/10.2991/icsshe-19.2019.239 Zohrabi, M., & Behboudnia, N. (2017). The effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on segmental word-level pronunciation errors. Applied Research on English Language, 6(2), 237-266. https://doi. org/10.22108/are.2017.21348 Appendices Appendix A: Pre-test Read the following words: 1- Increase 2- Develop 3- Based on 4- Education 5- Vegetables 6- Young 7- Strong 8- Communication 9- Professor 10- Of Appendix B: Post-test Read the following words 1- Of 2- Professor 3- Communication 4- Strong 5- Young 6- Vegetables 7- Education 8- Based on 9- Develop 10- Increase Appendix C: Pilot Study The correct pronunciation (transcription) of the words was taken from Cambridge Dictionary (Cambridge Dictionary: Find Definitions, Meanings & Translations, 2023). Words Students’ pronunciation Correct Pronunciation Increase /* ɪnˈkriːz/ or /* ɪnˈkrɪz/ /ɪnˈkriːs/ or / ɪnˈkris/ Develop /*ˈdɪvalap/ /dɪˈveləp/ Based on /*beɪzd ɒn/ /beɪst ɒn/ Education /*ˈedʊkeɪʃn/ /edʒəˈkeɪʃn/ or / edʒʊˈkeɪʃn/ Vegetables /*veʒɪteɪblz/ /ˈvedʒtəblz/ Young /*juŋg/ /jʌŋ/ Strong /*strɒŋg/ /strɒŋ/ or /strɔŋ/ Communication /*ˈkumɪnɪkeɪʃn/ or /*ˈkumnju:keɪʃn/ /kəmjuːnɪˈkeɪʃn/ Professor /*ˈpra:fɪsər/ /prəˈfesə(r)/ Of /*ɒf/ /ɒv/ or /əv/