Abstract
Many language educators and researchers (e.g., Nunan; 1987; Horwitz, 1988; Schulz, 2001) maintain that matching the expectations of teachers and students is important for successful language learning. Accordingly, it is beneficial for teachers to discover their students’ perceptions toward instructional practices. This article discusses the findings of a questionnaire administered to 588 EFL students at several Japanese universities. The questionnaire, utilizing 5-point Likert-scales, investigated (1) students' attitudes toward classroom oral error correction; (2) their preferences for correction of different types of oral errors; and (3) their preferences for particular correction methods. The results show that the students had strongly positive attitudes toward teacher correction of errors and indicated a preference for correction of pragmatic errors over other kinds of errors. The most favored correction method was for the teacher to give the student a hint which might enable the student to notice the error and self-correct.

Introduction
Students differ in terms of their learning styles and preferences for instructional practices. Horwitz (1988) notes that any language teacher employing a communicative approach will have to contend with students who complain if teachers do not correct their every oral error. In contrast, students who value communicative effectiveness over accuracy are likely to have negative reactions to teachers who constantly correct their utterance. Numerous studies revealed mismatches between teachers’ pedagogical practices and learners’ learning preferences (e.g., Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Hawkey, 2006; McCargar, 1993; Oladejo, 1993; Peacock, 2001; Schulz, 1996, 2001). Many language educators and researchers support the view that a mismatch between teacher and student perceptions about the effectiveness of instructional practices can result in unsatisfactory learning outcomes (e.g., Green & Oxford, 1995; Horwitz, 1988; Nunan, 1987; Schulz, 2001).

Accordingly, teachers can benefit from discovering their students’ preferences in instructional practices. Nunan (1995) proposed that “teachers should find out what their students think and feel about what and how they want to learn” (p.140).

As many language educators and researchers (e.g., Edge, 1989; Hendrickson, 1987) maintain, making errors is a necessary and natural process of language learning. Inevitably, learner errors and feedback to errors have been of great interest to language teachers and researchers. Although the literature on teachers’ responses to students’ errors is abundant, the literature on students’ perceptions regarding error correction is limited in both ESL and EFL research (e.g., Bang, 1999; Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Chenoweth, Day, Chun & Luppescu, 1983; Oladejo, 1993). Particularly concerning Japanese ESL learners’ preferences for oral error correction, there is very little research in the literature (Chenoweth et al., 1983; McCargar, 1993). Chenoweth et al. (1983) examined adult ESL learners’ attitudes toward interaction with native-speaking friends.

They found that these learners with different cultural background such as Japanese and Koreans had positive attitudes toward error correction. Similar results were observed by McCargar (1993) who investigated adult ESL learners’ preferences for error correction in his study of cultural differences in teacher and student role expectation. The Japanese ESL learners in these studies may have different attitudes from Japanese EFL learners because these two types of learners study in different settings where the learners’ levels of exposure to the English language differ. In the EFL settings, where learners do not need English to satisfy daily life requirements, there may not be a demand for accuracy in English usage, and consequently, their preferences for error correction might differ from those of the learners in ESL settings.

Since EFL classes in Japanese universities almost always have a large number of students, it would be especially difficult for teachers to modify their preferences and practices in order to cater to each individual student’s preferences. However, if successful language learning depends largely on matching the expectations of teachers and learners, it will be of value to obtain information on students’ views on error correction and to utilize the information in dealing with classroom errors.
This study employed a questionnaire survey and examined attitudes towards and preferences for classroom oral error correction among EFL students in Japanese universities.

Research design and method
Research Questions
In order to investigate Japanese EFL learners’ attitudes and preferences regarding classroom oral error correction, the following questions were addressed:

1. What are the attitudes toward classroom oral error correction among EFL students in Japanese universities?
2. What are the students’ general preferences for classroom correction of different types of errors (e.g., pronunciation and grammar)?
3. What are the students’ preferences for particular types of error correction methods?

Data collection instrument
A questionnaire (shown in the Appendix) was developed based on a literature review of previous studies of learner errors and teacher feedback on errors in order to elicit information on students’ attitudes regarding error correction. The original questionnaire was constructed in English and translated into Japanese. Both versions were modified several times based on the results of pretests and reviewed by two bilingual professors of Japanese to ensure accuracy of translation. This study employed the Japanese version.

The questionnaire contains four sections. The first section contained questions eliciting demographic information. The second section addressed Research Question 1 and asked the students’ general opinions about the correction of oral errors in the classroom. The section contained four statements illustrating certain views that have been controversial among language researchers and educators for decades. These views included: whether or not learner errors should be corrected; when learner errors should be corrected (i.e., constantly or selectively); and who should correct errors, teachers or peers. The students were asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with four different statements. Response options were coded to 5-point scales, with 1 representing strongly disagree and 5 representing strongly agree. The students were given the option of explaining the reasons for their rating in order to provide this research with “useful/insightful” qualitative data (Nunan, 1992, p. 145). The third section addressed Research Question 2 and asked about students’ preferences for classroom error corrections of different aspects of the language.

The students were asked how often they wanted classroom error correction of different types of errors: grammar, phonology, vocabulary, pragmatics, and discourse. Instead of the term phonology, the words “pronunciation, accent, and intonation,” were used in the questionnaire. Errors in pragmatics were presented as “inappropriate expressions,” and discourse errors as “organization of discourse.” Participants rated each item on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing never and 5 representing always with respect to frequency of correction.

The last section addressed Research Question 3 and asked about students’ preferences for particular types of error correction methods. The students were asked to rate ten different methods of error correction (shown on section D of the questionnaire in the Appendix) provided by teachers, first as feedback to students’ grammatical errors, and then as feedback to students’ pronunciation errors for each technique. Examples of errorswere presented in the questionnaire. The rating for students’ opinions about each method was measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 representing no good to 5 representing very good.

Participants
Data was collected from 588 respondents enrolled in 21 EFL classes at six universities located in three different cities in Japan. Regarding gender, 353 students were female and 233 were male. Two respondents did not indicate their gender. They were English literature majors (139 students), education majors (98 students), English as a foreign language majors (92 students), economics majors (77 students), medicine majors (23 students), foreign language majors (22 students), and other majors (137 students).

Data Analysis
Frequency distributions were calculated to analyze the Likert-scale responses for (1) general attitudes toward classroom oral error correction, (2) general preferences for correction of different types of errors (e.g., pronunciation and grammar), and (3) general preferences for particular types of correction methods of classroom oral errors.

Results and discussion
The following results and discussion address the four research questions.
Attitudes toward Error Correction
Section B of the questionnaire addressed Research Question 1: What are the attitudes toward classroom oral error correction among EFL students in Japanese universities?

Whether or not errors should be corrected. In the questionnaire (Section B-a), the students were asked whether or not they agreed with the statement, “I want teachers to correct my errors in speaking English.” Adding together the numbers of students who agreed or strongly agreed, 77.6% of the students agreed with the statement (Table 1). The students were given the option to explain the reasons for their rating, and 66.4% of the respondents provided reasons. The following discussion considers only those who provided optional comments. The responses were categorized, and frequencies of the responses for each category were calculated. The most frequently cited reason for this positive attitude toward error correction was that students wanted to improve their accuracy in English.

Table 1: Attitudes toward error correction

Item	N	Strongly Disagree 1  (%)	Disagree 2 (%)	3 (%)	Agree 4 (%)	Strongly Agree 5 (%)	Mean	SD
I want teachers to correct my errors in speaking English.	586	1.5	3.9	16.9	36.3	41.3	4.12	.93
Teachers should correct all errors that learners make in speaking English.	587	17.0	30.3	32.2	14.3	6.1	2.62	1.11
Teachers should correct only the errors that interfere with communication.	587	9.5	23.2	27.3	24.7	15.3	3.13	1.21
I want my classmates to correct my oral errors in group work.	584	4.1	14.4	30.8	34.2	16.4	3.45	1.05

* Some rows do not add to 100% due to rounding.

The students’ strongly favorable attitudes toward receiving error correction in the present study is consistent with the results of studies among ESL students conducted by Cathcart and Olsen (1976), Chenoweth et al. (1983), and McCargar (1993) as well as those conducted among EFL students by Oladejo (1993) and Bang (1999). In a more recent study (Katayama, 2006, 2007a), I investigated students’ perceptions toward oral error correction in Japanese classrooms in the US, and found that 92.8% of the respondents expressed their strongly favorable attitudes toward teacher correction. Schulz (2001) observed FL students’ strongly favorable attitude toward explicit grammar instruction and error correction, and speculated that “perceptions could be the result of the way FLs are taught or tested (i.e., with predominantly form-focused, discrete-point tests) or both” (p. 255). Edge (1989) maintained that accuracy is important as well as fluency “because a lot of examinations are based on how accurate a student is in constructing correct pieces of language” (p. 20).

Correcting all errors vs. selective correction. Section B-b and B-c asked the respondents when learner errors should be corrected, that is, constantly or selectively.

Nearly half of the respondents (47.3%) disagreed with the following statement: “Teachers should correct all errors that learners make in speaking English” (Table 1). 64.6% of the respondents provided reasons. As an explanation for their response, the students most frequently stated that they did not desire all their errors to be corrected because they thought that ‘correcting all errors would affect students’ feelings.’
When asked whether or not they agreed with the statement, “Teachers should correct only the errors that interfere with communication,” 40% expressed agreement, 32.7% disagreed, and 27.3% neither agreed nor disagreed (Table 1), and 46.5% of the respondents provided reasons. As a reason for their preference, the students most frequently responded that they agreed with selective correction because erroneous English is all right as long as it’s understandable. On the other hand, those opposed to selective correction most often responded that correcting only errors that interfere with communication is not sufficient. 

It was impractical for the teachers to correct all errors that they made because of the large size of the classes (thirty to sixty students) in which the respondents were enrolled. This might have affected their responses regarding the correction of all errors. In fact, 7.4% of the respondents who provided the reasons for their rating expressed that correcting all errors in large classes is impossible.

Peer correction. A total of 50.6% agreed with the following statement (Section B-d): “I want my classmates to correct my oral errors in group work” (Table 1). 46.7% of the respondents provided reasons. The belief that peer correction is beneficial was the most frequent reason for this positive attitude.

I postulated that EFL students in Japan have negative attitudes toward peer correction based on the assumption that the students do not expect to have their oral errors corrected because peer correction violates the concept of ingroup harmony, an important cultural value in Japan discussed by Gudykunst & Nishida (1993). Contrary to my assumption, only 5.5% of the respondents who provided the reasons for their rating expressed that they felt uncomfortable with peer correction.

Types of errors students wanted to have corrected
Section C of the questionnaire addressed Research Question 2: What are the students’ general preferences for classroom error correction of different types of errors (e.g., pronunciation and grammar)?
As can be seen in Table 2, the majority of the students wanted to have their errors in pragmatics (61.8%) always corrected.

Table 2:  Types of errors students wanted to have corrected

Item	N	Never 1 (%)	2 (%)	3 (%)	4 (%)	Always 5 (%)	Mean	SD
Pragmatics	586	.7	1.5	7.8	28.2	61.8	4.49	.76
Phonology	586	.9	3.6	10.9	38.6	46.1	4.25	.85
Vocabulary	586	.5	3.9	18.3	47.3	30.3	4.02	.83
Grammar	587	2.0	9.9	35.8	32.4	19.8	3.58	.98
Discourse	586	2.9	12.6	34.2	32.2	18.1	3.50	1.02

* Some rows do not add to 100% due to rounding.

The strong positive attitude toward correction of this type of error might be explained by the Japanese education system. In junior and senior high school, students are taught the English language primarily through the grammar-translation method (Takahashi, 2004). Graduates of this type of instruction have good knowledge of English grammar and a wide range of vocabulary. Although they may produce grammatically correct sentences, may not be sure whether or not their utterances are appropriate in a specific context. This may help to explain why the students in this study showed great interest in the correction of their errors in pragmatics.

Another striking finding is the students’ strongly positive attitude toward the correction of phonological errors. This supports the findings of the study by Matsuura, Chiba, and Hilderbrandt (2001) that examined Japanese EFL student and teacher beliefs about learning and teaching communicative English. The majority of the students expressed their interest in learning correct pronunciation. Japanese phonology does not share the same features as English phonology (Vance, 1987). Therefore, the acquisition of English pronunciation, accent, and intonation patterns is difficult for many Japanese EFL learners. In addition, EFL classes are mainly taught by Japanese teachers in junior and senior high schools. Consequently, the students lack exposure to English spoken by native speakers. The students’ high interest in the correction of phonological errors could be considered very predictable.

The students’ strong interest in the correction of vocabulary errors could also be explained by the education they received. EFL teachers in Japan are expected to prepare their students to pass university entrance examinations (Gorsuch, 2000). In addition to complex grammatical knowledge, reading comprehension skills, and other skills, examinees of the entrance examinations are expected to have a wide range of English vocabulary. Although the required number of vocabulary for senior high school students to learn is up to about 2900 words, the examinees of some private universities need to know around 10,000 words (Takahashi, 2004). The students simply memorize words and phrases instead of learning them in meaningful contexts. Consequently, they may lack confidence about using appropriate words and phrases in a real-life setting. This could be the reason that the students in this study showed high interest in correction of vocabulary errors.   

Methods of classroom error correction
The last section of the questionnaire addressed Research Question 3: What are the students’ general preferences for particular types of error correction methods? Based on the results of respondents’ rating on the five-point scale, the methods were categorized into three types: 1) most favored correction methods; 2) disliked correction methods; and 3) methods neither liked nor disliked. For these last methods, the respondents were fairly equally balanced in terms of positive, neutral (3 on the five-point scale), and negative responses. Therefore, no tendency in either direction could be determined.

Favored correction methods. Table 3 lists the methods of grammar correction that the majority of the students favored. These methods are listed in the order of preference based on the percentage of the respondents who gave scores of 4 and 5.

Table 3: Favored correction methods for grammatical errors

Correction Method	N	No Good 1 (%)	2 (%)	3 (%)	4 (%)	Very Good 5 (%)	Mean	SD
T gives a hint which might enable S to notice the error and self-correct.	576	4.0	9.2	16.8	36.3	33.7	3.86	1.10
T explains why the utterance is incorrect.	575	4.3	11.8	19.7	29.0	35.1	3.79	1.17
T points out the error and provides the correct form.	574	3.8	9.9	22.1	32.2	31.9	3.78	1.11
T presents the correct form when repeating all or part of the S’s utterance.	569	2.1	9.8	27.4	34.1	26.5	3.73	1.03

* Some rows do not add to 100% due to rounding.
Among the ten types of correction, the most popular was the one in which the teacher gives a hint which might enable the student to notice the error and self-correct; 70% chose this method. The second most favored grammar correction was the one in which the teacher explains why the student’s utterance is incorrect; 64.1% endorsed this method. An equally popular method was the one in which the teacher points out the error and provides the correct form. A total of 64.1% of the respondents liked this correction method. One last favored method was that in which the teacher presents the correct form when repeating all or part of the student’s utterance; 60.6% liked this method.

Table 4 displays the correction methods of pronunciation errors that the majority of the students favored. The students’ most favored method was the one in which the teacher gives a hint which might enable the student to notice the error and self-correct; 64.4% favored this method. The second most popular correction method was the technique in which the teacher points out the error and provides the correct pronunciation; 64.1% endorsed this method. Another favored method was the one in which the teacher presents the correct form when repeating all or part of the student’s utterance; 63% liked this method. Still another favored method was that in which the teacher explains why the student’s utterance is incorrect; 62.9% selected this method.

Table 4:  Favored correction methods for pronunciation errors

Correction Method	N	No Good 1 (%)	2 (%)	3 (%)	4 (%)	Very Good 5 (%)	Mean	SD
T gives a hint which might enable S to notice the error and self-correct.	569	4.4	12.1	19.2	33.6	30.8	3.74	1.15
T points out the error and provides the correct pronunciation.	567	4.1	9.9	22.0	30.9	33.2	3.79	1.13
T presents the correct form when repeating all or part of the S’s utterance.	557	2.3	8.6	26.0	34.8	28.2	3.78	1.02
T explains why the utterance is incorrect.	569	4.6	12.7	19.9	28.5	34.4	3.76	1.18

The majority of the respondents liked four out of the ten possible correction methods for both grammatical and pronunciation errors in different orders of preference. The most favored method of correction for both grammatical and phonological errors was the one in which the teacher gives a hint which might enable the student to notice the error and self-correct. This indirect correction method is intended to indicate that the student has made an error without embarrassing the student, allowing the student to ‘save face.’ In large classes of Japanese universities, the students might feel more comfortable with this correction method. Another favored method that attempts to elicit self-correction was the technique in which the teacher explains why the student’s utterance is incorrect. Many researchers promote self-correction (e.g., Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Chaudron, 1988; Cohen, 1975; Corder, 1967; Hendrickson, 1978; Kasper, 1985; van Lier, 1988). Ellis (1994) suggested that students are less likely to respond negatively to self-correction than to teacher correction. Edge (1989) noted that people usually prefer correcting themselves rather than being corrected by someone else. He further noted that “self-correction is easier to remember, because someone has put something right in his or her own head” (p. 24). Comps (2003) maintained that language teachers should encourage students to self-correct in the foreign language classroom context so that they can continue to develop their skills for self-correction outside the classroom.

As these findings indicate, one of the favored correction methods was the one in which the teacher presents the correct form when repeating all or part of the student’s utterance. Lyster and Ranta term this type of correction ‘recast’ (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.46). Recasts were frequently employed by the teachers in some observational studies (e.g., Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Doughty, 1994; Fanselow, 1977; Lyster, 2001; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Loewen & Philp, 2006). Some studies suggest that recasts are effective for acquisition (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998; Long, Inagaki & Ortega; 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Morris, 2002, Philp, 2003). On the other hand, the potential ambiguity of recasts has been noted by many researchers. Learners may perceive recasts as conversational responses such as confirmation of meaning rather than feedback on their ill-formed utterances (e.g., Chaudron, 1988; Fanselow, 1977; Lyster & Ranta, 1997, Truscott, 1999). In order for recasts to facilitate acquisition, learners need to notice the gap between their erroneous forms and the correct forms (Gas & Varonis, 1994; Philp, 2003). Chaudron (1988) proposed that recasts could be made less ambiguous by shortening the correct utterance to locate the error and/or adding a stress for emphasis on the correct form. Even with this technique, learners may not notice errors or correct-incorrect mismatches.

One of the methods which can draw the student’s attention to the error is the one in which the teacher overtly points out the error and provides the correct form. The students in this study favored this method in which the error and the correct form are overtly contrasted. Gass and Varonis (1994) suggested that awareness of the correct-incorrect mismatch may lead to changes in the learners’ L2 knowledge. Nevertheless, some teachers and researchers oppose the use of the learner’s error when providing correction. Grew (1964) claimed that teachers should never give the incorrect form because, strangely enough, the class is more prone to retain the incorrect form than the correct form when the students have heard the teacher use it. Although we may appreciate Grew’s claim, such explicit correction can save time. It not only locates the error, but also gives the correct form, and therefore minimizes any disturbance to the flow of the activity.

Disliked correction methods. The respondents did not favor two methods of correction for grammatical and phonological errors. The least favored method was the technique in which the teacher ignores the student’s errors. 88.6% rated this technique 1 and 2, with 1 representing no good. The students in the studies of Cathcart and Olsen (1976) and Oladejo (1993) also disliked this technique. Despite its lack of popularity among learners, ignoring learners’ errors is one of the techniques often used by teachers in the study of Fanselow (1977). The second least favored method was the one in which the teacher repeats the original question. 61.8% of the respondents disfavored this method to correct grammatical errors, and 65.8 % disfavored the method to correct pronunciation errors. This method is potentially unclear to students. They may perceive the question as a follow-up question, not as the original one. Even if they succeed in realizing that they have made errors, they may not be able to locate the errors nor correct the errors by themselves.

Methods neither liked nor disliked. Several correction methods were neither favored nor disliked by the students of this study. One of them is the method in which the teacher indicates that the student has made an error by using nonverbal behavior, such as gestures and facial expressions. Another is the method in which the teacher repeats the student’s utterance up to the error, and waits for self-correction. The method in which the teacher asks the student to repeat the utterance also received this type of indeterminate response. One last method in this group was that in which the teacher simply indicates the error. All these methods to elicit self-correction except the last one could be ambiguous to students. It could be speculated that students may perceive the corrections as conversational moves such as agreeing or confirming, and may not be aware of their errors. Even if they can recognize their errors, they might not be able to self-correct successfully because none of these methods give them any clues to assist self-correction.

Conclusions

This study revealed that certain differences appear to exist between the students’ expectations and the teachers’ pedagogical practice. Just like the classes (thirty to sixty students) in which the respondents were enrolled, Japanese university EFL classes are usually large. The teachers often have the students engage in communicative activities in pairs and groups (O’Sullivan, 1996). Unavoidably, the teachers cannot observe or correct all the errors the students make. Despite the strongly positive attitudes toward teacher correction that the respondents expressed, it was not feasible for teachers to spend much of the instruction time dealing with errors.

Nunan (1987) argued, “One of the most serious blocks to learning is the mismatch between teacher and learner expectations about what should happen in the classroom” (p.177). Many language educators and researchers support this view (e.g., Green & Oxford, 1995; Horwitz, 1988; Schulz, 2001). Given that matching students’ and teachers’ expectations is vital for successful language learning, it can be hoped that teachers will take the time to discover their students’ attitudes toward pedagogical practice. When circumstances do not allow the teachers to modify their classroom practices, they should explain their rationale to their students. Such explanations could at least partially minimize conflict in expectations between teachers and students (Katayama, 2006, 2007ab).

Although the sample of this study provided a varied population mix, no generalization can be drawn because the study sample was not a true random sample. Despite this drawback, however, it can be argued that the findings of this study provide useful information that may contribute to our understanding of students’ perceptions of classroom error correction.

The findings of this study lead to implications for future research. One recommendation is research that addresses the reasons for the students’ preferences for particular correction methods as well as their preferences for classroom error corrections of different types of errors. Another recommendation is investigating cross-cultural differences to find out whether learners’ perceptions differ across cultures. In fact, some differences were observed between the findings of this study and those of my study of American JFL students (Katayama, 2006, 2007a). For instance, American students had more positive attitudes toward teacher correction of oral errors than Japanese counterparts: 92.8% of the respondents in Japanese classrooms in the US wanted their teachers to correct their oral errors, while 77.6% of the respondents in EFL classes in Japan did. Another difference is regarding perception of peer correction. It could be speculated that these differences are due to cultural differences.

Notes
This article is a revised version of the paper included in the JALT2006 Conference Proceedings (2007b).

References
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bang, Y. (1999). Reactions of EFL students to oral error correction. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 3, 39-51.

Cathcart, R. L., & Olsen J. W. B. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. InJ. F. Fanselow & R. H. Crymes(Eds.), On TESOL ’76, 41-53. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of ESL students to error correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 79-87.

Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error correction and the training of language teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 59, 414-422.

Comps, J. (2003). The analysis of oral self-correction as a window into the development of past time reference in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 36(2), 233-257.

Corder, P. S. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170.

Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistic (pp. 96-108). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction. London, New York: Longman.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fanselow, J. F. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10(5), 583-593.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 283-302.

Gorsuch, G. (2000). EFL education policies and educational cultures: Influences on teachers’ approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 675-710.

Green, J. M. & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.

Grew, J. H. (1964). Toward better classroom teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 48(2), 82-88.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida T. (1993). Interpersonal and intergroup communication in Japan and the United States. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication in Japan and the United States (pp. 149-214). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Hawkey, R. (2006). Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning activity. ELT Journal, 60(3), 242-252.

Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398.

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.

Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 200-215.

Katayama. A. (2006). Perceptions of JFL students toward correction of oral errors. In K. Bradford-Watts, C. Ikeguchi, & M. Swanson (Eds.) JALT2005 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1248-1264). Tokyo: JALT. 

Katayama. A. (2007a). Students’ perceptions of oral error correction. Japanese Language and Literature, 41, 61-92.

Katayama. A. (2007b). Learners’ perceptions toward oral error correction. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT2006 Conference Proceedings (pp. 284-299). Tokyo: JALT.  

Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536-556.

Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357-371.

Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51(1), 265-301.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.

Mackey, A., & Philp. J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 338-356.

Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., & Hilderbrandt, P. (2001). Beliefs about learning and teaching communicative English in Japan. JALT Journal, 23, 69-89.

McCargar, D. F. (1993). Teacher and student role expectations: Cross-cultural differences and implications. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 192-207.

Morris, F. A. (2002). Negotiation moves and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 35(4), 395-404.

Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: The learner’s view. In K. D. Bikram (Ed.), Communication and learning in the classroom community, (pp. 176-190). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 133-158.

Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preference. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.

O’Sullivan, J. (1996). Teaching English in Japan. Lincolnwood: Passport Books.

Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 1-20.

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.

Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364.

Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Columbia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.

Takahashi, Y. (2004). TEFL and communication style in Japanese culture. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17, 1-14.

Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction? Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437-456.

Vance, T. J. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. New York: State University of New York Press.

Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London and N.Y.: Longman.

Appendix: see PDF