Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 253

LA EFICACIA DE LA RETROALIMENTACIÓN CORRECTIVA ORAL PARA MEJORAR

LA PRONUNCIACIÓN SEGMENTAL EN ESTUDIANTES DE INGLÉS COMO LENGUA

EXTRANJERA DE NIVEL A2 EN UN CONTEXTO

MILITAR

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR IMPROVING

SEGMENTAL PRONUNCIATION IN A2 EFL LEARNERS IN A MILITARY CONTEXT

Autores: ¹Pamela Elizabeth Casa Molina, ²Nayeli Nicole Núñez Melo, ³Josué Reinaldo Bonilla

Tenesaca y

Diana Carolina Egas Herrera.

¹ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8263-1749

²ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5603-5071

³ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6748-2345

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2878-0689

¹E-mail de contacto: pecasam@ube.edu.ec

²E-mail de contacto: nnnunezm@ube.edu.ec

³E-mail de contacto: jrbonillat@ube.edu.ec

E-mail de contacto: dcegash@ube.edu.ec

Afiliación:

1*2*3*4*

Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador, (Ecuador).

Artículo recibido: 20 de Abril del 2026

Artículo revisado: 22 de Abril del 2026

Artículo aprobado: 24 de Abril del 2026

¹Licenciada en Pedagogía de los Idiomas Nacionales y Extranjeros, mención Inglés, egresada de la Universidad Técnica de Ambato,

(Ecuador), con 2 años de experiencia laboral.

²Licenciada en Pedagogía de los Idiomas Nacionales y Extranjeros, mención Inglés, egresada de la Universidad Técnica de Ambato,

(Ecuador), con 2 años de experiencia laboral.

³Licenciado en Ciencias de la Educación mención Inglés, egresada de la Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, (Ecuador). Magíster en

Pedagogía de los idiomas Nacionales y Extranjeros con mención en la Enseñanza de Inglés, egresado de la Universidad Casa Grande,

(Ecuador). Doctor en Pedagogía, egresado de la Universidad de Oriente, (Cuba).

Licenciada en Asistencia Gerencial y Relaciones Públicas, egresada de la Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, (Ecuador). Magíster

en Pedagogía de los idiomas Nacionales y Extranjeros con mención en la Enseñanza de Inglés, egresada de la Universidad Casa Grande,

(Ecuador). Doctorante en Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Cienfuegos, (Cuba).

Resumen

El objetivo de este estudio fue examinar los

efectos de la retroalimentación correctiva oral

en el desarrollo de la pronunciación segmental

de estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera

de nivel A2 en un contexto educativo militar.

El estudio empleó un diseño cuasi experimental

con enfoque mixto. Participaron treinta

estudiantes adultos, quienes recibieron

instrucción comunicativa en inglés con

integración sistemática de la pronunciación en

actividades orales. La retroalimentación

correctiva fue proporcionada de manera natural

durante la interacción en el aula, con énfasis en

la reformulación y la corrección explícita. Para

la recolección de datos se aplicaron pruebas de

pronunciación antes y después de la

intervención, así como grabaciones de sesiones

de clase para identificar tipos de

retroalimentación y patrones de respuesta de

los estudiantes. Los resultados cuantitativos

evidenciaron una mejora estadísticamente

significativa en la precisión de la

pronunciación segmental al finalizar el período

de instrucción. El análisis cualitativo mostró

que, aunque la reformulación fue el tipo de

retroalimentación más frecuente, la corrección

explícita generó mayores niveles de respuesta

con reparación por parte de los estudiantes.

Asimismo, se identificaron dificultades

recurrentes en la producción de determinados

sonidos consonánticos y vocálicos del inglés.

Se concluye que la retroalimentación

correctiva oral constituye una estrategia

pedagógica eficaz para favorecer el desarrollo

de la pronunciación segmental en estudiantes

de nivel básico. En particular, la corrección

explícita resulta especialmente beneficiosa

para facilitar la identificación y modificación

inmediata de errores fonológicos en

Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 254

aprendientes con bajo nivel de competencia

lingüística.

Palabras clave: Pronunciación,

Retroalimentación correctiva, Inglés,

Lengua extranjera, Fonética segmental.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the

effects of oral corrective feedback on the

development of segmental pronunciation

among A2-level learners of English as a foreign

language in a military educational context. The

study employed a quasi-experimental mixed-

methods design. Thirty adult learners

participated in communicative English

instruction in which pronunciation was

systematically integrated into oral classroom

activities. Oral corrective feedback was

provided naturally during interaction, with

particular emphasis on recasts and explicit

correction. Data collection included

pronunciation pretests and posttests, as well as

audio recordings of classroom sessions to

identify feedback types and learner responses.

Quantitative results revealed a statistically

significant improvement in learners’ segmental

pronunciation accuracy at the end of the

instructional period. Qualitative analysis

indicated that while recasts were the most

frequently used feedback strategy, explicit

correction generated higher levels of learner

uptake with successful repair. Recurrent

pronunciation difficulties were also identified,

particularly in the production of specific

consonant and vowel sounds. The findings

suggest that oral corrective feedback plays a

significant role in supporting segmental

pronunciation development in basic-level

learners of English. Explicit corrective

feedback, in particular, appears to be especially

effective in helping learners notice and

immediately modify inaccurate phonological

productions. The study highlights the

pedagogical value of integrating

pronunciation-focused feedback into

communicative classroom practices in foreign

language instruction.

Keywords: Pronunciation, Corrective

feedback, English, Foreign language,

Segmental phonetics.

Sumário

O objetivo deste estudo foi examinar os efeitos

da retroalimentação corretiva oral no

desenvolvimento da pronúncia segmental de

estudantes de inglês como língua estrangeira de

nível A2 em um contexto educacional militar. O

estudo adotou um desenho quase experimental

com abordagem mista. Participaram trinta

estudantes adultos que receberam instrução

comunicativa em inglês, com a pronúncia

integrada sistematicamente às atividades orais

em sala de aula. A retroalimentação corretiva

oral foi fornecida de forma natural durante a

interação, com ênfase na reformulação e na

correção explícita. A coleta de dados incluiu

testes de pronúncia aplicados antes e depois da

intervenção, além de gravações das aulas para

identificar os tipos de retroalimentação e as

respostas dos estudantes. Os resultados

quantitativos indicaram uma melhora

estatisticamente significativa na precisão da

pronúncia segmental. A análise qualitativa

revelou que, embora a reformulação tenha sido

o tipo de retroalimentação mais frequente, a

correção explícita produziu maiores níveis de

resposta com reparo por parte dos estudantes.

Também foram identificadas dificuldades

recorrentes na produção de determinados sons

consonantais e vocálicos. Conclui-se que a

retroalimentação corretiva oral é uma estratégia

pedagógica eficaz para promover o

desenvolvimento da pronúncia segmental em

aprendizes de nível básico. A correção explícita

mostra-se especialmente útil para facilitar a

identificação e a modificação imediata de erros

fonológicos.

Palavras-chave: Pronúncia, Feedback

corretivo, Inglês, Língua estrangeira,

Fonética segmental.

Introducción

Pronunciation constitutes a fundamental

component of oral communicative competence

in second and foreign language learning, as it

directly affects intelligibility,

Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 255

comprehensibility, and listeners’ perceptions of

speaker proficiency. Research has consistently

demonstrated that pronunciation plays a

decisive role in successful communication,

sometimes even more than grammatical

accuracy (Derwing y Munro, 2015; Derwing et

al., 2009). In English as a foreign language

contexts, learners frequently experience

persistent pronunciation difficulties due to

limited exposure to authentic input, cross-

linguistic phonological differences, and

insufficient instructional focus on phonological

development. These challenges are particularly

evident at lower proficiency levels, where

inaccurate pronunciation may hinder

communication despite adequate lexical and

grammatical knowledge.

Within communicative language teaching

environments, pronunciation instruction is

often embedded in speaking activities rather

than addressed through isolated phonetic drills

(Celce et al., 2010). In such contexts, oral

corrective feedback emerges as a central

pedagogical tool for addressing learners’

phonological errors. Corrective feedback refers

to responses to learner utterances that contain

errors and are intended to promote noticing,

modified output, and restructuring of

interlanguage systems (Ellis, 2009).

Interactionist perspectives emphasize that

feedback facilitates attention to form and

contributes to language development by

triggering cognitive comparison processes

(Long, 1996). Because learners frequently fail

to perceive their own pronunciation

inaccuracies, especially when communication

is not disrupted, corrective feedback becomes

essential for phonological development.

Seminal classroom-based research identified

six primary types of oral corrective feedback:

recasts, elicitation, clarification requests,

metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction,

and repetition (Lyster y Ranta, 1997).

Subsequent research has demonstrated that the

type of feedback provided influences learner

uptake and repair (Lyster et al., 2013). Meta-

analytic evidence confirms that corrective

feedback generally has a positive effect on

second language development, although its

effectiveness is mediated by variables such as

explicitness, learner proficiency, instructional

context, and target structure (Li, 2010; Nassaji,

2020).

Although corrective feedback has been widely

investigated in relation to grammar and

vocabulary, pronunciation has historically

received comparatively less attention.

Nevertheless, research focusing specifically on

phonological development indicates that

feedback can significantly enhance both

perception and production of segmental

contrasts (Saito y Lyster, 2012). More recent

research highlights that pronunciation gains are

particularly evident when feedback is

systematically integrated into communicative

practice (Saito, 2021). Experimental

comparisons between explicit and implicit

feedback suggest that explicit corrective

strategies may produce stronger immediate

gains in pronunciation accuracy, especially

among lower-proficiency learners (Zafar y

Meenakshi, 2022).

Contemporary studies have also examined

learner perceptions and contextual factors

influencing corrective feedback. Learners

frequently report perceiving explicit feedback

as clearer and more helpful for pronunciation

development, while recasts are often viewed as

less noticeable despite being interactionally

smooth (Bougataia y Brigui, 2025; Skenderi y

Ejupi, 2024). Teacher beliefs, institutional

norms, and classroom dynamics further shape

how feedback is delivered and interpreted

(Soruç, 2025). Systematic reviews of classroom

Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 256

corrective feedback practices indicate that

feedback effectiveness depends not only on

form but also on frequency, timing, and learner

engagement (Maslucha et al., 2024).

Additionally, recent research on

technologically mediated pronunciation

training suggests that even feedback that is not

perfectly accurate may still promote measurable

improvements, reinforcing the importance of

consistent phonological input and response

opportunities (Silpachai et al., 2024).

Despite the growing body of research, several

gaps remain. A considerable proportion of

pronunciation-focused corrective feedback

studies have been conducted under laboratory

or short-term experimental conditions, limiting

ecological validity. There is comparatively less

research examining pronunciation development

through corrective feedback in authentic

classroom settings, particularly among lower-

proficiency adult learners with professional

communication demands. Furthermore,

institutional contexts such as military education

remain underrepresented in pronunciation

research. While prior studies have examined

feedback types in general educational

environments (Rahimi y Katal, 2019;

Fotovatnia y Pishghadam, 2021), there is

limited empirical evidence addressing how

multiple feedback types function within

structured institutional training contexts and

how they affect learner uptake and segmental

development over time.

In response to these gaps, the present study

examined the effects of oral corrective feedback

on the segmental pronunciation development of

A2-level learners of English as a foreign

language enrolled in a military educational

institution. The research employed a quasi-

experimental mixed-methods design combining

quantitative analysis of pretest and posttest

pronunciation measures with qualitative

examination of classroom interaction and

learner uptake patterns. The study aimed to

determine whether systematic oral corrective

feedback would lead to statistically significant

improvements in pronunciation accuracy and

whether different feedback types would

generate distinct patterns of learner response

within an authentic instructional setting.

Materiales y Métodos

This study adopted a mixed-methods approach

using a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest

single-group design. The quantitative

component was employed to measure changes

in segmental pronunciation accuracy before and

after the instructional intervention, while the

qualitative component allowed for the analysis

of oral corrective feedback types and learner

uptake patterns during classroom interaction.

The population consisted of learners of English

as a Foreign Language enrolled in a military

educational institution. The sample was

composed of 30 adult learners between 18 and

22 years of age who were classified at the A2

level according to the Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages. Due to

institutional constraints that prevented random

assignment, a non-probabilistic convenience

sampling method was employed, and an intact

class was selected for participation.

The instructional intervention was implemented

over a period of eight weeks and consisted of

ten classroom sessions, each lasting

approximately 90 minutes. Pronunciation

instruction was integrated into communicative

speaking activities rather than taught in

isolation. The main activities included guided

reading aloud tasks, role-play interactions,

structured group conversations, and voice-

recording analysis activities. Oral corrective

feedback was provided at different moments

during the activities depending on the

pedagogical objective. During fluency-oriented

Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 257

activities such as role plays and group

discussions, feedback was typically provided

through recasts in order to maintain

communicative flow. In contrast, during

accuracy-focused activities such as reading

aloud or pronunciation review tasks, explicit

correction and metalinguistic feedback were

more frequently employed. This combination

allowed pronunciation development to occur

within meaningful communicative practice

while still providing clear phonological

guidance.

The inclusion criteria were: (a) official

enrollment in the A2-level English course at the

institution; (b) regular attendance in classroom

sessions; and (c) voluntary agreement to

participate through informed consent. No

additional exclusion criteria were applied

beyond voluntary withdrawal from the study.

To assess segmental pronunciation accuracy,

pronunciation pretests and posttests were

administered. The tests included controlled

word lists, sentence-reading tasks, and short

oral production activities designed to elicit

specific consonant and vowel sounds that were

identified as problematic for the learner

population. All learner productions were audio-

recorded for subsequent analysis.

Pronunciation accuracy was evaluated using a

0–3 analytic scoring rubric for each targeted

segment, where higher scores indicated greater

phonological accuracy. The analytic scoring

rubric was adapted from commonly used

pronunciation assessment criteria in applied

linguistics research and pronunciation

pedagogy (Celce et al., 2010; Derwing y

Munro, 2015). The scale ranged from 0

(incorrect or unintelligible production) to 3

(accurate and intelligible production). The

rubric focused on segmental accuracy, phoneme

realization, and intelligibility of the produced

sound within word and sentence contexts. To

enhance content validity, the scoring criteria

were reviewed by two specialists in English

language teaching with experience in phonetics

instruction. Pronunciation recordings were

analyzed by two evaluators using the

established scoring criteria. Inter-rater

agreement was established through independent

scoring of a subset of recordings, followed by

comparison and discussion to ensure

consistency in the application of the rubric.

In addition, classroom sessions were audio-

recorded in order to document episodes of oral

corrective feedback. Feedback types were

categorized according to the typology proposed

by Lyster and Ranta (1997), including recasts,

explicit correction, elicitation, clarification

requests, metalinguistic feedback, and

repetition. Quantitative data were analyzed

using descriptive statistics, including means and

standard deviations. A paired-samples t-test

was conducted to compare pretest and posttest

pronunciation scores in order to determine

whether the instructional intervention produced

statistically significant improvements. Effect

size was calculated using Cohen’s d to assess

the magnitude of the observed differences. The

study employed methodological triangulation

by integrating quantitative pronunciation test

results with qualitative classroom interaction

data in order to provide a more comprehensive

understanding of pronunciation development.

Qualitative data were analyzed through content

analysis. Episodes of oral corrective feedback

were identified and coded according to

feedback type. Learner responses were

categorized into uptake with repair, uptake

without repair, and no uptake, allowing for

examination of interactional patterns associated

with each feedback type. Participant

confidentiality was ensured through the use of

coded identifiers. All data were securely stored

and used exclusively for research purposes. The

Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 258

study was conducted in accordance with

institutional ethical guidelines, and participants

were informed of their right to withdraw from

the study at any stage without academic

consequences.

Resultados y Discusión

The analysis of the data collected through

pronunciation tests and classroom observations

reveals both quantitative improvement in

segmental accuracy and qualitative variation in

learner uptake patterns associated with different

types of oral corrective feedback. Descriptive

statistics were calculated to examine changes in

learners’ pronunciation accuracy between the

pretest and posttest. The results are presented in

Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Pretest and

Posttest Pronunciation Scores (N = 30)

Test

Min

Max

Pretest

1.15

0.17

0.77

1.47

Posttest

1.23

0.15

0.77

1.53

Source: Authors' elaboration

Table 1 shows that learners demonstrated a

relatively low level of segmental pronunciation

accuracy in the pretest (M = 1.15, SD = 0.17).

Following the instructional intervention, the

mean score increased to 1.23 (SD = 0.15),

indicating overall improvement in the

production of the targeted segmental features.

To determine whether this improvement was

statistically significant, a paired-samples t-test

was conducted. The inferential results are

summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Paired-Samples t-Test Comparing

Pretest and Posttest Pronunciation Scores

Test

Comparison

Differe

nce

Cohen’s d

Posttest-

Pretest

0.06

3.83

.001

0.70

Source: Authors' elaboration

The analysis revealed a statistically significant

improvement in pronunciation accuracy, t(29) =

3.83, p = .001. The effect size (Cohen’s d =

0.70) indicates a moderate and pedagogically

meaningful impact of systematic oral corrective

feedback. From an interactionist perspective,

this improvement may reflect enhanced

noticing and form–meaning comparison

processes triggered by corrective feedback

during communicative interaction. This

increased awareness likely encouraged learners

to adjust their phonological production and

refine their articulation over time. Furthermore,

the consistent presence of feedback may have

helped learners internalize more accurate

pronunciation patterns through repeated

interaction and practice. The distribution of

oral corrective feedback types observed across

the classroom sessions is summarized in Table

Table 3. Frequency of Oral Corrective

Feedback Types Across Five Classes

Corrective Feedback

Type

Frequency

Percentage

(%)

Recast

37.5

Explicit correction

22.9

Clarification request

16.7

Elicitation

11.5

Metalinguistic feedback

6.3

Repetition

5.1

Total

100

Source: Authors' elaboration

Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 259

Recasts were the most frequently employed

feedback strategy (37.5%), followed by explicit

correction (22.9%). This distribution suggests

that teachers prioritized maintaining

communicative flow while still addressing

pronunciation errors. Such preference for

recasts aligns with classroom practices that

favor minimally intrusive feedback during

interaction. Learner uptake following corrective

feedback episodes is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Learner Uptake Following Different

Types of Oral Corrective Feedback

Source: Authors' elaboration

Although recasts were the most frequent

strategy, they generated the highest proportion

of no-uptake responses (16 instances),

suggesting that learners did not consistently

interpret them as corrective. In contrast, explicit

correction resulted in the highest number of

uptake-with-repair episodes (14 instances).

This pattern indicates that feedback explicitness

may play a critical role at lower proficiency

levels, where learners benefit from direct error

signaling and clear phonological modeling.

Recurrent segmental pronunciation errors

identified across classroom sessions are

presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Recurrent Segmental Pronunciation

Errors Observed Across Classes

Source: Authors' elaboration

Analysis of classroom recordings also revealed

gradual improvement in the production of

several problematic phonemes throughout the

instructional period. During the initial sessions,

learners frequently substituted interdental

fricatives (/θ/ and /ð/) with alveolar stops or

sibilants, and confusion between /v/ and /b/ was

consistently observed. However, as corrective

feedback was repeatedly provided during

communicative activities, learners

progressively demonstrated increased

awareness of these contrasts. By the final

sessions, several participants were able to self-

correct pronunciation errors or successfully

repair them following explicit feedback,

suggesting progressive phonological

restructuring rather than isolated posttest

improvement.

Persistent difficulties were observed in the

production of interdental fricatives (/θ/ and /ð/),

vowel contrasts (/ɪ/–/iː/ and /æ/–/ʌ/), and the

/v/–/b/ distinction. These recurring patterns

suggest strong first-language influence and

limited phonemic differentiation of specific

English contrasts. The consistency of these

errors across tasks underscores the need for

sustained and targeted corrective feedback to

support phonological category formation. In

particular, the substitution of interdental

fricatives with more familiar alveolar or bilabial

Target

Segmental

Feature

Common

Error Pattern

Example

/θ/

Substitution

with /t/ or /s/

think → tink

/ð/

Substitution

with /d/

this → dis

/ɪ/

Lengthened to

/iː/

ship → sheep

/æ/

Centralized to

/ʌ/

cat → cut

/v/

Substitution

with /b/

very → bery

Corrective

Feedback

Type

Uptake

with

Repair

Uptake

without

Repair

Uptake

Total

Recast

Explicit

correction

Clarification

request

Elicitation

Metalinguistic

feedback

Repetition

Total

Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 260

sounds reflects the absence of these phonemes

in the learner’s first-language inventory.

Similarly, the neutralization of tense–lax vowel

contrasts indicate insufficient perceptual

sensitivity to duration and quality differences.

The ongoing confusion between /v/ and /b/

further points to challenges in distinguishing

voicing and manner of articulation. Together,

these patterns highlight the importance of

explicit phonetic instruction, focused listening

discrimination activities, and repeated

production practice to facilitate more stable

phonological representations. The relationship

between classroom activity type and

predominant feedback strategy is summarized

in Table 6.

Table 6. Corrective Feedback Use by Activity Type

Source: Authors' elaboration

Explicit correction was most frequently used

during reading aloud and voice-recording

review activities, where instructional emphasis

was placed on accuracy. In contrast, recasts

were more common during role-play and group

conversation activities, where communicative

fluency was prioritized. This distribution

indicates that feedback practices were sensitive

to pedagogical objectives and that effectiveness

must be interpreted within the context of task

demands. Taken together, the quantitative and

qualitative findings demonstrate that systematic

oral corrective feedback contributes

meaningfully to segmental pronunciation

development among A2-level learners. The

statistically significant gains observed in

pronunciation accuracy, coupled with moderate

effect size, suggest that feedback facilitated

measurable phonological restructuring rather

than incidental improvement. The differential

uptake patterns across feedback types further

indicate that explicit corrective feedback may

be particularly beneficial for lower-proficiency

learners. While recasts preserve communicative

continuity, their implicit nature may reduce

salience and limit immediate learner response.

Explicit correction, by contrast, enhances error

noticeability and appears to promote more

immediate repair.

Despite these findings, several limitations

should be acknowledged. First, the study

employed a single-group quasi-experimental

design without a control group. The absence of

a control group was primarily due to

institutional constraints within the military

educational setting, where class organization

and instructional scheduling limited the

possibility of randomly assigning participants to

different instructional conditions. Second, the

relatively small sample size restricts the

generalizability of the results beyond similar

institutional contexts. Finally, pronunciation

ratings were conducted by two evaluators.

Although inter-rater agreement procedures

were implemented to ensure scoring

consistency, some degree of subjectivity cannot

be entirely ruled out.

Nevertheless, the study attempted to strengthen

methodological rigor through methodological

triangulation combining quantitative

pronunciation measures and qualitative

classroom interaction analysis. Future research

should incorporate control groups, larger

samples, and inter-rater reliability procedures to

strengthen methodological rigor.

Pedagogically, the findings suggest that

Activity Type

Most

Frequent

Feedback

Type

Observation

Reading aloud

Explicit

correction

Used to draw clear

attention to

pronunciation errors

Role-play

Recast

Used to maintain

communicative flow

Voice

recording

review

Explicit

correction

Feedback provided

after playback

Group

conversation

Recast

Feedback embedded in

interaction

Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 261

combining communicative recasts with

strategically timed explicit correction may

create optimal conditions for pronunciation

development, particularly in contexts where

intelligibility and professional communication

are essential.

Conclusions

Based on the results obtained, their analysis,

and their discussion, the following conclusions

can be drawn regarding the use of oral

corrective feedback in the development of

segmental pronunciation in A2-level learners of

English as a foreign language: 1) oral corrective

feedback constitutes an effective pedagogical

strategy for supporting the development of

segmental pronunciation in basic-level EFL

instructional contexts; 2) the systematic use of

oral corrective feedback during classroom

activities contributes to addressing persistent

pronunciation difficulties, particularly in

segmental features that are strongly influenced

by learners’ first language; 3) the use of

different types of oral corrective feedback in the

classroom reflects instructional demands and

the nature of the speaking activities employed

during pronunciation practice; 4) explicit oral

corrective feedback plays a particularly

important role in facilitating immediate

pronunciation correction among A2-level

learners, who require clear and direct signals to

identify and modify inaccurate phonological

productions; and 5) the integration of controlled

and communicative speaking activities

accompanied by oral corrective feedback

creates favorable conditions for the progressive

development of segmental pronunciation

accuracy.

Agradecimientos

The authors express their sincere gratitude to

the military educational institution for granting

permission to conduct this study. They also

thank the participating students for their

cooperation and active involvement throughout

the research process.

Referencias Bibliográficas

Bougataia, E., & Brigui, H. (2025). Exploring

EFL learners’ attitudes towards the

effectiveness of recast versus explicit

corrective feedback on pronunciation.

Journal of Natural Language and Linguistics,

3(1), 19–27.

https://doi.org/10.54536/jnll.v3i1.4162

Celce, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (2010).

Teaching pronunciation: A course book and

reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge

University Press.

Derwing, T, & Munro, M. (2015).

Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based

perspectives for L2 teaching and research.

John Benjamins.

https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.42

Derwing, T, Rossiter, M., Munro, M., &

Thomson, R. (2009). Second language

fluency: Judgments on different tasks.

Language Learning, 59(2), 267–299.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9922.2009.00507.x

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and

teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.

https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.v1i1.9054

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006).

Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and

the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–

368.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141

Fotovatnia, Z., & Pishghadam, R. (2021).

Investigating teachers’ corrective feedback

strategies in EFL contexts. TESL-EJ, 25(2),

1–22.

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

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic

environment in second language acquisition.

In Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.),

Handbook of second language acquisition

(pp. 413–468). Academic Press.

Ciencia y Educación

(L-ISSN: 2790-8402 E-ISSN: 2707-3378)

Vol. 7 No. 4

Abril del 2026

Página 262

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-

7/50015-3

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of

prompts and recasts in form-focused

instruction. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective

feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of

form in communicative classrooms. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–

66.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral

corrective feedback in second language

classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365

Maslucha, S., Firmansyah, M., Uswah, M., &

Rachmatian, N. A. (2024). Current practices

of corrective feedback in Indonesian

secondary EFL classrooms: A systematic

review. Indonesian Review of English

Education, Linguistics, and Literature, 2(1),

79–101.

https://doi.org/10.30762/ireell.v2i1.2819

Nassaji, H. (2020). Interactional feedback in

second language teaching and learning: A

meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics Review,

11(3), 427–457.

https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0122

Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2019). The role of

corrective feedback in SLA: A classroom

perspective. System, 87, 102–117.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.10211

Saito, K. (2021). Effects of corrective feedback

on second language pronunciation

development. Language Teaching, 54(1), 1–

17.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000189

Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-

focused instruction and corrective feedback

on L2 pronunciation development. Language

Learning, 62(2), 595–633.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9922.2011.00663.x

Silpachai, A., Neiriz, R., Novotny, M.,

Gutiérrez, R., Levis, J, & Chukharev, E.

(2024). Corrective feedback accuracy and

pronunciation improvement: Feedback that is

“good enough.” Language Learning &

Technology, 28(1), 1–16.

Skenderi, L., & Ejupi, S. (2024). Oral corrective

feedback in the EFL classroom: Learner

perceptions and implications. International

Journal of Education and Philology, 5(2), 41–

49.

Soruç, A. (2025). Factors influencing EFL

teachers’ provision of oral corrective

feedback. Journal of Second Language

Studies. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2024.2338

346

Zafar, R., & Meenakshi, J. (2022). Comparative

efficacy of explicit and implicit corrective

feedback on pronunciation accuracy in EFL

learners. Journal of Language Teaching and

Research, 13(5), 850–857.

https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1305.10

Esta obra está bajo una licencia de

Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No Comercial

Molina, Nayeli Nicole Núñez Melo, Josué Reinaldo

Bonilla Tenesaca y Diana Carolina Egas Herrera.

Página 263

Declaraciones éticas y editoriales del artículo

Contribución de los autores (Taxonomía CRediT)

Pamela Elizabeth Casa Molina: conceptualización de la investigación, diseño metodológico, desarrollo del proceso investigativo, análisis formal de los

datos, redacción del borrador original del manuscrito, revisión crítica del contenido científico y supervisión general del estudio.

Nayeli Nicole Núñez Melo: conceptualización de la investigación, diseño metodológico, desarrollo del proceso investigativo, análisis formal de los datos,

redacción del borrador original del manuscrito, revisión crítica del contenido científico y supervisión general del estudio.

Josué Reinaldo Bonilla Tenesaca: Conceptualización de la investigación, diseño metodológico, desarrollo del proceso investigativo, análisis formal de los

datos, redacción del borrador original del manuscrito, revisión crítica del contenido científico y supervisión general del estudio.

Diana Carolina Egas Herrera: Curación y organización de los datos, participación en la recolección de información, validación de los resultados obtenidos

y elaboración de representaciones gráficas y visualización de los datos.

Declaración de conflicto de intereses

Los autores declaran que no existe conflicto de intereses en relación con la investigación presentada, la autoría del manuscrito ni la publicación del presente

artículo.

Declaración de financiamiento

La presente investigación no recibió financiamiento específico de agencias públicas, comerciales o de organizaciones sin fines de lucro. En caso de existir

financiamiento institucional o externo, este deberá ser declarado explícitamente por los autores en esta sección.

Declaración del editor

El editor responsable certifica que el proceso editorial del presente artículo se desarrolló conforme a los principios de integridad científica, transparencia

y buenas prácticas editoriales. El manuscrito fue sometido a un proceso de evaluación mediante revisión por pares doble ciego, garantizando la

confidencialidad de la identidad de los autores y revisores durante todo el proceso de dictamen académico. Asimismo, el editor declara que el artículo

cumple con los criterios científicos, metodológicos y éticos establecidos por la revista.

Declaración de los revisores

Los revisores externos que participaron en la evaluación del presente manuscrito declaran haber realizado el proceso de revisión de manera objetiva,

independiente y confidencial. Asimismo, manifiestan que no mantienen conflictos de interés con los autores ni con la investigación evaluada, y que sus

observaciones y recomendaciones se fundamentan exclusivamente en criterios científicos, metodológicos y académicos.

Declaración ética de la investigación

Los autores declaran que la investigación se desarrolló respetando los principios éticos de la investigación científica, garantizando la confidencialidad de

los datos y el respeto a los participantes del estudio. En los casos en que la investigación involucre seres humanos, los procedimientos deben ajustarse a

los principios éticos establecidos en la Declaración de Helsinki y a las normativas institucionales correspondientes.

Declaración sobre el uso de inteligencia artificial

Los autores declaran que el uso de herramientas de inteligencia artificial, en caso de haberse utilizado durante el proceso de investigación o redacción del

manuscrito, se realizó únicamente como apoyo técnico para mejorar la claridad del lenguaje o el análisis de información, manteniendo siempre la

responsabilidad intelectual sobre el contenido del artículo. Las herramientas de inteligencia artificial no fueron utilizadas como autoras del manuscrito ni

sustituyen la responsabilidad académica de los investigadores.

Disponibilidad de datos

Los datos que respaldan los resultados de esta investigación estarán disponibles previa solicitud razonable al autor de correspondencia, respetando las

normas éticas y de confidencialidad establecidas por la investigación.