The discussion on corrective feedback, both of oral and written types, is important in the context of EFL and ESL teaching as the English language classroom is never free of mistakes, hence a lot of correction. Therefore, the article is relevant and necessary because it not only confirms the significant role of oral corrective feedback but also provides more insights about the importance of teachers’ beliefs and use of corrective feedback in ESL/EFL teaching.

The article provides a clear background of the reported study and an extensive survey of knowledge of oral corrective feedback, which makes the study situated in an appropriate context. The methods of the study are well founded and produce significant results. Besides, the study found results that highlight the important role of teachers in providing feedback to help learners improve their language proficiency, particularly speaking. The results may encourage EFL/ESL teachers to use oral corrective feedback more judiciously.

To improve the article as well as its significance, some information and explanation need to be added as follows. 1) The abstract should include findings on teachers’ beliefs of corrective feedback and their perceptions of its impact on student performance. 2) In the Introduction section, the research gap needs to be clearly stated as to provide a stronger basis for addressing the research questions. 3) In the Methods section, information about how the opinionnaire was distributed and how the participants responded to the opinionnaire should be included. 4) In the Results and Discussion section, interpretations of the findings need to be further explored regarding teachers’ beliefs and use of oral corrective feedback in relation to the context of teaching English as a foreign or second language. 5) Referring to Table 3, the phrase “item 11” in “The respondents assigned the fourth highest preference to item 11 ...” (p. 49) should be changed to “item 10.” 6) Yoshida (2010) mentioned on p. 50 has not been listed in the References. 7) The order of references needs to be revised. For instance, Seedhouse, P (2004) should be put after Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997).