Luận văn thạc sĩ VNU ULIS matches and mismatches between EFL teachers’ and students’ preferences for corrective feedback in english speaking classes a study at a vietnamese university

INTRODUCTION

Rationale of the study

In learning and teaching foreign languages context, making errors is an indispensable part of the learning process Coder (1967) argues that errors truly reveal the learner‟s underlying knowledge of the language and at a certain stage they reflect the learners‟ transitional competence Undoubtedly, finely appropriate corrective feedback assists teachers to hamper their learners‟ errors from getting fossilized and help them get progress along their interlanguage continuum The correction of learners‟ errors, hence, has also been a crucial part of language acquisition

A number of empirical studies have been carried out to find out the effectiveness of giving feedback to students Rydahl (2005) conducted a study to investigate if and how teachers in upper secondary schools use oral feedback as an important tool to help students achieve higher proficiency in a second and foreign language Gass and Selinker (2008) suggested that “in any learning situation, not all humans are equally motivated to learn languages, nor are they equally motivated to learn a specific language.” (p 165) Thus, teachers should be sensitive to students‟ attitudes to language, particularly to error correction although it might be argued that learners‟ preferences may not be what is actually best for acquisition (Truscott, 1996) Moreover, teachers need to know learners‟ opinions because a mismatch between students‟ expectations and realities in the classroom can hinder improvement in language acquisition

However, in reality, for most language teachers, there is a controversy with respect to the best ways to deal with students‟ errors There are language teachers who attempt to correct all of their students‟ errors while others only focus on correcting errors that are directly related to the topic being addressed in a particular lesson, or errors that inhibit communication Others might ignore students‟ mistakes because they think correcting could interrupt the flow of the class From my personal experiences and observations, the author has recently realized that the teachers seem not to pay attention to what students actually think and want about error correction in the teaching and learning process

Students themselves might want to be heard from teachers to build a friendly, comfortable and cooperative learning environment Besides, the teacher- centered approach seems to be dominated in which teaching techniques seem to follow the one size fits all patterns As a result, students‟ learning progress has been affected, especially in speaking domain Thus, the author is motivated to carry out a study on teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback at a Vietnamese university.

Significance of the study

It cannot be denied that error correction is a crucial part of getting progress in learning Without acknowledging mistakes finely, students may repeat the wrong patterns and build a bad habit that might not be fixed in the future This might lead to long-term effects As stated in the research, this study is targeting all the parties involved in the process of giving and receiving corrective feedback It would offer a general view of teachers‟ corrective feedback preferences given to students‟ speaking performances and students‟ corrective feedback preferences By comparing students‟ preferences with teachers‟, teachers are encouraged to find out their own ways of delivering oral corrective feedback to their learners

It is clear that corrective feedback consists of two forms, written and oral ones, though it is impossible to cover these two forms Moreover, it is challenging to cover corrective feedback on students‟ four skills performances

Therefore, this study narrows down only to oral corrective feedback on students‟ speaking performances Given the scope of the study, the data are only collected from 138 students and 5 lecturers through observations of English lessons, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews in regard to the limit of time and unavailability

The author carries out this study to aim at examining teachers‟ and students‟ preferences regarding different types of corrective feedback in EFL speaking classrooms at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 (HPU2), Vietnam In order to figure out results, the researcher observed 5 classes to identify the currently implemented corrective feedback strategies that are preferred by HPU2‟s teachers Additionally, the study examines the students‟ and teachers‟ differences in preferences regarding corrective feedback strategies The matches or mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback are the emphases for this investigation

This study was conducted in an attempt to find answers for the following questions:

1 What oral corrective feedback do teachers actually give on students‟ speaking in EFL speaking classrooms?

2 What types of corrective feedback do students and teachers in EFL speaking classrooms prefer?

3 To what extent do the teachers‟ oral corrective feedback match the students‟ preferences?

This study employed a mixed methods design Classroom observation, questionnaire, and interview were employed as the instruments of data collection Data were then analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively by means of descriptive statistics to identify the patterns of corrective feedback exploited by the observed teachers as well as teachers and students‟ preferences towards certain types of corrective feedback The reasons for their preferences were also discussed

1.6 Key terms and definitions Preferences

Hausman (2005, p 33-35; 2012, p 1-3) convincingly argues that preferences are not to be defined in terms of (1) self-interest or expected advantage, (2) desires, likings or enjoyment comparisons or (3) actual or hypothetical choices Instead, preferences – as most economists use the term – are best defined as total comparative evaluations and hence as rankings of alternative choice options in terms of all considerations that the person finds relevant (Hausman, 2005, p 37-38; 2012, p 3-4)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2000), practice is the habitual doing or carrying out of something; usual or customary action of performance; action as opposed to profession, theory, knowledge, etc

Scribner and Cole (1981) define practice as “a recurrent goal-directed sequence of activities using a particular technology and particular systems of knowledge.” (as cited in Miller & Goodnow, 1995, p 235)

In sum, practices are actions that are repeated, shared with others in a social group, and invested with normative expectations and with meanings or significances that go beyond the immediate goals of the action

George (1972) proposed that errors are “unwanted forms by the teacher or course designer,” (p 2) or “negative influences in the process of learning”

(Ringbom 1986, p 71) An error is a linguistic form that is different from the nature of current norms or facts

Hattie and Timperly (2007) define feedback as “information provided by agent regarding aspects of one‟s performance or understanding.” (p 81) Therefore, it is an indispensable tool for improving the teaching and learning of speaking, by providing information to students on oral performances

Yang and Lyster (2010) defined corrective feedback as “a reactive type of form-focused instruction which is considered to be effective in promoting noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning.” (p 237)

Oral corrective feedback focuses on corrective feedback on students‟ speech with an indication of error committed

The study has been organised around five chapters as follows

Chapter 1 – Introduction, examines the rationale, objectives, scope, methods, the research questions, and structure of the study aiming at appealing the readers to the thesis

Chapter 2, Literature review, begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research and looks at definitions of several key terms and important previous studies related to the current research

Chapter 3, Methodology, describes the subjects, research instruments, employed methods, data collection procedures, and data analysis applied to conduct this study

Chapter 4, Findings and discussion, provides answers to the research questions raised at the beginning and some discussions about the collected results

Chapter 5 – Conclusion, recapitulates the main findings of the research along with major pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies.

Purpose of the study

The author carries out this study to aim at examining teachers‟ and students‟ preferences regarding different types of corrective feedback in EFL speaking classrooms at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 (HPU2), Vietnam In order to figure out results, the researcher observed 5 classes to identify the currently implemented corrective feedback strategies that are preferred by HPU2‟s teachers Additionally, the study examines the students‟ and teachers‟ differences in preferences regarding corrective feedback strategies The matches or mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback are the emphases for this investigation

This study was conducted in an attempt to find answers for the following questions:

1 What oral corrective feedback do teachers actually give on students‟ speaking in EFL speaking classrooms?

2 What types of corrective feedback do students and teachers in EFL speaking classrooms prefer?

3 To what extent do the teachers‟ oral corrective feedback match the students‟ preferences?

Method of the study

This study employed a mixed methods design Classroom observation, questionnaire, and interview were employed as the instruments of data collection Data were then analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively by means of descriptive statistics to identify the patterns of corrective feedback exploited by the observed teachers as well as teachers and students‟ preferences towards certain types of corrective feedback The reasons for their preferences were also discussed.

Key terms and definitions

Hausman (2005, p 33-35; 2012, p 1-3) convincingly argues that preferences are not to be defined in terms of (1) self-interest or expected advantage, (2) desires, likings or enjoyment comparisons or (3) actual or hypothetical choices Instead, preferences – as most economists use the term – are best defined as total comparative evaluations and hence as rankings of alternative choice options in terms of all considerations that the person finds relevant (Hausman, 2005, p 37-38; 2012, p 3-4)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2000), practice is the habitual doing or carrying out of something; usual or customary action of performance; action as opposed to profession, theory, knowledge, etc

Scribner and Cole (1981) define practice as “a recurrent goal-directed sequence of activities using a particular technology and particular systems of knowledge.” (as cited in Miller & Goodnow, 1995, p 235)

In sum, practices are actions that are repeated, shared with others in a social group, and invested with normative expectations and with meanings or significances that go beyond the immediate goals of the action

George (1972) proposed that errors are “unwanted forms by the teacher or course designer,” (p 2) or “negative influences in the process of learning”

(Ringbom 1986, p 71) An error is a linguistic form that is different from the nature of current norms or facts

Hattie and Timperly (2007) define feedback as “information provided by agent regarding aspects of one‟s performance or understanding.” (p 81) Therefore, it is an indispensable tool for improving the teaching and learning of speaking, by providing information to students on oral performances

Yang and Lyster (2010) defined corrective feedback as “a reactive type of form-focused instruction which is considered to be effective in promoting noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning.” (p 237)

Oral corrective feedback focuses on corrective feedback on students‟ speech with an indication of error committed.

Structure of the thesis

The study has been organised around five chapters as follows

Chapter 1 – Introduction, examines the rationale, objectives, scope, methods, the research questions, and structure of the study aiming at appealing the readers to the thesis

Chapter 2, Literature review, begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research and looks at definitions of several key terms and important previous studies related to the current research

Chapter 3, Methodology, describes the subjects, research instruments, employed methods, data collection procedures, and data analysis applied to conduct this study

Chapter 4, Findings and discussion, provides answers to the research questions raised at the beginning and some discussions about the collected results

Chapter 5 – Conclusion, recapitulates the main findings of the research along with major pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical background

2.1.1 Language errors 2.1.1.1 Definitions of language errors

To start with, the term „error‟ will be defined from different points of view in order to be able to distinguish it from mistakes

Regarding the field of English Teaching Methodology, various definitions of errors can be found According to Brookes, errors are “Like sin, error is to be avoided as its influence overcome.” (quoted from Ellis, 1985, p.22) George (1972) proposed that errors are “unwanted forms by the teacher or course designer,” (p 2) or “negative influences in the process of learning”

(Ringbom 1986, p 71) One of the most notable definitions of error is the one created by Lennon (1991), who included the native speaker norm into the definition He proposed that an error is “a linguistic form or combination of forms which in the same context and under similar conditions of production would, in all likelihood, not be produced by the speakers‟ native speakers counterparts.” In language teaching and learning scope, error has always been regarded as something negative which must be avoided As a consequence, teachers have always adopted a repressive attitude towards it However, it was considered to be a sign of inadequacy of the teaching techniques and on the cannot avoid making errors, we should accept the reality and try to deal with them This is supported by Corder (1967) cited by Ellis (2008) as he defines an error as a deviation in learner language which results from a lack of knowledge of the correct rules Corder shows how information about errors could be helpful to the teachers, researchers, and students and errors are now seen as reflections of a learner‟s stage of „interlanguage‟ development It is also an indicator of the natural progress of learning the second language Similarly, Chaudron (1986, quoted by Allwright and Bailey, 1991, p 86) suggested that an error is:

1) “linguistic forms or content that differ from native speaker norms or facts, and

2) any other behaviour signaled by the teacher as needing improvement.”

Similarly, Brown (1980, p 165) says that errors refer to a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, which reflects the inter-language communication of the learners Learners usually do not recognize it, and cannot correct it

It is interesting to note that these definitions are proposed mostly based on the native speaker language norms However, it is apparent that the definitions created in such a way might be no promising for the current teaching and learning state Obviously, English is so widely spoken and it has often been referred to as a “world language” or “World Englishes.” However, most of English educators are not native speakers of English This means that students are permanently exposed to the nonnative language model, so the language used in the classrooms might be different from the native speaker norms

Clearly, mistake and error are often misunderstood then it is important to differentiate mistake and error Mistake and error have different meanings though they both exist in the learning process Mistakes are performance phenomena, and are of course regular features for the native speaker‟s speech, reflecting processing failures that arise as a result of competing plans, memory limitations, and lack of automaticity (Richards, 1974, p 47) Sharing the same ides, Hornby (1989) refers a mistake to a performance error that is either random on a slip of the tongue in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly (Brown, 1980, p 134) The students cannot correct their mistakes by themselves According to Ellis, errors reflect gaps in learners‟ knowledge

They occur because the learner does not know what is correct While mistakes reflect occasional lapses in performance, they occur because the learner is unable to perform what he or she knows (Ellis, 1997, p 17) The definition above shows that mistake is a fault that is made by the learner, and they can make a correction Meanwhile, an error is a fault that is made by the learner, and he or she is unable to make a correction

In short, an error is a linguistic form that is different from the nature of current norms or facts It has been found that while acquiring the first language; people produce numerous errors, which are accepted as a natural and necessary part of language development Foreign language learning is more or less similar to first language learning Thus, errors need to be studied with great importance

In reference to the typology of errors, there are several propositions

Touchie (1986) mentioned two types of errors: performance errors and competence errors Performance errors are those made by learners when they are tired or hurried Normally, this type of error is not serious and can be overcome with little effort by the learner Competence errors, on the other hand, are more serious than performance errors since competence errors reflect inadequate learning

Other researchers (cf Burt and Kiparsky 1974) distinguish between local and global errors Local errors do not hinder communication and understanding the meaning of an utterance Global errors, on the other hand, are more serious than local errors because global errors interfere with communication and disrupt the meaning of utterances Local errors involve noun and verb inflections, and the use of articles, prepositions, and auxiliaries Global errors, for example, involve wrong word order in a sentence

Lyster & Ranta (1997) pointed out three main types of errors: grammatical, phonological and lexical errors The first type of error includes non-target use of closed classes such as determiners, prepositions and pronouns, grammatical gender, tense, verb morphology, auxiliaries, subject- verb agreement, pluralisation, negation, question formation, relativisation, and word order Phonological errors are the inaccurate pronunciation of words that often lead to difficulty in comprehension of the target words Lexical ones include inaccurate, imprecise or inappropriate choices of lexical items in open classes (nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives), non-target derivations of nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives involving incorrect use of prefixes and suffixes

There are two sources of errors namely inter-lingual errors and intra- lingual errors Richards (1974, p 35) states that inter-lingual errors are errors caused by the interference of the learner‟s mother tongue Errors of this nature are frequent, regardless of the learner‟s language background Therefore, interlingual errors are caused by interference from the native language to the target language that they learn Before someone masters the concept of the target language they will always use the concept of their native language This kind of error is called inter-lingual errors The other kind of error is intra- lingual errors According to James (1998, p 183), the less the learner knows about the target language, the more he is forced to draw upon any other prior knowledge he possesses It is mostly because the learners do not know much about the target language

Intra-lingual errors can be classified into four categories:

Overgeneralisation addresses items that are constructed in the grammar of the language It leads to an overindulgence of one member of a set of forms, and the underuse of others in the set, for example, “he is walks quickly” instead of “he walks quickly.”

In this case, the learner fails to recognize the restriction of existing structures, for instance, “I enjoy to learn about English language.” It is better to change „to learn about‟ with the word „learning.‟

In this kind of intra-lingual error, we may note the occurrence of structures whose deviancy represents the degree of development of the rules required to produce acceptable utterances It can be seen in this example: “He opening the door.” The verb ending “-ing” cannot stand by itself It needs „to be‟ to be changed in order to make the sentence acceptable

This intra-lingual error is sometimes called a semantic error It is the incorrect comprehension of distinction in the target language These particular errors are usually the result of poor gradation of teaching

2.1.2 Corrective feedback 2.1.2.1 Definition of feedback

With respect to the field of language teaching, various definitions of feedback are found

Literature review of related studies

Thanks to undeniable influence on successful language acquisition, oral corrective feedback, hence, have gained a great deal of attention from instructors and researchers worldwide A large body of research papers, thesis, and articles concerning oral corrective feedback practice and preferences has been introduced The following section sheds a light on studies worldwide as well as one in Vietnam

2.2.1 The studies on teachers and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback

2.2.1.1 Studies on teachers’ oral corrective feedback strategies

A number of studies have been carried out to find out teachers‟ preferences of giving oral corrective feedback

Ahangari & Amirzadeh (2011) uses a database of 360 corrective feedback moves which two EFL teachers provided to their learners at three levels of proficiency (elementary, intermediate and advanced) The results indicated that recast was the most frequently used type of corrective feedback by the teachers at all three levels of proficiency This finding corroborates Nhạc‟s (2011) one who carried out a case study which makes use of classroom observation as the main method of data collection with a view to finding out the patterns of teachers‟ corrective feedback and their impact on students‟ uptake in English speaking lessons of legal English major students at Hanoi Law University She found out that recast was the most commonly used feedback type while the most successful feedback, namely meta-linguistic feedback, clarification request and elicitation, which led to students‟ generated repair, were used at a much lower rate by teachers Méndez & Cruz (2012) use a semi-structured interview and a questionnaire to identify the perceptions of instructors of English as a foreign language about corrective feedback and its actual practice in their classrooms Clearly, the results show that unfocused oral corrective feedback and implicit strategies are predominant in practice Đinh (2013) conducted a study to reveal teachers‟ practice in giving feedback

She uses observations, questionnaire and semi-structured interviews to collect data The participants were four teachers and they tended to use recast, repetition and metalinguistic feedback in their actual classrooms The main limitation of her study is that she did not take teachers‟ preferences into account Nguyễn (2014) aimed to help students to overcome some pronunciation problems so she examines the effects of teachers‟ use of explicit feedback She claimed profound assistance of explicit feedback However, this study fails to address why teachers prefer to use explicit feedback on students‟ performances Motlagh (2015) explores Iranian EFL teachers‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback A questionnaire was distributed to 62 EFL Iranian teachers and 43 teachers used the same type of corrective feedback for all error types, and that they preferred implicit types of corrective feedback over the explicit ones These findings are in line with Méndez & Cruz‟s (2012) outcomes In order to discover the real practice of language instructors in their language classrooms, Saliana Sawaluddin and Tajuddin (2017) observed 16 hours of class As the results revealed, even the language teachers frequently used explicit correction and recast in providing corrective feedback, they also tend to vary their types of corrective feedback to the students In Amin‟s

(2017) study, 42 Iranian EFL teachers from some private language institutes and 39 Iranian EFL teachers from different schools in Shiraz, Iran participated

The results revealed that the school teachers preferred the repetition approach most frequently followed by clarification request, elicitation, explicit correction, and recast

It can be said that most of the aforementioned studies focus on teachers‟ preferences toward oral corrective feedback, however, they did not state the reasons why teachers choose certain ways of giving feedback

2.2.1.2 Studies on students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback

Students‟ preferences for particular types of oral corrective feedback have been broadly discussed

Learners demonstrated strong preferences for recast and metalinguistic corrective feedback in the study of Kaivanpanah et al (2012) In contrast, in

Lee‟s (2013) study, certain learners linked clarification request with their teachers‟ lack of attention; others disliked metalinguistic corrective feedback, regarding it as beyond their proficiency Therefore, they expressed that these corrective feedback disagreements may cause classroom embarrassment and discouragement for their further conversations in class The student respondents most preferred to receive explicit and immediate corrections in the middle of their conversations and during teacher-student interactions The authors assumed the results of the latter study were accounted for by the dominant position of teachers in Iranian classrooms and learners‟ familiarity with each other In Faqeih‟s (2015) study, learners‟ preferences for error correction, the interactional activities, and the different types of corrective feedback were clearly indicated The recast turned out to be the most preferred type The results also suggested the significant role of learners‟ attitudes in mediating language accuracy Aranguiz & Espinoza (2016) find out that Chilean teachers use corrective feedback strategies to correct pronunciation, vocabulary, grammatical and content errors Also, there is a tendency of Chilean teachers to use explicit correction as the most frequent strategy In terms of effectiveness, most of the corrective feedback provided followed repair from the learner Among the most effective corrective feedback strategies, they could find repetition, elicitation, clarification request and metalinguistic feedback The detailed analysis of around 128 hours of classroom interactions in Shirkhani & Tajeddin‟s (2016) study showed that explicit correction was the most frequent corrective feedback type, accounting for 48.5 percent of all corrective feedback types provided, and recast was the second most frequently used corrective feedback type, constituting 29.5 percent of all corrective feedback types The study suggests that teachers prefer explicit corrective strategies over implicit ones and that they provide corrective feedback mainly to correct pronunciation errors They also suggest that there is a need for change in the types of corrective feedback teachers use and the relative attention they assign to different linguistic error types they treat through corrective feedback ệlmezer-ệztỹrk & ệztỹrk (2016) examined the perceptions and preferences of EFL learners regarding the types and timings of oral corrective feedback They concluded that learners perceived recast and clarification request as ambiguous whereas they thought that metalinguistic feedback was anxiety-provoking and difficult to comprehend However, students perceive explicit correction quite positively, and they think that explicit correction, as a feedback strategy provided by the teacher, not only shows the erroneous parts clearly but also presents a good explanation regarding the error Ananda et al (2017) carried a study to find out kinds of oral error corrective feedback which students prefer and the results reveal that repetition becomes the most wanted kind of oral error corrective feedback which students prefer Along with this line, Dea et al (2017) use a qualitative approach and the subjects of this research are 76 students of English Department of Lambung Mangkurat University in batch 2015 By using total sampling technique, the subjects are given a questionnaire to conduct the data

The result shows repetition becomes the most wanted kind of oral error corrective feedback which students prefer

By far, few studies have taken students‟ opinions into account though student-centered interaction is being emphasized in the current teaching and learning process

2.2.2 The studies on the relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback

Reported by the studies comparing students‟ and teachers‟ corrective feedback preferences, there have been considerable discrepancies and mismatches between the views of the two groups

Han & Jung (2007) conducted a study to explore patterns of corrective feedback and repair according to students‟ English proficiency level, consistencies and discrepancies in preferences by students and teachers The combination of student and teacher preferences for error correction reveals interesting discrepancies However, the authors offer no explanation for the distinction between student and teacher preferences Yoshida (2008) uses audio recordings of the classes and a stimulated recall interview with each participant to explore teachers‟ choice and learners‟ preference for corrective feedback types in Japanese as a foreign language classroom through The findings indicated that teachers chose recast because of the time limitation of classes and their awareness of learners‟ cognitive styles They also chose corrective feedback types such as elicitation or metalinguistic feedback when they regarded the learners who made erroneous utterances as being able to work out correct forms on their own Most of the learners preferred to have an opportunity to think about their errors and the correct forms before receiving correct forms by recast Another study investigates the patterns of corrective feedback and learner repair present in advanced-level adult EFL classrooms and examines both teacher and student preferences regarding that feedback (Lee, 2013) The results reveal that the most frequent type of corrective feedback was recast, which generated 92.09% learner repair Moreover, in- depth follow-up interviews with students indicate the discrepancies between their preferences and the actual classroom feedback given These findings corroborated Saeb‟s (2017) findings He explores Iranian EFL teachers‟ and students‟ perceptions and preferences for different amounts and types of oral corrective feedback The author uses two parallel questionnaires to gather quantitative and qualitative data from 28 teachers and 68 of their students

Results revealed significant differences between teachers‟ and students‟ perceptions about the amounts and types of corrective feedback and also about different types of errors to be corrected One of the limitations of this study is that it does not explain why teachers and students prefer certain types of corrective feedback Therefore, there was a gap between teachers‟ use of corrective feedback and learners‟ expectations

Obviously, extensive research has been carried out on oral corrective feedback However, these results were based upon data from over 10 years ago and it is unclear if these discrepancies still persist It can be noted that the research to date has tended to focus on teachers‟ opinions and preferences

However, few writers have been able to draw on any structured research into the opinions and preferences of students Another gap is that most studies in the field of oral corrective feedback have been based on classroom observations, no significant differences between what teachers do in the classroom to handle errors and what they believe they prefer have been clearly highlighted Given the limited knowledge regarding errors and error correction, there is a likelihood that teachers themselves are unaware of how they deal with students‟ errors or about the most effective and appropriate techniques to address students‟ errors Moreover, there certainly seems to be a gap between what students and teachers believe to constitute effective and useful types of corrective feedback Such conflict of ideas may cause problems for the process of language learning and teaching As Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) stated, if the type or amount of feedback provided for the students does not match what they prefer and expect, it may not be useful to them Clearly, a finely tuned corrective feedback, therefore, can help both teachers and students better obtain the process of language learning and teaching Another important research gap regarding corrective feedback is that the majority of research on feedback on second language classrooms has been conducted in the context of English as a Second Language classrooms (Lyster & Panova, 2002)

Unfortunately, few studies have been conducted about how tertiary EFL learners respond to different kinds of teachers‟ corrective feedback The situation is similar in Vietnam where this research branch seems to be unattractive to researchers It has been difficult to identify documented studies on the relationship between teachers‟ and learners‟ preferences for corrective feedback which is conducted on Vietnamese university EFL English major students

Such aforementioned gaps have been the motivation for the researcher to bridge with her current paper She desires to explore and compare Vietnamese students‟ and teachers‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback in EFL speaking classroom context in the present study Importantly, how errors are dealt with in EFL classrooms is focused It is assumed here, as suggested in Corder (1967), that error correction is not only significant but also necessary in foreign language acquisition This study looks at techniques used by EFL teachers to correct different errors Through questionnaires, the teachers‟ and students‟ preferences towards corrective feedback are shown The study additionally tries to examine the reasons for choosing certain ways in which teachers address their students‟ errors and the students‟ reasons for preferring certain types of oral corrective feedback.

Summary

This chapter provides a brief understanding of language errors, feedback, and oral corrective feedback It also indicates the discussions of teachers‟ practice in giving oral corrective feedback and students‟ and teachers‟ preferred types There have been many works conducted in the area of corrective feedback in EFL classrooms; however, researchers still debate the questions of the matches and mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferred types of oral corrective feedback From the light of the above mentioned theoretical background of corrective feedback in general and oral corrective feedback in specific, the research concerning particular students‟ and teachers‟ preferred types of oral corrective feedback will be described and analyzed specifically in the next chapters.

METHODOLOGY

Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is linked with the concepts, empirical research and important theories used in promoting and systemizing the knowledge espoused by the researcher (Peshkin, 1993) Miles and Huberman (1994:18) opine that conceptual frameworks can be „graphical or in a narrative form showing the key variables or constructs to be studied and the presumed relationships between them.‟ It presents an integrated way of looking at a problem under study (Liehr & Smith, 1999) Thus, it will give the author the right track to trace the answers to a problem under investigation A conceptual framework is a structure which the researcher believes can best explain the natural progression of the phenomenon to be studied (Camp, 2001) It is the researcher‟s explanation of how the research problem would be explored In a statistical perspective, the conceptual framework describes the relationship between the main concepts of a study Interestingly, it provides a common worldview or lens from which to support one‟s thinking about the problem and analysis of data (Grant & Osanloo, 2014) Thus, the framework makes it easier for the researcher to easily specify and define the concepts within the problem of the study

As acknowledging the importance of a conceptual framework, the author tried to build it for my own study It is an attempt to identify the nature and purpose of this study

As the diagram reveals, the author will try to find out teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback in English speaking classrooms It‟s a proposal of the researcher‟s answer to the research problem she has defined There must be some matches and mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback From these similarities and discrepancies, the author will suggest some implications for the teaching and learning process.

Research method

In the present study, based on the students‟ and teachers‟ views, the complete corrective feedback strategies that are preferred by HPU2‟s learners and teachers, and the matches or mismatches between their preferences were analyzed Following Tashakkori & Teddlie‟s (1998) guideline, the present study employed a mixed methods design which involved the collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of

Teachers‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback

Students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback

Pedagogical implications for teaching and learning

Matche s or Mismat ches qualitative data

The study data were obtained by using a quantitative research approach that involved analyzing the quantitative data obtained via questionnaires that offer a general perspective of the students‟ views of the textbook The quantitative approach was chosen because clear documentation can be provided regarding the content and application of the survey instruments so that other researchers can assess the validity of the findings Moreover, study findings can be generalized to the population about which information is required However, it is true that quantitative study is expensive and time- consuming, and even the preliminary results are usually not available for a long period of time

According to Pope & Mays (1995), qualitative research is the

“development of concepts which help us to understand social phenomena in natural (rather than experimental) settings, giving due emphasis to the meanings, experiences, and views of the participants.” This approach generally aims to understand the experiences and attitudes of participants in the study, then the researchers avoid making generalisation about the study In this study, an observation method and a semi-structured interview were exploited to attain qualitative data

This study was conducted in five English speaking classes in the Faculty of Foreign Languages (FFL), HPU2 where the medium of instruction was English There are two languages being taught here: English and Chinese

Korean is being on its way to be a major in this faculty With respect to English, students are training with two majors: English Language Teaching and English Linguistics Those who belong to the first group are supposed to become English teachers at secondary and high schools and those of the latter can work as interpreters, managers, and workers in domestic and foreign companies or factories The majority of students share the same background as they come from the northern parts of Vietnam Most of the teachers of these classes had training for teaching profession in general and particularly for tertiary level The academic staff at this faculty is qualified and well trained

The majority of them have fulfilled their Master degree in English Teaching Methodology and English Linguistics They are open-minded, enthusiastic and creative in their teaching practice

It is important to note that though the academic staff and faculty managers are all attempting to enhance students‟ academic performances in general, their results seem not to be satisfying This can also be found in speaking test results in particular

According to Creswell (2012, p.205), “In qualitative research, we identify our participants and sites on purposeful sampling, based on places and people that can best help us understand our central phenomenon.” According to this definition, purposeful sampling was used in this study Five English lecturers (include the author) at HPU2 were recruited for this study They are all Vietnamese with 3-10 years of teaching speaking skills in the same faculty

All of them are teaching speaking skills for first-year students in the second term of the academic year They are active female teachers and always willing to adopt new changes; therefore, they are willing to be a part of this research

The reason why the author chose them is that their schedules are different from each other and from mine They also differ in years of teaching experiences; hence, the data collected can be somehow objective Table 1 summarizes their

Table 1 Teachers‟ information and schedules Teachers‟ codes

Date Time Number of students

Textbook Topics to be covered T1

For the fulfillment of the research, the other target population consists of students from English Language Teaching and English Linguistics Classes

There are only 138 students participating in this study though the total number of students in five classes is 173 This can be explained by their absence and their unwillingness to take part in the study Moreover, there are many sophomore, junior and senior students who wish to improve their academic results so they take up the subject again The author excluded them from the study as this study just only focuses on first-year students‟ preferences Just nearly 15% of them were male and 85% were female The students were in elementary levels and their ages ranged from 19-21 Most of them have been studying English for over 10 years The reason for the researcher to include freshmen in the faculty was that they were in their first stage to reach a certain their proficiency as soon as possible The reason why the other students in the faculty were excluded is that their teachers‟ schedules were similar to me; thus, the author could not arrange to observe their classrooms Furthermore, the junior and senior students were in their teaching or training practice, they did not have any speaking classes at that time

Twenty learners were willing to participate in follow-up interviews, and fourteen were chosen based on their questionnaire responses as they completed all the questions These interviews expanded on the students‟ responses to the questionnaire The interviewees were from two majors: seven were from English Language Teaching major and the rest were from the English Linguistics program The students were coded, and Table 2 shows the codes and backgrounds of interviewed students

Table 2 Backgrounds of the interviewed students

No Code Age Gender Area of study

Research instruments

The study focuses on teachers‟ oral corrective feedback to students‟ errors (teacher-student interaction), classroom observation seems to be the most effective method of collecting data The reason behind this is clearly stated in Nunan‟s study (1989) He insists that if we desire to enrich our understanding of language learning and teaching process, we need to spend time looking in classroom (Nunan, 1989, p 76) Observation, as the name reveals, is a way of collecting data through observing The observation data collection method is classified as a participatory study because the researcher has to immerse herself in the setting where her respondents are while taking notes and/or recording This method is a method under which data from the field is collected with the help of observation by the observer or by personally going to the field The observation data collection method has several strong points including direct access to research phenomena, high levels of flexibility in terms of application and generating a permanent record of phenomena to be referred to later However, perhaps the most serious disadvantage of this method is that it is time-consuming for the observer to contact, ask for permissions and observe Another problem with this approach is that it fails to ensure teachers‟ and students‟ comfort They might be uncomfortable when another teacher enters the classroom interfering with the class atmosphere and the process of teaching and learning may not be smooth as usual At the same time, the behaviour of sample group members may change with negative implications on the level of research validity if they are notified about the presence of the observer In spite of the aforementioned shortcomings, classroom observation was still chosen because of its profound convenience

For these reasons, a classroom observation sheet was chosen as an instrument of gathering data on teachers‟ practice of giving oral corrective feedback The observation sheet composes of two parts: general information and tally sheet

The general information was adapted from the Ullmann and Geva‟s (1985) Target Language Observation Scheme It contains the general information about the observer, instructor of the class, date of observation, students‟ year level, class, number of boys, number of girls, start time, finish time, and lesson topic The second part was adapted from Nunan‟s (1989) Classroom Observation Tally Sheet The combined and adapted classroom observation sheet can be found in Appendix A

3.3.2 Questionnaires for teachers and students

The questionnaire was employed to collect data from teachers and students in EFL speaking classroom to find out their preferences for oral corrective feedback types and matches and mismatches between the teachers‟ oral corrective feedback strategies and the students‟ preferences It was chosen because
it has a number of attractive features Firstly, questionnaires allow me to gather information from a large audience The second advantage of using the questionnaire is being able to ask as many questions as the doer likes Of course, it benefits the researcher to keep each individual questionnaire short, since respondents may find a long one frustrating However, since they are efficient, cost-effective in nature and have an easy mode of delivery, there is no harm in creating multiple surveys that build upon one another However, there are certain drawbacks associated with the use of the questionnaire The main disadvantage of it is that self-reported information obtained from questionnaires may be inaccurate or incomplete Another weak point of this instrument is the administration of a structured questionnaire creates an unnatural situation that may alienate respondents

Thus, a questionnaire for lecturers combined from Katayama (2007) and Smith (2010) and observation‟s results were used It consists of questions on students‟ and lecturers‟ personal information in section A The other section is preferences toward types of oral error corrective feedback should be given by the lecturer The other questions seek to understand their opinions about the oral corrective feedback, responses to which were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1: Very Effective, 2: Effective, 3: Neutral, 4: Ineffective, 5: Very Ineffective) In each item, the respondent circled one numerical value At the same time, the modified questionnaire based on teachers‟ one was administered to the students, before which the lecturers and students were informed about how to respond to the questions in the questionnaire and asked whether or not they were volunteers in participating in the study in order to seek their consent for being a participant

3.3.2 Semi-structured interview with students and teachers

Semi-structured interview involves asking questions, listening to and recording answers from an individual or group on a structured, semi-structured or unstructured format in an in-depth manner The interview is designed in a form of a semi-structured interview The author used this kind of interview to obtain qualitative data on teachers and students‟ reasons for preferring certain types of oral corrective feedback Semi-structured interview was chosen because it allows for greater flexibility, helps the interviewer control the direction of the interview but with much more leeway, allows for richer interactions and more personalized responses In mixed methods research, semi-structured interview can be useful as an adjunct to supplement and add depth to other approaches Yet, despite the advantages of this kind of interview, it has some extraordinary drawbacks as well The process of preparing for the interviews, setting up the interviews, conducting the interviews, and analyzing the interviews is not nearly as quick and easy as you might think The time and effort required to do all of it right are considerable

The interview will be designed with a list of open-ended questions which can be found in Appendix E The interview questions focus on teachers‟ and students‟ most and least preferred types of corrective feedback The data were collected, transcribed, and analyzed to reveal the findings.

Procedure

The first part of the study was conducted by using observation After being given the permission to conduct the research in five classes, the author observed eight lectures of four teachers and self-recorded my lessons given to first-year learners at FFL in HPU2 Each lesson lasted for 50 minutes In total,

500 minutes, or over 8 hours of classroom activities were observed In the class, the lessons were structured as usual with maximum interaction between learners and the teacher Learners did not know the reasons for the visit of the author so they acted normally It was important for learners not to know that their errors would be marked and analyzed to avoid the risk of them being too careful While observing the lessons, the author took notes of learners‟ errors and the feedback provided by the teachers In my lessons, apart from self- recording, the researcher also tried to take notes of my students‟ errors and my oral corrective feedback moves After the observation was finished, the collected data were analyzed and grouped according to the previously mentioned Lyster and Ranta‟s discourse model (1997) For the purpose of the study, the part of the model describing the uptake by learners was left out, because the author wanted to see which techniques are used

After the observation part was finished for one week, all learners were given questionnaires which they had to fill out Learners completing the questionnaire were the same learners whose lessons were observed The questionnaire was administered to the students by the researcher in classrooms located around the institutes The students were informed that their participation was voluntary and the survey was anonymous Also, the student participants were informed that they were free to withdraw at any time and for any reason Then the researcher distributed the questionnaire The students were asked to read the general instructions for the survey and informed that they could skip any questions that they would feel uncomfortable answering

They were given no additional information relevant to the nature of the research project The researcher distributed the questionnaire to three EFL teachers in their classrooms, to one teacher via e-mail and the author completed the questionnaire herself When the teachers informed the researcher they had completed the questionnaire forms, the researcher collected them in person

After collecting all questionnaires, the four teachers and students are asked to participate in a semi-structured interview as a reinforcement of the previously collected data The author asked for the convenient time of teachers then each interview was conducted in teacher room within the lecture halls and audio- taped All the interviews were performed in English and lasted for five to six minutes The students could choose to use their first language (Vietnamese) or

English to answer the questions In order to ensure their understanding of oral corrective feedback types, Section B in the questionnaire was attached to the interview questions The set of questions for interview can be found in Appendix E.

Data analysis

To scrutinize the frequency of corrective feedback types used in the classroom (Research Question 1), the audio-recorded classes in accordance with corrective feedback categories aforementioned in Chapter 2

To examine the students‟ and teachers‟ corrective feedback preferences (Research Question 2), all eight of the declarative statements in Section 2 of the students‟ and teachers‟ surveys were used The quantitative data obtained in the form of responses to the questionnaire were analyzed using the SPSS 20.0 software package Table 3 shows the codes for the types of oral corrective feedback as well as the position where these items appear in the original questionnaires

Table 3 Oral corrective feedback codes and item position in the questionnaires

Types of oral corrective feedback

Item position in students’ questionnaire

Item position in teachers’ questionnaire

To answer Research question 3, a one-sample t-test was used to identify the matches or mismatches between the students‟ and the teachers‟ preferences for corrective feedback Unfortunately, an independent t-test could not be exploited since there is a big difference between the number of students and teachers (138 vs 5) Hence, the mean value of the teachers‟ preferences for that corrective feedback type is used as the test value in the one-sample t-test

The possible differences between students‟ and teachers‟ corrective feedback preferences can be clearly illustrated

The qualitative data consists of responses from students and teachers in the semi-structured interview In this study, the researcher employs the analysis process by Miles & Huberman (1994) as illustrated in the following chart:

Figure 1 Qualitative data analysis procedure

Data collection period Data reductionData displaysConclusion drawing

After conducting semi-structured interviews with both teachers and students, the author starts to transcribe the data and translate the data when necessary The first stage of data analysis is data reduction It refers to the

“process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the

„raw‟ data that appear in written-up field notes or transcription.” The analyst decides which data are to be singled out for description according to principles of selectivity The second major flow of analysis activity is data display A

„display‟ is an organized assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action taking The third stream of analysis activity is conclusion drawing and verification The author draws conclusions concerning the literature on corrective feedback.

Summary

In summary, the methodology of study on teachers‟ and students‟ oral corrective feedback in speaking classes consists of five parts: 1) conceptual framework, (2) research methods, (3) research instruments and (4) procedure and (5) data analysis In the first part, conceptual framework indicates the way the study work on In the second part, research methods indicate that two main research approaches namely the quantitative and qualitative method are combined as fundamental guidance for completing the graduation thesis The third, the utilization of essential instruments applied for data collection and analysis have been mentioned Collecting data and data analysis procedures are also mentioned in this chapter.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings

4.1.1 Oral corrective feedback strategies used by teachers in actual classrooms

Data from observation showed that the common oral corrective feedback employed by the teachers mainly fell into seven different types of feedback strategies namely repetition, explicit feedback, elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, recast, and paralinguistic signal (body language), among which the use of clarification request and recast was dominant This was demonstrated in Table 4

Table 4 Frequency of oral corrective feedback in actual class hours

Clarification 5 2 4 2 3 16 26.23% request Meta-linguistic feedback

It can be seen from Table 4 that the frequency of oral corrective feedback given by five teachers during 10 lessons varied strongly

Interestingly, there are several times when teachers did not even give any feedback on students‟ oral errors, with 19 times of no error correction feedback of total 80 times students‟ error occurred during 10 lessons observed The seven types of corrective feedbacks were used by the teachers 61 times

Among the five teachers, T1 was the one who corrected the students most frequently with 18 times in total T3 and T5 also utilized feedback many times,

13 and 14 respectively, whereas T4 hardly used corrective feedback in her class, just only 7 times in the same length of time

Moreover, the practice of giving error correction types applied by five teachers were strikingly similar Although the frequency of error correction feedback used varied, clarification and recast seemed to be the most preferred types of all five at a rate of 26.23% and 24.59% correspondingly Whereas explicit feedback, metalinguistic feedback, and paralinguistic signal were hardly employed in the class hours The explicit feedback was used 8.2% when correcting students‟ mistakes, while metalinguistic feedback was utilized at the rate of 13.11% Especially, paralinguistic signal was hardly applied when errors occurred, as four out of five teachers (T1, T2, T3, T4) never used paralinguistic signal to give feedback on students‟ oral performances

Overall, these observations demonstrate the prevalence of clarification request and recast in these classrooms Further studies should examine their influences precisely to determine how feedback types, student proficiency, and broader pedagogical strategies interact to generate students‟ improvement

4.1.2 Students’ and teachers’ preferred types of corrective feedback in EFL speaking classrooms

When it comes to teachers‟ preferences concerning feedback, Table 5 presents the most important results of this part of the study

Table 5 Teacher‟s preferences for types of oral corrective feedback

Feedback strategies Mean Std Deviation

These statistical results reaffirm the frequency measurement from the observations except one type – explicit feedback All of them (M=5.0)) most preferred metalinguistic feedback but only eight times of it were done in actual class hours Repetition was conducted ten times by teachers and the result from the questionnaire confirmed it as the preferred type (M=3.2) Explicit feedback, recast, clarification request are also their choices (M=4.4, 4.6, and 4.0 respectively.) However, it is interesting to note that though the teachers prefer explicit feedback type (M=4.0), they did not often use it in their classrooms

There was a clearly big gap between what was perceived and what was conducted in their real teaching Paralinguistic signal is not the way according to the observations and questionnaire This is in line with their practice as they just did paralinguistic signal once Moreover, teachers have a neutral view of ignoring students‟ errors However, in their practical teaching, they sometimes ignored their students‟ errors

The combination of these results from questionnaire responses and observations revealed a big difference between teacher practice and their answers on the questionnaire in terms of corrective feedback type In their actual class hours, they did not use explicit correction frequently, however, as the questionnaire results revealed most of them chose it as their favourite one

Hence, it can be said that there is a gap between what teachers actually do and what they think they prefer They also indicated recast and clarification request as their least preferred type, in contrast, they did often use them in class

Regarding students‟ preferences concerning feedback, Table 6 and 7 reveals the results of this part of the study

Table 6 Students‟ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback

Feedback strategies Mean Std Deviation

Table 7 Students‟ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback (SPSS result)

NCF REP EF EL CR MF RC PS

Tables 6 and 7 reveal the details of each type of oral corrective feedback

Based on students‟ responses on questionnaires, they most preferred to have 1) explicit correction followed by no corrective feedback and paralinguistic signal An unexpected finding is that most of the students have a neutral view on no corrective feedback This might suggest a tendency to not receiving feedback from teachers The other categories are repetition, meta-linguistic feedback and recast Surprisingly, they did not prefer to have clarification request and elicitation It was consistent with Amador‟s (2008) and Rinda et al.‟s (2016) findings that revealed explicit correction as the error correction techniques students preferred to have

In addition to this statistical analysis, the frequency measurement reaffirmed the results of the students‟ most and least preferred types of corrective feedback 73/138 students chose explicit correction as their most preferred type of corrective feedback, and 82/138 students selected clarification request as their least preferred type of corrective feedback

4.1.3 Matches and mismatches between teachers’ and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback

To assess the matches and mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ oral corrective feedback strategies preferences, a one-sample test was used As Table 8 shows, there is a significant difference between the two groups.


Table 8 Students‟ and teachers‟ preferences for corrective feedback

Figure 2 Students’ and teachers’ preferences for oral corrective feedback

The results, as shown in Table 8 and Figure 2, indicate that the difference between the students‟ and teachers‟ responses reached the level of significance in all corrective feedback types except explicit feedback, repetition, and elicitation In terms of explicit feedback, there was no statistically significant difference between the students‟ and teachers‟ responses (Explicit feedback, df = 133, p = 0.445 > 0.05) However, from the observations, teachers hardly used this type of feedback in their classrooms

This shows contrast in teachers‟ preferences and their practice Similarly, with respect to Repetition, no significant differences were found between teachers and students (Repetition, df = 136, p = 0.65 > 0.05) The teachers and students had an overall neutral position toward this type of error correction Regarding elicitation, both teachers and students did not agree that it is an effective way to correct students‟ errors

REP EF EL CR MF RC

Students' mean Test value (Teachers' mean)

The most striking result to emerge from the data is that the greatest difference between the students‟ and teachers‟ responses was seen in recast

While students demonstrated a negative opinion about this feedback type, teachers were positively disposed toward it For paralinguistic signal, students‟ mean response was positive (M=3.43), whereas that of teachers‟ indicated a negative position (M=1.4) Also, about clarification request, students demonstrated an overall negative opinion (M= 1.62) while their teachers‟ view was again positive (M=4.0) Students had a neutral view about repetition while teachers resisted a positive side (M=3.39 and M=4.4 accordingly)

In summary, the statistical analyses and the frequency measurement for research question 3 showed discrepancies between students‟ and teachers‟ preferred corrective feedback types in EFL classrooms While the students most preferred to get explicit through teacher-student interactions, the teachers most preferred to give the students the clarification request as the teachers in this study most frequently used clarification request (26.22%) Additionally, whereas teachers often use recast and clarification request, they were the students‟ least preferred type of corrective feedback It can be concluded that students feel confident if they are clearly informed about their errors

Understandably, the majority of the students also favored those correction techniques which included clear clues or choices for them to correct themselves

4.1.4 Reasons why students and teachers prefer certain types of corrective feedback

Discussion

With a view to enhancing the current practical language teaching and learning based on the act of giving oral corrective feedback, this study explored language teachers‟ and students‟ preferences in this regard The author asked EFL teachers and students about their opinions about different types of oral corrective feedback, taking notes of any significant differences between the two groups Observation and questionnaire results revealed students and teachers as having various preferences in this respect A comparison of the two groups‟ perceptions showed both similarities and differences

This study produced results that corroborate the findings of a great deal of the previous work in this field Research question 1 asked about the types of oral corrective feedback which teachers actually utilize in their classrooms It was found, based on the results, that most teachers valued giving clarification request and recast for all of their students‟ errors This habitual teacher echo massively increases the amount of teacher talking time Automatically repeating every utterance like a parrot is not good quality input It just takes up valuable space and time The findings of the current study are consistent with those of Nhạc (2011) who found recast was the most commonly used feedback type This also accords with earlier observations (Đinh, 2013), which showed that the participants were four teachers and they tended to use recast, repetition and metalinguistic feedback in their actual classrooms However, these results differ from Nguyễn‟s (2014) study as she claimed a dominant use of explicit feedback It is noteworthy, however, that some students also recognized the explicit correction as the most effective way They did not consider clarification request and recast the ways This need of the students for receiving corrective feedback in spite of their teachers‟ reluctance to provide it, was also found in Lee‟s (2013) and Han and Jung‟s (2007) studies

The second research question asked what types of oral corrective feedback students and teachers prefer This was the second area in which the students‟ and teachers‟ preferences conflicted Results from Section 2 in the questionnaire indicated that students were more in favour of explicit types of corrective feedback and considered recast and clarification request to be least effective Their most favourite corrective feedback type turned out to be explicit correction The findings of the current study are consistent with those of Lee‟s (2013) and ệlmezer-ệztỹrk & ệztỹrk‟s (2016) studies as students thought recast and clarification request were ambiguous However, these results oppose to Ananda et al.‟s (2017) study as they stated students consider repetition their most wanted kind of oral error corrective feedback Students explained that in order to learn effectively and enduringly, they need to see their errors specified and receive detailed explanations as well as being provided with the correct form by the teacher Teachers, however, chose more implicit types of feedback which require thought and monitoring on the part of the learners themselves This finding corroborates the ideas of Ahangri and Amirzadeh‟s (2011), Motlagh‟s (2015), Méndez& Cruz‟s (2012) and Amin‟s

(2017) studies who indicated that recast and clarification request were the most frequently used type of corrective feedback by the teachers However, the findings of the current study do not support the previous research These results differ from some published studies of Aranguiz & Espinoza‟s (2016) and Shirkhani & Tajeddin‟s (2016) studies which found out that teachers prefer to use explicit correction as the most frequent strategy Expressing the opposite view, teachers demonstrated that they were anxious to promote learner autonomy by encouraging students to locate their own errors and to find the correct form It seems that students‟ tendency toward teacher-generated explicit types of corrective feedback and teachers‟ preferences for implicit feedback fostering self-correction is a recurring theme in the corrective feedback literature as it has been arrived at by some previous studies (Amrhein

& Nassaji, 2010; Brown, 2009; Han & Jung, 2007; Lee, 2013)

The third research question investigates the students‟ and teachers‟ matches and mismatches towards different types of oral corrective feedback

The teachers and students both have a similar view of elicitation and repetition

The overwhelming majority of the students emphasized the importance of explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback while teachers side with recast and clarification request The differences between the students‟ and teachers‟ opinions were significant These results corroborate the findings of a great deal of the previous work in which students were found to believe in the form of correcting errors using explanations (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010; Han & Jung, 2007; Lee, 2013; Saeb, 2017)

On the whole, matching expectation between students‟ preferences toward types of corrective feedback and the types of corrective feedback that teachers gave in the classroom would make the correction more effective (Odalejo, 1993) However, in the real situation, they do not always match

Despite some similarities between the views and practice of the two groups, students and teachers in this study largely differed in their opinions about different types of oral corrective feedback Small numbers of the students were sophisticated enough to mention learner autonomy in their choices and explanations; however, most students in this study strongly approved of receiving large amounts of explicit corrective feedback provided by the teacher Teachers, in contrast, acknowledged the importance of learner autonomy and chose error correction procedures improving and facilitating it

More and less, the teachers had met students‟ expectations for their preferences towards particular types of corrective feedback, although not for the majority.

Summary

It can be temporarily concluded that error correction is always a concerned topic by language educators and language teachers because of its important role in second/foreign language teaching The thesis summarizes the similarities and dissimilarities in terms of teachers and students with reference to oral corrective feedback types However, with a small sample size, caution must be applied, as the findings might not be transferable to all patients It is also important to bear in mind the possible bias in the participants‟ responses.

CONCLUSION

Recapitulation of the main ideas

The study was carried out in order to find out the lecturers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback in EFL classroom setting The data were observed in English speaking classrooms of students at HPU2 The author has adopted a quantitative approach using questionnaires for lecturers and students and qualitative approach using observations and follow-up interviews

The observations of five teachers‟ classes were audio-recorded The data were analyzed to identify teachers‟ practice in giving corrective feedback to students‟ errors The questionnaire was utilized to find out teachers‟ and students‟ preferences towards types of oral corrective feedback The data were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 and one sample test was run to reveal the matches and mismatches between students‟ and teachers‟ preferences

The five teachers observed using seven types of corrective feedback: repetition, explicit feedback, elicitation, clarification request, meta-linguistic feedback, recast, and paralinguistic signal Of these types, teachers utilized clarification request most frequently, at a rate of 26.23% The other most frequent one is recast (24.59%) The least frequently used types of corrective feedback are elicitation and paralinguistic signal

The author found some matches between students‟ and teachers‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback as they both preferred repetition and disregard elicitation However, the mismatches of students‟ and teachers‟ perspectives on different types of oral corrective feedback found in this study are no promising situation for language pedagogy and practice As Brown

(1980) cautioned, they might be indicative of important discrepancies between the students and teachers in how they interpret and understand the nature and process of language learning Students in this study were found to be seeking large amounts of explicit corrective feedback provided by the teacher though teachers actually did not use it in their classroom Moreover, teachers most preferred clarification request and recast, they were ranked lowest on students‟ preferences An interesting finding is that teachers preferred to use implicit feedback rather than explicit ones However, the students proposed an opposite view Another amazing result is that though teachers indicated that they preferred to use explicit feedback on students‟ errors, their practice seemed to contradict with this as they hardly use this kind of feedback in their actual classes

The study has gone some ways towards enhancing our understanding of oral corrective feedback and different views towards teachers and students‟ preferred types The gap that have been identified therefore assists in our understanding of the role of learners‟ preferences in enhancing errors in teaching and learning practice Taken together, these findings suggest a role for error correction in promoting foreign language acquisition.

Pedagogical implications for teaching and learning process

The present study along with other relevant studies portrays the importance of correction in foreign language teaching, but also she faces the challenges of finding the appropriate techniques It is one of the most challenging jobs of every teacher to provide the explanations to his/her learners in a way that will make learners remember the correct language form and hamper them from making the same errors throughout the learning process

These findings suggest several teachers‟ courses of action for enhancing the quality of giving oral corrective feedback One of the issues that emerge from these findings is teachers should know what kinds of oral error corrective feedback which the lecturer should consider in giving oral error corrective feedback to the students matter to students in noticing and correcting their errors Hence, the lecturer should have his/her own priorities and consider many things in giving the corrective feedback to the students and it should be coincided to the circumstances in the teaching and learning activity for it can influence students‟ emotional experience in learning and acquisition

Another pedagogical implication is suggested by Ellis (2008) as Ellis quoted: “Teachers should ascertain their learners‟ attitudes towards corrective feedback, appraise them of the value of corrective feedback, and negotiate agreed goals for corrective feedback with them The goals are likely to vary according to the social and situational context.” In other words, teachers‟ practices and preferences should be linked with learners‟ expectations

Similarly, there are a number of things teachers need to take into account when they provide feedback: timing, type of activity, learners‟ needs and preferences, the differences between learners, learners‟ proficiency levels

However, what must always be kept in mind is that everything that is done inside the classroom and during the lecture has a goal and a purpose The most important thing a teacher can do to make this job easier is to get to know his or her learners well, learn about what they prefer, and how they would like to be corrected Every learner is an individual and the correction affects him/her as an individual, not the class as a whole An implication of these findings is that both teachers‟ and students‟ preferences should be taken into account when giving corrective feedback

For students, it is essential to identify their preferences for oral corrective feedback Students also need to raise their voice about their expectations so that they can correct their errors to achieve high English speaking achievement.

Limitations of the study

Despite the researcher‟s great effort in carrying out the study, there still obviously remains some inevitable shortcomings

The main weakness of the study to admit is the scope of the study It fails to involve all lecturers and students in my faculty due to time constraints and their unavailability The number of student and teacher participants was fairly small Thus, the lack of analysis of the data from these participants limits the study to a small degree

The other important limitation of the study is related to the time spent on observations of class hours However, it is quite difficult to spare more time on this activity as there are many things to cover in the process of conducting this thesis

Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative data were obtained using a survey and like any questionnaire study, this study may unavoidably suffer from the limitations of this data-gathering instrument More specifically, the researcher had no control over how the participants interpreted and answered the questionnaire items

Limitations can also be recognized in the choice of participants The student participants were English-majored freshmen It has been one or two years since they studied English in tertiary education so their perspectives may not be comprehensive and reliable

Besides, this paper did not consider variables in teachers‟ ages and teaching experiences and students‟ ages, proficiency.

Recommendations for further work

Later researchers who have the same interest in the research filed can somehow benefit from the current study with recommendations for future research There are a number of matters that need further consideration and investigation when it comes to the provision of corrective feedback

In terms of scope, the present research study focused only on the context of English language teaching and learning in the FFL at HPU2 A more extensive study which examines a larger sample of students and lecturers all over the faculty is needed This study should use focus group interviews, discussions or informal talks for both lecturers and students to enhance the quality of the data

Furthermore, there is a need to carry out continued studies on the influences of explicit corrective feedback in second language classroom settings in order to understand its role and measure its effects better

This research also opens a number of other research possibilities: teachers‟ attitude towards feedback, learners‟ uptake, effectiveness of certain corrective techniques as well as the correlation between other individual differences such as learning styles, motivation, and attitude towards feedback

Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S (2011) Exploring of the teachers‟ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29,

Allwright, D & Bailey, K.M (1991) Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers Cambridge:

Amin, K (2017) Educational context and ELT teachers‟ corrective feedback preference: Public and private school teachers in focus International Journal of Research in English Education

Amrhein H.R., & Nassaji H (2010) Written Corrective Feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied linguistics, 13, 95-127

Ananda et al (2017) Students‟ preferences toward oral corrective feedback in speaking class at English Department of Lambung Mangkurat University Academic Year 2015/2016 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7, 176 doi:10.17507/tpls.0703.03

Aranguiz, M.F., & Espinoza, A (2016) Oral corrective feedback strategies in

EFL: A pilot study in Chilean classrooms

Brown, H.D (19800 Principles of language and teaching New Jersey:

Brown, A (2009) Students‟ and teachers‟ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals Modern Language Journal,

Burt, M., & Kiparsky, C (1978) Global and local mistakes In J Schumann &

N Stenson (Eds.) New frontiers in second language learning Rowley

Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishing, Inc

Camp, W.G (2001) Formulating and evaluating theoretical frameworks for career and technical education research Journal of Vocational Educational Research, 26(1), 27-39

Chaudron, C (1977) A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners‟ errors Language Learning, 27, 29–46

Corder, S.P (1967) The significance of learners‟ errors International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 4, 161-170

Creswell, J.W (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.) Boston:

Dekeyser, R (1993) The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514 Đinh, T.H (2013) An investigation into teachers‟ attitudes towards and practices of corrective feedback on students‟ oral mistakes at Hanoi National University of Education Master thesis Hanoi: Vietnam National University

Ellis, R (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition Oxford: OUP

Ellis, R (1997) Understanding Second Language Acquisition Oxford: OUP

Ellis, R (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition 2nd ed Oxford:

Ellis, R., Loewen, S & Erlam, R (2006) Implicit and explicit CF and the acquisition of L2 grammar Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

Fungula, B.N (2013) Oral Corrective Feedback in the Chinese EFL

Classroom Retrieved from http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:693017/FULLTEXT01.pdf Gass, S., & Selinker, L (2008) Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course New York: Routledge

Gass, S (1997) Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

George, H (1972) Common Errors in Language Learning Rowley, Mass:

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A (2014) Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for „House‟ Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice and Research, 12-22, DOI: 10.5929/2014.4.2.9

Haifaa I Faqeih 92015) Learners‟ attitudes towards corrective feedback

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 664–671

Han, J., & Jung, J-K (2007) Patterns and preferences of corrective feedback and learner repair Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 243–260

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H (2007) The power of feedback Review of

Hausman, D.M (2005) Sympathy, commitment, and preference Economics &

Hornby, A.S (1989) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Oxford: OUP

James, C (1998) Errors in language learning and use exploring error analysis London: Longman Group Ltd

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, M., & Sepehrinia, S (2012) Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers The Language Learning Journal, 1(1), 1–20

Katayama, A (2007) Japanese EFL students‟ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors Asian EFL journal, 9(4), 284-299 Conference

Khan, R (2002) Responding to students writing in the TESOL environment:

Some feedback options The Dhaka University Studies, 59(1), 1–16

Kim, H (2004) Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition

Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1–24

Lee, E.J (2013) Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students System, 41(2), 217–230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022 Lennon, P (1991) Error: some problems of definition and identification

Li, S (2010) The effectiveness of CF in SLA: A meta-analysis Language

Liehr, P., & Smith M.J (1999) Middle range theory: Spinning research and practice to create knowledge for the New Millennium Advances in Nursing Science, 21(4), 81-91

Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N (1999) How Languages are Learned Oxford:

Long, M.H., & Robinson, P (1998) Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15-41 Cambridge:

Long, M.H (1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the

Negotiation of comprehensible input Applied Linguistics 4(2), 126-

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake:

Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66

Lyster, R., & Panova, I (2002) Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595

Lyster, R., Saito, K & Sato, M (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40

Méndez, E.H., & Cruz, M.R (2012) Teachers‟ perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms Retrieved from www.redalyc.org/pdf/1692/169224635005

Méndez, E., Arguelles, L., & Castro, A (2010) Oral corrective feedback:

Some ways to go about it Meorias Del ViForo De Estudios En Lenguas Internacional, 254-270

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An

Expanded Source Book (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage 


Miller, P.J., & Goodnow, J.J (1995) Cultural practices: Toward an integration of culture and development New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1995(67), 5–16 doi:10.1002/cd.23219956703

Motlagh, L (2015) Irinan EFL teachers‟ preferences for corrective feedback types, implicit vs explicit Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

Naeini, J (2008) Error correction: An indication of consciousness-raising

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S (2011) Teaching grammar in Second Language

Classrooms Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context London: Routledge

Nguyễn, T.T (2014) Teacher‟s corrective feedback on the pronunciation of

English fricatives and affricates by non-English major freshmen at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Master thesis Hanoi: Vietnam National University

Nhạc, T.H (2011) Corrective feedback and uptake patterns in English university speaking lesson Master thesis Hanoi: Vietnam National University

Nunan, D (1989) Understanding language classrooms: A guide for instructor initiated action 1 st ed Pearson Education, Inc ệlmezer-ệztỹrk, E., & ệztỹrk, G (2016) Types and timing of oral corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Voices from students Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 10(2), 113–133

Peshkin, A (1993) The goodness of qualitative research Educational

Pope, C., & Mays, N (1995) Qualitative research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: An introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research BMJ, 1(311), 42–45

Richards, J.C (1974) Error Analysis London: Longman Group Ltd 


Ringbom, H (1986) The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language

Rydahl, S (2005) Oral feedback in the English classroom, teachers‟ thoughts and awareness Retrieved 25 April 2018 from http://kau.diva portal.org/ smash/get/diva2:6576/ FULLTEXT01

Saeb, F (2017) Students‟ and teachers‟ perceptions and preferences for oral corrective feedback: Do they match? International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(4), 32–44 http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.4p.32 Schmidt, R., & Frota, S (1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese In R

Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, 237-326 Rowley, MA: Newbury House

Sheen, Y (2011) Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning Dordrecht: Springer

Shirkhani, S., & Tajeddin, Z (2016) L2 Teachers‟ Explicit and Implicit

Corrective Feedback and Its Linguistic Focus Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 181-206

Smith, H (2010) Correct me if I‟m wrong: Investigating the preferences in error correction among adult English language students Master‟s thesis Florida: University of Central Florida

Swain, M (1985) Communicative Competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development In S Gass & C

Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, 235-253

Swain, M (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning In G

Cook & B Seidlholfer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in the Study of Language, 125-144 Oxford: OUP

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C (1998) Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Touchie, H (1986) Second language learning errors their types, causes, and treatment JALT Journal, 8(1), 75–80.


Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing class

Ullmann, R., & Geva, E (1985) Expanding our evaluation perspective: What can classroom observation tell us about Core French Programs? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 42(2), 319-322

Yang, Y., & Lyster, R (2010) Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners‟ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235-263

Yoshida, R (2008) Teachers‟ choice and learners‟ preference of corrective feedback types Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93 http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/la429.

APPENDIX A: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SHEET ON TEACHERS’ ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

Observer: Lưu Thị Hương Instructor:

Number of boys: Number of girls:

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION TALLY SHEET Feedback strategies Tallies Total

2 Repetition: The teacher emphasizes the student‟s grammatical error by changing his/her tone of voice

3 Explicit feedback: The teacher gives the correct form to the student with a grammatical explanation

4 Elicitation: The teacher asks the student to correct and complete the sentence

5 Clarification request: The teacher does not give corrective feedback on the student‟s errors

6 Metalinguistic feedback: The teacher gives a hint or a clue without specifically pointing out the mistake

7 Recast: The teacher repeats the student‟s utterance in the correct form without pointing out the student‟s error

8 Paralinguistic signal: Teacher rises eyebrows to tell that the student has made error and is expected to self-correct

No Example of students’ errors

Teacher’s response Types of oral corrective feedback

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPTS OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

2 S: The biggest problem is polluted

3 S: You have to saving water

4 S: I enjoy study English a lot; I find them very interesting

5 S: She is an good laugh

6 S: There are may pollution in my hometown

7 S: Salary plays a important role in choosing a job

8 S: Noone has ever rob me

9 S: Money is the most important things in life

10 S: There are a lot of industrial

11 S: The people are friendly and warm heart

12 S: I have heard a lot of about … T: Sorry?

13 S: Money can‟t makes you happy but doing a job you like can

14 S: I usually using papers instead of plastics

15 S: I visited to some places such as … T: What?

16 S: There is many animals there

1 S: My dream is become a good teacher

T: Ah, my dream is TO become a good teacher

2 S: How many kilo of waste do we throw into rivers?

T: How many kilos of waste do we throw into rivers?

3 S: You have to dress professionly

4 S: Salary is important in choose a job

5 S: … because I love children They are cute /kjuː/

6 S: Working at home give us many benefit

7 S: I agree that exam are waste of time

T: You have to say: I agree that examS are waste of time

8 S: University should free for all

9 S: Government is responsible to ban smoking in public place

10 S: Government should reducing the use of private vehicles

11 S: Government should reducing the use of private vehicles /ˈvaiːhɪkl/

12 S: Working at home give us many benefits

13 S: Teachers have to be knowledge and friendly

14 S: Using buses are a good idea to protect environment

15 S: Happiness come from many little things

1 S: There are several factors are important in achieving happiness

T: There are several factors that are important in achieving happiness

2 S: He take part in… after that…

3 S: I live in a dorm with two boy They are teachers

4 S: She is an good laugh

5 S: Working as a private tutor is very good to students

6 S: The main social problem in Vietnam is drunken

8 S: I think we should cut down on the using of plastic bags

T: You mean the use of?

9 S: Using cameras can threat people‟s private

10 S: I go there one time a month

1 S: Government is responsible to ban smoking in public place

T: Remember to add “ing” when the verbs go after a preposition

2 S: Government is responsible to ban smoking in public place

T: Place should be in plural form

3 S: The light is invented by Thomas Edison

T: You have to use past simple tense in this sentence

4 T: What is your dream job?

S: Your dream job is a teacher

T: I am asking you, so you have to use the first personal pronoun

5 S: I think using CCTV cameras to cover all the town is a good ideas

T: You have to use singular form for idea because it is only one

6 S: A lot of food in restaurants is / are thrown away every day

T: Food is uncountable so you have to

7 S: I know him for seven years

T: When we are talking about the action that happened in the past and lasts … which tense do we use?

8 S: The number of buses on our roads have increased each year

T: We use a plural noun but a singular verb after the number of

1 S: I work as a waiter on a restaurant

T: Can you say that again?

2 S: You need a great deal of knowledges to become a doctor

T: Can you say that again?

3 S: It is a invasion of privacy

4 S: He is work at a factory

6 S: Recycle is one of the best ways to save the Earth

T: The best way to save the Earth is…

1 S: My favourite teacher is Lam He teach English

T: Teach is used for the first pronoun In this case you have to use “teaches”

2 S: I think that we should all doing as much as we can to improve our environment

T: After should, you have to use an auxiliary

3 S: I often washing clothes, clean floor, wash dishes

T: In this case you have to use auxiliary

4 S: It was my grandmother first taught me about art

T: You have to use relative noun to form correct sentence

T: Program is countable noun You must use many here

T: Who is your favourite film star?

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE ON STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES TOWARDS TYPES OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN

The purpose of this study is to investigate the preferences of teachers and students at Faculty of Foreign Languages at Hanoi Pedagogical University

2 about error correction The information gathered will be used for research on corrective feedback in language classrooms with a view to finding out the matches and mismatches to adjust it during learning and teaching process

There are no risks or benefits to you from participating in this research.


5 How long have you been learning English?

English Linguistics English Language Teaching

Please tick ✓the information that applies to you Make sure to mark only one

B: How do you rate each type of spoken error correction below?

3 = Neutral Teacher: What is he talking about?

Student: He talks about his garden

9 He talks? (Repetition: The teacher emphasizes the student‟s grammatical error by changing his/her tone of voice.)

10 Talks is the simple present tense In this case you need to use the continuous present tense (Explicit feedback: The teacher gives the correct form to the student with a grammatical explanation.)

11 At the moment, he … (Elicitation:

The teacher asks the student to correct and complete the sentence.)

The teacher does not give corrective feedback on the student‟s errors.)

13 When we are speaking about something that happens right now which tense do we use?

(Metalinguistic feedback: The teacher gives a hint or a clue without specifically pointing out the mistake.)

14 He is talking about his garden

(Recast: The teacher repeats the student‟s utterance in the correct form without pointing out the student‟s error.)

15 Teacher rises eyebrows to tell that the student has made error and is expected to self-correct

VIETNAMESE VERSION: BẢNG KHẢO SÁT DÀNH CHO SINH VIÊN

VỀ PHẢN HỒI CHỮA LỖI TRONG LỚP HỌC NÓI TIẾNG ANH

Phiếu điều tra này lấy ý kiến của sinh viên khoa Ngoại ngữ tại Trường Đại học Sư phạm Hà Nội 2 về phản hồi chữa lỗi trong lớp học nói tiếng Anh

Những ý kiến đóng góp của các bạn có giá trị trong quá trình nghiên cứu phản hồi chữa lỗi của giáo viên và sinh viên qua đó chúng tôi tìm ra những điểm chưa thật phù hợp và có những điều hỉnh hợp lý trong quá trình giảng dạy Các thông tin của các bạn được giữ bí mật và chỉ phục vụ mục đích nghiên cứu

Xin chân thành cảm ơn

5 Em đã học tiếng Anh được bao nhiêu năm rồi: ít hơn 10 năm nhiều hơn 10 năm

6 Ngành học: Đánh dấu ✓vào ngành học tương ứng của em

7 Khoá học: Đánh dấu ✓vào khoá tương ứng của em

B: Em hãy đƣa ra quan điểm về hiệu quả của các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi trong giờ học tiếng Anh của giáo viên bằng cách đánh dấu ✓ vào số tương ứng

1 = Hoàn toàn không hiệu quả 4 = Hiệu quả

2 = Không hiệu quả 5 = Hoàn toàn hiệu quả

3 = Trung lập Teacher: What is he talking about?

Student: He talks about his garden

8 Giáo viên không đưa ra bất kì phản hồi nào

9 He talks? (Giáo viên nhấn mạnh vào lỗi của học sinh bằng cách thay đổi tông giọng.)

10 Talks is the simple present tense In this case you need to use the continuous present tense (Giáo viên đưa ra đáp án đúng và giải thích cụ thể.)

11 At the moment, he (Giáo viên yêu cầu học sinh tự sửa lỗi và hoàn thành câu.)

12 Excuse me? (Giáo viên không sửa lỗi luôn khi học sinh mắc lỗi)

13 When we are speaking about something that happens right now which tense do we use? (Giáo viên chỉ đưa ra gợi ý để giúp học sinh tự sửa lỗi.)

14 He is talking about his garden

(Giáo viên đưa ra đáp án đúng luôn mà không chỉ ra lỗi.)

15 Giáo viên đưa ra hành động, cử chỉ để học sinh tự nhận ra lỗi của mình

APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE ON TEACHERS’ PREFERENCES TOWARDS TYPES OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN

Data collected from this survey will be used for completion of a master‟s degree in Teaching English Methodology at University of Languages and International Studies The information gathered will be used for research on corrective feedback in language classrooms

The purpose of this study is to investigate the preferences of teachers and students about error correction There are no risks or benefits to you from participating in this research.
You can choose to put your name on this questionnaire or not

5 How long have you been teaching English? less than 5 years 5-10 years more than 10 years

6 Tick ✓to the box that indicates the course you are teaching

Please tick ✓the information that applies to you Make sure to mark only one

B: How do you rate each type of spoken error correction below?

3 = Neutral Teacher: What is he talking about?

Student: He talks about his garden

8 He talks? (Repetition: The teacher emphasizes the student‟s grammatical error by changing his/her tone of voice.)

9 Talks is the simple present tense In this case you need to use the continuous present tense (Explicit feedback: The teacher gives the correct form to the student with a grammatical explanation.)

10 At the moment, he … (Elicitation:

The teacher asks the student to correct and complete the sentence.)

The teacher does not give corrective feedback on the student‟s errors.)

12 When we are speaking about something that happens right now which tense do we use?

(Metalinguistic feedback: The teacher gives a hint or a clue without specifically pointing out the mistake.)

13 He is talking about his garden

(Recast: The teacher repeats the student‟s utterance in the correct form without pointing out the student‟s error.)

14 Teacher rises eyebrows to tell that the student has made error and is expected to self-correct