INTRODUCTION
Identification of the problem
Speaking is absolutely part and parcel in the process of studying a foreign language like English However, the skill of speaking in a fluent way is not a gift that everybody was born with Speaking skill, in contrast, is sharpened through the long process of instruction and practice Unfortunately, in Vietnamese English-as-a- foreign-language (EFL) classrooms, speaking skill does not receive as much concern as others like grammar, reading or writing The syllabus mainly focuses on grammar, reading and writing, which appear in examinations Speaking lessons are only distributed once or twice a week, each lesson lasts 45 minutes As a result, students have little time to practice speaking This makes them feel embarrassed when communicating with native speakers as they fear to make mistakes and not to speak fluently enough That is to say, teachers play a key role in speaking lessons, for the reason that they have to create an effective environment for students to speak English and also instruct them how to speak or correct them when they make mistakes On the other hand, Vietnamese and English are languages which belong to different types, making it a challenge for Vietnamese students to learn The differences are found in many aspects such as sentence word order, phonological and sentence stress The huge differences between two languages entail a great risk of making errors Errors, on the other hand, are inevitable in mastering a language
When errors are made, students can learn more from them Therefore, teachers‟ corrective feedback is dramatically vital as teachers will assist students to acquire correct English From then, they can be more self-confident while making conversation with native speakers.
Purpose of the study and research questions
Due to the necessity of using corrective feedback in classrooms, the study aimed to investigate the use of corrective feedback in a particular Vietnamese EFL classroom, including which types of corrective feedback teacher employs to correct students‟ mistakes during speaking lessons and what affects their choice of feedback Furthermore, in this study, researcher wanted to gain knowledge about how teacher‟s corrective feedback has effect on students‟ speaking skills from students‟ perspectives The aims can be operationalized into following research questions:
Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
Question 2: What are reasons behind teacher’s choice of feedback types?
Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
Significance of the study
Due to the fact that corrective feedback plays a vital role in speaking lessons, this study was conducted with a view to becoming a guide for all teachers of
English When completed, it is expected to provide some suggestions and implications to teachers By realizing which type of feedback was used and more importantly, how corrective feedback had effect on students‟ speaking skills, every teacher can apply to his/her own class This, to some extent, may help to draw students‟ attention to the lesson and raise their interest in English as well as willingness to speak English The study is a good source of information and good support as well when teachers want to improve their teaching skills, with a desire to make students feel more confident when speaking and feel more enjoyable when taking speaking lessons, making speaking lessons more joyful and efficient Last but not least, the study is a source of information for those who are in need to investigate this issue in the future.
Methods of the study
This was a combination of quantitative and qualitative study Classroom observation and stimulated recall interview were employed as data collection instruments Then data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics to determine which types of feedback used by participating teacher and to what extent feedback helps students recognize their errors and lead to students‟ repair The stimulated recall interviews were conducted at the end of the day right after each lesson and transcribed right afterwards, and then analyzed to find out the reasons behind teachers‟ choice of corrective feedback.
Organization of the study
Chapter 1: Introduction chapter comprises the rationale of the study as well as the purpose to conduct this study, the research questions, the method used and the significance of the study
Chapter 2 (Literature review) illustrates definitions of key terms and discusses related studies by both foreign and Vietnamese researchers
Chapter 3 (Methodology) shows the context of the study, samples, data collection instruments plus data collection and analysis procedures
Chapter 4 (Findings and Discussion) presents, analyzes and discusses the data collected
Chapter 5 (Conclusion) sums up the findings of research, provides implications as well as suggestions in English pedagogy and works out some limitations for further research.
Summary
This chapter describes the rationale of the study, aiming at seeing the impacts of teacher‟s corrective feedback on student‟s speaking skills In order to accomplish that aim, researcher used observation and stimulated recall interview to collect relevant data Data observed were quantitatively analyzed while after-lesson stimulated recalls were qualitatively analyzed to make the study result more objective The next chapter reviews related literature in the mentioned field.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Key concepts
First and foremost, some definitions of feedback are provided Feedback is a familiar concept in theories of language teaching and learning (Sheen 2011) In fact, there are a great number of definitions for the term feedback Hattie and Timperley
(2007) in their co-work defined feedback as the information which is given to a person with regard to his/her performance In a narrower sense, feedback in teaching process can be understood as the indication teacher or instructor give learner relating to learning process with a view to assisting learner in improving and accelerating their learning (Sadler, 1989) Noteworthy is, according to Sheen
(2011), feedback is provided no matter how right or wrong the learner‟s response is
Feedback sometimes can be given in the form of praise or encouragement Having the same point of view, Hyland & Hyland (2001) agreed that praise can be considered in terms of its functions as feedback For instance, teacher said “Well done!” after student finish their performance According to behavioral theory, receiving a positive feedback can increase the chance of action repetition in the future (Weiner, 1990) Therefore, learners can benefit from positive feedback
Feedback can be categorized into many types Based on definition of Hattie &
Timperley (2007), feedback can come from parents or educators as corrective information, peer feedback can be in the form of alternative strategy, book can offer information to clarify idea, parents can give encouragement to their children and even a learner can look up the answer to correct himself Peer feedback (as compared to teacher feedback or parent feedback, defined by Liu & Carless (2006), is “a communication process through which learners enter into dialogues related to performance and standards” (p.280) To put it differently, peer feedback is the feedback which is given by one student to another It is a two-way process in which one cooperates with each other Peer feedback can be in the forms of corrections, suggestions or ideas to each other On the other hand, teacher‟s feedback is the feedback which teachers/educators provide their learners when they make mistakes
A correction provided by a teacher, called teacher‟s feedback is an indispensable part of any classroom and is supportive of student‟s academic achievement (Siewert,
2011) Feedback can be evaluative or descriptive (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996), in which the former involves a judgement by the teacher based on implicit or explicit norms or descriptive, while the latter describes what students said or did, and provide guidance for improvement
According to Tornberg (2005) and Lange (2009), errors are natural characteristics in the process of learning a language It shows the development in acquisition of learners Any learners make mistakes when learning a language, so corrective feedback is indispensable because normally learners can not self-correct themselves
Day, et al (1984) defined corrective feedback as native speakers‟ response to what they consider errors committed by non-native speakers This definition has its limitations Feedback providers do not restrict to native speakers but all people (Chu,
Corrective feedback is known as form-focused instruction This means it intend to draw learners‟ attention towards linguistic form (Ellis 2001) Human language is compositional; that is, every sentence is made up of smaller linguistic units that have been combined in highly constrained ways Chomsky (1965) and Pinker (1999) stated that these units and rules of combination exist at the levels of sound (phonemes), words (morphemes), and sentences (words and phrases)
Collectively, these rules comprise a grammar that defines the permissible linguistic forms in the language These forms are related to, but different from, linguistic meaning (semantics) Long (1991) claimed that meaning-focused instruction is not enough, some attention to form is needed Some researchers wondered about the effectiveness of meaning-focused instruction because of the fact that many learners show grammatical inaccuracy though they have been learning language for a long time Form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative interaction can contribute positively to a second language development in both long and short term
Another point needed to focus on, in his own work, Sheen (2011) stated that there is a basic difference to distinguish between feedback and corrective feedback
Feedback is given regardless of the response is right or wrong, whereas corrective feedback entails the appearance of error That is to say, corrective feedback is given to learners when they make mistakes in the process of making utterances Having the same point of view, Chaudron (1988) defined corrective feedback as “any teacher behavior following an error that minimally attempts to inform the learner of the fact of error” (p.150) Similarly, Lightbown and Spada (1999) also held that corrective feedback is any indication that learners receive when their use of language is not accurate
In brief, corrective feedback is the feedback which focuses on linguistic forms and is given when learner make errors This study only focused on the correction of linguistic forms due to the lack of time If there had been more time, the researcher could have included feedback on semantics aspect
Corrective feedback can be explicit or implicit Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009) defined explicit corrective feedback in general as “the process of providing the learner with direct forms of feedback” (p.83), whereas implicit feedback means not to provide the correction directly
This study only focuses on the oral form of teacher‟s corrective feedback
Normally, according to Lyster and Ranta (1997), Tedick and Gortari (1998), there are 6 main types of corrective feedback, which are recast, elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction and repetition
Recast: A recast is a technique used in language teaching to correct learners' errors in such a way that communication is not obstructed To recast an error, teacher will repeat the error back to the learner in a corrected form
Elicitation: Elicitation is a technique by which the teacher gets the learners to give information rather than giving it to them Teacher normally has a pause to allow the students to complete teacher‟s utterance
Clarification request: Teacher uses phrases like “Excuse me?”, “Pardon?” to inform students that their utterances contain mistakes that need correcting
Metalinguistic feedback: is the type of feedback which is in form of metalinguistic rules It can be information, but normally a question posed by teacher for student to answer
Explicit correction: Teacher directly indicate the error in students‟ utterances and at the same time provide the correct form
Repetition: Teacher repeats student‟s error but put the tone up at the end of the utterance to make student pay attention to the error
Based on the classification of Lyster and Ranta, Sheen (2011) classified corrective feedback strategies into seven types He combined explicit correction and metalinguistic cue to form explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation Take and example from Sheen (2011):
T: Yesterday it rained You need to include the pronoun “it” before the verb In
English we need “it” before this type of verb related to weather
Teacher provides correction and then explains for her correction This strategy helps student acknowledge his mistake as well as why his utterance is wrong
Review of previous research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on
In order to examine the relationship between corrective feedback and improvement in learners‟ speaking skill, several studies were conducted Lyster and Ranta (1997) conducted a study on four immersion classrooms at primary level to examine the frequency and distribution of the six different feedback types used by four teachers as well as the uptake pattern following each type of feedback A total of 18.3 - hour classroom observation (14 subject-matter lessons and 13 French language arts lessons) was carried out, from which the results revealed that most teacher like to use recast, as corrective feedback, accounting for more than half of the total feedback provided in the class (55%) Despite the fact that the use of recast is the subtlest, through observations, they concluded that recasts led to lowest rate of uptake, which means it was least effective “Uptake” is a term which was mentioned the first time in their co-work, too This term refers to “a student‟s utterance that immediately follows the teacher‟s feedback and that constitute a reaction in some way to the teacher‟s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student‟s initial utterance” (p 49) In other words, uptake is the notice of students after given feedback from teacher that their utterances need repairing
Nevertheless, some following research have found out that, in fact, there are some kinds of recast which related to learner‟s uptake Shorter recasts, or reduced recasts may be of greater benefit to learners as they allow learners to recognize the comparison between the mistakes and the corrections easily (Lyster, 1998; Philip,
The reason why recast is used commonly, according to Lange (2009), is that recasting is the best way to correct student‟s speech because it does not interrupt the communication between teacher and student, also it does not inhibit students
Holding the same view, Jiménez Raya, Lamb and Vieira (2007) stated that recasting help students notice their language problems without lowering students‟ self- confidence and willingness to learn Scott (2008) also advocated that point of view because of the fact that when teachers recast they provide correct forms to students, thus, it does not lead to student-generated repair
Büyükbay and Dabaghi (2010) in their co-work examined the effectiveness of
Repetition as corrective feedback to see if Repetition have any contribution to learner‟s uptake There were 30 students of 2 classes participating in the study, one control and one experimental group The researchers employed class observation and videotape recording to collect the data The results revealed that the experimental class, which was exposed to Repetition as corrective feedback, showed a higher level of improvement during the duration of the study The conclusion drawn by the researchers is that Repetition, as a correction technique is an effective way to improve student‟s speaking skill These results are similar to the results of other studies by researchers who have advocated the use of corrective feedback By and large, when students respond to teacher‟s feedback, they take chance to explore their ideas or thoughts in a thoughtful way, and, reconstruct their knowledge and apply their skills for any task (Zacharias, 2007)
During the same year, Gitsaki and Althobaiti (2010) conducted an observational study on the effectiveness of different types of interactional feedback, then identified the types of feedback that lead to learners‟ successful uptake Two native English teachers and twenty-eight ESL students at two different level of proficiency, namely beginners and intermediate, were observed in class Some interviews with teachers were also carried out after the classroom observation The findings stated that explicit correction, followed by metalinguistic feedback was most frequently used Metalinguistic feedback and repetition were two types of feedback which always led to successful uptake
Mazloomi (2015) conducted an experimental research to compare the effectiveness of two corrective feedback types, namely recast (a category of implicit feedback) and metalinguistic feedback (a category of explicit feedback) on Iranian EFL students Forty students received eight sessions of treatment and identical pre- tests and post-tests in two groups The results obtained from T-tests revealed that both techniques contribute to the development of student‟s translation skills, however, metalinguistic feedback seems to be a more effective way to treat learners‟ errors
Moreover, some studies were conducted on the differences in the use of feedback types among different level students Recasts, which are the most popular feedback strategy among second language teaching environments, may be less effective for low-proficiency than for high-proficiency students (Mackey & Philp, 1998; Ammar & Spada, 2006) Prompts can be effective in pushing development for both high- and low-proficiency level, especially high level (Ammar & Spada, 2006)
Holding the same point of view, Kaivanpanah et al (2015) conducted a study on
154 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students at three different proficiency levels The results confirmed that elementary learners preferred metalinguistic feedback, whereas advanced learners preferred prompts such as elicitation, which leads to self-repair Low-level learners have limited knowledge about target language, so it is necessary for them to learn more about language rules through metalinguistic feedback, while high-level learners are capable of re-correcting themselves with the help of teacher‟s prompts
To sum up, many studies from the past until now, recast is considered the most popular feedback strategy yet the least effective one Metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition seem to be more beneficial to students Moreover, there are differences in the use of feedback types among different level students
In Vietnam, it is a matter of fact that research on the role of corrective feedback in improving students‟ speaking skill has not drawn enough attention A study by Truong (2011) used the survey questionnaires from 286 students and semi- structured interviews with 20 students who are studying the first year in Faculty of
Accountancy, Hanoi University of Business and Technology (HUBT) The findings indicated that among three kinds of feedback (corrective feedback, evaluative feedback, strategic feedback) in the study, corrective one was used with the highest level of frequency and was considered the most effective ways to improve freshmen‟s speaking skill and also motivate them because they wanted to master their English proficiency for their future purpose especially their career in the future
Evaluative feedback is the type of feedback which is given in the form of grades
(mark, letter or percentage) or comments (e.g “well done”) Evaluative feedback provides some information about learning but not convey the guidance for students to improve their learning Hattie and Timperley (2007) agreed that when feedback focuses on praise, reward and punishments, it has low effect on students‟ learning
Strategic feedback, on the other hand, provides students with detailed information about the way to improve their learning It describes the next steps based on the assessment of the work at hand so that students know how to self-assess and self- correct themselves (Earl, 2003)
Meanwhile, a study conducted in Vietnam University of Commerce (VCU) by Vu (2012) with the participation of 126 second-year English-major students A survey questionnaire was given to each student to determine their opinion on the type of feedback they receive from their teachers Then semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 students who participated in the survey in order to obtain more detailed and comprehensive information about the effect of teachers‟ feedback on improving students‟ oral presentation skills The results indicated that strategic feedback has the highest frequency of using (54.8%), followed by evaluative feedback (45.3%) and surprisingly, corrective feedback stands at the lowest position (29.2%) It comes as a surprise because corrective feedback is gaining increasing prominence in English teaching in Vietnam However, through interviews with students, researcher finds out that the reason why teacher does not have the habit of using corrective feedback is that she does not want to make student lose face and feel nervous when he/she is making an utterance
Summary
This chapter presents a brief knowledge of the key concept, namely corrective feedback and provides types of corrective feedback The related studies are also examined, presenting the effectiveness of corrective feedback as a controversial issue While some researchers are in favor of corrective feedback because of its benefits in the process of learning a language, others do not support the use of teachers‟ corrective feedback in class due to the interference with fluency or embarrassment it creates for students The next chapter will provide the detailed description of the method used to carry out this study.
METHODOLOGY
Method of the study
This study employs survey research method The population participating in this study includes:
- two classes of Grade 6 at Be Van Dan lower-secondary school, which includes class 6A3 and class 6A0, the former specializing in English while the latter is not
- two teachers who is in charge of those two above classes
The researcher chose these students for her study for following 2 reasons:
First, there is little research on the use of corrective feedback conducted on lower- secondary students Most research focuses on students studying at colleges or universities Second, according to Yang (2015), learners‟ corrective feedback preference relates closely to learners‟ proficiency level Researcher choses students at different level in order to investigate whether there are any differences in the use of teacher‟s corrective feedback between students who are specialized in English and those who are not
The reason why the researcher chose Be Van Dan school to be her study setting is that this school is one of the schools which adapt to use the new English textbook for grade 6 to 8 The speaking skills in this book is based on communicative language teaching approach Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) is “an approach to foreign or second language teaching which emphasizes that the goal of language learning is Communicative Competence” (Richards et al.,
1996, p.65) and Communicative Competence is considered the ability to apply grammatical rules properly in order to form grammatically correct sentences and know how to use these sentences in particular context (Richards et al., 1996) CLT approach sees language from social and cultural context This approach focused meaning over form and error is a natural part of the learning process, constructing second language learner‟s system, based on Krashen‟s „natural order hypothesis‟
(1982) The errors committed by second language learners are considered as part of the process of acquisition; they are regarded as positive rather than being negative to students because they show that learning is taking place In consequence, when students are talking, teachers should avoid immediate correction after students make errors This contrasts to „Noticing Hypothesis‟ by Schmidt (1990), stating that error correction functions as a main tool for „noticing the gap between the input and their current interlanguage (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) However, Lopez (2012) conduct a study on the new insights into error correction within CLT It is proved that error correction and CLT do not necessarily fall apart Therefore, this new finding pushed the researcher to investigate the use of teacher‟s corrective feedback within CLT context Besides, because the researcher once studied at this school; therefore, it is easier for her to get the permission from class teacher for observing the class and take the recordings of the lessons
As a matter of fact, the students of grade 6 at Be Van Dan lower-secondary school are categorized into classes based on their major There are nine grade-6 classes in total, in which 6A0 specializing in Math and 6A3 specializing in English
Both classes have been using the same textbook (i.e Tiếng Anh 6 (new curriculum)) and have three English periods per week Class 6A3 has extra two English periods (tự chọn) per week The number of students in each class range from 50 to 55 students, which is much more than that of a standard speaking class This is also an obstacle for both teacher and students as students have little chance practicing speaking skills, similarly, teacher can not cover all the students‟ errors and give them corrective feedback
The course-book used for grade-6 students at Be Van Dan lower-secondary school is new English 6 (Tiếng Anh 6 thí điểm) The book is published in 2012 under the cooperation between Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training
(MOET) and Pearson Education The use of new curriculum at school is also a part of 2020 Project initiated by MOET The book covers all 4 skills, namely reading, speaking, listening and writing Moreover, in this new curriculum, students will be equipped with presentation and team-work skills through “Projects” part This new book also focuses more on speaking skills by designing “Communication” part and
“Pronunciation” part, providing students opportunities to practice speaking English as much as possible The book was adopted at Be Van Dan school in 2014 after a process of teacher-training and since then it has been used as learning material for all grade-6 students
Both two teachers have many experiences in teaching English at Be Van Dan school They have basic understanding of the use of corrective feedback in class and usually use corrective feedback during the lessons, especially the speaking lessons as they are trained in the training program of Project 2020 proposed by MOET The training program had been launched before the new book was officially adopted at the school They have chance to get access to new techniques as well as approaches in teaching English.
Data collection instruments
The researcher used this instrument to address the first and the last research question Class observation, or systematic class observation, is a term which refers to a method used to measure the frequencies of one specific behavior, event, or activity occurring in class in a period of time Direct class observation has been widely used since 1970s in so much research on language classrooms that no other techniques can substitute for (Nunan, 1989) It is used for the main purpose of examining to what extent a specific teaching method is effective in a language classroom (Waxman et al., 2004) The researchers, therefore, will have more opportunity to collect large amount of reliable data of particular participants in a particular setting (Le, 2012) This method proves to be helpful as the researcher can objectively observes and take notes of what actually happens during class lessons
The study, hence, can produce more in-depth results and more multilayered understandings of samplings (Mackey et al., 2005) The researcher does not employ questionnaire in this study as answers to questionnaire are sometimes inaccurate when participants do not take this questionnaire seriously (Mackey et al., 2005) To students at grade 6, class observation is obviously more appropriate and easier to conduct than designing questionnaires
In this study, the presence of the researcher does not interfere with interactions between teacher and students She merely serves as a non-participating observer who records the data and then analyze them Galton (1988) listed three basic stages of systematic observational research: (1) record the events, (2) coding events based on categories and lastly (3) analyze the events after coded Therefore, note-taking and recording techniques are used to aid this method The researcher also designed an observation checklist to make it convenient as well as accurate to take notes of the lessons
Recording actually helps a lot but it also brings about disadvantages First, quality of recordings depends on surroundings, which is often noisy during speaking lessons Second, some students are reluctant to speak because they feel embarrassed when making mistakes If they speak, it takes time to prepare well for the speeches in order to commit fewer mistakes However, recording is still chosen for its effectiveness to collect the data While recording the lessons, the researcher takes notes at the same time As it is difficult to cover all utterances made during the lessons, researcher designed an observation checklist (see Appendix) with categories, namely student‟s name, his/her errors, type of feedback/ignore error, student‟s response
In this study, the researcher observed two grade-6 classes, one specializing in English while the other is not Each class was observed in three periods, each of which lasted 45 minutes All six speaking periods (covering Speaking part and
Communication part in the book) took place in the first semester of school year
2016 Class 6A0 was observed in speaking periods of unit 1, 2 and 3; class 6A3 was observed in speaking periods of unit 1, 3 and 4 This method proves to be helpful because it creates solid foundation for understanding and guides to effective teaching methods (Waxman, 2004)
The researcher employs stimulated recall interviews with teachers after the lesson to answer the second research question, which scrutinizes the explanations of teacher‟s feedback choice in a particular situation Stimulated recall method first appeared in Calderhead (1981) The use of stimulated recall resulted from an increase in the investigation of teachers‟ thoughts and decision-making The process involves the replay of videotapes or audiotapes of teacher‟s lessons in order to collect comments upon teacher‟s decisions, thoughts or activities at the time
(Calderhead, 1981) Mackey et al (2000) stated that it is a useful tool which helps discover the attitudes and beliefs which do not seem to be evident through mere observation He added that stimulated recall interviews should be conducted right after the event to guarantee the reliability and the validity of the data
After each lesson, the researcher conducted a short interview with the teacher
Before that, she contacted each teacher to arrange when to meet She tried her best to conduct the interview right after each lesson to maintain the reliability of the data
Of the six interviews, there was one conducted in the evening on the same day of the lesson, another was conducted in the evening of the next day and the four others within the week She excerpted some parts from the original recordings that she had taken before during the class, then, let the teacher listen to them The researcher paused the recording when necessary and ask the teacher the reason why she chose that feedback technique in that situation The answers were also noted down and recorded in order to be transcribed and analyzed later The stimulated recall interviews were conducted in Vietnamese and translated to English by the researcher.
Procedures
This study is carried out with the use of quantitative and qualitative method
Two data collection instruments were employed, including class observation and structured interviews with both teachers There are three questions posed in this study, the order of the question is also the order of data collection and data analysis procedures
Question 1: Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
To address this question, class observation technique is employed It is also non-participation observation The researcher‟s presence does not intervene in the process of teaching and learning There are two classes observed in this study The grade-6 classes are assigned 3 English periods per week and due to the curriculum, they have one speaking lesson every two week, thus, each teacher was observed in only three speaking periods
First, the researcher contacted each teacher to arrange when she could observe the class Before carrying out observation, the teacher introduced the researcher to her students The students considered this normal because other teachers sometimes attend their lessons to gain more teaching experiences Then the researcher sat at the corner at the end of the class, observing the process of teaching and learning in speaking lessons with the help of an observation checklist and take down field-notes All the utterances of teacher and students during the lesson will also be recorded to easily analyze later After being recorded, the data were transcribed and coded, based on pre-determined categories Pre-determined categories consist of students‟ error type (grammar/ pronunciation/ vocabulary/ meaning), teacher‟s feedback (six types by Lyster and Ranta or ignore), student‟s uptake (repair or needs-repair) or no uptake (See Appendix 1)
Question 2: What are the reasons behind teacher’s choice of corrective feedback?
Firstly, after listening to the recording of each speaking period, the researcher arranged to meet the teacher as soon as possible The researcher explained the reason to conduct interview and the topic of the interview to the teacher Secondly, after the teacher accepted to take the interview, the researcher played back some extraction from the recording she had taken before The researcher paused the recording if necessary to discuss The sole interview question was “Why do you use that feedback strategy in that situation?” The interviewee answered the question and the answers were recorded and jotted down at the same time The interviews were conducted in Vietnamese
Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
The data collected from class observation were also used to tackle this research question Each dialogue between teacher and student is considered a language episode Each language episode initiates with a student‟s utterance that contains at least one error, followed by teacher‟s feedback (if any), then followed by student‟s response/uptake (if any) and so on For example:
Student (S): In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error)
Teacher (T): No, we do not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction)
All the language episodes were all transcribed After that, all uptake moves following each type of feedback at both level, as well as turns of each feedback type leading to repair/needs-repair were counted and percentages were calculated „Turn‟ involves a piece of teacher-student dialogue that contains an error(s) or feedback
„Repair‟ refers to the correct reformulation of an error as uttered student turns, while „needs-repair‟ implies a learner‟s actions as a reaction to corrective feedback on his/her erroneous turn that failed to result in correction of an error(s) (Lyster &
Ranta, 1997) For example (taken from Jabbari, 2012)
S: Who does has the same idea? (Error – grammatical) T: Who…? (Feedback – elicitation)
S: Who has the same idea? (Repair)
S: They are from United States (Error – grammatical) T: From … (Feedback – elicitation)
The contents are categorized based on the three research questions Since the first and the second research question are addressed with the results from class observation and the last question is answered with the results from stimulated recall interviews, so the steps taken are listed as follows:
Step 1: Listen to the recordings and take down the transcriptions Combine these transcriptions and notes taken when attending the lessons to complete the observation checklist
All students‟ erroneous utterances were counted “Errors” in such utterances are what teacher considered errors, which are different from what actually come from target language norms According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), error correction starts when student‟s utterance contains at least one error, or sometimes that utterance is ignored and the topic continues If teacher provides feedback, student can response and repair the error or continue the topic without recognizing the error The errors are categorized as pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary and meaning one
Actually, there are several different ways used to classified errors On of these is based on the type of linguistic item that is involved in the errors Linguistic categories of such a classification would include phonology/pronunciation, syntax and morphology/grammar, lexicon/vocabulary and semantics or pragmatics/meaning This type of classifications was mentioned in Mackey, Gass and Mcdonough (2000) and Nishita (2004) This is also the most popular way to categorize errors so the researcher used this one in her study However, this study only focuses on the correction of errors in linguistic forms, so error categories consist of phonological, grammatical and lexical errors Teacher‟s feedback is coded as no feedback (ignore) or six above mentioned types (see Literature review, p 7)
Step 2: Analyze and discuss the data collected
For the first question, all teachers‟ feedback turns were counted, then the percentage of the use of each feedback type to total feedback turns was calculated
For the third question, all students‟ uptake moves which followed teacher‟s corrective feedback were counted If students did not response to teachers‟ feedback, it is considered “No uptake” Uptake and no uptake rates were then calculated
(based on overall teachers‟ feedback turn) Uptake moves were then divided into repair and needs-repair with percentage included
Next, the data collected from stimulated recall were analyzed Basically, according to Gass & Mackey (2016), the steps include transcription, coding and description of data, then the data will be analyzed
Step 3: Listen to the recordings of the stimulated recall and transcribe them
Step 4: Design a stimulated recall coding sheet (see Appendix 3), code the relevant data and then discuss the data
The reasons for choice of feedback teacher gives in the interview are categorized into two types: external factors (teaching experience, students‟ ability, type of errors) and internal factors (time limit, lesson goals) (see Literature review p.9)
This chapter fully describes the methodology of the study As mentioned, the study employs class observation and stimulated recall interviews as they help to remain the objectiveness of the study The samplings of the study are two teachers and two grade-6 classes in which one class specializes in English and the other is not Data collection and analysis procedures are also clearly presented in the order of research questions Data collected from the observation and interviews are then transcribed and analyzed by answering two research questions to find out the patterns of teacher‟s corrective feedback and its effectiveness, which is illustrated in the next chapter.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Three research questions
4.1.1 Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
Some examples of six corrective feedback types (taken from class observation transcriptions)
Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error)
S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (recast) (uptake – repair)
S: The tortoise walks slowlier than the hare (grammatical error)
T: slowlier or more slowly? (elicitation)
S: He is a very creative boy /kritɪv/ (phonological error)
S: He is a very creative boy /kritɪv/ (uptake- needs-repair)
S: How many pocket money do you get? (grammatical error)
T: „Money‟ is an uncountable noun, so you should use „how much‟
S: I am live in a town house (grammatical error)
S: I play judo every weekend (lexical error) T: No, we do not say „play judo‟ You should use „do judo‟ instead
Table 1 Distribution of corrective feedback of class 6A0
Table 2 Distribution of corrective feedback of class 6A3 (specializing in English)
Table 1 and 2 above shows the distribution of feedback types employed by teachers during speaking lessons in class 6A0 and 6A3 (specializing in English)
From these two figures, it can be clearly seen that teachers use all types of feedback
(teachers ask other students whether the answer is right/wrong or contains any mistakes), delayed feedback (teacher ignores when student commit errors, yet giving feedback at the end of the sequence of utterances)
Obviously, there are similarities in the choice of corrective feedback between two class Both teachers use recasts at the highest rate (29.6% and 25.5 % respectively) However, there are some differences in the distribution of corrective feedback type between the two class In class 6A0, direct corrective feedback, namely recasts, explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback were much preferred than implicit type of feedback, whereas in class 6A3, there was a quite higher rate in the use of negotiation techniques compared with explicit correction, i.e repetition
(15.7%) and elicitation (17.6%) Explicit correction received more preference within 6A0 class (20.4%, ranked second just after recast) than 6A3 (11.8%) (ranked fifth after recast, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback and repetition) Surprisingly, clarification requests made the least contribution to the use of corrective feedback across two classes Teacher of class 6A0 used 2 clarification requests (3.7%) while teacher of class 6A3 used 3 clarification requests (5.9%) It may be due to the fact that students at grade 6 still do not have sufficient language knowledge to beware of the error and make self-generated correction In class 6A3, one clarification request was used when the student spoke so softly that the teacher can not hear clearly
The results illustrated above are parallel with the results presented in many studies before Teachers still opt for recast the most frequently, which is also mentioned in previous observational study by Lyster and Ranta (1997) Especially, in their study, metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction and repetition – each achieves less than 10% of frequency (8%, 7%, 5% respectively) However, the results drawn from in both class 6A0 and 6A3, metalinguistic feedback turned out to receive high usage of teachers High usage of metalinguistic feedback is attributed to the temptation to provide students the norms of target language, equipping them with standard language knowledge as well as forming a solid base for their academic English As shown above, there is a difference in the preference of the use of explicit correction between the two class While teacher of class 6A0 preferred to use explicit techniques, teacher of 6A3 frequently used negotiation ones
This is similar to the findings of Kaivanpanah‟s study (2015), which indicates that due to the lack of target language knowledge, low-level students should learn through explicit correction or metalinguistic feedback, while higher level students are capable of re-correcting themselves with the help of teacher‟ prompts, which stimulates their thinking about the errors
4.1.2 Question 2: What are the reasons behind teacher’s choice of corrective feedback?
The researcher found out the answers to this research question through the answers of teacher in stimulated recall interviews conducted with both of them after the lessons (Teacher of class 6A0 is called teacher A, teacher of class 6A3 is called teacher B) In these sessions, both teachers mentioned many factors leading to their choices of recasts, explicit correction, metalinguistic feedback In terms of recasts, both teachers agreed that time restriction and fear of conversation disruption have an influence on their choice of recast Notably, they used recast when students make pronunciation mistake
Example 1: (Unit 2-communication part) Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error) Teacher (T): Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (recast)
S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (uptake-repair) And there is a poster on the wall /pɒstə/
(phonological error) T: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (recast) S: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (uptake-repair) Teacher B shared that:
“I correct this student’s mistake immediately because I think the most effective way for student to master right pronunciation is shadowing, so when she
Example 2: (Unit 1 – looking back – communication) S1: How many class are there in your school? (grammatical error)
T: You should say classes instead of class because we use plural noun after „how many‟ (delayed metalinguistic feedback)
“Each lesson lasts 45 minutes Homework recheck and warm-up activities often take 10-15 minutes so we always do not have enough time for practicing speaking Recast is the fastest way to correct errors and receive students’ response
Moreover, I do not want to disrupt our conversation so I use recast and let the topic continue However, I still provide the knowledge again at the end of the dialogue”
From the results of the first research question, it can be realized that explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback are used with high rate in both classes, only follow recast in frequency
Example 3: (Unit 3) S: In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error)
T: No, we do not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction)
To explain why to use these direct feedback strategy, teacher A said:
“The reason I prefer and often correct the mistakes explicitly and correct the mistake by providing language rules is that my students are in grade 6, they have just started to expose to academic English (different from play-and-learn style at primary school), so I want to provide them the knowledge in a careful way to form a solid foundation for them Also, my students do not specialize in English so they lack language resource to correct themselves in some situations.”
Again, time shortage is the reason for explicit correction Teacher A added:
“If there is more time, I will provide opportunities for students to correct themselves rather than provide correction explicitly”
However, there are some differences in distribution of corrective feedback type between the two classes The use of negotiation strategy (i.e elicitation, repetition) in class 6A3 is more frequent than that in class 6A0 When the researcher mentioned this point to teacher B, she responded:
“Beside the frequent use of explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback, I also ask students questions or repeat their errors in the form of questions to elicit their thinking about errors These ways provide stimuli for students to work out the correct answers on their own, thus, students will make faster improvement.”
The results of the first research question also reveal that teacher sometimes let the students peer-correct (other feedback type) Teacher B explained:
“I do not directly correct students’ errors but ask for other students’ opinion, first I want to engage all students in the conversation and second, they will learn much from correcting their classmates’ mistakes.”
Besides, both teachers occasionally ignore students‟ errors because they want to keep the conversation smooth and do not want to disrupt students‟ flow of mind
Certainly, teachers still provide the correction at the end of the conversation
Teacher A also said that she wanted to focus on the fluency rather than the accuracy
The fear of making mistakes sometimes influence students‟ fluency
Apparently, Menti (2006) in his study mentioned one of the factors influencing teachers‟ choice of different corrective feedback types This factor involves students‟ feeling and teacher‟ belief about how much and what kind of assistance teachers feels that students need at that time Teachers participating in Menti‟s research also pay attention to students‟ feeling They do not want their students to feel embarrassed, which possibly leads to their unwillingness or reluctance to speak However, students‟ feeling was not mentioned in this study
Gurzynski-Weiss (2010) also mentions one of the most frequent factors affecting teachers‟ choice of feedback is based on students‟ feeling Students‟ feeling is an internal factor making the teacher ignore students‟ errors Nevertheless, according to answer of teacher in stimulated recall in this study, they sometimes ignore the errors because the error is unexpected or the error is minor Also, teachers ignore students‟ errors due to the lesson goals mentioned in the book As the speaking part in English 6 book is compiled in communicative language teaching context, error correction is considered an obstacle for students‟ fluency
The lesson goals focus more on students‟ fluency than accuracy Another factor cited in Weiss‟s study is the lack of student‟s language ability; this point was also found out in this study that students‟ language proficiency determined the way teacher gave feedback Time limitation was also mentioned but not frequently in
Weiss‟s study However, this factor is the main one resulting in the choice of recast in this study
4.1.3 Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
Table 3 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A0
(46 language episodes in total) (for more detailed table, see appendix 3)
Feedback type Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n %
Table 4 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A3 (specializing in English) (40 language episodes in total) (for more detailed table, see appendix 3)
Feedback type Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n %
Summary
This chapter presents the findings and discussion compared with previous studies on the same field It is found that teachers of both classes employed all types of corrective feedback provided in Lyster and Ranta‟s study (1997) Despite being ineffective to some extent, there is still an overwhelm tendency to use recast as the most frequent type of feedback in both classes Recast is proved to be less effective than direct techniques like metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction There is a striking difference between distribution of feedback types between two class
Non-major class teacher tends to use explicit feedback to indicate errors to students while English major class teacher prefers to use prompts through elicitation or repetition, which also lead to highest rate of repair, to force students to think about their errors Surprisingly, clarification requests do not contribute much to student‟s repair About factors affecting teachers‟ choice feedback, time limitation was one of the external factors mentioned Moreover, internal factors were found out such as students‟ types of errors, students‟ language proficiency and students‟ fluency.
CONCLUSION
Brief summary of the findings
This study seeks to answer three questions:
Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
Question 2: What are reasons behind teacher’s choice of feedback types?
Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
First and foremost, based on results from observation checklist, the study revealed that teachers of two classes used all six types of corrective feedback
Recast was used with the highest rate in both classes (29.6% and 25.5%)
Specifically, teacher of class 6A0 mostly used explicit feedback techniques, i.e metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction (16.7% and 20.4%) to treat students‟ errors, whilst teacher of class 6A3 frequently gave students feedback in the form of prompts, i.e elicitation and repetition (17.6% and 15.7%) Of the six feedback types, clarification request was used the least (3.7% and 5.9%) Moreover, teachers sometimes ignored students‟ unintentional errors or used delayed feedback at the end of the dialogue to avoid interference with students‟ flow of mind and fluency
Second, with regard to the factors guiding teachers‟ choice of feedback, both external and internal factors were revealed through stimulated recall answers One factor guiding the use of recast is time limitation Time limitation is also the reason for choosing explicit correction In addition to time constraints, internal factors like students‟ language proficiency, students‟ ability and learning styles are also mentioned Teachers used metalinguistic feedback for the sake of students‟ solid foundation of academic English knowledge, as well as due to the differences in learning styles between primary and secondary school In class 6A3, teacher gave feedback in the form of prompts due to the fact that teacher wanted to stimulate students‟ thinking and attract students to the lessons
Last but not least, through observation checklist, findings of uptake move and repair rates attributed to each feedback type were also demonstrated Recast, which was used the most frequently, turned out to be less effective in leading to repair than metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, elicitation and repetition In both classes, metalinguistic feedback was the one which led to the most repair (88.9% ad 77.8%) In class 6A0, using prompts through elicitation and repetition is less effective than that in class 6A3 Notably, clarification requests were used the least and mostly had no impact on leading to repair in both class
It can be concluded from the study in this specific context that teachers‟ corrective feedback did not seem to interfere with the continuance of the communication It paved the way for students to acknowledge their errors, then students have chance to revise the knowledge concerning language and language use, which proved to have positive effects on students in the context of communicative language teaching From these findings, teachers may have some experiences in the use of corrective feedback in the most efficient way.
Pedagogical implications
Errors are inevitable during the process of learning a language so teachers should pay attention to how to use corrective feedback to correct students‟ errors in the most effective way The most successful format of correction is the feedback that successfully leading to self-correction in practice situations From this study, teachers can draw some pedagogical implications to improve their ways of using feedback
After completing the study, the researcher sent the results via email to both teachers The researcher also had a small talk on the phone with teacher of class
6A0 She recommended that in addition to explicit correction strategies, teacher should use negotiation techniques more frequently to draw students‟ attention and stimulate the students‟ self-reformation of errors
As a matter of fact, it is imperative that teachers should consider all relevant factors (students‟ error type, ability, feeling, time, …) to find out the most appropriate types of feedback to students‟ errors Then, students will easily recognize their errors and may not commit the same errors the next time
Particularly, recasts and explicit corrections are suitable for errors in pronunciation as the most effective way to properly learn pronunciation is listening and repeating
Meanwhile, when students make mistakes in lexicon and grammar, teachers using negotiation techniques like clarification requests, elicitation can help students identify their errors clearly and stimulate students‟ thinking to self-correct, not just give the correct form of the target language Also, it is necessary for teachers to take students‟ language proficiency into consideration when choosing any type of corrective feedback To non-majors, as they do not have enough linguistic knowledge to understand or response to teachers‟ implication, direct feedback such as recasts, explicit correction or metalinguistic feedback can work as it help provide language input To students who have basic background of target language, implicit feedback plays a prime role in eliciting students‟ thoughts to self-repair Moreover, many studies conducted previously indicate that recasts are the most popular strategy and also lead to the most uptake However, it is proved to be less effective than other choices of feedback Students may repeat teachers‟ recasts automatically without certainly recognize the errors As a result, teachers had better move to more effective technique such as metalinguistic feedback or explicit feedback.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies
The limitations the researcher sums up after carrying out this study are illustrated as follows:
First, there are six periods observed in total as it is not a longitudinal study
Hence, the results can not reflect the long-term effect of teacher‟s corrective feedback on students‟ speaking skills Second, the study was conducted in a lower- secondary school so the results of the study can not be generalized to other students or schools Due to time constraints, the researcher can not observe all the grade-6 students of the school This, to some extent, can not represent the opinions of larger population The last limitation of the study involves the methodology As a matter of fact, the researcher actually wanted to conduct interviews with students to find out their perceptions and attitudes towards teachers‟ corrective feedback, in other words, from students‟ perspectives, whether corrective feedback is effective and helps them recognize their errors To some extent, interviews with students will give a more comprehensive and objective results, rather than just based on results from class observation Consequently, it is hard to examine whether the teacher‟ corrective feedback actually has positive impact on students‟ speaking skills Above all, the researcher has tried her best to make the results as much objective as possible as well as maintain the reliability of the study However, to be honest, all mentioned limitations of the study should be taken into account in a serious way when other studies
It is highly recommended that other researchers when conducting further studies on this matter should pay attention to all mentioned shortcomings the researcher has listed above First of all, later researchers should carry out longitudinal observation of the class or choose experimental research with experimental group which receive feedback, control group which do not and some tests (namely pre-tests and post-tests) as their methodology to effectively examine whether teacher‟s corrective feedback actually help students improve their speaking skills or not Second, it is imperative that later studies should be conducted on a larger population with the participation of more classes at a wider range of levels
The participation of some English native teachers is also a good idea because more and more school now invite native teachers to instruct students in speaking lessons
From then, researchers can make comparison of the use of teacher‟s corrective feedback between Vietnamese teachers and native teachers
Asari, Y (2011) Subcategorization of recasts: Examining different features
Proceedings of the 16th Conference Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 418-421
Büyükbay, S & Dabaghi, A (2010) The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1: 181-193
Chaudron, C (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Chu, R (2011) The effects of teacher‟s corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English majors college students Theory and Practice in Language
Day, R et al (1984) Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse Language
Egi, T (2007) Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29,
Ellis, R (2001) Form-focused instruction and second language learning Language learning, 51: Supplement 1, 391-
Fungula, B (2013) Oral Corrective Feedback in the Chinese EFL Classroom :
Methods employed by teachers to give feedback to their students (Dissertation)
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H (2007) The power of feedback Review of Educational Research, 77, 181-112
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K (2001) Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212
Huong, T T (2011) Effects of teacher's feedback on freshmen's motivation in speaking lessons A survey research at Hanoi University of Business and Technology (M.A.), ULIS, VNU
Liu, N-F & Carless, D (2006) Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment, Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), pp.279-290
Loewen, S and Philp, J (2006) Recasts in adult English L2 classroom:
Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness The Modern Language Journal, 90,
Kim, J.H Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition Working
Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 2 Teachers College, Columbia
Krashen, S D (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition New
York: Pergamon Institute of English
Ferm Lange, C (2009) Corrective Feedback During Communicative Activities : A study of recasts as a feedback method to correct spoken English (Dissertation)
Lightbown, P M & Spada, N (1999) How Languages are Learned Oxford, UK:
Lyster, R & Ranta, L (1997) "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms" Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19:
Lyster, R (1998) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error type and learner repair in immersion classrooms Language Learning, 48(2),
Ohta, A S (2001) Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom:
Learning Japanese Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Sadler, D.R (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems Instructional Science, 18, 119-144 Republished in W Haren (Ed) (2008)
Student assessment and testing Ch 14, Vol 2, pp 3 28 London: SAGE
Sadler, D R (2010) Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (5), 535-550
Sheen, Y (2011) Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning Dordrecht: Springer
Siewert, L (2011) The effects of written teacher feedback on the academic achievement of fifth-grade students with learning challenges Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and youth, 55(1), 17–27
Tedick, D & Gortari, B (1998) Research on Error Correction and Implications for Classroom Teaching The Bridge, ACIE Newsletter Center for Advanced
Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota, v1
Tornberg, U (2005) Sprồkdidaktik Malmử: Gleerups Utbildning AB
Truscott, J (1999) What‟s wrong with grammar correction Canadian Modern language Review, 55, 437-456
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C (1996) Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology British Educational Research Journal, 22 (4)
Varnosfadrani, A D., & Basturkmen, H (2009) The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners‟ performance System, 37(1), 82-98
Weiner, B (1990) History of motivational research in education Journal of Education psychology, 82(4), 616-622
Zacharias, N T (2007) Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback
* Notes: U = Uptake No U = No uptake
R = Repair NR = Needs repair Stud ent
Student‟s error Teacher‟s feedback Response Note
APPENDIX 2 EXAMPLES OF ERRORS, TEACHER’S CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND
Notes: all information in brackets and forward slashes were noted by the researcher
Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error) Teacher (T): Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (recast)
S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (uptake-repair) And there is a poster on the wall /pɒstə/
(phonological error) T: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (recast) S: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (uptake-repair)
Example 2: (Unit 1 – looking back – communication)
S1: How many class are there in your school? (grammatical error) T: Classes (recast)
S1: (No uptake) S2: twenty-five T: You should say classes instead of class because we use plural noun after „how many‟ (delayed metalinguistic feedback)
S: In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error) T: No, we do not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction) S: Yes (uptake- needs-repair)
S: Ho Chi Minh City is largest city in southern Vietnam (grammatical error) T: largest city? (repetition)
S: the largest city (uptake-repair)
S: On Sunday we are singing at our village‟s choir club (phonological error)
T: choir /ˈkwaɪə(r)/ not /kɔɪə(r)/ (explicit correction)
S : I and him are doing homework together from 8a.m to 9.30a.m (lexical error)
S: Ah, I and he (uptake – needs repair)
T: No, you should say He and I (explicit correction)
S: There are two vase at the corner of the bookshelf (grammatical error)
S: and a armchair in front of the TV (grammatical error)
T: you should use „an‟ if the next word begins with a vowel (repeat the knowledge)
S: There have fifty-two students in my class (grammatical error)
T: There have or there are? (elicitation)
APPENDIX 3 Table 3 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A0
Feedback type Uptake Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n % n %
Table 4 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A3 (specializing in English) (40 language episodes in total)
Feedback type Uptake Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n % n %
APPENDIX 4 STIMULATED RECALL CODING SHEET
Lesson/Unit: Length of recordings:
Date of stimulated recall interview:
Time Teacher‟s comment External factors Internal factors
APPENDIX 5 EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPTIONS OF STIMULATED RECALL
Stimulated recall interview with teacher of class 6A0 (Teacher A)
Interviewer (I): Thưa cô, sau đây em xin phép được bắt đầu cuộc phỏng vấn ạ Bây giờ em sẽ bật lại một số trích đoạn trong giờ học trong đó cô có sử dụng việc phản hồi với những câu chứa lỗi sai của các em học sinh ạ Sau đó em xin phép được hỏi cô một số câu hỏi liên quan
(Mở recordings) I: Trong đoạn ghi âm vừa rồi, em thấy em học sinh có mắc lỗi để động từ tobe và động từ thường „have‟ đứng cạnh nhau (we are have), vậy tại sao cô không gợi ý cho bạn ấy tự sửa lỗi cho mình mà lại nhắc lại lý thuyết và sửa lỗi cho bạn ấy luôn ạ?
T: Vì các bạn mới bước vào lớp 6, nó khác so với tiếng Anh tiểu học nên cô muốn sửa lỗi luôn và nhắc lại kiến thức để bạn ấy nhớ Hơn nữa kiến thức của các bạn ấy còn ít nên nhiều khi không biết mình sai ở đâu và sửa như thế nào
(Mở recordings) I: Cô ơi em thấy vừa rồi em học sinh quên dạng số nhiều của từ „class‟, tại sao cô cũng sửa lỗi này luôn ạ?
T: Vì trên lớp chỉ có 45 phút nên nhiều khi vôi em ạ, kiểm tra bài tập về nhà và warm up đã mất khá nhiều thời gian, học sinh không có thời gian luyện nói nhiều
Cô sửa lỗi luôn để không làm gián đoạn cuộc hội thoại nhưng sau đó vẫn nhắc lại kiến thức để sau em học sinh không mắc lỗi đó nữa
Stimulated recall interview with teacher of class 6A3 (Teacher B)
Interviewer (I): Thưa cô, sau đây em xin phép được bắt đầu cuộc phỏng vấn ạ Bây giờ em sẽ bật lại một số trích đoạn trong giờ học trong đó cô có sử dụng việc phản hồi với những câu chứa lỗi sai của các em học sinh ạ Sau đó em xin phép được hỏi cô một số câu hỏi liên quan