Teachers perceptions and students preferences on oral corrective feedback in english speaking classes a comparative study at new oriental foreign language schoo

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

Speaking remains one of the most challenging tasks for Vietnamese students, primarily due to their exposure to the Grammar-Translation Method in high schools (Le, 2018) These students often struggle with phonological, grammatical, lexical, and discursive errors, making flawless English oral production difficult (Le, 2018) To enhance their speaking skills, it's crucial to provide ample opportunities for practice along with constructive feedback that helps them learn from their mistakes (Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013) Effective feedback serves as a vital instructional practice, offering "good models of speaking and interaction" (Goh, 2014, p 23) and is essential for helping learners recognize their errors and establish form-meaning connections, thus facilitating language acquisition (Ellis, 2009, p 6).

Researchers (e.g., Ozmen & Aydin, 2015; Roothooft & Breeze, 2016; Li, 2017;

Teachers' perceptions significantly influence their selection and prioritization of goals regarding oral corrective feedback (Le, 2018; Alkhammash & Gulnaz, 2019) Defined by Maba (2017) as individuals' responses or opinions formed through sensory experiences, these perceptions encompass teachers' pedagogical beliefs, which include their attitudes and views on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in language education (Li, 2017) It is widely recognized that these perceptions and beliefs shape teachers' goals, instructional methods, materials, classroom interactions, and their overall roles (Kuzborska, 2011) Furthermore, Richards, Gallo, and Renandya (2001) emphasize that understanding teachers' approaches to their work necessitates a comprehension of the underlying perceptions and beliefs guiding their practices.

Despite the understanding of oral corrective feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching, limited research has explored teachers' perceptions of their feedback practices in real classroom settings (Fallah & Nazari, 2019) This gap highlights the need for further investigation into how teachers perceive their role in providing oral corrective feedback.

Individual learner differences, including age, gender, aptitude, motivation, cognitive style, learning strategies, and personality, significantly influence second language acquisition and the reception of oral corrective feedback Age, in particular, is a key factor affecting students' preferences for language learning and feedback types Different age groups exhibit varying learning styles and preferences for instructional methods and feedback Understanding these preferences is essential for enhancing the effectiveness of feedback in improving students' speaking abilities Research on oral corrective feedback preferences provides valuable insights into learners' perspectives, which can lead to more effective teaching practices when integrated with corrective feedback effectiveness studies Therefore, investigating language learners' preferences for oral corrective feedback in speaking classes is crucial.

Understanding students' preferences for corrective feedback is crucial for teachers, as highlighted by Shahrani (2013) This awareness allows educators to recognize and rectify any misconceptions in their feedback methods, ultimately enhancing their teaching practices Moreover, it can encourage students to engage more actively with the feedback provided However, the alignment between teachers' perceptions and students' preferences regarding oral corrective feedback remains uncertain.

Despite ongoing debates, there is surprisingly limited research on the relationship between teacher intentions and student interpretations, particularly in the Vietnamese context (Le, 2018) This study aims to explore this connection further, providing valuable pedagogical insights that can bridge the gap between a teacher's intention and a student's interpretation (Han, 2002, p 72), as well as between a teacher's corrections and a student's readiness to accept them (Han, 2002, p 117) Ultimately, this investigation seeks to enhance the effectiveness of oral communication in developing students' speaking abilities.

Statement of Problem

Mastering speaking skills is crucial for individuals learning a second or foreign language, with many finding English conversation particularly challenging (Ur, 1996; Leong & Ahmadi, 2017) Consequently, the teaching and learning of this productive skill must be consistent both in time and space.

To enhance English communication skills, learners must engage not only in classroom lessons but also in out-of-class learning environments While high schools provide foundational linguistic knowledge, students should dedicate additional time to practice their English in real-life situations In this context, foreign language centers, such as the New Oriental Foreign Language School, play a crucial role in supporting and improving learners' communication abilities.

At the New Oriental Foreign Language School, English classes such as TOEIC, IELTS, and TOEFL emphasize the development of speaking skills, where oral corrective feedback is crucial for effective teaching and learning Pre-intermediate learners come from diverse backgrounds, leading to varying learning styles; some students actively seek correction to enhance their English proficiency, while others, particularly those at lower levels, rely heavily on peer feedback This dynamic can pose challenges for instructors who are tasked with facilitating student performance and growth.

Therefore, if the researcher could uncover this issue, teachers may find out the possible way to provide oral corrective feedback and learners can boost their skills

In a learner-centered classroom, teachers guide students while encouraging them to take responsibility for their own learning by providing feedback on both their peers' and their own speaking performances This autonomy-oriented approach emphasizes the value of learning from mistakes, with language teachers focusing on the effective use of oral corrective feedback to enhance both accuracy and fluency in English However, a critical question arises regarding the potential mismatch between teachers’ perceptions of and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback Given the essential role of instruction and feedback in helping students improve their knowledge and address oral errors, investigating the alignment between teachers' views and students' preferences for various types of oral corrective feedback is crucial.

Research Aims

The current study consisted of two fundamental aims in relation to the field of oral corrective feedback in English speaking instruction

The first aim was to investigate how the English teachers perceived about and thought of providing oral corrective feedback in their speaking classes at New Oriental Foreign Language School

The second aim was to scrutinize how the pre-intermediate students preferred receiving oral corrective feedback in their EFL speaking classes at New Oriental Foreign Language School.

Research Questions

To fulfill these research aims above, the study accordingly formulated two research questions as following:

RQ-1: How do the English teachers perceive about their providing oral corrective feedback in speaking classes?

RQ-2: What preferences do the students hold regarding teachers’ oral corrective feedback in speaking classes?

Significance of the Study

Oral corrective feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing speaking skills among language learners at New Oriental Foreign Language School However, there is a limited amount of research on teachers' perceptions and students' preferences regarding this feedback in speaking classes This study aims to fill this gap, with the expectation that its findings will positively influence both theoretical understanding and practical application in language education.

This study developed a clear conceptual framework through a review of relevant theoretical perspectives, enhancing readers' understanding of oral corrective feedback, teachers' perceptions, and students' preferences It highlighted the essential role and core values of oral corrective feedback in English speaking pedagogy, emphasizing its importance for both teachers and students.

The study's findings enable English teachers to reflect on their experiences with oral corrective feedback, helping them identify and address any mismatches with students This insight allows educators to enhance their future speaking classes by providing more effective feedback Additionally, the results encourage students to view oral corrective feedback more positively, increasing their willingness to accept it, which significantly boosts their speaking learning experience.

Organization of the Thesis

The thesis was constituted with five main chapters as follows

Chapter 1, Introduction, presented the overarching background of the study, statement to the problem, the research aims and questions, and the significance of the study

Chapter 2, the Literature Review, outlines key theoretical perspectives relevant to the current study, focusing on oral corrective feedback, teachers' perceptions, and students' preferences These concepts were instrumental in developing the study's conceptual framework Furthermore, the review highlighted existing research gaps, providing a foundation for the investigation.

Chapter 3, Methodology, described the methodological information about the research context, research participants, research design, research instruments, procedures of data collection and analysis, followed by some methodological issues

Chapter 4 presents a detailed analysis of the quantitative data collected from questionnaires and the qualitative insights obtained from interviews This section provides an in-depth discussion of the results, aligning them with the established research questions.

Chapter 5 presents a summary of the key findings of the study, highlighting their potential implications Additionally, it addresses the study's limitations and offers practical suggestions for future research in the same area.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Speaking Skill

Speaking is a fundamental skill for language learners, essential for both personal and professional communication According to Ur (1996), it is considered the most important of the four language skills, highlighting its significance in everyday life and academic settings.

Speaking is a complex language skill that involves producing, receiving, and processing information, as defined by theorists like Spratt, Pulverne, and William (2011) and Brown (1994) It encompasses the production of auditory signals to convey meaningful responses, combining sounds systematically to form sentences (Leong & Ahmadi, 2017) Additionally, speaking incorporates physical paralinguistic features, such as intonation and gestures, which enhance communication (Harmer, 2007; Dawes, 2008) Overall, speaking is a multifaceted skill that requires not only vocabulary and language structure but also an understanding of non-verbal cues, making it more intricate than it initially appears.

2.1.2 The Important Role of Speaking Skill

Determining the most crucial language skill—listening, speaking, reading, or writing—can be challenging; however, speaking is often viewed as the primary focus of language teaching According to Ur (1996), speaking is intuitively the most vital skill, as it enables learners to effectively establish and maintain relationships and negotiate with others.

Effective communication is essential for achieving business, social, and personal satisfaction, as highlighted by Carnegie (1977), who emphasized the importance of clearly expressing one's identity, desires, and beliefs Nunan (1991) further supports this by stating that good speaking performance is vital for acquiring a foreign language, with the ability to maintain a conversation being a key indicator of proficiency Ultimately, speaking is a fundamental skill that plays a critical role in social interactions and is indispensable for language learners.

Developing speaking performance in students can be hindered by several factors, including affective elements, listening ability, and feedback during speaking activities (Nguyen & Tran, 2015) Affective states like motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety significantly impact EFL learners' oral production, with research indicating that low self-esteem and high anxiety can impede speaking ability (Oxford, 1990; Leong & Ahmadi, 2017) Furthermore, learners must enhance their listening skills to improve their communicative competence, as effective communication involves both listening and responding appropriately Additionally, the quality of feedback received during speaking activities is crucial and varies based on lesson stages, task types, and error types Lastly, performance conditions, such as time constraints, also play a vital role in influencing learners' speaking performance (Nation & Newton, 2009).

- 13 - pressure, planning, and the amount of support In general, it is clear that feedback is directly related to the development of speaking performance among students.

Introduction to Feedback and Error Correction

Feedback plays a crucial role in second language (L2) acquisition and instruction, as highlighted by Ellis (2009) It enhances student engagement and linguistic accuracy in both communicative and structural teaching approaches Additionally, feedback is essential in cognitive and behavioral theories of L2 learning, serving as a mediator for academic achievement As Askew (2000) states, feedback is a judgment aimed at closing gaps in knowledge and skills, making it a vital pedagogical tool for assessing student performance and ensuring instructional success (Ellis, 2009; Mendez & Cruz, 2012).

Harmer (2001) categorizes feedback into three types: evaluative feedback, which assesses students' performance; strategic feedback, which offers advice for self-correction; and corrective feedback, which clarifies the accuracy of students' utterances Feedback can be classified as positive or negative, depending on its delivery by teachers (Sprouls, 2011) Positive feedback reflects teachers' satisfaction with students' performance and serves to encourage them, while negative feedback highlights areas needing correction According to Hattie, effective feedback is crucial for student development.

In educational settings, positive feedback on correct responses is generally more effective and motivating for students than negative feedback on incorrect responses Nevertheless, it is crucial for students to understand when and how they are making mistakes, as this knowledge is essential for their learning and improvement.

- 14 - feedback, there should be feedback of a corrective nature, referred to as negative feedback, so as to make students notice to their errors

Making errors is a fundamental aspect of the learning process, both in theory and practice As a result, providing corrective feedback is essential and plays a significant role in effective learning and teaching.

Teaching is not just about transmitting knowledge; it requires understanding how students progress in their learning journey (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) Effective feedback is essential for students to recognize their performance weaknesses, particularly their errors Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis (2001) emphasizes that noticing is crucial for learning, with corrective feedback playing a significant role in enhancing students' awareness of language forms Rezaei, Mozaffari, and Hatef (2011) highlight that corrective feedback stimulates students to identify the discrepancies between their mistakes and the correct forms This research paper focuses on the impact of corrective feedback, which is further explored in the following sections.

2.3.2.1 Definition of Oral Corrective Feedback

Oral corrective feedback (OCF) has been consistently defined in various contexts, particularly in educational environments One of the earliest definitions by Chaudron (1977) describes OCF as any teacher response that clearly modifies, disapproves of, or seeks to improve a student's spoken utterance.

Competent speakers respond to learners' language errors in various ways, such as indicating the error, providing the correct form, or offering metalinguistic information about the error's nature This understanding, based on the work of Lyster & Ranta (1997) and Ellis et al (2006), informs the researcher's conclusions regarding the term "oral."

Corrective feedback (OCF) refers to the methods teachers use to address students' incorrect utterances This can involve explicitly providing the correct form of the errors or offering implicit prompts to guide students toward self-correction.

The application of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) varies among teachers due to differences in experience, awareness, and teaching styles, as well as students' interests and needs (Mahmoud & Deen, 2018) OCF providers must consider critical questions, such as which errors to correct, the timing of corrections, and the type of feedback to deliver (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Hyland & Hyland, 2019a) Since the 1980s, Hendrickson (1978) has identified key issues that frame research on error correction in foreign language classrooms, including the role of OCF in L2 speaking development, the effectiveness of various feedback types, and the selection of errors to address Despite extensive research, there remains no consensus on these issues after four decades (Tran & Nguyen).

The lack of consensus regarding the research on Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) stems from various factors, particularly the differing perceptions of teachers and the preferences of students This article explores key aspects of OCF, including its contributions, strategies, timing, sources, volume, and focus within second language (L2) speaking classrooms.

2.3.2.2 Value of Oral Corrective Feedback

Learning a foreign language is an ongoing journey where mistakes are inevitable at every stage These errors can manifest in different forms, including lexical, phonological, and syntactic mistakes Understanding that these errors are part of the developmental process is crucial for language learners.

2014), OCF is fundamental and valuable, which makes the students become more

- 16 - aware of their errors and then prevent making such similar errors again (Ellis, 2009)

Failing to correct learners' errors can lead to fossilization, hindering their linguistic competence and disrupting their understanding of English (Harmer, 2012) When language students consistently make uncorrected errors, these mistakes become ingrained, affecting their communication However, appropriate Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) can enhance students' motivation, willingness, and self-confidence in learning English (Tavakoli & Zarrinaabadi, 2016; Sa’adah et al., 2018; Ningkrum, 2019) Willingness to communicate is characterized by an individual's readiness to engage in conversation within specific contexts (Sa’adah et al., 2018) With strong motivation and willingness, students are likely to speak the target language more fluently and confidently (Ramadhani, 2019) In summary, OCF plays a crucial role in speaking classes by preventing error fossilization and boosting students' willingness to communicate.

2.3.2.3 Strategies of Oral Corrective Feedback

Lyster and Ranta's (1997) taxonomy of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) strategies has significantly influenced empirical studies, including those by Le (2018), Tran & Nguyen (2018), and Luu (2020) This framework identifies six key strategies: explicit correction, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, recast, clarification request, and repetition A decade later, Ranta and Lyster (2007) reclassified these strategies into two categories: reformulations, which include recasts and explicit correction, and prompts, which encompass elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, and repetition, aimed at encouraging self-repair among students The primary distinction between the two groups lies in that reformulations provide correct forms, whereas prompts offer hints for self-correction Additionally, Sheen and Ellis (2011) introduced further oral corrective strategies to enhance this framework.

The study builds on the taxonomies of Lyster and Ranta (1997; 2007), which include conversational recast, didactic recast, and paralinguistic signals, to explore various oral corrective feedback (OCF) strategies By integrating all six types identified by Lyster and Ranta with the paralinguistic clues suggested by Sheen and Ellis (2011), the researcher developed comprehensive data collection tools aimed at enhancing understanding of OCF strategies in language learning contexts.

Table 2.1 OCF Strategies (Adapted from Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sheen & Ellis, 2011)

Category Strategy Definition Example (S: Student; T: Teacher)

Explicit correction Indicating and identifying the error, then providing the correction

T: Not on December, in December We say, “It will start in December.”

Recast Reformulating all or part of the incorrect words/ phrases to show the correct form without explicitly identifying the error

S: Why you don’t like Marc?

T: Why don’t you like Marc?

Elicitation Prompting the student to self-correct by pausing, so he/she can fill in the correct word or phrase

S: This tea is very warm

Giving technical linguistic clues about the error without explicitly providing the correct answer

S: We look at the people yesterday T: What’s the ending we put on verbs when we talk about the past?

Clarification request Indicating the student’s utterance was not understood, asking he/she to reformulate it

T: How often do you wash the dishes? S: Fourteen

Repetition Repeating the student’s error while highlighting the error by means of emphatic stress or intonation

Using either facial expressions or body movements to indicate what the student said is incorrect

T: A frown/ head shaking/ or finger signaling “it is wrong”

2.3.2.4 Timing of Oral Corrective Feedback

To achieve effective speaking skills, timely correction of errors in the classroom is essential (Akter, 2016) Language teachers must determine the appropriate timing for addressing these errors during speaking classes, deciding whether to correct them immediately after they occur or at the conclusion of the interaction when students have finished expressing their thoughts According to Read (2015), providing slightly delayed feedback can enhance oral task processing, allowing students the opportunity to reflect before receiving guidance on challenging aspects.

Teachers’ Perceptions on Oral Corrective Feedback

2.4.1 Rationale to Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions

Over the past forty years, extensive research has focused on teachers' psychology in language education, highlighting the significance of teachers' perceptions and beliefs for both pre-service and in-service training (Zheng, 2009) According to Barry (1998), perception involves the processes through which we recognize and organize stimuli in our environment, influenced by sensation and cognitive processes Khairul (2012) further defines perception as a verbal response based on an evaluation of an object Essentially, teachers' perceptions, along with their assumptions and beliefs, are shaped throughout their careers by various experiences and observations that affirm certain truths or relationships (Nguyen, 2014).

Teachers' perceptions encompass their personal views, assumptions, and judgments regarding instructional decisions, which significantly influence their pedagogical intentions and actions Understanding these perceptions is crucial, as they provide insights into teachers' behaviors in their practice, highlighting the impact of beliefs on educational outcomes (Nguyen, 2014).

2.4.2 Studies on Teachers’ Perceptions about Oral Corrective Feedback

Méndez and Cruz (2012) conducted a mixed-methods study at a Mexican university, utilizing a semi-structured interview and a questionnaire for data collection They distributed the questionnaire to 40 teachers and recorded the interviews to gather comprehensive insights.

5 teachers The former covered five aspects, including [1] perceptions in OCF and its practice in the classroom, [2] perceptions about their learners’ attitudes about OCF,

This article explores various strategies for offering Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) and their frequency of use in educational settings It highlights the preferences of students regarding different OCF approaches and examines beliefs surrounding the effectiveness of OCF at various levels of classroom practice Key aspects discussed include the types of errors addressed, the role of the feedback provider, the frequency of corrections, the techniques employed for feedback, and the overall perceptions of these practices among students and educators.

Teachers perceive oral corrective feedback (OCF) as an effective method for enhancing accuracy in pronunciation and morphosyntax They show a preference for implicit feedback strategies, with teacher correction being the most favored approach, followed by self-correction and peer correction.

Karimi and Asadnia (2015) explored the perceptions of five Iranian teachers regarding Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) and their practices across elementary and intermediate levels through interviews and forty hours of classroom observation The study found significant differences in the use of OCF strategies, with elementary teachers employing explicit correction, elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, and repetition more frequently However, there was no variation in their focus on morphosyntactic, phonological, and lexical errors across both levels The research identified discrepancies between teachers' perceptions and practices, particularly in their sensitivity to student errors, the variety of OCF strategies used, the timing of feedback, the correction of global versus local errors, the focus on different linguistic aspects, and their reliance on self, peer, and teacher correction methods.

Alkhammash and Gulnaz (2019) investigated the views of EFL teachers at Taif University regarding their feedback practices and the perceived effects of these practices on student performance Utilizing a five-point Likert scale questionnaire, the study aimed to gather insights into how feedback influences learning outcomes.

An online survey was conducted with fifty-seven EFL teachers at the English Language Centre to assess their perceptions of corrective feedback, the types of oral corrective feedback (OCF) they employ, and their views on students' uptake The results indicated that the teachers favored elicitation, repetition, and recast as their primary methods of corrective feedback, frequently implementing these strategies in their classrooms.

It is clear that teachers may hold one or a combination of perceptions or beliefs about their students, teaching, and learning (Yin, 2006; Zheng, 2009; Khairul, 2012)

Teachers' perceptions of oral corrective feedback (OCF) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms are often complex and may not align with their actual classroom practices Factors such as classroom dynamics, teacher experience, student motivation, and external pressures like examination demands can influence these perceptions Effective teaching requires a clear understanding of learning objectives, as highlighted by Williams and Burden (1997) This study aims to explore how teachers perceive and implement OCF in their EFL speaking classrooms, addressing the gap between their beliefs and practices.

Students’ Preferences about Oral Corrective Feedback

2.5.1 Rationale to Exploring Students’ Preferences

Understanding teachers' perceptions in language instruction is essential, but recognizing students' preferences is equally crucial This insight serves as a valuable foundation for educators to enhance their teaching methods and create a more effective learning environment (Katayama, 2007; Park).

2010) That is to say, teachers can obtain a multiple of benefits from discovering their students’ preferences in instructional practices

Aligning students' preferred learning styles with the perception-driven teaching methods of language teachers can significantly enhance students' positive attitudes, behaviors, and motivation towards learning This alignment also encourages a strong commitment to the language learning process, as supported by Ferris (2003) and Lightbown & Spada.

In 2006, it was highlighted that learners are more likely to be motivated when engaging in activities they enjoy However, when there is a disconnect between students' expectations and the practices of their teachers, it can result in student demotivation (Oppenheim, 1992).

Secondly, the more positive the students’ preferences are the greater, the higher achievement the students gain Indeed, if the instruction does not match the students’

- 24 - preferences, negative learning outcomes could happen (Saracaloglu & Varol, 2007) That is to say, students often learn better if the instruction matches their preferences

To enhance instructional effectiveness and minimize negative emotional experiences for students, it is crucial for teachers to understand their students' thoughts and feelings regarding their learning preferences (Wang, 2010) By accommodating these preferences, educators can significantly improve the success of their instructional practices, such as Online Collaborative Frameworks (OCF) (Bada & Okan, 2000).

Teachers often struggle to understand their students' preferences due to three main factors (Long, 1999) Firstly, a lack of feedback from students prevents teachers from identifying existing issues Secondly, despite low preferences and motivation, students continue their learning, resulting in unsatisfactory language outcomes and decreased future engagement Lastly, teachers may overlook students' interests and needs, failing to respond appropriately To enhance effective language learning, it is crucial for teachers to investigate students' preferences, fostering communication and negotiation between both parties This exchange of information can increase awareness of each other's perceptions, ultimately aligning student expectations with teacher beliefs (Brindley, 1989, as cited in Bada & Okan, 2000).

2.5.2 Studies on Students’ Preferences about Oral Corrective Feedback ệlmezer-ệztỹrk and Gửkhan (2016) examined the perceptions and preferences of 12 EFL learners regarding the types and timings of OCF The data were collected through video-recorded observations, stimulated recall interviews and focus group interviews Corrective feedback moves were identified based on a taxonomy and the data derived from the interviews were analyzed through qualitative content analysis

Students' perceptions of oral corrective feedback (OCF) varied significantly based on the type and timing provided by teachers They found recasts and clarification requests to be ambiguous, while meta-linguistic feedback was viewed as anxiety-inducing and challenging to understand Additionally, immediate feedback made students uncomfortable, and its frequent use by teachers discouraged classroom participation.

In a qualitative study conducted by Ananda, Febriyanti, Yamin, and Mu’in (2017) involving 76 students from the English Department of Indonesian University, the researchers explored the types and timing of oral error corrective feedback preferred by students The findings revealed that repetition was the most favored form of feedback among participants Additionally, a majority of students expressed a preference for receiving corrective feedback privately or individually for each error made Furthermore, many students favored immediate correction during classroom sessions Overall, the students demonstrated a positive attitude towards oral error corrective feedback.

Ramadhani (2019) conducted a qualitative study on EFL students' preferences for oral corrective feedback (OCF) during speaking practice, focusing on aspects such as type, manner, time, and source of correction Data was gathered through an open-ended questionnaire distributed to 30 undergraduate students in Jakarta, revealing that explicit correction was the most favored type Students preferred immediate feedback upon making mistakes and viewed teachers as the primary authority for OCF This feedback not only enhanced students' motivation and self-confidence but also increased their willingness to communicate Similarly, Şakiroğlu (2020) explored the timing and methods of error correction in EFL communicative classes, interviewing 65 pre-intermediate and intermediate students at Kafkas University to understand their preferences.

A self-report questionnaire was conducted, resulting in the exclusion of fourteen responses due to irrelevance and redundancy The findings indicated that most learners preferred to receive corrections for their speaking errors in English Furthermore, a significant majority expressed a desire for feedback to be delivered in a friendly manner after they completed their speaking turn.

Different student groups exhibit varying preferences for oral corrective feedback (OCF), as highlighted by studies from Elmezer-Öztürk (2016), Ananda et al (2017), Ramadhani (2019), and Şakiroğlu (2020) To assess the effectiveness of OCF in speaking classes, the researcher aimed to explore students' preferences in this area This investigation seeks to identify potential discrepancies between teachers' perceptions and students' actual preferences for OCF, offering pedagogical insights to address these gaps.

Previous Studies on Relationships between Teachers’ Perceptions and Students’

Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) investigated the perspectives of eleven undergraduate students and ten experienced EFL teachers regarding effective feedback on error correction After viewing a 15-minute video showcasing various error correction techniques, participants provided individual and group comments on the instructor's feedback efficiency The analysis indicated that a significant portion of the corrective feedback from teachers was not recognized by students Both groups concluded that enhanced understanding and a mix of correction strategies would be most beneficial for effective learning.

Saeb (2017) conducted a comparative study on oral corrective feedback (OCF) involving 86 pre-intermediate students and 28 teachers The study explored the preferences of both teachers and students regarding OCF through two parallel questionnaires adapted from Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) Quantitative data were collected using closed-ended questions, while open-ended questions provided qualitative insights Overall, the findings revealed both similarities and differences in the perspectives of teachers and students on OCF.

In this study, a significant disparity emerged between students and teachers regarding oral corrective feedback While a few students recognized the value of learner autonomy in their feedback preferences, the majority favored receiving extensive explicit corrective feedback from teachers Conversely, teachers emphasized the importance of fostering learner autonomy and opted for error correction methods that support this approach.

In a study by Fathimah (2019), the strategies used by teachers for providing corrective feedback and students' perceptions of these strategies were examined in two EFL classrooms in Bandung, Indonesia, involving four teachers and twelve high school students Utilizing a case study approach that included classroom observations, field notes, audio-visual recordings, and interviews, the research identified eight corrective feedback strategies employed during interactions Notably, recasts were the most frequently used strategy, accounting for 51% of occurrences Additionally, students expressed a preference for explicit correction and recognized corrective feedback as a valuable element in enhancing their language learning experience.

In a study conducted by Le (2018) at Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, the alignment between teachers' beliefs and students' preferences regarding Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) was examined, involving 82 students and 20 teachers Utilizing questionnaires and interviews for data collection, the study revealed that both teachers and students exhibited positive attitudes towards OCF Notably, they shared similar views on general perceptions and the types of errors that should be addressed through OCF However, disparities emerged concerning the timing, providers, and strategies of OCF between the two groups.

Luu (2020) investigated the alignment and differences in preferences for corrective feedback between teachers and students in EFL speaking classes at a Vietnamese university Utilizing observations and two adapted questionnaires, data was collected from five EFL teachers and 138 English-major students The findings revealed that both groups favored oral corrective feedback (OCF) methods like repetition while showing a mutual disinterest in elicitation However, a significant discrepancy emerged as students expressed a desire for more explicit corrective feedback, which teachers seldom provided Additionally, while teachers preferred clarification requests and recasts, these methods ranked lowest among student preferences.

Research Gaps

The existing body of literature with the relevant studies in the arena of teachers’ perceptions and students’ preferences in OCF has emerged some gaps as follows

Limited research has been conducted on teachers' perceptions, beliefs, and students' preferences regarding Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) in Vietnam, particularly at the New Oriental Foreign Language School This study aims to build upon existing research in the field of OCF provision at this specific site.

Teachers' perceptions and students' preferences regarding Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) in EFL/ESL speaking classes vary significantly based on context and subject matter This variability is influenced by factors such as age, gender, and social and educational backgrounds, leading to ongoing debates in the field Consequently, the researcher aimed to explore the perceptions of English teachers and the preferences of pre-intermediate language students at the New Oriental Foreign Language School regarding OCF.

Thirdly, the mismatches between teachers’ instructional perceptions and students’ preferences might negatively influence students’ learning and their attitudes

Alignment between teachers' instructional perceptions and students' preferences can positively influence student achievement and motivation However, the extent to which teachers' practices align with students' preferences for oral corrective feedback (OCF) remains unclear There may be either agreement or discrepancies between teachers' beliefs and students' expectations regarding OCF, influenced by various social and pedagogical contexts and individual student traits This study's findings highlight both alignments and gaps between students' preferences and the feedback they receive, offering valuable insights for enhancing teachers' OCF strategies at the New Oriental Foreign Language School and similar educational settings.

Previous studies have primarily focused on teachers' perceptions and students' preferences regarding limited aspects of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) To gain a comprehensive understanding, this research intentionally explored various dimensions of OCF, including its value, strategies, sources, timing, amount, and focus, revealing the beliefs, desires, and preferences of both teachers and students more clearly.

Conceptual Framework

Based on the critically reviewed literature, the objectives of this study and the research gaps, the conceptual framework was devised as follows

The theme of "the contribution of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) to L2 speaking learning and teaching," as discussed by Ellis (2009) and Sa’adah, Nurkamto, and Suparno (2018), explores both teachers’ and students’ perceptions of OCF's effectiveness This analysis highlights the role of OCF in preventing fossilization in language learning and enhancing students' willingness to communicate.

The second theme was pertinent to the teachers’ perceptions as well as the students’ preferences for OCF strategies in speaking classrooms The researcher

- 31 - employed Lyster and Ranta (1997)’s and Sheen and Ellis (2011)’s taxonomies of OCF strategies, including explicit correction, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, recast, clarification request, repetition, and paralinguistic clue

The third theme explored the perceptions of teachers and the preferences of students regarding the timing of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF), as outlined by Ellis (2009) and Méndez and Cruz (2012) They identified three key timing options for delivering OCF: immediate feedback, delayed feedback, and post-delayed feedback.

The fourth theme explored the perceptions of teachers and the preferences of students regarding the sources of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF), specifically focusing on teacher correction, peer correction, and self-correction These sources were identified based on the research conducted by Martin and Valdivia (2017).

The fifth theme of the conceptual framework explores teachers' perceptions and students' preferences regarding which error types should be corrected, referred to as the "focus of OCF." This theme is based on the well-known classification by Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000), which identifies four key error types: morphosyntactic, phonological, lexical, and semantic errors.

The final theme of this conceptual framework focuses on the perceptions of teachers and the preferences of students regarding the amount of feedback, specifically the "amount of OCF." To develop this theme, the researcher utilized Ellis's (2009) framework, which categorizes feedback into selective, comprehensive, or none at all.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has examined the theoretical and empirical foundations of the study, providing a comprehensive understanding of key concepts like feedback, OCF, teachers' perceptions, and students' preferences This exploration enabled the researcher to develop a cohesive conceptual framework for the study Additionally, a critical summary of relevant previous research was presented, aiding the researcher in contextualizing the current study within the existing literature.

- 32 - identifying the gaps for this study The subsequent chapter, as its title suggests, provides methodological information for the paper

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study utilized a mixed-methods research design to explore the perceptions of teachers and preferences of students regarding oral corrective feedback in speaking classes at New Orient Foreign Language School A survey was conducted among participants to gather insights into their attitudes, opinions, and behaviors related to this topic By integrating various research methods, the study aimed to uncover the relationship between teachers' perceptions and students' preferences, contributing to a deeper understanding of effective feedback strategies in language education.

In 2005, a comprehensive study was conducted to explore teachers' perceptions and students' preferences regarding oral corrective feedback in EFL pre-intermediate speaking classes The research utilized a mixed-methods approach, employing both questionnaires for quantitative data and interviews for qualitative insights, allowing for a thorough investigation of the phenomena.

Research Site

This study was carried out at the New Oriental Foreign Language School in

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, is home to a prominent language school with five branches strategically located across the city Branch A is situated at 19A Hoang Van Thu Street in Phu Nhuan District, while Branch B can be found at 681 Quang Trung Street in Go Vap District Additionally, Branch C is located at 10C Nguyen Oanh Street, also in Go Vap District Branch D is positioned at 4/34 Quang Trung Street in Thoi Tam Thon Ward, Hoc Mon District, and Branch E is at 436 To Ky Street in Tan Chanh Hiep Ward, District 12.

At the New Oriental Foreign Language School, students participate in a variety of English classes, including TOEIC, IELTS, and TOEFL, tailored to their proficiency levels—elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate, and advanced The school is equipped with modern teaching facilities, such as projectors and headphones, and encourages teachers to engage in professional development through conferences with educational experts To ensure appropriate class placement, students take a placement test at the beginning of each course, while a final test assesses their language proficiency This study focuses on three branches of the New Oriental Foreign Language School located in Phu Nhuan and Go Vap Districts.

The speaking program at our center utilizes the American English File series, catering to learners from beginner to advanced levels Each level requires approximately nine months of study, divided into three courses, with final tests at the end of each course to assess learners' performance and progress For pre-intermediate students, the coursebook used is American English File 1, and they are also encouraged to participate in various speaking activities to enhance their skills.

- 35 - once a month to provide them a chance to make friends and practice theories in the real life.

Research Participants

This study focused on EFL teachers and pre-intermediate students at the New Oriental Foreign Language School, aiming to enhance effective and confident English communication in speaking classes The emphasis on pre-intermediate students was due to their ability to engage in interactions where oral corrective feedback was prevalent, as they could discuss familiar topics and recognize some of their errors To recruit participants, the researcher utilized a convenience sampling technique based on practical criteria such as geographical proximity, availability, accessibility, and willingness to volunteer.

In 2007, the researcher, an English part-time teacher at the New Oriental Foreign Language School, easily obtained permission from branch managers to collect data for the study Participants, including both teachers and students, were given a week to complete and submit questionnaires, alleviating any time pressure The geographical convenience of teaching at the school's Campus A-B-C facilitated the recruitment of participants, ensuring a smooth data collection process.

In this study, data were gathered from 18 English teachers who were in charge of EFL speaking classes at three branches A, B and C, and 102 students who were at

The study involved 36 pre-intermediate level teachers and students from English-speaking classes, with demographic data gathered through questionnaires This data detailed the students' age, gender, familiarity with oral corrective feedback, and English learning styles, while the teachers' background included age, gender, knowledge of oral corrective feedback, teaching styles, and educational qualifications.

Table 3.1 Demographic Profile of Student Participants

Table 3.2 Demographic Profile of Teacher Participants

Grammar-Translation Method Audio-Lingual Method Communicative Language Teaching

Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree TKT/ TESOL/ CELTA certificate

Table 3.2 reveals that approximately 66.7% of teacher participants were aged between 22 and 29 years Gender distribution showed that 72.2% of the teachers were female, while 27.8% were male Importantly, all respondents were familiar with OCF in English-speaking classes, irrespective of their qualifications Additionally, around 61.6% of the teachers expressed a preference for Communicative Language Teaching.

All teachers involved in the speaking instruction program hold a Bachelor's degree, with four possessing a Master's degree Notably, 83.3% of these educators have also earned an international language pedagogy certification, such as TESOL, TKT, or CELTA, highlighting their commitment to professional development.

The pre-intermediate students, aged primarily between 13 and 22 years old, included individuals up to 30 years of age Out of a total of 102 students, 79 were female, representing 77.5% of the group, while males accounted for 22.5%.

Research Instruments

This section outlines the research instruments utilized in the study, specifically questionnaires and interviews, selected to thoroughly explore the research questions Below, we provide the rationale and detailed descriptions of each instrument.

Table 3.3 The Link between Research Questions and Research Instruments

How do the English teachers perceive about providing oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes?

What preferences do the students hold regarding oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes?

Are there any differences between the teachers’ perceptions and the students’ preferences regarding oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes?

A questionnaire is a written tool that allows participants to select the most appropriate answers from provided options (Brown, 2001) The researcher utilized this quantitative instrument for two main reasons: first, it can efficiently gather data from a large number of respondents (Mackey & Gass, 2005), and second, it facilitates the collection of structured results for analysis.

- 38 - save much time and effort, especially in collection and analysis procedures (Dửrnyei,

The questionnaires designed for both teachers and students comprised three distinct sections, as outlined in Appendices A and B Detailed information regarding these questionnaires is provided in Table 3.4.

(see Appendix A) Questionnaire for Students

Aiming to provide the teachers with a written informed consent form, including

The Title and Purposes of the Study

Aiming to provide the students with a written informed consent form, including

The Title and Purposes of the Study The Privacy (Anonymity, Confidentiality) The Right (Participation, Withdrawal)

Aiming to gather teachers’ factual background of

Aiming to gather students’ factual background of Age Gender

Aiming to explore teachers’ perceptions about

OCF in EFL speaking classes, involving

This study explores students' preferences for Oral Communication Feedback (OCF) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speaking classes, focusing on six key sub-themes The first sub-theme, Value, examines the significance of feedback items 1-3 The second sub-theme, Strategies, delves into effective methods outlined in items 4-11 Timing, the third sub-theme, addresses the optimal moments for feedback, highlighted in items 11-14 The fourth sub-theme, Sources, evaluates the origins of feedback as discussed in items 15-17 The fifth sub-theme, Focus, emphasizes the specific areas of improvement covered in items 18-21 Finally, the sixth sub-theme, Amount, considers the quantity of feedback provided, as detailed in items 22-24.

The questionnaire for teachers included a consent package detailing the study's title, purpose, privacy measures (anonymity and confidentiality), and participants' rights regarding voluntary participation and withdrawal The second section collected demographic information about the teachers, such as age, gender, familiarity with Oral Correction Feedback (OCF), English teaching styles, and educational qualifications The third and most crucial section contained 24 items designed to explore teachers' perceptions of OCF in speaking classes, focusing on various aspects, including its value.

The study evaluates 39 items related to OCF, categorized into strategies (7 items), timing (4 items), sources (3 items), focus (4 items), and amount (3 items), using a five-point Likert scale ranging from "totally disagree" to "totally agree." These items were developed based on a thorough review of existing literature and the conceptual framework presented in Chapter 2.

The student questionnaire mirrored the teacher questionnaire, consisting of three sections The first section provided consent information for participants, while the second gathered background details such as age, gender, general knowledge of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF), and English learning styles The final section featured 24 items assessing students' preferences for OCF in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speaking classes, focusing on value (3 items), strategies (7 items), timing (4 items), sources (3 items), focus (4 items), and amount (3 items), all rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree) These items were developed based on relevant literature and the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter 2.

To clarify the similarities and differences between teachers' perceptions and students' preferences regarding the Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) identified in the questionnaires, the researcher opted to conduct additional interviews with the sample.

In definition, an interview is referred as to a conversation or talk between the interviewer and the interviewee to address a certain topic as clear as possible (Rubin

The researcher utilized semi-structured interviews to explore participants' subjective judgments, highlighting the flexibility inherent in this interview format (Rubin, 2005; Opie, 2004; Borg, 2006) This approach allowed for the modification of questions based on the natural flow of conversation, enabling a deeper understanding of the participants' opinions.

The study involved 40 teachers and examined six key questions related to six sub-themes: value, strategies, timing, sources, focus, and amount of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) These sub-themes aligned with the themes presented in the questionnaires used for the investigation.

(see Appendix C) Interview for Students

1 Perceptions: Value of OCF Preferences: Value of OCF

2 Perceptions: Strategies of OCF Preferences: Strategies of OCF

3 Perceptions: Timing of OCF Preferences: Timing of OCF

4 Perceptions: Sources of OCF Preferences: Sources of OCF

5 Perceptions: Focus of OCF Preferences: Focus of OCF

6 Perceptions: Amount of OCF Preferences: Amount of OCF

Data Collection and Analysis

Phase 1: Data Collection of Questionnaires

Before distributing the questionnaires to teachers, the researcher engaged with colleagues to explain the research topic, purpose, and questionnaire content Between March 8th and 14th, 2021, the researcher delivered copies of the questionnaire to teachers in their staff room before lessons Completed questionnaires were collected from March 15th to 21st, 2021 The researcher also sought permission from teachers of pre-intermediate speaking classes to schedule visits From March 22nd to 28th, 2021, the researcher visited these classes individually to have students complete the questionnaires, emphasizing the study's purpose and providing guidance on filling them out.

29 th , March to 4 th , April of 2021, the researcher garnered the questionnaire copies completed by these students via the teachers administrating them Especially, the

A researcher outlined essential consent information for both teacher and student participants Ultimately, the fully signed questionnaires from participants were deemed valid and acceptable The final response group comprised 18 teachers and 102 pre-intermediate students.

Phase 2: Data Collection of Interviews

Between April 12 and 25, 2021, one-on-one interviews were conducted with fifteen participants, including ten students (S1 to S10) and five teachers (T1 to T5), in a quiet and convenient setting The interviews utilized a prepared set of questions and were recorded using a tape recorder, along with paper notes and a pen Participants were randomly selected and gave their consent to be involved in the study The researcher opted for one-on-one interviews to ensure comprehensive responses and to uncover insights that may not have been previously anticipated (Campbell, McNamara, & Gilroy).

2004) To the second reason, this kind helped eliminate the detrimental impact of group harmony which originated from the Vietnamese collectivist culture (Le, 2011)

Quantitative Analysis of Questionnaire Data

The researcher utilized SPSS version 22.0 to conduct descriptive statistics on the questionnaire data, focusing on teachers' perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) in English speaking classes (RQ-1) and pre-intermediate students' preferences for OCF (RQ-2) The analysis included key descriptive statistics such as Frequency (F), Percentage (P), Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (S.D.).

Qualitative Analysis of Interview Data

The analysis of interview data followed Creswell's (2012) guidelines, starting with transcription, where the researcher converted recorded interviews from oral to written form This was followed by translation, wherein Vietnamese responses were rendered into English Finally, the researcher organized the data by extracting relevant segments and categorizing them into themes and sub-themes for interpretation Importantly, these findings corroborated the questionnaire data regarding teachers' perceptions (RQ-1) and pre-intermediate students' preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speaking classes (RQ-2).

Methodological Issues

In social research, ensuring the reliability and validity of studies is crucial for establishing the trustworthiness and authenticity of results (Creswell, 2012) Additionally, the importance of ethics and the triangulation of studies cannot be overlooked This paper also addresses these essential concepts.

To ensure the reliability of the questionnaires, a five-point Likert scale was utilized, allowing for analysis through descriptive statistics using SPSS software version 22.0 The reliability of these quantitative tools was confirmed by Cronbach’s Alpha values, with the teacher questionnaire scoring α = 779 and the student questionnaire scoring α = 802, both exceeding the 700 threshold established by Pallant (2011) Additionally, the questionnaires were translated into Vietnamese to facilitate accurate responses from participants, further enhancing the reliability of the results.

To ensure the reliability of the interviews, the researcher maintained a consistent tone and asked identical questions to all participants According to Gray (2009), this consistency in the interview process is crucial for academic reliability Additionally, the researcher upheld a neutral attitude throughout the interviews, fostering a positive environment for responses.

During the interview process, all participant inquiries were addressed, and non-directive techniques were employed to minimize research biases Additionally, interviews were conducted in Vietnamese to ensure that interviewees could provide accurate and comprehensive responses.

In the study, the researcher took content validity, construct validity, and face validity among others into account due to their most salient traits (Mackey & Gass,

In 2005, the researcher ensured content validity by designing questionnaire items and interview questions based on a thorough review of relevant literature, aligning them closely with the research aims and questions To enhance construct validity, the researcher systematically organized these items under clear themes and sub-themes, addressing aspects such as value, strategies, timing, source, focus, and amount of Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) This structured approach improved the quality of the findings (Cohen et al., 2011) Additionally, face validity was established by consulting experts in fields such as Speaking Instruction, OCF, and TESOL to verify the measure's validity (Bryman).

In a 2012 study, the researcher conducted a thorough review of the questionnaires and interviews by sending them to a supervisor and two M.A colleagues for validation This process ensured the accuracy of the content, scales, layout, and language in both the English and Vietnamese versions.

After the research proposal was approved by the Proposal Defense Board at

At Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities, the researcher sought permission from the three Branch Administrators to conduct the study During the data collection process, participants, including both teachers and students, were informed about their privacy rights, the study's purposes, and their ability to participate or withdraw at any time, following the guidelines set by McNiff and Whitehead (2005) They were assured that their privacy would be respected throughout the research.

Participants' privacy was prioritized, allowing them to refuse to answer questions without explanation, while the researcher ensured confidentiality Informed consent forms were provided at the beginning of data collection, detailing the study's objectives, information gathering methods, participant involvement, and assurances of anonymity and confidentiality Each participant signed the consent form, which was translated into Vietnamese to prevent misunderstandings Additionally, participants were made aware of their right to voluntarily participate and to withdraw from the study at any time without facing any negative consequences.

Mackey and Gass (2005) argue that relying on a single method for data collection is insufficient for drawing robust conclusions To enhance validity and reliability while minimizing bias, the use of triangulation is recommended (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011) Consequently, this study implemented triangulation in its data collection process by utilizing various instruments, including questionnaires and interviews.

Chapter Summary

This chapter outlines the essential methodology, starting with an overview of the research site and participants, followed by a detailed explanation of the research design and instruments used It further clarifies the processes of data collection and analysis, concluding with a discussion on critical methodological concepts, including reliability, validity, ethics, and triangulation.

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Data Analysis

4.1.1.1 Value of Oral Corrective Feedback

Table 4.1 Value of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Teachers’ Perceptions

1 OCF to learners’ speaking is important 5.6 5.6 22.2 22.2 44.4 3.94 1.21

2 OCF helps prevent fossilization of errors in the learners’ speaking 11.1 5.6 11.1 33.3 38.9 3.83 1.34

3 OCF helps increase the learners’ speaking willingness 11.1 11.1 22.2 33.3 22.2 3.44 1.29

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

According to Table 4.1, a significant majority of teachers, comprising 66.6% (22.2% agree, 44.4% strongly agree), recognize the importance of providing oral corrective feedback to enhance pre-intermediate learners' speaking skills (Item 1, M= 3.94, S.D.= 1.21) Additionally, over 70% of educators (33.3% agree, 38.9% strongly agree) believe that implementing oral corrective feedback in speaking classes can effectively prevent the fossilization of errors among learners (Item 2, M= 3.83, S.D.= 1.34) Furthermore, more than half of the teachers (33.3% agree, 22.2% strongly agree) feel that applying oral corrective feedback can boost learners' willingness to speak by enabling them to produce accurate utterances (Item 3, M= 3.44, S.D.= 1.29).

Table 4.2 Value of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Learners’ Preferences

1 OCF in my speaking is important 3.9 9.8 17.6 19.6 49.0 4.00 1.19

2 OCF helps prevent the repetition of the errors in my speaking next times 10.8 9.8 30.4 18.6 30.4 3.48 1.31

3 OCF helps increase my willingness 15.7 21.6 40.2 14.7 7.8 2.77 1.13

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

According to Table 4.2, a significant number of learners (49.0% strongly agree, M=4.00, S.D.=1.19) emphasized the value of oral corrective feedback from teachers, believing it helps prevent future speaking errors (M=3.48, S.D.=1.31; 49.0% strongly agree) However, many students expressed uncertainty about whether such feedback enhances their willingness to speak, with 40.2% remaining uncertain and 37.3% disagreeing to some extent (M=2.77, S.D.=1.13).

4.1.1.2 Strategies of Oral Corrective Feedback

Table 4.3 Strategies of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Teachers’ Perceptions

No Group Strategies SD* D* U* A* SA* M S.D

R eformu lati on The teacher should indicate the error, then provides correction 16.7 27.8 33.3 11.1 11.1 2.72 1.23

The teacher should give technical linguistic clues or explain about the error without explicitly providing correction 5.6 11.1 38.9 16.7 27.8 3.50 1.20

The teacher should prompt learners to self- correct the error by pausing 5.6 5.6 16.7 16.7 55.6 4.11 1.23

The teacher should reformulate all or part of the incorrect word/ phrase to show the correct form 11.1 22.2 27.8 11.1 27.8 3.22 1.40

8 The teacher should ask the learners for clarification, and wait for their self- correction 11.1 11.1 11.1 27.8 38.9 3.72 1.41

The teacher should repeat the learners’ error by highlighting the error with emphatic stress 0.0 11.1 16.7 33.3 38.9 4.00 1.03

10 Teacher should rise eyebrows to indicate the learners’ utterance is wrong, and ask the learners to self-correct it 16.7 11.1 38.9 22.2 11.1 3.00 1.24

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

Teachers tend to favor strategies from the prompt group, such as elicitation, repetition, clarification checks, paralinguistic cues, and metalinguistic clues, over those from the formulation group, which includes explicit correction and recasts.

According to Table 4.3, only 22.2% of teachers preferred explicit correction strategies, with an average score of 2.72 (S.D = 1.23) In contrast, 38.9% favored recasting, which involves reformulating incorrect words or phrases to demonstrate the correct form, achieving a higher average score of 3.22 (S.D = 1.40).

A significant majority of teachers showed a preference for the elicitation strategy, with an average rating of 4.11, where 55.6% strongly agreed and 16.7% agreed This was closely followed by the repetition strategy, which received an average rating of 4.00, with 38.9% strongly agreeing and 33.3% agreeing The clarification check strategy was also favored, averaging 3.72, with 38.9% strongly agreeing and 27.8% agreeing These strategies are designed to promote learners' self-repair.

A limited number of teachers favored metalinguistic clues for error explanation to facilitate learners' self-repair, with only 16.7% agreeing and 27.8% strongly agreeing (Item 5, M= 3.50, S.D.= 1.20) Similarly, the use of paralinguistic signals to highlight erroneous utterances for learners’ self-correction was also not widely supported, as indicated by 22.2% agreement and 11.1% strong agreement (Item 10, M= 3.00, S.D.= 1.24).

Table 4.4 Strategies of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Learners’ Preferences

No Group Strategies SD* D* U* A* SA* M S.D

R eformu lati on the teacher should indicate the error, then provides the correction 6.9 7.8 7.8 18.6 58.8 4.15 1.26

5 the teacher should explain about the error without explicitly providing correction 10.8 13.7 20.6 35.3 19.6 3.39 1.25

P romp ts the teacher should prompt me to self- correct the error by pausing 6.9 7.8 19.6 24.5 41.2 3.85 1.24

7 the teacher should reformulate all or part of the incorrect word/ phrase to show the correct form 8.8 8.8 13.7 18.6 50.0 3.92 1.34

8 the teacher should ask me for clarification, and wait for my correction

9 the teacher should repeat my error by highlighting it with emphatic stress 5.9 17.6 37.3 19.6 19.6 3.29 1.15

10 teacher should rise eyebrows to indicate my utterance is wrong, and ask me to self-correct it 15.7 23.5 29.4 16.7 14.7 2.91 1.28

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

The data from Table 4.4 indicates that learners favored the strategies employed by the formulation group over those used by the prompt group for oral corrective feedback Specifically, a significant majority preferred explicit correction, with a mean score of 4.15 (S.D = 1.26), where 18.6% agreed and 58.8% strongly agreed Additionally, recast strategies also received positive feedback, achieving a mean score of 3.92 (S.D = 1.34), with 18.6% agreeing and 50.0% strongly agreeing.

A significant portion of learners favored the elicitation strategy during pauses, with 41.2% strongly agreeing and an overall mean score of 3.85 In contrast, other feedback strategies were less popular; only 35.3% of students agreed on the use of metalinguistic clues for self-correction, achieving a mean score of 3.39 Repetition strategies garnered support from nearly 40% of respondents, reflected in a mean score of 3.29 Additionally, only one-third of learners expected clarification requests (mean score of 3.09) and even fewer supported the use of paralinguistic cues, which received a mean score of 2.91.

4.1.1.3 Timing of Oral Corrective Feedback

Table 4.5 Timing of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Teachers’ Perceptions

11 The teacher should correct the errors immediately 0.0 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 4.33 0.69

12 The teacher should correct the errors after the learners have finished their utterances 5.6 11.1 22.2 33.3 27.8 3.67 1.19

13 The teacher should correct the errors at the end of the speaking activity 16.7 22.2 38.9 11.1 11.1 2.78 1.22

14 The teacher should correct the errors at the end of the speaking lesson/ class 11.1 16.7 16.7 22.2 33.3 3.50 1.43

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

The data in Table 4.5 reveals that teachers have a stronger preference for immediate feedback over delayed feedback, with 88.8% of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing that immediate oral corrective feedback is optimal (M=4.33, S.D.=0.69) In contrast, a smaller proportion of teachers supports delayed feedback, with 61.1% favoring corrections after learners complete their utterances (M=3.67, S.D.=1.19) and 55.5% advocating for corrections at the end of lessons (M=3.50, S.D.=1.43) Notably, only 22.2% of teachers agree or strongly agree with providing feedback at the end of speaking activities.

Table 4.6 Timing of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Learners’ Preferences

11 the teacher should correct the errors immediately 14.7 23.5 29.4 16.7 15.7 2.95 1.28

12 the teacher should correct the errors only after I have finished their utterances

13 the teacher should correct the errors at the end of the speaking activity 8.8 4.9 7.8 19.6 58.8 4.15 1.29

14 the teacher should correct the errors at the end of the speaking lesson/ class 0.0 4.9 12.7 24.5 57.8 4.35 0.89

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

Table 4.6 reveals that a significant majority of learners preferred delayed oral corrective feedback over immediate feedback, with only one-third (16.7% agree, 15.7% strongly agree) favoring the immediacy of feedback from teachers (M=2.95, S.D.=1.28) Over four-fifths of learners (24.5% agree, 57.8% strongly agree) identified the end of speaking lessons as the optimal time for feedback (M=4.35, S.D.=0.89), while more than three-quarters (19.6% agree, 58.8% strongly agree) supported providing feedback after speaking activities (M=4.15, S.D.=1.29) Conversely, only a minority of learners preferred corrections after completing their speaking turns (M=3.51, S.D.=1.30; 27.5% agree, 28.4% strongly agree).

4.1.1.4 Sources of Oral Corrective Feedback

Table 4.7 Sources of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Teachers’ Perceptions

15 The teacher should correct the errors directly 11.1 27.8 27.8 16.7 16.7 3.00 1.28

16 The teacher should ask their classmates to help them correct the errors 0.0 5.6 27.8 22.2 44.4 4.06 1.00

17 The teacher should let learners correct the errors by themselves 5.6 0.0 44.4 27.8 22.2 3.61 1.04

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

According to Table 4.7, a significant majority of teachers strongly believe in the effectiveness of peer-repair, with an average rating of 4.06 (S.D.= 1.00), where 22.2% agree and 44.4% strongly agree Additionally, many educators recognize the importance of self-correction in addressing learners' speaking errors, reflected in an average score of 3.61 (S.D.= 1.04), with 27.8% agreeing and 22.2% strongly agreeing Notably, only a small fraction of teachers expressed differing views.

- 51 - teachers as the main source of oral corrective feedback in EFL speaking classes (Item

Table 4.8 Sources of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Learners’ Preferences

15 the teacher should correct the errors directly 2.9 7.8 29.4 20.6 39.2 3.85 1.12

16 the teacher should ask my classmates to help me correct the errors 2.9 6.9 15.7 14.7 59.8 4.22 1.12

17 the teacher should let me correct the errors by myself 13.7 23.5 23.5 30.4 8.8 2.97 1.21

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

Data analysis from Table 4.8 reveals that a significant majority of learners expect their teachers to correct their errors, with 20.6% agreeing and 39.2% strongly agreeing (Item 15, M=3.85, S.D.=1.12) Conversely, fewer students prefer to self-correct, as indicated by only 30.4% agreeing and 8.8% strongly agreeing (Item 17, M=2.97, S.D.=1.21) Notably, around three-quarters of respondents (14.7% agree, 59.8% strongly agree) consider peers to be the most effective source of oral corrective feedback (Item 16, M=4.22, S.D.=1.12).

4.1.1.5 Focus of Oral Corrective Feedback

Table 4.9 Focus of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Teachers’ Perceptions

18 Errors regarding grammar in learners’ speaking need correcting 16.7 22.2 27.8 27.8 5.6 2.83 1.20

19 Errors regarding pronunciation in learners’ speaking need correcting 5.6 5.6 16.7 27.8 44.4 4.00 1.19

20 Errors regarding vocabulary in learners’ speaking need correcting 5.6 11.1 22.2 22.2 38.9 3.78 1.26

21 Errors regarding meaning in learners’ speaking need correcting 11.1 16.7 22.2 22.2 27.8 3.39 1.38

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

According to the data in Table 4.9, most teachers believe that phonological errors in their students' speaking should be addressed, with a mean score of 4.00 and a standard deviation of 1.19; 27.8% of teachers agree while 44.4% strongly agree Additionally, insights from Table 4.5 further support this perspective.

The study revealed that the highest proportion of oral corrective feedback focused on lexical errors, with a mean score of 3.78 and 61.1% of teachers either agreeing or strongly agreeing on its importance In contrast, only half of the respondents believed that addressing meaning-related errors in learners' speaking was necessary, reflected in a mean score of 3.39 Furthermore, a mere one-third of teachers felt that grammatical errors warranted correction, as indicated by a lower mean score of 2.83.

Table 4.10 Focus of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Learners’ Preferences

18 Errors regarding grammar in my speaking need correcting 11.8 19.6 41.2 14.7 12.7 2.97 1.16

19 Errors regarding pronunciation in my speaking need correcting 2.9 3.9 17.6 33.3 42.2 4.08 1.01

20 Errors regarding vocabulary in my speaking need correcting 7.8 14.7 17.6 21.6 38.2 3.68 1.33

21 Errors regarding meaning in my speaking need correcting 12.7 9.8 23.5 15.7 38.2 3.57 1.41

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

According to Table 4.10, approximately 75% of student respondents preferred their teacher to address phonological errors in their communication, with 33.3% agreeing and 42.2% strongly agreeing (M= 4.08, S.D.= 1.01) Following this, about 60% of participants expected lexical errors to be corrected, as indicated by 21.6% agreeing and 38.2% strongly agreeing (M= 3.68, S.D.= 1.33) Additionally, over half of the respondents (15.7% agree, 38.2% strongly agree) anticipated corrections for discourse errors in their speaking (M= 3.57, S.D.= 1.41) In contrast, a significant number of learners felt that grammatical errors were less critical to correct, with nearly 75% expressing uncertainty or disagreement regarding their importance (M= 2.97, S.D.= 1.16, 41.2% uncertain, 19.6% agree, 11.8% strongly agree).

4.1.1.6 Amount of Oral Corrective Feedback

Table 4.11 Amount of OCF in EFL Speaking Classes: Teachers’ Perceptions

The teacher should correct only some errors which interfere with communication 0.0 0.0 11.1 33.3 56.6 4.44 0.71

23 The teacher should correct all errors the learners make in speaking 22.2 38.9 27.8 5.6 5.6 2.33 1.09

24 The teacher should let the learners speak freely without any correction 16.7 11.1 44.4 11.1 16.7 3.00 1.28

(*): SD= Strongly disagree; D= Disagree; U= Uncertain; A= Agree; SA= Strongly agree

As illustrated in Table 4.11, most of the teachers favored providing oral corrective feedback on their learners’ some particular errors which interfered with communication (Item 22, M= 4.44, S.D.= 0.71, 33.3% agree, 56.6% strongly agree)

Discussion

Based on the analysis of questionnaires and interviews regarding teachers' perceptions of oral corrective feedback, this study addresses the first research question: "How do English teachers perceive providing oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes?" The findings highlight the importance of strategies, timing, source, focus, and amount of feedback in shaping teachers' approaches to enhancing students' speaking skills.

The findings from both the questionnaire and interviews revealed that most teachers recognize the importance of providing oral corrective feedback to pre-intermediate learners in EFL speaking classes They emphasized that this feedback is essential for enhancing students' speaking skills and overall language proficiency.

Oral corrective feedback is essential for addressing error fossilization in learners' speaking skills, enabling them to communicate more accurately This approach not only boosts learners' confidence but also encourages them to express their ideas in English more freely Additionally, interview results indicate that implementing this feedback can enhance interactivity during speaking classes, fostering a more engaging classroom environment.

A recent questionnaire revealed that most teachers prefer elicitation as the primary method for providing oral corrective feedback, followed by repetition and clarification requests In contrast, fewer teachers support explicit correction, recasts, and metalinguistic clues This indicates a stronger belief in prompt-based strategies over formulation-based ones, as they encourage pre-intermediate learners to engage more actively in their English speaking practice Qualitative interview findings also highlighted that these prompt-driven strategies enhance learners' ability to recognize and self-correct their oral mistakes, which are key reasons for their preference Despite the advantages of using paralinguistic signals for indicating errors, teachers showed limited favor towards this approach.

The findings from the questionnaire indicated that teachers prioritize immediate oral corrective feedback over delayed feedback When it comes to delayed feedback, teachers preferred to provide it after students completed their utterances or at the end of speaking classes, rather than at the conclusion of speaking activities This preference for immediate feedback was further supported by interview results, highlighting the advantages of addressing errors promptly during the learning process.

Providing oral corrective feedback at the end of speaking turns helps learners easily identify their errors, reducing stress and anxiety during their speaking practice Teachers emphasize the significance of delivering oral comments at the conclusion of classes, as this allows for the collection and analysis of common errors, enabling learners to recognize and address their mistakes effectively.

Teachers largely favored peer-repair and self-correction over teacher correction in oral corrective feedback during speaking classes Interviews revealed a strong preference for peer correction due to its ability to engage learners and create a comfortable, cooperative classroom environment Self-correction was valued for promoting learner autonomy and enhancing error awareness While teacher correction was less favored, some educators acknowledged its importance for addressing complex errors Overall, peer feedback emerged as a key factor in the success of speaking classes, particularly given time constraints.

The questionnaire results indicated that most teachers prioritized correcting phonological and lexical errors in their students' speaking Interviews revealed that teachers found it easier to address pronunciation errors compared to other types They emphasized that pronunciation and vocabulary are crucial for effective verbal communication, as mistakes in these areas can frequently disrupt understanding.

In a study on speaking activities, it was found that misunderstandings were the most common issue, while discourse errors received the least attention from teachers, followed by grammatical mistakes Teachers demonstrated a preference for correcting form-based errors over those related to meaning Overall, the findings from the interviews aligned closely with the questionnaire results.

The findings from the questionnaire revealed that most teachers preferred to provide oral corrective feedback primarily on specific errors that hindered communication, rather than correcting all mistakes in English speaking This reflects their understanding that certain errors can lead to misunderstandings during conversations However, some teachers advocated for allowing learners to speak freely without corrections in certain contexts, highlighting the importance of fostering speaking fluency alongside accuracy in English oral production The interview results aligned closely with these questionnaire findings, reinforcing this perspective on oral corrective feedback.

This article analyzes data from questionnaires and interviews to explore learners' preferences concerning six key aspects of oral corrective feedback in speaking classes: importance, strategies, timing, source, focus, and amount The findings address the second research question regarding learners' preferences for teachers' oral corrective feedback.

Many learners acknowledged the significance of providing and receiving oral corrective feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speaking classes, as evidenced by the questionnaire and interview findings A notable percentage of respondents viewed oral corrective feedback as an effective method for reducing the likelihood of recurring serious oral errors over time.

Eighty percent of interview participants reported that receiving oral corrective feedback helped them understand the specific issues with their utterances, leading to clearer and improved communication However, some learners indicated that their willingness to express themselves in English could decrease, particularly when they experienced overcorrection, a sentiment echoed by twenty percent of the respondents.

Learners recognize the importance of oral corrective feedback in enhancing their speaking skills; however, excessive or poorly delivered corrections from teachers can lead to diminished self-confidence, discouraging them from participating in English conversations Interview findings suggest that when teachers over-correct, it negatively impacts learners' willingness to speak Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to thoughtfully balance the amount and manner of feedback they provide to pre-intermediate EFL learners, as this approach can significantly enhance both the quality of learners' oral production and their overall psychological well-being.

There is a significant disparity between teachers' perceptions and learners' preferences regarding oral corrective feedback strategies Teachers tend to undervalue explicit correction and recasts, while learners highly anticipate these methods, particularly low-ability learners who benefit from clear error recognition Additionally, although teachers prefer using repetition and clarification checks to foster active learning, learners do not favor these approaches However, both groups agree on the effectiveness of elicitation, especially with pauses, as a strategy that enables learners to self-identify and correct their errors Therefore, teachers should reevaluate their feedback methods to align better with learners' needs.

- 66 - their learners’ preferences and capacities thoroughly and choose most suitable and flexible ways to give oral comments If not, their comments can become useless

Chapter Summary

This chapter presents the findings from the questionnaires and interviews, analyzing them in relation to the research questions It highlights the similarities and differences between teachers' perceptions and learners' preferences regarding oral corrective feedback The upcoming chapter will summarize the study's key findings, discuss research limitations, and explore implications.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS

Conclusion

This section highlights the key findings of the study by addressing the two research questions outlined in Chapter 1 The first question explored teachers' perceptions of providing oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes, while the second focused on learners' preferences for receiving such feedback The findings, elaborated upon in the previous chapter, reveal significant insights into both teachers' and learners' views on oral corrective feedback in English language instruction.

The teachers’ perceptions about providing oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes

Most teachers agree that providing oral corrective feedback is essential for pre-intermediate learners in EFL speaking classes This practice helps prevent error fossilization and enhances interactivity in the classroom.

Teachers predominantly favored elicitation as their primary strategy for oral corrective feedback, followed by repetition and clarification requests They preferred immediate feedback over delayed responses, emphasizing the importance of peer-repair and self-correction in addressing learners' speaking errors Most teachers believed that phonological and lexical errors should be prioritized for correction, and they generally supported providing ample oral corrective feedback to enhance student learning.

- 71 - learners’ some particular errors which actually interfered with communication instead of fixing all of the oral errors

The learners’ preferences for receiving teachers’ oral corrective feedback in speaking classes

Many EFL learners recognize the significance of oral corrective feedback in speaking classes, as it helps reduce the recurrence of severe errors over time The preferred feedback strategies among learners include explicit correction, recasts, and elicitation, while metalinguistic clues, repetition, clarification requests, and paralinguistic cues are less favored Additionally, a significant number of learners prefer delayed feedback, particularly at the conclusion of speaking activities, rather than immediate responses Most learners value feedback from teachers and peers but often overlook their own role in self-correction They specifically seek repair for phonological and lexical errors in their English utterances Furthermore, learners desire feedback focused on specific mistakes that disrupt communication rather than on all errors.

Comparison between the teachers’ perceptions and the learners’ preferences regarding teacher’s oral corrective feedback in speaking classes

Both teachers and learners recognized the significance of oral corrective feedback in speaking classes, highlighting a shared appreciation for its role in language learning However, notable differences emerged between the teachers' perceptions and the learners' preferences regarding specific feedback strategies.

Teachers and learners exhibit notable differences in their preferences for oral corrective feedback strategies While teachers disfavor explicit correction and recasts, learners favor these methods Teachers prefer repetition and clarification checks to enhance active learning, but learners do not share this preference Additionally, teachers advocate for immediate feedback in speaking classes, a view not supported by learners Both groups agree on the effectiveness of peer correction, yet diverge on self-correction, with teachers favoring it and learners preferring teacher correction In terms of focus, both teachers and learners prioritize phonological and lexical errors for feedback Finally, they both agree that only severe errors disrupting the flow of ideas should be addressed, rather than all errors.

Limitations

Constant efforts have been made in this research, especially in helping the readers of interest understand the field of research more comprehensively; however, limitations were inevitable throughout the research

Due to time constraints, the researcher recruited a limited sample of participants, consisting of 18 teachers and 102 pre-intermediate learners Consequently, the findings from this small group are specific to the research setting of New Oriental Foreign Language School and cannot be generalized beyond this context.

- 73 - the larger population Nonetheless, this drawback did not impede the main results of the research at any rate

Due to time constraints, the study on teachers' perceptions and learners' preferences for oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes relied solely on questionnaires and interviews While this combination of research methods enhanced the reliability and validity of the findings, incorporating additional tools such as classroom observations, diaries, or field notes would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of providing and receiving oral feedback during speaking classes.

Implications

To improve English speaking skills and motivation among learners, as well as enhance the quality of speaking instruction by teachers, this article provides targeted recommendations for both students and educators at New Oriental Foreign Language School These suggestions are grounded in a thorough analysis of the similarities and differences between teachers' perceptions and learners' preferences regarding oral corrective feedback.

Teachers recognize the importance of oral corrective feedback in enhancing students' speaking skills and fostering positive engagement in learning Most students acknowledge the advantages of this feedback; however, some feel it negatively impacts their willingness to speak in English Qualitative findings indicate that excessive correction can lower students' self-confidence Consequently, teachers must be mindful of the timing, frequency, and type of errors they address when providing oral corrective feedback.

The study revealed that teachers undervalue explicit correction and recasts in feedback, despite learners, particularly those with lower abilities, expecting these methods for clearer error recognition To effectively implement oral corrective feedback, teachers should assess students' proficiency levels through speaking tests and observations Both teachers and students favored elicitation with pauses as an effective strategy for self-correction, suggesting that its increased use could enhance student engagement While teachers preferred repetition and clarification checks to foster active learning, students showed less interest in these methods Therefore, teachers should investigate this disconnect and consider integrating these strategies with others to improve their effectiveness, as repetition and clarification checks can significantly enhance students' oral accuracy.

Teachers preferred immediate oral corrective feedback in speaking classes, while learners favored receiving feedback at the end of lessons or activities Many educators believed that delayed feedback would help students recognize their errors more effectively However, learners reported feeling unconfident and hesitant to speak when corrections were provided immediately The research suggests that teachers should note recurring and significant errors and provide feedback after speaking activities This approach can enhance learners’ speaking performance, motivation, engagement, and readiness to communicate in English.

Teachers should consider their learners' preferences for feedback timing to enhance the effectiveness of speaking lessons, ultimately leading to greater success in language acquisition.

Peer correction is favored by both teachers and learners, highlighting the need for more frequent interactional patterns in speaking classes and corrective feedback Collaborative work between capable and less capable students enhances the effectiveness of speaking lessons, making them more interactive and boosting learners’ confidence in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) oral production While teachers believe that self-correction promotes autonomous learning and helps students recognize their errors, many learners, particularly those with lower abilities, prefer teacher correction for addressing complex mistakes It is crucial for teachers to assess the specific context, including class time and types of errors, to determine the most effective source of oral corrective feedback For instance, providing a checklist can empower students to identify and correct their own errors and practice common oral mistakes outside of class.

Both teachers and learners showed a strong preference for receiving oral corrective feedback on phonological and lexical errors, highlighting the importance of accurate pronunciation and vocabulary for effective oral communication In an academic setting, successful oral production relies on correct pronunciation and a foundational vocabulary When teachers address these errors, learners are encouraged to take notes and engage in additional practice Additionally, it is essential to recognize the significance of addressing grammatical errors to enhance overall language proficiency.

- 76 - semantic errors should also corrected and commented if they are actually severe and influence the ongoing flow of communication

Both teachers and learners agree that only severe errors disrupting the flow of ideas should be corrected, rather than all minor errors This approach enhances learners' confidence in expressing their thoughts in English Overcorrecting can hinder learners' willingness to engage in oral production Therefore, it is essential for teachers to provide timely oral corrective feedback focused on significant errors, which should be a key consideration in their teaching practices.

Recommendations

In accordance to the aforementioned shortcomings of the present study, some recommendations for further research are discussed as follows

To address this initial limitation, future research should allocate more time to thoroughly examine and analyze existing studies, enhancing both the depth and breadth of the investigation This approach will strengthen the theoretical and empirical foundation, making it more robust and persuasive.

To address the second drawback, a broader understanding of teachers' perceptions and learners' preferences for oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes can be achieved by including additional groups of learners and teachers at New Oriental Foreign Language School, such as elementary, intermediate, and advanced students This approach will significantly improve the quality of language learning and teaching, particularly in oral communication.

To address the third limitation, future researchers should employ a variety of data collection methods, including questionnaires, interviews, diaries, speaking tests, and classroom observations Utilizing this diverse range of research tools can significantly enhance the validity of the findings, providing clear insights into both teachers’ perceptions and learners’ preferences.

Chapter Summary

This concluding chapter summarizes the key findings of the study, highlighting both similarities and differences between teachers' perceptions and learners' preferences regarding oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes The research examined various aspects such as strategies, timing, source, focus, and amount of feedback Based on these findings, implications for both teachers and learners in the context of English speaking instruction and oral corrective feedback practices are proposed The chapter also addresses the limitations of the research methodology and offers recommendations for future studies in the area of oral corrective feedback in English speaking classes.

Agudo, J (2012) Investigating Spanish EFL Students’ Belief and Preferences Regarding the Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(19), 121-131

Akter, S (2016) A Survey Report on Teachers’ Thought and Awareness of Using Oral Corrective Feedback in the Primary Level: Context Bangladesh (Unpublished master’s thesis) Bangladesh: BRAC University

Al-Bakri, S (2016) Written Corrective Feedback: Teachers’ Beliefs, Practices and Challenges in an Omani Context Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 44-73

Alkhammash, R., & Gulnaz, F (2019) Oral Corrective Feedback Techniques: An Investigation of the EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices at Taif University Arab World English Journal, 10(2), 40 -54

Ananda, D R., Febriyanti, E R., Yamin, M., & Mu’in, F (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

Askew, S (2000) Feedback for Learning London: Routledge Falmer

Bada, E., & Okan, Z (2000) Students’ language learning preferences TESL-EJ, 4(3)

Barry (1998) A Study of Students Perception in English Classes https://repository.ar-raniry.ac.id/1692/ (Accessed on December 17 th , 2021)

Bitchener, J (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback Journal of Second Language Writing,

Borg, S (2003) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do Language Teaching, 38, 81-109

Borg, S (2006) Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice London, UK:

Incorporating feedback and reflection is essential for effective lecturer preparation, as highlighted by Brandt (2008) in the ELT Journal Brookhart (2017) emphasizes the importance of providing constructive feedback to enhance student learning Brown (2001) discusses the role of surveys in language programs, offering insights into program evaluation Furthermore, Brown (2007) outlines key principles of language learning and teaching, while Bryman (2012) provides a comprehensive overview of social research methods, which are crucial for understanding educational practices.

Bullock, D (2010) Learner self-assessment: an investigation into teachers’ beliefs ELT Journal, 65(2), 114-

Campbell, A., McNamara, O., & Gilroy, P (2004) Practitioner Research and Professional Development in

Education London, UK: Paul Chapman

Carnegie, D (1977) The quick and easy way to effective speaking New York: Association Press

Chaudron, C (1977) A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors Language

Cohen, L., Manion, L & Morrison, K (2011) Research Methods in Education New York: Routledge

Creswell, J W (2012) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Education

Dawes, L (2008) The essential speaking and listening: Talk for learning at Key Stage 2 London, England:

Dửrnyei, Z (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Dửrnyei, Z (2010) Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing (2nd ed.) London, Routledge

Davies, P & Pearse, P (2000) Success in English teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ellis, R (2006) Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition AILA Review, 19, 18-

Ellis, R (2009) Corrective feedback and teacher development L2 Journal, 1, 3-18

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R (2006) Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368

Fallah, N., & Nazari, M (2019) L2 teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback: The mediating role of experience English Teaching & Learning, 43(2), 147- 164

Fathimah, N M (2019) Teacher’s Corrective Feedback to Students’ Oral Production in EFL Classrooms

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 430, 143-147

Ferris, D R (2003) Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Fungula, B N (2013) Oral corrective feedback in the Chinese EFL classroom: Methods employed by teachers to give feedback to their students

Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:693017/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onhema, P., & Smeets, S (2010) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary writing curriculum British Educational Research Journal, 36, 143-162

Goh, C C M (2014) Foregrounding metacognition in second language oracy: A call for visible learning of listening and speaking In Nguyen, T (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on English

Language Teaching (pp 13-36) Hanoi: Knowledge Publishing House

Gray, D (2009) Doing Research in the Real World (2nd ed.) London: Sage

Han, Z H (2002) Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching RELC Journal, 33(1), 1-34

Harmer, J (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching (3 rd Ed.) London: Longman

Harmer, J (2007) The practice of English language teaching (4 th ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

John Hattie’s "Visible Learning" synthesizes over 800 meta-analyses on educational achievement, highlighting effective teaching strategies In collaboration with Helen Timperley, Hattie explores the significant role of feedback in enhancing student learning outcomes, as detailed in their 2007 review Additionally, Hendrickson's 1978 work on error correction in foreign language teaching provides insights into recent theories and practices that inform language instruction Together, these studies underscore the importance of evidence-based approaches in education to improve student performance.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2006) Feedback on second language students’ writing New York: Cambridge University Press

In "Feedback in Second Language Writing," Hyland and Hyland (2019) explore the various contexts and issues surrounding feedback in L2 writing, emphasizing its critical role in language acquisition Additionally, Karimi and Asadnia (2015) investigate EFL teachers' beliefs regarding oral corrective feedback and how these beliefs influence their feedback practices across different learner proficiency levels Together, these studies highlight the importance of understanding feedback mechanisms to enhance second language writing and teaching effectiveness.

Katayama, A (2007) Students’ perceptions toward corrective feedback to oral errors Asian EFL Journal, 9, 289-305

Kavaliauskienė, G., & Anusienė, L (2012) Case study: Learner attitudes toward the correction of mistakes

Social Technologies, 88-101 Li, S (2014) Oral corrective feedback ELT Journal, 68(2), 196-198

Khader, F R (2012) Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs and Actual Classroom Practices in Social Studies Instruction American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(1), 73-92

Khairul A (2012) Konsep Persepsi http://khairuliksan.blogspot.co.id/2012/11/konsep-persepsi_19.html (Accessed on December 17 th , 2021)

Kirkpatrick, A (2007) World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Kuzborska, I (2011) Links between teachers’ beliefs and practices and research on reading Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(1), 102-128

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J M (2005) Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions Language

Le, T M S (2018) Oral corrective feedback in EFL communication classes: Teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences (Unpublished master’s thesis) Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh City Open University

Le, V C (2011) Form-Focused Instruction: A Case Study of Vietnamese Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices

(Unpublished doctoral thesis) New Zealand: University of Waikato

Li, S (2017) Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback In H Nassaji & E Kartchava (Eds.),

Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp 143-157) New York, NY: Routledge

Lightbown, P M., & Spada, N (2006) How Languages Are Learned (3rd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University

Leong, L-M & Ahmadi, S M (2017) An Analysis of Factors Influencing Learners’ English Speaking Skill

International Journal of Research in Language Education, 34-41

Long, H (1999) Language attitudes and social mobility in Hong Kong Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1(117), 56-62

Luu, T H (2020) Matches and mismatches between EFL teachers’ and students’ preferences for corrective feedback in English speaking classes at a Vietnamese university VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 36(1),142-155

Lyster, R., & Saito, K (2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis Studies in Second Language

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

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

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

Maba, W (2017) Teacher’s perception on the implementation of the assessment process in 2013 curriculum

International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (IJSSH), 1(2), 1–9

Mackey, A., Gass S., & McDonough, K (2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in

Mackey, A., & Gass, S M (2005) Second Language Research: Methodology and Design Mahwah, NJ:

Martin, S., & Valdivia, I M (2017) Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(18), 1-15

Méndez, E H., & Cruz, M R R (2012) Teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75

Mahmoud, M M A., & Deen, A M M A E (2018) Perspectives on the Role of Oral Corrective Feedback in Developing English Language Acquisition Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(1), 19-34

Nation, I S P., & Newton, J (2009) Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking ESL & Applied Linguistics

Professional Series Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

Nespor, J (1987) The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-

Nguyen H T & Tran, N M (2015) Factors affecting students’ speaking performance at Le Thanh Hien high school Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 8-23

Nguyen, T N (2014) Learner autonomy in language learning: Teachers’ beliefs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Australia: Queensland University of Technology

Nicol, D J., & D Macfarlane-Dick (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218

Ningkrum, C A K (2019) Analysis of Oral Corrective Feedback on Students’ Speaking Performance in EFL

Classes (Unpublished master’s thesis) Malaysia: Universitas Negeri Semarang

Nunan, D (1991) Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teacher Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice

Opie, C (2004) Doing Educational Research: A Guide to First-time Researches London: Sage

Oppenheim, A N (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement London:

Continuum ệlmezer-ệztỹrk, E., & ệztỹrk, G (2016) Types and Timing of Oral Corrective Feedback in EFL classrooms: Voices from Students NOVITAS-Research on Youth and Language, 10(2), 113-133

Oxford, R L (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know New York: Newbury

Ozmen, K S., & Aydın, H ĩ (2015) Examining student teachers’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: Insights from a teacher education program in Turkey Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(12), 141-164

Pajares, M F (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332

Pallant, J (2011) SPSS survival guide: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (3rd ed.) New York: Open University Press

Park, G (2010) Preference of corrective feedback approaches perceived by native English teachers and students The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(4), 29-52

Ramadhani, S A F (2019) Investigating Corrective Feedback in Speaking Practice: Students’ Preferences

3rd International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education, 424, 187-192

Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., & Hatef, A (2011) Corrective feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice and Future Directions International journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 21-29

Richards, J C., Gallo, P B., & Renandya, W A (2001) Exploring teachers’ beliefs and the process of change

Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R (2016) A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335

Rubin, H J & Rubin, I (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Russell, J., & Spada, N (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar In

J Norris (Ed.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp 133-163) Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins

Rydahl, S (2005) Oral Feedback in the English Classroom: Teachers’ thoughts and awareness Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:6576/FULLTEXT01.pd

Research by Sa’adah et al (2018) investigates the connection between teachers' oral corrective feedback strategies and students' willingness to communicate, highlighting the importance of effective feedback in enhancing student engagement Similarly, Şakiroğlu (2020) examines university students' preferences for oral corrective feedback in English communication classes, emphasizing the role of tailored feedback in improving language skills and fostering a supportive learning environment Together, these studies underscore the significance of understanding feedback dynamics to promote better communication and learning outcomes in educational settings.

In the study by Saracaloglu (2007), the attitudes of physical education teacher candidates were examined alongside their academic self-designs and achievements in foreign languages, revealing significant correlations Additionally, Schmidt (2001) discusses the role of attention in language acquisition within the context of cognition and second language instruction, highlighting its importance for effective learning Together, these works emphasize the interplay between student attitudes, self-perception, and cognitive factors in enhancing language learning outcomes.

Shahrani, A A A (2013) Investigation of written corrective feedback in an EFL context: beliefs of teachers, their real practices and students’ preferences (Unpublished master’s thesis) Melbourne: University of

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R (2011) Corrective feedback in language teaching In E Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp 593-610) New York: Routledge

Shinde, M B., & Karekatti, T K (2012) Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching English to Primary School Children International Journal of Instruction, 5(1), 69-86

Spratt, M., Pulverne, A & William, M (2 nd edition, 2011) Teaching knowledge test Cambridge: Cambridge

Sprouls, K (2011) Teachers’ Use of Positive and Negative Feedback with the Students Who Are High-Risk for

Emotional Behavioral Disorders (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis) USA: Arizona State University

Tavakoli, M., & Zarrinaabadi, N (2016) Differential Effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on EFL learners' willingness to communicate Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-13

Tomczyk, E (2013) Perceptions of oral errors and their corrective feedback: Teachers vs students Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(5), 924-931

Tran, T B P., & Nguyen, B H (2018) Teacher Corrective Feedback on Students’ Speaking Performance and their Uptake in EFL Classes European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(3), 110-131

Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing class Language Learning, 46, 327-369

Truscott, J (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Ferris Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122

Ur, P (1996) A course in language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Wang, P (2010) Dealing with English majors’ written errors in Chinese universities Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 194-205

Wiggins, G (2012) Seven keys to effective feedback Educational Leadership, 70(1), 10-16

Williams, M., & Burden, R (1997) Psychology for language teachers Cambridge, England: Cambridge

Yin, W K (2006) Teacher beliefs and grammar teaching practices: Case studies of four ESL teachers (Unpublished doctoral thesis) Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong

Yoshida, R (2008) Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93

Zafar, S., & Meenakshi, K (2012) Individual learner differences and second language acquisition: A Review

Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 639-646

Zheng, H (2009) A Review of Research on EFL Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1), 73-81

APPENDIX A-1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS (ENGLISH

This questionnaire is part of the study titled “Teachers’ Perceptions and Students’ Preferences on Oral Corrective Feedback in English Speaking Classes: A Comparative Study at New Oriental Foreign Language School.” It aims to investigate English teachers' views on oral corrective feedback in speaking classes Your participation by answering the following questions is greatly appreciated, as your insights will significantly enhance the success of this research Thank you for your cooperation.

Ms To Vu Le Ngan.

Your participation in the survey is entirely voluntary, and your responses will remain confidential, with your name excluded from the final report By agreeing to participate, you will sign a consent affirmation, ensuring that all necessary measures are taken to safeguard your identity Importantly, there are no risks associated with your involvement in this study.

Please tick the most appropriate to your situation:

Understanding OCF (Oral Communication Framework) in English speaking varies among learners, with some having no knowledge, others possessing a little, and some being well-versed Effective teaching styles for English speaking include the Grammar-Translation Method, the Audio-Lingual Method, and Communicative Language Teaching, each catering to different learning preferences Educational qualifications for teaching English can include a Bachelor's degree, a Master's degree, or certifications such as TKT, TESOL, or CELTA, allowing for diverse pathways into the field.

Please select the best option for each item by circling the number, in which

Scales: 1=totally disagree; 2=disagree; 3=uncertain; 4=agree; 5=totally agree

1 OCF in students’ speaking is important 1 2 3 4 5

2 OCF helps prevent fossilization of errors in the students’ speaking 1 2 3 4 5

3 OCF helps increase the students’ speaking willingness 1 2 3 4 5

B Strategy: When the students make an error in speaking, …

4 the teacher should indicate the error, then provides correction 1 2 3 4 5

5 the teacher should give technical linguistic clues or explain about the error, without explicitly providing correction 1 2 3 4 5

6 the teacher should prompt students to self-correct the error by pausing 1 2 3 4 5

7 the teacher should reformulate all or part of the incorrect word/ phrase to show the correct form 1 2 3 4 5

8 the teacher should ask the students for clarification, and wait for their self-correction 1 2 3 4 5

9 the teacher should repeat the students’ error by highlighting the error with emphatic stress 1 2 3 4 5

10 teacher should rise eyebrows to indicate the students’ utterance is wrong, and ask the students to self-correct it 1 2 3 4 5

C Timing: When the students make an error in speaking, …

11 the teacher should correct the errors immediately 1 2 3 4 5

12 the teacher should correct the errors after the students have finished their utterances 1 2 3 4 5

13 the teacher should correct the errors at the end of the speaking activity 1 2 3 4 5

14 the teacher should correct the errors at the end of the speaking lesson/ class 1 2 3 4 5

D Source: When the students make an error, …

15 the teacher should correct the errors directly 1 2 3 4 5

16 the teacher should ask their classmates to help them correct the errors 1 2 3 4 5

17 the teacher should let students correct the errors by themselves 1 2 3 4 5

18 Errors regarding grammar in students’ speaking need correcting 1 2 3 4 5

19 Errors regarding pronunciation in students’ speaking need correcting 1 2 3 4 5

20 Errors regarding vocabulary in students’ speaking need correcting 1 2 3 4 5

21 Errors regarding meaning in students’ speaking need correcting 1 2 3 4 5

22 The teacher should correct only some errors which interfere with communication 1 2 3 4 5

23 The teacher should correct all errors the students make in speaking 1 2 3 4 5

24 The teacher should let the students speak freely without any correction 1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX A-2 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS (VIETNAMESE

Bảng câu hỏi này được sử dụng trong nghiên cứu mang tên “Nhận thức của giáo viên và sở thích của người học về nhận xét sửa lỗi bằng miệng trong các lớp học tiếng Anh: Nghiên cứu so sánh tại Trường Ngoại ngữ Đông Phương Mới” Mục tiêu của bảng câu hỏi là khám phá nhận thức của giáo viên tiếng Anh về phương pháp sửa chữa lỗi bằng miệng trong lớp học Chúng tôi rất trân trọng nếu Thầy/Cô có thể dành thời gian để trả lời các câu hỏi này, vì phản hồi của Thầy/Cô sẽ góp phần quan trọng vào sự thành công của nghiên cứu Xin chân thành cảm ơn Thầy/Cô vì sự hợp tác quý báu.

Cô Tô Vũ Lê Ngân

Phần xác nhận sự đồng ý

Câu trả lời của Thầy/Cô sẽ được bảo mật và không có tên trong báo cáo kết quả Tham gia khảo sát là hoàn toàn tự nguyện Nếu đồng ý tham gia nghiên cứu, Thầy/Cô sẽ ký xác nhận Tất cả các biện pháp sẽ được thực hiện để bảo vệ danh tính của Thầy/Cô, và không có rủi ro nào khi tham gia nghiên cứu này.

Họ và tên và chữ ký:

Vui lòng (V) vào lựa chọn phù hợp nhất với tình huống của Thầy/ Cô:

Khi nhận xét và sửa chữa lỗi sai trong việc nói tiếng Anh, có ba mức độ kiến thức mà người học có thể có: đầu tiên, là "Tôi không biết về nó", thể hiện sự thiếu hiểu biết hoàn toàn; thứ hai, là "Tôi biết một chút về nó", cho thấy người học có kiến thức cơ bản nhưng còn hạn chế; cuối cùng, là "Tôi biết nhiều về nó", cho thấy người học đã có nền tảng vững chắc và có khả năng nhận diện và sửa lỗi hiệu quả trong giao tiếp tiếng Anh.

Popular methods for teaching spoken English include the Grammar-Translation Method, the Audio-Lingual Method, and Communicative Language Teaching In terms of qualifications, teachers can choose multiple options such as a Bachelor's degree, a Master's degree, or certifications like TKT or TESOL.

Chọn phương án thích hợp nhất bằng cách khoanh tròn số, trong đó:

Mức độ: 1=Hoàn toàn không đồng ý; 2=Không đồng ý; 3=Không chắc; 4=Đồng ý; 5=Hoàn toàn đồng ý

TT Nhận thức Mức độ

A Giá trị của nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai bằng miệng

1 Nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai bằng miệng trong bài nói của người học là quan trọng 1 2 3 4 5

2 Nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai bằng miệng giúp ngăn chặn việc mắc lỗi trong bài nói của người học 1 2 3 4 5

3 Nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai bằng miệng giúp tăng khả năng sẵn sàng nói của người học 1 2 3 4 5

B Chiến lược nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai bằng miệng: Khi người học mắc lỗi khi nói, …

4 giáo viên nên chỉ ra lỗi, sau đó sửa chữa 1 2 3 4 5

5 giáo viên nên cung cấp các manh mối ngôn ngữ kỹ thuật hoặc giải thích về lỗi mà không đưa ra cách sửa chữa trực tiếp 1 2 3 4 5

6 giáo viên nên nhắc người học tự sửa lỗi bằng cách ngắt quãng 1 2 3 4 5

7 giáo viên nên định dạng lại tất cả hoặc một phần của từ / cụm từ không chính xác để đưa ra dạng đúng 1 2 3 4 5

8 giáo viên nên hỏi người học để hiểu rõ và đợi người học tự sửa 1 2 3 4 5

9 giáo viên nên nhắc lại lỗi của người học bằng cách nhấn mạnh lỗi đó 1 2 3 4 5

10 giáo viên nên dùng ngôn ngữ hình thể (ví dụ: nhướng mày) để chỉ ra người học đang nói sai và yêu cầu người học tự sửa 1 2 3 4 5

C Thời điểm nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai bằng miệng: Khi người học mắc lỗi khi nói, …

11 giáo viên nên nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai ngay lập tức 1 2 3 4 5

12 giáo viên nên nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai sau khi người học nói xong 1 2 3 4 5

13 giáo viên nên nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai vào cuối hoạt động nói 1 2 3 4 5

14 giáo viên nên nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai vào cuối buổi học / tiết luyện nói 1 2 3 4 5

D Người nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai bằng miệng: Khi người học mắc lỗi khi nói, …

15 giáo viên nên trực tiếp nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai 1 2 3 4 5

16 giáo viên nên để các bạn trong lớp giúp nhau nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai 1 2 3 4 5

17 giáo viên nên để người học tự sửa chữa lỗi sai 1 2 3 4 5

E Khía cạnh nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai bằng miệng:

18 những lỗi về ngữ pháp trong bài nói của người học cần được nhận xét sửa chữa 1 2 3 4 5

19 những lỗi về phát âm trong bài nói của người học cần được nhận xét sửa chữa 1 2 3 4 5

20 những lỗi về từ vựng trong bài nói của người học cần được nhận xét sửa chữa 1 2 3 4 5

21 những lỗi về ngữ nghĩa trong bài nói của người học cần được nhận xét sửa chữa 1 2 3 4 5

F Mức độ nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai bằng miệng

22 Giáo viên chỉ nên nhận xét sửa chữa một số lỗi gây cản trở giao tiếp 1 2 3 4 5

23 Giáo viên nên nhận xét sửa chữa tất cả các lỗi người học mắc phải khi nói 1 2 3 4 5

24 Giáo viên nên để người học nói tự do mà không cần nhận xét sửa chữa lỗi sai 1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX B-1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LEARNERS (ENGLISH

This questionnaire is part of the study “Teachers’ Perceptions and Students’ Preferences on Oral Corrective Feedback in English Speaking Classes” at New Oriental Foreign Language School It aims to explore English students' preferences for oral corrective feedback in writing classes Your participation is invaluable, and we appreciate your time in answering the following questions, as your responses will significantly contribute to the success of this research Thank you for your cooperation.

Ms To Vu Le Ngan.

Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary, and your responses will remain confidential, ensuring that your identity is protected By signing the consent affirmation, you agree to take part in the study, which involves no risks to you.

Please tick the most appropriate to your situation:

Please select the best option for each item by circling the number, in which

Scales: 1=totally disagree; 2=disagree; 3=uncertain; 4=agree; 5=totally agree

1 OCF in my speaking is important 1 2 3 4 5

2 OCF helps prevent the repetition of the errors in my speaking next times 1 2 3 4 5

3 OCF helps increase my speaking willingness 1 2 3 4 5

B Strategy: When I make an error in speaking, …

4 the teacher should indicate the error, then provides the correction 1 2 3 4 5

5 the teacher should explain about the error without explicitly providing correction 1 2 3 4 5

6 the teacher should prompt me to self-correct the error by pausing 1 2 3 4 5

7 the teacher should reformulate all or part of the incorrect word/ phrase to show the correct form 1 2 3 4 5

8 the teacher should ask me for clarification, and wait for my correction 1 2 3 4 5

9 the teacher should repeat my error by highlighting it with emphatic stress 1 2 3 4 5

10 teacher should rise eyebrows to indicate my utterance is wrong, and ask me to self-correct it 1 2 3 4 5

C Timing: When I make an error in speaking, …

11 the teacher should correct the errors immediately 1 2 3 4 5

12 the teacher should correct the errors after I have finished their utterances 1 2 3 4 5

13 the teacher should correct the errors at the end of the speaking activity 1 2 3 4 5

14 the teacher should correct the errors at the end of the speaking lesson/ class 1 2 3 4 5

D Source: When I make an error in speaking, …

15 the teacher should correct the errors directly 1 2 3 4 5

16 the teacher should ask my classmates to help me correct the errors 1 2 3 4 5

17 the teacher should let me correct the errors by myself 1 2 3 4 5

18 Errors regarding grammar in my speaking need correcting 1 2 3 4 5

19 Errors regarding pronunciation in my speaking need correcting 1 2 3 4 5

20 Errors regarding vocabulary in my speaking need correcting 1 2 3 4 5

21 Errors regarding meaning in my speaking need correcting 1 2 3 4 5

22 The teacher should correct only some errors which interfere with communication 1 2 3 4 5

23 The teacher should correct all errors I make in speaking 1 2 3 4 5

24 The teacher should let me speak freely without any correction 1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX B-2 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LEARNERS (VIETNAMESE