INTRODUCTION
Identification of the problem
Speaking is an essential component of learning a foreign language like English, yet fluency is not an innate skill; it requires extensive instruction and practice In Vietnamese English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) classrooms, speaking often receives less emphasis compared to grammar, reading, and writing, which dominate the syllabus due to their presence in examinations With speaking lessons limited to once or twice a week for 45 minutes, students have minimal opportunities to practice, leading to feelings of embarrassment when communicating with native speakers Teachers play a crucial role in fostering a supportive speaking environment, guiding students in their speaking skills, and providing corrective feedback The linguistic differences between Vietnamese and English, including variations in word order and phonological stress, present additional challenges for learners While errors are a natural part of language acquisition, they offer valuable learning opportunities, highlighting the importance of teachers' feedback in helping students gain confidence in their conversational abilities with native speakers.
Purpose of the study and research questions
This study investigates the use of corrective feedback in a Vietnamese EFL classroom, focusing on the types of feedback teachers use to address students' speaking mistakes and the factors influencing their choices Additionally, it explores how teachers' corrective feedback impacts students' speaking skills from the students' perspectives The research aims to answer specific questions regarding these dynamics.
Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
Question 2: What are reasons behind teacher’s choice of feedback types?
Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
Significance of the study
This study emphasizes the crucial role of corrective feedback in speaking lessons, aiming to serve as a valuable resource for English teachers It offers insights into the types of feedback utilized and their impact on students' speaking skills, enabling educators to enhance their teaching methods By effectively implementing corrective feedback, teachers can capture students' attention, foster interest in English, and increase their willingness to speak Additionally, the study provides essential information for teachers seeking to boost their instructional skills, ultimately helping students feel more confident and engaged during speaking lessons Furthermore, it serves as a foundational resource for future research on this topic.
Methods of the study
The study utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research Data collection involved classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews to gather insights on feedback practices Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the types of feedback provided by the participating teacher and assess its effectiveness in helping students identify and correct their errors Stimulated recall interviews were conducted immediately after each lesson, transcribed, and analyzed to uncover the rationale behind the teacher's choices regarding corrective feedback.
Organization of the study
Chapter 1: Introduction chapter comprises the rationale of the study as well as the purpose to conduct this study, the research questions, the method used and the significance of the study
Chapter 2 (Literature review) illustrates definitions of key terms and discusses related studies by both foreign and Vietnamese researchers
Chapter 3 (Methodology) shows the context of the study, samples, data collection instruments plus data collection and analysis procedures
Chapter 4 (Findings and Discussion) presents, analyzes and discusses the data collected
Chapter 5 (Conclusion) sums up the findings of research, provides implications as well as suggestions in English pedagogy and works out some limitations for further research.
Summary
This chapter outlines the study's rationale, focusing on the effects of teacher corrective feedback on students' speaking skills To achieve this objective, the researcher employed observation and stimulated recall interviews for data collection The observed data were quantitatively analyzed, while the stimulated recalls conducted after lessons were qualitatively analyzed to enhance the objectivity of the findings The following chapter will review relevant literature in this area.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Key concepts
Feedback is a well-established concept in language teaching and learning theories, as highlighted by Sheen (2011) Numerous definitions exist for the term, reflecting its complexity and significance in educational contexts, particularly as discussed by Hattie and Timperley.
Feedback is defined as the information provided to individuals about their performance (2007) In the context of teaching, feedback specifically refers to the guidance that teachers or instructors offer to learners to enhance and expedite their learning process (Sadler, 1989) This highlights the crucial role of feedback in educational settings, as it assists learners in improving their skills and knowledge.
Feedback plays a crucial role in the learning process, regardless of the accuracy of a learner's response It can take various forms, including praise or encouragement, which have been shown to enhance motivation and increase the likelihood of future success (Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Weiner, 1990) According to Hattie & Timperley (2007), feedback can be categorized into several types, such as corrective information from educators, alternative strategies from peers, and clarifications from resources like books Peer feedback, defined by Liu & Carless (2006), involves a communicative exchange between students, allowing them to engage in dialogue about performance and standards This collaborative process can include corrections, suggestions, and ideas, while teacher feedback focuses on addressing mistakes made by learners Overall, both peer and teacher feedback are essential for fostering improvement and enhancing learning outcomes.
A correction provided by a teacher, called teacher‟s feedback is an indispensable part of any classroom and is supportive of student‟s academic achievement (Siewert,
Feedback can be categorized into evaluative and descriptive types Evaluative feedback involves a teacher's judgment based on specific norms, while descriptive feedback focuses on detailing students' actions or words, offering guidance for improvement.
Errors are a natural part of language learning, as noted by Tornberg (2005) and Lange (2009), and they reflect the developmental progress of learners Since learners often struggle to self-correct, the provision of corrective feedback is essential for their improvement.
Corrective feedback is defined as the response from speakers regarding perceived errors made by non-native speakers (Day et al., 1984) However, this definition is limited, as feedback can come from both native and non-native speakers alike (Chu).
Corrective feedback, also known as form-focused instruction, emphasizes the importance of drawing learners' attention to linguistic forms (Ellis, 2001) Language is compositional, consisting of smaller linguistic units combined in specific ways, as noted by Chomsky (1965) and Pinker (1999) These units, which include phonemes, morphemes, and phrases, form a grammar that outlines permissible linguistic structures, distinct from semantics Long (1991) argued that while meaning-focused instruction is valuable, attention to form is essential for effective language learning This is supported by observations that many learners exhibit grammatical inaccuracies despite extensive language study Therefore, integrating form-focused instruction and corrective feedback within communicative interactions can significantly enhance second language development both in the short and long term.
Sheen (2011) emphasizes the fundamental distinction between feedback and corrective feedback, noting that feedback is provided regardless of whether a response is correct or incorrect, while corrective feedback specifically addresses errors made by learners during their language use Chaudron (1988) defines corrective feedback as any teacher behavior that minimally informs learners about their errors, and similarly, Lightbown and Spada (1999) describe it as any indication given to learners when their language use is inaccurate.
Corrective feedback is essential for addressing linguistic errors made by learners This study specifically concentrated on correcting these linguistic forms due to time constraints Given more time, the researcher would have also incorporated feedback on semantic aspects.
Corrective feedback can be categorized into explicit and implicit forms According to Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009), explicit corrective feedback involves giving learners direct and clear feedback about their errors, while implicit feedback refers to a more subtle approach that does not directly point out the corrections.
This study exclusively examines the oral form of teacher's corrective feedback According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Tedick and Gortari (1998), there are six primary types of corrective feedback: recast, elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, and repetition.
A recast is an effective language teaching technique that addresses learners' errors without hindering communication By repeating the error back to the learner in a corrected form, teachers provide immediate feedback that helps improve language skills.
Elicitation is an instructional technique where teachers encourage students to provide information instead of simply delivering it This method often involves strategic pauses, allowing learners the opportunity to complete the teacher's statements, fostering engagement and active participation in the learning process.
Clarification request: Teacher uses phrases like “Excuse me?”, “Pardon?” to inform students that their utterances contain mistakes that need correcting
Metalinguistic feedback: is the type of feedback which is in form of metalinguistic rules It can be information, but normally a question posed by teacher for student to answer
Explicit correction: Teacher directly indicate the error in students‟ utterances and at the same time provide the correct form
Repetition: Teacher repeats student‟s error but put the tone up at the end of the utterance to make student pay attention to the error
Sheen (2011) categorized corrective feedback strategies into seven types, building on Lyster and Ranta's classification He integrated explicit correction with metalinguistic cues, creating a method known as explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation.
T: Yesterday it rained You need to include the pronoun “it” before the verb In English we need “it” before this type of verb related to weather
Teacher provides correction and then explains for her correction This strategy helps student acknowledge his mistake as well as why his utterance is wrong
Yao (2000) introduced body language as an essential strategy for providing corrective feedback in the classroom Teachers can utilize facial expressions and gestures, such as frowning or shaking their heads, to indicate that a student's response is incorrect This non-verbal approach complements verbal feedback, highlighting the importance of both methods in effective communication Consequently, Yao's classification of corrective feedback strategies is comprehensive and encompasses the full range of verbal and non-verbal techniques.
Sometimes, teacher acknowledge students‟ error, yet he/she ignores the error and does not use corrective feedback for not interrupting the “flow of mind” or saving students‟ embarrassment (Fungula, 2013)
Review of previous research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on
Several studies have explored the relationship between corrective feedback and improvements in learners' speaking skills Lyster and Ranta (1997) examined four immersion classrooms at the primary level to analyze the frequency and distribution of six different feedback types used by teachers, along with the uptake patterns following each type Their 18.3-hour classroom observation revealed that recasts were the most frequently used form of corrective feedback, accounting for over 55% of total feedback However, despite being the subtlest form of feedback, recasts resulted in the lowest rate of uptake, indicating their limited effectiveness "Uptake," a term introduced in their study, refers to a student's response that follows the teacher's feedback, demonstrating an awareness of the need for correction in their initial utterance.
Recent studies indicate that certain types of recasts are linked to learner uptake, with shorter or reduced recasts proving particularly beneficial These concise recasts enable learners to more easily identify the differences between their mistakes and the corrections provided (Lyster, 1998; Philip, 2003; Loewen & Philip, 2006; Egi, 2007; Asari, 2011).
Recasting is widely regarded as an effective method for correcting students' speech, as it maintains communication without disrupting the flow of conversation or diminishing students' confidence (Lange, 2009) This approach allows learners to recognize their language issues while fostering a positive learning environment (Jiménez Raya, Lamb, & Vieira, 2007) Furthermore, Scott (2008) supports this perspective, emphasizing that recasting provides students with correct language forms, which minimizes the need for self-correction and encourages continued engagement in the learning process.
Büyükbay and Dabaghi (2010) in their co-work examined the effectiveness of
A study investigated the impact of repetition as corrective feedback on learners' uptake, involving 30 students divided into control and experimental groups Data was collected through class observations and videotape recordings The findings indicated that the experimental group, which received repetition as feedback, demonstrated significant improvement over the study period The researchers concluded that repetition is an effective correction technique for enhancing students' speaking skills These results align with previous studies advocating for corrective feedback, suggesting that when students engage with teacher feedback, they thoughtfully explore their ideas, reconstruct their knowledge, and apply their skills effectively (Zacharias, 2007).
In a study conducted by Gitsaki and Althobaiti (2010), the effectiveness of various types of interactional feedback on ESL learners was examined The research involved two native English teachers and twenty-eight ESL students at beginner and intermediate proficiency levels Classroom observations and post-observation interviews with teachers were performed The results revealed that explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback were the most commonly utilized types of feedback, with metalinguistic feedback and repetition consistently leading to successful learner uptake.
Mazloomi (2015) conducted an experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of two types of corrective feedback—recast (implicit feedback) and metalinguistic feedback (explicit feedback)—on Iranian EFL students Forty participants underwent eight treatment sessions, with identical pre-tests and post-tests administered to two groups The T-test results indicated that both feedback techniques positively impacted the students' translation skills, but metalinguistic feedback was found to be more effective in addressing learners' errors.
Research indicates that feedback types vary in effectiveness across different student proficiency levels Recasts, commonly used in second language teaching, tend to be less beneficial for low-proficiency students compared to their high-proficiency counterparts (Mackey & Philp, 1998; Ammar & Spada, 2006) Conversely, prompts have been shown to effectively foster development in both high- and low-proficiency learners, with a notable advantage for high-level students (Ammar & Spada, 2006) Supporting this perspective, Kaivanpanah et al (2015) conducted a study that further explores these dynamics.
A study involving 154 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students across three proficiency levels revealed distinct preferences for feedback types Elementary learners favored metalinguistic feedback to enhance their understanding of language rules, while advanced learners preferred prompts like elicitation that facilitate self-repair This indicates that low-level learners require more guidance on language rules, whereas high-level learners can effectively self-correct with appropriate teacher support.
In summary, while recast remains the most widely used feedback strategy in educational settings, it is often deemed the least effective Research indicates that metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition provide greater benefits to students Additionally, the effectiveness of these feedback types varies among students of different proficiency levels.
Research on the impact of corrective feedback on enhancing students' speaking skills in Vietnam has been limited A study conducted by Truong (2011) involving 286 students and 20 semi-structured interviews at Hanoi University of Business and Technology revealed that corrective feedback was the most frequently used and effective method for improving freshmen's speaking skills This type of feedback not only aids in skill enhancement but also motivates students to achieve English proficiency for their future careers In contrast, evaluative feedback, which includes grades and comments, provides minimal guidance for improvement, as noted by Hattie and Timperley (2007), who found that feedback focused on praise and punishment has a low impact on learning Strategic feedback, however, offers detailed guidance on how to improve, helping students understand their next steps and encouraging self-assessment and self-correction (Earl, 2003).
A study at the Vietnam University of Commerce (VCU) conducted by Vu (2012) involved 126 second-year English major students, who completed a survey on the feedback they receive from teachers To gain deeper insights, semi-structured interviews were held with 10 survey participants, focusing on the impact of teacher feedback on enhancing students' oral presentation skills The findings revealed that strategic feedback was the most frequently used type (54.8%), followed by evaluative feedback (45.3%), while corrective feedback was notably the least utilized (29.2%) This was unexpected given the growing emphasis on corrective feedback in English teaching in Vietnam Interviews revealed that teachers often avoid corrective feedback to prevent students from feeling embarrassed or anxious during their presentations.
In a study conducted by Mai (2016) at Hue University, the effectiveness of recasts in correcting English vowel sounds was examined through a qualitatively-led quantitative approach Over the course of 10 hours of pronunciation lessons, most students expressed a positive attitude towards recasts; however, some felt they were not significantly beneficial for their pronunciation improvement The students cited difficulties such as not clearly hearing the teacher's pronunciation, struggling to accurately repeat the recasts even after multiple attempts, and the need for additional listening practice to master the sounds.
In her 2011 case study, Nhac examines the effectiveness of corrective feedback in EFL classrooms at Hanoi Law University, involving four teachers and eight classes at pre-intermediate and intermediate levels The study finds that while recast is the most frequently used feedback strategy, it is the least effective for student uptake and repair In contrast, meta-linguistic feedback, clarification requests, and elicitation, which proved more successful in promoting student repair, were employed less frequently by teachers Utilizing class observation as the sole data collection method raises concerns about subjectivity; thus, incorporating interviews with teachers and students or additional assessments could enhance the objectivity of the findings.
A study by Nguyen (2014) involving 25 student-teachers and 235 grade-10 students at Phan Dinh Phung High School identified repetition, recast, and explicit feedback as the three most effective teaching methods, according to teacher-trainees' questionnaire responses Conversely, students expressed a preference for explicit correction and repetition in their learning process.
Recent studies on teachers' oral corrective feedback have largely overlooked the context of Vietnam, particularly in secondary and high schools Most existing research concentrates on university settings, where smaller class sizes allow for more individualized feedback Additionally, there is a notable emphasis on corrective feedback in writing, as grammar and reading skills are prioritized over speaking skills These gaps present an opportunity for further research to explore feedback practices among different educational levels and to understand the factors influencing teachers' feedback choices, ultimately leading to more comprehensive insights.
Summary
This chapter introduces the essential concept of corrective feedback, outlining its various types and exploring related studies that highlight its effectiveness as a contentious topic in language learning While some researchers advocate for corrective feedback due to its advantages in enhancing language acquisition, others argue against its use in classrooms, citing potential disruptions to fluency and the embarrassment it may cause students The following chapter will offer a comprehensive overview of the methodology employed in this study.
METHODOLOGY
Method of the study
This study employs survey research method The population participating in this study includes:
- two classes of Grade 6 at Be Van Dan lower-secondary school, which includes class 6A3 and class 6A0, the former specializing in English while the latter is not
- two teachers who is in charge of those two above classes
The researcher selected lower-secondary students for her study due to a lack of existing research on corrective feedback in this age group, as most studies focus on college or university students Additionally, she aimed to explore the relationship between learners' proficiency levels and their preferences for corrective feedback, as highlighted by Yang (2015) By including students with varying levels of English specialization, the researcher seeks to determine potential differences in the effectiveness of teacher corrective feedback among these groups.
The researcher selected Be Van Dan school as her study setting because it is among the institutions implementing the new English textbook for grades 6 to 8, which focuses on enhancing speaking skills through the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach CLT emphasizes that the primary objective of language learning is to achieve Communicative Competence, as highlighted by Richards et al.
Communicative Competence refers to the ability to correctly apply grammatical rules to create accurate sentences while understanding their contextual use (Richards et al., 1996) The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach emphasizes the importance of social and cultural contexts in language learning, prioritizing meaning over form It views errors as a natural aspect of the learning process, aligning with Krashen's 'natural order hypothesis' to help construct a second language learner's linguistic system.
Errors made by second language learners are viewed as a natural and positive part of the acquisition process, indicating that learning is occurring Consequently, teachers should refrain from immediate correction during student conversations This approach contrasts with Schmidt's (1990) "Noticing Hypothesis," which emphasizes that error correction helps learners recognize gaps in their interlanguage However, Lopez (2012) found that error correction can coexist with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), prompting further investigation into the role of teacher feedback within this context The researcher’s previous experience at the school facilitated gaining permission from the class teacher to observe and record lessons.
At Be Van Dan Lower-Secondary School, sixth-grade students are organized into nine classes based on their majors, with 6A0 focusing on Math and 6A3 on English Both classes utilize the same textbook, "Tiếng Anh 6 (new curriculum)," and attend three English lessons weekly, while 6A3 benefits from an additional two elective English periods Each class comprises 50 to 55 students, exceeding the ideal size for effective language instruction This large class size presents challenges for both students, who have limited opportunities to practice speaking skills, and teachers, who struggle to address individual errors and provide adequate corrective feedback.
The grade-6 course-book at Be Van Dan lower-secondary school, titled "New English 6" (Tiếng Anh 6 thí điểm), was published in 2012 through a collaboration between the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and Pearson Education This book is part of the 2020 Project initiated by MOET, which aims to enhance the educational curriculum It encompasses all four essential language skills: reading, speaking, listening, and writing Additionally, the curriculum emphasizes the development of presentation and teamwork abilities through a dedicated "Projects" section, while also prioritizing speaking skills with a specific "Communication" component.
The "Pronunciation" section of the curriculum offers students ample opportunities to enhance their English speaking skills Since its adoption at Be Van Dan School in 2014, following comprehensive teacher training, this resource has served as essential learning material for all sixth-grade students.
Both teachers at Be Van Dan School possess extensive experience in teaching English and a solid understanding of corrective feedback They frequently implement this feedback during lessons, particularly in speaking activities, thanks to their training in the Project 2020 program introduced by MOET This training provided them with early access to innovative techniques and methodologies in English language instruction before the official adoption of the new curriculum.
Data collection instruments
The researcher utilized systematic class observation to address the initial and final research questions, a method that measures the frequency of specific behaviors or activities within a classroom over a designated period Since the 1970s, direct class observation has been a cornerstone in language classroom research, as no other techniques have proven as effective (Nunan, 1989) This approach primarily aims to assess the effectiveness of specific teaching methods in language settings (Waxman et al., 2004), allowing researchers to gather substantial and reliable data from participants in a defined context (Le, 2012) By objectively observing and documenting classroom interactions, the study can yield more comprehensive insights and nuanced understandings of the sampled data (Mackey et al., 2005) The decision to forgo questionnaires is based on the potential for inaccurate responses when participants are disengaged (Mackey et al., 2005), making class observation a more suitable and manageable method for sixth-grade students.
In this study, the researcher acts as a non-participating observer, ensuring that her presence does not disrupt teacher-student interactions Following Galton's (1988) three stages of systematic observational research—recording events, coding them into categories, and analyzing the coded data—note-taking and recording techniques are employed To enhance accuracy and convenience in lesson documentation, the researcher also created an observation checklist.
Recording lessons offers significant benefits but also presents challenges The quality of recordings can be affected by noisy environments, which are common during speaking lessons Additionally, some students may feel embarrassed about making mistakes, leading to reluctance in speaking, and they often require time to prepare to minimize errors Despite these drawbacks, recording remains a preferred method for effectively gathering data While capturing the lessons, researchers also take notes, but due to the difficulty of documenting all spoken utterances, an observation checklist has been developed This checklist includes categories such as the student's name, errors made, types of feedback given, and student responses.
In this study, the researcher conducted observations of two sixth-grade classes—one focused on English and the other not—across three 45-minute sessions All six speaking periods, which included the Speaking and Communication components from the curriculum, were held during the first semester of the academic year.
In 2016, Class 6A0 was observed during the speaking periods of Units 1, 2, and 3, while Class 6A3 was observed in Units 1, 3, and 4 This observational method is beneficial as it establishes a strong foundation for comprehension and informs effective teaching strategies (Waxman, 2004).
The researcher utilizes stimulated recall interviews with teachers post-lesson to explore their feedback choices in specific situations This method, introduced by Calderhead in 1981, has gained traction for examining teachers' thoughts and decision-making processes By replaying videotapes or audiotapes of lessons, researchers can gather insights into teachers' decisions and reflections during the lesson (Calderhead, 1981) Mackey et al (2000) emphasize that stimulated recall is an effective tool for uncovering attitudes and beliefs that may not be apparent through simple observation, and highlight the importance of conducting these interviews immediately after the lesson to ensure data reliability and validity.
Following each lesson, the researcher arranged brief interviews with the teachers to gather insights Prior to these interviews, she reached out to each teacher to schedule suitable meeting times, ensuring that the discussions occurred immediately after the lessons to enhance data reliability.
The researcher conducted six stimulated recall interviews, with one taking place on the same day as the lesson and another the following evening, while the remaining four were held within the week She selected excerpts from original class recordings to share with the teacher, pausing to inquire about the rationale behind her chosen feedback techniques in specific situations The teacher's responses were documented and recorded for later transcription and analysis All interviews were conducted in Vietnamese and subsequently translated into English by the researcher.
Procedures
This study employs both quantitative and qualitative methods, utilizing class observations and structured interviews with teachers as data collection instruments It addresses three key questions, which guide the sequence of data collection and analysis procedures.
Question 1: Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
This study utilizes the class observation technique, specifically non-participant observation, ensuring that the researcher does not interfere with the teaching and learning process Two grade-6 classes were observed, each having three English periods weekly According to the curriculum, there is one speaking lesson every two weeks, resulting in each teacher being observed during only three speaking periods.
The researcher coordinated with each teacher to schedule classroom observations, during which the teacher introduced her to the students, who were accustomed to such visits from educators seeking to enhance their teaching skills Positioned at the back of the classroom, the researcher utilized an observation checklist and took field notes while monitoring the teaching and learning dynamics in speaking lessons All verbal interactions between the teacher and students were recorded for subsequent analysis The collected data were then transcribed and categorized according to predefined criteria, which included types of student errors (grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, meaning), teacher feedback (based on Lyster and Ranta's six types or none), and student uptake (whether it involved repair, needs-repair, or no uptake).
Question 2: What are the reasons behind teacher’s choice of corrective feedback?
After reviewing the recordings of each speaking session, the researcher promptly arranged an interview with the teacher to discuss the purpose and topic of the interview Once the teacher agreed, the researcher played selected excerpts from the recordings, pausing as needed for discussion The primary interview question focused on the reasoning behind the teacher's choice of feedback strategies in specific situations The teacher's responses were both recorded and noted during the conversation, which was conducted in Vietnamese.
Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
The data gathered from class observations were utilized to address the research question, focusing on dialogues between teachers and students as distinct language episodes Each episode begins with a student's utterance containing at least one error, followed by the teacher's feedback, and then the student's response or uptake.
Student (S): In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error)
Teacher (T): No, we do not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction)
All language episodes were transcribed, and subsequent uptake moves following each feedback type were analyzed at both levels The dialogue exchanges, referred to as "turns," included instances of errors or feedback, which were quantified, and the percentage of turns leading to repairs or indicating a need for repair was calculated.
Repair involves accurately reformulating a student's erroneous utterance, while needs-repair indicates a learner's response to corrective feedback that did not successfully address their mistakes (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) For instance, as illustrated by Jabbari (2012), this process highlights the distinction between effective correction and ongoing learning challenges.
S: Who does has the same idea? (Error – grammatical) T: Who…? (Feedback – elicitation)
S: Who has the same idea? (Repair)
S: They are from United States (Error – grammatical) T: From … (Feedback – elicitation)
The findings are organized according to three research questions, with the first two questions being informed by class observations, while the final question is addressed through stimulated recall interviews The steps undertaken in this research process are outlined clearly.
Step 1: Listen to the recordings and take down the transcriptions Combine these transcriptions and notes taken when attending the lessons to complete the observation checklist
In the study of student utterances, errors are defined by teachers and may differ from target language norms Lyster and Ranta (1997) note that error correction occurs when a student's utterance contains at least one error, although some errors may be overlooked When feedback is provided, students can either correct their errors or continue the conversation without acknowledgment Errors are categorized into pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and meaning Various classification methods exist, with one common approach based on linguistic items, including phonology, syntax, morphology, lexicon, semantics, and pragmatics, as discussed by Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000) and Nishita (2004) This research specifically focuses on phonological, grammatical, and lexical errors, with teacher feedback classified as either no feedback or one of the six error types identified.
Step 2: Analyze and discuss the data collected
For the first question, all teachers‟ feedback turns were counted, then the percentage of the use of each feedback type to total feedback turns was calculated
In analyzing student responses to teacher corrective feedback, we categorized their uptake moves into two distinct types: repair and needs-repair If students did not respond to the feedback, it was classified as "No uptake." We then calculated the uptake and no uptake rates based on the total instances of teacher feedback The results were expressed as percentages to provide a clearer understanding of student engagement with the corrective feedback.
Next, the data collected from stimulated recall were analyzed Basically, according to Gass & Mackey (2016), the steps include transcription, coding and description of data, then the data will be analyzed
Step 3: Listen to the recordings of the stimulated recall and transcribe them
Step 4: Design a stimulated recall coding sheet (see Appendix 3), code the relevant data and then discuss the data
In the interview, the teacher's choice of feedback is influenced by two main categories: external factors, which include teaching experience, student ability, and types of errors, and internal factors, such as time constraints and lesson objectives.
Summary
This chapter outlines the study's methodology, utilizing class observation and stimulated recall interviews to maintain objectivity The research involves two teachers and two grade-6 classes, one focused on English and the other not It details the data collection and analysis procedures aligned with the research questions Data from observations and interviews are transcribed and analyzed to identify patterns in teachers' corrective feedback and its effectiveness, which will be discussed in the following chapter.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Three research questions
4.1.1 Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
Some examples of six corrective feedback types (taken from class observation transcriptions)
Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error)
S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (recast) (uptake – repair)
S: The tortoise walks slowlier than the hare (grammatical error)
T: slowlier or more slowly? (elicitation)
S: He is a very creative boy /kritɪv/ (phonological error)
S: He is a very creative boy /kritɪv/ (uptake- needs-repair)
S: How many pocket money do you get? (grammatical error)
T: „Money‟ is an uncountable noun, so you should use „how much‟
S: I am live in a town house (grammatical error)
S: I play judo every weekend (lexical error) T: No, we do not say „play judo‟ You should use „do judo‟ instead
Table 1 Distribution of corrective feedback of class 6A0
Table 2 Distribution of corrective feedback of class 6A3 (specializing in English)
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the various types of feedback utilized by teachers during speaking lessons in classes 6A0 and 6A3, which specialize in English The data clearly indicates that teachers employ a comprehensive range of feedback types throughout their instruction.
Teachers often encourage students to assess each other's answers for accuracy, promoting collaborative learning Additionally, delayed feedback is a common practice where teachers refrain from addressing errors immediately, choosing instead to provide comprehensive feedback after a series of student responses This approach can enhance learning by allowing students to reflect on their contributions before receiving corrections.
In comparing the use of corrective feedback between two classes, both teachers predominantly employed recasts, with rates of 29.6% and 25.5% However, class 6A0 showed a strong preference for direct corrective feedback types, such as recasts, explicit correction, and metalinguistic feedback, while class 6A3 favored negotiation techniques like repetition (15.7%) and elicitation (17.6%) over explicit correction (11.8%) Explicit correction was more favored in class 6A0 at 20.4%, ranking second after recasts, compared to class 6A3 where it ranked fifth Notably, clarification requests were minimally used in both classes, with class 6A0 utilizing 2 requests (3.7%) and class 6A3 using 3 requests (5.9%) This limited use may stem from the students' insufficient language knowledge to recognize and self-correct their errors, as evidenced by a clarification request made in class 6A3 when a student spoke too softly for the teacher to hear.
The findings align with previous studies, notably Lyster and Ranta (1997), which highlighted that teachers predominantly use recasts, with metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, and repetition being utilized less frequently (8%, 7%, and 5%, respectively) However, in classes 6A0 and 6A3, metalinguistic feedback was used more extensively by teachers, reflecting a desire to provide students with the norms of the target language and to establish a strong foundation in academic English Additionally, a notable difference emerged in the use of explicit correction between the two classes; the teacher in 6A0 favored explicit techniques, while the teacher in 6A3 leaned towards negotiation strategies This observation supports Kaivanpanah's (2015) findings, suggesting that lower-level students benefit more from explicit correction or metalinguistic feedback, whereas higher-level students can engage in self-correction with teacher prompts, which encourages deeper reflection on their errors.
4.1.2 Question 2: What are the reasons behind teacher’s choice of corrective feedback?
The researcher gathered insights into the factors influencing teachers' choices of recasts, explicit correction, and metalinguistic feedback through stimulated recall interviews with Teacher A from class 6A0 and Teacher B from class 6A3 Both educators identified time constraints and concerns about disrupting the flow of conversation as significant factors affecting their use of recasts Importantly, they noted that recasts were primarily employed when students made pronunciation errors.
Example 1: (Unit 2-communication part) Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error) Teacher (T): Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (recast)
S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (uptake-repair) And there is a poster on the wall /pɒstə/ (phonological error)
T: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (recast) S: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (uptake-repair) Teacher B shared that:
“I correct this student’s mistake immediately because I think the most effective way for student to master right pronunciation is shadowing, so when she
Example 2: (Unit 1 – looking back – communication) S1: How many class are there in your school? (grammatical error)
T: You should say classes instead of class because we use plural noun after „how many‟ (delayed metalinguistic feedback)
Each lesson is 45 minutes long, but with 10-15 minutes dedicated to homework review and warm-up activities, there often isn't enough time for speaking practice To efficiently correct errors without interrupting the flow of conversation, I utilize recast, allowing the discussion to continue while still reinforcing key concepts at the end of our dialogue.
The findings indicate that both explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback are utilized extensively in the classes, with recast being used less frequently.
Example 3: (Unit 3) S: In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error)
T: No, we do not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction) S: Yes (uptake)
To explain why to use these direct feedback strategy, teacher A said:
I prioritize explicitly correcting mistakes and providing language rules for my sixth-grade students, who are newly introduced to academic English, distinct from the play-and-learn approach of primary school This method ensures they build a strong foundation in the language Additionally, since my students do not specialize in English, they often lack the necessary resources to self-correct in various situations.
Again, time shortage is the reason for explicit correction Teacher A added:
“If there is more time, I will provide opportunities for students to correct themselves rather than provide correction explicitly”
There are notable differences in the distribution of corrective feedback types between classes 6A3 and 6A0, with class 6A3 exhibiting a higher frequency of negotiation strategies, such as elicitation and repetition Teacher B acknowledged this observation when the researcher brought it to her attention.
In addition to using explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback, I engage students by asking questions or rephrasing their errors as questions This approach encourages students to reflect on their mistakes and actively seek the correct answers, leading to quicker improvement in their learning process.
The results of the first research question also reveal that teacher sometimes let the students peer-correct (other feedback type) Teacher B explained:
Instead of directly correcting students' errors, I encourage peer feedback by asking other students for their opinions This approach not only fosters engagement among all participants but also enhances their learning experience, as they gain valuable insights from identifying and correcting their classmates' mistakes.
Teachers often overlook student errors during conversations to maintain a smooth dialogue and support the flow of thought, but they do offer corrections afterward Teacher A emphasized the importance of prioritizing fluency over accuracy, noting that students' fear of making mistakes can hinder their ability to speak freely.
Menti (2006) identified a key factor influencing teachers' selection of corrective feedback types: the interplay between students' feelings and teachers' beliefs regarding the level and type of assistance needed Teachers in Menti's study were mindful of their students' emotions, aiming to avoid embarrassment that could hinder students' willingness to participate in speaking activities Notably, the study did not address students' feelings directly.
Gurzynski-Weiss (2010) highlights that teachers often base their feedback on students' feelings, which can lead them to overlook errors, particularly if those errors are unexpected or minor Additionally, lesson objectives, particularly in the context of the English 6 book that emphasizes communicative language teaching, prioritize fluency over accuracy, further influencing teachers to minimize error correction The study also found that students' language proficiency significantly affects the type of feedback provided by teachers While time constraints were noted in Weiss's research, they emerged as a primary factor influencing the choice of recast in this study.
4.1.3 Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
Table 3 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A0
(46 language episodes in total) (for more detailed table, see appendix 3)
Feedback type Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n %
Table 4 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A3 (specializing in English) (40 language episodes in total) (for more detailed table, see appendix 3)
Feedback type Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n %
Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the connection between types of corrective feedback and student responses, with responses categorized by evidence of uptake Instances of feedback that did not result in uptake were classified as "no uptake," as feedback sometimes led to topic continuation without student repair Recast, the most commonly used feedback strategy, resulted in the lowest uptake rates, at 62.5% and 61.5% respectively Uptake following recast primarily occurred when students echoed the teacher's correct pronunciation This limited uptake may be due to the teacher providing the correct reformulation of the student's error without explicitly highlighting the mistake, leading students to potentially overlook their error.
Summary
This chapter discusses findings that align with previous studies, revealing that teachers in both classes utilized all types of corrective feedback identified by Lyster and Ranta (1997) While recast emerged as the most frequently used feedback type, its effectiveness is overshadowed by direct techniques like metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction Notably, there is a significant difference in feedback distribution between the two classes; the non-major class teacher favors explicit feedback to highlight errors, whereas the English major class teacher employs prompts through elicitation or repetition, resulting in a higher repair rate Interestingly, clarification requests were found to have minimal impact on student repair Factors influencing teachers' feedback choices include external constraints such as time limitations, as well as internal factors like the types of errors, students' language proficiency, and fluency.
CONCLUSION
Brief summary of the findings
This study seeks to answer three questions:
Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
Question 2: What are reasons behind teacher’s choice of feedback types?
Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
The study observed that teachers in two classes employed all six types of corrective feedback, with recast being the most frequently used method at rates of 29.6% and 25.5% In class 6A0, the teacher predominantly utilized explicit feedback techniques, such as metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction, accounting for 16.7% and 20.4% of their responses Conversely, the teacher in class 6A3 favored prompts like elicitation and repetition, which were used 17.6% and 15.7% of the time Among the feedback types, clarification requests were the least utilized, at 3.7% and 5.9% Additionally, teachers occasionally overlooked unintentional errors or provided delayed feedback to maintain students' fluency and thought processes.
Teachers' feedback choices are influenced by both external and internal factors, as revealed through stimulated recall responses Time limitations often drive the use of recasts and explicit corrections Additionally, internal factors such as students' language proficiency, abilities, and learning styles play a significant role For instance, metalinguistic feedback is utilized to strengthen students' foundational knowledge of academic English, while differences in learning styles between primary and secondary school students are also considered In class 6A3, the teacher employed prompts as feedback to encourage critical thinking and engage students in the lessons.
The study revealed that different types of feedback influenced repair rates in language learning While recast was the most frequently used feedback type, it proved less effective in prompting repairs compared to metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, elicitation, and repetition Metalinguistic feedback resulted in the highest repair rates, achieving 88.9% in one class and 77.8% in another Additionally, prompts through elicitation and repetition were found to be less effective in class 6A0 compared to class 6A3 Interestingly, clarification requests were the least utilized and had minimal impact on facilitating repairs in both classes.
The study indicates that teachers' corrective feedback does not disrupt communication, allowing students to recognize and revise their language errors This process enhances their understanding of language use, demonstrating positive outcomes within the framework of communicative language teaching These findings provide valuable insights for teachers on effectively implementing corrective feedback.
Pedagogical implications
Errors are a natural part of language learning, and it is crucial for teachers to focus on effective corrective feedback methods The most effective form of correction encourages self-correction during practice This study offers valuable pedagogical insights that can help teachers enhance their feedback strategies.
After the study was completed, the researcher emailed the results to both teachers and had a brief phone conversation with the teacher of class 6A0 During this discussion, she suggested that, in addition to using explicit correction strategies, teachers should more frequently employ negotiation techniques to capture students' attention and encourage self-correction of errors.
Effective feedback is crucial for helping students recognize and correct their errors, and teachers must consider various factors such as error type, student ability, and emotional state when selecting feedback methods For pronunciation errors, recasts and explicit corrections are most effective, as they encourage listening and repetition In contrast, for lexical and grammatical mistakes, negotiation techniques like clarification requests and elicitation can prompt students to identify and self-correct their errors It's essential for teachers to tailor their feedback based on students' language proficiency; non-majors may benefit from direct feedback, while those with a basic understanding may respond better to implicit feedback that encourages self-repair Although recasts are commonly used and can lead to uptake, they may not always ensure students recognize their errors Therefore, teachers should consider more effective techniques such as metalinguistic or explicit feedback to enhance learning outcomes.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies
The limitations the researcher sums up after carrying out this study are illustrated as follows:
The study observed six distinct periods, indicating it is not longitudinal, which limits its ability to reflect the long-term effects of teacher corrective feedback on students' speaking skills Conducted in a lower-secondary school, the findings cannot be generalized to other student populations or institutions Time constraints prevented the researcher from observing all grade-6 students, potentially skewing the representation of broader opinions Additionally, the intended interviews with students to gather insights on their perceptions of corrective feedback were not conducted, which could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of its effectiveness Consequently, assessing the true impact of teacher feedback on students' speaking skills remains challenging Despite efforts to ensure objectivity and reliability, these limitations must be carefully considered in future research.
Future research on this topic should address the limitations identified in this study Researchers are encouraged to implement longitudinal observations or experimental designs that include both a feedback group and a control group, utilizing pre-tests and post-tests to assess the impact of teacher corrective feedback on students' speaking skills Additionally, studies should involve a larger and more diverse population across various educational levels Including native English teachers in these studies could provide valuable insights, as many schools are now incorporating native instructors into speaking lessons, allowing for comparisons between the corrective feedback practices of Vietnamese and native teachers.
Asari, Y (2011) Subcategorization of recasts: Examining different features Proceedings of the 16th Conference Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 418-421
Büyükbay, S & Dabaghi, A (2010) The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1: 181-193
Chaudron, C (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Chu, R (2011) The effects of teacher‟s corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English majors college students Theory and Practice in Language
Day, R et al (1984) Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse Language
Egi, T (2007) Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29,
Ellis, R (2001) Form-focused instruction and second language learning Language learning, 51: Supplement 1, 391-
Fungula, B (2013) Oral Corrective Feedback in the Chinese EFL Classroom : Methods employed by teachers to give feedback to their students (Dissertation)
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H (2007) The power of feedback Review of Educational Research, 77, 181-112
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K (2001) Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212
Huong, T T (2011) Effects of teacher's feedback on freshmen's motivation in speaking lessons A survey research at Hanoi University of Business and Technology (M.A.), ULIS, VNU
Liu, N-F & Carless, D (2006) Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment, Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), pp.279-290
Loewen, S and Philp, J (2006) Recasts in adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness The Modern Language Journal, 90,
Kim, J.H Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 2 Teachers College, Columbia University
Krashen, S D (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition New York: Pergamon Institute of English
Ferm Lange, C (2009) Corrective Feedback During Communicative Activities : A study of recasts as a feedback method to correct spoken English (Dissertation)
Lightbown, P M & Spada, N (1999) How Languages are Learned Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Lyster, R & Ranta, L (1997) "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms" Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 37–66
Lyster, R (1998) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error type and learner repair in immersion classrooms Language Learning, 48(2),
Ohta, A S (2001) Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Sadler, D.R (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems Instructional Science, 18, 119-144 Republished in W Haren (Ed) (2008) Student assessment and testing Ch 14, Vol 2, pp 3 28 London: SAGE
Sadler, D R (2010) Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (5), 535-550
Sheen, Y (2011) Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning Dordrecht: Springer
Siewert, L (2011) The effects of written teacher feedback on the academic achievement of fifth-grade students with learning challenges Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and youth, 55(1), 17–27
Tedick, D & Gortari, B (1998) Research on Error Correction and Implications for Classroom Teaching The Bridge, ACIE Newsletter Center for Advanced
Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota, v1
Tornberg, U (2005) Sprồkdidaktik Malmử: Gleerups Utbildning AB
Truscott, J (1999) What‟s wrong with grammar correction Canadian Modern language Review, 55, 437-456
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C (1996) Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology British Educational Research Journal, 22 (4)
Varnosfadrani, A D., & Basturkmen, H (2009) The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners‟ performance System, 37(1), 82-98
Weiner, B (1990) History of motivational research in education Journal of Education psychology, 82(4), 616-622
Zacharias, N T (2007) Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com
* Notes: U = Uptake No U = No uptake
R = Repair NR = Needs repair Stud ent
Student‟s error Teacher‟s feedback Response Note
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com
APPENDIX 2 EXAMPLES OF ERRORS, TEACHER’S CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND
Notes: all information in brackets and forward slashes were noted by the researcher
Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error) Teacher (T): Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (recast)
S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (uptake-repair) And there is a poster on the wall /pɒstə/ (phonological error)
T: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (recast) S: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (uptake-repair)
Example 2: (Unit 1 – looking back – communication)
S1: How many class are there in your school? (grammatical error) T: Classes (recast)
S1: (No uptake) S2: twenty-five T: You should say classes instead of class because we use plural noun after „how many‟ (delayed metalinguistic feedback)
S: In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error) T: No, we do not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction) S: Yes (uptake- needs-repair)
S: Ho Chi Minh City is largest city in southern Vietnam (grammatical error) T: largest city? (repetition)
S: the largest city (uptake-repair)
S: On Sunday we are singing at our village‟s choir club (phonological error)
T: choir /ˈkwaɪə(r)/ not /kɔɪə(r)/ (explicit correction)
S : I and him are doing homework together from 8a.m to 9.30a.m (lexical error)
S: Ah, I and he (uptake – needs repair)
T: No, you should say He and I (explicit correction)
S: There are two vase at the corner of the bookshelf (grammatical error)
S: and a armchair in front of the TV (grammatical error)
T: you should use „an‟ if the next word begins with a vowel (repeat the knowledge)
S: There have fifty-two students in my class (grammatical error)
T: There have or there are? (elicitation)
APPENDIX 3 Table 3 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A0
Feedback type Uptake Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n % n %
Table 4 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A3 (specializing in English) (40 language episodes in total)
Feedback type Uptake Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n % n %
APPENDIX 4 STIMULATED RECALL CODING SHEET
Lesson/Unit: Length of recordings:
Date of stimulated recall interview:
Time Teacher‟s comment External factors Internal factors
APPENDIX 5 EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPTIONS OF STIMULATED RECALL
Stimulated recall interview with teacher of class 6A0 (Teacher A)
Trong cuộc phỏng vấn, tôi đã bắt đầu bằng cách xin phép cô để trình bày một số trích đoạn từ giờ học, trong đó cô đã sử dụng phương pháp phản hồi đối với những câu chứa lỗi sai của học sinh Sau đó, tôi sẽ đặt ra một số câu hỏi liên quan đến chủ đề này.
Trong đoạn ghi âm, học sinh mắc lỗi khi để động từ "to be" và động từ thường "have" đứng cạnh nhau (we are have) Cô giáo đã không gợi ý để học sinh tự sửa mà thay vào đó nhắc lại lý thuyết và sửa lỗi ngay lập tức Điều này là cần thiết vì học sinh mới vào lớp 6, kiến thức tiếng Anh của các em còn hạn chế, nên cô muốn giúp các em nhớ và hiểu rõ hơn về ngữ pháp.
(Mở recordings) I: Cô ơi em thấy vừa rồi em học sinh quên dạng số nhiều của từ „class‟, tại sao cô cũng sửa lỗi này luôn ạ?
T: Vì trên lớp chỉ có 45 phút nên nhiều khi vôi em ạ, kiểm tra bài tập về nhà và warm up đã mất khá nhiều thời gian, học sinh không có thời gian luyện nói nhiều
Cô luôn chỉnh sửa lỗi ngay lập tức để không làm gián đoạn cuộc hội thoại, nhưng sau đó vẫn nhắc lại kiến thức để học sinh không mắc phải lỗi đó trong tương lai.
Stimulated recall interview with teacher of class 6A3 (Teacher B)
Trong cuộc phỏng vấn, người phỏng vấn đã bắt đầu bằng cách xin phép cô giáo để trình bày một số trích đoạn từ giờ học, trong đó cô đã sử dụng phương pháp phản hồi đối với những câu có lỗi sai của học sinh Sau đó, người phỏng vấn sẽ đặt một số câu hỏi liên quan đến vấn đề này.