Rationale of the study
Language errors are indicative of learners' progress in mastering a target language, highlighting their significance in language acquisition and performance assessment The relationship between language errors and teacher feedback in English classes is crucial, as feedback serves to inform, regulate, strengthen, sustain, and eliminate errors While students' speaking errors are unavoidable and not explicitly addressed in textbooks, it is essential for teachers to pay close attention to these errors The effectiveness of teachers' feedback can significantly influence students' learning outcomes, yielding both positive and negative effects Therefore, researching teachers' feedback strategies regarding students' speaking errors is vital for improving learning success and achievement.
Numerous studies have explored language errors and correction methods in both written and oral contexts within classrooms The effectiveness of feedback strategies for speaking errors remains a contentious topic among researchers Critics like Pienemann (1985) argue that error correction is only beneficial when learners are ready to grasp the concepts being taught; otherwise, it holds little value Similarly, Clampitt (2001) emphasizes that repeated corrections will not lead to proper usage unless learners are prepared to internalize the grammatical structures Truscott (1996) further contends that grammar correction can be detrimental, as it may discourage and demotivate students However, it is suggested that the negative perceptions surrounding error correction stem from how feedback is delivered rather than the correction itself In contrast, proponents like Carroll and Swain (1993) assert that various feedback types, both explicit and implicit, can significantly aid L2 learners in understanding complex linguistic concepts, indicating that negative feedback can be beneficial for their learning process.
Narrowing the range of possible hypotheses that can explain data is essential for effective analysis (p.358) Additionally, Nunan and Lamb (1996, p.68) emphasize that errors made by learners, along with teacher corrections, offer valuable insights into the target language, enhancing the learning process.
At People’s Police College I, English is a compulsory subject aimed at equipping students with fundamental language skills and communication abilities However, many students struggle with speaking due to factors such as limited vocabulary, low motivation, large class sizes, and fear of making mistakes These challenges result in frequent speaking errors, making it difficult for students to articulate their thoughts in English This situation suggests that the teaching methods employed by English instructors at PPC I significantly impact students' speaking proficiency.
In conclusion, this study is driven by three key factors: first, the theoretical significance of teachers' feedback in enhancing students' learning success and achievement; second, the ongoing debates among researchers regarding the impact of feedback; and third, the practical hypothesis at PPC I that suggests the implementation of teachers' feedback strategies positively influences students' speaking competence.
Aims of the study
- Finding out the most frequent speaking errors that the second- year students make in speaking class at PPC I
- Exploring teachers’ beliefs and use of feedback strategies for their second- year students’ speaking errors
This study explores second-year students' perceptions of teachers' feedback strategies regarding their speaking errors, aiming to offer recommendations for educators to effectively utilize these strategies to improve students' speaking performance.
With the given aims, the study was conducted to answer the three following questions:
1/ What are the most frequent speaking errors made by the second-year students at PPC I?
2/ What are teachers’ beliefs and application of feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors at PPC I?
3/ What are the second-year students’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of feedback strategies for their speaking errors?
The research was carried out at People’s Police College I in Ha Noi, focusing on the common speaking errors made by second-year students, the feedback strategies employed by teachers to address these errors, and the students' perceptions of the feedback received However, the study does not examine the students' uptake or improvement resulting from the feedback.
This study collected data through questionnaires administered to teachers and students, semi-structured interviews with educators, and eight observations of English speaking lessons conducted for second-year students at PPC I.
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative research to gain a comprehensive understanding of the investigation Quantitative data were gathered through closed questions in questionnaires directed at both teachers and students, alongside class observations This data collection aimed to identify the most common speaking errors among second-year students, evaluate teachers' feedback strategies for addressing these errors, and assess students' attitudes towards the feedback received from their teachers.
Qualitative data were collected from six semi-structured interviews with teachers to gain detailed insights into their feedback strategies in the classroom Additionally, an open-ended question in the student questionnaire allowed for further evaluation of teachers' feedback from the students' perspectives.
This study aims to assist English teachers at PPC I by highlighting the importance of providing feedback on students' speaking errors and identifying the most common mistakes It offers a comprehensive examination of feedback strategies from both theoretical and practical perspectives, while also raising awareness of students' attitudes towards feedback Ultimately, the research provides valuable pedagogical implications, encouraging teachers to implement tailored feedback strategies that enhance students' speaking performance in the classroom.
7 Design of the study The study consists of three main parts:
This study aims to explore key aspects of [insert topic], addressing significant research questions within a defined scope Utilizing a robust methodological framework, the research highlights the importance of [insert significance] and outlines the study's design The development section comprises three chapters that delve deeper into the findings and implications of the research.
Chapter 1 - Literature Review - reviews the theories on communicative language competence, second language acquisition, errors and feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors
Chapter 2 – Methodology outlines the study's context, research design, and participant details It also details the data collection instruments used by the researcher and the procedures followed in conducting the study.
Chapter 3 - Findings and Discussions examines the most common speaking errors made by second-year students, explores teachers' beliefs regarding feedback strategies, and analyzes students' attitudes towards the feedback they receive from their teachers.
In the conclusion, Part C encapsulates the key findings of the study and offers valuable recommendations for teachers on effective feedback strategies to address students' speaking errors This section also provides a comprehensive overview of the research conducted and outlines potential directions for future studies.
This chapter outlines the study's purpose, focusing on analyzing second-year students' speaking errors, teachers' beliefs and feedback strategies, and students' perceptions of teachers' feedback To achieve these objectives, data was collected through teacher and student questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations The subsequent chapter will provide a review of relevant literature to support the study.
PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter aims to examine the literature on students' speaking errors and the feedback strategies employed by teachers It is structured into six sections: the first explores communicative language competence and second language acquisition, while the subsequent sections provide an overview of general language errors and feedback strategies The fourth and fifth sections delve into specific issues related to speaking errors and the corresponding feedback methods Finally, the last section reviews research on feedback in second language acquisition, highlighting both similarities and differences.
1.1 Communicative language competence and second language acquisition 1.1.1 Communicative language competence
As globalization progresses, learning English as a second language has become essential, with a primary focus on achieving "communicative competence." Education systems worldwide, including non-native countries, are adopting the Communicative Language Teaching approach to enhance English language skills The concept of communicative competence, first introduced by Chomsky in 1965, distinguishes between linguistic competence (the idealized knowledge of a native speaker) and performance (actual language use) However, Hymes (1966) criticized this view for neglecting the importance of context-appropriate language use Building on this, Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence as the ability to interpret and enact suitable social behaviors, emphasizing active learner involvement Their framework identifies three key components: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence, with sociolinguistic competence further divided for a comprehensive understanding of language behavior.
(1983) into two separate components: sociolinguistic and discourse competence
Communicative competence, as defined by Canale (1983), encompasses the essential knowledge and skills necessary for effective communication It is divided into four key areas: Grammatical competence, which involves understanding phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic rules, and vocabulary—often referred to as linguistic competence; Sociolinguistic competence, focusing on the pragmatic aspects of speech acts, including cultural values and socio-cultural norms; Discourse competence, which pertains to the rules of cohesion and coherence in various discourse types; and Strategic competence, which involves the use of verbal and nonverbal strategies to address communication breakdowns and improve overall effectiveness.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) enhances students' communicative competence by emphasizing meaning over form and prioritizing fluency over accuracy It fosters a learner-centered environment where interaction is key, encouraging students to engage in oral practice, pair and group work, and collaborative writing By focusing on tasks that spark intrinsic motivation, CLT aims to make language learning relevant and engaging.
Scope of the study
A study at People’s Police College I in Ha Noi examined the common speaking errors made by second-year students, the feedback strategies employed by teachers to address these errors, and the students' perceptions of this feedback However, the research did not explore the students' uptake or progress resulting from the feedback received.
Data for this study were gathered through questionnaires for teachers and students, semi-structured interviews with teachers, and eight observations of English speaking lessons conducted for second-year students at PPC I.
Methods of the study
Qualitative data were collected through six semi-structured interviews with teachers, providing detailed insights into their feedback strategies in the classroom Additionally, an open-ended question in the student questionnaire allowed for further evaluation of teachers' feedback from the students' perspective.
Significance of the study
This study aims to provide English teachers at PPC with valuable insights into the importance of feedback on students' speaking errors and the common mistakes they make It will explore various feedback strategies from both theoretical and practical perspectives, helping educators understand students' attitudes towards feedback Ultimately, the findings will offer practical pedagogical implications, encouraging teachers to implement tailored feedback strategies that effectively enhance students' speaking performance in the classroom.
Design of the study
This study aims to explore the underlying rationale, objectives, research questions, scope, methods, significance, and design of the investigation The development section is structured into three chapters, providing a comprehensive analysis of the findings.
Chapter 1 - Literature Review - reviews the theories on communicative language competence, second language acquisition, errors and feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors
Chapter 2 – Methodology outlines the study's settings, research design, and participant details It also details the data collection instruments used and the procedures followed during the study.
Chapter 3 - Findings and Discussions explores the common speaking errors made by second-year students, examines teachers' beliefs regarding feedback strategies, and analyzes students' attitudes toward the feedback they receive from their teachers.
In the conclusion, we summarize the key findings of the study and offer valuable recommendations for teachers on effective feedback strategies to address students' speaking errors This section also provides a comprehensive overview of the research conducted and suggests avenues for future studies.
This chapter outlines the study's rationale, focusing on second-year students' speaking errors, teachers' beliefs and feedback strategies, and students' evaluations of teacher feedback To achieve these objectives, the research employed questionnaires for both teachers and students, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations as data collection methods The subsequent chapter will review the relevant literature to support the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Communicative language competence and second language acquisition 6 1 Communicative language competence
As globalization progresses, learning English as a second language has become integral to daily life, with a key focus on achieving "communicative competence." Education systems worldwide, including non-native countries, have embraced the Communicative Language Teaching approach to enhance English language learning The concept of communicative competence, introduced by Chomsky in 1965, differentiates between linguistic competence and performance However, Hymes (1966) criticized Chomsky's model for overlooking the importance of context in language use Building on this, Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence as the ability to interpret and enact appropriate social behaviors, emphasizing learner engagement in language production They identified three essential components of communicative competence: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence, with further subdivisions in sociolinguistic competence.
(1983) into two separate components: sociolinguistic and discourse competence
Communicative competence, as defined by Canale (1983), encompasses the essential knowledge and skills necessary for effective communication It consists of four key components: Grammatical competence, or linguistic competence, involves mastering phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and lexical rules Sociolinguistic competence focuses on understanding the pragmatic aspects of speech acts, including cultural values and social conventions Discourse competence pertains to the ability to maintain cohesion and coherence in various types of discourse Finally, strategic competence involves employing verbal and nonverbal strategies to manage communication breakdowns and enhance overall effectiveness.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) enhances students' communicative competence by emphasizing meaning over form and prioritizing fluency over accuracy It adopts a learner-centered approach, encouraging interaction through oral practice, pair and group work, and writing activities By fostering intrinsic motivation through engaging content, CLT effectively utilizes task-based methods to facilitate meaningful communication.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) prioritizes fluency over accuracy, leading to the non-explicit correction of students' errors to maintain focus on meaning and expression While it is commonly believed that errors will diminish with increased input, there is a risk of 'fossilisation,' where mistakes become ingrained in a student's language use Consequently, teachers must be flexible in selecting appropriate techniques and tasks, as these choices are based on established learning principles informed by research in second language acquisition (SLA) and educational psychology Effective teaching and learning strategies necessitate thorough training and ongoing engagement with current SLA research.
In today's world, the importance of learning a second or foreign language has surged, making second language acquisition a focal point for researchers and educators Krashen (1983) distinguished between acquisition and learning, stating that acquisition is a subconscious process leading to fluency, while learning is a conscious effort focused on understanding rules and structures He identified three key components of second language acquisition: the "filter," which reflects how social contexts affect learners; the "organizer," which shapes the structure of the learner's language system; and the "monitor," which enables conscious correction of speech Key insights from Krashen's work include that second language acquisition prioritizes meaning over form, occurs in diverse social settings beyond the classroom, allows for errors during the learning process, and involves the correction of those errors.
SLA, as defined by Ellis (1997), refers to the process by which individuals learn a language other than their mother tongue, occurring in various contexts, both inside and outside the classroom Ellis identifies two primary goals of SLA: to describe the process of L2 acquisition and to explain the factors influencing why learners acquire a second language differently Through case studies, including an adult learner in a communicative environment and two children learning in a classroom, Ellis highlights significant issues in SLA, such as the types of errors made by learners—grammatical, omission, and sociolinguistic errors He also notes that L2 learners often acquire formulaic chunks that enhance their communicative fluency and that language acquisition follows a systematic pattern.
In summary, second language acquisition (SLA) encompasses a wide range of issues influenced by various internal and external factors A key aspect highlighted by researchers like Krashen and Ellis is the prevalence of language errors made by learners Recent studies have shifted focus from solely addressing these errors to examining the feedback strategies employed by teachers in response to them This evolving perspective, supported by the works of Allwright & Bailey, Chaudron, Lyster and Ranta, Surakka, Park, and Nguyen, will be critically analyzed in the following section of the study.
Language errors
In 1978, a definition of error was proposed in relation to error correction and teachers, describing it as an utterance or structure deemed unacceptable by a language teacher due to inappropriate usage or absence in real-life discourse This definition is subjective, as it relies on the individual teacher's judgment regarding the correctness of students' language Consequently, differing perspectives and contexts among teachers can lead to varied assessments of students' performance Additionally, James (1998) defined error as “an unsuccessful bit of language,” but this definition is overly broad and lacks specificity for the fields of language teaching and learning.
Linguists often distinguish between "mistake" and "error" in language According to Brown (1994, p.205) as cited by Ancker (2000, p.21), a mistake is defined as a performance error resulting from a random guess or slip, indicating a failure to correctly apply a known system.
An error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learner”
Edge (1989, p.37) suggests dividing mistakes into three categories: slips, errors and attempts “Slips” are mistakes that students can correct themselves;
In language learning, "errors" refer to mistakes that students are unable to correct independently, while "attempts" signify their efforts to use the language despite lacking the correct knowledge Many educators often confuse the terms "mistake" and "error," using them interchangeably in their teaching practices.
According to Snow (1977), the distinction between errors and mistakes in second language (L2) learning is based on the learner's awareness and ability to correct their mistakes He identifies three stages of language learning: the first stage involves unintentional errors, the second stage includes awareness of the errors without knowing how to correct them, and the final stage is when the learner can successfully correct their mistakes Errors occur in the first two stages, while mistakes are linked to the final stage Supporting Snow's perspective, Shastri (2010) emphasizes that errors are not self-correctable and indicate a lack of linguistic competence.
In summary, errors can be defined in various ways, each offering valuable insights into language teaching and learning This study adopts Snow's (1977) definition of "speaking error" as it effectively clarifies the concept of errors in the second language learning process and aligns with the research objectives.
1.2.2 The role of errors in SLA Language learning, like any kind of human learning, involves committing errors In the process of learning, the learner of English as a second language may be unaware of the existence of the particular system or rule in English language In the past, language teachers considered errors committed by their students as something undesirable which they diligently sought to prevent from occurring During the past fifteen years, however, researchers in the field of applied linguistics came to view errors as evidence for a creative process in language learning in which learners employ hypothesis testing and various strategies in learning a second language Far from being a nuisance to be eradicated, errors are, as Selinker (1969) indicates, significant in three respects:
Errors play a crucial role in language education, serving as indicators of a learner's progress and providing valuable insights for researchers into the language acquisition process Additionally, for learners themselves, errors facilitate hypothesis testing, enhancing their understanding of the language Thus, errors positively impact teaching, research, and learning in significant ways.
Recent studies in second language acquisition have increasingly focused on learner errors, as these errors can predict the challenges faced when learning a new language By understanding these difficulties, teachers can tailor their instruction to address specific areas where students struggle According to Richards et al (1992), analyzing errors serves three main purposes: identifying learner strategies, uncovering the causes of these errors, and providing insights into common learning difficulties to enhance teaching and develop effective materials (cited in Khansir 2008) Thus, error analysis is a valuable tool for recognizing linguistic challenges and needs at various stages of language learning.
Errors play a crucial role in the second language acquisition process, as highlighted by Spratt et al (2010, p 143), who argue that errors signify active learning and risk-taking with the language Rather than viewing errors as failures, they should be seen as valuable experiments that contribute to language development If students only replicate what they have been taught without making mistakes, the process of acquiring a second language loses its significance, and progress becomes stagnant Allowing learners to create their own language expressions fosters advancement, making errors essential indicators of their growth in learning.
To enhance second language acquisition, it is crucial for students to have opportunities to make guesses and experiment with their language skills Following Bartram and Walton (1991), teachers should allow students the chance to make errors, as this fosters creativity and understanding that mistakes are a natural aspect of language learning Instead of focusing on criticism, teachers are encouraged to praise successful attempts, which can create a supportive environment By providing students with the freedom and encouragement to explore new language elements, both teaching and learning can benefit from the valuable insights gained through errors.
1.2.3 Classification of errors Researchers have categorized errors in various ways Burt (1975) classifies errors into two categories: global errors and local errors Global errors refer to errors that significantly hinder communication and “those that affect overall sentence organization, such as wrong word order, missing, wrong, or misplaced sentence connectors” (p 56) For example: the wrong use of the conjuntion
“because” in the sentence It is raining because I stay at home instead of the conjunction “so” can lead to the misunderstanding of the meaning of the sentence
Local errors, such as incorrect noun and verb inflections, articles, and auxiliaries, typically do not significantly impede communication (p.57) For example, many learners incorrectly use "was" as the past form of "be" with the subject "you." Burt emphasizes that correcting a single global error can enhance the clarity of the intended message more effectively than addressing multiple local errors Additionally, Burt advocates that teachers prioritize the correction of high-frequency errors first.
Corder (1981) classifies errors into overt and covert categories A covert error occurs when a learner's statement seems correct on the surface but is actually incorrect, as explained by Bartram and Walton (1991), who note that learners may "say something right by accident" (p 21) In contrast, overt errors are characterized by clearly erroneous and poorly formed utterances While both types of errors relate to correctness, they can significantly hinder effective communication.
Edge (1989) identifies three linguistic error categories: phonological, grammatical, and lexical This classification is also partially supported by Choděra (2006), who examines linguistic competence in second language acquisition.
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) categorize errors into five distinct types based on their divergence from L2 structures: omission, where necessary elements are left out; addition, where unnecessary elements are included; misordering, where correctly selected items are arranged incorrectly; misformation, which involves the use of an incorrect form instead of the correct one; and blends, where two grammatical forms are mistakenly combined This classification is recognized as straightforward for teachers to identify (James).
1998), it shows the high risk of being too superficial and general
Overview of feedback strategies
Researchers have utilized various definitions of feedback, often using terms like error correction, error treatment, and corrective feedback interchangeably, with "feedback" being the most encompassing term Schegloff et al (1977) describe correction as “the replacement of error or mistake by what is correct” (p 363), while Chaudron (1977) defines it as “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to or demands improvement of the learner’s utterance” (p.31) These definitions highlight that correction is merely a component of teachers' responses to student outputs, which will be explored further in the context of feedback.
Feedback, as defined by Lalande (1982), encompasses any method used to inform learners about the correctness of their responses Similarly, Lightbown and Spada (1999) describe corrective feedback as an indication to learners that their use of the target language is incorrect However, these definitions overlook the essential role of teachers in the feedback process; merely informing learners of their errors is inadequate Wajnryb (1992) emphasizes that feedback should involve teachers' responses to learners' outputs in the classroom Corrective feedback can be categorized into explicit and implicit forms, with teachers delivering it either without disrupting the conversation (implicit feedback) or directly highlighting the errors (explicit feedback).
To make the term feedback more comprehensible, Ellis (2009) distinguishes between positive and negative feedback on the most general level
“Positive feedback affirms that a learner response to an activity is correct
Positive feedback plays a crucial role in educational theory as it not only confirms the accuracy of a learner's statement but also enhances the linguistic correctness of their communication This type of feedback offers emotional support, significantly boosting the learner's motivation to persist in their educational journey.
Negative feedback plays a crucial role in second language acquisition, garnering significant attention from language educators and L2 theorists It serves as an indicator that a learner's utterance may be linguistically incorrect or lacking in authenticity For instance, Ellis identifies error correction as a form of negative feedback, as it directly addresses linguistic errors in a learner's speech.
1.3.2 The importance of feedback Feedback has been used in language teaching/ learning for a long time, but its benefit has been questioned by some language teachers Currently, feedback seems to undergo a revival stage as a useful teaching device The evidence that feedback or error correction can be helpful in L2 learning has been clearly shown Results of classroom research, such as Lightbown & Spada (1990), show that
Research indicates that teacher feedback during communicative lessons significantly reduces errors (Ellis, 1998) Meyer (1986) emphasizes that feedback following incorrect responses greatly enhances student learning This suggests that corrective feedback is essential for effective language development Additionally, a study by Tomasello and Herron (1989) revealed that learners who first made mistakes and then received corrections showed greater improvement than those who were instructed with rules beforehand Thus, feedback plays a crucial role in advancing students' language skills, including grammar, oral communication, and writing However, the effectiveness of feedback strategies depends on their appropriate application in teaching contexts, highlighting the importance of a thoughtful approach to delivering feedback.
Feedback plays a crucial role not only in addressing individual students but also in influencing entire classes According to Allwright & Bailey (1991), the output of one learner can serve as input for others, meaning that a teacher's approach to correcting errors can impact the understanding of the whole group If a teacher decides not to address an error made by one student, other learners may mistakenly believe that the incorrect form or function is acceptable This highlights the importance of thoughtful feedback in fostering a cohesive learning environment.
A belief is generally defined as a mental state where an individual accepts a proposition as true, despite acknowledging that others may hold different beliefs (Borg, 2001) In the context of language teaching, teachers' beliefs pertain to their pedagogical convictions, specifically those that influence their teaching practices (Calderhead, 1995) Commonly examined areas include teachers' beliefs regarding teaching methodologies, learning processes, student characteristics, and the subject matter itself.
Research indicates that teachers' beliefs significantly influence their teaching practices, directly affecting the teaching and learning process Specifically, in English speaking classes, teachers' beliefs and practices regarding feedback are crucial for the effective implementation of feedback activities, ultimately impacting students' engagement and benefits from these activities Thus, exploring EFL teachers' beliefs and practices related to feedback strategies is essential to address this research gap and help teachers improve students' speaking competence.
Research indicates that language teachers' beliefs are influenced by various factors, including their experiences as educators, learners, and participants in teacher education programs, as highlighted by Phipps and Borg.
Research indicates that teachers' experiences significantly influence their beliefs about meeting students' expectations, particularly regarding the use of feedback for correcting errors Successful past experiences with feedback encourage teachers to continue utilizing these methods in their instruction Additionally, the experiences teachers had as learners also shape their beliefs; for example, novice teachers may reject error correction and grammar instruction due to negative experiences with these methods as students Furthermore, teacher education programs play a crucial role in shaping both novice and experienced teachers' beliefs about language learning, highlighting the importance of ongoing professional development in influencing teaching practices.
Attitudes towards language learning are a significant focus for researchers and educators Gardner (1980) defines attitude as the collective instincts, feelings, biases, and convictions regarding a specific topic Similarly, Ajzan (1988) describes attitudes as a tendency to respond positively or negatively to various objects, individuals, institutions, or events Understanding these attitudes is crucial for effective language teaching and learning.
The relationship between language learning and students’ attitudes have been discussed and investigated by many researchers According to Gardner
Research highlights a significant relationship between attitudes and motivation in language learning, as noted by Starks & Paltridge (1996) Karahan (2007) emphasizes that positive language attitudes foster a favorable orientation towards learning English, indicating that attitudes can greatly influence students' success in language acquisition This study focuses on students' attitudes towards teachers' feedback, recognizing that many students find feedback beneficial and desire regular corrections in class, as supported by Schulz (2001) and Havranek.
Many students feel embarrassed by corrections and often fail to notice or comprehend the feedback provided by teachers Research indicates that a significant amount of teacher feedback goes unnoticed, highlighting the importance of students being aware of and understanding the corrections they receive The primary challenge for educators is to ensure that their corrective feedback is both recognized and understood by learners, enabling effective learning and improvement.
Speaking errors
According to Snow (1977), a speaking error occurs when a speaker is either unaware of their mistake or knows it but cannot correct it This perspective clarifies the nature of speaking errors Jack et al (1992) further define speaking errors as "faults made by speakers during the production of sounds, words, and sentences," highlighting that these errors can manifest in various forms, including sound production, word choice, and sentence structure This definition serves as the foundation for classifying speaking errors in this study.
1.4.2 The classification of speaking errors
This research categorizes speaking errors based on the definition of speaking error, Edge's classification, and communicative competence theory The main categories include: a) Phonological errors, which involve pronunciation issues, such as mispronouncing the last 'r' in 'river' or using a level tone for yes-no questions; b) Lexical errors, characterized by incorrect word usage, like saying "unexpensive" instead of "inexpensive"; c) Grammatical errors, stemming from syntax problems, exemplified by incorrect subject-verb agreement as in "She get up at 6"; d) Discourse errors, which arise during speech due to cohesion and coherence issues, such as using informal language in formal contexts; e) Sociolinguistic errors, which violate social norms, like addressing someone without the appropriate honorific or using slang in formal settings; and f) Strategic errors, where students struggle to communicate effectively, such as failing to use synonyms or gestures when words are forgotten.
Feedback strategies for speaking errors
Error correction in language learning is a complex process, as highlighted by Allwright and Bailey (1991), who note the varied nature of feedback strategies Feedback can be categorized into two primary types: explicit correction and implicit correction According to Hendrickson (1980), explicit correction involves direct and detailed feedback where teachers provide students with the exact forms of their errors This method can be beneficial as it helps learners immediately recognize their mistakes without confusion However, Norrish (1983) argues that explicit correction may impede the development of communicative competence and lead to negative outcomes for learners In contrast, implicit correction, as defined by Ferris and Hedgcock (1998), involves indirect feedback where teachers signal the presence of an error and offer hints, allowing students to self-correct or seek peer assistance This approach encourages learners to discover the correct answers independently, potentially enhancing their linguistic competence Nonetheless, distinguishing between explicit and implicit correction can be challenging for teachers, leading to potential confusion in their implementation.
A clear-cut classification of feedback was developed by Lyster & Ranta
(1997) They distinguish six types of corrective feedback used by teachers in response to learner errors:
Explicit correction involves clearly providing students with the correct form of language while indicating that their previous statement was incorrect This technique often includes phrases like “Oh, you mean” or “You should say,” helping learners understand their mistakes and learn the correct usage effectively.
Eg: S: He goes to school yesterday
T: Oh, you should say he went, he went to school yesterday
Recasts involve the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance, minus the error
Eg: S: She enjoys listen to music
T: She enjoys listening to music
Clarification requests signal to students that their statements may not have been understood by the teacher or that the statements are unclear, necessitating a repetition or reformulation Common phrases used for clarification include "Pardon me?"
Eg: S: He catch the bus to school everyday
Metalinguistic feedback contains comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the student’s utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form (e.g., “Can you find your error?”)
Eg: S: He work in a bank
T: Do we say he work?
T: How do we say when it forms the third person singular form?
Elicitation is a teaching technique where educators prompt students to provide the correct response by intentionally pausing during their speech, encouraging students to "fill in the blank" and actively participate in the learning process.
Eg: S: He catch the bus to school everyday
T: How do we form the third person singular form in English?
S: He catches the bus to school everyday
Repetition refers to the teacher’s repetition, in isolation, of the student’s erroneous utterance In most cases, teachers adjust their intonation so as to highlight the error
Eg: S: They visit Paris last year
T: They visit? (rising tone) With all the six feeback types mentioned above for speaking errors, language teachers are likely to have a variety of selection of strategies to treat students’ errors However, this also raises some issues about which type of feedback strategy teachers should apply to a certain type of speaking errors, whether teachers have several options for one type of error and if one type of feedback strategy does not work well with a specific error in a certain situation, teacher should try another type or giving up the feedback process According to Harmer (2007),“the way we give feedback and correct such [errors] will be heavily influenced by which type [of error] we think the students are making” (p.96) It is felt that when dealing with errors and deciding on error treatment, types of error thus play a crucial part in the teacher’s decisions and the provided feedback In this current study, teachers are supposed to apply the feedback types of Lyster & Ranta when dealing with their students’ speaking errors
1.5.2 The selection of errors to give feedback
In language learning, students often make numerous speaking errors, making it impractical for teachers to correct every mistake due to time constraints and lesson objectives Teachers must decide whether to address specific errors, distinguishing between local and global errors According to Brown (2007), local errors can often be overlooked if the message is clear, as correcting them may disrupt communication flow Conversely, global errors that hinder understanding should be prioritized for correction Brown’s perspective emphasizes the importance of focusing on errors that impact communication, particularly in speaking scenarios.
According to Hendrickson (1978), prioritizing the correction of errors that elicit the most negative reactions is essential, as these errors are often the most stigmatized.
Hendrickson emphasizes the importance of prioritizing the correction of frequent errors, providing teachers with valuable guidance on effective feedback strategies This approach not only helps individual students avoid significant mistakes but also positively impacts multiple learners A common issue among students is the mispronunciation of the "-ed" sound in English, often stemming from a lack of understanding of its pronunciation rules Many students mistakenly assume that all verbs ending in "-ed" should be pronounced with the /-id/ sound, highlighting the need for targeted instruction in this area.
In communicative language teaching, the focus on correcting errors is based on their impact on communication Errors that disrupt communication are prioritized for feedback and correction, while those that do not significantly hinder understanding may require less attention from teachers.
Seidlhofer (2004) highlights that many errors deemed urgent for correction by English teachers often do not hinder effective communication This suggests that the focus of feedback in communicative language teaching should align with the learners' communicative goals, rather than fixating on errors perceived as significant.
1.5.3 The selection of people who give correction
The feedback process in education involves teachers employing various feedback strategies and correcting errors to bridge students' knowledge gaps It is crucial for teachers to select appropriate methods for providing corrections to achieve effective feedback According to a study by Richards & Renandya (2002), teacher-led correction is the most prevalent approach However, Broughton et al (2003) highlight that corrections can also stem from learners themselves through self-correction or from peers in the classroom This article will explore the three types of error correction, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
Hendrickson (1978) emphasizes the importance of correcting communicative errors over linguistic ones, advocating for interactive correction methods by teachers This approach fosters teaching and enhances the interaction between teachers and students However, Maicusi et al (1999) caution that excessive correction can lead to learner dependency on feedback from teachers, potentially hindering their independent learning.
Peer correction enhances learners' ability to identify errors, as suggested by Cohen (1975), and has been successfully observed among ESL adult learners in group settings (Bruton & Samuda, 1980) This practice is widely recognized as beneficial in language classrooms, with Edge (1989) noting that increased student involvement in correction fosters deeper thinking about language Such engagement is crucial for supporting the learning process, making it essential to provide learners with these opportunities While peer correction promotes cooperation and active participation, teachers must carefully consider the implications of delegating correction tasks to students.
Self-correction, as defined by Hendrickson (1978), refers to the process of identifying and correcting one's own mistakes This practice is crucial for language learners, as it allows them to closely examine their errors and make necessary improvements Engaging in self-correction not only enhances language skills but also fosters greater awareness and autonomy in the learning process.
In 1971, it was emphasized that independent self-correction is crucial for complex learning processes, as it not only rectifies the outcomes but also enhances the methodology that produced those outcomes This approach fosters greater active engagement from learners during their educational journey.
Review of the previous studies on feedback strategies for students’ speaking
The problem of teachers’ feedback strategies have been studied by many language researchers and teachers in various contexts
A pivotal study by Lyster and Ranta (1997) explored the impact of corrective feedback on learner uptake among second language learners in Canadian immersion classrooms They identified six types of corrective feedback, highlighting that teachers predominantly favored recasts (55%), despite its lower effectiveness in prompting student-generated repairs (31%) The study found that elicitation, repetition, clarification requests, and metalinguistic feedback were more effective in encouraging student responses On average, teachers provided corrective feedback for 62% of students' errors, leading the researchers to suggest that while excessive corrections may be counterproductive, educators should diversify their feedback strategies beyond just recasts.
A study by Surakka (2007) in Finland revealed that recasts were the most frequently used error correction strategy in EFL classrooms However, both recasts and explicit feedback were found to be ineffective in promoting learner uptake In contrast, elicitation and metalinguistic feedback proved to be highly successful, leading to learner repair in 98% and 96% of cases, respectively.
A study by Park (2010) explored the preferences of teachers and students regarding spoken error correction in two Northern California language institutes, involving 160 adult ESL students and 18 native English-speaking teachers The results indicated a consensus on the necessity of addressing student errors; however, students expressed a desire for more correction than their teachers perceived was necessary A notable difference emerged in their views on the timing of error correction, with students favoring immediate feedback that might disrupt conversation flow, contrary to the teachers' approach Both groups agreed on the importance of addressing serious and frequent errors, yet students sought more error treatment overall The preferred feedback methods varied: teachers favored repetition, explicit feedback, and elicitation, while students preferred elicitation, explicit feedback, and implicit feedback Ultimately, teachers were recognized as the primary source of feedback by both parties.
In the Vietnamese educational context, the topic of feedback on speaking errors has garnered interest among language teachers A study by Nguyen (2012) explored tenth-grade students' perceptions of teachers' error correction during oral activities at Do Son Boarding High School in Hai Phong Through questionnaires, classroom observations, and student interviews, the research revealed that most students recognized the benefits of addressing oral errors and generally held positive views on teachers' corrective practices However, the study suggested that asking students to assess their teachers' methods might exceed their comprehension, as they may not fully grasp the teachers' intentions or appreciate the value of such corrections in their learning process.
Recent studies have explored various aspects of feedback on speaking errors, focusing on teachers' feedback, preferences, and attitudes Different feedback strategies utilized in real teaching contexts have shown varied effects on student performance However, assessing the impact of these strategies over a short period or through limited class observations poses challenges Crucially, the effectiveness of teachers' feedback strategies from the students' perspective remains under-researched, highlighting a significant gap in language teaching practices.
This chapter provides a theoretical overview of communicative competencies, language learners' errors in second language acquisition (SLA), and the role of teacher feedback, which underpins the current study Extensive research has been conducted on feedback in both foreign and Vietnamese contexts However, there remains an ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of teachers' feedback from the students' perspective The following chapter will offer a comprehensive description of the methodology employed in this study.
Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY This part presents the settings of the study, research design, participants, data collection instruments of the study Especially, data collection and data analysis procedures would be demonstrated in detail
2.1 Settings of the study This study was conducted at People’s Police College I, which consists of about 3.400 students of eight main majors: administrative police (C1), traffic police (C2), criminal police (C3), economic police (C4) , anti-drug crime police (C5), environmental police (C6) , techical criminal police (C7) and communal administrative police (C8) English has been taught as a compulsory subject in PPC I since 2001 The current textbook chosen for the course here is Lifelines Pre-intermediate by Oxford University Press It includes 14 units with a variety of popular topics in everyday life Each unit is presented with four main parts: Grammar, Vocabulary and Reading, Listening and Speaking, and Extension English subject is divided into two terms: one is taught in the first year and the other in the second year After passing an English final exmination designed in multiple choice form, students at PPC I have to sit for an Toeic Test with an expected result at 381 points
2.2 Research design Survey research is one of the most commonly used descriptive methods in educational researches in general and in language teaching and learning researches in specific because it is easy to be planned and carried out by researchers and especially language teachers Moreover, what makes survey research popular among researchers is its various uses in research A survey research is used to
To effectively address raised questions and solve observed problems, it is essential to assess needs and goals, evaluate whether specific objectives have been achieved, and establish baselines for future comparisons Additionally, analyzing trends over time helps to describe existing conditions, including their quantity and context This comprehensive approach facilitates informed decision-making and strategic planning.
This study utilized survey research to investigate common speaking errors among second-year students at PPC I by examining four classes over a four-week period The research aimed to explore teachers’ beliefs about feedback and their classroom practices regarding its application Additionally, it assessed students’ attitudes toward the feedback they received on their speaking errors Survey research proved to be an effective method for this study due to its time-saving nature, accessibility of information, and the ease of generalizing findings.
2.3 Participants The participants are sixteen teachers at English Department, who range from 27 to 38 years old with at least three- year experience in teaching at PPC I and 256 second-year students in 4 classes observed, in which 38 students were given individual feedback in eight lessons
At PPC I, the English department comprises sixteen teachers, with a notable majority of fifteen being female and only one male Among them, seven hold a Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics, while two are currently working on their M.A thesis, and the remaining teachers possess a Bachelor’s degree in the same field Despite graduating from various universities across Vietnam, all teachers have undergone teacher training courses conducted by Hanoi University of Education, ensuring a solid foundation in teaching methodology The faculty is characterized by their dedication and enthusiasm for their profession, actively seeking to enhance their knowledge and engage in self-study This commitment not only improves their teaching quality but also aims to equip students with a strong level of English competence upon graduation.
The study involved second-year students from four different majors at the People’s Police College, specifically traffic police, economic police, administrative police, and criminal police classes This selection ensures that students possess foundational English knowledge acquired in their first year and are familiar with the college environment Notably, the student demographic is predominantly male, with only 1% female enrollment, and ages range from 18 to 30, as some students enter after years of service as policemen This age diversity contributes to varying levels of English proficiency, with many students having limited recent exposure to the language Given these characteristics, it is essential for teachers to adopt appropriate teaching methods to achieve effective learning outcomes.
2.4 Data collection instruments The present study was carried out as an action research with three instruments to be applied: (1) questionnaire for teachers and students, (2) semi- structured interviews with teachers, (3) and class observation
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Survey research is favored by researchers, particularly language teachers, due to its straightforward planning and execution Its popularity stems from its versatility and wide range of applications in various research contexts.
To effectively address raised questions and solve observed problems, it is essential to assess needs and goals while evaluating whether specific objectives have been achieved Establishing baselines allows for future comparisons, enabling the analysis of trends over time This process ultimately aims to describe existing conditions, including their quantity and context.
This study employed a survey research method to investigate the common speaking errors made by second-year students at PPC I, focusing on four classes over a four-week period The research aimed to explore teachers' beliefs about feedback and their classroom practices regarding its application Additionally, it examined students' attitudes towards the feedback received for their speaking errors The choice of survey research was particularly beneficial due to its time-saving capabilities, accessibility of information, and ease of generalization.
Participants
At PPC I, the English department consists of sixteen teachers, predominantly female, with fifteen women and one man Among them, seven hold a Master's degree in Applied Linguistics, while two are currently working on their M.A theses, and the remaining teachers possess a Bachelor's degree in the same field Despite graduating from various universities across Vietnam, all teachers have undergone teacher training courses at Hanoi University of Education, ensuring a solid foundation in teaching methodology The faculty is characterized by their dedication and enthusiasm for their profession, actively seeking to enhance their knowledge and engage in self-study This commitment not only improves their teaching quality but also ensures that students achieve a competent level of English upon graduation.
The study involved second-year students from four different majors at the People’s Police College: traffic police, economic police, administrative police, and criminal police This selection was made to ensure that the students had foundational English knowledge from their first year and were familiar with the college learning environment Notably, the college has a predominantly male student body, with only 1% female enrollment annually, and students' ages range from 18 to 30, as some enter after prior work experience in law enforcement Consequently, there is significant variability in their English proficiency, with many students having not engaged with the language for extended periods Given these characteristics, it is essential for teachers to implement appropriate teaching methods to achieve effective learning outcomes.
Data collection instruments
2.4.1 Questionnaire 2.4.1.1 Questionnaire for the teachers With the aim to answer the first two research questions of the study, a questionnaire for teachers was designed to find out students’ most frequent speaking errors and teachers’ beliefs and application of feedback strategies Prior to the present study, this questionnaire was applied to one teacher of English, also an MA student as part of a pilot study to detect and discard any possible misleading and unclear questions or misunderstandings Thanks to the pilot, absolutely right statements in teachers’ beliefs were changed and ambiguous options in teachers’ application of feedback were replaced The finalized questionnaire was completed with three main parts: part I with 3- item demographic information about teachers, part II with 6 statements about teachers’ beliefs about feedback strategies (ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” which were assigned numerical values ranging from 1 to 5, respectively) and part III with questions about students’ speaking errors and teachers’ application of feedback strategies towards these errors Specifically, the main part of the questionnaire – part III is divided into 6 themes: (1) students’ most frequent speaking errors (question 7); (2) errors that receive feedback from teachers (questions 8- 10); (3) the frequency of feedback (questions 11- 12); (4) the time of giving feedback (question 13-14); (5) the types of feeback (question 15) ; and (6) the person giving correction ( question 16) Among all the questions in part II and part III, question 7 is used to answer the first research question of the study and the questions 1- 6 and 8 -16 are used to answer the second question The form of questionnaires for teachers can be found in Appendix A
To address the final research question, the researcher developed a questionnaire aimed at assessing student satisfaction with teacher feedback on speaking errors Following each class observation, select students, including those who received individual feedback and five representatives from the entire class, were invited to complete the questionnaires There are two distinct types of questionnaires: one for students receiving individual feedback, which evaluates the teacher's feedback specifically for them, and another for those receiving whole-class feedback, which assesses the feedback's impact on the class as a whole Each questionnaire features ten close-ended questions and one open-ended question, focusing on aspects such as the necessity, frequency, type, and timing of feedback, all formatted on a 5-point Likert scale for ease of completion The open-ended question provides students with an opportunity to share their thoughts on teacher feedback more freely.
2.4.2 Semi-structured interviews with teachers The interviews would serve as reinforcement to the data previously collected in the questionnaires; hence, the interview would also help to answer the two first research questions in the study The main contents of the interviews are closely related to those in teacher questionnaire so that the researcher could make some points clearer In other words, each interview includes the questions of six main themes as follows: the students’ most frequent speaking errors that teachers observed in their classes, the frequency of teachers’ use of feeback, the criteria for choosing errors to give feedback, the types of feedback strategies for errors, the time of giving feedback and the selection of the corrector Each of the teachers interviewed were asked to give specific examples for their answers All the interviews were performed in English and lasted for approximately ten minutes each Though they were semi-structured interviews, the whole interaction between the researcher and the interviewees was strongly based on the six main themes To get the most information from the interviewees, the researcher prepared further questions for each main point The set of interview questions can be found in Appendix D
To investigate how teachers implement feedback strategies for addressing students' speaking errors, class observation was utilized as a key method This approach aims to provide valuable insights to answer the initial research questions Prior to the observations, a detailed class observation form was created to gather data from actual teaching sessions This form encompasses various elements, including class information, lesson details, types of errors, timing of feedback, feedback methods, and the individual responsible for corrections, which will help validate the data obtained from questionnaires and interviews.
Data collection and analysis procedures
The data were collected by the researcher during 4 weeks in July, 2014 The data collection procedures could be described as follows:
Step 1: The researcher asked for the Headmaster’s permission for conducting the study in the college
Step 2: The researcher chose ten students to collect recorded documents which were used for supporting the classification of speaking errors in Questionnaire for teachers To make the data more reliable, the selection of ten students was based on the final English marks in the previous semester Among them, two students have excelent marks ( >=8), three students have good marks ( >=7) , three have average marks ( >=5) and two have low marks (