INTRODUCTION
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall aim of this study is to investigate the use of OCF in speaking classes, including how teachers tend to provide feedback on students’ oral errors in speaking classes and the students’ perception of the OCF
In order to achieve this aim, the researcher tried to fulfil the following objectives:
1 To examine types of OCF usually given by teachers in speaking classes
2 To find out the perception of students toward the role of OCF
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to reach the above aims, the study sought to answers for the following research questions:
1 What types of OCF do the teachers usually give on students’ speaking in EFL speaking classrooms?
2 What are the students’ perceptions of OCF given by the teachers?
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Due to the limits of time, ability and availability of the data, this study narrows down only to discover the current practice of giving OCF in speaking lessons at Quy Nhon University and students’ perception of this practice The respondents of this study are limited to second-year English majors of the Foreign Languages Department; therefore, their opinions might not be representative of all students at Quy Nhon University in particular and all students learning English nationwide in general
While there have been numerous researchers carrying out studies on OCF, there are few studies taking student’s perception of this issue into consideration The research, thus, is conducted with the hope that its results will be useful for both EFL students and teachers Based on these findings, teachers can adjust their ways of providing feedback to make the learning and teaching process more effective As for students, the research is expected to raise awareness of the importance of teachers’ CF in enhancing learners’ language competence Acknowledging the role of OCF, students can make the most use of it in learning English Finally, this can help lay the foundations for other studies in the same field, especially in the context of EFL Vietnamese education
The thesis consists of five chapters: Introduction, Literature Review, Research Method, Results, Discussion and Conclusion
Chapter 1 provides the rationale for the study, the aim and objectives of the study and research questions, the scope of the study, the significance of the study, and the organization of the study
Chapter 2 begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research and looks at definitions of several key terms and important previous studies related to the current research, followed by an indication of the research gap that the present study aims to bridge
Chapter 3 describes the subjects, research instruments, employed methods, data collection procedures, and data analysis applied to conduct this study
Chapter 4 gives a detailed presentation and analysis of collected data to answer the research questions The qualitative analysis of the observation checklist addresses the first question on the teachers’ actual practice The quantitative analyses of the questionnaire and the qualitative analyses of the descriptive transcripts yields the evidence of the second question concerning students’ perception
Chapter 5 presents the summary of the findings and some pedagogical suggestions for the way teachers deliver OCF in classroom The limitations of the study and some recommendations for further research are also discussed in this part.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this chapter is to lay the theoretical background for the thesis by critically reviewing relevant authoritative studies This chapter starts by providing working definitions of the key terms and then major perspectives regarding the OCF are presented The following are description and illustration of some common OCF techniques Finally, the chapter reviews previous studies in relation to this thesis to define the research gap to be achieved
There is a plethora of thoughts regarding the definition of perception Perception is viewed as a sequence of actions involving awareness, organization, and analysis of input data As believed by Rao and Narayana (1998), perception refers to the process “whereby people select, organize, and interpret sensory stimulations” (p.329) Bodenhausen and Hugenberg (2009), based on social cognition, define perception as “essentially the interface between the outer and inner worlds” (p.2) McShane and Von Glinow (2010) clearly show that “perception is the process of receiving information about and making sense of the world around us” (p.68) Similarly, according to
Carbon (2014), perception is the process of using the senses to construct an internal model of the external world and then manipulating that internal model In essence, perception refers to a person’s interpretation and understanding of the real world shaped from information through the five physical senses
Learners’ perception is considered as important issue for both educators and learners themselves investigated by various language researchers.
LITERATURE REVIEW
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION
There is a plethora of thoughts regarding the definition of perception Perception is viewed as a sequence of actions involving awareness, organization, and analysis of input data As believed by Rao and Narayana (1998), perception refers to the process “whereby people select, organize, and interpret sensory stimulations” (p.329) Bodenhausen and Hugenberg (2009), based on social cognition, define perception as “essentially the interface between the outer and inner worlds” (p.2) McShane and Von Glinow (2010) clearly show that “perception is the process of receiving information about and making sense of the world around us” (p.68) Similarly, according to
Carbon (2014), perception is the process of using the senses to construct an internal model of the external world and then manipulating that internal model In essence, perception refers to a person’s interpretation and understanding of the real world shaped from information through the five physical senses
Learners’ perception is considered as important issue for both educators and learners themselves investigated by various language researchers
According Van Lier (1996), investigating learner’s perception regarding their own learning can help develop their strengths and improve their weaknesses in learning (as cited in Jacobs and Farrel, 2001, p.5) On the contrary, if learners hold erroneous beliefs, they may employ ineffective language learning strategies and fail to achieve success in their language learning As a consequence, acknowledging students’ perception of teaching and learning issues is necessary for educators to be able to support their students and refine their teaching practice.
LANGUAGE ERRORS
There have been a great amount of attempts in defining error in the field of language learning and teaching Hendrickson (1978) views error as “an utterance, form or structure that a particular language teacher deems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence in reading discourse” (as cited in Jamil, Majoka & Kamran, 2016, p 56) Chun et al
(1982), on the other hand, describe an error based on the user’s linguistic fluency They defined an error as “the use of a linguistic item in a way, which according to fluent users of the language indicated faulty or incomplete learning” (as cited in Lennon, 1991, p 182) A more flexible description of error is proposed by Lennon (1991), who includes the native speaker norm into the definition Under his view, error is “a linguistic form or combination of forms which in the same context and under similar conditions of production would, in all likelihood, not be produced by the speakers‟ native speakers counterparts” (p 182) Allwright and Bailey (1991), holding the same stance, consider an error as the production of a linguistic form which differs from the correct form
However, such a description of error on the basis of the linguistic fluency of its user or its native-speaker as a basic standard may present some problems According to James (1998), native-speaker's linguistic fluency cannot be taken as a measurement or standard criterion for error-free language Native speakers have proved very often not to speak or judge their mother tongue appropriately And that most English teachers are not native speakers of English
It is obvious that defining error is a complicated matter facing applied linguists, researchers and teachers As a result, Chaudron (1986b) concludes that “the determination of errors is clearly a difficult process that depends on the immediate context of the utterance in question as well as on an understanding of the content of the lesson, the intent of the teacher or student, and at times, the prior learning of the students” (as cited in Allwright and
Another point needed to clarify is the difference between error and mistake in order to avoid possible misunderstanding According to Ellis (Ellis, 1997), errors reflect gaps in learners’ knowledge They occur because the learner does not know what is correct Corder (1967) indicates the erroneous performance is a result of “memory lapses, physical states such as tiredness and psychological conditions such as strong emotion” (as cited in Hamilton,
2001, p 76) He claims that mistakes are not important to the language learning process and they can be self-corrected by the learners if attention is called Whereas, errors are hardly corrected by the learners themselves and it is therefore necessary for the teacher to help the learners reconstruct their defective knowledge of the language
All things considered, the researcher decided to adopt the error definition suggested by Hendrickson (1978) because it fits the purpose of the study, which discovers teachers’ use of OCF in response to students’ error When the teacher find the students’ language inappropriate, they may consider it as an error and provide OCF.
OVERVIEW OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Feedback is a widely used concept in the field of language teaching and learning The term “feedback” is defined in various ways by many scholars, each of whom has his or her own perspectives on it A broader perspective is adopted by Askew and Lodge (2000) who view feedback as “all dialogue to support learning in both formal and informal situations”(p 1) More specifically, Ramaprasad (1983) states that feedback is “information about the gap between the actual level and the reference level of a system parameter which is used to alter the gap in some way” (p 4) In the same vein, Hattie and Timperley (2007) term feedback as “information provided by an agent (e.g teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one‟s performance and understanding” (p 81) and its purpose is to reduce the discrepancy between current understandings and performance and a desired goal From the perspective of Ur (1996), feedback is viewed as the indication of how well or poorly learners performed Its main goal is to identify the potential areas where improvement could be made as well as to accelerate students’ learning
Despite the fact that there are a variety of definitions for the term feedback, what are common to all above definitions is that they concentrate on three main elements: the information content, the aim, and the provider of feedback The goal or intention of feedback is highlighted among them It is to modify students' thoughts or behavior for the purpose of enhancing not hampering their learning
Additionally, it is based on the responses from the part of the learners that feedback can be classified into: positive and negative Positive feedback occurs when teachers reward students for providing correct answers This can assist them in developing self-confidence Negative feedback, on the other hand, is used to assist learners in understanding what should be changed in an utterance or sentence to avoid an error
Different definitions of CF have been employed by researchers Sheen and Ellis (2011) stress that there is a basic difference to define CF That is to say, feedback is delivered whether the response is right or wrong, whereas CF entails the presence of error Chaudron (1988) defines CF as “any teacher behavior following an error that minimally attempts to inform the learner of the fact of error” (as cited in El Tatawy, 2002, p 1) Li (2010) suggests that
CF refers to “responses to a learners non-target-like L2 production” (p 309) Along the same line, Lightbrown and Spada defines CF as
Any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect This includes various responses that the learners receive When a language learner says, „she play the piano everyday‟, CF can be explicit, for example, „no, you should say goes, not go‟ or implicit „yes she plays the piano every day‟, and may or may not include metalinguistic information, for example, „Don‟t forget to make the verb agree with the subject ( p 171-172)
More recently, Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006) hold the view that CF is one form of negative feedback that aims to provide the learner who has committed a linguistic error with a corrective response They further indicated that: “the responses can consist of (a) an indication that an error has been committed, (b) provision of the correct target language form, or (c) meta- linguistic information about the nature of the error, or any combination of these” (p 340)
Apart from its varied definitions, there have been various terminologies used to define and operationalize “CF” The most popular ones are negative evidence, negative feedback and error correction These terms, according to Schachter (1991), can be used respectively and interchangeably by researchers
Considering the definitions of CF mentioned above, it can be deduced that CF refers to responses to learner utterances that contain an error in hope of helping them improve their accuracy In addition, CF can be classified as written CF which is a response to linguistic errors learners make in their written production and OCF which refers to comments on errors that occur in learners’ speech production In this study, only OCF is focused upon
Although CF is considered a significant aspect of L2 pedagogy, its role in L2 learning has spawned a controversial topic among many linguists, language educators and researchers From a theoretical perspective, those who support the nativist theory believe that language acquisition is made possible by Universal Grammar (Chomsky, 1975), “the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human language”
(as cited in Kim, 2004, p 2) According to this perspective, exposure to language data that could activate internal processing mechanisms or supportive evidence that merely instructs the learners on what is appropriate in the target language is necessary for language development In contrast, the role of negative evidence which provides learners with information of what is inappropriate in the L2 is downplayed because if learners have access to Universal Grammar, CF hardly played a role (Schwartz, 1993; White, 1991) Krashen (1982, 1985), in his Input Hypothesis, also opposes the role of CF in language learning Krashen (1982) suggests that the language acquisition of students happens through an unconscious process when learners are exposed to sufficiently rich comprehensible input Along this line of thought, he contends that any knowledge consciously learned through explicit instruction, including negative evidence, cannot have an influence on L2 acquisition Krashen also believes that CF is not only useless but also has a harmful effect because it interrupts the flow of discourse that could provide comprehensible input
Nonetheless, proponents of interactionist theory affirm that CF plays a beneficial and perhaps even crucial role in language acquisition Swain’s (1985, 1995) Output Hypothesis, for example, emphasizes that in addition to providing the learners with comprehensible input, comprehensible output also plays a significant role in L2 acquisition When learners produce the target language, they develop their interlanguage competence, and identify their errors in their interlanguage through inner feedback (self-psychological feedback and self-monitoring) and outside feedback known as CF Long (1996), in his Interaction Hypothesis, suggests that “negotiation of meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the native speaker or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” Negotiated interaction, therefore, draws learners’ attention to their non-target like production or problematic expressions The types and extent of disparities between the languages used by learners and those used by native speakers may cause learners to change their output From the perspective of those advocating Schmidt’s Noticing hypothesis (1995), CF encourages learners to recognize the disparity or mismatch between their interlanguage and the target language, which may lead to a future reconstruction of the grammar
CF has not only been an issue of controversy theoretically; language teaching methodologies have also differed considerably regarding their views on the role and usefulness of CF For example, under the extreme view of communicative language teaching, which emphasizes that teaching should be primarily meaning-focused and based on communicative language use In consequence, CF is deemed unnecessary By contrast, the significance of error correction has been emphasized by some other teaching strategies, including the cognitive code method and form-focused methods approaches According to cognitive theory, learning is the process of creating a mental image of a language through mental operations such as association, pattern recognition from instances, and generalizations (e.g., Ellis, 1994) CF, in this perspective, is critical because it assists learners in forming an accurate mental representation of the target language
Taking everything into account, it can be seen that the role CF plays in foreign language teaching and learning has remained controversial and variably treated at different times and by different teaching methodologies Therefore, the focus has altered based on the learning objectives, the educational and cultural background of a learner, and the teachers’ belief as well as the approach and teaching methodology utilized by the teacher
Different researchers have put forward various categorizations of CF However, the model suggested by Lyster and Ranta can be considered as the preeminent one Based on their descriptive study of teacher–student interaction in French immersion classrooms, Lyster and Ranta (1997) identified six different CF types, namely explicit correction, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition They are subsequently classified into two broad CF categories: reformulations and prompts (Ranta & Lyster, 2007) Reformulations include recasts and explicit correction, because both these moves provide learners with target reformulations of their inaccurate output Prompts include a variety of signals other than reformulations that push learners to self-repair (i.e.elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, and repetition)
Table 2.1 Classifications of OCF ( Ranta and Lyster, 2007)
Metalinguistic clue Clarification request Repetition a) Explicit correction
Explicit correction refers to “the explicit provision of the correct form” (Lyster and Ranta, 1997) In this type, a teacher clearly indicates that the students have just made errors in their utterances and supplies them with the correct forms of errors using such terms as "T'm sorry is wrong/ You should say / You shouldn't say / We don't say / We (can) say / Pay attention to / There is a mistake in "
Example 1: S: He go to school everyday
T: I‟m sorry, “go” is wrong You should say “goes”
Example 2: T: What time do you get up ?
T : Not in 7, at 7 You should say “I get up at 7” b) Recast
PREVIOUS STUDIES RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT STUDY
OCF is a research field that is gaining increasing prominence among instructors and researchers in the world The following section throws light on studies concerning OCF practice and students’ perception of OCF
2.4.1 St die on tea he ’ p a ti e of oral corrective feedback
A number of studies have been conducted to explore EFL teachers’ practices of providing OCF and achieved some results Lyster and Ranta (1997) conducted a study of CF and learner uptake in four immersion classrooms at the primary level They examined six CF types in terms of their frequency and distribution, as well as their effects on learner uptake Their findings revealed that the teachers had an overwhelming tendency (55%) to use recasts as the strategy for CF even though they show to be ineffective in eliciting student-generated repair (31%) They concluded that of the six feedback types, elicitation, repetition, clarification requests and metalinguistic feedback were more successful in evoking student-generated feedback
Ahangari & Amirzadeh (2011) offer an observational study that analyses 360 OCF moves provided by two EFL teachers to the learners at three levels of proficiency (elementary, intermediate and advanced) in an Iranian EFL classroom in a university setting Their findings revealed that teachers use a variety of OCF techniques in the different proficiency levels, but they vary in the distribution of their uses of those techniques and in different orders of frequency And that recast was the type of OCF used most often by the teachers at all three levels of proficiency Such findings are in line with that of Ha’s (2017) study which explores teachers’ beliefs and practices about OCF in English as a foreign language The results from interviews shows that these teachers highly appreciated the benefits of OCF, and they claimed to use prompts to address learners’ errors Contrary to these beliefs, the observation data indicates that within 14 hours of teaching, the teachers provided a total of 191 CF moves within 14 hours of teaching CF moves were provided in all 6 types, but recasts were the most frequently used Similarly, Lyster and Mori’s (2016) observational study of grade 4 and 5 revealed frequent employment of recasts over prompts and explicit correction by the teachers
Besides, Sawaluddin and Tajuddin (2017) fulfilled a study to discover the real practice of 4 language instructors in their language classrooms Based on the observed data, they come to a conclusion that the teachers frequently used explicit correction and recast in providing OCF and tended to vary their choice of OCF types to suit the students’ proficiency Additionally, Kırkgửz, Babanoğlu, and Ağỗam (2015) carried out a study of 36 teachers’ practices of giving OCF in primary classrooms in Turkey, where English is taught as a foreign language and a compulsory part of the national curriculum The results from questionnaire revealed that all types of CF were employed by teachers, but explicit correction was the most frequently used with 47.52% Meanwhile, recasts, the most frequently used in most previous studies, were only employed at 11% in this study
Overall, these studies, though shed light on teachers' practice and preference regarding the provision of OCF in classrooms, have paid little attention to students’ perception and preference Moreover, despite the tremendous amount of theoretical research that has been conducted in the field of investigating teachers’ practice a, there is limited research found implicating teachers’ actual implementation of OCF in the Vietnamese context
2.4.2 St die on t dent ’ perception of oral corrective feedback
OCF perception has attracted attention of educators and researchers in an attempt to improve the quality of teaching and learning Generally, the growing number of research on this area highlight students’ positive attitude toward the efficacy and necessity of OCF For instance, Katayama (2007) conducted a study to examine the perception of 586 students who had enrolled in 21 EFL classes at six universities located in three different cities in Japan Analyses of questionnaire data showed that 77.6% of the participants possessed favorable attitudes toward receiving error correction The main reason underlying these positive views was that learners wanted to improve their accuracy in English
Likewise, Muyashoha, A.B & Sugianto (2019) carried out a quantitative study on this topic with the participance of 64 students The study also reflected students’ optimistic perspectives toward OCF They were aware that OCF was useful for improving students’ speaking ability and to make more meaningful learning
Adopting mixed-method, Muslem, A et al (2017) carried out a study to discover students’ perception of OCF in speaking class of fourth-semester students in the department of English Language Education High percentage of the students were positive that OCF was an important way in improving students’ speaking ability They believed that OCF was very beneficial for enhancing their English proficiency In the same line, Calsiyao’s (2015) conducted a survey to examine the attitude of 365 students of Kalinga- Apayao State College toward CF in response to spoken errors The researcher employed the questionnaire as the main instrument to collect data This study revealed that students were consented to teachers’ provision of OCF Similar results were also achieved in studies of Schulz (1996) Azad and Kalam (2016) Ha et al (2021) The findings confirmed that the mindsets of these students highly appreciate the value of receiving CF on their oral errors
As research in L2 acquisition has shown the value of CF providing (Ellis, 2017), the crucial pedagogical concerns of how, when, who, and what to best correct in L2 classrooms merit more investigation (Ellis, 2017; Ha, 2017; Ha & Murray, 2020, 2021; Lyster et al., 2013) In a research with high- level graduate students in an EFL setting, Lee (2013) revealed that students evaluated explicit correction as the preferred CF type and metalinguistic feed- back as the least favored Roothooft and Breeze (2016) reported the finding of perception of 395 Spanish EFL students regarding the provision of OCF The study showed that students were in favor of explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback Kagimoto and Rodgers (2008) fulfilled a study examining perception of CF of 139 participants from two universities in southern Japan The results of questionnaires revealed that metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction were the most favored kinds of OCF, as well as the most beneficial Clarification requests and repetition were the least desired and thought to be the least beneficial Although the findings reflected students’ preferences towards different types of feedback and the extent to which they perceive them to be useful, the reasons underlying their preferences were not investigated
Involving 160 Iranian adult EFL learners (80 high anxiety and 80 low anxiety learners), Zhang and Rahimi's (2014) research reported that the learners strongly appreciated metalinguistic feedback and explicit corrections regardless of their anxiety levels In contrast, learners participating in Zhu and Wang's (2019) study within the Chinese tertiary EFL context preferred prompts (e.g., repetition and metalinguistic feedback) rather than explicit corrections
Concerning the context of teaching at Viet Nam, Huong’s (2020) research indicated that the students’ most favourite OCF turned out to be explicit correction Whereas, paralinguistic feedback was considered to be the least effective by these students
As can be seen from these studies that students' preferences for feedback types are influenced by the teaching and learning contexts However, little is known about students’ preferences for CF types in tertiary contexts in Vietnam
In the matter of timing of OCF, Davis (2003) found that 86% of the 97 under-graduate EFL students were consented that CF should be supplied as soon as possible to prevent bad habit from fossilization Brown (2009), in a large survey of 1,600 foreign language students in a US university, reported that his students showed moderate agreement that errors should be treated immediately By contrast, Zhang and Rahimi's (2014) study found that Iranian university EFL students favored immediate to delayed feedback In Park (2010), the appropriate timing for giving OCF that was highly favored by the students was after they completed their utterance Overall, this line of research indicates that students have a tendency of supporting immediate OCF over delayed one; however, more research is needed to acquire a more comprehensive knowledge of students’ opinions on feedback time
With respect to types of error to receive OCF, students in Zhang and Rahimi’s (2014) study expressed that errors that should be corrected the most were those hampering the effectiveness of communication, followed by frequent errors Similar results were obtained in Genc’s (2014) study which revealed that students wanted their serious spoken errors that affect listener’s comprehension to be corrected most frequently Similarly, in response to types of errors to receive correction, the students in Martin and Alvarez
Valdivia (2017) agreed that serious errors was a priority Whereas, advanced ESL students in Lee’s (2013) study expressed their preference for errors occurring frequently in the speaking to be treated Zhu and Wang’s (2019) students expressed their desire to receive OCF even when the errors they made were not serious It can be said that no consistent pattern can be inferred from the restricted literature, further study is required to reach significant conclusions regarding students’ preferences for error types
CHAPTER SUMMARY
In this chapter, a review of the literature has been carried out to build up the conceptual framework for the study The definitions of the key terms have been reviewed and different aspects of OCF have been addressed, including its role and its categorization Previous studies on teacher’s practice of giving OCF and students’ perception of OCF have also been reviewed to search for the gap in the literature that the study can partly fulfill In the next chapter, the research methodology will be presented to describe how the study was carried out to collect and analyze the data.
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
In order to garner sufficient data for the research questions, the current study was grounded in the mixed method design, which is “the combination of at least one qualitative and at least one quantitative component in a single research project or program” (Bergman, 2008, p 1) According to Creswell
(2012), the underlying assumption inspiring mixed methods research is that
“the uses of both quantitative and qualitative methods, in combination, provide a better understanding of the research problem and question than either method by itself” (p 535) This echoes the view of Johnson, et al
(2007) that mixed methods is “the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (p 123)
Greene et al (1989) highlight five important justifications for using a mixed methods approach The first reason is methods triangulation which enables the researcher to look for a convergence of the collected data to enhance the research findings’ validity The second reason is complementarity, which allows the researcher to elaborate and clarify the results from one method with the findings from the other method The third reason concerns development In this context, the results from one method are used to help develop the use of the other method The fourth rationale for using mixed methods is initiation Occasionally, the results of a study contradict previous studies’ findings so that new studies need to be conducted to clarify the contradiction Finally, the rationale for doing mixed methods research is expansion, which means the researcher seeks to extend the breadth and range of inquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components Because of the merits and rising acceptance of the mixed-methods approach, it is seen to be best suited for this study In addition, a descriptive analysis was employed simultaneously to analyze and interpret the data collected to sketch an overall picture of the distribution of language learning strategies in learning English language.
RESEARCH SETTING
This study was at the Department of Foreign Languages at Quy Nhon University With regard to English, students are training with two majors: English Language Teaching and English Linguistics Those who belong to the first group are supposed to become English teachers and those of the latter can work as interpreters, managers, and workers in domestic and foreign companies or factories The majority of students share the same background as they come from the central parts of Vietnam Most of the teachers of these classes had training for teaching profession in general and particularly for tertiary level The academic staff at this faculty is qualified and well trained The majority of them have fulfilled their Master degree in English Teaching Methodology and English Linguistics They are open-minded, enthusiastic and creative in their teaching practice
According to the university’s curriculum officially designed for English majors, there are five speaking courses that they have to complete to acquire good speaking skill To be more detailed, the course “Speaking 1” aims to help students mange simple conversations on familiar and routine matters such as Hometowns; Jobs; Studies; Hobbies, etc After that, they attended the course “Speaking 2” which is expected to enhance students’ ability to communicate effectively topics for A1-B2 level such as People, Vacation, Errands, etc In “Speaking 3”, students are equipped with necessary vocabulary, knowledge and skills to deal with real-life communication situations effectively and fluently In order to further enhance their speaking skill, students are then required to attend “Speaking 4”, which provides them with phonetics, essential grammars and vocabulary to discuss about requested topics of different aspects in our life such as Education; Environment; Technology; etc
After they had finished those four courses of speaking, students would attend the course “Speaking 5” This course seeks to equip students with vocabulary, structures and ideas to present their point of view or debate with others about topical and controversial topics Moreover, at the end of the course, students will know how to organize their ideas in a way that is more convincing
The current study was conducted in the first semester of the school year 2021-2022 with the focus was put on the course “Speaking 2”.
RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
Three English lecturers, two Vietnamese and one American, were recruited for this study At the time of this study, these teachers had three to ten years’ teaching experience in teaching English at tertiary level They are young teachers and always willing to adopt new changes; therefore, they are willing to be a part of this research The reason why the author chose them is that their schedules are different from each other and from mine They also differ in years of teaching experiences and gender; hence, the data collected can be somehow objective For their concerns of confidentiality reconfirmation and the mere research purpose, the three teachers got their ID numbers from T1 to T3
For the fulfillment of the research, the other target population consists of second-year students from English Language Teaching and English Linguistics Classes There are only 127 students participating in this study though the total number of students in three classes is 142 Among the surveyed students, 15 were randomly invited with their full agreement to take part in the follow-up interview under their ID numbers from S1 to S15 for the sake of confidentiality
The research is limited to sophomore English majors because of the following reasons First, such sophomores have reached a certain level of English after graduating from high schools To some extent, they have passed the entrance exam to university and have just taken their first steps in studying speaking skill as a separate subject in the previous semester; therefore, they are supposed to be familiar with the learning and teaching styles at Quy Nhon university What’s more, they still have to finish 3 more speaking courses, which means the findings of the study will provide teachers with practical and useful recommendations as soon as possible for better teaching and learning in the forthcoming years.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
In this study, data was gained through the employment of three research instruments, namely questionnaire, interview and classroom observation The combination of these instruments was believed to garner valid and reliable data Quantitative data was collected from a questionnaire whereas qualitative data was achieved from a classroom observation and a semi-structured interview
The researcher attempted to discover types of CF that were frequently given by the teacher in speaking lessons; therefore, classroom observation seemed to be an effective tool for data collection Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007), emphasize that “observational data are attractive as they afford the researcher the opportunity to gather „live‟ data from „live‟ situations” (p.305) As suggested by Mackey and Gass (2005), observations are useful for collecting large amounts of rich data on the participants’ behavior and actions within a specific setting Moreover, with the use of
“over time and repeated observation, the researcher can gain a deeper and more multilayered understanding of participants and their content” (Mackey
& Gass, 2005, p.176) In other words, classroom observation enables the researcher to gain thorough understanding into how the participants engaged in the classroom by providing direct evidence of the eye to witness events first hand
During the observation, the researcher objectively observed and did not interfere with interactions between teachers and students The researcher completed collecting data using the observation sheet which is composed of two parts: general information and tally sheet The general information contains information about the date of observation, instructor of the class, number of students, start time and finish time The second part is adapted from Nunan’s (1989) Classroom Observation Tally Sheet The tally sheet, which functions like a checklist, provides seven categories of feedback strategies (explicit correction, recast, classification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, and paralinguistic feedback) expected in the classroom along with detailed explanations for each (Appendix A)
Brown (2001) defines questionnaires as “any written instruments that present respondents with a series or statements to which they are to react either by writing out their answers or selecting from among existing answers”
(p.6) The researcher utilized questionnaires as one of her fundamental instruments to accomplish the research due to its usefulness Mackey and Grass (2005) suggest that one of the most popular ways to get information regarding attitudes, beliefs and opinions from a big number of participants is through questionnaire surveys It has been used to investigate various lines of inquiry in L2 research As indicated by Dửrnyei (2003), the wide application of questionnaires in data collection is because they are “easy to construct, extremely versatile, and uniquely capable of gathering a large amount of information quickly in a form that is readily processable” (p.1) Otherwise stated, questionnaires are efficient “in terms of (a) researcher time, (b), researcher effort, and (c), financial resources” (p 9)
However, there are some drawbacks that the researcher needs to be aware of when using questionnaires The researcher understands that questionnaires, like many other evaluation methods, happen after the event; therefore, respondents might not remember some important details The best way to fix this is the respondents are given enough time to think and recall events when answering the survey Besides, a questionnaire though mainly prepared based on related studies, however, it is possible that there are some points the respondents misinterpret or misread the questions (Low, 1999) and provide inaccurate answers To minimize the drawbacks, the researcher needs to use simple and understandable language in the survey Additionally, before officially distributing, the questionnaire should be piloted with some volunteer ideal participants to make sure that they understand it right
The questionnaire in this research is constructed based on the reference from other related studies ( Ha et al., 2021; Fukuda, 2004) The questionnaire consists of two main parts The first part concerned the participants’ demographic information including four questions In this survey, the participants were asked some questions about “gender”, “age”, “email address” as well as “year of learning English” The second included 27 Likert-scale items concerning students’ belief of various aspects of OCF in L2 classrooms Within the scope of the current study, items eliciting the students’ beliefs about (1) the role of OCF (Q5 – Q11), (2) timing of OCF (Q11 – Q17), (3) type of errors to be corrected (Q19 - Q23) and (4) types of OCF (Q24 - Q31) The questionnaire was then translated into Vietnamese to assist in eliciting needed information and to avoid any language barriers (Appendix B.1, B.2)
Apart from questionnaires, semi-structured interviews were also exploited as a data collection instrument for obtaining further information on the issues of the study Mackey and Grass (2005) indicate that interviews can
“investigate phenomena that are not directly observable, such as learners' self-reported perception or attitudes” and “elicit additional data if initial answers are vague, incomplete, off-topic or not specific enough” (Mackey &
Gass, 2005, p.176) In addition, the combination of the questionnaire and interview permits a degree of triangulation in the study (Richards & Schmidt,
2002) For that reason, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews so as to grasp more detailed and comprehensive information about students’ feelings, thoughts or opinions that may be undetected with the quantitative method The interview is designed in the form of a semi-structured interview
The author used this kind of interview to obtain qualitative data on students’ reasons for preferring certain types of OCF Semi-structured interview was chosen because it offers the interviewee greater flexibility, helps the interviewer control the direction of the interview but with much more leeway, allows for richer interactions and more personalized responses
Guiding questions for semi-structured interviews were developed based on identified issues developed from the quantitative data The interview started with the students’ general perception of the necessity of OCF for their English learning Secondly, they were requested to elaborate on their beliefs and preferences regarding feedback timing The students were then asked to comment on the type of error they want to receive feedback the most Next, they were given examples of 7 OCF types, namely explicit correction, recast, classification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, and paralinguistic feedback Once the participants were familiar with the OCF types, the researcher elicit their general views on and preferences for feedback types (Appendix C.1, Appendix C.2)
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
Concerning data collection, the initial stage was the classroom observation, which was undertaken over 17 speaking lessons of second year majors Three teachers from the Foreign Languages Department consented to being observed Prior to the formal data collection period, all of the teachers were informed about the purpose of the observations The researcher consulted the teachers before making decisions about which classes to observe to ensure that I was able to collect the relevant data During the observations, the researcher acted as a non-participant observer and took notes of the teacher’s instruction concerning types of CF which were employed by the teacher and the frequency of delivering each type Besides, the researcher used a voice recorder to record all the lessons in case of later reference After the observation was finished, the collected data were analyzed and grouped according to the previously mentioned classification including explicit correction, recast, classification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, and paralinguistic feedback For the purpose of the study, the part of the model describing the uptake by learners was left out, because the author wanted to see which techniques were used
Following this stage, students were asked to complete questionnaires to survey their viewpoints of teacher’s correction strategies After being developed, the questionnaire was piloted among a group of students to assure the research instrument is clear and valid If necessary, the format of the questionnaire was changed to be more suitable and simple for respondents The questionnaires were then distributed to the students in person with clear instruction and explanation to make sure the subjects would fully understand the contents of the questionnaire and that the researcher could collect necessary data and minimize the drawbacks The participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and the survey was anonymous.Then, they were given about 30 minutes to fill out the questionnaires Then the questionnaires were collected by the researcher
A week later, a follow-up interview was conducted with the aim of eliciting further information from students 15 students who participated in doing the questionnaire were randomly chosen for the interview Semi- structured interviews of fifteen to twenty minutes were administered in Vietnamese with each participant in an informal atmosphere to minimize their anxiety All of the interviews were conducted individually in a small meeting room or the staff room and were recorded using an audio recorder The interview started off with a short briefing stage where the interviewee talked about the purpose of the study During the interviews, the researcher asked for further clarification and elaboration when new directions arose, only if they were related to the main themes of the interview All students’ answers in the interviews were recorded and transcribed for later reference Also, note taking was implemented to get more reliable information.
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Regarding the analysis of the questionnaire, descriptive statistics were used to investigate the students’ beliefs about aspects of OCF with the support of SPSS software Interview and classroom observation data was analyzed thematically, thus effectively using “segmentation, categorization and relinking of data” to explore and interpret themes relevant to the research questions (Grbich, 2007, p 16) The four stages in the process of qualitative analysis involve coding for themes, looking for patterns, making interpretations of these patterns, and, finally, building theory (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005) As for processing the interviewing data, all the interviews with the students were transcribed Next, the researcher read the transcripts several times in order to become familiar with the content Thirdly, phrases and sentences which have similar meanings were classified into categories The codes were then revised and refined to develop broader themes The following themes were presented and discussed: (1) the OCF efficacy and necessity, (2) OCF timing, (3) error types to receive OCF and OCF types
The classroom observation data were also thematically analyzed using the same procedure described earlier The researcher started off by examining the classroom observation data and highlighted the instances of OCF used by teachers in the transcriptions Next, the conversational turns which contained OCF were analyzed based on their types and relevant codes were assigned The researcher then scrutinized the frequency of OCF types used in the classroom that she observed in the transcriptions and provided examples of the OCF excerpts as evidence.
RESEARCH RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
Before the findings are analyzed in details, the reliability of the questionnaire for students was measured using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951) for internal consistency Cronbach’s alphas coefficient for the questionnaire was 793, which is considered highly reliable, based on the guidelines provided by George and Mallery (2002) Additionally, all research tools were evaluated and adjusted before being used in the main study The research was also reliable and valid to the extent that the findings were triangulated by using multiple methods and data, including questionnaires, interviews and observations Specifically, the participants were asked to check the accuracy of the transcripts of the observations and interviews The participants’ confirmation of what they said is strong evidence of the plausibility and truthfulness of the information.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In every step, this research is ensured to be legal and ethic Prior to the conduction of this study, the researcher got advice and permission the Foreign Language Department at Quy Nhon University The EFL teachers and students took part in this research voluntarily That meant they had their own freedom to withdraw from the research whenever they wanted Students did not need to be afraid that their marks in class would be influenced when they stopped participating in this project Issue of confidentiality was also guaranteed The information gathered during this study was recorded in such a manner to ensure confidentiality of the subjects The researcher did not use participant’ information for any purposes outside of this project All the information was anonymous For data collection and analysis, data were recorded, coded, and reported without any manipulation or bias.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has described the methodology adopted to answer the research questions asked The combination of both quantitative and qualitative data was justified A detailed description of the research setting and participants were also mentioned The data collection instruments and procedures were presented in details Measures taken to enhance research reliability and validity were described In the following chapter, the findings from the data analysis will be presented and the results of the study will be discussed.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
FINDINGS
4.1.1 Tea he ’ uses of oral corrective feedback
This section is devoted to present the findings on the practice of OCF provision made by the three teachers Their actual practices were reported from 17 observed lessons: seven lessons of T1, four lessons of T2 and six lessons of T3 Because of the scope of the study, only the number of OCF moves and OCF types were the main concern of the observations
4.1.1.1 Number of observed oral corrective feedback moves
Table 4.1 presents the total number of feedback moves that was observed for each teacher Within more than 14 hours of classroom teaching (made up from 3 teachers x 17 lessons x 50 minutes), the total amount of OCF moves provided by the three teachers was 239
Table 4.1 Number of observed OCF moves
Average number of moves per lesson 19.43 13.75 8
It can be noted from Table 4.1, the number of OCF moves provided by individual teachers was varied strongly Among three teachers, T1 utilized OCF the most frequently with an average number of 19.43 moves per lesson, followed by T2 with 13.75 moves each lesson S3 was the one who provided the fewest OCF with just 8 moves per lesson
4.1.1.2 OCF strategies used by teachers in actual classrooms
The data of teachers’ OCF moves were categorized into seven different types of feedback strategies named repetition, explicit feedback, elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, recast, and paralinguistic signal (body language) The distribution of the CF types for each teacher is displayed in the table below
Table 4.2 Frequency of OCF types
Regarding the general distribution of OCF strategies in classes, it is clear that the dominant type of OCF provided by three lecturers was explicit feedback which accounted for 41.8% Recast was the second most popular type, accounting for 28.5% More than a fifth of OCF moves were provided in form of clarification request (16.7%) Whereas elicitation, metalinguistic feedback and repetition were less employed in response to students’ errors Elicitation made up 9.2%, followed by meta-linguistic feedback with 3.3% Repetition was ranked the least preferred types of OCF at a rate of 0.4% Especially, there was no application of paralinguistic feedback observed when the teachers dealt with the students’ erroneous performance
With respect to the individual preference regarding different types of OCF, it can be noticed that there was a slight similarity among the teachers
As for T3, the fact that over a half of her OCF moves were explicit feedback (52.7%) indicated a noticeable interest in providing students with correct forms of their errors along with a clear explanation Similar tendency was observed in the class of T1 who also provided the largest number of OCF in the form of explicit feedback (42.8%) Meanwhile, T2 opted for clarification request (52.7%) and explicit feedback just came as her third most preferred strategy (10.9%)
Some extracts taken from the collected data regarding each type of CF are presented below in order to demonstrate how the teacher provided the learners with different feedback types for certain erroneous utterances
S: It‟s next to the superfood You can take a bus there There‟s one very twenty minutes
T: There‟s one very? Very or Ever ?
In the example above, which includes repetition CF type, the teacher simply repeated the wrong utterance of the learner when the learner chose the wrong word “very” instead of “every” with raising intonation to indicate that there is something wrong with the production of the student
T: Well, college with /dʒ/ at the end
In the extract above, explicit correction feedback type, which is considered as the most frequently CF type, was given by the teacher by explicitly pointing out the pronunciation error and providing the target-like reformulation obviously The teacher attempts to show the students what is wrong, and enables them to raise awareness of the gap between interlanguage and the target-like structure
S: truthful (sounds like /ˈtrʌs fuːl/)
In this extract, an example of recast is seen The teacher repeated the student’s utterances with the correct pronunciation The teacher attempted to indicate what is wrong and make the students aware of their mistakes in an implicit way by providing the correct form
S: Boutique (sounds like /bɔː ˈtiːk/)
T No How can you pronounce the word? One more time
It can be said that the teacher gave elicitation type of CF for the student’s pronunciation error in the excerpt With this type of feedback, the teacher encouraged the learner to correct himself, and requested reformulation of ill-formed structure from the student by indicating that she was wrong and asking questions in order to lead her to reach the correct pronunciation
S: I often go to milk tea shop
S: I often go to milk tea shop
T: Write that in the check I didn‟t understand Put that in the check You often go to
S: milk tea (sounds like /melt/)
T: Put it in the chat so I can fully understand
This extract illustrates the provision of clarification request type of feedback In this example, the student makes a phonological error, and the teacher’s request indicated that the utterance has been ill-formed and reformulation is necessary, but does not explicitly state the type of the error and the location This CF type is closely concerned with the student’s production of modified output
S: Is there any chance the hometown?
T: Is there any chance the hometown It‟s not clear
S: Is there any chance is their life?
T : Is there any chance is their life ? What do you mean? You mean there‟s a life It should be a request
S: Is there any chance to earn her respect?
T: Is there any chance to earn her respect? Okay But is it a request?
It should be a request which is used to ask somebody to do something
This extract from the data shows an example of metalinguistic feedback The teacher did not overtly provide the correct form to learners, but he only commented about the erroneous utterance with an attempt to elicit information from the student
All things considered, the data collected from classroom observations revealed the total frequency of 239 instances of OCF which fell into five main types namely explicit feedback, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback and repetition Among types of OCF, explicit feedback was the dominant type employed by the teachers when responding to students’ error Recasting the learner’s ill-formed utterance is the second most preferred feedback method The other feedback types are distributed in decreasing frequency as follows: clarification request, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback and repetition
4.1.2 St dent ’ pe eption of oral corrective feedback
This section reports the findings on the students’ perception of OCF in the speaking classes investigated through the questionnaire comprising four clusters: the OCF efficacy and necessity, timing of OCF, types of errors to received OCF and types of OCF
The questionnaire data analysis results about the students' perception of OCF were summarized in Tables 4.3 to 4.6 Whenever relevant, interview data of the participants' perception were also presented and discussed
4.1.2.1 Students’ perception of the role of OCF
Students' perception of the necessity of OCF in the classrooms were examined via seven items, as indicated in Table 4.3
Table 4.3 St dent ’ pe eption of the ole of OCF
Q1 Teachers' OCF is important for students' English learning
Q2 Teachers' OCF helps students to consolidate their
Q3 If I make an error, I want my teacher to correct it 4.51 589
Q4 If I make an error when I am answering my teacher's question, I want my teacher to correct it
Q5 If I make an error when I am presenting something in English to the whole class, I want my teacher to correct it
Q6 If I make an error when I am talking in a group- work activity, I want my teacher to correct it
Q7 If I make an error related to the focus of the lesson, my teacher should correct it
DISCUSSION
With the intention of the frequency distribution of the different feedback types used by the teacher and student’s perception of their teachers’ practices, this study has yielded some significant results
4.2.1 Tea he ’ uses of oral corrective feedback
Related to the first research question aiming to investigate the most preferred type of OCF which teachers actually utilized in their classrooms, data collected from classroom observations revealed the total frequency of
239 instances of OCF It is worth noticing that the number of teacher’s OCF varies greatly among different lessons This finding can be explained by Choi and Li (2012), who state whether a mistake receives feedback or not may be controlled by whether the error happens in a focused or unfocused event or task Choi and Li notice that errors in focused events are more likely to receive feedback than those in unfocused activities Another possible explanation could be attributed to teacher difficulties in detecting errors and giving oral CF in unfocused spontaneous communication Errors in free communication activities with no clear language focus may be unpredictable
The total of 239 OCF fell into five main types namely explicit feedback, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback and repetition The various selections on types of OCF provided by the teachers indicated a good sign that the language teachers have knowledge on types of OCF and are well aware of the necessity to provide CF accordingly to the students’ proficiency However, among types of OCF, explicit feedback was found to be the most common way in response to students’ erroneous utterance, which accounted for over two-fifths of teachers’ moves Recasting the learner’s ill- formed utterances is the second most preferred feedback method The other feedback types are distributed in decreasing frequency as follows: clarification request, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback and repetition This finding is inconsistent with the findings obtained in other studies in the same field (e.g.Nhac, 2011; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Seedhouse, 1997) which confirmed the dominance of recast rather explicit feedback For example, Lyster and Ranta (1997) conduct a study in French immersion classes to identify the types of CF that emerged during classroom interactions Their study reveals an overwhelming tendency for teachers to employ recasts when dealing with students’ errors In the same way, Seedhouse (1997) reported that teachers were unwilling to inform learners directly Instead, they would prefer mitigated, indirect forms of correction such as recasts According to Lyster and Mori (2006), there was a predominant provision of recasts in various classroom settings; whereas, explicit feedback was rarely observed In the same vein, the investigation of
CF types in language classrooms by Nhac (2011) confirmed the prevalence of recast in treating learners’ errors
The discrepancies between the results of this study and others can be ascribed to factors like the instructional context Several studies (Seedhouse, 2004; van Lier, 1988) have investigated CF types across contexts and reported significant variation in how teachers respond to learners’ errors According to Seedhouse (2004), the kind of repair is determined by the aim of the lesson, which might be on either fluency or accuracy Sheen (2004) studied the CF types in four teaching contexts and reported variation in the types of CF used in the four contexts Supportive results from the study of Llinares and Lyster (2014) regarding the influence of context indicated that recasts, prompts, and explicit correction were used in similar proportions, with recast being the most frequent CF type and explicit correction being the least frequent type
Concerning the dominance of explicit feedback in this study, the clarity and comprehensibility can contribute to its frequent occurrence in speaking classes Other possible accounts are the particular concerns that the teachers have for students’ level of proficiency and the time restrictions imposed by the classes
On the basis of the current outcome, repetition, which also showed quite a low frequency, ranked the sixth The result shows congruence with the outcome of Lee’s (2013) study, suggesting that teachers employed repetition type of feedback less frequently than explicit correction, recast, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, and elicitation In the same vein, Yoshida’s (2010) study found that repetition was the least frequently employed CF The low occurrence might be explained by the fact that providing this form of feedback will be ineffective if the students cannot self-correct, such as beginner students who still lack linguistic competence (Allwright & Bailey, 1991)
It is interesting to find that paralinguistic feedback was not implemented by the teachers throughout the observed lessons The absence of paralinguistic feedback can be attributed to the ambiguity it causes to learner Another potential explanation is that the data was collected during COVID-19 pandemic As a result, all the observed lessons were conducted online, which causes the lack of person-to-person interactions That is to say, it is unlikely for teacher to use body language to react to students’ errors
4.2.2 St dent ’ pe eption of oral corrective feedback
The discussion about how students perceived the provision of CF is divided into four categories, namely the role of OCF, timing of OCF, types of errors to get feedback and types of OCF
As regards the students’ perception of the necessity of OCF, it was noticed that the majority of students had a favorable attitude toward the implementation of OCF They were aware that OCF helps them realize their errors and prevent them from getting fossilized Also, they all agreed that the use of OCF in speaking classes posts a positive effect on their speaking ability This finding corroborates with the results of previous researches which also reveal that learners have a clear tendency to express a preference for the provision of OCF over having their errors ignored Schulz (1996), for example, reported that 50% of the respondents in their study of ESL learners in the USA expressed concern that they did not receive enough CF Katayama (2007) reported that 77.6% of the respondents in their study of ESL learners were in favor of teachers’ OCF Likewise, Zhang and Rahimi (2014) found that notwithstanding their level of anxiety, the participants strongly approved to receive frequent CF in English speaking classes after they were informed of the purpose, importance and types of CF Similarly, Azad and Kalam (2016), who examined the perception of sixty-eight EFL undergraduates in a university in Bangladesh towards the use of OCF, reported that the students perceived OCF to be beneficial for learning English The authors also found out the students’ willingness to constantly receive CF regarding their errors during speaking classes In the same vein, Ha et al (2021), in their recent study investigating Vietnamese teachers' and students' beliefs, revealed that students highly valued the efficacy of feedback for their learning All in all, it is obvious that there is widespread consensus among language learners concerning the need for CF, which supports the view of Ellis (2009), who asserts that teachers should not be afraid to correct learners’ errors and CF should be offered both in accuracy and fluency work when such pedagogical intervention is required
As regards the perfect timing for OCF, the finding showed that there was a high approval for OCF which is given after the students finish speaking
As revealed by most of the students in the interviews, they were worried that their flow of communication would be interrupted if the CF is given immediately following the occurrence of speaking errors For them, right after finishing their utterance was the most appropriate timing for feedback as they still remembered their utterance and they did not have to come to the end of a lesson not knowing or using vocabulary or grammar incorrectly The students’ strong preference for OCF provided after they complete their utterance correlates with the finding of Zhang and Rahimi (2014) and Tomczyk (2013) When asked whether oral CF should be immediate or delayed, there is clear evidence that the majority of Iranian EFL learners in Zhang and Rahimi’s (2014) study and secondary EFL students in Tomczyk’ s (2013) study preferred delayed CF so that they finish their utterance without the interruption for correcting the occurred errors In the case of immediate correction, the students in Tomczyk’ s (2013) study were worried that it may affect their emotional state negatively Similar results were obtained in the study of Park (2010), who found out that a large number of ESL students at Northern California universities, regardless of their level of anxiety considered “after the activities” as the appropriate time for their errors to be treated However, such results were inconsistent with Davis (2003) and Brown (2009) These authors discovered that surveyed students preferred the instructor to provide CF immediately after the error has been made without concerning being disturbed while speaking
Another notable finding of the current study is the students’ favored types of errors to be treated Analyses of the students’ responses indicated that the seriousness and frequency of the error seemed to be two important factors for the students’ choice The students expected serious errors causing serious problem in communicating the meaning to always receive OCF The next type of errors perceived to be important by many students was frequent error Ranking in the 3 rd and 4 th place were less serious errors that do not affect listener’s understanding, and the individual errors made by only one student The least favored type of errors to be corrected was the one occurring infrequently Such findings are observed in Genc (2014), Zhang and Rahimi (2014), Abedi et al (2015) and Martin and Alvarez Valdivia (2017) These results have demonstrated that the students were aware of the essence of being understood by the listener without misinterpretation in order to keep the conversation going When it comes to explanation for such a preference, Zhang and Rahimi (2014) suggested that it may be due to “the nature of the oral communication course” they took part in as well as possible “confusion, disappointment and anxiety that resulted from errors causing oral communication breakdown” (Zhang & Rahimi, 2014, p.434)
In the matter of the students’ appraisal of different types of OCF, the current study shows a clear tendency for the students to highly appreciate explicit forms of OCF Explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback, which ranked number one and two in terms of perceived effectiveness, provided the most explicit types of feedback investigated In the same vein, Zhang and Rahimi (2014) found a very strong preference for explicit CF, especially explicit correction, among Iranian learners By the same token, Rassaei (2013), in his task-based study, concluded that the surveyed students show a positive attitude toward explicit correction due to its appropriateness to notice the target forms The results are somehow congruent with that of Kagimoto and Rodgers (2008), who indicated that metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction were the preferred types of OCF and also those perceived to be the most useful by 139 EFL Japanese students Similar to the findings of previous studies, our results also demonstrate that the students perceived explicit correction positively possibly because of its prominent feature which is comprehensibility Students’ favorable attitude toward explicit correction was endorsed by Ellis and Sheen (2006), who declared that explicit correction can be more helpful than recasts since it highlights the problem, raising students' awareness of the target language Lyster and Ranta (1997) further stated that detailed explanation along with correct form provided by the teacher will be advantageous for beginning to intermediate students who still have limited knowledge of the target language
What is notable in the current study findings is that paralinguistic signal was not chosen by the students as their favored OCF to respond to their ill- formed utterance This finding echoes the studies of Huong (2020) and Ha et al (2021), who found that students did not highly value the provision of paralinguistic feedback According to the students’ responses in the interviews, it can be explained that gestures or facial expressions may cause ambiguity for learners On one hand paralinguistic signal does provide a chance for the students to self-correct their errors, but on the other hand it might be confusing to identify their erroneous utterance as the teacher only signals the errors by using body language or facial expression instead of providing a cue.
SUMMARY
This chapter has presented and discussed the findings in relation to the literature on students’ beliefs and teachers’ practices about oral CF Firstly, in practice, these teachers provided 239 CF moves within more than 14 hours of teaching The study shows a strong tendency of teacher adopting explicit feedback in response to learners’ errors
Besides, it discussed the beliefs of the students about the benefits, types, linguistic targets, timing of OCF These students’ beliefs are, to a large extent, congruent with those reported in the literature, especially their beliefs about the possible positive effects of OCF However, with a small sample size, caution must be applied, as the findings might not be transferable to all patients It is also important to bear in mind the possible bias in the participants’ responses.
CONCLUSION
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
In general, this study provided several insights into the teachers’ practice of giving OCF and students’ perception regarding their teachers’ provisions of OCF in speaking classes In order to address research concerns, this study adopted mixed method design in which quantitative data were collected using questionnaires whereas qualitative data were gained through follow-up interviews and observations
With respect to the first research question concerning the real practices of proving OCF of teachers in speaking classes, the analyses of the observation checklists have brought to the surface many surprising findings Within more than 14 hours of classroom observations, three teachers provided the total amount of 239 OCF moves which fall into six types of CF: repetition, explicit feedback, elicitation, clarification request, meta-linguistic feedback and recast Of these OCF types, explicit feedback is the most frequently employed by the teacher, which accounted for over two-fifths of the total moves observed Recast was the second dominant type of OCF in the observed classes with the frequency of occurrence accounting for 28.5%, followed by clarification request (16.7%) Collectively, these techniques account for over 80% of all the OCF used by the teachers, leaving only 20% of the opportunity for the distribution of other corrective techniques The least frequently used types of OCF observed are metalinguistic and repetition Such results of the observation do not corroborate the findings of some previous studies One more interesting finding is that no teacher employed paralinguistic signal in their teaching
In response to the second question concerning the students’ perception of OCF practice, the study confirmed that the student advocated the importance of OCF in learning and believed that oral errors should be corrected most of the time to improve their accuracy and prevent incorrect language use form getting cemented Regarding the ideal timing for proving OCF, the majority of students favor their teacher to wait until they finish their utterance to give CF They expressed their concern for being interrupted while speaking and the likeliness of forgetting the errors if the teacher delays the correction for too long The study also yields another interesting finding concerning students’ preference for the target of OCF Generally, the students expressed a wish to be corrected even when the error are not serious However, serious errors causing problem in conveying the meaning and frequent errors were strongly preferred to be corrected With respect to students’ preferences for OCF types, the research has yielded varied but interesting findings Most of the students highly appreciated the effectiveness of explicit feedback because of its clarity and comprehensibility On the other hand, paralinguistic feedback was not found to be their preferred type because of the ambiguity it may cause to students to locate and correct themselves
Besides, a match between student preference and teacher practice is evident in this study In fact, the participants preferred OCF technique that not only shows the location of their error, but also provides an explanation Luckily, this technique was also frequently used by teachers A potential explanation for this congruence is because of the exam-oriented teaching and learning contexts, and the fact that accuracy when speaking is still the biggest concern of both teachers and students.
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND
From the above findings in students’ perception of OCF and teachers’ practices, there are numerous issues arising from the findings The current study, along with other related studies, emphasizes the necessity of providing OCF in foreign language teaching However, in order to deliver effective OCF, it would be a difficult and complex process involving many challenges and complexities As a result, the findings of this study suggest some implications for language teachers to adopt, adjust and adapt flexibly
The first pedagogical implication is that teachers’ practices should accommodate students’ perception and preferences As claimed by Ellis (2009):
“Teachers should ascertain their learners‟ attitudes towards CF, appraise them of the value of CF, and negotiate agreed goals for CF with them The goals are likely to vary according to the social and situational context” (p.14) In other words, the mismatch between teachers’ practice and students’ belief will be potentially harmful to the language learning process not only because students may become demotivated when their expectations are not satisfied, but also because teachers appear to be reluctant to provide OCF
Choosing the most effective type of correction method is another very complex task facing many EFL teachers Good teachers understand that one size does not fit all because each student differs well in terms of perception Therefore, teachers need to take a number of things into consideration, such as which kind of error it is, whether to correct it, if so when and how to address it effectively.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Although the study provided satisfactory answers to the research questions concerning the teachers’ practice of giving OCF and students’ perception toward their teachers’ provisions of OCF in speaking classes, it is still far from perfect and limitations are inevitable
The scope of the study is one of the limitations It fails to involve all lecturers and students in the Foreign Language Department due to time constraints and their unavailability The number of student and teacher participants was fairly small As a result, this study might not be generalized for all contexts of teaching English
Another shortcoming of the study is related to the time spent on classroom observations However, it is impossible to devote additional time to this activity because there is so much to cover in the course of conducting this thesis
Additionally, the fact that the observation data was collected during the Covid-19 outbreak also impose limitations on the research During this period, the university quickly adopted online teaching as an emergency measure to replace the traditional face-to-face teaching As a result, the teachers’ instructions, the interactions and the dynamics in the class were also changed significantly, which affected the teachers’ way of giving OCF
Last but not least, the study, thought reported the teacher practice of using OCF in speaking classes, failed to provide an insight into teachers’ beliefs underlying their practice of OCF because both the teachers and researcher were very busy and it would be difficult to handle such an amount of data.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK
Regarding the limitations of the study and the research line, this study is suggested to be taken as a preliminary effort for further research in the same field There are a number of matters regarding the provision of OCF that need further consideration and investigation
Firstly, further research could be done at other tertiary institutions as case studies or as integrative studies to reinforce this study’s findings and suggest more evidence-based recommendations that can be more confidently generalized
Secondly, the present research only considers students’ perception, and preferences as well as teachers’ practice of OCF Thus, there is a need for carrying out studies investigating the factors affecting students’ attitudes and teachers’ practice
This study also opens the door to further research into learners’ uptake, the efficiency of certain OCF strategies, and the relationship between other individual differences such as learning styles, motivation, and attitude toward feedback
Abedi, Z., Mahadavi, A., & Hassaskhah, J (2015) Iranian EFL learners’ preferred OCF: high anxious learners vs low anxious learners
International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 5(2),
Ahangari, S & Amirzadeh, S (2011) Exploring the teachers' use of spoken
CF in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K M (1991) Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers Cambridge:
Amrhein H.R., & Nassaji H (2010) Written CF: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied linguistics, 13,
Askew, S., & Lodge, C (2000) Gifts, ping pong and loops linking feedback and learning In S Askew (Ed), Feedback for learning (pp 1-17)
Azad, M., & Kalam, A (2016) Bangladeshi EFL Learners' Perception and Preferences for Oral CF ASA University Review, 10(2)
Bergman, M M (2008) Introduction: Whither mixed methods? In M M Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp 1-7) London:
Bodenhausen, G V., & Hugenberg, K (2009) Attention, perception, and social cognition In F Strack, & J Fửrster (Eds.), Social cognition: The basis of human interaction (pp 1-22) New York: Psychology Press
Brooks, D W., Schraw, G., & Crippen, K J (2005) Performance-related feedback: The hallmark of efficient instruction Journal of Chemical Education, 82(4), 641-644
Brown, A V (2009) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46-60 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x
Brown, J D (2001) Using surveys in language programs Cambridge:
Calsiyao, I S (2015) CF in classroom oral errors among Kalinga-Apayao State College students International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 3(1), 394-400
Carbon, C C (2014) Understanding human perception by human-made illusions Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(566), 1-6
Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q (2016) EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1-5
Choi, S., & Li, S (2012) CF and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom
Chomsky, N (1975) Reflections on Language New York, NY: Pantheon
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K (2007) Research methods in education London: Routledge
Creswell, J W (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.) Boston, MA:
Cronbach, L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests
Davis, A (2003) Teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding aspects of language learning Evaluation & Research in Education, 17(4), 207-222
Dửrnyei, Z (2003) Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications Language Learning, 53, 3–32 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.53222
El Tatawy , M (2002 ) CF in L2 acquisition Working papers in TESOL and
Ellis, R (1994) The study of L2 acquisition Oxford: Oxford University
Ellis, R (1997) L2 Acquisition Research and Language Teaching Oxford:
Ellis, R (2009) CF and Teacher Development L2 Journal, 1, 3-18 https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
Ellis, R (2017) Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far In H Nassaji & E Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in L2 teaching and learning (pp 3-18) Routledge
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G P (2005) Analysing learner language Oxford:
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y (2006) Re-examining the role of recasts in L2 acquisition Studies in L2 Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600 https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X
Ellis, R., Loewen, S & Erlam, R (2006) Implicit and explicit CF and the acquisition of L2 grammar Studies in L2 Acquisition, 28, 339–368
Evans, N W., Hartshorn, K J., & Allen Tuioti, E (2010) Written Corrective Feedback: The Practitioners’ Perspective International Journal of
English Studies, 10(2), 47–77 https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010
Fukuda, Y (2004) Treatment of spoken errors in Japanese high school oral communication classes MA thesis, California State University, San
Genc, Z S (2014) Correction spoken errors in English language teaching: Preferences of Turkish EFL learners at different proficiency levels
Education and Science, 39(174), 259-271 http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.1438
George, D and Mallery, P (2002) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple
Guide and Reference, 11.0 Update New York: Pearson Allyn and
Grbich, C (2007) Qualitative data analysis: An introduction London: SAGE Publications
Green, J M (1993) Student attitudes toward communicative and non- communicative activities: Do enjoyment and effectiveness go together ?
Greene, J C., Caracelli, V J., & Graham, W F (1989) Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274 https://doi.org/10.2307/1163620
Ha, X V (2017) Primary EFL teachers‟ oral corrective feedback in Vietnam: Beliefs and practices (Master of Research thesis) Macquarie
University, Sydney, Australia https://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au /vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:70822
Ha, X V., & Murray, J C (2020) Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers Advanced online publication
Language Teaching Research https://doi.org/10.1177%2F136216882
Ha, X V., & Murray, J C (2021) The impact of a professional development program on EFL teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback System, 96,
Ha, X V., Nguyen, L T., & Hung, B P (2021) OCF in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective Heliyon, 7(7), e07550 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550
Hamilton, R.P (2001) The Insignificance of Learners' Errors: A Philosophical Investigation of the Interlanguage Hypothesis Language
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H (2007) The power of feedback Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112
Hendrickson, J M (1978) Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398
Huong, L (2020) Matches and mismatches between EFL teachers’ and students’ preferences for corrective feedback in English speaking classes at a Vietnamese university VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 36(1), 142-
Jacobs, G M., & Farrell, T S (2001) Paradigm shift: Understanding and implementing change in L2 education http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej 17/a1.html
James, C (1998) Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis Harlow: Longman
Jamil, S., Majoka, M.I., & Kamran, U (2016) Analyzing Common Errors in
English Composition at Postgraduate Level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan)
Jean, G., & Simard D (2011) Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467-494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1944- 9720.2011.01143.x
Johnson, R B., Onwuegbuzie, A J., & Turner, L A (2007) Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133 https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Kagimoto, E., & Rodgers, M P H (2008) Students’ perception of CF In K Bradford Watts, T Muller, & M Swanson (Eds.), JALT2007 Conference Proceedings Tokyo: JALT
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S.M., & Sepehrinia, S (2015) Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers The
Katayama, A (2007) Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors Asian EFL journal, 9(4), 284-299 Conference
Kim, J.H (2004) Issues of CF in L2 acquisition Working Papers in TESOL
Kırkgửz, Y., Babanoğlu, M P., & Ağỗam, R (2015) Corrective Feedback in Primary EFL Classrooms in Turkey American International Journal of Social Science, 4(3), 90-101
Krashen, S D (1982) Principles and practices in L2 acquisition New
Krashen, S.D (1985) The input hypothesis: issues and implications New
Lee, E J E (2013) Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students System, 41(2), 217-230 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
Lennon, P (1991) Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 180-196
Li, S (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta
Llinares, A & Lyster, R (2014) The influence of context on patterns of CF and learner uptake: a comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms
Loewen, S., & Philp, J (2006) Recasts in the Adult English L2 Classroom: Characteristics, Explicitness, and Effectiveness The Modern Language
Journal, 90(4), 536–556 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4127042
Long, M H (1996) The role of linguistic environment in L2 acquisition
In W Ritchie & T Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of L2 acquisition (pp 413- 468) San Diego: Academic Press
Low, G (1999) What respondents do with questionnaires: Accounting for incongruity and fluidity Applied Linguistics, 20, 503-533
Lyster, R., & Mori, H (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance Studies in L2 Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300 (2006)
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L (1997) CF and learner uptake Studies in L2 Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M (2013) Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40 https://doi.org/10.1017 /S0261444812000365
Mackey, A., & Gass, S M (2005) L2 research: Methodology and design
Mason, B J., & Bruning, R (2000) Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us [Online] Available: http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html (July 15, 2005)
Martin, S., Alvarez Valdivia, I.M (2017) Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks Int J Educ Technol High
McCargar, D F (1993) Teacher and student role expectations: Cross-cultural differences and implications The Modern Language Journal, 77, 192-
Mcshane, S., & Von Glinow, M A (2010) Organizational Behaviour: emerging knowledge and practice for the real world (5 th ed.)
Méndez, H.E., & Cruz, R.M (2012) Teachers’ perception about OCF and their practice in EFL classroom Profile Issues in Teachers‟ Professional
Mpho, O (2018) Teacher centered dominated approaches: Their implications for today’s inclusive classrooms International Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 10(2), 11-21
Muslem, A., Zulfikar, T., Astila, I., Usman, B., & Syamaun, A (2017) Lecturerrs’ oral corrective feedback in speaking class: Students’ perceptions Proceedings of AICS-Social Sciences, 643
Muyashoha, A B., & Sugianto, A (2019) The students’ perception towards oral corrective feedback in speaking class Proceedings of International Conference on English Language Teaching, 3(1), 1–8 http://e- proceedings.IAINPalangkaraya.ac.id/index.php/INACELT/article/view/79
Nhac, T.H (2011) CF and uptake patterns in English university speaking lesson Unpublished thesis Hanoi: Vietnam National University
Nunan, D (1989) Designing Tasks for The Communicative Classroom
Oladejo, J A (1993) Error Correction in ESL: Learner’s Preferences TESL
Canada Journal, 10(2), 71–89 https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v10i2.619
Park, G (2010) Preference of CF Approaches Perceived by Native English Teachers and Students The Journal Of Asia TEFL, 7(4), 29-52
Phuket, P.R., & Othman, N.B (2015) Understanding EFL Students' Errors in Writing Journal of Education and Practice, 6, 99-106
Plonsky, L., & Mills, S.V (2006) An Exploratory Study of Differing Perceptions of Error Correction between a Teacher and Students: Bridging the Gap Applied Language Learning, 16, 55-74
Ramaprasad, A (1983) On the definition of feedback Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4-13 https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103
Ranta, L & R Lyster (2007) A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence In R DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a L2: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology Cambridge: Cambridge
Rao, V S P & Narayana P S (1998) Organisation theory and behaviour
(2nd ed.) New Delhi, India: Konark Publishing Company
Rassaei, E (2013) CF, learners’ perception, and L2 development System, 41, 472-483
Richards, J C & Schmidt, R (Eds.) (2002) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (3rd ed.) New York:
Roothooft, H & Breeze, R (2016) A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335 https://doi.org /10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580
Sawaluddin, S., & Tajuddin, A.J (2017) Oral Corrective Feedback: Teacher’s Selection in Actual Practices The International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7, 377-390
Schachter, J (1991) CF in historical perspective L2 Research, 7, 89-102
Schmidt, R (1995) Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning In R, Schmidt (Ed.),
Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp 1-63)
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press
Schulz, R A (1996) Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students' and teachers' views on error correction and the role of grammar Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364
Schulz, R A (2001) Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA–Colombia The Modern Language Journal, 85, 244-258
Schwartz, R M (1993) The idea of balance and integrative psychotherapy Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 3(2), 159–181 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101186
Seedhouse, P (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective Language Learning,
Seedhouse, P (1997) Combining form and meaning ELT
Sheen, Y (2004) CF and Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms across Instructional Settings Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300 https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R (2011) CF in language teaching In E Hinkle (Ed.),
Handbook of research in L2 teaching and learning (Vol 2, pp 593-610)
Swain, M (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development In
S M Gass & C Madden (Eds.), Input in L2 acquisition (pp 235-253)
Swain, M (1995) Three functions of output in L2 learning In G Cook &
B Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honour of H.G Widdowson (pp 125-144) Oxford: Oxford
Tomczyk, E (2013) Perception of Oral Errors and Their CF: Teachers vs Students Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4, 924-931
Touchie, Hanna Y 1986 L2 learning errors: Their types, causes, and treatment JALT Journal, 8(1), 75–80
Ur, P (1996) A course in language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press van Lier, L (1988) The classroom and the language learner London:
White, L (1991) Adverb placement in L2 acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom L2 Research, 7, 133–
Yoshida, R (2008) Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of CF types
Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93 http://dx.doi org/10.2167/la429
Yoshida, R (2010) How do teachers and learners perceive CF in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94(2),
Yule, G (2010) The Study of Language (4 th ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Zhang, L J., & Rahimi, M (2014) EFL learner’s anxiety level and their beliefs about CF in oral communication classes System, 42, 429–4
Zhu, Y., & Wang, B (2019) Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback at Chinese universities: a large-scale survey Language Awareness, 28(2), 1-29
CL SSROOM OBSERV TION SHEET ON TE CHERS’ OR L
Observer: Nguyễn Thị Hoài An Instructor:
1 Repetition: The teacher emphasizes the student’s grammatical error by changing his/her tone of voice
2 Explicit feedback: The teacher gives the correct form to the student with a grammatical explanation
3 Elicitation: The teacher asks the student to correct and complete the sentence
4 Clarification request: The teacher does not give corrective feedback on the student’s errors
5 Metalinguistic feedback: The teacher gives a hint or a clue without specifically pointing out the mistake
6 Recast: The teacher repeats thestudent’s utterance in the correct form without pointing out the student’s error
7 Paralinguistic signal: Teacher rises eyebrows to tell that the student has made error and is expected to self-correct
No St dent ’ e o and tea he ’ e pon e
Types of oral corrective feedback
APPENDIX B.1 THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is designed for my M.A thesis entitled: " Oral corrective feedback used in speaking classes in Quy Nhon University " Your response will be of great importance to my research It is highly appreciated if you could spend your time completing truthfully the questionnaire The information received in this questionnaire will remain confidential and be used for the research only
Thank you for your cooperation !
4 How long have you been learning English?
B PLEASE TICK THE INFORMATION THAT APPLIES TO YOU MAKE SURE TO MARK ONLY ONE
What is your opinion of oral corrective feedback ?
S tr on gly Agr ee Agr ee Ne u tr al Disagr ee S tr on gly Disagr ee
5 Teachers' corrective feedback (teachers' response to students' spoken errors) is important for students' English learning
6 Teachers' corrective feedback helps students to consolidate their English
S tr on gly Agr ee Agr ee Ne u tr al Disagr ee S tr on gly Disagr ee speaking
7 If I make an error, I want my teacher to correct it
8 If I make an error when I am answering my teacher's question, I want my teacher to correct it
9 If I make an error when I am presenting something in English to the whole class, I want my teacher to correct it
10 If I make an error when I am talking in a group-work activity, I want my teacher to correct it
11 If I make an error related to the focus of the lesson, my teacher should correct it
When do you want your spoken errors to be treated?
S tr on gly Agr ee Agr ee Ne u tr al Disagr ee S tr on gly Disagr ee
12 I want my teacher to correct me as soon as I make an errror
13 My teacher should wait and correct my error after I have finished speaking
14 My teacher should note my error down or remember it then correct it in front of the class at the end of the lesson
15 My teacher should wait until the end of the activity that I am involved in to correct my error
S tr on gly Agr ee Agr ee Ne u tr al Disagr ee S tr on gly Disagr ee
16 If I make an error which can interfere with my teacher's or peers' understanding, my teacher should correct it immediately
17 If I make an error related to the grammar focus or the new vocabulary of the lesson, my teacher should correct it immediately
18 If I make an error which is NOT important, my teacher should leave it and correct it later
How often do you want each of the following types of errors to receive corrective feedback?
Alwa ys (100% ) Usua ll y (80% ) S ometim es (50% ) Oc ca sionall y (20% ) Ne ve r (0% )
19 Serious spoken errors that may cause problems in a listener’s understanding
20 Less serious spoken errors that do not affect a listener’s understanding
23 My individual errors (i.e., errors that other students may not make.)
How would you rate each type of oral corrective feedback according to it effectiveness?
Teacher : Where did you go last week ?
Student : I go to the park
Ve ry e ff ec tive E ff ec tiv e Ne u tr al Not ve ry eff ec tive In eff ec tive
24 The teacher does not give corrective feedback on the student’s errors
25 Repetition: The teacher emphasizes the student’s grammatical error by changing his/her tone of voice e.g I go ?
26 Explicit feedback: The teacher gives the correct form to the student with a grammatical explanation e.g “Go” is in the present tense You need to use the past tense “went” here
27 Elicitation: The teacher asks the student to correct and complete the sentence e.g Yesterday, I ……
28 Clarification request: The teacher asks the student to repeat the utterance e.g Could you say that again?
Ve ry e ff ec tive E ff ec tiv e Ne u tr al Not ve ry eff ec tive In eff ec tive
29 Metaliguistic feedback: The teacher gives a hint or a clue without specifically pointing out the error e.g How does the verb change when we talk about the past ?
30 Recast: The teacher repeats the student’s utterance in the correct form without pointing out the student’s error e.g I went to the park
31 Paralinguistic signal: Teacher rises eyebrows to tell that the student has made error and is expected to self-correct
Thank you for your cooperation !
APPENDIX B.2 THE VIETNAMESE VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Phiếu khảo sát này được thiết kế nhằm lấy ý kiến của sinh viên khoa Ngoại ngữ tại Trường Đại học Quy Nhơn về phản hồi chữa lỗi trong lớp học nói tiếng Anh Để nghiên cứu này thành công, các em vui lòng giúp cô trả lời tất cả các câu hỏi dưới đây một cách chân thật nhất Cô đảm bảo rằng thông tin cá nhân của các em sẽ được bảo mật
Cảm ơn các em rất nhiều !
4 Em đã học tiếng Anh bao lâu rồi Ít hơn 10 năm
B HÃY ĐÁNH DẤU VÀO Ô THÍCH HỢP
Nhận thức của học sinh về việ đƣa a phản hồi chữa lỗi của giáo viên
Hoàn toàn đồng ý Đồng ý Trung lập Không đồng ý
5 Phản hồi chữa lỗi của giáo viên (GV) quan trọng đối với việc học tiếng Anh của học sinh (HS)
6 Phản hồi chữa lỗi của GV giúp HS củng cố việc nói tiếng Anh
7 Nếu em mắc lỗi, em muốn GV sửa lỗi đó
Hoàn toàn đồng ý Đồng ý Trung lập Không đồng ý
8 Nếu em mắc lỗi khi đang trả lời câu hỏi của GV, em muốn giáo viên sửa lỗi đó
9 Nếu em mắc lỗi khi đang trình bày gì đó bằng tiếng Anh trước cả lớp, em muốn
10 Nếu em mắc lỗi khi đang tham gia hoạt động nói theo nhóm, em muốn GV sửa lỗi đó
11 Nếu em mắc lỗi liên quan tới trọng tâm của bài học, em muốn GV sửa lỗi đó
Theo em, giáo viên nên chữa lỗi vào thời điểm nào trong giờ học?
Hoàn toàn đồng ý Đồng ý Trung lập
12 Em muốn GV sửa lỗi ngay khi em mắc lỗi
13 GV nên chờ sau khi em hoàn thành phần nói của mình rồi mới sửa lỗi
14 GV nên ghi chép lại lỗi của em, và sửa nó vào cuối buổi học ở trước lớp
15 GV nên đợi đến khi hoạt động nói mà em tham gia kết thúc rồi mới sửa lỗi
16 Nếu em mắc lỗi mà lỗi đó gây khó hiểu cho GV hoặc các bạn HS khác, thì GV nên sửa lỗi đó ngay lập tức
17 Nếu em mắc lỗi liên quan tới trọng
Hoàn toàn đồng ý Đồng ý Trung lập
Hoàn toàn không đồng ý tâm ngữ pháp hoặc từ mới của bài, GV nên sửa lỗi đó ngay lập tức
18 Nếu em mắc lỗi không quan trọng,
GV nên bỏ qua và sửa sau
Mứ độ thường xuyên em muốn nhận phản hồi chữa lỗi cho những lỗi a đâ ?
L u ôn l u ôn (100% ) T h ƣ ờn g xu yê n (80% ) Đôi khi (50% ) Th ỉn h tho ảng (20% ) Kh ôn g b ao gi ờ (0%)
19 Những lỗi nghiêm trọng, gây ảnh hưởng tới sự hiểu của người nghe
20 Những lỗi ít nghiêm trọng, không ảnh hưởng tới sự hiểu của người nghe
22 Những lỗi không thường xuyên
23 Những lỗi cá nhân (lỗi mà các
HS khác có thể không mắc phải.)
Em đánh giá thế nào về tính hiệu quả của các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi sau
GV : Where did you go last week ?
HS : I go to the park ( lỗi sai: dùng sai thì của động từ
Rất hiệu quả Hiệu quả
24 GV không đưa ra phản hồi chữa lỗi
25 GV nhắc lại lỗi của HS nhưng lên giọng để HS chú ý đến lỗi đó
26 GV đưa ra đáp án đúng và giải thích cụ thể
Ví dụ: “Go” is in the present tense
You need to use the past tense “went” here
27 GV nhắc lại lời nói của HS nhưng đến chỗ sai thì dừng lại để HS nhận ra lỗi sai và tự chữa
28 GV yêu cầu HS nhắc lại lời nói
Ví dụ: Could you say that again?
29 GV chỉ đưa ra gợi ý để giúp học sinh tự sửa lỗi
Ví dụ: How does the verb change when
Rất hiệu quả Hiệu quả
Không hiệu quả we talk about the past ?
30 GV không chỉ ra lỗi sai mà nhắc lại lời nói của HS nhưng ở dạng đúng
Ví dụ: I went to the park
31 GV dùng cử chỉ, điệu bộ để gợi ý
HS nhận ra lỗi sai ( ví dụ: cau mày, lắc đầu, đặt tay sau vành tai ra hiệu chưa nghe rõ…)
Xin chân thành cảm ơn ự giúp đỡ của em !
APPENDIX C.1 ENGLISH VERSION OF THE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1 Do you think teachers’ oral corrective feedback on students’ errors is important?
2 When do you want your teacher to correct you? (as soon as the error is made; after finishing speaking; after the activity; after the lesson) Why ?
3 Among the following types of errors, which type do you want to receive corrective feedback the most ? Why ?
(1) Serious spoken errors that may affect listeners‟ understanding
(2) Less serious spoken errors that do not affect listeners‟ understanding (3) Frequent spoken errors
4 Among the following common oral corrective feedback types, in general, what is the most effective oral corrective feedback type? Why? What oral corrective feedback type is not effective, why not?
(1) Explicit correction (e.g., no, not „go‟, say „went‟);
(2 )Recasts (e.g., I went/ I went to the train station yesterday);
(4 ) Clarification requests (e.g., what/ what did you say/ can you say it again?);
(6) Metalinguistic comments (e.g., you need the past tense here);
(7) Non-verbal cues (e.g., body language, gestures, facial expressions)
APPENDIX C.2 VIETNAMESE VERSION OF THE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1 Theo anh/chị, việc giáo viên đưa ra phản hồi khi học sinh mắc lỗi có cần thiết hay không ? Tại sao ?
2 Theo anh/ chị, khi nào là thời điểm thích hợp để giáo viên chữa lỗi ? (ngay sau khi mắc lỗi, sau khi nói xong, sau hoạt động nói, cuối buổi học)
3 Theo anh/chị , trong những loại lỗi sau, loại nào cần nhận được phản hồi lỗi của giáo viên nhất ? Tại sao ?
(1) Những lỗi nói nghiêm trọng ảnh hưởng tới việc hiểu của người nghe (2) Những lỗi nói ít nghiêm trọng không ảnh
(3) Những lỗi mắc thường xuyên
(4) Những lỗi ít khi mắc phải
(5) Những lỗi chỉ mình anh/chị mắc phải
4 Theo anh/chị , trong những loại phản hồi lỗi dưới đây, loại nào hiệu quả nhất ? Tại sao ? Loại nào ít hiệu quả nhất ? Tại sao ?
GV nhắc lại lỗi của HS nhưng lên giọng để HS chú ý đến lỗi đó
GV đưa ra đáp án đúng và giải thích cụ thể
Ví dụ: “Go” is in the present tense You need to use the past tense
GV nhắc lại lời nói của HS nhưng đến chỗ sai thì dừng lại để HS nhận ra lỗi sai và tự chữa
GV yêu cầu HS nhắc lại lời nói
Ví dụ: Could you say that again?
GV chỉ đưa ra gợi ý để giúp học sinh tự sửa lỗi
Ví dụ: How does the verb change when we talk about the past ?
GV không chỉ ra lỗi sai mà nhắc lại lời nói của HS nhưng ở dạng đúng
Ví dụ: I went to the park
GV dùng cử chỉ, điệu bộ để gợi ý HS nhận ra lỗi sai ( ví dụ: cau mày, lắc đầu, đặt tay sau vành tai ra hiệu chưa nghe rõ…)
APPENDIX D TRANSCRIPTION OF AN INTERVIEW
I: Do you think teachers‟ oral corrective feedback on students‟errors is important ?
S: In my opinion, oral corrective feedback is really necessary for our learning Because in the process of learning new language, we can make a lot of mistakes without recognising them so teachers giving feedback will help learners easily find out the errors and correct it immediately to improve our English
I: When do you want your teacher to correct you? As soon as the error is made; after finishing speaking; after the activity or after the lesson ?
S: I think that after I finish is the most suitable timing for my teacher to giev feedback on my error
I: Why do you think this is the most suitable timing ?
S: Because giving feedback after finish speaking will let me focus more on finishing my performance and get ready to receive feedback later I think if my teacher waits until the end of the activity or after the lesson, it will be difficult to recall mistakes while receiving the feedback
I: Among these following types of errors, which type do you want teacher to correct the most and why ?
(6) Serious spoken errors that may affect listeners‟ understanding
(7) Less serious spoken errors that do not affect listeners‟ understanding (8) Frequent spoken errors
S: I think serious spoken errors that may affect listeners’ understanding are needed to be corrected by the teacher Because the most important requirement of learning speaking is that the student can express what they mean If the listeners don’t understand what I say, I will be nervous and disappointed in myself
I: There are some example of teachers‟ oral corrective feedback Please read carefully and tell me what is the most effective oral corrective feedback type ? Why?
(1) Explicit correction (e.g., no, not „go‟, say „went‟);
(2 )Recasts (e.g., I went/ I went to the train station yesterday);
(4 ) Clarification requests (e.g., what/ what did you say/ can you say it again?);
(6) Metalinguistic comments (e.g., you need the past tense here);
(7) Non-verbal cues (e.g., body language, gestures, facial expressions)
S: I would choose explict feedback as the most effective type because it helps me recognize and fix my error immediately There are many students in my class, if we all have to correct error ourselves, it will take us a lot of time to brainstorm As a result, there won’t be enough time for other speaking activities
I: What type of oral corrective feedback do you think to be the least effective?