ABSTRACT Oral corrective feedback OCF is pivotal in fostering language learners’ speaking skill; however, prior research in the Vietnamese context has often addressed OCF types broadly,
INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
Since language errors are a normal part of learning, they will inevitably happen during the language learning process (Hendrickson, 1978), and learners are intended to receive error correction or corrective feedback when they make errors Corrective Feedback (CF), according to Ellis (2009), is a type of negative feedback that contains a response to a language learner’s incorrect utterance Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) is one of the two subsets of CF, with the other being written corrective feedback, and refers to CF that targets learners’ spoken errors (Li, 2013) Oral errors refer to mistakes or inaccuracies emerging during the production of spoken language (Ellis, 2009) According to Tatawy (2002, as cited in Rizi & Ketabi, 2015), scholars and researchers have widely agreed throughout the past few decades that CF plays a significant role in both oral and written form OCF has been shown to be helpful in language learning by Ellis (2009), and both oral and written CF can offer learners scaffolding to encourage ongoing language development (Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013) Other researchers (Lyster & Ranta,
1997; Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006) propose that OCF may promote language acquisition by highlighting errors and encouraging learners’ self-correction OCF is widely regarded as an important component of language learning by both learners and teachers (Alamri & Fawzi, 2016; Bui, 2012; Ha, Murray & Riazi, 2021b), and specific research has found a link between students’ attitudes toward OCF and their motivation to speak more (Bouaziz & Bechoua, 2020) However, the efficacy of OCF has also been questioned as it does not always lead to improved language performance (Chu, 2011; Sheen, 2004), while individual variables such as proficiency level, gender, motivation, and extraversion can also factor in the impact of OCF (Ha et al., 2021; Yuksel, Soruỗ & McKinley, 2021)
There have been numerous studies looking at various aspects of OCF up to this point Many of them (Ammar & Spada 2006; Chu 2011; Kennedy 2010; Lyster & Ranta 1997; Panova & Lyster 2002; Suzuki 2004; Zhang 2014) were able to demonstrate the effectiveness of various types of OCF in second language acquisition in various contextual and educational settings The effectiveness can be verified by observing learner uptake, which is a learner’s utterance in response to teacher feedback, and this expression can be either “repair” (in which the learner gives the correct answer) or “needs-repair” (in which the learner still gives the incorrect answer and needs further repair) (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) The proficiency level, motivation, learning styles, and individual differences of the learners all appear to have an impact on the success of OCF (Bouaziz & Bechoua, 2020; Genỗ, 2014; Ha et al., 2021; Tasdemir & Arslan, 2018) Meanwhile, numerous studies (Alamri & Fawzi, 2016; Bui, 2012; Ha et al., 2021a; Ha, Nguyen & Bui, 2021; Luu, 2020; Muhsin, 2016; Park, 2010; Tasdemir & Arslan, 2018; Genỗ, 2014) have also been done to gain insights into how effective OCF is perceived to be by learners
One of the Vietnamese education reforms has been centered on English education (Nguyen, 2019), with the government making significant investments in the subject at all levels, from primary schools to universities (Lai, 2017), and the teaching of speaking has received increased focus over time Speaking does, in fact, play a crucial part in language acquisition since it allows learners to convey their ideas, opinions, and feelings clearly Fluency, accuracy, and communicative competence are all fostered by oral communication skills (Brown, 2006) For learners in Vietnam, mastering the art of speaking fluently is essential in the increasingly globalized world; however, speaking is seen as a significant challenge for both English language teachers and learners to overcome (Bouzar, 2019) Speaking opportunities outside the classroom are typically limited for EFL learners (Bouaziz & Bechoua, 2020) Therefore, teachers must provide as many opportunities and favourable environments for learners to speak and practice as much as possible inside the classroom, and OCF from teachers is crucial in assisting learners in identifying their errors and updating their interlanguage during communicative classroom activities in general and the practice of the speaking skill in particular.
Statement of the problem
The researcher of the current study is working as an English lecturer teaching general English courses (focusing on the speaking skill) for EFL students at a college in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam He has always incorporated OCF types into his classes to help his students perform better when speaking, but initially, the researcher relied solely on his professional judgment to determine how OCF should be delivered After consulting relevant literature and reflecting on his own teaching methods, it became clear that the researcher primarily uses two OCF types: explicit correction and elicitation (as first defined by Lyster & Ranta, 1997) The pertinent literature also confirmed the high-frequency use of explicit correction and elicitation as OCF types, either separately or together in EFL classrooms, particularly speaking classes for Vietnamese students in different settings, including non-English majored university students (Nguyen, 2019), college students (Tran & Nguyen, 2020), learners at private English centers (Lai, 2017), and primary school students (Ha, 2017)
For the majority of the time, teachers utilize their professional judgment to determine what is best for their students, but effective second language (L2) acquisition also depends on the beliefs and views of the learners (Brown, 2009) Likewise, Schulz (2001) asserts that students’ opinions of the instructional strategies used determine how well they perform According to Amhrein and Nassaji (2010), learners may reap no benefit from feedback if they do not recognize and understand its corrective purpose To prevent the possibility of discouraging learners from communicating and rendering them demotivated, it is crucial to understand their viewpoints on corrective feedback in speaking (Genỗ, 2014) With those statements as guidance, the current study is undertaken to provide in-depth insights into EFL college learners’ perceptions toward the use of explicit correction and elicitation as OCF types in speaking classes From the perceptions of EFL learners and their opinions of these two OCF types, the study thoroughly analyzes how successful the two OCF types are As there is no perfect OCF type for all types of learners, errors, and educational settings (Ammar & Spada, 2006), the study aims to add to the existant body of knowledge about OCF by investigating its application in a particular context.
Aims of the study
The current study looks into how explicit correction and elicitation as two types of OCF are perceived by Vietnamese EFL learners when being used in speaking sessions First, the study is aimed to figure out how well explicit correction and elicitation work on fostering the speaking skill This entails looking at how EFL learners perceive the influence and effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation on their ability to speak Learners must also provide justifications or explanations for their estimation of the effectiveness Second, the study examines how EFL learners perceive the use of explicit correction and elicitation in speaking classes, particularly the specific error types that learners associate with each OCF type, in order to gain insights into how appropriate and effective explicit correction and elicitation are for various error categories.
Research questions
To fulfill the aforementioned aims, the following research questions (RQ) are investigated:
RQ-1: What is the perceived effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation as oral corrective feedback types in improving Vietnamese EFL learners’ speaking skill, and how their effectiveness is explained?
RQ-2: What are their perceived types of errors that are best addressed through explicit correction and elicitation?
By addressing these RQs, the study hopes to advance the knowledge of how EFL learners perceive and experience explicit correction and elicitation in speaking classes, thereby helping EFL teachers and practitioners improve the efficacy of their feedback practices.
Significance of the study
The findings of this study shed fresh light on how college students perceive the use of explicit correction and elicitation as OCF types in speaking classes in the Vietnamese EFL context, which might be important in some ways First, the uniqueness and significance of this research are highlighted by the scarcity of locally conducted, comprehensive studies concentrating on explicit correction and elicitation in the Vietnamese EFL setting Secondly, this study is to improve the knowledge of how students react to the use of explicit correction and elicitation in speaking lessons, providing insights into the efficacy of such techniques by analyzing the viewpoints and opinions of learners The findings can aid educators in reconsidering their present methods and deciding on how to give OCF in speaking classes, optimizing their instructional tactics with the help of this deeper understanding to better match the requirements and preferences of their learners Thirdly, the study’s importance goes beyond the confines of the Vietnamese EFL setting when it comes to its reference value for educators and teachers working in similar environments, particularly those with a similar student demography This study can be a useful tool for educators, assisting them in making decisions about whether to use explicit correction and elicitation in their own teaching methods by revealing insights into learners’ perceptions in this respect Finally, other researchers in the field of language teaching and learning can continue to build on the study’s findings to further explore and broaden the body of knowledge in this area.
Scope of the study
This study is centered on investigating the perceptions of EFL college students regarding the use of two specific types of OCF, namely explicit correction and elicitation, in general English classes with a focus on the speaking skill The study focuses on a specific target population, which consists of EFL students enrolled in three English 2.1 classes at FPT Polytechnic, a multidisciplinary college located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Given the constraints related to resources and feasibility, it is not possible for the researcher to investigate the central phenomenon in all EFL college settings across Vietnam or within Ho Chi Minh City Instead, the study adopts a locally-based comprehensive study approach, which allows for an in-depth exploration of a particular group of learners within a specific learning context By narrowing down the scope to a specific college and class level, the study aims to obtain a detailed and multi-faceted understanding of the perceptions of these learners towards the use of explicit correction and elicitation as OCF types However, while the findings of this study may provide valuable insights into the perceptions of EFL college learners at FPT Polytechnic, the generalizability of the results to other EFL college settings should be interpreted with caution.
Organization of thesis chapters
The thesis is structured into five comprehensive chapters, each addressing a specific aspect of the study Chapter 1 introduces the research problem, objectives, and methodology Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature and establishes the theoretical framework Chapters 3 and 4 present the research findings and their analysis Chapter 5 concludes the study, summarizing the key findings, discussing their implications, and outlining avenues for future research This coherent organization ensures that each chapter contributes to the overall understanding of the present study and its contribution to the field.
Beginning with a theoretical and practical concern, Chapter 1 (Introduction) discusses the use of OCF in EFL classrooms The significance of examining learners’ perceptions about the two particular OCF types is established in this chapter It also gives a concise justification for the study and defines the research aims
Chapter 2 (Literature Review) focuses on the definitions and functions of key terms related to OCF and the specific OCF types under investigation, providing a comprehensive literature review that summarizes previous studies and publications on the topic The chapter highlights significant findings and discussions from the literature, identifies gaps, and establishes the existing body of knowledge, serving as a foundation for the current study
Chapter 3 (Methodology) delves into the details of the research methodology employed in this study This chapter describes the survey design used, including the research setting, the participant selection process, the research instruments utilized, and the procedures for data collection and data analysis
The study’s findings are presented in Chapter 4 (Results and Discussions) based on the data that was gathered and examined, offering a thorough examination of the participants’ perceptions towards the two OCF types The chapter presents the findings in a clear and organized manner, supported by pertinent data and evidence It includes discussions and interpretations of the results, comparing them to the existing literature and addressing the research questions
In Chapter 5 (Conclusion), the present study concludes by summarizing its key findings and contributions This chapter provides a synthesis of the research outcomes and their implications, discussing the significance of the study in relation to theory, practice, and future research The chapter also considers the study’s weaknesses and proposes areas for additional research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Error and error types
Previous authors have made a distinction between “errors” and “mistakes” in language learning An error is considered as a deviant form that arises due to a lack of knowledge or understanding of a particular linguistic feature, reflecting the learner’s current stage in the development of their interlanguage (Corder, 1967) It represents an attempt to use a form or item, even when the learner lacks sufficient knowledge to produce it correctly Over time, the definition of errors has been simplified, being described as “slips of the tongue” when learners fail to use the correct forms (Brown, 2007) On the other hand, a mistake refers to a learner’s temporary inaccuracy and performance issues (Corder, 1967) Mistakes occur when a student is familiar with the language rule but makes an incorrect form due to inattention, fatigue, or a digression from their initial plan or intention during speaking In the context of the present study, it is possible that participants may not be able to distinguish between spoken errors and mistakes, and both types of language deviations can be the target for correction Therefore, for this study, the terms “error” and “mistake” are used interchangeably and collectively referred to as “errors”
Various taxonomies of target errors inviting oral corrective feedback have been proposed in the literature, resulting in slight variations However, most studies on OCF have identified three main types of errors as the targets for correction: grammatical errors, phonological errors, and lexical errors (Ahangari & Amirzadeh, 2011; Choi & Li, 2012; Ha, 2017; Nhac, 2017; Nguyen, 2019; Suzuki, 2004; Yuksel et al., 2021) A more comprehensive categorization was provided by Nishita (2004, as cited in Yoshida, 2008), which includes morphosyntactic errors (relating to the incorrect use of word order, tense, conjugation, and particles), phonological errors (involving mispronunciation of words), lexical errors (referring to errors in word choices), and semantic errors (indicating misunderstandings in learners’ utterances)
In more detail, phonological errors involve mispronunciations and deviations from standard pronunciation patterns Learners may struggle with accurate reproduction of sounds, stress, or intonation, which can have impacts on the overall intelligibility of their speech (Suzuki, 2004) Moreover, grammatical errors encompass deviations from accepted grammatical structures, including errors in word order, tense, conjugation, and the misuse of particles According to Yuksel et al (2021), addressing grammatical errors is crucial for enhancing the overall accuracy and clarity of learners’ spoken English Finally, lexical errors pertain to inaccuracies in word choices This type of error may include the use of inappropriate words, confusion of synonyms, or reliance on a limited vocabulary range, impacting both precision and coherence in communication (Ha, 2017)
In this study, the categorization of grammatical, phonological, and lexical errors is adopted This choice is motivated by the aim to align the error types with the three crucial aspects of grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary, which significantly contribute to both spoken accuracy and fluency Additionally, for EFL college learners, this classification is expected to be more accessible and understandable, facilitating them in drawing on their experiences with explicit correction and elicitation.
Oral corrective feedback
Feedback is “reaction to a process or activity, or the information obtained from such a reaction” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2023) In the field of English language teaching and learning, Ur (2012) states that feedback encompasses assessment (in which learners are assessed in terms of their performance and they are informed of how well or poorly they performed) and correction (in which information of learners’ performance is given to them)
Corrective Feedback (CF) is a type of negative feedback containing a response to a learner’s incorrect utterance (Ellis, 2009) Ellis et al (2006) offer a comparable but more thorough definition: CF is a response to a learner’s linguistically erroneous utterance, and it can comprise all three or any combination of the following components: (1) an indication to the learner that he or she has committed an error; (2) the correct form; (3) some metalinguistic information about the error Sheen and Ellis (2011) refer to CF as the “feedback that learners receive on the linguistic errors they make in their oral or written production in a second language” (p 593), highlighting that CF comes in both oral and written form According to Lightbown and Spada (2013), CF is ‘any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect’ (p 216) Lightbown and Spada also state that teachers can provide learners with implicit feedback (in an effort not to interrupt the conversation flow) and/ or explicit feedback (when the erroneous utterance is highlighted and brought to learners’ attention) In general, there seems to be no big difference between the proposed definitions of CF; while there may be minor variations in the specific components or forms of CF across definitions, the overall concept remains consistent It is clear that CF typically includes an indication to the learner that an error has been made, the provision of the correct form or alternative, and often some metalinguistic information explaining the error It can be delivered in both oral and written forms, depending on the context and mode of communication With regards to the role of CF in language teaching and learning,
Ur (2012) argues that its main function is to prevent the fossilization of learners’ errors, raising learners’ awareness of what they did incorrectly and providing them with the correct form so that the error would not be repeated in the future Another significance of CF is highlighted by Lyster et al (2013) who state that CF “plays a pivotal role in the kind of scaffolding that teachers need to provide to individual learners to promote continuing L2 growth” (p 1)
CF can be classified as written corrective feedback and oral corrective feedback, which is the focus of the current study Oral corrective feedback is a type of corrective feedback specifically addressing spoken errors made by students (Li, 2013), and it entails providing comments or responses to learners’ spoken utterances containing errors (Ellis et al., 2006) Spada (2013) considers OCF as an instructional strategy in L2 teaching It plays a significant role in second language acquisition as it helps consolidate oral skills through contextualized practice facilitated by the noticing of target exemplars in the input (Lyster et al., 2013)
OCF serves multiple purposes in language learning Firstly, it helps learners notice their errors and make appropriate modifications in their output, leading to enhanced accuracy and fluency in speaking (Li, 2013) By highlighting and addressing specific linguistic errors, OCF enables learners to become more aware of the target language structures and develop a better understanding of the language system (Alamri & Fawzi, 2016) Additionally, OCF allows teachers to track their students’ progress and make informed decisions about the knowledge to be covered next, as well as the introduction of effective learning strategies (Alamri & Fawzi, 2016) The effectiveness of OCF also lies in its ability to create a supportive learning environment where learners can actively engage in and reflect on their language production (Lyster et al., 2013), bridging the gap between learners’ current proficiency level and the target language norms by providing timely and focused feedback which promotes accurate language use (Li, 2013) Moreover, the use of various types of OCF has been advocated by scholars, as the consistent use of a single OCF type may not be necessary and could be less beneficial (Lyster et al., 2013) Using multiple OCF types accommodates learners with different individual characteristics such as readiness level and prior knowledge of the language, making the feedback more tailored to their personalized needs (Sarandi, 2016, as cited in Fadilah, 2018).
Types of oral corrective feedback
Lyster and Ranta's (1997) research holds significance in furthering OCF understanding They examined OCFs employed by teachers in French immersion classrooms, focusing on error correction types and uptake patterns Their findings revealed six distinct OCF types: explicit correction, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition These OCFs provide a comprehensive framework for error treatment.
OCF Types (from Lyster & Ranta, 1997)
The teacher provides the correct form explicitly to the learner
Student (S): "He go to the store." Teacher (T): "No, it should be 'He goes to the store.'"
Recasts The teacher reformulates the learner's erroneous utterance
T: "Oh, you went to the park?"
The teacher seeks clarification from the learner
The teacher provides explicit information about the language rules or forms involved in the error
T: "Remember, we use 'apples' when we're talking about more than one."
Elicitation The teacher prompts the learner to self-correct
S: "He goed to the park."
T: "What's the past tense of 'go'?"
Repetition The teacher repeats the learner's erroneous utterance, emphasizing the error
A further division of the initial six types of OCF into two primary categories - reformulations and prompts - was offered in later research by Ranta and Lyster (2007) (see Table 2)
OCF Types (from Ranta & Lyster, 2007)
Metalinguistic clue Clarification request Repetition
Reformulations encompass recasts and explicit correction, which involve providing learners with revised versions of their non-target output In this approach, the teacher directly offers a corrected form or explicitly points out the error to the learner On the other hand, the category of prompts comprises elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests, and repetition Unlike reformulations, prompts are designed to elicit self-correction from the learners by encouraging them to actively identify and rectify their own errors This category of OCF aims to foster learner autonomy and metalinguistic awareness, prompting learners to engage in reflective processes and take ownership of their language development The distinction between reformulations and prompts highlights the different strategies employed by teachers to guide learners in their oral production, whether through providing corrected forms or prompting learners to self-correct and develop their linguistic proficiency
Sheen and Ellis (2011) suggest their classification of nine OCF types after doing extensive research, taking into account both the distinction between implicit and explicit OCF and the contrast between reformulations and prompts (see Table 3)
OCF Types (adapted from Sheen & Ellis, 2011)
Input-providing Conversational recasts Didactic recasts
Explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation Output-prompting Repetition Metalinguistic clue
As compared to Lyster and Ranta’s classifications, the one by Sheen and Ellis further divides recasts into conversational recasts and didactic recasts, and explicit correction into explicit correction only and explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation, together with the addition of a new OCF type – paralinguistic signal With this classification, OCF types can be input-providing or output-prompting With input-providing OCF types, learners are provided with the correct exemplars of language use, enabling them to compare the correct form with the errors being made On the other hand, output-prompting OCF makes an attempt to elicit learners’ self-correction, allowing learners to work out the correct utterances using their language repertoire From a different angle, OCF can be implicit or explicit It is implicit when learners make errors and the teacher simply requests clarification, which means the errors are not overtly indicated to them, whereas it can be explicit when the learner makes an error and the teacher directly corrects it and/or gives some metalinguistic comments, saliently drawing the learner’s attention to the error
The most recent classification of OCF types is proposed by Lyster et al (2013) drawing on earlier taxonomies (see Figure 1) This classification still involves the nine OCF types suggested by Sheen and Ellis (2011) and maintains the dichotomous distinction of explicitness/implicitness and reformulations/ prompts, but differs in the arrangement of different OCF types on a continuum, with recasts and clarification requests at the implicitness end and explicit correction and metalinguistic clues at the implicitness end
Figure 1 OCF Types (Lyster et al., 2013, p 5)
The model of OCF classification proposed by Ranta and Lyster (2007) is selected for this study due to its alignment with the research aims and attention to the aspects of reformulations and prompts Explicit correction involves the rephrasing of students’ erroneous utterances, while elicitation provides prompts that urge students to engage in self-correction By utilizing this classification, it becomes possible to systematically categorize and analyze the OCF types used in the study, allowing for a detailed examination of their effectiveness as perceived by learners in the Vietnamese EFL context By contrast, both classification models by Sheen and Ellis (2011) and Lyster et al (2013) incorporate the degree of explicitness of OCF types, which is not within the scope of the present study Additionally, several studies conducted in the Vietnamese context have confirmed the high-frequency use of explicit correction and elicitation in speaking classes (Ha, 2017; Lai, 2017; Nguyen, 2019; Tran & Nguyen, 2020), and stated that these two OCF types are considered effective by both teachers and students in enhancing students’ speaking proficiency (Bui, 2012; Ha & Nguyen, 2021; Luu, 2020) Therefore, this study focuses on the two frequently used OCF types of explicit correction and elicitation and adopts the classification of OCF types proposed by Ranta and Lyster (2007)
2.4.2 Explicit correction in language classrooms
The term “explicit correction” as an OCF type was first coined by Lyster and Ranta (1997) to refer to “the explicit provision of the correct form As the teacher provides the correct form, he or she clearly indicates that what the student had said was incorrect” (p 46) This can be accomplished through phrases such as “Oh, you mean” or “You should say” In an example by Pham and Pham (2018), when a student makes an error in the utterance “She has cat.”, the teacher can respond
“You should say, ‘She has a cat’” Some authors (Amhrein & Nassaji, 2010, Ellis et al., 2006; Lyster et al., 2013) also state that for the use of explicit correction in adult classes, the provision of the correct form is usually followed by some metalinguistic information This refers to the offering of additional explanations about grammar rules or language structures in an effort to enhance learners’ understanding of the error and its correction, contributing to their language development and promoting a deeper awareness of the language rules and structures
The significance of explicit correction lies in its ability to offer immediate and direct feedback, enabling learners to recognize their errors and understand the correct forms By explicitly indicating the error and providing the correct form, explicit correction helps learners notice their errors and facilitates the consolidation of oral skills (Lyster et al., 2013) Moreover, the provision of metalinguistic explanations enhances learners’ comprehension and promotes a deeper understanding of the underlying grammar rules associated with the correction (Ferris, 1999)
Regarding the frequency of using explicit correction in language classrooms, a number of studies have confirmed its high-frequency use in classes of different educational settings A meta-analysis of more than 20 articles conducted by Devayalage (2021) examining both ESL and EFL contexts came to the conclusion that teachers tended to opt for OCF types based on their students’ proficiency level, and explicit correction was teachers’ preferred choice for both intermediate and upper-intermediate students In the Vietnamese EFL context, the use of OCF in the primary school setting was also investigated by Ha (2017) through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations at six public primary schools in a city The findings showed that explicit correction was the second most frequently used OCF type In a similar vein, a study conducted by Nguyen (2019) in six university classes for non-English majors came to the same conclusion
Elicitation, a pedagogical strategy rooted in communicative language teaching, involves directly prompting learners to derive the correct language form without explicit demonstration This technique promotes active engagement, problem-solving, and critical thinking, fostering a deeper understanding of the target language Elicitation methods include open-ended questions, incomplete sentences, and visual aids, encouraging learners to draw upon their existing knowledge and language rules.
Teachers can elicit the correct form through strategic pauses, open-ended questions, and requests for reformulation This approach allows learners to practice self-correction, retrieve previously learned forms, and revise their language hypotheses Elicitation promotes negotiation of form, providing opportunities for learners to clarify and correct their utterances, leading to increased cognitive engagement and effectiveness in language acquisition.
Relevant literature has confirmed that elicitation registers relatively high frequency of use in language classrooms In Vietnamese EFL speaking classrooms, elicitation also records relatively high frequency of use A study by Tran and Nguyen (2020) using questionnaires as the sole instrument to explore speaking classes for non English major students at colleges in a province of the Mekong Delta indicated that the use of elicitation was much more favoured compared to any other OCF types In terms of the error types inviting elicitation, it was used to target accuracy-based errors (Devayalage, 2021) More speficically, Choi and Li (2012) found out that elicitation was used for correcting lexical errors more than the other error types In another setting, Lyster (1998) examined four elementary
French immersion classrooms and concluded that elicitation (which was coded under the umbrella term “negotiation of form”) was mainly used in response to grammatical and lexical errors.
The use of explicit correction and elicitation in language classrooms
Perception, as a cognitive process, holds a central role in shaping individuals’ interpretations and comprehension of the world, encompassing the recognition of familiar people, objects, or events with attached meanings and expectations (Leather, 1992; Elliot, 1996, as cited in Muyashoha, 2019) In the field of language learning, perceptions have been extensively examined from two primary aspects, as delineated by Wesely (2012): perceptions of the learners themselves and perceptions of the learning situation
Williams and Burden (1999, cited in Wesely, 2012) define learners’ perceptions of themselves as a multifaceted understanding encompassing how learners perceive their own identities, capabilities, and the intricacies of their learning processes This involves self-reflection and awareness, shaping not only their academic achievements but also influencing their attitudes towards the language learning experience
Learners' perceptions within the classroom environment, encompassing instructor behaviors, L1 usage, technology integration, and activity preferences, profoundly impact their learning experience (Wesely, 2012) These perceptions shape their engagement and motivation, making them a significant area of research in language learning classrooms Scholars consistently explore the influence of factors like L1 integration, technology, instructor nativeness, and preferred activities on learner perceptions, highlighting their crucial role in the overall learning process (Williams and Burden, 1999, cited in Wesely, 2012).
In the specific context of this study, learners’ perceptions refer to the opinions and evaluations held by college students regarding the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation as oral corrective feedback types implemented in their speaking classes Understanding these perceptions offers valuable insights into the efficacy of teaching strategies, aiding educators in refining their approaches to better meet the needs and preferences of their learners
2.5.2 The perceived effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation The focus of the present study is to explore how the classroom use of two OCF types – explicit correction and elicitation – is perceived by Vietnamese EFL learners, so a general picture of EFL learners’ perceptions towards the use of these two OCF types in different educational settings, especially in Vietnam, is to be presented in the following part Learners’ perceptions are examined with respect to the perceived effectiveness of the two OCF types, as well as the preferred target error types for feedback Several factors have been identified in the literature as influential in shaping EFL learners’ perceptions towards the use of explicit correction and elicitation in speaking classes, including learners’ proficiency levels (Alamri & Fawzi, 2016; Bui, 2012; Genỗ, 2014); anxiety level (Park, 2010); gender, extraversion, English learning motivation (Ha et al., 2021); and learning styles (Tasdemir & Arslan, 2018) Although examining the influencing factors is not within the scope of the present study, alongside the investigation of learners’ OCF perceptions, any potential contributing factors would also be mentioned and discussed
Previous studies on EFL learners’ perceptions of OCF have generally taken a holistic approach, examining various types of OCF rather than focusing solely on explicit correction and elicitation The overall findings from these studies consistently demonstrate learners’ positive attitudes towards OCF types For instance, Muyashoha (2019) found that students had a positive perception of OCF, with most students agreeing that receiving such feedback from their lecturer was beneficial The study also indicated that using OCF in speaking classes effectively improved students’ speaking ability Similarly, Muslem et al (2021) reported that learners acknowledged the positive impact of lecturers’ OCF on their speaking skill, particularly in areas such as grammar and pronunciation, enabling them to speak more fluently and coherently These findings collectively highlight the value that learners place on receiving OCF and the positive influence it has on their speaking proficiency
Upon careful examination of previous research (Alamri & Fawzi, 2016; Bui, 2012;
Ha et al., 2021a; Ha et al., 2021b; Genỗ, 2014; Luu, 2020; Muhsin, 2016; Park, 2010; Tasdemir & Arslan, 2018), valuable insights into learners’ perceptions of explicit correction and elicitation in speaking classes across various educational settings can be gained The findings from these studies present a diverse range of perspectives although many of them confirm the perceived effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation to different degrees This body of literature can be classified into three groups: studies that highlight the perceived effectiveness of both explicit correction and elicitation in enhancing learners’ speaking skill, studies that emphasize the perceived effectiveness of explicit correction over elicitation, and those indicating the perceived effectiveness of elicitation surpassing explicit correction
Firstly, previous studies have highlighted EFL learners’ positive perceptions and appreciation for both explicit correction and elicitation as forms of OCF Ha et al (2021a), Park (2010), and Tasdemir and Arslan (2018) conducted studies in different educational settings, with the one by Ha et al (2021a) exploring the Vietnamese context, and confirmed learners’ favorable attitudes towards both OCF types These studies also explored various factors influencing learners’ opinions and preferences, such as anxiety level, gender, extraversion, English learning motivation, and learning styles While anxiety levels only influenced learners’ views on who should correct their errors, factors such as gender, motivation, and extraversion had a more significant impact In fact, female learners demonstrated a more positive attitude towards OCF than male learners, and extraverted females expressed a stronger preference for input-providing OCF Additionally, learners studying English for exams showed a more positive attitude towards OCF compared to those learning for communication purposes Interestingly, learning styles did not significantly influence learners’ perceptions of OCF types Moreover, Park (2010) found that explicit correction and elicitation were highly favored by ESL university students These learners desired explicit feedback to learn the correct form directly, while also valuing opportunities to independently produce target-like language forms through elicitation This suggests that learners expect teachers to use a flexible approach to OCF based on their proficiency level, allowing them to self-correct when possible and receive explicit correction when needed Similarly, Tasdemir and Arslan (2018) found that EFL learners in Turkey primarily considered explicit correction and elicitation as effective OCF types In summary, it can be concluded that learners value the flexibility of OCF, with a desire for explicit correction to directly learn the correct form and opportunities for self-correction through elicitation
Secondly, a number of studies have highlighted the strong preference of EFL learners for explicit correction In the study by Laeli and Setiawan (2019), learners expressed a preference for explicit correction in speaking classes, providing several reasons, including the direct knowledge of correct utterances, the ability to remember and learn from errors, and the additional explanations provided by the teacher Importantly, learners felt more comfortable and less nervous when explicit correction was provided, as they did not have to self-correct in front of the class Azad and Kalam (2016) also identified explicit correction as the most preferred method among learners, highlighting its efficiency in saving time Similarly, Bui (2012) found that first-year Vietnamese university students highly appreciated explicit correction in terms of recognizing errors easily and understanding the correct forms Notably, other studies conducted in the Vietnamese context, such as Luu (2020)’s, further support the preference for explicit correction, as Vietnamese university students considered it the most effective OCF type These findings collectively suggest that explicit correction is highly valued by learners in EFL contexts in general and the Vietnamese context in particular due to its clarity, comprehensibility, effectiveness in learning, and the sense of support it provides
Thirdly, some studies (Bui, 2012; Ha, Murray and Riazi, 2021b) highlighted learners’ strong appreciation for elicitation as their favored OCF type, while explicit correction was regarded as the least preferred These studies were conducted in different educational contexts in Vietnam, targeting high school and university English majors Questionnaires were employed in both studies, with Ha et al (2021b) supplementing their questionnaire data with follow-up interviews
In Bui's (2012) study, both first-year and third-year English majors highly appreciated the effectiveness of elicitation, viewing it as a time-saving and clear approach that serves as a friendly “reminder” of their knowledge, enabling self- correction and reinforcing their learning In contrast, explicit correction was the least favored OCF type among third-year students, who felt that directly pointing out errors in a non-friendly manner was inappropriate for learners at higher language proficiency levels and could potentially harm their self-esteem Similarly, in Ha et al.’s (2021b) study, student participants expressed their preference for elicitation as it allowed them to self-correct, engage in critical thinking, and memorize correct language forms The use of first language (L1) hints or explanations of necessary language rules by their teachers was also highlighted by the students In general, these findings underscore the significance of elicitation as a preferred OCF types among learners in Vietnam, emphasizing its positive impact on self-correction, cognitive engagement and language learning
When it comes to comparing the perceived effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation, it is clear that very few studies have directly compared these two OCF types in isolation However, the findings from previous studies regarding the participants’ rankings of the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation, along with other OCF types, can provide valuable reference points, revealing a complex and context-dependent picture In studies conducted outside Vietnam, such as Alamri and Fawzi (2016) in Saudi Arabia and Gutiérrez et al (2020) in Chile, explicit correction was much more favored by English major students and Chilean university students, who valued the clarity and directness of explicit correction, especially for beginner learners who need explicit guidance on their errors However, in studies conducted in Vietnam, such as Ha et al (2021b), a different trend was observed Vietnamese high school students favored elicitation over explicit correction, valuing the opportunity to engage in self-correction and understand their errors This reflects the desire for learners’ autonomy and the belief that elicitation promotes self-awareness and self-correction Additionally, Genỗ (2014) found that high-level learners had less favorable thoughts about explicit correction and preferred elicitation, while low-level learners showed the opposite pattern It is suggested that the learners’ preferences for explicit correction and elicitation may be influenced by their proficiency level and their perceived need for explicit guidance Overall, these variations in previous findings show that learners’ perceptions of the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation are influenced by factors such as cultural background, language proficiency, and desired levels of autonomy in language learning Due to the design of the present study, which involves a single sample group where all participants are exposed to both explicit correction and elicitation, it is not possible to conduct statistical tests for a robust and reliable comparison Nevertheless, observations and analyses of the descriptive data collected still allow for a basic comparison to be made, providing valuable insights into participants’ perceptions of these two OCF types’ effectiveness
2.5.3 The target error types for explicit correction and elicitation
OCF studies have targeted three main error types: grammatical, phonological, and lexical (Choi & Li, 2012; Ha, 2017; Nhac, 2017; Nguyen, 2019; Suzuki, 2004; Yuksel et al., 2021) Despite this, limited research focuses on EFL learners' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation for different error types (Nhac, 2022; Zhao, 2015) This knowledge gap stems from the assumption that teachers solely possess the expertise to determine appropriate OCF types for specific errors, diminishing the consideration of learners' perspectives.
In Nhac’s (2022) study, elicitation received high praise in targeting grammatical errors as it allowed Vietnamese learners to recognize and self-correct their own errors effectively In contrast, learners preferred explicit correction for phonological errors, as they desired explicit guidance in correcting pronunciation Regarding lexical errors, learners held positive perceptions towards both explicit correction and elicitation They recognized the importance of using words correctly in context but also appreciated clues and prompts from teachers to facilitate self-correction Zhao’s (2015) study focused on Chinese second language students and revealed a general acceptance of explicit correction for all error types However, students also expressed a preference for being encouraged to identify and self-correct grammatical errors, indicating favorable thoughts toward prompts, including elicitation Overall, while the existing literature is limited, a general trend can be observed regarding learners’ perceptions of the appropriateness of different types of OCF for various error categories Learners tend to view explicit correction as suitable for addressing all types of errors, whereas elicitation is commonly seen as effective in targeting grammatical errors and, to some extent, lexical errors.
A discussion on research gaps
Despite conflicting research findings, explicit correction and elicitation are generally perceived as effective OCFs in EFL speaking classrooms However, learners' preferences for OCF types and error categories vary based on factors like proficiency, motivation, and personality To address this knowledge gap, this study explores the perceptions of Vietnamese EFL learners on explicit correction and elicitation, focusing on their effectiveness in improving speaking skills and the error types they associate with each OCF This research aims to contribute insights into how these learners perceive OCF types, expanding our understanding of their appropriateness and effectiveness for specific error categories.
Figure 2 Conceptual Framework for the Study
The conceptual framework serves as a visual representation of the correlation between the themes of “Use of OCF in speaking classes” and “EFL Learners’ Perceptions” within the context of oral corrective feedback, not only aligning with the aims and research questions of the present study but also drawing upon the existing literature
The theme “Use of OCF in speaking classes” explores the in-class implementation of two types of OCF: “Explicit correction” and “Elicitation”, which have been widely discussed in the literature as effective strategies for providing OCF in language classrooms On the other hand, the theme “EFL Learners’ Perceptions” delves into learners’ beliefs, attitudes, and perspectives regarding the effectiveness of OCF and their perceptions of the appropriateness of the two investigated OCF types for specific error types The sub-theme of “Perceived Effectiveness” corresponds to the aim of determining how learners perceive the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation, with insights drawn from the literature on learners’ feedback preferences and the impact of different feedback types on language learning Within the theme of “EFL Learners’ Perceptions”, the sub- theme of “Specific Error Types” considers learners’ perceptions concerning the use of explicit correction and elicitation for different error categories This sub- theme is grounded in studies that have explored the effectiveness of specific OCF types for different error types, namely phonological errors, grammatical errors, and lexical errors.
METHODOLOGY
Research design
The study employed a convergent parallel mixed methods design (Creswell, 2012), combining quantitative and qualitative research methods at the same time This approach enables the simultaneous collection of both quantitative and qualitative data, combining the strengths of each type to gain a deeper understanding of the investigated phenomenon The underlying rationale is that the strengths of one data collection form compensate for the limitations of the other, ultimately leading to a more profound comprehension of the research problem By gathering and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data, the researcher assesses how these datasets converge or diverge, shaping the final interpretation (Creswell, 2012)
On the one hand, quantitative data were collected to examine EFL learners’ perceptions toward the use of explicit correction and elicitation as OCF types, with questionnaires being utilized to gather data from a sample of participants On the other hand, qualitative data were gathered through interviews with a subset of participants, allowing for in-depth exploration of participants’ experiences, opinions, and beliefs, providing rich and detailed insights into their perceptions toward the use of explicit correction and elicitation Henceforth, the terms
“respondents” and “participants” are used interchangeably to refer to the individuals who took part in the research as data providers
The use of both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods is referred to as triangulation, enhancing the credibility and validity of the research findings by cross-verifying and complementing different types of data (Creswell, 2002; Mackey & Gass, 2015) By triangulating the findings, any potential biases or limitations associated with a single data collection method can be minimized, ensuring more accurate and reliable results
In general, the decision to use a mixed-methods design was motivated by the need to develop a thorough understanding of EFL learners’ perceptions toward the use of explicit correction and elicitation as OCF types By incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data, the study aims to capture a holistic picture of the phenomenon under investigation, with the quantitative data providing statistical evidence and general trends and the qualitative data offering illuminating insights and contextual explanations.
Research site
The research was conducted in the Ho Chi Minh Campus of FPT Polytechnic, a multidisciplinary college The students are all required to complete 4 English training courses, namely English 1.1, English 1.2, English 2.1, and English 2.2, all of which expect oral interaction and communication, specifically the speaking skill
Only students from three English 2.1 classes instructed by the researcher in the Summer 2023 semester were recruited for the present study for some reasons The first one is because the researcher was in charge of classes of this level only, they were the only convenience sample available for access Another reason is that the students at this level are more familiar with teachers’ English instruction and correction although in some cases the use of L1 is unavoidable As estimated, the proficiency level of English 2.1 students ranges from A2 to B1 level according to CEFR, which is the international standard describing learners’ language ability corresponding to a six-point scale from A1 to C2 At the end of the course, students are required to prepare for a topic defense session in which they have to present one of the four topics which is assigned in advance and answer follow-up questions about the presented topic and the other three topics as well
The general English teaching approach in FPT Polytechnic is the flipped classroom (Davies, Dean & Ball, 2013, as cited in Nguyen, 2019), which is a form of blended learning (Ur, 2012) Students’ online learning comes first, followed by classroom interaction with teachers and other learners Students are required to learn through online video lessons at home, and the subsequent in-class time is mostly dedicated to reviews and communicative activities to practice what they have already learned in meaningful contexts The coursebooks used are “Top Notch 1” (Student’s Book) and “Top Notch 2” (Student’s Book) by Saslow, J & Ascher, A (2015) published by Pearson Education, which are specifically compiled for learners from A2 to B1 level The contents of online lessons are corresponding to what there are in the coursebooks and teachers use the same provided power-point slides for in-class teaching
For those English classes, feedback is normally provided when the researcher invites individuals or pairs to practice in front of the class, and the speaking activities mainly revolve around the practice of short conversations and simple questions about familiar topics, with a few utterances This is why the researcher gives his students delayed feedback (Ellis, 2009; Sheen, 2011), which means feedback is provided at the end, not in the middle, of a learner’s utterance The employed speaking activities are aimed at developing both accuracy and fluency Taking the students’ current proficiency level into consideration, the researcher also makes use of L1 (Vietnamese in this case) to explain some errors, if needed, to foster thorough understanding.
Research participants
For this study, a convenience sample of 81 college students was employed, including students from three English 2.1 classes that were taught by the researcher during the Summer 2023 semester It is important to note that the selection of participants was limited to these specific classes due to the researcher’s teaching assignment for the semester While it may have been desirable to have a more diverse sample, the focus of this study is not to compare participants of different proficiency levels or seek a representative sample, but to investigate the perceived effectiveness of particular OCF types in improving the speaking skill, so valuable insights can still be gained by examining the experiences and perspectives of students in these particular classes Although the findings may not be generalizable to all EFL learners, they can provide valuable contributions to the understanding of OCF effectiveness in similar educational settings A total of 81 respondents received the questionnaire form, forming the sample for data analysis Table 4 below presents some demographic information of the 81 participants employed Table 4
Level of confidence in speaking English
Very confident Confident Not confident Not confident at all
At the beginning of the semester which lasted roughly one month and a half, the researcher informed all students in the selected English 2.1 classes about the specific oral corrective feedback techniques that would be used, as well as gave comprehensive information about the research purpose, procedures, and the nature of their involvement This was done to ensure transparency and to familiarize the participants with the OCF types under investigation By providing this information in advance, the participants had the opportunity to gain experience with both explicit correction and elicitation throughout the semester, allowing them to form informed perceptions based on their own experiences By the time data collection commenced, they had had sufficient exposure to explicit correction and elicitation, allowing them to provide meaningful insights and opinions regarding these OCF types
Informed consent was obtained from participants via questionnaire completion, ensuring their voluntary participation and right to withdraw The researcher sought diversity in perspectives by inviting individuals with varying opinions on explicit correction and elicitation Five participants consented to semi-structured interviews Ethical principles were strictly followed to safeguard participants' well-being and ensure the confidentiality of their responses.
Research instruments
The chosen research instruments for this study are questionnaires and interviews Questionnaires were selected as the primary instrument due to their practicality and efficiency in collecting large amounts of information from a significant number of respondents within a relatively short timeframe Moreover, the data gathered through questionnaires can be easily quantified and analyzed in a scientific and objective manner In addition to questionnaires, interviews were chosen as the secondary research instrument Interviews offer distinct advantages over other instruments in the sense that they allow for the collection of rich and comprehensive information, facilitating detailed data analysis and enabling a deeper understanding of the central phenomenon under investigation According to Nunan, David, and Swan (1992), the combination of questionnaires and interviews within the same study yields more valid and reliable data By incorporating both questionnaires and interviews, this study aims to ensure a robust and comprehensive data collection process, ensuring a thorough exploration and understanding of participants’ perceptions and experiences
The researcher-designed questionnaire used in this study comprised original items based on relevant literature Translated from English to Vietnamese, it was validated by three English teaching experts to ensure linguistic accuracy and cultural relevance Strategic self-administration occurred during the second progress test exam day to maximize participant availability This approach, as outlined by Cohen et al (2007), enhances response rates and accuracy Anonymously completed questionnaires were submitted during the class session, as detailed in Table 5.
A Breakdown of the Questionnaire Form
Questions Purpose and Content Question Types
Collect demographic information, including gender, age, current English proficiency level, and participants’ confidence in their speaking skill
Provide a brief overview of explicit correction and elicitation, gather information about the perceived effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation, and seeks explanations for effectiveness
5-point Likert scale Open-ended
Gather information on participants’ preferred type(s) of oral corrective feedback for different types of errors
5-point Likert scale Open-ended
In the questionnaire, the completion of the unnumbered open-ended questions is voluntary, but participants were encouraged to provide responses in the presence of the researcher, with a view to gathering additional insights and perspectives However, it was later observed that many of the explanations provided overlapped with the information already stated in the question items, so only fresh new explanations were collected for analysis purposes, in an effort to ensure data quality and avoid redundancy
3.4.2 Pilot test of the questionnaire
To ensure the quality and clarity of the questionnaire, a pilot survey was conducted three days before the actual data collection This was to identify any potentially irrelevant or unclear items in the questionnaire, allowing for necessary revisions and improvements before the final administration By administering the first version of the questionnaire consisting of 24 question items to a group of five students from an English 2.1 class not involved in the main survey, valuable feedback was obtained The pilot test data subsequently underwent reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha to assess internal consistency The resulting p- value of 79, which was above the acceptable level of 70, indicated that the questionnaire was reliable enough; however, in an effort to further increase the level of reliability, the researcher accordingly removed question items 13 and 21 to potentially increase the p-value to a higher level of 88, further enhancing the effectiveness of the final survey instrument
To gather in-depth insights, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five students representing the three classes under examination The interviews followed a consistent format, with probing questions used to delve into participants' viewpoints The researcher created a comfortable environment, facilitating open and free expression of opinions This approach was designed to elicit candid and informative responses, enhancing the quality of the insights obtained.
The interviews were conducted online using Google Meet to accommodate participants’ scheduling preferences and all of them were audio-recorded to ensure accurate capture of the discussions The duration of the interviews ranged from 26 to 33 minutes, with the majority of them lasting for at least 30 minutes To facilitate effective communication, the interviews were conducted in the participants’ native language, Vietnamese, and later the researcher translated all the data necessary for analysis verbatim into English, ensuring that the insights and responses provided by the participants are accurately captured and incorporated in the overall analysis.
Data collection procedure
This section outlines the step-by-step process that the researcher followed during the data collection phase of the study, encompassing the administration of questionnaires and subsequent interviews to form a comprehensive understanding of the research topic Table 6 below outlines the stages of data collection
1 Approval Obtained approval at the research site, developed the questionnaire interview questions May 2023
2 Pilot test Administered a pilot questionnaire, made necessary improvements
Distributed finalized printed questionnaire forms, provided clear explanations and allowed approximately 20 minutes for complete
4 Interview sessions Conducted five one-on-one semi-structured interviews online in Vietnamese
5 Data analysis Commenced data analysis after both questionnaire and interview data collection July 2023
Data analysis scheme
Once the data collection phase was completed, the researcher continued with the data analysis process This section outlines the key steps and techniques that were employed to analyze the data after responses were collected from both the questionnaires and the interviews
First, the questionnaire data analysis was facilitated by the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software package version 22, which provides a practical set of statistical tools and functionalities The analysis started when the researcher performed the test of reliability, utilizing Cronbach’s alpha statistics to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire items, in order to ensure that the items were measuring the intended constructs reliably, and the result indicated a high level of consistency with a p-value of 88 Since the study aimed to explore participants’ perceptions, descriptive statistics analysis was conducted to summarize and present the data in a meaningful way This involved calculating Frequency (F) and Percentage (P) to provide an overview of participants’ responses; the results were visually presented using charts to enhance understanding and interpretation of the findings It is of importance to note that the design of the present study, which involves a single sample group being exposed to both explicit correction and elicitation, restricts the feasibility of conducting statistical tests to establish a robust and direct comparison between these two OCF types in terms of perceived effectiveness Nonetheless, by carefully observing and analyzing the descriptive data collected, valuable insights can still be gained regarding participants’ perceptions of these two OCF types, allowing for a preliminary comparison which has greatly contributed to the overall understanding
Second, with regard to interview data analysis, the audio-recorded data was first transcribed into the Vietnamese text format and read carefully for several times to find out all relevant data for analysis, excluding some out-of-topic exchanges The data necessary for analysis was then translated verbatim into English, ensuring the accurate representation of participants’ responses and serving as the primary data source for the analysis stage in which thematic analysis was employed, allowing for the identification and interpretation of recurring patterns or themes within the interview data To do this, the text data were carefully read many times, providing a deeper understanding of participants’ perceptions and experiences Similar phrases or sentences were categorized into groups These codes were then reviewed to eliminate redundancy and overlapping, resulting in the development of themes for reporting and discussion In more detail, two main themes and six sub-themes were identified The first main theme is ‘Perceived effectiveness of OCF’ with four sub-themes, namely ‘Perceived effectiveness of explicit correction’, ‘Explanations for the effectiveness of explicit correction’,
‘Explanations for the effectiveness of elicitation’ and ‘Perceived effectiveness of elicitation’ The second main theme is ‘Preferred target errors for oral corrective feedback’, with two sub-themes of ‘Preferred target errors for explicit correction’ and ‘Preferred target errors for elicitation.’
To gain a multi-faceted understanding of the research topic, the interview data were then integrated with the quantitative data obtained from the questionnaires
By comparing and contrasting the findings from both sources, any consistencies, discrepancies, or additional insights could be identified, enhancing the richness and depth of the research findings.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Perceived effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation
What is the perceived effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation as oral corrective feedback types in improving Vietnamese EFL learners’ speaking skill, and how their effectiveness is explained?
The initial research question examines the effectiveness of explicit correction in enhancing EFL learners' speaking abilities and explores their justifications for its perceived effectiveness This study differs from prior ones by considering several speaking facets, providing a thorough understanding of learners' perceptions of OCF (explicit correction feedback) Unlike previous research that assessed overall perceptions or isolated speaking elements, this study offers a comprehensive examination of various speaking aspects.
Perceived Effectiveness of Explicit correction
1 Explicit correction really helps me get better at speaking English
2 Explicit correction helps me realize the common mistakes I make when I speak
3 Explicit correction helps me speak more correctly, using the right words and grammar
4 Explicit correction helps me improve my pronunciation
5 Explicit correction helps me speak English more smoothly and fluently
6 Explicit correction provides me with useful feedback that helps me learn English better
7 Explicit correction increases my confidence in speaking English
(*): SD = Strongly disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly agree
The findings from questionnaires (see Table 8) reveal that a significant proportion of the participants either agreed or strongly agreed with statements about the effectiveness of explicit correction across various aspects
The questionnaire results revealed that 48.1% of participants agreed, and 32.1% strongly agreed on the effectiveness of explicit correction in enhancing their speaking skills (Item 1) Interview data echoed this, with most participants confirming its effectiveness While P1, P2, and P3 found explicit correction effective, P4 regarded it as very effective, contrasting with P5, who expressed it was not effective for them This divergence suggests individual differences in perceiving the effectiveness of this OCF type
Participants generally agreed (37% agree, 45.7% strongly agree, Item 2) that explicit correction helps recognize and rectify common speaking errors Interviews with P2 and P5 emphasized its straightforward nature for prompt error identification This finding confirms Lyster et al (2013)’s statement about how explicit correction helps learners notice their errors and facilitates the consolidation of oral skills
A widespread belief that explicit correction offers valuable feedback that contributes to enhanced language learning outcomes (Item 6) can be observed among the participants A total of 86.4% participants stated that explicit correction contributes to improved accuracy in their spoken language, specifically in terms of word choice and grammar usage (Item 3) With regards to interview data, P1 mentioned “Explicit correction helps me understand vocabulary faster as the teacher points out which word is most suitable in a given context.”
The majority (86.4%) perceived explicit correction as contributing to improved accuracy in spoken language, specifically in vocabulary and grammar (Item 3) P1 highlighted its role in faster vocabulary understanding, preventing prolonged word searches This participants expressed, “Without this clear guidance, I may spend a long time searching for the right word and might not be able to come up with it even after careful thinking.” P3 emphasized clear explanations for grammar, crucial for applying rules to different contexts This participant conveyed, “As grammar consists of numerous rules and uses, receiving explanations on how to use grammar in contexts can significantly enhance my ability to apply grammar rules correctly.” In general, the majority of participants acknowledged explicit correction as a valuable tool for improving vocabulary use and grammar accuracy, highlighting the importance of explicit guidance in vocabulary selection and grammar usage, particularly for more complex language structures and lexical items
For pronunciation improvement, 72.8% believed explicit correction is beneficial All participants highlighted the importance of teachers providing pronunciation models P2 stressed the difficulty in understanding online models, emphasizing the teacher’s clear demonstration P3 and P5 detailed how explicit correction aids in syllable count, stress, and correct ending sounds, while P5 reported that teachers also provide phonemic transcriptions of difficult words All of these findings confirm the positive impact of explicit correction in pronunciation improvement
While 63% agreed that explicit correction assists in speaking fluently (Item 4), 29.6% were neutral Interviews revealed immediate practice and feedback after correction as crucial for fluency enhancement, supported by P1, P3, P4, and P5 P2 articulated, “My teacher usually asks us to practice again with supervision, and this immediate feedback and practice lead to noticeable improvements in fluency.” Overall, fluency and smoothness in speaking English were also considered positively influenced by explicit correction, although a notable portion of participants held a middle viewpoint Despite this, the interview data provides additional support, indicating that immediate practice and feedback after explicit correction play a crucial role in enhancing fluency
Regarding confidence (Item 7), 37% agreed, 25.9% strongly agreed, and 32.1% held a neutral stance P1 and P4 expressed confidence, while others noted varying factors influencing confidence, such as interest, correction delivery, and timing For example, P2 expressed, “My confidence is relative to my ability to absorb the corrections and the way I am corrected If I can understand and am corrected in a gentle and pleasant manner, my confidence remains intact However, if the corrections are delivered in a harsh or critical way, feelings of sadness and reluctance to engage in English learning might arise.” P5 highlighted the importance of correction timing and its impact on confidence If a teacher interrupts them while speaking, it can negatively impact their confidence In summary, explicit correction was perceived to have a positive influence on confidence The interview data sheds light on the various factors that may influence confidence levels, including the individual’s interest in English, the manner in which corrections are delivered, and the timing of the correction
The current findings are consistent with prior research that confirms EFL learners’ positive perceptions of various OCF types, especially explicit correction (Muyashoha, 2019; Muslem et al., 2021; Ha et al., 2021a; Park, 2010; Tasdemir & Arslan, 2018; Laeli & Setiawan, 2019; Azad & Kalam, 2016), including studies conducted within the Vietnamese EFL context (Bui, 2012; Luu, 2020) However, it is noteworthy that some other studies within the Vietnamese context (Bui, 2012;
Ha et al., 2021b) reported contradictory findings, showing that explicit correction is not appreciated This discrepancy could be attributed to variations in participants’ proficiency levels, particularly higher-level students in Bui's study who were third-year English majors with extensive English learning experience and therefore perceived explicit correction as non-friendly and detrimental to their self-esteem
4.1.2 Explanations for the effectiveness of explicit correction
The participants’ explanations for the perceived effectiveness or ineffectiveness of explicit correction unveil various aspects of this OCF type (see Table 9)
Explanations for Effectiveness of Explicit correction
8 Explicit correction is fast, which means there is more time for teaching and it doesn't interrupt speaking practice too much
9 Explicit correction is clear and easy to understand because it shows me exactly where I am wrong and explains how to correct them
10 The explanation provided helps me remember the language better and avoid repeating the same error
(*): SD = Strongly disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly agree
In the table, 38.3% of participants deemed explicit correction as a swift method allowing more teaching time without disrupting speaking practice significantly (Item 8) Notably, 24.7% held a neutral opinion on this aspect A substantial majority (50.6% agreed, 42.0% strongly agreed) acknowledged explicit correction’s clarity, highlighting its effectiveness in pinpointing errors and providing understandable guidance (Item 9) In interviews, P1, P2, and P4 emphasized the efficiency of explicit correction, praising its direct approach They found repeated corrections reinforced their memory of correct forms, with P4 noting a rapid understanding after 2 or 3 repetitions P3 mentioned increased awareness of errors made learning English engaging In contrast, P5 suggested both correction types might require similar explanation times, proposing additional examples and exercises for independent practice This participant suggested,
Providing additional examples and exercises after explanations empowers students to practice independently, strengthening their comprehension and memorization of language rules This interactive approach allows students to actively engage with the content, solidifying their understanding and enabling them to apply their knowledge independently.
Participants' feedback underlined the value of explicit correction in providing clear and effective guidance for error correction The repeated use of corrections and explanations was emphasized, particularly for beginners who benefit from immediate opportunities to rectify mistakes This finding aligns with previous studies by Alamri and Fawzi (2016) and Gutiérrez et al (2020), which highlighted the clarity and directness of explicit correction, especially for novice learners These results also resonate with the research conducted by Laeli and Setiawan (2019), which examined participants' detailed reasons for the effectiveness of various OCF types, including explicit correction.
In the questionnaire, participants were prompted with an open-ended question (see Table 10) to voluntarily offer additional insights on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of explicit correction Of the 81 participants, 29 responded Due to the brief nature of the responses, often offering general statements without detailed elaborations, analysis will be supplemented with new insights from interview data, if available
Additional Explanations for Effectiveness of Explicit correction
Being motivated to learn more
Being applicable to learners of all levels
Being very useful for beginner learners
Giving chance for immediate repair
Showing teachers’ caring teaching approach
Not giving learners enough impression about the errors
Limited retention and easy repetition of errors
No chance for developing critical thinking skills
Dependency and external guidance and limited self- engagement
Regarding explicit correction’s effectiveness, 3 participants emphasized its positive impact on enhancing professionalism in communication, showcasing its contribution to language proficiency and confidence One participant mentioned that explicit correction motivated them for further self-study This indicates the role of explicit correction as a catalyst for learners to take charge of their language learning journey Additionally, 2 respondents noted its applicability across all proficiency levels, aiding both low-level and higher-level students Conversely, 5 participants found explicit correction particularly beneficial for beginners, a viewpoint echoed by P2 in interviews This underscores its versatility in addressing individual needs, especially in the early stages of language learning Another participant valued explicit correction for providing immediate opportunities for repair, showcasing active learner engagement through repetition and internalization of correct language forms
Preferred target errors for explicit correction and elicitation
What are their perceived types of errors that are best addressed through explicit correction and elicitation?
The questionnaire design involves presenting participants with scenarios related to three types of errors (phonological, grammatical, and lexical) being made and asking them to indicate their preference for either explicit correction, elicitation, or both to effectively address each error type The findings are visualized in Table
Perceived Target Error Types Inviting Explicit Correction and Elicitation
Both Explicit correction and Elicitation What do you think is the best way for a teacher to help with phonological errors like this?
What do you think is the best way for a teacher to help with grammatical errors like this?
What do you think is the best way for a teacher to help with lexical errors like this?
4.2.1 Preferred target errors for explicit correction
Through the analysis, it becomes evident that explicit correction is the prevailing and preferred approach for addressing all three types of errors (phonological, grammatical, and lexical) These findings are consistent with the results reported by Zhao (2015), who similarly observed a widespread acceptance of explicit correction for various error types, despite in the context of learning Chinese as a foreign language rather than English
Regarding phonological errors, explicit correction emerged as the predominant approach, with 45.7% of participants advocating its effectiveness Participants like P3 and P5 shared their perspectives on explicit correction P3 stressed the familiarity and ease of understanding for students when teachers read the entire word aloud Similarly, P5 emphasized the significance of efficient and explicit correction to address phonological errors, advocating that elicitation serves as an effective support for this approach.
“quite lengthy and wordy.” Generally, a significant proportion of participants believed that explicit correction was the most effective method Some participants favored explicit correction for its familiarity to students, time-efficiency and clarity, while others considered explicit correction to be more suitable for shorter words The current finding provides additional support to a recent study conducted by Nhac (2022), which also confirmed that learners exhibit a preference for explicit correction when it comes to addressing phonological errors, showing the desire for explicit pronunciation guidance
Regarding grammatical errors, 42% of participants completing questionnaires favored the use of explicit correction Explicit correction was also believed by a minority of interviewed participants to provide clarity and reinforcement of grammar rules As stated by P2, “Explicit correction is effective in addressing grammatical errors as learners often have a basic understanding of grammar rules, and clear correction helps reinforce that knowledge.” In general, explicit correction was preferred by a substantial proportion of participants, highlighting its value in providing clarity and reinforcing grammar knowledge, particularly for learners who already have a basic understanding of grammar rules
For lexical errors, the rate of participants considering explicit correction as the preferred method stood at 42% This is confirmed by the interview data, as a larger part of the participants seemed to recognize the importance of explicit correction for lexical errors in an effort to prevent misunderstandings and guessed responses P1 emphasized the importance of explicit correction in addressing lexical errors to avoid confusion and difficulties in self-correction Likewise, P2 suggested that explicit correction is necessary to prevent learners from guessing words they are unsure of, as guessing might lead to further incorrect responses, while P3 added that “Explicit correction is essential, taking in account the abundant number of English words that may look similar and be easily confused.” In summary, concerning lexical errors, explicit correction was favored by a significant number of participants Some participants emphasized the importance of explicit correction in preventing confusion and difficulties in self-correction, while others stressed its role in preventing guessing and subsequent incorrect responses
4.2.2 Preferred target errors for elicitation
The findings reveal that despite not receiving a high level of approval, elicitation is perceived as a valuable approach, particularly for addressing grammatical and lexical errors in English language learning This finding is in line with the observations made by Lyster (1998), who noted that elicitation was predominantly employed in addressing grammatical and lexical errors, although Lyster’s observations were obtained from French immersion classrooms, not English ones
For phonological errors, elicitation was not widely perceived as an effective approach, less than one-fifth (17.3%) of the participants supporting its use During interviews, P2 opted for elicitation, mentioning that breaking words into smaller parts could be more effective for student acquisition Some participants expressed concerns that “elicitation might be lengthy and wordy when addressing phonological errors” (P1 and P5), whereas some others believed that “breaking words into smaller parts or syllables through elicitation could be more effective, particularly for longer words, aiding in better acquisition” (P3)
Elicitation has been recognized for its effectiveness in addressing grammatical errors, with 21% of participants in a study opting for this approach Interviews revealed the significance of grammar comprehension and context, and a majority of participants found elicitation helpful in enhancing learners' understanding Elicitation prompts learners to actively engage in identifying and correcting grammatical errors, leading to a deeper understanding of errors, grammar rules, and context This approach has demonstrated positive results in studies involving Chinese and Vietnamese learners, who expressed preferences for identifying and self-correcting grammatical errors through prompts.
For lexical errors, 18.5% considered elicitation as an effective way to promote self- learning and expand vocabulary knowledge P3 recommended elicitation as an effective method for addressing lexical errors without providing further explanations, whereas P4 highlighted the benefits of elicitation in encouraging learners to “explore and learn new words independently, including their synonyms and antonyms, which can enrich their vocabulary.” The present findings align with the observations of Choi and Li (2012), who reported that elicitation was predominantly utilized for correcting more lexical errors than other error types This consistency reinforces the notion that elicitation can be a preferred and effective approach for addressing lexical errors in different language learning contexts
4.2.3 Preferred use of both explicit correction and elicitation
Interestingly, the analysis also reveals that learners generally appreciated the use of both explicit correction and elicitation for addressing different types of errors
A significant proportion of participants (37%) indicated that the individual use of either explicit correction or elicitation could be effective in addressing phonological errors In a similar manner, the interviewed participants’ insights indicate that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be the most effective in addressing phonological errors P4 expressed that both explicit correction and elicitation could work effectively in addressing phonological errors P1 seemed to hold a similar view, but was more detailed in the cases of use, suggesting that “The approach for addressing phonological errors could depend on the length of the word For shorter words, explicit correction may be more appropriate, while longer words may benefit from elicitation.”
A considerable proportion (37%) reported that either explicit correction or elicitation could be beneficial in addressing grammatical errors This suggests that while explicit correction is more commonly chosen, there is recognition among participants of the potential effectiveness of using any of the two OCF types for improving grammatical accuracy and understanding
A substantial percentage (39.5%) expressed the view that either explicit correction or elicitation could effectively deal with lexical errors This suggests that while explicit correction is more commonly chosen as the preferred option for lexical errors, there is recognition among participants of the potential benefits of using either of the OCF types for improving lexical accuracy and understanding
In comparison with previous research, the present findings align with those from Nhac (2022) in terms of the approach to address lexical errors As Nhac found out, Vietnamese learners acknowledged the significance of using words accurately in context and appreciated both the guidance and prompts provided by teachers to facilitate self-correction in this aspect of language learning However, the present findings diverge from Nhac’s study concerning the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation for addressing phonological and grammatical errors, as the participants in this study showed different preferences and perceptions
Research question 2 “What are their perceived types of errors that are best addressed through explicit correction and elicitation?” aims to determine the participants’ perceptions regarding the use of explicit correction and elicitation for addressing different types of errors The results indicate that the participants in this study perceived explicit correction as the preferred and prevailing approach for addressing all three types of errors: phonological, grammatical, and lexical, while elicitation was not perceived as equally effective for all error types
CONCLUSION
Summary of findings
The current investigation has brought to light a number of fresh insights regarding the perceived efficacy of explicit correction and elicitation within the context of oral corrective feedback Through an in-depth exploration, new perspectives have illuminated their pedagogical importance, serving as an addition to the existing body of scholarly work with some viewpoints and explanations that have not previously been explored These distinctive revelations underscore the study’s contribution to enriching and broadening the current knowledge in the field of language teaching and learning
The following section presents the key findings of the study, addressing the two research questions outlined in Chapter 1 As discussed in the previous chapter, the findings indicate that
What is the perceived effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation as oral corrective feedback types in improving Vietnamese EFL learners’ speaking skill, and how their effectiveness is explained?
Regarding explicit correction, it was generally perceived as effective in improving various aspects of speaking, including error recognition, vocabulary use, grammar accuracy, pronunciation, fluency, and confidence level Participants appreciated its time efficiency and clarity, leading to better language retention and error prevention However, concerns were raised about extensive accompanying explanations and potential time constraints
On the other hand, elicitation received mixed perceptions regarding its overall effectiveness in improving the speaking skill While certain aspects of elicitation, such as error identification, vocabulary and grammar use, and opportunities for self-correction, were acknowledged as beneficial, concerns were raised about its suitability for low-level learners and its time-consuming implementation
Vietnamese EFL learners generally perceived explicit correction positively for improving their speaking abilities However, their views on elicitation's effectiveness varied Factors such as learner characteristics, proficiency, and past learning experiences significantly influenced their perceptions of different OCF types Therefore, it is crucial to consider individual learner needs and proficiency levels when implementing OCFs to foster learner autonomy, critical thinking, and cater to their diverse learning requirements.
What are their perceived types of errors that are best addressed through explicit correction and elicitation?
Explicit correction emerged as the prevalent and favored OCF approach for addressing all error types (phonological, grammatical, and lexical) Participants acknowledged its crucial role in enhancing pronunciation accuracy, providing immediate clarity on grammar rules, and mitigating vocabulary-related misunderstandings Interview data corroborated these findings, emphasizing the familiarity, efficiency, and efficacy of explicit correction in reinforcing language norms.
In contrast, participants did not perceive elicitation as equally effective for all types of errors While it received limited support for addressing phonological errors, they acknowledged its value in targeting grammatical and lexical errors The interview data emphasized the role of elicitation in enhancing learners’ understanding of grammar rules and facilitating self-learning and vocabulary expansion
Despite the prevailing preference for explicit correction, learners demonstrated the appreciation for both explicit correction and elicitation when addressing the three types of errors Regarding phonological errors, a substantial proportion of participants recognized the potential effectiveness of both approaches Similarly, for grammatical errors, participants acknowledged the benefits of both explicit correction and elicitation When it came to lexical errors, over one-third of the participants expressed the view that either explicit correction or elicitation could effectively address these errors This indicates that learners recognized the value of using both types of oral corrective feedback in different error contexts, highlighting their willingness to embrace a comprehensive approach to language learning and proficiency enhancement.
Implications
The findings of the current study carry significant implications for both the theory and practice of English language teaching and oral corrective feedback
Firstly, the positive perceptions of Vietnamese EFL learners regarding the effectiveness of explicit correction in various aspects of speaking, such as error recognition, vocabulary use, grammar accuracy, pronunciation, fluency, and confidence level, highlight the importance of incorporating explicit correction in language classrooms Language instructors can employ explicit correction techniques to provide immediate and targeted feedback, facilitating learners’ language development and promoting accuracy and fluency in spoken English Secondly, the mixed perceptions regarding the overall effectiveness of elicitation in improving the speaking skill indicate the need for language instructors to be more careful and thoughtful when employing elicitation techniques Although certain aspects of elicitation, such as error identification, vocabulary and grammar use, and opportunities for self-correction, were recognized as advantageous, its suitability may differ based on learners’ proficiency levels and the specific linguistic aspect being targeted Teachers should take into account learners’ individual characteristics and prior experiences to appropriately implement elicitation in language instruction
Thirdly, the recognition of both explicit correction and elicitation as valuable tools for addressing different types of errors emphasizes the significance of adopting a balanced approach to OCF in language classrooms Integrating explicit correction and elicitation techniques allows language instructors to cater to the diverse needs of learners, foster learner autonomy, and encourage a deeper understanding of language rules and usage This comprehensive approach to OCF can enhance language learning and proficiency effectively
Learner characteristics, such as proficiency and prior language learning experiences, impact the effectiveness of OCF types, highlighting the importance of learner-centered language instruction Customizing OCF techniques to each learner's unique profile ensures optimal language acquisition outcomes.
Fifthly, the findings underscore the importance of fostering a positive learning environment The positive reception of explicit correction by Vietnamese EFL learners suggests that a supportive and constructive atmosphere, where learners feel encouraged rather than discouraged by corrective feedback, is vital Creating an environment that views errors as opportunities for growth and improvement can contribute significantly to the effectiveness of both explicit correction and elicitation
Finally, this study serves as a valuable contribution to the existing body of literature in English language teaching and oral corrective feedback, acting as a catalyst for further research endeavors By building on the foundations laid out in this research, scholars and educators can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of effective language instruction and develop strategies that cater to the diverse needs of language learners in an ever-changing educational landscape.
Limitations
Continuous efforts have been made to enhance the understanding of oral corrective feedback in the field of language teaching and learning, but certain limitations were inevitable during the course of this research
First, the sample size of participants in the present study may be considered limited While the participants provided valuable insights into their perceptions, the limited sample size could affect the generalizability of the findings to a broader population of Vietnamese EFL learners
The depth and breadth of this research may have been limited by constraints in the existing literature Despite thorough efforts to conduct a comprehensive literature review, the scope of the study could have been influenced by the availability and accessibility of relevant materials Consequently, the findings may not fully capture the broader understanding of the topic.
Third, the study’s participants shared certain demographic characteristics, including language proficiency levels and educational backgrounds This homogeneity may limit the diversity of perceptions and experiences, and the findings may not be generalizable to learners with different proficiency levels or linguistic backgrounds Moreover, the study was conducted in a specific educational setting and with learners from a particular institution, which may limit the applicability of the findings to other EFL learning contexts
Finally, the study primarily relied on self-reported perceptions from participants regarding the use of explicit correction and elicitation While efforts were made to ensure the validity and reliability of self-reported data, the possibility of response bias cannot be entirely prevented
Despite these limitations, this study has contributed valuable insights into the perceptions of Vietnamese EFL learners regarding the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation as types of oral corrective feedback In the
“Recommendations” section, specific strategies to address these limitations would be explored, and guidance for future research in the field of oral corrective feedback in EFL settings would be provided.
Recommendations for further study
Based on the identified limitations of the present study, several recommendations for future research are suggested as belows
To address the first limitation regarding the generalizability of findings, future research should strive to include a larger and more diverse sample of participants Recruiting participants from various language proficiency levels, educational backgrounds, and institutions will provide a broader perspective on the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation across different learner populations
To mitigate the second limitation, researchers should conduct a thorough and comprehensive literature review to ensure a solid foundation for their studies Exploring a wide range of sources and studies related to oral corrective feedback, explicit correction, and elicitation will enrich the depth and breadth of the research
To overcome the third challenge, researchers can follow what was suggested for the first limitation, which is to include participants with diverse demographic characteristics and language learning experiences Conducting research in various educational settings and with learners from different linguistic backgrounds will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of different OCF types
To deal with the last limitation, future research could complement self-reported data with objective measurements of speaking proficiency Incorporating oral proficiency tests or other objective assessments will provide more robust evidence of the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation in improving learners’ speaking skill
Further research should delve into factors influencing explicit correction and elicitation effectiveness, such as learner preferences, motivation, gender, and attitudes towards feedback Longitudinal studies can explore their long-term impact on learner progress and language development Additionally, comparative studies can directly contrast the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation for specific error types Understanding their relative merits for different errors will inform targeted feedback strategies for language instructors.
In conclusion, addressing the limitations of the present study and advancing future research in the field of oral corrective feedback will contribute to a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of explicit correction and elicitation in improving learners’ speaking skill Implementing these recommendations will provide valuable insights for language instructors and researchers, leading to more effective language teaching and learning practices
Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S (2011) Exploring the Teachers’ Use of Spoken Corrective Feedback in Teaching Iranian EFL Learners at Different Levels of Proficiency Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859–1868 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.435
Alamri, B., & Fawzi, H H (2016) Students’ Preferences and Attitude toward Oral Error Correction Techniques at Yanbu University College, Saudi Arabia English Language Teaching, 9(11), 59 https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n11p59
Amhrein, H., & Nassaji, H (2010) Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127
Ammar, A., & Spada, N (2006) One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574
Azad, M., & Kalam, A (2016) Bangladeshi EFL Learners' Perceptions and Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback ASA University Review, 10(2)
Bouaziz, R., & Bechoua, S (2020) Investigating the relationship between EFL learners’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback and their motivation to speak
Bouzar, S (2019) Issues in Teaching Speaking to EFL Learners Education and Linguistics Research 5(1)
Brown, A V (2009) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching:
A comparison of ideals The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60
Brown, H D (2006) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching https://doi.org/10.1604/9780131991286
Bui, M P (2012) A comparison between students at different proficiency levels about their preferences for and attitudes toward teachers’oral corrective feedback in speaking skill at
FELTE, ULIS, VNU (Doctoral dissertation) Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies, Hanoi, Vietnam
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus (2023, August 9) Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K (2007) Research Methods in Education (6th ed.) London, Routledge
Corder, S.P (1967) The significance of learners’ errors International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 4, 161-170
Creswell, J W (2012) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: International Edition
Choi, S Y., & Li, S (2012) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom RELC Journal, 43(3), 331–351
Studies by Chu (2011) and Devayalage (2021) investigate the impact of teacher feedback on the accuracy of oral English among English-major college students and explore perceptions of oral error correction in EFL/ESL classrooms Chu's research highlights the positive effects of corrective feedback on students' oral proficiency, while Devayalage's survey provides insights into the perspectives of both teachers and students regarding the role of error correction in language learning.
Ellis, R (2009) Corrective feedback and teacher development L2 Journal, 1(1)
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R (2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368 Fadilah, E (2018) Oral corrective feedback on students’ grammatical accuracy and willingness to communicate in EFL classroom: the effects of focused and unfocused prompts The Asian EFL Journal, 20(4)
Ferris, D (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996) Journal of second language writing, 8(1), 1-11
Genỗ, Z S (2014) Correcting spoken errors in English language teaching: Preferences of Turkish EFL learners at different proficiency levels Egitim ve Bilim, 39(174)
Gutiộrrez, A., Arancibia, C., Bustos, C., Mora, F., Santibỏủez, X., & Flores, M (2020) Students’ perceptions of oral corrective feedback given by teachers in communicative approach English courses from an EFL pedagogy program at a private university Lenguas Modernas, (56), 9-26
Ha, X V (2017) Primary EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback in Vietnam: Beliefs and practices (Master of Research thesis) Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Ha, X V., & Nguyen, L T (2021) Targets and sources of oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: are students' and teachers' beliefs aligned? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2479
Ha, X V., Murray, J C., & Riazi, A M (2021) High school EFL students’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: The role of gender, motivation and extraversion Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 235–264
Ha, X V., Nguyen, T L., & Bui, P H (2021) Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective Heliyon, 7(7), e07550
Hendrickson, J M (1978) Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387–398 https://doi.org/10.2307/326176
Kennedy, S (2010) Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A teacher’s choices TESL Canada Journal, 31–31
Laeli, A F., & Setiawan, S (2019) Oral corrective feedback in speaking class: Its frequency, students’ perceptions and preference Expo J Pendidik Bhs Ingg, 8(2), 257–269 https://doi.org/10.26618/exposure.v8i2.2785
Lai, B H (2017) Teachers’use of oral corrective feedback in speaking lesson in an English private centre, Hanoi, Vietnam: The differences between NESTS and non-NESTS
Li, S (2013) Oral corrective feedback ELT journal, 68(2), 196-198
Lightbown, P M., & Spada, N (2013) How languages are learned Oxford Univiversity Press Luu, T H (2020) Matches and mismatches between EFL teachers’and students’preferences for corrective feedback in English speaking classes at a Vietnamese university VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 36(1)
Lyster, R (1998) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms Language learning, 48(2), 183-218
Lyster, R (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66 Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40
Mackey, A., & Gass, S M (2015) Second language research: Methodology and design Routledge
Muhsin, A (2016) The effectiveness of positive feedback in teaching speaking skill Lingua Cultura, 10(1), 25–30
Muslem, A., Zulfikar, T., Astilla, I., Heriansyah, H., & Marhaban, S (2021) Students' perception toward oral corrective feedback in speaking classes: A case at English education department students International Journal of Language Education, 5(4), 244-259
Muyashoha, A B., & Sugianto, A (2019, December) The students’ perception towards oral corrective feedback in speaking class Paper presented at the International Conference on English Language Teaching, Indonesia
Nassaji, H (2007) Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction Language Learning, 57, 511–548
Nunan, D (2003) Practical English Language Teaching McGraw-Hill Europe
Nunan, D., David, N., & Swan, M (1992) Research methods in language learning Cambridge University Press
Nguyen, T H (2019) Oral corrective feedback in a blended learning environment: Challenges and contradictions faced by teachers in a Vietnamese university (Doctoral dissertation) The University of Waikato
Nhac, T H (2017) Corrective feedback and uptake patterns in English speaking lessons at Hanoi Law University Meta, 46(49), 9
Nhac, T H (2022) Oral corrective feedback preferences in English lessons: Learners' and teachers' perspectives European Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 1643-1655 Panova, I., & Lyster, R (2002) Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom Tesol Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595
Park, H S (2010) Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction (Master’s thesis) California State University, Sacramento
Pham, T H & Pham, X T (2018) Oral corrective feedback in EFL/ESL classrooms: Classification models VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(5)
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R (2007) A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence In R M Dekeyser (Ed.),
Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology
(pp 141-160) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Richards, J C., & Schmidt, R W (2013) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics Routledge
Rizi, A R B., & Ketabi, S (2015) A close look at sixty years of corrective feedback Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(1), 63-77
Saslow, J., & Ascher, A (2015) Top Notch 1 Student Book Allyn & Bacon
Saslow, J., & Ascher, A (2015) Top Notch 2 Student Book Pearson Education ESL
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(2), 244–258
Sheen, Y (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300 https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
Sheen, Y (2011) Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning New York: Springer
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R (2011) Corrective feedback in language teaching In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp 593-610) Routledge
Spada, N (2013) Corrective feedback (oral) In P Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp 139-142) London: Routledge
Suzuki, M (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms
Tasdemir, M S., & Arslan, F Y (2018) Feedback preferences of EFL learners with respect to their learning styles Cogent Education, 5(1)
Thornbury, S (2000) Accuracy, fluency and complexity English Teaching Professional, 16(3- 6)
Tran, K N., & Nguyen, T C (2020) Teachers’perceptions about oral corrective feedback in EFL speaking classes: A case at colleges in the Mekong delta, Vietnam European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(2)
Ur, P (2012) A course in language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wesely, P M (2012) Learner attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in language learning Foreign Language Annals, 45(s1), s98-s117
Yoshida, R (2008) Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93
Yuksel, D., Soruỗ, A., & McKinley, J (2021) The relationship between university EFL teachers’ oral feedback beliefs and practices and the impact of individual differences International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
Zhang, S (2014) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in ESL speaking classes taught by native English and non-native English teachers (Doctoral dissertation) Prince of Songkla University
Zhao, W (2015) Learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback and their effects on second language noticing and learning motivation McGill University (Canada)
Questionnaire on Vietnamese EFL Learners’ Perceptions of Explicit Correction and Elicitation in Speaking Classes
This study, "EFL Learners' Perceptions about the Use of Oral Corrective Feedback in Speaking Classes at a College in HCMC," seeks to comprehend Vietnamese EFL students' perspectives on Explicit correction and Elicitation as oral corrective feedback in speaking classes Your participation will aid in understanding the perceived effectiveness of these feedback types and their contribution to improving speaking skills.
Your participation is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY
There are no right or wrong answers; please be candid in sharing your experiences and opinions
All responses will be CONFIDENTIAL, and your personal information will not be disclosed
The data will solely be used for research purposes
Should you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me Once again, thank you for your time and invaluable contribution
Pham Nguyen Cong Minh minhpnc@fpt.edu.vn
Please provide the following information about yourself:
How confident do you feel in your speaking skill?
Very confident Confident Not confident Not confident at all
Please first take a look at the brief overview of Explicit correction and Elicitation as types of oral corrective feedback
Explicit correction: Teachers show where the Elicitation: Teachers directly elicit the correct error is and tell students the right way to correct it
They often also explain the language rule related to the error form of an utterance from a student, which can help them self-notice the error and self-correct it
T: Where did you go yesterday?
T: Oh, go is wrong You should say: I went I went to the park yesterday Use the verb in the past tense
T: Where did you go yesterday?
T: How do we talk about what we did in the past?
Now please read each statement carefully and rate your level of agreement or disagreement using the option scale provided below
Scale: 1 = totally disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = totally agree
No Perceived Effectiveness of Explicit correction Scale
1 Explicit correction really helps me get better at speaking English 1 2 3 4 5
2 Explicit correction helps me realize the common errors I make when I speak 1 2 3 4 5
3 Explicit correction helps me speak more correctly, using the right words and grammar 1 2 3 4 5
4 Explicit correction helps me improve my pronunciation 1 2 3 4 5
5 Explicit correction helps me speak English more smoothly and fluently 1 2 3 4 5
6 Explicit correction provides me with useful feedback that helps me learn English better 1 2 3 4 5
7 Explicit correction increases my confidence in speaking English 1 2 3 4 5
8 Explicit correction is fast, which means there is more time for teaching and it doesn’t interrupt speaking practice too much 1 2 3 4 5
9 Explicit correction is clear and easy to understand because it shows me exactly where I am wrong and explains how to correct them 1 2 3 4 5
10 The explanation provided helps me remember the language better and avoid repeating the same error 1 2 3 4 5
Other explanation(s) (please specify why explicit correction is effective OR not effective):
No Perceived Effectiveness of Elicitation Scale
11 Elicitation really helps me get better at speaking English 1 2 3 4 5
12 Elicitation helps me realize the common errors I make when I speak 1 2 3 4 5
13 Elicitation helps me speak more correctly, using the right words and grammar 1 2 3 4 5
14 Elicitation helps me improve my pronunciation 1 2 3 4 5
15 Elicitation helps me speak English more smoothly and fluently 1 2 3 4 5
16 Elicitation increases my confidence in speaking English 1 2 3 4 5
17 Elicitation lets me correct my own errors, which makes me feel more in control and involved in learning 1 2 3 4 5
18 Elicitation gives me time and prompts to think about how to correct my errors 1 2 3 4 5
19 The process of self-correction helps me remember the language better and avoid making the same error again 1 2 3 4 5
Other explanation(s) (please specify why elicitation is effective OR not effective):
Each scenario below refers to one of the three types of errors (phonological, grammatical, or lexical errors) being made For each case, please indicate which type(s) of oral error correction you think the teacher should best use (by selecting the most appropriate answer)
20 Imagine you are speaking English and you say, “I like to eat rice with chock-let.” You meant to say “chocolate” but pronounced it wrong
What do you think is the best way for a teacher to help with phonological errors like this?
Using Explicit correction: The teacher might say, “It's pronounced ‘chocolate’, not
‘chock-let’ Let's say it together: ‘chocolate’.”
Using Elicitation: The teacher might say, “Let’s practice saying ‘chocolate’ First say
‘choc’ Good, now say ‘o-late’ Put them together: ‘chocolate’ Great job! Let’s practice a few more times.”
Both Explicit correction and Elicitation can be effective
21 Imagine you are speaking English and you say, “I go to the store yesterday.” There is an error in this sentence because you should say “went” instead of “go”
What do you think is the best way for a teacher to help with grammatical errors like this?
Using Explicit correction: The teacher might say, “We say ‘I went to the store yesterday’, not ‘I go to the store yesterday.’ When we use ‘go’ in the past tense, the correct word is