Nghiên cứu về sử dụng phản hồi của giáo viên tại trường thcs bế văn đàn hà nội

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES ĐỖ MỸ HƯƠNG A RESEARCH ON THE USE OF TEACHER’S CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AT BE VAN DAN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL - HANOI (Nghiên cứu sử dụng phản hồi giáo viên trường THCS Bế Văn Đàn Hà Nội) M.A Thesis Major: English teaching methodology (type 1) Major code: 60140111 Hanoi, 2017 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES ĐỖ MỸ HƯƠNG A RESEARCH ON THE USE OF TEACHER’S CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AT BE VAN DAN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL - HANOI (Nghiên cứu sử dụng phản hồi giáo viên trường THCS Bế Văn Đàn Hà Nội) M.A Thesis Major: English teaching methodology (type 1) Major code: 60140111 Supervisor: Dr Mai Ngoc Khoi Hanoi, 2017 ACCEPTANCE I hereby state that I, Đỗ Mỹ Hương, class: QH2014.23B, being a candidate for the degree of Master of Arts accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master Thesis deposited in the library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my thesis deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the thesis Signature Đỗ Mỹ Hương Hanoi, December 18th, 2017 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude towards my supervisor, Dr Mai Ngọc Khôi, for his invaluable guidance and suggestions I would also like to thank him for such careful feedback, advice, useful resources and materials that he gave me during process of conducting this thesis Without his support, I would not have completed this thesis I highly appreciate his enthusiasm Secondly, my sincere thanks go to teachers for their participation in the research and their permission for me to attend, observe and record the lessons Appreciation is also expressed for their detailed answers in the stimulated recall I would also like to thank all beloved students of class 6A0 and 6A3 Last but not least, my hearty thanks go to all family members and friends, who enthusiastically encourage me to complete my thesis ii ABSTRACT Errors are considered an indispensable part of any language learning process because they help make students more „mature‟ in their language proficiency However, whether the use of teachers‟ corrective feedback has positive influences on students‟ speaking skills has been of scorching controversy among scholars In fact, there have been many studies conducted on the field in Vietnam, yet not many studies focus on the students of secondary level This offers a gap for the researcher to bridge This study aims to investigate three issues: (1) the differences in the distribution of feedback types between two different level 6-grade classes, (2) the extent to which each feedback type successfully led to repair and (3) the reasons behind teachers‟ choice of feedback Two classes (one English- major and one nonmajor) and two teachers in charge of these two classes participated in the study Class observation and stimulated recall were employed as data collection instruments The results revealed that teacher of non-major class preferred to use explicit techniques, whilst teacher of English-major class tend to use negotiation techniques Recast was used the most frequently, yet did not lead to high rate of uptake and repair Metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, repetition and elicitation proved to be successful in generate students‟ repair In terms of factors influencing teachers‟ choice of feedback, both internal factor (students‟ ability, error types) and external factor (time limitation, lesson goals) were found out Key words: teachers’ corrective feedback students’ uptake choice iii reasons of feedback’s TABLE OF CONTENTS ACCEPTANCE i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES .vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .1 1.1 Identification of the problem 1.2 Purpose of the study and research questions 1.3 Significance of the study 1.4 Methods of the study 1.5 Organization of the study 1.6 Summary .3 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Key concepts 2.1.1 Corrective feedback 2.1.2 Types of corrective feedback 2.1.3 Factors affecting teacher‟s choice of feedback 2.1.4 Arguments on the role of corrective feedback 2.2 Review of previous research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on speaking skills 11 2.3 Summary .17 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 18 3.1 Method of the study 18 3.2 Data collection instruments 20 3.2.1 Class observation 20 3.2.2 Stimulated recall interviews 22 3.3 Procedures 23 iv 3.3.1 Data collection 23 3.3.2 Data analysis 25 3.4 Summary 27 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 28 4.1 Three research questions 28 4.1.1 Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class? 28 4.1.2 Question 2: What are the reasons behind teacher’s choice of corrective feedback? 31 4.1.3 Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair? 34 4.2 Summary 37 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 38 5.1 Brief summary of the findings 38 5.2 Pedagogical implications 40 5.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies 41 REFERENCES 43 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I APPENDIX III APPENDIX IV APPENDIX V v LIST OF TABLES Table Distribution of corrective feedback of class 6A0 Table Distribution of corrective feedback of class 6A3 (specializing in English) Table Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A0 Table Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A3 (specializing in English) vi communicative language teaching From these findings, teachers may have some experiences in the use of corrective feedback in the most efficient way 5.2 Pedagogical implications Errors are inevitable during the process of learning a language so teachers should pay attention to how to use corrective feedback to correct students‟ errors in the most effective way The most successful format of correction is the feedback that successfully leading to self-correction in practice situations From this study, teachers can draw some pedagogical implications to improve their ways of using feedback After completing the study, the researcher sent the results via email to both teachers The researcher also had a small talk on the phone with teacher of class 6A0 She recommended that in addition to explicit correction strategies, teacher should use negotiation techniques more frequently to draw students‟ attention and stimulate the students‟ self-reformation of errors As a matter of fact, it is imperative that teachers should consider all relevant factors (students‟ error type, ability, feeling, time, …) to find out the most appropriate types of feedback to students‟ errors Then, students will easily recognize their errors and may not commit the same errors the next time Particularly, recasts and explicit corrections are suitable for errors in pronunciation as the most effective way to properly learn pronunciation is listening and repeating Meanwhile, when students make mistakes in lexicon and grammar, teachers using negotiation techniques like clarification requests, elicitation can help students identify their errors clearly and stimulate students‟ thinking to self-correct, not just give the correct form of the target language Also, it is necessary for teachers to take students‟ language proficiency into consideration when choosing any type of corrective feedback To non-majors, as they not have enough linguistic 40 knowledge to understand or response to teachers‟ implication, direct feedback such as recasts, explicit correction or metalinguistic feedback can work as it help provide language input To students who have basic background of target language, implicit feedback plays a prime role in eliciting students‟ thoughts to self-repair Moreover, many studies conducted previously indicate that recasts are the most popular strategy and also lead to the most uptake However, it is proved to be less effective than other choices of feedback Students may repeat teachers‟ recasts automatically without certainly recognize the errors As a result, teachers had better move to more effective technique such as metalinguistic feedback or explicit feedback 5.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies The limitations the researcher sums up after carrying out this study are illustrated as follows: First, there are six periods observed in total as it is not a longitudinal study Hence, the results can not reflect the long-term effect of teacher‟s corrective feedback on students‟ speaking skills Second, the study was conducted in a lowersecondary school so the results of the study can not be generalized to other students or schools Due to time constraints, the researcher can not observe all the grade-6 students of the school This, to some extent, can not represent the opinions of larger population The last limitation of the study involves the methodology As a matter of fact, the researcher actually wanted to conduct interviews with students to find out their perceptions and attitudes towards teachers‟ corrective feedback, in other words, from students‟ perspectives, whether corrective feedback is effective and helps them recognize their errors To some extent, interviews with students will give a more comprehensive and objective results, rather than just based on results from class observation Consequently, it is hard to examine whether the teacher‟ corrective feedback actually has positive impact on students‟ speaking skills Above all, the researcher has tried her best to make the results as much objective as possible as well as maintain the reliability of the study However, to be honest, all 41 mentioned limitations of the study should be taken into account in a serious way when other studies It is highly recommended that other researchers when conducting further studies on this matter should pay attention to all mentioned shortcomings the researcher has listed above First of all, later researchers should carry out longitudinal observation of the class or choose experimental research with experimental group which receive feedback, control group which not and some tests (namely pre-tests and post-tests) as their methodology to effectively examine whether teacher‟s corrective feedback actually help students improve their speaking skills or not Second, it is imperative that later studies should be conducted on a larger population with the participation of more classes at a wider range of levels The participation of some English native teachers is also a good idea because more and more school now invite native teachers to instruct students in speaking lessons From then, researchers can make comparison of the use of teacher‟s corrective feedback between Vietnamese teachers and native teachers 42 REFERENCES Asari, Y (2011) Subcategorization of recasts: Examining different features Proceedings of the 16th Conference Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 418-421 Büyükbay, S & Dabaghi, A (2010) The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1: 181-193 Chaudron, C (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Chu, R (2011) The effects of teacher‟s corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English majors college students Theory and Practice in Language Studies, (5), 454- 459 Day, R et al (1984) Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse Language Learning, 34, 19-45 Egi, T (2007) Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511-537 Ellis, R (2001) Form-focused instruction and second language learning Language learning, 51: Supplement 1, 391- Fungula, B (2013) Oral Corrective Feedback in the Chinese EFL Classroom : Methods employed by teachers to give feedback to their students (Dissertation) Hattie, J., & Timperley, H (2007) The power of feedback Review of Educational Research, 77, 181-112 Hyland, F., & Hyland, K (2001) Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212 Huong, T T (2011) Effects of teacher's feedback on freshmen's motivation in speaking lessons A survey research at Hanoi University of Business and Technology (M.A.), ULIS, VNU Liu, N-F & Carless, D (2006) Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment, Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), pp.279-290 43 Loewen, S and Philp, J (2006) Recasts in adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556 Kim, J.H Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, Teachers College, Columbia University Krashen, S D (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition New York: Pergamon Institute of English Ferm Lange, C (2009) Corrective Feedback During Communicative Activities : A study of recasts as a feedback method to correct spoken English (Dissertation) Lightbown, P M & Spada, N (1999) How Languages are Learned Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Lyster, R & Ranta, L (1997) "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms" Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 37–66 Lyster, R (1998) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error type and learner repair in immersion classrooms Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218 Ohta, A S (2001) Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Sadler, D.R (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems Instructional Science, 18, 119-144 Republished in W Haren (Ed) (2008) Student assessment and testing Ch 14, Vol 2, pp 28 London: SAGE Sadler, D R (2010) Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (5), 535-550 Sheen, Y (2011) Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning Dordrecht: Springer 44 Siewert, L (2011) The effects of written teacher feedback on the academic achievement of fifth-grade students with learning challenges Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and youth, 55(1), 17–27 Tedick, D & Gortari, B (1998) Research on Error Correction and Implications for Classroom Teaching The Bridge, ACIE Newsletter Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota, v1 Tornberg, U (2005) Språkdidaktik Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning AB Truscott, J (1999) What‟s wrong with grammar correction Canadian Modern language Review, 55, 437-456 Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C (1996) Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology British Educational Research Journal, 22 (4) Varnosfadrani, A D., & Basturkmen, H (2009) The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners‟ performance System, 37(1), 82-98 Weiner, B (1990) History of motivational research in education Journal of Education psychology, 82(4), 616-622 Zacharias, N T (2007) Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback RELC Journal, 38(I), 38-52 45 APPENDIX OBSERVATION CHECKLIST Date: Time: Class: Teacher name: Lesson: * Notes: Stud U = Uptake No U = No uptake R = Repair NR = Needs repair Student‟s error Teacher‟s feedback Response ent Gram Phonol lexi Rec Elicit Explici Metalin matical ogical cal ast ation t guistic tion correct feedbac request ion k I Clarifica Repet Ignore U No U ition R NR Note APPENDIX EXAMPLES OF ERRORS, TEACHER’S CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE FROM CLASS OBSERVATION Notes: all information in brackets and forward slashes were noted by the researcher Example 1: (Unit 2-communication part) Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error) Teacher (T): Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (recast) S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (uptake-repair) And there is a poster on the wall /pɒstə/ (phonological error) T: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (recast) S: Poster /ˈpəʊstə(r)/ (uptake-repair) Example 2: (Unit – looking back – communication) S1: How many class are there in your school? (grammatical error) T: Classes (recast) S1: (No uptake) S2: twenty-five T: You should say classes instead of class because we use plural noun after „how many‟ (delayed metalinguistic feedback) Example 3: (Unit 3) S: In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error) T: No, we not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction) S: Yes (uptake- needs-repair) Example 4: (unit 4) S: Ho Chi Minh City is largest city in southern Vietnam (grammatical error) T: largest city? (repetition) S: Yes… (uptake-needs repair) II T: the largest city (recast) S: the largest city (uptake-repair) Example 5: (unit 3) S: On Sunday we are singing at our village‟s choir club (phonological error) T: choir /ˈkwaɪə(r)/ not /kɔɪə(r)/ (explicit correction) S : choir /ˈkwaɪə(r)/ Example : (unit 3) S : I and him are doing homework together from 8a.m to 9.30a.m (lexical error) T: I and him? (Repetition) S: Ah, I and he (uptake – needs repair) T: No, you should say He and I (explicit correction) Example 7: (unit 2) S: There are two vase at the corner of the bookshelf (grammatical error) T: (ignore) S: and a armchair in front of the TV (grammatical error) T: an armchair (recast) S: an armchair (uptake – repair) T: you should use „an‟ if the next word begins with a vowel (repeat the knowledge) Example 8: (unit 1) S: There have fifty-two students in my class (grammatical error) T: There have or there are? (elicitation) S: There are (uptake-repair) III APPENDIX Table Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A0 (46 language episodes in total) Feedback type Uptake Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n % n % Recast (n=16) 10 62.5 50 12.5 37.5 Elicitation (n=7) 100 42.8 57.2 0 Clarification 100 0 100 0 100 88.9 11.1 0 Repetition (n=5) 80 40 40 20 Explicit 63.6 63.6 0 36.4 25 25 0 75 request (n=2) Metalinguistic feedback (n=9) correction (n=11) Others (n=4) Table Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A3 (specializing in English) (40 language episodes in total) Feedback type Uptake Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n % n % Recast (n=13) 61.5 46.1 15.4 38.5 Elicitation (n=9) 100 88.9 11.1 0 Clarification 66.7 33.3 33.4 33.3 100 77.8 22.2 0 Repetition (n=8) 100 75 25 0 Explicit 100 66.7 33.3 0 33.3 33.3 0 66.7 Request (n=3) Metalinguistic Feedback (n=9) correction (n=6) Others (n=3) IIII APPENDIX STIMULATED RECALL CODING SHEET Class: Teacher name: Lesson/Unit: Length of recordings: Date of lesson: Date of stimulated recall interview: Time Teacher‟s comment External factors IIV Internal factors APPENDIX EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPTIONS OF STIMULATED RECALL Stimulated recall interview with teacher of class 6A0 (Teacher A) Interviewer (I): Thưa cô, sau em xin phép bắt đầu vấn Bây em bật lại số trích đoạn học có sử dụng việc phản hồi với câu chứa lỗi sai em học sinh Sau em xin phép hỏi cô số câu hỏi liên quan (Mở recordings) I: Trong đoạn ghi âm vừa rồi, em thấy em học sinh có mắc lỗi để động từ tobe động từ thường „have‟ đứng cạnh (we are have), cô không gợi ý cho bạn tự sửa lỗi cho mà lại nhắc lại lý thuyết sửa lỗi cho bạn ạ? T: Vì bạn bước vào lớp 6, khác so với tiếng Anh tiểu học nên cô muốn sửa lỗi nhắc lại kiến thức để bạn nhớ Hơn kiến thức bạn cịn nên nhiều khơng biết sai đâu sửa (Mở recordings) I: Cô em thấy vừa em học sinh quên dạng số nhiều từ „class‟, cô sửa lỗi ln ạ? T: Vì lớp có 45 phút nên nhiều vôi em ạ, kiểm tra tập nhà warm up nhiều thời gian, học sinh khơng có thời gian luyện nói nhiều Cơ sửa lỗi ln để khơng làm gián đoạn hội thoại sau nhắc lại kiến thức để sau em học sinh không mắc lỗi Stimulated recall interview with teacher of class 6A3 (Teacher B) Interviewer (I): Thưa cô, sau em xin phép bắt đầu vấn Bây em bật lại số trích đoạn học có sử dụng việc phản hồi với câu chứa lỗi sai em học sinh Sau em xin phép hỏi số câu hỏi liên quan (Mở recordings) IV I: Thưa cô, em học sinh mắc lỗi phát âm từ fridge /fraɪdʒ/, cô lại nhắc lại dạng cách phát âm từ fridge ạ? Teacher (T): Cô cho em học sinh chưa biết cách phát âm từ Cô sửa lỗi nghĩ cách học phát âm tốt nghe nhắc lại, nên cô phát âm em học sinh nhắc lại (Mở recordings) I: Em thấy em học sinh đoạn ghi âm vừa mắc lỗi ngữ pháp „slowlier‟, em biết dạng phải „more slowly‟, cô không sửa cho em học sinh mà lại đưa phương án cho em lựa chọn? T: Cơ nghĩ em biết kiến thức này, lúc nói quên Các em học sinh lớp chuyên Anh có tảng kiến thức tốt, nên dùng cách chữa để em tự nhớ lại kiến thức tự sửa lỗi cho (Mở recordings) I: Trong đoạn ghi âm vừa rồi, bạn học sinh có mắc lỗi, two vase, a armchair, cô lại bỏ qua lỗi sửa lỗi thứ ạ? T: Vì muốn bạn nói hết câu, lỗi khơng q quan trọng lúc nói nên sửa lỗi sau thơi IVI ... CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AT BE VAN DAN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL - HANOI (Nghiên cứu sử dụng phản hồi giáo viên trường THCS Bế Văn Đàn Hà Nội) M.A Thesis Major: English teaching methodology (type 1) Major