The aim of this research was to determine whether there were discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback in EFL writing classroom at Vo Van Kiet high school in Vietnam. This study hypothesized that there would be considerable discrepancies between their beliefs about issues of error feedback.
The findings of this research are discussed with respect to the research questions posed in the research and the hypothesis. Also, the similarities and differences between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback are taken into account.
These results will be compared with those of previous studies such as Diab (2006), Halimi (2008), Wang (2010), Amrhein and Nassaji (2010).
4.2.1 Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about committing errors and the significance of giving error feedback
The first research question was about teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about committing errors and the significance of giving error feedback. The results obtained from part B of student and teacher questionnaires (in Appendix 1 and Appendix 3) show that both teachers and learners held positive beliefs about not committing errors (M = 3.70 and M = 3.48, respectively). Also, they agreed with the significance of giving error feedback (with the means of teachers, M = 4.48 and students, M = 4.32). These outcomes are consistent with the previous research findings in Diab’s (2006), Halimi’s (2008), and Wang’s (2010) studies, which indicated that both teachers and students believed that no or few errors were important not only to the teachers, but to the students as well. This means the teachers and the learners placed the very high value
Supervisor: Tran Thi Chau Pha, M.Ed. Vo Thi Tuyet Hong-23 7075890 on the accuracy in students’ paper. In addition, it clearly gave ample evidence that most EFL writing teachers and students agreed on the importance of error feedback because “giving error feedback will help students learn and remember their errors better than if their errors are not marked” (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010, p. 114).
4.2.2 Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about kinds of errors to be corrected and degree of providing correction
The second research question emphasized what types of errors to be corrected and how much correction should be provided. Regarding the kinds of errors to be corrected, the results of this research found that students viewed that it important for teachers to give feedback on every element of the writing involving both form errors and content ones (M = 4.03 and M = 3.89, respectively). These findings provide clear evidence that students pay much attention to the perfection of their written work including the accuracy of using form elements such as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary as well as of conveying coherent ideas and well-organization. The teachers, however, held different beliefs. They showed positive views on the focus of correcting content errors (M = 3.50), but stayed neutral about form-focused errors (M
= 3.00). This is to say, teachers believed that feedback on content is more important than form feedback. The results partially contradict the findings of previous studies (Diab, 2006; Halimi, 2008), which illustrated both of teachers and students’ agreement with form-focused errors. Nevertheless, this finding supports the hypothesis that there was a discrepancy between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about the kinds of errors to be corrected.
In terms of the degree of providing correction, the teachers believed that a repeated error should not be corrected every time it occurs (M = 2.30). Similarly, the students had mixed or negative evaluation on correcting repeated errors (M = 2.71). The reasons for their common views can be thatif a teacher marks a repeated error every time it occurs, it leaves little room for self-correction as students would not be held responsible for seeking out and correcting their own errors (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010). These findings are not in line with Amrhein and Nassaji’s study (2010), which concluded that repeatedly marking a repeated error allows students to be reminded and get an overview to see patterns. Hence, all participants in their study thought that a repeated error should be marked each time it occurs.
Supervisor: Tran Thi Chau Pha, M.Ed. Vo Thi Tuyet Hong-24 7075890 Although both teachers and learners shared their similar views on correcting repeated errors, they held different beliefs about other aspects relating to the degree of supplying correction. Specifically, students believed that teachers should correct all errors in their written work (M = 3.58) while the teachers thought that they should correct only global errors (M = 4.80) and focus on errors related to the target language (M = 4.40). Clearly, there was a discrepancy between the teachers’ and learners’
beliefs about the degree of providing feedback. Despite the discrepancy, this result, once again, confirms Diab’s (2006) and Halimi’s (2008) findings, which showed that students expected all errors to be corrected by teachers. In other words, students preferred comprehensive feedback from teachers whereas most teachers preferred selective feedback. This means that the teachers believed that they should correct errors they consider major ones.
The possible explanation for these differences can be that high-school students might not gain adequate proficiency in writing. For this reason, they may expect their teachers to give feedback on their all errors so that they could get the accuracy and the perfection in their paper. From teachers’ perspective, they might want their students to be active, to participate, and to be involved in the feedback process. Furthermore, teachers believed that it might be time-consuming if the teachers provide feedback for all errors, which will make students passive and dependent on others. As a result, the teachers hold the very strong beliefs that only the important errors should be corrected (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010).
4.2.3 Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about techniques used for error feedback The third research question inquired which techniques should be used for error feedback. The students in this study showed the approval of having their errors directly marked and corrected by teachers. In fact, they highly appreciated the use of reformulation (M = 4.48) and general correction (M = 4.5). Interestingly, students did also indicate some positive opinions towards coding technique employed for giving feedback (M = 3.68). This provides evidence that students might somewhat want to be involved in error feedback process. However, they held negative beliefs about underlining technique (M = 2.51). Similarly, Diab’s (2006) and Halimi’s (2008) subjects ranked this technique very low in their responses to the surveys. This preference suggests that students prefer explicit or direct feedback than being left self-
Supervisor: Tran Thi Chau Pha, M.Ed. Vo Thi Tuyet Hong-25 7075890 corrected, despite the fact that self-correction has been found to be useful in promoting students’ autonomy.
Like students, the teachers believed that their students want them to supply reformulation (M = 3.40) and general correction (M = 4.80). They also agreed that the students expected to get error feedback through the use of coding technique (M = 3.9).
Nevertheless, unlike students’ responses to the employ of underlining, the teachers demonstrated that they were neutral, but nearly agreed with this statement (M = 3.20).
Obviously, the findings show significant differences in teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about techniques used for error feedback. The results correspond somewhat with Amrhein and Nassaji’s findings (2010), which indicated that while students had strong preference for more direct feedback, teachers showed preference for indirect feedback which requires more effort from students and promotes students’ autonomy.
In summary, the results in this study showed both similarities and differences between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback. Students and teachers shared many of the same viewpoints in terms of committing errors and significance of giving error feedback. Nonetheless, they held opposite beliefs about kinds of error to be corrected, degree of providing correction, and techniques used for error feedback. The findings of the research undertaken by Diab (2006), Halimi (2008) provided further support to the present study, which illustrated that considerable discrepancies between the teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback existed. Therefore, it is important for teachers to be aware of what beliefs their students hold so as to reduce and eliminate the gap between teachers’ and learners’ views on error feedback. The results of this survey suggest that there are several issues EFL writing teachers need to be aware of. Thus, these pedagogic issues will be addressed in the next chapter.
Supervisor: Tran Thi Chau Pha, M.Ed. Vo Thi Tuyet Hong-26 7075890
CHAPTER 5