INTRODUCTION
Identification of the problem
Speaking is an essential component of learning a foreign language like English, yet fluency is not an inherent trait but a skill developed through practice and instruction In Vietnamese EFL classrooms, speaking often takes a backseat to grammar, reading, and writing, which dominate the curriculum due to their prevalence in exams With speaking lessons limited to just once or twice a week, students struggle with confidence and fluency when interacting with native speakers, often fearing mistakes Teachers play a crucial role in fostering a supportive speaking environment and providing corrective feedback, which is vital for helping students learn from their errors The inherent differences between Vietnamese and English, such as word order and phonological stress, present additional challenges, but with proper guidance, students can gain confidence and improve their conversational skills.
Purpose of the study and research questions
This study investigates the implementation of corrective feedback in a Vietnamese EFL classroom, focusing on the types of feedback employed by the teacher to address students' speaking mistakes and the factors influencing their feedback choices Additionally, it seeks to understand the impact of the teacher's corrective feedback on students' speaking skills from the students' perspectives The research is guided by specific questions aimed at exploring these aspects.
Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
Question 2: What are reasons behind teacher’s choice of feedback types?
Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
Significance of the study
This study emphasizes the crucial role of corrective feedback in enhancing students' speaking skills in English lessons It aims to serve as a valuable resource for teachers by providing insights into effective feedback types and their impact on student engagement and interest in speaking English By applying these findings, educators can foster a more enjoyable and confident speaking environment, ultimately improving their teaching methods Additionally, this research serves as a foundational source for future investigations into the effectiveness of corrective feedback in language learning.
Methods of the study
The study utilized a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative research techniques Data collection involved classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews to assess the feedback methods employed by the participating teacher Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, focusing on the effectiveness of feedback in helping students identify and correct their errors Stimulated recall interviews were conducted immediately after each lesson and subsequently transcribed for analysis, revealing the underlying reasons for the teacher's choices regarding corrective feedback.
Organization of the study
Chapter 1: Introduction chapter comprises the rationale of the study as well as the purpose to conduct this study, the research questions, the method used and the significance of the study
Chapter 2 (Literature review) illustrates definitions of key terms and discusses related studies by both foreign and Vietnamese researchers
Chapter 3 (Methodology) shows the context of the study, samples, data collection instruments plus data collection and analysis procedures
Chapter 4 (Findings and Discussion) presents, analyzes and discusses the data collected
Chapter 5 (Conclusion) sums up the findings of research, provides implications as well as suggestions in English pedagogy and works out some limitations for further research.
Summary
This chapter outlines the study's rationale, focusing on the effects of teachers' corrective feedback on students' speaking skills To achieve this goal, the researcher employed observation and stimulated recall interviews for data collection The observed data were quantitatively analyzed, while the after-lesson stimulated recalls underwent qualitative analysis to enhance the objectivity of the findings The following chapter will review relevant literature in this area.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Key concepts
Feedback is a well-established concept in language teaching and learning theories, as noted by Sheen (2011) Numerous definitions exist for the term, highlighting its significance in educational contexts, particularly in the works of Hattie and Timperley.
Feedback is defined as information provided to an individual regarding their performance (2007) In the context of teaching, feedback specifically refers to the guidance that educators offer to students about their learning processes, aimed at helping them enhance and expedite their learning (Sadler, 1989) According to Sheen, this process is crucial for effective learning and development.
Feedback plays a crucial role in the learning process, regardless of whether a learner's response is correct or incorrect It can take the form of praise or encouragement, as noted by Hyland & Hyland (2001), who emphasize the importance of positive reinforcement, such as a teacher saying "Well done!" after a student's performance According to Weiner (1990), positive feedback enhances the likelihood of repeated actions in the future, thereby benefiting learners Feedback can be categorized into various types, including corrective information from parents or educators, peer feedback that offers alternative strategies, and self-correction through resources like books Liu & Carless (2006) define peer feedback as a communicative process where students engage in discussions about performance and standards, allowing for a collaborative exchange of corrections, suggestions, and ideas In contrast, teacher feedback focuses on addressing mistakes made by learners, providing essential guidance for improvement.
A correction provided by a teacher, called teacher‟s feedback is an indispensable part of any classroom and is supportive of student‟s academic achievement (Siewert,
Feedback in education can be categorized into evaluative and descriptive types Evaluative feedback involves the teacher's judgment based on specific norms, while descriptive feedback focuses on detailing students' actions or statements and offers constructive guidance for improvement.
Errors are a natural part of language learning, as highlighted by Tornberg (2005) and Lange (2009) These mistakes reflect the learners' progress in acquiring the language Since learners often struggle to self-correct, corrective feedback becomes essential in the learning process.
Corrective feedback is defined as the response given by individuals to perceived errors made by non-native speakers, as noted by Day et al (1984) However, this definition is limited, as feedback can be provided by anyone, not just native speakers (Chu).
Corrective feedback, also known as form-focused instruction, aims to enhance learners' awareness of linguistic forms (Ellis, 2001) Human language is structured compositionally, with sentences formed from smaller linguistic units that adhere to specific combinatorial rules, as noted by Chomsky (1965) and Pinker (1999) These units, encompassing sounds (phonemes), words (morphemes), and sentences (words and phrases), collectively create a grammar that delineates acceptable linguistic forms, distinct from their meanings (semantics) Long (1991) argued that while meaning-focused instruction is valuable, it must be supplemented with attention to form This is crucial, as many learners exhibit grammatical inaccuracies despite extended language study Therefore, integrating form-focused instruction and corrective feedback within communicative interactions can significantly enhance second language development in both the short and long term.
In his work, Sheen (2011) highlights a fundamental distinction between feedback and corrective feedback While feedback is provided regardless of whether a response is correct or incorrect, corrective feedback specifically addresses errors made by learners during their language use Chaudron (1988) defines corrective feedback as any teacher behavior that follows an error, aimed at informing the learner of the mistake (p.150) Similarly, Lightbown and Spada (1999) assert that corrective feedback encompasses any indication given to learners when their language use is inaccurate.
Corrective feedback targets linguistic forms and is provided when learners make errors This study concentrated solely on correcting these linguistic forms due to time constraints With additional time, the researcher could have incorporated feedback on semantic aspects as well.
Corrective feedback can be categorized into two types: explicit and implicit According to Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009), explicit corrective feedback involves giving learners direct forms of feedback, while implicit feedback refers to the practice of not providing direct corrections.
This study specifically examines the oral form of teachers' corrective feedback According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Tedick and Gortari (1998), there are six primary types of corrective feedback: recast, elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, and repetition.
A recast is an effective language teaching technique aimed at correcting learners' errors while maintaining the flow of communication By repeating the learner's mistake in a corrected form, the teacher helps facilitate understanding and improvement without disrupting the conversation.
Elicitation is a teaching technique that encourages learners to provide information rather than simply receiving it from the teacher This method often involves the teacher pausing to give students the opportunity to complete their thoughts or responses, fostering active participation and engagement in the learning process.
Clarification request: Teacher uses phrases like “Excuse me?”, “Pardon?” to inform students that their utterances contain mistakes that need correcting
Metalinguistic feedback: is the type of feedback which is in form of metalinguistic rules It can be information, but normally a question posed by teacher for student to answer
Explicit correction: Teacher directly indicate the error in students‟ utterances and at the same time provide the correct form
Repetition: Teacher repeats student‟s error but put the tone up at the end of the utterance to make student pay attention to the error
According to Sheen (2011), corrective feedback strategies can be categorized into seven types, building on the classification by Lyster and Ranta Notably, Sheen merges explicit correction with metalinguistic cues to create a combined approach known as explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation.
T: Yesterday it rained You need to include the pronoun “it” before the verb In English we need “it” before this type of verb related to weather
Teacher provides correction and then explains for her correction This strategy helps student acknowledge his mistake as well as why his utterance is wrong
Yao (2000) identified body language as an essential corrective feedback strategy, highlighting that teachers can use facial expressions and gestures, such as frowning or shaking their heads, to indicate when a student's response is incorrect This non-verbal approach, combined with verbal feedback, suggests that corrective feedback strategies encompass both types Consequently, Yao's classification of these strategies is considered comprehensive and effective.
Sometimes, teacher acknowledge students‟ error, yet he/she ignores the error and does not use corrective feedback for not interrupting the “flow of mind” or saving students‟ embarrassment (Fungula, 2013)
Review of previous research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on
Several studies have investigated the link between corrective feedback and improvements in learners' speaking skills Lyster and Ranta (1997) analyzed four primary immersion classrooms to assess the frequency and types of feedback provided by teachers, as well as the students' uptake of this feedback Their 18.3-hour classroom observation revealed that recasts were the most frequently used form of corrective feedback, comprising over 55% of total feedback However, despite its subtlety, recasts resulted in the lowest uptake rate, indicating their limited effectiveness The term "uptake," introduced in their research, refers to a student's response following feedback that reflects an awareness of the need to repair their initial utterance.
Recent studies indicate that certain types of recasts are linked to learner uptake, with shorter or reduced recasts proving more beneficial These concise corrections enable learners to more easily identify the differences between their errors and the appropriate corrections (Lyster, 1998; Philip, 2003; Loewen & Philip, 2006; Egi, 2007; Asari, 2011).
Recasting is widely regarded as an effective method for correcting students' speech, as it maintains the flow of communication without disrupting the interaction between teachers and students (Lange, 2009) This approach allows learners to recognize their language issues while preserving their self-confidence and motivation to learn (Jiménez Raya, Lamb, & Vieira, 2007) Additionally, Scott (2008) supports this perspective, noting that recasting offers students the correct forms of language, thereby reducing the likelihood of self-initiated repairs.
Büyükbay and Dabaghi (2010) in their co-work examined the effectiveness of
A study examining the impact of repetition as corrective feedback on learners' uptake involved 30 students from two classes—one control group and one experimental group Researchers utilized class observations and videotape recordings to gather data, revealing that the experimental group, which received repetition as feedback, demonstrated significant improvement over the study period The findings indicate that repetition is an effective technique for enhancing students' speaking skills, aligning with previous research advocating for corrective feedback Overall, when students engage with teachers' feedback, they have the opportunity to thoughtfully explore their ideas, reconstruct their knowledge, and apply their skills to various tasks (Zacharias, 2007).
In 2010, Gitsaki and Althobaiti conducted an observational study to assess the effectiveness of various types of interactional feedback on ESL learners The study involved two native English teachers and twenty-eight students at beginner and intermediate proficiency levels Classroom observations and post-observation interviews with teachers revealed that explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback were the most commonly employed feedback methods Notably, metalinguistic feedback and repetition consistently resulted in successful learner uptake.
In a study by Mazloomi (2015), the effectiveness of two types of corrective feedback—recast (implicit) and metalinguistic feedback (explicit)—was compared among Iranian EFL students Forty participants underwent eight treatment sessions, with identical pre- and post-tests administered to two groups T-test results indicated that both feedback techniques positively impacted students' translation skills, but metalinguistic feedback emerged as the more effective method for addressing learners' errors.
Research indicates that feedback types vary in effectiveness based on students' proficiency levels Recasts, a widely used feedback strategy in second language teaching, tend to be less effective for low-proficiency students compared to their high-proficiency counterparts (Mackey & Philp, 1998; Ammar & Spada, 2006) In contrast, prompts have shown effectiveness in fostering development for both high- and low-proficiency learners, with a notable impact on higher-level students (Ammar & Spada, 2006) Supporting this perspective, Kaivanpanah et al (2015) conducted a study that further explores these dynamics.
A study involving 154 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students across three proficiency levels revealed distinct preferences for feedback types Elementary learners favored metalinguistic feedback to enhance their understanding of language rules, while advanced learners preferred prompts, such as elicitation, which facilitated self-repair This indicates that low-level learners require more guidance on language structures, whereas high-level learners possess the ability to self-correct with appropriate teacher support.
In summary, while recast remains the most widely used feedback strategy in language learning, it is often deemed the least effective Research indicates that metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition provide greater benefits to students Additionally, the effectiveness of feedback types varies among students of different proficiency levels.
Research on the impact of corrective feedback on enhancing students' speaking skills in Vietnam has been insufficiently explored A study by Truong (2011) involving 286 students and interviews with 20 first-year students at the Hanoi University of Business and Technology revealed that corrective feedback was the most frequently used and effective method for improving speaking skills and motivating students to achieve English proficiency for their future careers In contrast, evaluative feedback, which includes grades or simple comments, offers limited guidance for improvement, as noted by Hattie and Timperley (2007), who emphasized that feedback focused on praise and punishment has minimal impact on learning Strategic feedback, however, provides specific guidance for improvement, helping students understand how to self-assess and correct their work (Earl, 2003).
A study conducted at the Vietnam University of Commerce by Vu (2012) involved 126 second-year English-major students and aimed to assess their perceptions of teacher feedback Participants completed a survey questionnaire, followed by semi-structured interviews with 10 students for deeper insights into how feedback impacts their oral presentation skills The findings revealed that strategic feedback was the most commonly used type (54.8%), followed by evaluative feedback (45.3%), while corrective feedback was the least utilized (29.2%) This was unexpected, given the rising emphasis on corrective feedback in English teaching in Vietnam Interviews indicated that the teacher's reluctance to use corrective feedback stemmed from a desire to avoid making students feel embarrassed or anxious during their presentations.
In her 2016 study at Hue University, Mai conducted a qualitatively-led quantitative research to explore students' perceptions of recasts for correcting English vowel sounds Over the course of 10 hours of pronunciation lessons, the findings revealed that while most students responded positively to recasts, several expressed that they did not significantly aid their pronunciation improvement Key reasons included difficulty in clearly hearing the teacher's pronunciation, challenges in accurately repeating the recasts on the first or even second attempt, and the necessity for repeated listening to effectively practice the sounds.
In her 2011 case study, Nhac examines the effectiveness of corrective feedback in EFL classrooms at Hanoi Law University, involving four teachers and their classes at pre-intermediate and intermediate levels The study finds that while recast is the most frequently used feedback strategy, it is the least effective for student uptake and repair In contrast, meta-linguistic feedback, clarification requests, and elicitation, which proved more successful in promoting student repair, were utilized less frequently by teachers The research relies solely on class observations for data collection, raising concerns about subjectivity; thus, incorporating interviews with teachers and students or conducting tests is recommended to enhance the objectivity of the findings.
A study by Nguyen (2014) involving 25 student-teachers and 235 grade-10 students at Phan Dinh Phung High School identified repetition, recast, and explicit feedback as the three most effective feedback types, according to teacher-trainees' questionnaires However, students expressed a preference for explicit correction and repetition in their learning process.
Recent studies on teachers' oral corrective feedback have largely overlooked the context of Vietnam, particularly in secondary and high schools Most existing research focuses on university settings, where smaller class sizes allow for more individualized feedback Additionally, many studies prioritize corrective feedback in writing, emphasizing grammar and reading skills over speaking This gap presents an opportunity for further research into teachers' feedback practices in different educational contexts, aiming to uncover the reasons behind their choices and enhance the overall understanding of corrective feedback in language learning.
Summary
This chapter introduces the essential concept of corrective feedback and outlines its various types It reviews related studies, highlighting the ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback in language learning While some researchers advocate for its benefits, others argue against its use in classrooms, citing concerns about disrupting fluency and causing student embarrassment The following chapter will detail the methodology employed in this study.
METHODOLOGY
Method of the study
This study employs survey research method The population participating in this study includes:
- two classes of Grade 6 at Be Van Dan lower-secondary school, which includes class 6A3 and class 6A0, the former specializing in English while the latter is not
- two teachers who is in charge of those two above classes
The researcher selected lower-secondary students for her study due to two main reasons: first, there is a lack of research on corrective feedback in this age group, as most studies focus on college and university students Second, as noted by Yang (2015), learners’ preferences for corrective feedback are closely linked to their proficiency levels By choosing students at varying proficiency levels, the researcher aims to explore potential differences in the effectiveness of teacher corrective feedback between those specializing in English and those who are not.
The researcher selected Be Van Dan School as the study setting due to its implementation of the new English textbook for grades 6 to 8, which focuses on developing speaking skills through the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach CLT emphasizes that the primary objective of language learning is to achieve Communicative Competence, making it a suitable choice for this study.
Communicative Competence, as defined by Richards et al (1996), refers to the ability to correctly apply grammatical rules to form proper sentences and to use these sentences appropriately in specific contexts The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach emphasizes the importance of social and cultural contexts in language learning, prioritizing meaning over form This perspective views errors as a natural aspect of the learning process, aligning with Krashen's 'natural order hypothesis' which suggests that second language learners construct their linguistic systems progressively.
Errors made by second language learners are an integral part of the acquisition process, indicating that learning is occurring rather than being detrimental to students Consequently, teachers should refrain from immediate correction during student conversations This perspective contrasts with Schmidt's (1990) "Noticing Hypothesis," which posits that error correction is crucial for learners to recognize discrepancies between their input and current interlanguage (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) However, Lopez (2012) conducted a study revealing that error correction can coexist with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) This finding prompted further investigation into the role of teacher corrective feedback within the CLT framework Additionally, the researcher’s previous experience at the school facilitated obtaining permission from the class teacher to observe and record lessons.
At Be Van Dan Lower-Secondary School, grade 6 students are divided into nine classes based on their majors, with 6A0 focusing on Math and 6A3 on English Both classes utilize the same textbook, "Tiếng Anh 6 (new curriculum)," and attend three English periods weekly, while 6A3 benefits from an additional two elective periods Each class comprises 50 to 55 students, exceeding the ideal number for effective language instruction This large class size poses challenges for both students and teachers, limiting opportunities for speaking practice and making it difficult for teachers to address individual errors and provide corrective feedback.
The grade-6 curriculum at Be Van Dan lower-secondary school utilizes the "New English 6" textbook, published in 2012 through a collaboration between the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and Pearson Education This textbook aligns with the 2020 Project initiated by MOET, emphasizing a comprehensive approach to language learning by incorporating reading, speaking, listening, and writing skills Additionally, the curriculum enhances students' presentation and teamwork abilities through project-based activities, while placing a greater emphasis on speaking skills with a dedicated "Communication" section.
The "Pronunciation" section of the curriculum offers students ample opportunities to enhance their English speaking skills Adopted by Be Van Dan School in 2014 following a comprehensive teacher-training program, this resource has since served as essential learning material for all sixth-grade students.
Both teachers at Be Van Dan School possess extensive experience in teaching English and have a solid understanding of corrective feedback techniques They frequently implement corrective feedback during lessons, particularly in speaking activities, thanks to their training under the Project 2020 initiative proposed by MOET This program was introduced prior to the official adoption of the new curriculum, allowing them to access innovative teaching methods and approaches in English education.
Data collection instruments
The researcher utilized systematic class observation to address the initial and final research questions, a method that measures the frequency of specific behaviors or activities in a classroom setting over time Since the 1970s, direct class observation has been a cornerstone in language classroom research, proving to be irreplaceable (Nunan, 1989) This approach primarily aims to evaluate the effectiveness of specific teaching methods in language education (Waxman et al., 2004), allowing researchers to gather substantial, reliable data from participants in a defined context (Le, 2012) By objectively observing and recording classroom interactions, the researcher can achieve deeper insights and a more nuanced understanding of the data (Mackey et al., 2005) Unlike questionnaires, which can yield unreliable responses if participants are disengaged (Mackey et al., 2005), class observation is more suitable and easier to implement for sixth-grade students.
In this study, the researcher acts as a non-participating observer, ensuring that her presence does not disrupt the interactions between teachers and students Following Galton's (1988) three stages of systematic observational research—recording events, coding them into categories, and analyzing the coded data—note-taking and recording techniques are employed to enhance the research process To facilitate accurate and convenient note-taking during lessons, the researcher also created an observation checklist.
Recording lessons offers significant advantages, such as effective data collection, but it also has drawbacks The quality of recordings can be compromised by noisy environments, particularly during speaking lessons Additionally, some students may feel embarrassed about making mistakes, which can deter them from participating Preparing for speeches to minimize errors can be time-consuming Despite these challenges, researchers utilize recordings alongside observation checklists to capture essential details, including students' names, errors, types of feedback, and student responses.
In this study, the researcher conducted observations of two grade-6 classes—one focused on English and the other not—across three 45-minute periods A total of six speaking sessions, encompassing both the Speaking and Communication components of the curriculum, were carried out during the first semester of the school year.
In 2016, observations were conducted in speaking periods for Class 6A0 during Units 1, 2, and 3, while Class 6A3 was observed in Units 1, 3, and 4 This approach is beneficial as it establishes a strong foundation for comprehension and directs effective teaching strategies (Waxman, 2004).
The researcher utilizes stimulated recall interviews with teachers post-lesson to explore their feedback choices in specific situations, addressing the second research question This method, introduced by Calderhead in 1981, has gained popularity for investigating teachers' thoughts and decision-making processes By replaying videotapes or audiotapes of lessons, the researcher gathers insights into teachers' decisions and reflections at the moment (Calderhead, 1981) Mackey et al (2000) emphasize that stimulated recall is an effective tool for uncovering attitudes and beliefs that may not be apparent through simple observation, and recommend conducting these interviews immediately after the lesson to ensure data reliability and validity.
Following each lesson, the researcher arranged brief interviews with the teachers to gather immediate feedback Prior to the interviews, she coordinated schedules with each teacher to ensure timely meetings This approach aimed to enhance the reliability of the data collected by conducting interviews shortly after the lessons.
The study involved six interviews, with one conducted on the evening of the lesson and another the following evening, while the remaining four took place within the week The researcher utilized excerpts from original class recordings, allowing the teacher to listen and reflect on specific feedback techniques used during the lesson During the process, the researcher paused the recordings as needed to inquire about the teacher's rationale for selecting particular feedback methods in various situations All responses were meticulously noted and recorded for later transcription and analysis The stimulated recall interviews were conducted in Vietnamese and subsequently translated into English by the researcher.
Procedures
This study utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methods, employing two data collection instruments: class observation and structured interviews with teachers It addresses three key questions, with the sequence of these questions reflecting the order of data collection and analysis procedures.
Question 1: Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
This study utilizes the class observation technique, specifically non-participatory observation, ensuring that the researcher's presence does not influence the teaching and learning process Two grade-6 classes were observed, each having three English periods per week According to the curriculum, there is one speaking lesson every two weeks, resulting in each teacher being observed during only three speaking periods.
The researcher coordinated with each teacher to schedule classroom observations, during which the teacher introduced her to the students, who viewed this as a normal practice The researcher then positioned herself at the back of the classroom to observe the teaching and learning processes in speaking lessons, utilizing an observation checklist and taking field notes All interactions between the teacher and students were recorded for later analysis The collected data were subsequently transcribed and categorized based on pre-determined criteria, which included types of student errors (grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, meaning), teacher feedback (according to Lyster and Ranta's six types or none), and student uptake (repair, needs-repair, or no uptake).
Question 2: What are the reasons behind teacher’s choice of corrective feedback?
After reviewing the recordings of each speaking session, the researcher promptly arranged a meeting with the teacher to explain the purpose and topic of the interview Once the teacher agreed to participate, the researcher played selected excerpts from the previous recordings, pausing as needed for discussion The primary interview question was, "Why do you use that feedback strategy in that situation?" The teacher's responses were both recorded and noted in writing, with the interviews conducted in Vietnamese.
Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
The data gathered from class observations were utilized to address the research question, focusing on the interactions between teachers and students Each interaction is classified as a language episode, beginning with a student's utterance that includes at least one error This is followed by the teacher's feedback, if provided, and then the student's response or uptake, creating a continuous dialogue.
Student (S): In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error)
Teacher (T): No, we do not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction)
All language episodes were transcribed, and the subsequent uptake moves following each feedback type were analyzed at both levels Additionally, the occurrences of each feedback type that led to repair or identified needs for repair were counted, and percentages were calculated A "turn" refers to a segment of dialogue between the teacher and student that includes errors or feedback.
Repair involves the accurate reformulation of errors made by students during their spoken responses, whereas needs-repair indicates a learner's response to corrective feedback when their initial attempt to correct an error is unsuccessful (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) For instance, as illustrated by Jabbari (2012), this dynamic highlights the importance of effective communication in the learning process.
S: Who does has the same idea? (Error – grammatical)
S: Who has the same idea? (Repair)
S: They are from United States (Error – grammatical)
The findings are organized according to three research questions The first two questions are answered through class observations, while the final question is addressed using data from stimulated recall interviews The methodology employed is outlined below.
Step 1: Listen to the recordings and take down the transcriptions Combine these transcriptions and notes taken when attending the lessons to complete the observation checklist
In this study, all student errors were meticulously counted, with "errors" defined as those recognized by the teacher, which may differ from standard target language norms Lyster and Ranta (1997) indicate that error correction occurs when a student's utterance contains at least one mistake, though sometimes the teacher may choose to ignore it and continue the conversation When feedback is provided, students can either correct their errors or proceed without acknowledging them Errors are classified into categories such as pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary/meaning Various methods exist for classifying errors, with one common approach based on linguistic items, including phonology, syntax, morphology, lexicon, and semantics, as noted by Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000) and Nishita (2004) This study specifically focuses on correcting errors in linguistic forms, categorizing them into phonological, grammatical, and lexical errors, while teacher feedback is classified as either no feedback or one of the six specified types.
Step 2: Analyze and discuss the data collected
For the first question, all teachers‟ feedback turns were counted, then the percentage of the use of each feedback type to total feedback turns was calculated
In analyzing student responses to teacher corrective feedback, all instances of uptake were recorded, while non-responses were categorized as "No uptake." The rates of uptake and no uptake were calculated based on the total instances of teacher feedback Furthermore, the uptake responses were classified into two categories: repair and needs-repair, with respective percentages provided for each category.
Next, the data collected from stimulated recall were analyzed Basically, according to Gass & Mackey (2016), the steps include transcription, coding and description of data, then the data will be analyzed
Step 3: Listen to the recordings of the stimulated recall and transcribe them
Step 4: Design a stimulated recall coding sheet (see Appendix 3), code the relevant data and then discuss the data
The selection of feedback provided by teachers during interviews is influenced by two primary categories: external factors, which include teaching experience, students' abilities, and the types of errors made, and internal factors, such as time constraints and lesson objectives.
This chapter outlines the study's methodology, utilizing class observations and stimulated recall interviews to maintain objectivity The research involves two grade-6 teachers, one specializing in English and the other not, with clear data collection and analysis procedures aligned with the research questions Data from observations and interviews are transcribed and analyzed to identify patterns in the teachers' corrective feedback and assess its effectiveness, which will be detailed in the following chapter.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Three research questions
4.1.1 Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
Some examples of six corrective feedback types (taken from class observation transcriptions)
Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error)
S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (recast) (uptake – repair)
S: The tortoise walks slowlier than the hare (grammatical error)
T: slowlier or more slowly? (elicitation)
S: He is a very creative boy /kritɪv/ (phonological error)
S: He is a very creative boy /kritɪv/ (uptake- needs-repair)
S: How many pocket money do you get? (grammatical error)
T: „Money‟ is an uncountable noun, so you should use „how much‟
S: I am live in a town house (grammatical error)
S: I play judo every weekend (lexical error)
T: No, we do not say „play judo‟ You should use „do judo‟ instead
Table 1 Distribution of corrective feedback of class 6A0
Table 2 Distribution of corrective feedback of class 6A3 (specializing in
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the various types of feedback utilized by teachers during speaking lessons in classes 6A0 and 6A3, which specialize in English The data reveals that teachers employ a comprehensive range of feedback types in their instructional approach.
Teachers often encourage students to assess each other's responses, fostering a collaborative learning environment where they can identify mistakes together However, some educators may practice delayed feedback, choosing to overlook errors during discussions and providing comprehensive feedback only after a series of interactions This approach can help students reflect on their contributions before receiving guidance, but it may also lead to confusion if mistakes are not addressed in a timely manner.
Both classes exhibit similarities in their use of corrective feedback, with recasts being the most frequently employed method (29.6% in class 6A0 and 25.5% in class 6A3) However, notable differences arise in the types of feedback utilized; class 6A0 favors direct corrective feedback, such as recasts, explicit correction, and metalinguistic feedback, while class 6A3 shows a higher reliance on negotiation techniques like repetition (15.7%) and elicitation (17.6%) Explicit correction is more prevalent in class 6A0 (20.4%) compared to class 6A3 (11.8%) Interestingly, clarification requests are the least utilized feedback method, with class 6A0 employing 2 requests (3.7%) and class 6A3 using 3 requests (5.9%) This discrepancy may stem from the students' limited language proficiency, which hinders their ability to recognize and self-correct errors In class 6A3, a clarification request was specifically used when a student spoke too softly for the teacher to hear.
The findings align with previous research, notably Lyster and Ranta (1997), which indicated that teachers predominantly use recasts, with metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, and repetition being utilized less frequently (8%, 7%, and 5%, respectively) Interestingly, in classes 6A0 and 6A3, metalinguistic feedback was more commonly employed by teachers, likely due to its effectiveness in providing students with the norms of the target language and establishing a strong foundation for academic English Additionally, there was a notable difference in the use of explicit correction between the two classes; the teacher in 6A0 favored explicit techniques, while the teacher in 6A3 leaned towards negotiation strategies This observation resonates with Kaivanpanah’s (2015) findings, which suggest that lower-level students benefit more from explicit correction or metalinguistic feedback, whereas higher-level students can engage in self-correction with teacher prompts, enhancing their error analysis skills.
4.1.2 Question 2: What are the reasons behind teacher’s choice of corrective feedback?
The researcher obtained insights into the factors influencing teachers' choices of recasts, explicit corrections, and metalinguistic feedback through stimulated recall interviews with two teachers, referred to as Teacher A and Teacher B, after their lessons Both teachers identified time constraints and concerns about disrupting the flow of conversation as significant influences on their decision to use recasts Importantly, they noted that recasts were frequently employed in response to students' pronunciation errors.
Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error)
S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (uptake-repair) And there is a poster on the wall /pɒstə/ (phonological error)
“I correct this student’s mistake immediately because I think the most effective way for student to master right pronunciation is shadowing, so when she
Example 2: (Unit 1 – looking back – communication)
S1: How many class are there in your school? (grammatical error)
T: You should say classes instead of class because we use plural noun after „how many‟ (delayed metalinguistic feedback)
Each lesson is 45 minutes long, with 10-15 minutes typically spent on homework review and warm-up activities, which limits our speaking practice time To efficiently correct errors without interrupting the flow of conversation, I utilize recasting, allowing the discussion to continue while still reinforcing the material at the end of our dialogue.
The findings from the initial research question indicate that both explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback are utilized frequently in the classes, with recasts being the only method used less often.
S: In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error)
T: No, we do not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction) S: Yes (uptake)
To explain why to use these direct feedback strategy, teacher A said:
I prefer to explicitly correct mistakes and provide language rules because my sixth-grade students are just beginning to learn academic English, which differs from the play-and-learn approach of primary school My goal is to carefully equip them with knowledge to build a solid foundation in the language Additionally, since my students do not specialize in English, they often lack the language resources needed to self-correct in various situations.
Again, time shortage is the reason for explicit correction Teacher A added:
“If there is more time, I will provide opportunities for students to correct themselves rather than provide correction explicitly”
The distribution of corrective feedback types varies between classes, with class 6A3 utilizing negotiation strategies, such as elicitation and repetition, more frequently than class 6A0 Teacher B acknowledged this difference when the researcher brought it to her attention.
In addition to using explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback, I engage students by asking questions or rephrasing their errors as questions This approach encourages them to reflect on their mistakes and discover the correct answers independently, leading to quicker improvement in their learning.
The results of the first research question also reveal that teacher sometimes let the students peer-correct (other feedback type) Teacher B explained:
Instead of directly correcting students' errors, I encourage peer feedback by asking other students for their opinions This approach not only fosters a collaborative classroom environment but also enhances learning, as students gain valuable insights by identifying and discussing their classmates' mistakes.
Teachers often overlook students' errors during conversations to maintain a smooth flow and avoid disrupting their thought process However, they do provide corrections after the discussion Teacher A emphasized the importance of prioritizing fluency over accuracy, as the fear of making mistakes can hinder students' ability to communicate effectively.
Menti (2006) identified a key factor influencing teachers' selection of corrective feedback types: the interplay between students' feelings and teachers' beliefs regarding the necessary support for students The research highlighted that teachers are mindful of their students' emotions, aiming to prevent embarrassment that could hinder students' willingness to participate in speaking activities However, the study did not explicitly address the aspect of students' feelings.
Gurzynski-Weiss (2010) identifies students' feelings as a key factor influencing teachers' feedback choices, often leading them to overlook errors Teachers may ignore mistakes when they are unexpected or minor, or in alignment with lesson goals that prioritize fluency over accuracy, particularly in the communicative context of the English 6 curriculum Additionally, students' language proficiency significantly affects the feedback provided, while time constraints, although not frequently highlighted in Weiss's study, emerged as a primary reason for the use of recasts in this research.
4.1.3 Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
Table 3 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A0
(46 language episodes in total) (for more detailed table, see appendix 3)
Feedback type Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n %
Table 4 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A3 (specializing in English) (40 language episodes in total) (for more detailed table, see appendix 3)
Feedback type Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n %
Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the connection between different types of corrective feedback and students' responses, with responses categorized by evidence of uptake Feedback that did not result in uptake was classified as "no uptake," often occurring when students continued the topic without addressing their errors Notably, recast emerged as the most commonly used feedback strategy but yielded the lowest uptake rates, at 62.5% and 61.5% Uptake following recast primarily occurred when students repeated the teacher's correct pronunciation This limited uptake may stem from the teacher's implicit correction, which did not explicitly highlight the student's error, potentially leading to a lack of awareness regarding the mistake.
Summary
This chapter discusses findings that align with previous research in the field, revealing that teachers in both classes utilized all types of corrective feedback identified in Lyster and Ranta's 1997 study While recast emerged as the most frequently used feedback type, it proved less effective than direct methods like metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction Notably, there was a significant difference in feedback distribution between the two classes; the non-major class teacher favored explicit feedback to highlight errors, whereas the English major class teacher employed prompts through elicitation and repetition, resulting in a higher rate of student repair Interestingly, clarification requests had minimal impact on student error correction Factors influencing teachers' feedback choices included time constraints and internal considerations such as the types of student errors, their language proficiency, and fluency.
CONCLUSION
Brief summary of the findings
This study seeks to answer three questions:
Question 1: What types of corrective feedback are used in English speaking lessons in English major class and non-major class?
Question 2: What are reasons behind teacher’s choice of feedback types?
Question 3: To what extent does corrective feedback lead to students’ successful repair?
The study's observation checklist revealed that teachers in two classes employed all six types of corrective feedback, with recast being the most frequently used method (29.6% and 25.5%) In class 6A0, the teacher predominantly utilized explicit feedback techniques, including metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction (16.7% and 20.4%), while the teacher in class 6A3 favored prompts like elicitation and repetition (17.6% and 15.7%) Among the feedback types, clarification requests were the least utilized (3.7% and 5.9%) Additionally, teachers occasionally overlooked students' unintentional errors or opted for delayed feedback at the end of dialogues to maintain students' fluency and thought processes.
Teachers' feedback choices are influenced by both external and internal factors, as revealed through stimulated recall responses Time limitations often dictate the use of recasts and explicit corrections Additionally, teachers consider students' language proficiency, abilities, and learning styles when providing feedback Metalinguistic feedback is employed to strengthen students' academic English foundations and address the differing learning styles observed between primary and secondary education In class 6A3, the teacher opted for prompt-based feedback to encourage critical thinking and engage students more effectively in the lessons.
The study utilized an observation checklist to analyze the uptake and repair rates associated with different types of feedback Recast, the most frequently used feedback type, was found to be less effective in promoting repair compared to metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, elicitation, and repetition In both classes, metalinguistic feedback resulted in the highest repair rates, with 88.9% in class 6A0 and 77.8% in class 6A3 Additionally, prompts through elicitation and repetition were less effective in class 6A0 than in class 6A3 Notably, clarification requests were used the least and had minimal impact on repair in both classes.
The study indicates that teachers' corrective feedback did not hinder communication, allowing students to recognize and revise their language errors This process enhances their understanding of language use, demonstrating positive outcomes within communicative language teaching These findings offer valuable insights for teachers on effectively implementing corrective feedback.
Pedagogical implications
Errors are a natural part of language learning, and it is crucial for teachers to utilize corrective feedback effectively to address students' mistakes The most effective form of correction encourages self-correction during practical exercises This study provides valuable insights for educators to enhance their feedback methods, ultimately improving the learning experience.
After concluding the study, the researcher emailed the results to both teachers and engaged in a brief phone conversation with the teacher of class 6A0 During this discussion, the teacher suggested that, alongside explicit correction strategies, educators should incorporate negotiation techniques more often to capture students' attention and encourage self-correction of errors.
Teachers must consider various factors, including students' error types, abilities, feelings, and time constraints, to determine the most effective feedback for addressing errors Recasts and explicit corrections are particularly beneficial for pronunciation errors, as listening and repetition enhance learning For mistakes in vocabulary and grammar, negotiation techniques like clarification requests and elicitation encourage students to identify and self-correct their errors rather than simply providing the correct form It's essential for teachers to tailor corrective feedback to students' language proficiency levels; non-majors may benefit from direct feedback methods, while students with a foundational understanding of the language can thrive with implicit feedback that promotes self-repair Although recasts are a popular strategy and can lead to uptake, they may not always be effective, as students might repeat the corrections without truly understanding their mistakes Therefore, teachers should consider more effective techniques, such as metalinguistic or explicit feedback, to enhance student learning outcomes.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies
The limitations the researcher sums up after carrying out this study are illustrated as follows:
The study is limited by several factors, including the observation of only six periods, which prevents an assessment of the long-term effects of teacher corrective feedback on students' speaking skills Additionally, as the research was conducted in a lower-secondary school, the findings cannot be generalized to other educational settings or student populations Time constraints further restricted the researcher from observing all grade-6 students, potentially skewing the results Moreover, the intended interviews with students to gauge their perceptions of corrective feedback were not conducted, limiting the depth of understanding regarding its effectiveness While the researcher aimed for objectivity and reliability in the study, these limitations must be considered in future research endeavors.
Future researchers are encouraged to address the shortcomings identified in this study by implementing longitudinal observations or experimental designs that include both a feedback-receiving experimental group and a control group without feedback, alongside pre-tests and post-tests Additionally, it is crucial to conduct studies involving a larger and more diverse population across various class levels Incorporating native English teachers into these studies would provide valuable insights, as many schools are increasingly employing native speakers for speaking instruction, allowing for comparisons between the corrective feedback practices of Vietnamese teachers and their native counterparts.
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
Day, R et al (1984) Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse Language
Egi, T (2007) Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29,
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
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, 2 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),
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 3 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
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) Sprồkdidaktik Malmử: 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
* Notes: U = Uptake No U = No uptake
R = Repair NR = Needs repair Stud ent
Student‟s error Teacher‟s feedback Response Note
APPENDIX 2 EXAMPLES OF ERRORS, TEACHER’S CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND
Notes: all information in brackets and forward slashes were noted by the researcher
Student (S): There is a fridge in my kitchen /fraɪdʒ/ (phonological error)
S: Fridge /frɪdʒ/ (uptake-repair) And there is a poster on the wall /pɒstə/ (phonological error)
Example 2: (Unit 1 – looking back – communication)
S1: How many class are there in your school? (grammatical error)
T: You should say classes instead of class because we use plural noun after „how many‟ (delayed metalinguistic feedback)
S: In the evening we are have a campfire (grammatical error)
T: No, we do not say we are have We should say we are having (explicit correction) S: Yes (uptake- needs-repair)
S: Ho Chi Minh City is largest city in southern Vietnam (grammatical error)
S: the largest city (uptake-repair)
S: On Sunday we are singing at our village‟s choir club (phonological error)
T: choir /ˈkwaɪə(r)/ not /kɔɪə(r)/ (explicit correction)
S : I and him are doing homework together from 8a.m to 9.30a.m (lexical error)
S: Ah, I and he (uptake – needs repair)
T: No, you should say He and I (explicit correction)
S: There are two vase at the corner of the bookshelf (grammatical error)
S: and a armchair in front of the TV (grammatical error)
T: you should use „an‟ if the next word begins with a vowel (repeat the knowledge)
S: There have fifty-two students in my class (grammatical error)
T: There have or there are? (elicitation)
APPENDIX 3 Table 3 Uptake following each type of feedback at class 6A0
Feedback type Uptake Repair Needs-repair No uptake n % n % n % n %
Table 4 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 %
APPENDIX 4 STIMULATED RECALL CODING SHEET
Lesson/Unit: Length of recordings:
Date of stimulated recall interview:
Time Teacher‟s comment External factors Internal factors
APPENDIX 5 EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPTIONS OF STIMULATED RECALL
Stimulated recall interview with teacher of class 6A0 (Teacher A)
Trong cuộc phỏng vấn, tôi đã bắt đầu bằng cách xin phép cô để thảo luận về việc sử dụng phản hồi trong giờ học, đặc biệt là khi cô chỉ ra những lỗi sai của học sinh Tôi sẽ trình bày một số trích đoạn và sau đó đặt một số câu hỏi liên quan đến phương pháp giảng dạy của cô.
I: Trong đoạn ghi âm vừa rồi, em thấy em học sinh có mắc lỗi để động từ tobe và động từ thường „have‟ đứng cạnh nhau (we are have), vậy tại sao cô không gợi ý cho bạn ấy tự sửa lỗi cho mình mà lại nhắc lại lý thuyết và sửa lỗi cho bạn ấy luôn ạ? T: Vì các bạn mới bước vào lớp 6, nó khác so với tiếng Anh tiểu học nên cô muốn sửa lỗi luôn và nhắc lại kiến thức để bạn ấy nhớ Hơn nữa kiến thức của các bạn ấy còn ít nên nhiều khi không biết mình sai ở đâu và sửa như thế nào
I: Cô ơi em thấy vừa rồi em học sinh quên dạng số nhiều của từ „class‟, tại sao cô cũng sửa lỗi này luôn ạ?
T: Vì trên lớp chỉ có 45 phút nên nhiều khi vôi em ạ, kiểm tra bài tập về nhà và warm up đã mất khá nhiều thời gian, học sinh không có thời gian luyện nói nhiều
Cô luôn sửa lỗi ngay lập tức để không làm gián đoạn cuộc hội thoại, nhưng sau đó vẫn nhắc lại kiến thức để học sinh có thể ghi nhớ và tránh mắc lỗi trong tương lai.
Stimulated recall interview with teacher of class 6A3 (Teacher B)
Trong cuộc phỏng vấn, tôi đã bắt đầu bằng cách trình bày một số trích đoạn từ giờ học, trong đó cô giáo đã sử dụng phương pháp phản hồi để chỉ ra lỗi sai của học sinh Sau đó, tôi đã xin phép hỏi cô một số câu hỏi liên quan đến cách thức phản hồi này.