INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Errors are an inevitable part of language learning, particularly in speaking, prompting extensive research into how teachers provide corrective feedback to address these errors Known by various terms such as "negative evidence," "repair," and "negative feedback," this concept is crucial for second language educators Studies have categorized corrective feedback and examined its impact on learner uptake globally However, limited research has focused on teachers' perceptions and experiences with corrective feedback in their teaching practices This gap has motivated the author to investigate the relationship between teachers' understanding of corrective feedback and its application in the classroom, aiming to enhance learners' language competence.
Aims of the study
This study explores teachers' attitudes towards correcting spoken errors through one-on-one interviews and a belief questionnaire, aiming to understand how these perspectives influence their classroom practices Additionally, it proposes more effective strategies for addressing students' spoken errors For clarity, the terms "error" and "mistake" are used interchangeably throughout the research.
To fulfill these purposes, this research intends to answer the following questions:
1 What are teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback?
2 How do these attitudes affect and relate to their teaching practice within their classroom settings?
Scope of the study
This study examines the perception and application of corrective feedback on spoken errors by teachers at Hanoi National University of Education It aims to investigate the relationship between teachers' perceptions and their practices in addressing oral mistakes, ultimately proposing effective strategies for improving student performance in spoken communication.
Methods of the study
The researcher conducted a survey of teachers to gather quantitative data on their views regarding corrective feedback In addition, qualitative and quantitative data were collected through observations of twelve lessons involving three of the thirty survey participants To gain deeper insights into the application of corrective feedback in classrooms, qualitative data were also obtained from three semi-structured personal interviews.
Overview of the study
This study consists of three major parts: Introduction, Development, and Conclusion; references, and appendices
Part I: Introduction – This part presents the rationale, the aims, scope, methods, and the organization of the study.
Part II: Development – This part is divided into the following three chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical background – presents the theoretical framework of corrective feedback, including its definition, classification, importance, participants, and timings
Chapter 2: Methodology – gives details on the participants, data collection instruments, and procedure
Chapter 3: Findings and discussion – analyzes and discusses the results
Part III: Conclusion – This part summarizes the research and presents pedagogical implications Limitations as well as suggestions for further study are also included.Finally, references and appendices are provided.
DEVELOPMENT
1 Definition of terms: Corrective feedback
In the context of error correction research, the concepts of "positive evidence" and "negative evidence" are frequently discussed (Kim, 2004; Gladday, 2012; Gass, 2005) Positive evidence, as defined by Gass (2005), refers to well-formed sentences that expose learners to grammatical structures and acceptable usage in the target language This type of evidence plays a crucial role in enhancing learners' comprehension, as highlighted by Gladday (2012), who notes its representation of authentic native speaker discourse in a simplified and elaborate format Conversely, negative evidence addresses learners' errors by providing information on what constitutes unacceptable language use, thus guiding them away from incorrect utterances.
In the context of teachers responding to student errors, key terms include corrective feedback, negative evidence, and negative feedback According to Ellis (2009), negative feedback indicates that a learner's response is incorrect, serving a corrective purpose.
Corrective feedback, a form of negative feedback known as "other-initiated repair," addresses a learner's mistakes Kim (2004) notes that in the context of second language acquisition (SLA), the terms negative evidence, negative feedback, and corrective feedback are often used interchangeably, though they have subtle distinctions Negative evidence offers valuable information from the learner's viewpoint, while both negative feedback and corrective feedback provide insights from the feedback providers Ultimately, it is up to the learners to determine the usefulness of corrective and negative feedback in their learning process.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Definition of terms: Corrective feedback
In the realm of error correction research, the concepts of "positive evidence" and "negative evidence" are frequently discussed (Kim, 2004; Gladday, 2012; Gass, 2005) Positive evidence, as defined by Gass (2005), refers to the well-formed sentences that learners encounter, showcasing what is grammatically correct and acceptable in the target language In contrast, negative evidence involves providing information—either directly or indirectly—about the inaccuracies in learners' utterances Gladday (2012) highlights the importance of positive evidence in enhancing learners' comprehension by presenting authentic native speaker discourse in a simplified manner Conversely, negative evidence addresses errors made by second language learners by clarifying what is deemed unacceptable in the language.
In the context of teachers addressing student errors, key concepts include corrective feedback, negative evidence, and negative feedback According to Ellis (2009), negative feedback indicates that a learner's response is incorrect, serving a corrective purpose.
Corrective feedback, a form of negative feedback known as "other-initiated repair," addresses a learner's mistakes While Kim (2004) notes that the terms negative feedback, corrective feedback, and negative evidence are often used interchangeably in second language acquisition literature, they have subtle distinctions Negative evidence provides usable information from the learner's perspective, whereas negative feedback and corrective feedback incorporate insights from feedback providers Ultimately, it is up to learners to determine the utility of corrective and negative feedback as negative evidence For clarity and consistency, this paper predominantly employs the term corrective feedback.
Researchers have defined corrective feedback in a variety of ways with different t erms used for similar practices
Correction, as defined by Schegloff et al (1977), involves replacing errors with the correct form Corrective feedback informs learners about their language mistakes, which can take various forms For instance, a teacher might explicitly correct an erroneous sentence like “I go shopping with Mum yesterday” by saying, “No, you should say went, not go,” or provide implicit feedback through repetition of the error, such as “Go?” Lyster & Ranta (1997) emphasize that corrective feedback includes both negative and positive evidence, promoting accuracy and precision in learners' responses rather than just enhancing comprehensibility.
Types of corrective feedback
Research distinguishes between explicit and implicit feedback types based on how errors are addressed Explicit feedback clearly highlights mistakes by directly indicating an error and providing the correct form, which can disrupt the conversation flow (Rezaei et al., 2011) In contrast, implicit feedback subtly corrects errors without interrupting dialogue, using strategies like recasts, repetition, or body language (Médez et al., 2010) While explicit feedback emphasizes form, implicit feedback focuses on meaning (Fawbush, 2010) Park (2010) noted that implicit feedback maintains conversational flow, whereas explicit feedback draws attention to ill-formed utterances Bower and Kawaguchi (2011) highlighted the benefits of implicit feedback in encouraging learners to adjust their input without direct error indication, while Kim (2004) argued that explicit feedback helps learners recognize and address their mistakes.
On the basis of the participant in the process of correction, there can be three possibilities of corrective feedback interaction:
Self-correction is a vital learning strategy where students recognize and rectify their mistakes independently, often after the classroom interaction Research by Médez et al (2010) highlights that teachers view self-correction as a preferred method, as it helps maintain learners' self-esteem and confidence For instance, when a student responds to the question, “What do you often do in your free time?” by initially saying, “I spend a lot of time to watch…watching television,” they may realize their error upon reflection and correct it, demonstrating the effectiveness of self-correction in language learning.
Peer correction occurs when students collaborate in pairs or groups to review each other's work in a supportive environment This method not only enhances learners' self-confidence and independence but also safeguards their self-image However, instructors must exercise caution when implementing peer correction, as its effectiveness relies on factors such as students' personalities, age, self-esteem, and their interpersonal dynamics Therefore, it is essential for teachers to understand their students well before introducing peer correction techniques.
In self-correction exercises, if a student struggles to identify their error and states, "I spend a lot of time to watch television," a peer can assist by responding with the correction, "watching." Alternatively, a less personal approach involves a student, upon the teacher's request, addressing the class to identify and correct a peer's mistakes after several statements have been made.
Teacher correction is a crucial aspect of the learning process, where the teacher provides clear and detailed explanations to help students understand their mistakes Given the teacher's proficiency, this method ensures that students receive accurate feedback, particularly in complex situations However, it is essential to consider the affective dimension and the potential embarrassment that public corrections may cause, especially for shy students Therefore, finding a polite and sensitive approach to error correction in speaking is vital for maintaining a supportive learning environment (Vasquez and Haley, 2010).
Example 1 represents a case of teacher correction In a role-play where one student is a tourist who wants to go to the National stadium and another is a passer-by
S: Show me the way to the National stadium
When seeking assistance from someone unfamiliar, it's essential to use polite phrases such as "please" or "Could you" to demonstrate respect and courtesy.
S: Could you show me the way to the National stadium, please?
Lyster and Ranta (1997) established a six-type framework of corrective feedback to analyze how teachers address student errors, which has served as a foundational theoretical reference in various research studies The six types of corrective feedback include: explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition.
Explicit correction involves directly providing the correct form of a student's erroneous utterance, accompanied by clear signals indicating the mistake Phrases like "oh, you mean " or "you should say " serve to highlight the error while offering the correct version This method is considered effective in removing ambiguity, although it may not always encourage students to self-correct For instance, Example 1 demonstrates this approach in practice.
T: Yes No, the day before yesterday (explicit correction)
Recasts are a widely debated form of corrective feedback in educational settings This method involves the teacher repeating a student's incorrect statement while substituting the mistake with the correct version According to Russell, recasts are often regarded as the most prevalent type of correction used by teachers.
In 2009, a method was introduced for reforming students' utterances, either partially or entirely, to minimize errors while preserving the original meaning This technique avoids using prompts such as "you mean" or "you should say," as demonstrated in Example 2, which illustrates this effective error treatment approach.
T: You’ve been You’ve been there twice as a group? (recasts)
Clarification requests, as highlighted by Lyster & Ranta (1997) and Rezaei et al (2011), serve as a feedback mechanism from teachers to indicate that a student's response has been misunderstood or is poorly constructed This technique prompts the student to reformulate or repeat their utterance for better comprehension An example of this can be seen in Example 3.
L: What do you spend with your wife?
Some other examples of teacher’s responses would be “sorry”, “what did you say?” or
Metalinguistic feedback is a corrective practice that, like recasts and clarification requests, does not provide explicit correct forms Instead, it involves comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of students’ utterances According to Rezaei et al (2011: 23), metalinguistic feedback is considered to be on the explicit end of the corrective feedback spectrum, as it emphasizes the linguistic features of the target language An example illustrates how this feedback method operates effectively.
S: There are influence person who
T: Influential is an adjective (metalinguistic feedback)
S: Influential person (unintelligible) because of his power
By reminding students of the adjective form of the noun “influence” did make the student aware of their own error and correct the sentence themselves
(5) Elicitation This correction technique “prompts the learner to self-correct” (Panova
Elicitation during face-to-face interactions can be conducted through various methods, each differing in implicitness and explicitness These methods include asking open questions to elicit correct forms, pausing to allow learners to complete the teacher's sentences, and prompting learners to reformulate their utterances Examples provided in the text illustrate these subcategories effectively.
T: In a fast food restaurant, how much do you tip?
SmS: Five four (needs repair)
T: What’s the word in a fast food restaurant? (elicitation)
T: Nothing, yeah Okay, what tip should you leave for the following (topic continuation)
T: New Ecosse I like that I’m sure they’d love that Nova ? (elicitation)
S: I’ll go out if it will not rain
T: Can you correct that? (elicitation)
Repetition as a form of corrective feedback involves the teacher altering their tone while reiterating the student's mistakes, thereby capturing their attention and promoting self-correction This method is illustrated in Example 6, which demonstrates the effective implementation of this correction technique.
S: Oh my God, it is too expensive, I pay only 10 dollars
Lyster and Ranta (1997) introduced translation as a subtype of recasts within their six-category framework While both serve as implicit indicators of errors, translation differs from recasts as it specifically responds to a learner’s incorrect utterance in the target language.
“generated in response to a learner’s ill-formed utterance in a language rather than the target language.”
A little different list of oral error treatment techniques proposed by Ellis (2009) replaces metalinguistic feedback with paralinguistic signal or paralinguistic sign
The importance of corrective feedback
The role of corrective feedback in second language acquisition (SLA) has sparked debate among researchers and educators Traditionally, SLA experts like Krashen have argued against its effectiveness, labeling error correction as "a serious mistake." He posits that such feedback can cause students to become defensive, leading them to rely on simpler language structures to avoid errors Additionally, Krashen contends that error correction merely aids in the development of "learned knowledge" rather than fostering genuine "acquired knowledge" (Krashen, 1982).
Advocates of corrective feedback argue that it is essential for second language acquisition (SLA) A survey by Park (2010) revealed that 94% of adult ESL students and 88% of native-speaking teachers believe that correcting spoken errors is necessary Ellis (2009) emphasized that corrective feedback, whether oral or written, is a crucial component of teaching, commonly found in educational handbooks Médez et al (2010) found that language instructors at the Universidad de Quintana Roo support corrective feedback, particularly for beginners, as it helps prevent fossilization when considering factors like students’ attitudes and emotions Schulz (2001) echoed this, with 95% of students favoring teacher corrections Campillo (2004) noted that feedback helps learners recognize discrepancies between their input and output, while Gladday (2012) stated it enhances language proficiency Recent studies have also explored broader aspects of corrective feedback, including who should provide it, which types are most effective, and the optimal timing for corrections.
Who should do the correcting?
Teachers should encourage students to self-correct to enhance their language acquisition, but when this approach falls short, peer-correction can be utilized While self-correction fosters independence, strategies like teacher-led clarification and repetition can also be effective However, as noted by Ellis (2009), students often prefer teacher correction over self-correction due to teachers' expertise, which is supported by Park (2010) Additionally, successful self-correction depends on students having a sufficient understanding of the language.
Which types of corrective feedback are the most effective?
Research on corrective feedback strategies in second language acquisition indicates varying levels of effectiveness Park (2010) highlights that techniques requiring reformulation, such as clarification requests and comprehension checks, are generally more beneficial than methods like recasts (Tatawy, 2012) However, this finding contrasts with studies by Ajideh and FareedAghdam (2012) and Panova and Lyster, suggesting that not all research aligns on the most effective strategies.
(2002), Sheen (2004) and Suzuki (2004) where they reported that recasts were the most frequent feedback type
Researchers in second language acquisition widely agree that recasts are the most prevalent form of oral error correction utilized by educators in language classrooms Park (2010) emphasized that no single method is universally effective for all language learners, highlighting the necessity for teachers to offer diverse types of corrective feedback to foster language development.
What is the best timing for corrective feedback?
The debate surrounding the timing of oral corrective feedback—immediate versus delayed—remains unresolved While immediate feedback addresses errors right away, delayed feedback occurs after a student has completed their speech A significant majority of teachers (88%) in Park (2010) preferred correcting spoken errors after students finished speaking, likely due to concerns that immediate corrections could disrupt student participation and discourage them Additionally, many educators believe that delayed feedback allows students to fully express their thoughts before receiving corrections However, there is currently no conclusive evidence to determine whether immediate or delayed feedback is more effective in enhancing student learning outcomes.
To prevent the fossilization of oral errors in language learners, it is crucial to address these mistakes through corrective feedback This feedback serves as an effective method to rectify erroneous utterances and promote second language (L2) development According to Tatawy (2002), six essential conditions must be met for corrective feedback to be beneficial Specifically, corrective techniques should allow ample time and opportunities for students to engage in self- and peer-repair Additionally, the feedback must be finely tuned to ensure alignment between the teacher's intentions, the targeted errors, and the learner's understanding of the feedback provided.
METHODOLOGY
A survey was conducted with 30 Vietnamese female English teachers at a university in Hanoi, all of whom are native Vietnamese speakers with several years of experience in teaching oral skills These active educators are open to new challenges and changes, demonstrating their willingness to participate in the research.
To enhance the focus of the investigation, three out of the 30 teacher participants were selected for subsequent stages due to their varied schedules, which aligned differently from the researcher's, thereby streamlining the data collection process Additionally, these teachers brought diverse teaching experiences and worked with students across different semesters, contributing to the objectivity of the data gathered Basic information about these participants is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 Schedule of the classes
The research involved 97 Vietnamese English majors from the same faculty, divided into three classes: 37 students in semester 3, 28 in semester 5, and 32 in semester 7 All participants, aged 20 to 23, are EFL learners with English proficiency levels ranging from intermediate to advanced, assessed through end-of-term tests covering listening, speaking, reading, and writing, designed by faculty assessors Freshmen were excluded from the study as they had not commenced the school term during data collection, and all participants were unaware of their involvement in the research.
2 Data collection instruments and procedure
The present study was carried out ethnographically with three instruments to be applied: (1) questionnaire survey via email, (2) classroom observation, and (3) one -to- one interviews
To explore teachers' beliefs about corrective feedback, a researcher developed a questionnaire adapted from Anderson (2010) and distributed it via email to 35 educators The email included a submission deadline and a request for permission to observe classrooms during the initial three weeks Prior to the main study, the questionnaire was piloted with one English teacher to identify and eliminate any misleading questions or misunderstandings The final version consists of 27 items organized around six key themes that assess teachers’ perceptions of corrective feedback on students’ spoken errors.
The article outlines the structure of a questionnaire designed to gather insights on corrective feedback in educational settings It includes demographic information (questions 1-3), identifies participants in the feedback process (questions 4-6), and explores various feedback techniques (questions 7-15 and 24) Additionally, it examines the timing of corrective feedback (questions 16-20 and 26) and the different forms it can take (questions 21-23 and 25) Finally, it assesses the basis for teachers' views on corrective feedback (question 27) Notably, 30 out of the 35 teachers who were contacted completed the questionnaire, providing valuable data for analysis.
The observation schedule was registered and approved for the second stage of the study, during which the researcher attended speaking lessons with three selected participants over the first four weeks of the school term Equipped with a voice recorder, pen, and notebook, the researcher recorded 12 fifty-minute classes without the knowledge of the teachers or students regarding the observation's purpose Notes focused on students' erroneous utterances and the corresponding teacher corrections, and the collected data were categorized into four areas: sources of feedback, timings of feedback, forms of feedback, and feedback strategies.
Following the classroom observations, three teacher participants were interviewed to reinforce the previously collected data Conducted a week after the observations, these audio-taped interviews took place in a campus teacher's room and lasted about ten minutes each The data were transcribed for comparison, aligning with the four main themes identified in the survey questionnaire to facilitate data collation Participants' responses closely mirrored the classroom observation data, allowing for effective comparison among them Although semi-structured, the interviews were centered around the established themes, ensuring engaging and informative discussions A set of six guiding questions used during the interviews is available in the Appendix.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
1.1 Collected database from survey questionnaire
The coded data from the questionnaire were inputted into Microsoft Excel, primarily consisting of quantitative values across 27 items The initial three items focused on collecting demographic information from participants, including age, teaching experience in English, and experience in teaching speaking skills, all formatted as multiple-choice questions The subsequent twenty items utilized a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree," assigned numerical values from one to five To streamline the analysis, the author categorized the 5-point scale into three distinct groups.
The questionnaire utilized a five-point scale, including options such as "strongly agree," "agree," "can't decide," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." Additionally, the last four items (24-27) employed a multiple-choice format, allowing participants to select more than one response Frequencies and percentages for each questionnaire item were calculated, with a summary of the themes presented in Table 2.
Percentage of agreed/ strongly agree: %A
Percentage of disagree/ strongly disagree: %D
12 Elicitation with an incomplete utterance 66 30 4
14 Elicitation with a request for correction 43 30 27
18 At the end of an activity 70 13 17
19 At the end of the class 20 27 53
20 At the beginning of the next lesson 10 10 80
22 Oral and written feedback on the board 73 17 10
The analysis of fully completed questionnaires revealed that 60% of participants were aged 25-34, while only 17% were in the 22-24 age group Experience among English language teachers was fairly evenly distributed, with 37% having less than 5 years or 5-9 years of teaching experience, and 27% teaching for 10 years or more Regarding their experience in teaching English speaking skills, 7% of university lecturers indicated they had less than 10 years of experience in this area Overall, the findings suggest that the majority of respondents were relatively young teachers with limited experience in both general teaching and specifically in teaching speaking skills.
In addressing questions 4-6 regarding who should be involved in the correction process, a significant majority of participants advocated for the inclusion of teachers, peers, and the students who made the errors Specifically, 80% supported self-correction, 86% favored peer correction, and 84% preferred teacher correction, while approximately 7% were uncertain about their preference.
The investigation into participants' attitudes towards various feedback techniques revealed a strong preference for positive responses, with approximately 70% of respondents expressing agreement with techniques such as recast, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, elicitation through incomplete utterances, and body language Conversely, less than 30% disagreed with these methods Notably, 73% of teacher contributors supported metalinguistic feedback, while 70% favored repetition, contrasting sharply with only 17% who disagreed Furthermore, a mere 4% opposed the use of elicitation through incomplete utterances, with a significant 66% in favor of this strategy.
Despite notable differences, certain techniques garnered both support and opposition in roughly equal proportions, with 44% of individuals in favor of explicit correction and an equal percentage expressing disapproval.
46%, respectively Likewise, clarification request got held up by 53% while rejected by 37%
In the middle scale of "can’t decide," all seven major techniques of corrective feedback were represented, with elicitation emerging as the most significant method This technique involved either providing an incomplete utterance or directly prompting participants to correct their errors, which was noted by 30% of the participants Additionally, body language played a crucial role in this category.
To determine the most effective type of corrective feedback, participants were asked to reflect on their teaching practices by selecting from seven feedback strategies The findings revealed that recasts and metalinguistic feedback were the most frequently used, comprising approximately half of the total responses In contrast, body language and clarification requests were the least utilized, accounting for only 20% and 23% of the responses, respectively Overall, these results align with previous questions that examined individual attitudes toward various feedback techniques.
The timing of correcting students' spoken errors was analyzed through five key points, highlighting diverse opinions among participants A significant majority of teachers preferred to provide corrections either after a series of errors or once the student had finished speaking, with 80% and 70% respectively opting for these methods This preference suggests that educators aim to maintain students' speaking fluency while ensuring effective feedback is delivered.
A significant portion of the class, 61%, preferred to reject immediate correction of mistakes even while the speaker was still talking Additionally, 53% opposed delaying corrective feedback until the end of the class, and 80% were against it being postponed until the next lesson While many expressed strong preferences regarding correction timing, nearly one third (27%) were undecided about when to implement corrections, with other timings varying between 10% and 23%.
Question 26 summarized the teachers’ practice on the timings of feedback The majority of the responses were ticked at the choice of c orrection either after the student’s speaking turn (83%) or at the end of an activity (73%) as being applied the most frequently Immediate correction and end-of-class correction were employed the most by around a quarter Correction at the beginning of the following lesson was inapplicable in any cases These findings, parallel with those in feedback techniques, corresponded with the results collected from questions 16 -20 and analyzed above
A survey revealed that 77% of teachers preferred correcting spoken errors orally, while 73% favored a combination of oral and written feedback A small percentage of participants were undecided on the correction method, with 7% uncertain about oral feedback and 17% about other forms The findings indicate a distinct preference for oral correction methods, as opposed to written notes, which saw a nearly even split with 40% in favor and 43% against their use for individual error correction.
In a survey regarding corrective feedback in speaking lessons, 63% of teachers reported using both oral and written feedback simultaneously, while only 17% preferred to provide written notes to individual students Notably, there was no significant difference in the use of oral feedback, which was favored by 77% of respondents, indicating a strong preference for this method among educators.
In a recent survey, 93% of participating teachers indicated that their responses were influenced by their personal experiences as language teachers Additionally, over half of the respondents (57%) drew from their years of learning English, while approximately 40% acknowledged that their answers were informed by knowledge gained from books, articles, or teacher training courses.
1.2 Collected database from classroom observation
Before analyzing the data from classroom observations, it's important to note that the total counts of student and teacher interactions, as well as error tallies, were not recorded These metrics are deemed minimally relevant to the study's primary focus, which is to explore teachers' attitudes toward various aspects of corrective feedback and the correlation between these attitudes and their practical application in the classroom.
CONCLUSION
Conclusions
This study aims to explore teachers' perceptions of various aspects of corrective feedback and how these perceptions relate to their teaching practices Through the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from a survey of thirty teachers, observations of twelve lessons, and three individual interviews, significant findings were uncovered The subsequent sections will address each research question based on these results.
The survey results indicate that teachers strongly support the involvement of all classroom participants—error makers, classmates, and teachers—in the process of oral corrective feedback This finding contrasts with previous research suggesting that self-correction is a more effective strategy in second language acquisition (Lyster, 2004; Ferris, 2006).
Respondents demonstrated a preference for a combination of all seven correction treatment types, aligning with Ajideh’s (2012) view that there is no singular method for addressing learner errors Factors influencing teachers' choices of corrective feedback include instructional settings, learner characteristics such as culture, age, gender (Rezaei, 2011), developmental readiness, error types (Ajideh, 2012), proficiency level (Rezaei, 2011; Tatawy, 2006), and time constraints (Gladdy, 2010) While various general strategies received notable support, the findings revealed that recasts, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, and elicitation were the most preferred methods among respondents.
Research indicates that the majority of agreement on feedback timing favors correction after a series of errors and at the end of activities, which helps maintain students' speech flow However, some second language acquisition (SLA) researchers, including Basturkmen, Loewen, and Ellis (2001), advocate for immediate correction during both accuracy and fluency activities Their findings suggest that frequent immediate corrective feedback can be implemented without significantly disrupting the overall communicative flow of lessons.
The final type of corrective feedback is focused on form, with a consensus favoring the use of oral feedback alone or a combination of oral and written feedback presented on the board.
The study revealed a mix of consistency and inconsistency in teachers' perceptions and their actual teaching practices within the classroom, highlighting the complex relationship between attitudes and instructional methods.
Most respondents supported feedback from peers and teachers; however, these sources accounted for less than one-third of all feedback in the three classroom settings This indicates a significant disparity between perceptions of error correction and actual practices, with self-correction being the exception Interviews revealed that teachers often overlooked peer and teacher corrections, recognizing the advantages of self-correction in fostering students' consolidation and self-improvement.
The second category explored the timing of error correction, revealing a notable alignment between survey data and classroom observations Participants consistently provided feedback immediately after erroneous utterances, at the lesson's end, and at the start of the next lesson However, the practice of immediate correction following a single error showed significant inconsistency; over half of survey respondents disapproved of this method, despite its frequent use in classrooms Interviews indicated that this discrepancy stemmed from several factors, including teachers' frustration with minor mistakes, a tendency to interrupt incorrect utterances, concerns about students' short-term memory, and a desire to enhance language proficiency.
In the analysis of feedback forms, oral feedback was consistently perceived and utilized by all three practitioners, while the other two categories showed significant inconsistencies Notably, nearly half of the 30 survey participants supported the use of written notes for individual error correction; however, this method was entirely absent from the observed lessons Interviewees explained that written notes were considered time-consuming and not advantageous for the entire class.
Significant discrepancies were identified in the selection of feedback strategies among teachers, particularly between survey responses and actual teaching practices Notable gaps emerged in the use of clarification requests, elicitation, and body language across all three observed teachers Despite a strong preference for these techniques indicated in the survey, they were rarely utilized in the classroom, especially by Teachers 1 and 3 Interviews revealed that the teachers believed these strategies were ineffective in their classrooms, primarily due to concerns about students misinterpreting the teachers' intentions.
The analysis of feedback techniques revealed significant discrepancies between perceived and actual practices in explicit correction among teachers T1 and T2, while a contrasting trend was noted in the use of recasts Additionally, T2's application of repetition contradicted the general opinions expressed in the survey Overall, this category highlighted notable contrasts across various feedback methods, with each of the three interviewed teachers exhibiting unique reasons for the differences between their perceptions and practices.
Pedagogical implications
This research highlights important pedagogical implications based on the findings, although they are limited to the specific classroom settings studied due to a small participant pool and a lack of varied research sites The interviews indicate that self-correction is highly beneficial for learners, suggesting that teachers should create a supportive environment that encourages self-repair, despite the time investment required Additionally, while explicit correction may be used occasionally, it is not effective for promoting self-repair or facilitating negotiation for meaning Teachers should also consider employing body language, clarification requests, and repetition, taking into account students’ proficiency levels and the severity of errors A balanced approach that combines these techniques may be the most effective strategy for error correction in the classroom.
To foster a supportive learning environment and prevent discouragement or humiliation, teachers should allow students to complete their thoughts before interjecting While there may be concerns about forgetting previously made errors, this can be easily managed by taking notes on a board, using paper, or utilizing a laptop for reference.
Teachers often make spontaneous decisions regarding the most appropriate form of correction based on the specific situation When time is limited and errors are minor, an oral correction may be sufficient However, supplementing this with notes on the board can enhance learning for students of varying proficiency levels In classrooms with diverse cultural backgrounds, written notes may be perceived as time-consuming and less effective, highlighting the need for adaptable correction methods.
Limitations and suggestion for further research
The study faced several limitations that impacted its reliability Firstly, the limited classroom observations hindered the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the relationship between perceptions and practices Additionally, the reliability of data from observed lessons could have been enhanced with the support of a second researcher or high-quality audio recording Secondly, while a session on corrective feedback was conducted before the study, it did not guarantee that all participants fully understood the concepts, which could have affected the validity of their responses Lastly, despite identifying both significant consistencies and notable discrepancies between teachers' perspectives and their actual practices in EFL classrooms, the research could not generalize the specific areas of similarity and difference.
Despite certain limitations, this research remains significant due to three key aspects: the experience sharing session conducted before the study, the incorporation of corrective feedback forms in all data collection tools, and the analysis of the disparity between perceptions and practices These elements have often been overlooked in previous studies.
The study overlooked important variables such as teachers' ages, teaching experiences, and student-related factors including age, proficiency level, and anxiety Additionally, the researcher did not consider the criteria that influenced teachers' choices in the survey questionnaire Consequently, future research on error correction should explore how these factors impact teachers' beliefs and their use of feedback.
1 Ajideh, P., FareedAghdam, E (2012) English Language Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Types in relation to the Learners’ Proficiency Levels and Their Error Types Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 2:8 & 2:9, 37-51
2 Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R (2004) Teachers’ stated belief about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices Applied Linguistics, 25,
3 Bower, J., Kawaguchi, S (2011) Negotiation of Meaning and Corrective Feedback in Japanese/ English eTANDEM Language Learning & Technology,
4 Braidi, S M (2002) Reexamining the role of recasts in native- speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions Language Learning, 52 (1), 1–42
5 Braun, V and Clarke, V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2) pp 77-101 ISSN 1478-0887
Retrieved March 21 st 2013 from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735/2/%3Cstrong%3Ethematic%3C/strong%3E_analysis _revise
6 Braun, V and Clarke, V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2) pp 77-101 ISSN 1478-0887
7 Campillo, P S (2004) An Analysis of Uptake Following Teacher’s Feedback in the EFL Classroom RESLA, 17-18, 209-222
8 Ellis, R (2009).Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development L2 Journal 1:
9 Fawbush, B (2010) Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback for Middle School ESL Learners Master of Arts Thesis
10 Ferris, D (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction In K Hyland & F
11 Fu, T (2012) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in Chinese as a foreign language class: Do perceptions and the reality match? Master of Arts thesis
12 Gass, S M (2005) Input and Interaction In Doughty, C & Long, M H (Eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition Blackwell publishing
13 Gladday, A E (2012) Students’ Uptake of Corrective Feedback Journal of Education and Social Research, 2:7, 31-39
14 Kim, J H (2004) Issues of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL &
15 Krashen, S (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition
16 Lyster, R (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432
17 Lyster, R., & Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation form in communicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66
18 Mendez, E H., Cruz, R R., Loyo, G M (2010).Oral Corrective Feedback by
EFL teachers at Universidad de Quintana Roo FEL, 240-253
19 Mendez, E H., Margeulles, L G., Castro, A B J (2010).Oral Corrective
Feedback: Some Ways to Go About it FEL, 254-270
20 Oliver, R (1995) Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 459-481
21 Panova, I., Lyster, R (2002).Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an
Adult ESL Classroom TESOL Quarterly, 36: 4, 573-595
22 Park, H S (2010) Teachers’ and Learners' Preferences for Error Correction
23 Rassaei, E., Moinzadeh, A., Youhanaee, M (2012) The Effects of Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of Implicit and Explicit L2 Knowledge The Journal of Language and Learning, 2:1, 59-75
24 Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., Hatef, A (2011).Corrective Feedback in SLA:
Classroom Practice & Future Direction International Journal of English Linguistics, 1:1, 21-29
25 Russell, V (2009).Corrective Feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6:1, 21-31
26 Schegloff, E A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H (1977) The preference for self- correction in the organization of repair in conversation Language , 53:2, 361-
27 Schulz, R A (2001).Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions
Concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USA- Colombia The Modern Language Journal, 85:2, 244-258
28 Sheen, Y (2004).Corrective Feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings Language Teaching Research, 8:3, 263-
29 Suzuki, M (2004).Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Adult ESL
Classrooms Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL &
30 Tatawy, M E (2006) Corrective feedback in second language acquisition Teachers’ College, Columbia University Retrieved March 8, 2012, from
Journals.tc-library.org/index.php/teso/article/download/160/158
31 Tatawy, M E (2012).Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition
Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2:2, 1-19
32 Vasquez, C., Harvey, J (2010) Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication Language Teaching Research, 14:4, 421-
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (On teachers’ views on oral corrective feedback in speaking lessons)
I am conducting research on teachers' perspectives regarding corrective feedback on students' spoken errors during speaking lessons Your responses to the following questions will significantly contribute to my pursuit of a master's degree in English Language Teaching methodology and enhance the effective use of corrective feedback in the classroom.
For questions 1-23, tick on the box to the information that applies to you Make sure to mark only ONE
2 Years of language teaching experience
Less than 5 years 5-9 years 10 years or more
3 Years of speaking skills teaching experience
4 You let your students correct their own spoken errors
5 You let your students correct their classmates’ spoken errors
6 As a teacher, you are the person who corrects students’ spoken errors
7 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say:
- No, it’s not “gone” “Been”
(Explicit correction: The teacher provides the correct form with a clear indication of what is being corrected)
8 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say:
- Been? You’ve been to Singapore once?
(Recast: The teacher repeats the student’s error in the correct form without pointing out the
9 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say:
(Clarification request: The teacher asks the student for clarification to signal that the student’s utterance is not understood or ill- formed by saying “sorry?” “pardon me?” or
10 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say:
- Do we say “have gone” when you have visited somewhere and come back?
(Metalinguistic: The teacher gives a hint or a clue without explicitly providing the correct form or pointing out the mistake)
11 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say:
(Repetition: The teacher repeats the student’s error changing his/ her intonation)
12 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say:
(Elicitation: The teacher gives an incomplete sentence and then pauses to allow the student to fill in the blank)
13 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say:
- What verb do you use when you have visited somewhere and come back?
(Elicitation: The teacher elicits the correct form by asking questions, excluding yes/ no questions)
14 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll say:
(Elicitation: The teacher asks the student to reformulate the erroneous utterance)
15 In response to a student’s spoken error “I’ve gone to Singapore once”, you’ll move your head and frown
(Body language: The teacher uses a facial expression or body movement rather than an oral response to indicate an error)
16 A student’s spoken error is corrected immediately after the error has been made
17 A student’s spoken error is corrected after a series of erroneous utterances when the student has finished speaking
18 A student’s spoken error is corrected at the end of the activity
19 A student’s spoken error is corrected at the end of the class
20 A student’s spoken error is corrected at the beginning of the next lesson
21 You correct student’s spoken errors orally
22 You correct student’s spoken errors in both oral and written forms using the board
23 You correct student’s spoken errors by writing quick notes for the student
APPENDIX B CLASSROOM OBSERVATION ON ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
6 Observation (underline one): 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th
Source of feedback: o Self o Peer o Teacher o Other (*)
Time of feedback: o Immediate after one error o Immediate after a series of erroneous utterances o At the end of the lesson o At the beginning of the next lesson
Written form using notes for individuals
Cl: Whole class DifS: Different student
No Partici- pant Example Technique Timing