INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
Making errors is an essential aspect of learning foreign languages, as they expose the learner's underlying knowledge and transitional competence According to Coder (1967), effective corrective feedback is vital for preventing learners' errors from becoming fossilized and promoting progress along their interlanguage continuum Therefore, addressing and correcting these errors is a critical component of language acquisition.
Numerous empirical studies have explored the effectiveness of feedback in enhancing student learning Rydahl (2005) examined the use of oral feedback by teachers in upper secondary schools to boost students' proficiency in second and foreign languages Gass and Selinker (2008) noted that motivation levels vary among learners, influencing their engagement with language learning Consequently, teachers must be attuned to students' attitudes towards language and error correction, despite the debate over whether learners' preferences align with optimal acquisition strategies (Truscott, 1996) Additionally, understanding learners' perspectives is crucial, as a disconnect between students' expectations and classroom realities can impede language acquisition progress.
The debate among language teachers regarding the most effective approaches to correcting students' errors is ongoing, with some opting to address all mistakes, while others focus only on those relevant to the lesson or that hinder communication Additionally, some teachers may avoid corrections to maintain class flow Observations indicate that teachers often overlook students' perspectives on error correction, which can hinder the development of a supportive and collaborative learning environment The prevalent teacher-centered approach tends to follow a one-size-fits-all model, negatively impacting students' progress, particularly in speaking skills Consequently, the author is inspired to investigate the preferences of both teachers and students for oral corrective feedback at a Vietnamese university.
Significance of the study
Error correction is essential for effective learning, as neglecting to address mistakes can lead to the formation of bad habits that are difficult to correct later This study focuses on the dynamics of corrective feedback between teachers and students, highlighting teachers' preferences for providing feedback on students' speaking performances, as well as students' feedback preferences By comparing these perspectives, teachers can enhance their methods of delivering oral corrective feedback, ultimately improving the learning experience for their students.
This study focuses specifically on oral corrective feedback in relation to students' speaking performances, acknowledging the challenges of addressing both written and oral forms of feedback Due to time constraints and limited availability, data were collected from 138 students and 5 lecturers through observations of English lessons, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews.
This study investigates the preferences of teachers and students concerning various types of corrective feedback in EFL speaking classrooms at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 (HPU2) in Vietnam The researcher observed five classes to identify the corrective feedback strategies currently favored by HPU2 teachers Furthermore, the study explores the differences in preferences between students and teachers regarding these strategies, focusing on the alignment or discrepancies in their preferences for oral corrective feedback.
This study was conducted in an attempt to find answers for the following questions:
1 What oral corrective feedback do teachers actually give on students‟ speaking in EFL speaking classrooms?
2 What types of corrective feedback do students and teachers in EFL speaking classrooms prefer?
3 To what extent do the teachers‟ oral corrective feedback match the students‟ preferences?
This study utilized a mixed methods design, incorporating classroom observations, questionnaires, and interviews as data collection tools The collected data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative methods, specifically descriptive statistics, to uncover patterns in the corrective feedback used by teachers and to understand the preferences of both teachers and students regarding different types of feedback Additionally, the study explored the underlying reasons for these preferences.
Hausman (2005, 2012) argues that preferences should not be defined by self-interest, desires, or actual choices Instead, he suggests that preferences are best understood as comprehensive evaluations that rank alternative options based on all relevant considerations This approach emphasizes the importance of total comparative evaluations in understanding economic preferences.
Practice, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2000), refers to the habitual execution or performance of an action, distinguishing it from theory, knowledge, or profession It encompasses the customary behaviors and actions that individuals regularly engage in.
Scribner and Cole (1981) define practice as “a recurrent goal-directed sequence of activities using a particular technology and particular systems of knowledge.” (as cited in Miller & Goodnow, 1995, p 235)
Practices are repeated actions within a social group that carry normative expectations and meanings that extend beyond their immediate objectives.
According to George (1972), errors are defined as "unwanted forms by the teacher or course designer" and represent "negative influences in the process of learning" (Ringbom 1986, p 71) Essentially, an error is a linguistic expression that deviates from established norms or factual standards.
According to Hattie and Timperly (2007), feedback is defined as “information provided by an agent regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding” (p 81) This highlights the crucial role of feedback in enhancing the teaching and learning of speaking, as it offers valuable insights to students about their oral performance.
Yang and Lyster (2010) defined corrective feedback as “a reactive type of form-focused instruction which is considered to be effective in promoting noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning.” (p 237)
Oral corrective feedback focuses on corrective feedback on students‟ speech with an indication of error committed
The study has been organised around five chapters as follows
Chapter 1 – Introduction, examines the rationale, objectives, scope, methods, the research questions, and structure of the study aiming at appealing the readers to the thesis
Chapter 2 of the literature review outlines the theoretical framework of the research, defining essential terms and examining significant prior studies that relate to the current investigation.
Chapter 3, Methodology, describes the subjects, research instruments, employed methods, data collection procedures, and data analysis applied to conduct this study
Chapter 4, Findings and discussion, provides answers to the research questions raised at the beginning and some discussions about the collected results
Chapter 5 – Conclusion, recapitulates the main findings of the research along with major pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies.
Purpose of the study
This study investigates the preferences of teachers and students for various types of corrective feedback in EFL speaking classrooms at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 (HPU2), Vietnam The researcher observed five classes to identify the corrective feedback strategies currently favored by HPU2 teachers Additionally, the study explores the differences in preferences between students and teachers regarding these strategies A key focus of the investigation is the alignment or discrepancy between teachers' and students' preferences for oral corrective feedback.
This study was conducted in an attempt to find answers for the following questions:
1 What oral corrective feedback do teachers actually give on students‟ speaking in EFL speaking classrooms?
2 What types of corrective feedback do students and teachers in EFL speaking classrooms prefer?
3 To what extent do the teachers‟ oral corrective feedback match the students‟ preferences?
Method of the study
This study utilized a mixed methods design, incorporating classroom observations, questionnaires, and interviews for data collection The data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative approaches, specifically through descriptive statistics, to uncover the patterns of corrective feedback used by the observed teachers Additionally, it explored the preferences of both teachers and students regarding specific types of corrective feedback and discussed the underlying reasons for these preferences.
Key terms and definitions
Hausman (2005, 2012) argues that preferences should not be defined by self-interest, desires, or choices Instead, he suggests that preferences are best understood as total comparative evaluations, ranking alternative options based on all relevant considerations This perspective shifts the focus from individual desires to a broader evaluation of choices.
Practice, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2000), refers to the habitual execution of an activity, emphasizing the importance of routine actions over mere theoretical knowledge or professional expertise.
Scribner and Cole (1981) define practice as “a recurrent goal-directed sequence of activities using a particular technology and particular systems of knowledge.” (as cited in Miller & Goodnow, 1995, p 235)
Practices are recurring actions that are collectively shared within a social group, infused with normative expectations and imbued with meanings that extend beyond their immediate objectives.
George (1972) defined errors as “unwanted forms by the teacher or course designer” (p 2) and described them as “negative influences in the process of learning” (Ringbom 1986, p 71) Essentially, an error represents a linguistic form that deviates from established norms or factual accuracy.
According to Hattie and Timperly (2007), feedback is defined as information given by an agent about an individual's performance or understanding This makes feedback a crucial element in enhancing the teaching and learning of speaking, as it offers students valuable insights into their oral performance.
Yang and Lyster (2010) defined corrective feedback as “a reactive type of form-focused instruction which is considered to be effective in promoting noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning.” (p 237)
Oral corrective feedback focuses on corrective feedback on students‟ speech with an indication of error committed.
Structure of the thesis
The study has been organised around five chapters as follows
Chapter 1 – Introduction, examines the rationale, objectives, scope, methods, the research questions, and structure of the study aiming at appealing the readers to the thesis
Chapter 2 of the literature review establishes the theoretical framework of the research by defining essential terms and examining significant prior studies relevant to the current investigation.
Chapter 3, Methodology, describes the subjects, research instruments, employed methods, data collection procedures, and data analysis applied to conduct this study
Chapter 4, Findings and discussion, provides answers to the research questions raised at the beginning and some discussions about the collected results
Chapter 5 – Conclusion, recapitulates the main findings of the research along with major pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical background
To start with, the term „error‟ will be defined from different points of view in order to be able to distinguish it from mistakes
In the realm of English Teaching Methodology, various definitions of errors highlight their significance in the learning process Brookes (quoted in Ellis, 1985) likens errors to sins that should be avoided, while George (1972) describes them as unwanted forms that negatively influence learning Lennon (1991) offers a notable definition, stating that an error is a linguistic form unlikely to be produced by native speakers in similar contexts Traditionally viewed as negative, errors have prompted teachers to adopt a repressive attitude; however, Corder (1967, cited by Ellis, 2008) argues that errors reflect a learner's lack of knowledge and can provide valuable insights for educators and students alike This perspective positions errors as indicators of a learner's interlanguage development and a natural part of second language acquisition, as supported by Chaudron (1986, quoted by Allwright and Bailey, 1991).
1) “linguistic forms or content that differ from native speaker norms or facts, and
2) any other behaviour signaled by the teacher as needing improvement.”
According to Brown (1980), errors in language learning are significant deviations from the grammar used by native speakers, highlighting the inter-language communication of learners These errors often go unrecognized by learners, making them unable to correct their mistakes.
The definitions of English often stem from native speaker norms, which may not effectively serve the current teaching and learning landscape Given that English is widely recognized as a "world language" or "World Englishes," it is crucial to acknowledge that many English educators are non-native speakers Consequently, students are frequently exposed to nonnative language models, leading to a classroom environment that may diverge from traditional native speaker standards.
Mistakes and errors are often confused, but it is crucial to distinguish between the two in the learning process Mistakes are performance-related and commonly occur in native speakers' speech due to processing failures, memory limitations, and lack of automaticity (Richards, 1974) According to Hornby (1989), a mistake is a random performance error, such as a slip of the tongue, where a learner fails to apply a known system correctly (Brown, 1980) Learners typically cannot self-correct their mistakes In contrast, errors indicate gaps in a learner's knowledge, occurring when they do not know the correct information While mistakes are occasional lapses in performance that can be corrected, errors represent faults that learners cannot rectify on their own (Ellis, 1997) Understanding this distinction is essential for effective language learning and teaching.
Errors in language are deviations from established norms and facts, and they play a crucial role in language development During the acquisition of a first language, individuals naturally produce numerous errors, which are essential for their growth Similarly, learning a foreign language mirrors this process, making the study of errors vital for understanding and improving language proficiency.
According to Touchie (1986), errors in language learning can be categorized into two types: performance errors and competence errors Performance errors occur when learners are fatigued or rushed, and these mistakes are typically minor and easily correctable In contrast, competence errors indicate a deeper issue, as they stem from insufficient understanding of the language, making them more significant and challenging to address.
Researchers, including Burt and Kiparsky (1974), categorize errors in language into local and global types Local errors, such as incorrect noun and verb inflections or misuse of articles, prepositions, and auxiliaries, do not obstruct communication or hinder the understanding of meaning In contrast, global errors significantly disrupt communication, often due to issues like incorrect word order, thereby affecting the overall clarity of utterances.
Lyster and Ranta (1997) identified three primary types of errors in language learning: grammatical, phonological, and lexical errors Grammatical errors encompass incorrect usage of closed-class elements, including determiners, prepositions, pronouns, and issues with grammatical gender, tense, verb morphology, subject-verb agreement, pluralization, negation, question formation, relativization, and word order Phonological errors involve mispronunciation of words, which can hinder comprehension Lexical errors pertain to the incorrect or inappropriate selection of words from open classes such as nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives, as well as errors in noun and verb derivations involving improper use of prefixes and suffixes.
Errors in language learning can be categorized into two main types: inter-lingual and intra-lingual errors Inter-lingual errors arise from the interference of a learner's native language when attempting to learn a new language, as noted by Richards (1974) These errors are common across various language backgrounds since learners often apply concepts from their mother tongue before fully grasping the target language In contrast, intra-lingual errors occur when learners, lacking sufficient knowledge of the target language, rely on their existing language knowledge, as highlighted by James (1998) This reliance can lead to errors stemming from misunderstandings or misapplications of language rules Understanding these error types is crucial for effective language instruction and learner support.
Intra-lingual errors can be classified into four categories:
Overgeneralisation in language occurs when a speaker excessively relies on one grammatical form while neglecting others within the same set This can result in incorrect constructions, such as saying "he is walks quickly" instead of the correct form, "he walks quickly."
Learners often overlook the limitations of existing structures, as seen in the phrase “I enjoy to learn about English language.” A more accurate expression would be to replace “to learn about” with “learning.”
Intra-lingual errors often highlight the level of understanding of grammatical rules necessary for producing correct sentences For instance, the phrase "He opening the door" illustrates a common mistake, as the verb form "-ing" cannot function independently and requires the auxiliary "to be" to create a grammatically acceptable statement.
Intra-lingual errors, often referred to as semantic errors, occur when there is a misunderstanding of distinctions in the target language These errors typically stem from inadequate teaching methods and poor gradation in language instruction.
With respect to the field of language teaching, various definitions of feedback are found
Feedback plays a vital role in the teaching and learning process, serving as a key strategy to enhance student performance (Gipps, 1995; Naeini, 2008) It is defined as information provided to learners about their performance on tasks, aimed at fostering improvement (Ur, 1996; Khan, 2002) Activities that raise consciousness, such as highlighting and rule-giving, can effectively direct learners' attention and facilitate their growth (Long & Robinson, 1998) According to Hattie and Timperly (2007), feedback consists of information regarding various aspects of a learner's performance or understanding Thus, feedback is essential for enhancing the teaching and learning of speaking, as it offers valuable insights into students' oral performances.
Providing feedback is essential for learners, regardless of the accuracy of their responses (2011, p 32) For instance, a teacher can offer positive reinforcement by praising a student's speaking performance with comments like "Good job!"
Literature review of related studies
Oral corrective feedback plays a crucial role in effective language acquisition, attracting significant attention from educators and researchers globally Numerous studies, theses, and articles have explored the practices and preferences surrounding oral corrective feedback This section highlights key research findings from around the world, including a specific focus on a study conducted in Vietnam.
2.2.1 The studies on teachers and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback
2.2.1.1 Studies on teachers’ oral corrective feedback strategies
A number of studies have been carried out to find out teachers‟ preferences of giving oral corrective feedback
Ahangari & Amirzadeh (2011) analyzed 360 corrective feedback moves from two EFL teachers across three proficiency levels and found that recast was the most commonly used feedback type This aligns with Nhạc’s (2011) case study, which observed that while recast was prevalent, more effective feedback types like meta-linguistic feedback and clarification requests were used less frequently Méndez & Cruz (2012) identified that unfocused oral corrective feedback and implicit strategies dominated EFL instructors' practices through interviews and questionnaires Đinh (2013) revealed a tendency among four teachers to use recast, repetition, and metalinguistic feedback, although she did not consider teachers' preferences Nguyễn (2014) emphasized the effectiveness of explicit feedback in addressing pronunciation issues but did not explore teachers' motivations for its use Motlagh (2015) found that Iranian EFL teachers favored implicit feedback for various error types, echoing Méndez & Cruz's findings Finally, Saliana Sawaluddin and Tajuddin (2017) observed that while explicit correction and recast were frequently employed, teachers varied their feedback types in practice.
A 2017 study involving 42 Iranian EFL teachers from private language institutes and 39 from various schools in Shiraz, Iran, found that school teachers predominantly favored the repetition approach This was followed by clarification requests, elicitation, explicit correction, and recasts.
While many studies have explored teachers' preferences for oral corrective feedback, they often overlook the underlying reasons behind their choices in feedback methods.
2.2.1.2 Studies on students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback
Students‟ preferences for particular types of oral corrective feedback have been broadly discussed
Learners demonstrated strong preferences for recast and metalinguistic corrective feedback in the study of Kaivanpanah et al (2012) In contrast, in
Research on corrective feedback in language learning highlights varied student preferences and perceptions Lee (2013) found that some learners associated clarification requests with teacher inattention and expressed discomfort with metalinguistic feedback, fearing embarrassment and discouragement in class discussions Most students favored explicit and immediate corrections during interactions Faqeih (2015) identified recast as the most preferred error correction method, emphasizing the importance of learner attitudes in promoting language accuracy Aranguiz & Espinoza (2016) noted that Chilean teachers predominantly used explicit correction for various errors, with effective strategies including repetition and elicitation Shirkhani & Tajeddin (2016) revealed that explicit correction accounted for 48.5% of feedback types, suggesting a need for teachers to diversify their feedback strategies Furthermore, ệlmezer-ệztỹrk & ệztỹrk (2016) found that while learners viewed recast and clarification requests as ambiguous, they responded positively to explicit correction for its clarity and explanatory value Ananda et al (2017) and Dea et al (2017) both confirmed that repetition emerged as the most preferred type of oral corrective feedback among students.
By far, few studies have taken students‟ opinions into account though student-centered interaction is being emphasized in the current teaching and learning process
2.2.2 The studies on the relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback
Reported by the studies comparing students‟ and teachers‟ corrective feedback preferences, there have been considerable discrepancies and mismatches between the views of the two groups
A study by Han & Jung (2007) examined the patterns of corrective feedback and repair based on students' English proficiency levels, revealing notable discrepancies between student and teacher preferences for error correction, though no explanations were provided for these differences Yoshida (2008) utilized audio recordings and stimulated recall interviews to investigate teachers' choices and learners' preferences for corrective feedback in Japanese language classrooms, finding that teachers often preferred recasts due to time constraints and an understanding of learners' cognitive styles, while students favored opportunities to reflect on their errors before receiving corrections Lee (2013) further explored corrective feedback patterns in advanced EFL classrooms, identifying recast as the most common feedback type, which led to a high rate of learner repair, but also highlighted discrepancies between student preferences and actual feedback received Saeb (2017) investigated the perceptions of Iranian EFL teachers and students regarding oral corrective feedback, revealing significant differences in their views on the types and amounts of feedback needed, yet failing to explain the reasons behind these preferences, thus highlighting a gap between teachers' feedback practices and learners' expectations.
Extensive research on oral corrective feedback has been conducted, primarily focusing on teachers' opinions and preferences, yet much of this data is over a decade old, raising questions about its current relevance There is a notable lack of structured research exploring students' perspectives, and most studies rely on classroom observations without clearly differentiating between teachers' actions and their beliefs regarding error correction This limited understanding may lead teachers to be unaware of their own methods and the most effective techniques for addressing students' errors Additionally, a disconnect exists between teachers' and students' views on effective corrective feedback, which can hinder the language learning process As highlighted by Amrhein and Nassaji (2010), feedback that does not align with students' expectations may be ineffective Furthermore, most research on corrective feedback has been concentrated in English as a Second Language contexts, with minimal studies examining how tertiary EFL learners respond to various types of feedback This gap is particularly evident in Vietnam, where there is a scarcity of documented studies on the preferences of teachers and learners regarding corrective feedback among university EFL students.
This study aims to address the existing gaps in research by exploring the preferences of Vietnamese students and teachers regarding oral corrective feedback in EFL speaking classrooms It emphasizes the importance of error correction in foreign language acquisition, as highlighted by Corder (1967) The research investigates various techniques employed by EFL teachers to correct errors and utilizes questionnaires to reveal both teachers' and students' preferences for corrective feedback Additionally, the study seeks to understand the reasons behind teachers' choices in addressing student errors and the motivations of students for preferring specific types of oral corrective feedback.
Summary
This chapter offers an overview of language errors, feedback, and oral corrective feedback, highlighting the practices of teachers in delivering this feedback as well as the preferences of both students and teachers While numerous studies have explored corrective feedback in EFL classrooms, there remains ongoing debate regarding the alignment of preferences between teachers and students Building on the theoretical framework of corrective feedback, the subsequent chapters will delve into a detailed analysis of the specific preferences for oral corrective feedback among students and teachers.
METHODOLOGY
Conceptual framework
A conceptual framework is essential for organizing and promoting the knowledge of a researcher, linking key concepts, empirical research, and significant theories (Peshkin, 1993) According to Miles and Huberman (1994), it can be presented graphically or narratively, illustrating the main variables and their relationships, thereby offering an integrated perspective on the research problem (Liehr & Smith, 1999) This framework guides researchers in tracing answers to their investigative questions and serves as a structure that elucidates the natural progression of the phenomenon under study (Camp, 2001) From a statistical viewpoint, it outlines the relationships between the primary concepts, providing a unified lens for analyzing the problem and data (Grant & Osanloo, 2014) Ultimately, the conceptual framework facilitates the clear specification and definition of concepts related to the study's issues.
Recognizing the significance of a conceptual framework, the author endeavored to establish one for their study, aiming to clarify the study's nature and purpose.
The article explores the preferences of teachers and students regarding oral corrective feedback in English speaking classrooms, aiming to address a defined research problem It identifies potential matches and mismatches between these preferences, and from the observed similarities and discrepancies, the author proposes implications for enhancing the teaching and learning process.
Research method
This study examines the preferred corrective feedback strategies of HPU2's students and teachers, analyzing both their perspectives and any discrepancies between them Utilizing a mixed methods design as outlined by Tashakkori & Teddlie (1998), the research involved the collection and analysis of quantitative data, followed by qualitative insights to provide a comprehensive understanding of feedback preferences in the educational context.
Teachers‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback
Students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback
Pedagogical implications for teaching and learning
Matche s or Mismat ches qualitative data
The study utilized a quantitative research approach to analyze data collected through questionnaires, providing insights into students' perceptions of the textbook This method was selected for its ability to offer clear documentation of the survey instruments, allowing other researchers to evaluate the findings' validity Additionally, the results can be generalized to the broader population of interest However, it is important to note that quantitative research can be costly and time-consuming, often delaying the availability of preliminary results.
According to Pope & Mays (1995), qualitative research is the
This study focuses on developing concepts to comprehend social phenomena in natural settings, prioritizing the meanings, experiences, and perspectives of participants The primary aim is to gain insights into the participants' experiences and attitudes, while refraining from making broad generalizations To gather qualitative data, the researchers employed observation methods alongside semi-structured interviews.
This study was carried out in five English-speaking classes at the Faculty of Foreign Languages (FFL) at HPU2, where English is the medium of instruction alongside Chinese, with Korean set to become a major Students are pursuing two specializations: English Language Teaching, aimed at training future secondary and high school teachers, and English Linguistics, preparing graduates for roles as interpreters and professionals in domestic and international companies Most students hail from northern Vietnam, and the faculty boasts a qualified academic staff, with many holding Master's degrees in English Teaching Methodology and English Linguistics The instructors are known for their open-mindedness, enthusiasm, and creativity in their teaching methods.
Despite the efforts of academic staff and faculty managers to improve overall student performance, the outcomes remain unsatisfactory, particularly in speaking test results.
In this qualitative research study, purposeful sampling was employed to select participants who could provide valuable insights into the central phenomenon being investigated Five English lecturers, including the author, from HPU2 were recruited, all of whom are Vietnamese and possess 3-10 years of experience teaching speaking skills within the same faculty These active female educators are dedicated to teaching first-year students during the second term of the academic year and are open to embracing new changes, making them ideal participants for this research Their varied teaching schedules and differing levels of experience contribute to the objectivity of the data collected, as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 Teachers‟ information and schedules Teachers‟ codes
Date Time Number of students
Textbook Topics to be covered T1
The research targeted first-year students from English Language Teaching and English Linguistics classes, with 138 participants out of a total of 173 students due to absences and a lack of willingness to participate The study specifically focused on freshmen, excluding sophomores, juniors, and seniors who were retaking courses to improve their academic performance Among the participants, approximately 15% were male and 85% were female, all at elementary levels, aged 19 to 21, with over 10 years of English study experience The researcher aimed to include freshmen as they were at the initial stage of achieving proficiency Additionally, the exclusion of other students was due to overlapping teacher schedules and the absence of speaking classes for juniors and seniors during their training practice.
A total of twenty learners expressed interest in follow-up interviews, with fourteen selected for participation based on their complete questionnaire responses These interviews provided deeper insights into the students' answers The interviewees comprised seven students from the English Language Teaching major and seven from the English Linguistics program Their codes and backgrounds are detailed in Table 2.
Table 2 Backgrounds of the interviewed students
No Code Age Gender Area of study
Research instruments
The study examines teachers' oral corrective feedback during teacher-student interactions, highlighting classroom observation as the most effective data collection method Nunan (1989) emphasizes the importance of observing classrooms to enhance our understanding of language learning and teaching processes This participatory method requires researchers to immerse themselves in the classroom environment, allowing for direct access to phenomena and generating a permanent record for future reference Despite its advantages, classroom observation can be time-consuming and may disrupt the natural classroom atmosphere, potentially affecting the behavior of both teachers and students, which could compromise research validity Nevertheless, the convenience of this method led to its selection for gathering data on teachers' practices The observation utilized a structured sheet consisting of two parts: general information adapted from Ullmann and Geva’s (1985) Target Language Observation Scheme, and a tally sheet based on Nunan’s (1989) Classroom Observation Tally Sheet, with the combined version included in Appendix A.
3.3.2 Questionnaires for teachers and students
The study utilized a questionnaire to gather data from teachers and students in an EFL speaking classroom, aiming to assess their preferences for oral corrective feedback types and identify any discrepancies between teachers' strategies and students' preferences Questionnaires were chosen for their ability to reach a large audience and allow for a wide range of questions, although it is essential to keep them concise to avoid frustrating respondents Despite their efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and straightforward delivery, questionnaires have drawbacks, including the potential for inaccurate or incomplete self-reported information and the risk of creating an unnatural setting that may alienate participants.
A questionnaire designed for lecturers, adapted from Katayama (2007) and Smith (2010), was utilized alongside observation results It includes a section (A) for personal information of both students and lecturers, while the subsequent section focuses on preferences regarding the types of oral error corrective feedback provided by lecturers Participants expressed their opinions on oral corrective feedback using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "Very Effective" to "Very Ineffective." Each respondent selected a numerical value for each item Additionally, a modified version of the questionnaire was administered to students, who were briefed on how to respond and asked for their consent to participate in the study.
3.3.2 Semi-structured interview with students and teachers
A semi-structured interview is a qualitative research method that involves asking open-ended questions and recording responses from individuals or groups, allowing for in-depth exploration of topics This approach was utilized to gather insights from teachers and students regarding their preferences for different types of oral corrective feedback The semi-structured format offers flexibility and enables the interviewer to guide the conversation while fostering richer interactions and personalized responses In mixed methods research, it serves as a valuable complement to other data collection techniques However, the process of preparing, conducting, and analyzing semi-structured interviews can be time-consuming and labor-intensive The interview design includes a set of open-ended questions, detailed in Appendix E, focusing on the participants' most and least favored corrective feedback types, with the collected data being transcribed and analyzed to draw meaningful conclusions.
Procedure
The initial phase of the study involved observational research, where permission was obtained to observe five classes The author attended eight lectures taught by four different teachers and recorded their own lessons for first-year learners at FFL in HPU2 Each lesson had a duration of 50 minutes, contributing to a comprehensive analysis of the teaching methods employed.
Over a span of 500 minutes, or more than 8 hours, classroom activities were closely observed, revealing a structured environment that encouraged maximum interaction between learners and the teacher The students, unaware of the author's purpose for visiting, behaved naturally, which was crucial to ensure their responses were genuine and not overly cautious due to potential error analysis During the observations, the author meticulously noted the students' errors and the teachers' feedback In addition to self-recording, the researcher documented the errors made by students and the oral corrective feedback provided Following the observation, the gathered data were analyzed and categorized based on Lyster and Ranta's discourse model (1997), intentionally omitting the learner uptake section to focus on the techniques employed.
After a week of observations, the researcher administered questionnaires to the same learners whose lessons were observed, ensuring that participation was voluntary and anonymous Students were informed they could withdraw at any time and were encouraged to skip any uncomfortable questions The questionnaires were distributed in classrooms and via email to three EFL teachers, with the researcher also completing one Once completed, the researcher collected the forms in person To reinforce the data collected, both teachers and students were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews, scheduled at the teachers' convenience Conducted in English and lasting five to six minutes, students were also allowed to respond in their first language, Vietnamese, if preferred.
To assess their comprehension of oral corrective feedback types, Section B of the questionnaire was included alongside the interview questions The complete set of interview questions is available in Appendix E.
Data analysis
To scrutinize the frequency of corrective feedback types used in the classroom (Research Question 1), the audio-recorded classes in accordance with corrective feedback categories aforementioned in Chapter 2
To investigate the preferences for corrective feedback among students and teachers, we utilized all eight declarative statements from Section 2 of the surveys The quantitative data collected through the questionnaire responses were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 software Table 3 presents the codes for various types of oral corrective feedback and indicates their placement in the original questionnaires.
Table 3 Oral corrective feedback codes and item position in the questionnaires
Types of oral corrective feedback
Item position in students’ questionnaire
Item position in teachers’ questionnaire
To address Research Question 3, a one-sample t-test was conducted to examine the alignment between students' and teachers' preferences for corrective feedback Due to the significant disparity in sample sizes (138 students versus 5 teachers), an independent t-test was not feasible Instead, the mean value of teachers' preferences for the specific type of corrective feedback served as the test value in the analysis The findings highlight the notable differences in corrective feedback preferences between students and teachers.
The qualitative data for this study is derived from semi-structured interviews conducted with students and teachers The researcher utilizes the analytical framework developed by Miles & Huberman (1994) to systematically process and interpret the collected responses.
Figure 1 Qualitative data analysis procedure
Data collection period Data reductionData displaysConclusion drawing
Following semi-structured interviews with teachers and students, the author begins the process of transcribing and translating the data as needed The initial phase of data analysis involves data reduction, which is essential for distilling the information gathered.
“process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the
In qualitative research, analysts identify and select specific "raw" data from field notes or transcriptions based on principles of selectivity The second key aspect of analysis involves the effective display of this data to enhance understanding and interpretation.
A "display" refers to a structured collection of information that facilitates the process of drawing conclusions and taking action The third aspect of analytical activity involves the formulation and validation of conclusions The author evaluates the existing literature on corrective feedback to derive insightful conclusions.
Summary
The study on teachers' and students' oral corrective feedback in speaking classes is structured into five key components: a conceptual framework, research methods, research instruments, procedures, and data analysis The conceptual framework outlines the study's approach, while the research methods highlight the integration of both quantitative and qualitative methods as essential for completing the graduation thesis Additionally, the study discusses the necessary instruments used for data collection and analysis, as well as the procedures for gathering and analyzing data.