VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PEER CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN
INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
Learning English early is crucial as it serves as a global lingua franca, widely used across various fields Proficient English communication is essential in both professional and social settings worldwide Recognizing this, parents and leaders are increasingly aware of the importance of English skills in the global marketplace In response to the demand for effective speaking abilities, the last decade has witnessed significant advancements in the communicative approach to English language teaching (ELT) in public schools and private institutions.
The current focus in English Language Teaching (ELT) is on enhancing learners' communicative competence, emphasizing the need for effective English communication skills to foster student interaction and confidence Rich (2014) highlights that many children, aged 5 to 10, are now actively learning English Additionally, significant efforts and financial resources are being invested by parents to provide their children with ample opportunities to engage with the language from an early age Introducing English in primary education and preschool settings contributes to improved overall proficiency Therefore, employing practical techniques like PCF is essential for enhancing children's communicative abilities in English.
PCF is a vital technique for enhancing English speaking skills (ESS) and improving the quality of communicative lessons By incorporating learners' feedback, PCF contributes to the overall effectiveness of teaching and learning Additionally, it has emerged as a popular practice in English classes, making it an essential component of modern language education.
Aims of the study
Improving students' English speaking skills (ESS) has become a significant challenge for English teachers, especially in ESL/EFL classes, where students should ideally spend 70% to 90% of their time speaking and practicing the language However, teachers often dominate the classroom, providing most of the language input, which limits students' opportunities for practice Many learners face disadvantages in poorly interactive classrooms, resulting in their utterances being limited to short words or phrases Research indicates that students struggle to read, write, and speak fluently and confidently, both in school and in real-life situations Therefore, fostering confident and fluent English speakers is essential for students, particularly young learners, to advance to higher levels of language proficiency.
Peer corrective feedback (PCF) is an effective technique for teaching young learners (YLs) English as a second language (ESS) YLs enjoy socializing with friends, making it easier for them to express their thoughts and ideas PCF allows YLs ample opportunities to practice their language skills through pair discussions, group work, and interactions with teachers By implementing PCF in the classroom, English teachers can enhance YLs' speaking practice with various partners When peers correct each other's mistakes, it fosters confidence and improves understanding of language concepts Engaging in practical speaking tasks alongside PCF significantly boosts YLs' language proficiency.
Despite the benefits of using PCF in English speaking classes for young learners (YLs), concerns about its long-term safety have emerged Teachers often lack the knowledge to effectively implement this technique, and YLs may not be mature enough to utilize PCF independently Inadequate teaching procedures and poor classroom management can lead to chaotic environments Therefore, the researcher aims to systematically implement PCF in her classes to gather insights from YLs through practical application.
The current research on Peer Correction Feedback (PCF) has primarily focused on adolescents and adults, highlighting a significant gap in its application to younger learners This study aims to explore the attitudes of young learners (YLs) towards PCF within English speaking classes and to identify the common types of PCF utilized The researcher anticipates that by implementing PCF, learners will gain a better understanding of its importance in enhancing their English speaking skills.
This thesis aims to explore common types of PCF and the students‟ attitudes towards in ESS Based on the focuses, this paper seeks to address the following questions:
1 What are the common types of peer corrective feedback in English speaking classes?
1.1 What is the most common type of corrective feedback implemented by the teacher?
1.2 What is the most common type of peer corrective feedback used by the students?
2 What are the attitudes of young learners towards the implementation of peer corrective feedback in English speaking classes?
Significance of the study
The importance of the research includes following specific points:
This study aims to serve as a valuable academic reference for future English language researchers with similar interests It offers insights into practical methodologies, such as action research, and enhances understanding of the Pedagogical Content Framework (PCF) in real teaching contexts, particularly for young children.
This research serves as a valuable resource for English language teachers, aiming to enhance practical teaching methods The findings are intended to optimize the use of Peer Correction Feedback (PCF) activities among students in diverse speaking contexts Additionally, PCF is an effective technique for helping educators assess learners' abilities, enabling them to select teaching activities that strengthen students' skills and develop their English speaking sub-skills.
The research anticipates that learners, particularly YLs, will engage more actively in learning English through peer feedback (PCF) It is hoped that this approach will enhance their critical thinking and collaborative skills while fostering a positive attitude towards their peers' mistakes During PCF sessions, learners will focus on both giving constructive feedback and accepting corrections for their spoken performances Ultimately, peer feedback activities are expected to cultivate a more positive attitude towards language learning among young children.
Scope of the study
This study investigates the use of Peer Collaborative Feedback (PCF) in English Speaking Classes (ESC) for young learners (YLs) at a language center The primary aim is to enhance students' interactive and speaking time, leading to improved performance in their English Speaking Skills (ESS) The research addresses two key questions: first, it explores young learners' attitudes towards PCF in ESC, and second, it identifies the common types of PCF utilized in learning ESS The methodology includes classroom observations of students' speaking performances and feedback sessions, conducted at one of the branches of the language center's system.
At Chau English Centers, young learners (YLs) often attend additional English classes to enhance their skills in English as a foreign language (EFL) During the research period, the researcher oversaw three YL classes but selected two classes, comprising 32 students at A1 and pre-A2 levels, to implement the PCF approach The researcher served as the head teacher for these classes.
Organization of thesis chapters
This paper is structured into five chapters, starting with an overall introduction in Chapter 1 Chapter 2 explores the theoretical dimensions of the research, focusing on how PCF is studied in English-speaking contexts Chapter 3 outlines the design of an action research, detailing participants, contexts, research tools, data collection procedures, and data analysis methods, followed by a discussion of the findings The final chapter presents significant conclusions and offers recommendations for future practices.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Young learners (YLs)
2.1.1 Defining the ages of YLs
Recent studies have focused on the age range of Young Learners (YLs), with McKay (2006) defining them as children aged approximately 3 to 14, emphasizing cognitive maturity and language acquisition Li, Han, and Gao (2018) suggest that YLs are typically children up to 13 years old, advocating for their engagement in communicative and interactive challenges Additionally, Benigno and Jong (2016) propose that the age of YLs can extend from 6 years old.
14 Accordingly, YLs ages are classified into different stages For example, according to learners‟ cognitive maturity, Benigno and Jong (2016) mentioned three stages of YLs including entry years‟ age of 5 or 6 years old, the lower primary age from 7 to 9, and upper primary/lower secondary age from 10 to 14 With the different notions, YLs‟ ages may vary and are determined according to the educational system of a country and learning contexts In general, YLs between 6 and 11 years old must be more effortless, more successful, and faster to start to learn L2 or a foreign language besides L1 at an early stage like YLs because of its huge advantage (Cameron, 2001; Singleton and Pfenninger, 2018)
2.1.2 Defining the characteristics of YLs
Young learners (YLs) exhibit unique characteristics that greatly enhance their ability to acquire new languages They are often characterized by their enthusiasm, relaxed demeanor, and eagerness to learn, as noted by Arda and Doyran (2017) Kırkgüz (2018) highlights that while YLs may have short attention spans, they differ significantly in their physical, psychological, social, emotional, conceptual, and cognitive development Therefore, it is essential to provide YLs with extensive and continuous exposure to language in meaningful and enjoyable contexts, encouraging communication through real-life experiences and diverse speaking tasks Additionally, Nunan (2003) emphasizes that teachers must recognize the basic physical and psychological needs of children to deliver effective instruction and tailor educational experiences to align with each child's developmental stage.
As children grow, teaching becomes increasingly formal and analytical, reflecting both the similarities and individual differences among young learners (Benigno and Jong, 2016) Understanding the diverse cognitive, emotional, and developmental needs of these learners is crucial for effective classroom interaction and teachers' practices (Rich, 2014) Consequently, the learning process is positively influenced by the eagerness and full engagement of young learners (Arda and Doyran, 2017).
2.1.3 Defining YLs’ attitudes towards language learning
Young learners' (YLs) attitudes play a crucial role in foreign language acquisition, as suggested by Brown (1994), who noted that these attitudes develop from birth through influences from parents, peers, and the learning environment Arda and Doyran (2017) emphasized that positive attitudes significantly enhance learners' interest in language learning İnal, Evin, and Saracaloğlu (2006) defined attitude as a reflection of feelings that shape behaviors towards learning Research indicates a strong correlation between students' academic achievement and their attitudes towards foreign languages, highlighting that positive attitudes can facilitate advantages in learning English as a second language (ESL) for international communication (Sougari and Hovhannisyan, 2013) Getie (2020) found that social factors, such as interactions with English native speakers and peer groups, foster positive attitudes, while negative educational contexts, including teacher influence and classroom conditions, can hinder learning To cultivate positive attitudes among learners, Moon (2000) recommended that teachers focus on creating a supportive learning atmosphere and employing effective teaching methods tailored to young learners.
The concept of peer corrective feedback
Numerous studies highlight the critical role of feedback in language teaching and learning, emphasizing its importance in guiding students toward performance goals (Perera, Mohamadou & Kaur, 2010) Feedback is recognized as a vital classroom activity (Sheen, 2011) and is considered a key element in the learning and assessment process for reflective knowledge construction (Ion, Barrera-Corominas & Tomàs-Folch, 2016) Additionally, Unsal Sakiroglu (2020) identifies feedback as a powerful tool for enhancing student motivation and ensuring linguistic accuracy.
Positive feedback is crucial in language classrooms as it helps learners understand the correctness of their utterances in both content and linguistic aspects, thereby motivating them to continue learning (Ellis, 2009) It provides correct target language forms and encourages self-correction of errors (Ellis and Shintani, 2013) Perera, Mohamadou, and Kaur (2010) emphasize that feedback is beneficial when it aligns with three essential standards: understanding learning aims, assessing performance, and taking appropriate actions Therefore, effective feedback in language classes relies on teachers' efforts to help learners recognize its significance.
Numerous studies have identified three primary types of feedback that enhance learner scaffolding: corrective, evaluative, and strategic feedback (Cameron, 2001) Corrective feedback focuses on accurately correcting language use, while evaluative feedback assesses student performance Strategic feedback provides guidance on improving performance According to Ellis and Shintani (2013), feedback can be delivered through both verbal and non-verbal responses Additionally, teachers' oral feedback is recognized as one of the most effective forms of feedback, particularly in whole class and small group settings (Campbell-Mapplebeck & Dunlop, 2019).
While teacher feedback is crucial, peer feedback is equally important in second language (L2) learning Peers, defined as individuals of similar age, social position, or ability, can share experiences and exchange practical knowledge during learning interactions Research by Perera, Mohamadou, and Kaur (2010) highlights the necessity for students to develop evaluative skills akin to their teachers to effectively engage in feedback processes Furthermore, Alqassab, Strijbos, and Ufer (2018) describe peer feedback as a collaborative learning activity where individuals or small groups provide reactions to each other's performances on specific tasks, fostering a deeper understanding of the learning material.
Student-to-student feedback tends to be more favorably received than feedback from teachers With proper guidance and continuous support, students can develop into effective peer strategists, delivering valuable insights on what resonates with an audience and suggesting constructive ways to enhance performance.
Learners benefit from increased opportunities to share, practice, and deepen their understanding of knowledge According to Hummel (2014), peer collaboration is a key social strategy that enhances learning by enabling students to solve problems, exchange information, and receive feedback For instance, teachers can encourage young students to articulate their thoughts and support one another in a positive learning environment, as noted by Ching and Lin (2018) Furthermore, fostering a supportive classroom culture is essential for promoting peer feedback, which can be achieved by building rapport, establishing clear routines, and setting defined learning goals (Patchan & Schunn, 2015).
Utilizing peer feedback (PF) in language classrooms offers significant advantages, as it fosters collaboration and enhances student engagement in various learning tasks (Alqassab, Strijbos & Ufer, 2018) PF serves as both a formative assessment tool and a collaborative learning method (Ion, Barrera-Corominas & Tomàs-Folch, 2016) According to Rotsaert et al (2018), PF encompasses three essential skills: evaluating requirements, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and providing constructive feedback for future improvement Everhard et al (2015) emphasize that students can apply assessment criteria to make informed judgments within a cooperative and trusting environment Furthermore, PF encourages learners to actively monitor and regulate their performance to achieve learning objectives (Perera, Mohamadou & Kaur, 2010) Fauzan (2016) demonstrated that incorporating learner assessments in debate practice led to improvements in students' motions, fluency, and confidence, while also fostering a positive classroom atmosphere.
The application of corrective feedback (CF) in communicative interactions has garnered significant interest among theorists and researchers in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) It is evident that EFL learners often lack the experience necessary to effectively correct one another's errors during interactive tasks.
Corrective feedback (CF) serves as a valuable tool for informing learners about their errors in various language components, including pronunciation, grammar, fluency, and accuracy (Unsal Sakiroglu, 2020) Ellis and Shintani (2013) emphasize that CF should be delivered through skillful and sensitive responses in a supportive environment Additionally, Coskun (2010) found that teachers often address errors immediately, with repetition being the most common correction method used during activities.
In contrast, Faqeih (2012) defined CF as negative feedback which aims to make learners aware of their utterances contained errors or problems Continuously, Li
(2010) thought that CF was more effective in treatments that involved in the practice of grammatical structures
Ellis (2009) offered guidelines for language teachers regarding corrective feedback (CF), addressing key questions about its role in second language (L2) acquisition These questions include the effectiveness of CF, the types of errors that should be corrected, the appropriate corrector (teacher, learners, or self-correction), the most effective types of CF, and the optimal timing for providing feedback, whether immediate or delayed A checklist for teachers on implementing CF in various contexts is presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Checklist of guideline in using CF Teachers should:
Recognize students‟ attitudes towards CF in-depth, and introduce the value of
CF, and compromise goals for CF in the contexts
Making chances to correct students‟ errors
Figure out the language focuses for correction and make sure that learners know they are being corrected;
Implement different CF oral strategies (implicit correction, self-correction, to explicit form)
Experiment with the timing of oral CF (immediate and delayed)
Create space following the corrective move for learners to uptake the correction various cognitive and affective needs of the individual learner
To promote full self-regulation in learners, it is essential to implement specific error correction techniques consistently Additionally, monitoring anxiety levels during the use of corrective feedback (CF) is crucial to ensure that anxiety serves as a facilitator of learning rather than a hindrance.
Recent research indicates that the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF) is enhanced through the combination of various CF types According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), Jimenez (2006), and Faqeih (2012), CF can be categorized into six distinct types, as shown in Table 2.2 Brown (2014) further identified specific types of oral error correction in language classrooms, including recast, explicit correction, elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic cue, and repetition In alignment with these findings, Sheen (2011) and Unsal Sakiroglu (2020) also established a common framework for CF types, summarized in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 A summary of types of CF Types of CF Definitions and Examples
Recasts A partial or full reformulation of the learner‟s erroneous utterance to the exact location of the error in or after communication
The explicit condition of the correct form and clear indication about incorrect utterances
The indication to question about misunderstood or ill- formed utterance
Repetition The entirely or partially emphasis on the learner‟s utterances to highlight the error
Elicitation The repetition of correct part of the learner‟s utterance with rising intonation to signal the learner should complete the remaining perfectly
Gestures or facial expressions to indicate the learners‟ errors
Ellis and Shintani (2013) identify six types of oral corrective feedback (CF) The first type, recasts, involves reformulating an utterance by replacing the erroneous part with the correct target language form The second type, explicit correction, clearly indicates what was incorrect and provides the correct form Third, clarification requests signal misunderstood or ill-formed utterances, often using questions to elicit the correct form or ask for reformulation Elicitation, the fourth type, prompts the learner to complete their utterance by repeating the correct part with rising intonation Repetition, another important type of CF, involves repeating the utterance with or without emphasis on the error Lastly, paralinguistic signals rely on gestures or facial expressions to draw attention to the learner's errors.
Toward CF types, there are a lot of arguments on the importance of types of
Calsiyao (2015) found that learners preferred correction for their spoken errors, favoring recast, explicit feedback, and explanations While Jimenez (2006) noted that recasts are commonly used, they are not necessarily the most effective form of feedback Okyar and Ek ı (2019) demonstrated that recasts can enhance EFL learners' grammatical competence, particularly with the simple past tense However, teachers may overlook oral errors for various reasons, including a lack of knowledge about the target item, reluctance to intervene, fatigue from repetitive corrections, or a desire to avoid negatively impacting students (ệztỹrk, 2016) Deptolla (2019) reported that most learners were generally satisfied with the corrective feedback they received in the classroom and expressed a desire for more.
(2019) clarified the importance of CF in accuracy and meaning-focused instruction focusing on vocabulary-learning and the communication of meaning
Peer Collaborative Feedback (PCF) is essential in language learning as it enables students to work together to identify their weaknesses and propose improvements Both providers and receivers of feedback benefit from this process (Sippel and Jackson, 2015) Research indicates that students show significant enhancements in grammatical accuracy, particularly in auxiliary selection and past participle usage Additionally, PCF promotes vocabulary development through peer interactions (Sippel, 2019) While PCF may not match the accuracy of teacher feedback, it represents a dynamic and interactive learning experience (Sato).
Speaking skills
In recent decades, there has been significant progress in developing speaking skills for second language learners, influenced by opportunities to use the target language in specific contexts Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has emerged as a crucial methodology in enhancing speaking abilities A key focus in foreign language classrooms should be on fostering communication skills through person-to-person interaction, ensuring that learners have ample time and space to decode, retrieve, and process information effectively.
Speaking proficiency is a primary focus for both language teachers and learners (Zein, 2018) The main objective of teaching speaking skills is to enhance communicative efficiency while minimizing errors in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary (Bahrani and Soltani, 2012) Effective speaking encompasses various elements, including pronunciation, intonation, and turn-taking (Bashir and Azeem, 2011; Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003) Additionally, achieving accuracy in vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and fluency can lead to anxiety among learners, who may fear losing face (Derakhshan et al., 2015).
Teaching English speaking skills presents significant challenges for educators, including encouraging student participation, teaching proper pronunciation, and effectively managing speaking activities Learning English speaking skills (ESS) involves using the language to convey meanings, ideas, and opinions (Kırkgửz, 2018) However, many students experience a lack of dedicated speaking practice in their classes, with some receiving almost none at all It is crucial for teachers to consider the interests and needs of their learners to enhance speaking proficiency.
Additionally, speaking should be taught in groups (Celce-Murica, 2001) It is therefore acknowledged that successful speaking skills are acquired over time and with ample practice
2.3.2 Activities in English speaking classes (ESC) for YLs
To enhance young learners' speaking efficiency, instructors should implement activities that integrate language input with communicative output, such as role plays and discussions (Bahrani and Soltani, 2012) Teachers must support students at varying speaking levels and focus on effective classroom management, including group arrangements and task sequencing (Nunan, 2003; Zein, 2018) By providing opportunities for learners to explore language in diverse forms, teachers can help them become competent, fluent, and sensitive speakers (Goodwyn and Brandson, 2005) Promoting interactive techniques and fostering a culture of English communication within schools is essential for developing speaking skills (Bashir and Azeem, 2011) Additionally, teachers should outline a sequence of no more than four key activities that engage students in listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Haynes and Zacarian, 2010).
Brown (2007) and Derakhshan, Khalili, and Beheshti (2016) identified various types of speaking performances aimed at enhancing learners' speaking opportunities These include activities focused on phonological and grammatical features during information exchanges, conversations, and short speeches, facilitating effective interaction among peers and classmates Additionally, they highlighted effective methods such as role-play, pictures, flashcards, graphs, chants, and interviews, which can significantly improve learners' pronunciation, grammar, everyday speech, and real-world communication skills.
To effectively address challenges in teaching speaking skills, English teachers must take into account the needs and interests of their students, as well as the specific teaching contexts (Brown, 2007) Special attention and tailored instruction are essential for successfully implementing various types of speaking performances Given the low communicative competence among students and the difficulties in integrating multiple classroom activities, it is crucial to focus on achieving the objectives set for speaking skills lessons.
In 2015, Patel and Jain emphasized the importance of providing students with opportunities to practice authentic English in context They recommended that teachers incorporate diverse activities in lessons to cater to the varying needs of learners Additionally, they highlighted the necessity for curricula to recognize and incorporate students' cultural backgrounds to improve learning outcomes.
In 2008, the emphasis was placed on conversational activities that engage students in developing proper speech habits Juhana (2014) highlighted the crucial role of teachers in teaching young learners (YLs) through diverse and engaging activities, as children can easily lose interest without meaningful opportunities to make choices Harmer (2007) advocated for maximizing students' speaking time while minimizing teachers' input during speaking activities to facilitate rehearsal and feedback Expanding on this, Cameron (2001) centered learners in the foreign language teaching process by offering models of language use, ample opportunities for repetition, preparation time, and rehearsal of meaningful phrases Additionally, short activities such as BINGO, "Listen and Take Away," "Find the Odd One Out," "Tennis Game," and "Guess My Animal" using yes/no questions or actions encourage active responses from young learners in the classroom.
2.3.3 Assessment of YLs’ oral performances
The shift from traditional teaching methods to communicative and learner-centered approaches highlights the importance of alternative assessment techniques, particularly peer assessment (PA), as noted by Shaaban (2005) PA fosters a positive classroom environment by promoting respect and acceptance among students, reducing competition, and building trust Children learn from their peers, gaining insight and responsibility in applying assessment criteria Green (2014) emphasizes the necessity of assessing productive and interactive skills to gather evidence of speaking abilities Observation, as a formative assessment technique, allows teachers to evaluate students during regular classroom activities without disruption (Cameron, 2001) This method enables teachers to adjust instruction based on feedback and ultimately aids in creating a summative report to analyze students' strengths and weaknesses (McKay, 2006).
Previous studies on PCF
Despite extensive literature on Peer Correction Feedback (PCF), research applying this technique to young learners (YLs) remains limited, focusing primarily on adult learners Sato (2013) explored L2 learners' beliefs about peer interaction and PCF, finding that a collaborative learning environment fostered positive attitudes towards peer feedback, with learners confident in providing and receiving correction Additionally, Sato and Lyster (2012) conducted a quasi-experimental study that demonstrated significant improvements in L2 accuracy and fluency among participants after training in PCF, highlighting the effectiveness of peer interaction in enhancing language production.
In Vietnam, research by Ha and colleagues has focused on corrective feedback (CF) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms Ha's 2017 study revealed that teachers' feedback often deviated from expected linguistic standards, providing valuable insights for in-service Vietnamese primary EFL teachers to reflect on their beliefs and practices regarding CF In a subsequent study, Ha and Murray (2020) found that while teachers recognized the benefits of CF, they primarily focused on vocabulary errors, using a significant number of recasts, despite some linguistic inaccuracies in their feedback Ha and Nguyen (2021) further explored the relationship between teacher and learner beliefs about CF in secondary EFL contexts, discovering that students appreciated CF for all error types and preferred teacher correction over self or peer correction, even though they acknowledged the effectiveness of self-correction and desired training in peer correction techniques Some teachers expressed doubts about their students' ability to provide effective peer feedback.
In conclusion, the importance of Process-Centered Feedback (PCF) in English Language Teaching (ELT) and learning is clear Nonetheless, there is currently no substantial evidence indicating that younger learners gain more from corrective feedback (CF) compared to older learners, as noted by Lyster & Saito.
In light of the positive perceptions regarding the effectiveness and practical application of Peer Collaborative Feedback (PCF) in diverse settings, it is essential to introduce PCF to younger learners (YLs) This research aims to investigate YLs' attitudes towards PCF and the common types utilized in English speaking classes, emphasizing the importance of collaborative and interactive classroom environments.
Conceptual framework
The integration of prior theoretical perspectives is crucial for conducting each study Therefore, a conceptual framework that encompasses concepts related to PCF is developed as a cohesive system to apply these theories to the specific contexts of this research This implementation's conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 2.1.
The PCF technique is utilized by the teacher as a researcher to investigate young learners' (YLs) attitudes and practices in the research setting Through the implementation of PCF in the English speaking class (ESC), the researcher assesses YLs' perceptions of the technique's effectiveness in enhancing their speaking skills The study identifies key types of PCF through various speaking activities integrated into the teaching process, accompanied by teacher feedback throughout each session Furthermore, the findings provide insights into the class's perception, which can inform future applications of the technique to further improve speaking skills for YLs.
Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of the study
Common types of PCF in speaking classes
Role play in group Storytelling Self talks
Ask and answer in pair
METHODOLOGY
Research questions
This study aims to explore young learners' attitudes towards PCF and the common types of PCF in English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts The research questions outlined in Chapter 1 are reiterated for clarity.
1 What are the common types of peer corrective feedback in English speaking classes?
1.1 What is the most common type of corrective feedback implemented by the teacher?
1.2 What is the most common type of peer corrective feedback used by the students?
2 What are the attitudes of YLs towards the implementation of PCF in ESC?
The research utilized a mixed methods approach, specifically an explanatory design within an action research framework According to Creswell (2012), mixed methods studies are often preferred over purely qualitative studies due to their incorporation of quantitative elements The explanatory design begins with the collection and analysis of quantitative data, followed by qualitative data, allowing researchers to explore qualitative findings in depth Notably, action research is recognized as a suitable design for employing mixed methods effectively.
Action Research (AR) is a critical approach to classroom investigation that encourages teachers to reflect on and explore their teaching practices (Richards & Lockhart, 1996) It allows educators to identify preferred procedures and systematically examine their teaching contexts to address and improve weaknesses (Burns, 2010) AR offers two key benefits: it promotes self-reflection among teachers, leading to meaningful changes, and facilitates the implementation of these ideas into their teaching, empowering teachers as researchers (Griffee, 2012).
In 2012, an Action Research (AR) was initiated to tackle specific practical issues and enhance student performance and confidence The research aimed to apply theoretical concepts in real-world contexts, highlighting the significance of AR in addressing classroom challenges Consequently, an action was implemented on the Professional Competence Framework (PCF) within the Educational Setting (ESC) to facilitate meaningful changes.
Context of the study
The research was conducted at A Chau English Center in Ho Chi Minh
City Similar to most of the language center models, this center is a place where
Young learners with limited time for English practice in public schools have ample opportunities to enhance their English speaking skills The primary goal of the language center is to effectively implement the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach, emphasizing the development of learners' speaking abilities.
Following The Common European Framework of Reference for
The center emphasizes speaking learning outcomes aligned with the Cambridge English Qualifications, including Starters, Movers, and Flyers These programs are designed to help children meet internationally recognized English standards set by Cambridge Assessment English, a part of the University of Cambridge.
Cambridge The three exams are aligned to the Council of Europe‟s CEFR at level Pre A1, A1, and A2 The table 3.1 below provides examples of YLs‟ typical
English speaking abilities at the Pre A1 to A2 levels of the CEFR
Table 3.1 Levels and English speaking learning outcomes for YLs Levels Learning outcomes of English speaking skills
- name some familiar people or things - such as family, animal, and school or household objects
- give very basic descriptions of some objects and animals - such as how many, color, size and location
- respond to very simple questions with single words or a
- express agreement or disagreement with someone in short, simple phrases
- respond to questions on familiar topics with simple phrases and sentences
- give simple descriptions of objects, pictures and actions
- tell a very simple story with the help of pictures
- ask someone how they are and ask simple questions about habits and preferences
- ask basic questions about everyday topics
- tell short, simple stories using pictures or own ideas
- give simple descriptions of objects, pictures and actions
- talk briefly about activities done in the past
(cited from Cambridge English Qualifications, Cambridge Assessment English,
Association of Language Testers in Europe, July 2020)
To achieve a qualified English Speaking Certificate (ESC), young learners at the center participated in diverse speaking activities, including self-introductions, storytelling, role plays, and giving instructions These tasks were designed around the themes from the course book "Family and Friends," focusing on familiar objects and personal experiences.
Collaborative work in pairs or small groups significantly influences class dynamics Task planning typically prioritizes discussions of performances, which are then presented individually, in pairs, or in groups in front of the classroom.
Participants and sampling procedures
The researcher utilized a convenience sample due to time and resource constraints, ensuring participant confidentiality by using pseudonyms The study involved non-native speakers who participated in a 20-week Family and Friends 3 course, having successfully completed the Starter tests to qualify for the Movers level (A2, Pre A2) New participants had passed the entrance placement tests, achieving a general level of A1 However, some students exhibited weaker speaking skills, likely due to limited exposure to international communicative language centers or insufficient practice in their public schools The participant distribution included 15 in Pilot 1, 30 in Cycle 1, 15 in Pilot 2, and 33 in Cycle 2, as detailed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Information of participants Cycles Class code No of participants Age English level
Following ethical approval from the language center, the researcher invited students to participate in specific classes focused on PCF activities Most students expressed a strong willingness to engage in both giving and receiving PCF Participant information is detailed in the table above.
AR cycles
AR is a small contextualized, evaluative and reflective research (Burns,
In 2010, Griffee, Creswell, and others highlighted the importance of addressing specific teaching contexts This research focused on two classes of young learners (YLs) aged 8 to 11 at an English center, where the researcher identified a significant issue related to English speaking skills (ESS) The study was structured into two main cycles over six weeks, with the first pilot cycle (P1) dedicated to observing and addressing the identified issue through speaking lessons on familiar topics aligned with the curriculum, supplemented by video recordings Additionally, speaking evaluation rubrics were introduced to participants, along with training on specific criteria for assessing speaking performance, leading into the first main cycle (C1).
In this cycle, the researcher developed more detailed speaking lessons focused on providing personalized corrective feedback (PCF), observed student attitudes, and identified common types of corrective feedback in the classes for future reflection Following the first cycle (C1), it became clear that minor adjustments were necessary to enhance the clarity and specificity of the PCF provided by students Additionally, the researcher recognized the need for more diverse activities rather than individual presentations Consequently, the second pilot cycle (P2) aimed to challenge participants with quick note-taking skills based on familiar evaluation rubrics from C1 To facilitate this, the researcher created a simple comment sheet for participants to use freely during the sessions.
Methods of data collection
This research aimed to implement PCF for young learners (YLs) and to explore their attitudes towards PCF as well as the common types of PCF The study comprised two pilot cycles and two main cycles, with data collected through classroom observations, questionnaires, and personal documents, including speaking evaluation rubrics and comment sheets Data were gathered from various sources over multiple time points from July to November 2020 The research experienced a brief interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected participant numbers and required additional time for training new students, resulting in an extended research duration.
Observation played a crucial role in this implementation, as classroom observations provided sufficient qualitative data This process involved collecting open-ended, firsthand information effectively.
Over a four-week period, the researcher conducted observations at a designated site, following Creswell's (2014) methodology Griffee (2012) describes observation as a systematic and intentional process of looking, recording, and analyzing findings for research purposes In this study, the teacher acted as an observer, closely monitoring various classroom PCF activities, which proved essential in addressing the research question: “What are the common types of PCF in ESC?” Additionally, video recordings served as a crucial observational technique, with transcriptions of conversations aiding in the data analysis process.
The questionnaires were developed to assess young learners' (YLs) attitudes towards the Primary Curriculum Framework (PCF) This design was informed by the theory of İnal, Evin, and Saracaloğlu (2006) to effectively capture YLs' feelings and behaviors regarding activities in the Educational Support Center (ESC) The items in the questionnaire are organized in Table 3.3.
The article outlines a survey consisting of 9 guided questions designed for students to express their feelings and attitudes regarding their speaking classes The first three questions focus on students' perceptions of the teacher's activities before, during, and after speaking Questions 4 to 6 assess students' attitudes towards the classroom atmosphere, while questions 7 and 8 gather opinions on the provision of Positive Corrective Feedback (PCF) Finally, question 9 invites students to share their overall feelings about the speaking classes that incorporate PCF For further details, refer to Appendix A.
Table 3.3 Items of the questionnaires
Main items Sub-items Code
What activities did your teacher do before your performance? How did you feel about that?
What activities did your teacher do during your performance? How did you feel about that?
What activities did your teacher do after your performance? How did you feel about that?
What activities did you do to prepare your talk?
How did you feel about the classroom atmosphere then?
What activities did you do are while your classmates were performing in front of class?
How did you feel about the classroom atmosphere then?
What activities did you do after your classmate‟s performance? How did you feel about the classroom atmosphere then?
III Attitudes towards receiving and providing PCF
How did you feel when you received PCF? Why? Q7 How did you feel when you gave PCF? Why? Q8
IV General feelings toward English speaking classes with PCF
How did you feel about English speaking classes with PCF? Give 3 examples to clarify your answers
The third method of data collection involved private documents, which serve as a valuable source of information in qualitative research, including personal notes, diaries, and letters (Creswell, 2012, p 223) Various methods were utilized to assess the PCF types, each with its own advantages and drawbacks During classroom activities, participants recorded their comments on evaluation rubrics in P1 and C1 (see Appendix C), took notes in P2, and filled out comment sheets in C2 (see Appendix D) These documents enabled young learners (YLs) to generate and prepare their own ideas and opinions for PCF, thereby supporting the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data.
Data collection procedure
The researcher sought permission from the center branch manager to conduct the study in specific classes Data collection was carried out in four phases, including Pilot 1 (P1) and subsequent cycles.
In the first phase of the study, data collection was conducted in accordance with the planned speaking activity utilizing the PCF technique, as outlined in the lesson plans in Appendix B Data were successfully gathered on two occasions, July 16 and 18, 2020, as detailed in Table 3.4 Videotapes served as a crucial source for data analysis, capturing the speaking performances and PCF sessions Prior to recording, the researcher provided a brief introduction to the activities, ensuring participants understood the purpose of the recordings and the significance of the technique in enhancing their English speaking skills (ESS) Throughout the video recordings, the researcher ensured optimal placement of the camera to achieve high-quality sound and visuals.
To engage all participants in the activities, evaluation rubrics were distributed to gather feedback on their peers' speeches Upon completing the ESS, participants filled out questionnaires reflecting their attitudes towards the class activity The initial evaluation rubrics and eight comprehensive questionnaires were utilized Additionally, time was dedicated to explaining how to accurately complete the items in both the rubrics and the questionnaires.
Table 3.4 A description of of Pilot 1
In C1, the data collection process was facilitated by P1 on two separate dates, July 21 and July 24, 2020 Participants showed enthusiasm in completing the evaluation rubrics and were eager to finish the questionnaires, despite seeking assistance from the researcher for challenging items The researcher ensured that cameras were positioned correctly to gather evidence for the study Ultimately, due to participant absences and the need for adequate information, a total of 25 evaluation rubrics and 25 questionnaires were collected.
CYCLE 1 Methods of data collection
After reflecting on the C1's procedure, the researcher identified limitations and suggested allowing participants to utilize their note-taking skills for peer comments Participants received a paper with speaking evaluation rubrics and were instructed to take notes on the back, with permission to write comments in their L1, enriching the data collected The primary data source, videos, recorded participants' attention and engagement during the activity, enabling all fifteen participants to express their viewpoints on their peers' presentations However, due to time constraints, only 12 questionnaires were collected The audiovisual recordings required significant time to gather the sounds and images of participants' speaking and evaluation skills, resulting in a total duration of fifteen minutes for three groups This procedure proved to be time-consuming and challenging for the researcher due to the variety of topics.
No of items/ Length of time 15 12 15 minutes
In October 2020, during the fourth month of the study, there were no significant changes in the procedures involving questionnaires and videos compared to P2 However, it was noted that learners effectively expressed their thoughts through the comment sheets created prior to the C2 phase Data collection occurred immediately after each participant completed their short talk, and volunteer classmates were invited to share their written observations regarding their peers' speaking errors In total, 30 comment sheets, 25 questionnaires, and 20 minutes of video recordings were gathered.
CYCLE 2 Methods of data collection Comment sheets Questionnaires Videos
Code CS2.1 CS2.2 QN2.1 QN2.2 V2.1 V2.2
Data Analysis
In both main cycles, peer corrective feedback (PCF) was implemented during speaking activities in two classes of young learners (YLs) In Class 1 (C1), YLs were introduced to the concept of providing PCF, while Class 2 (C2) focused on correcting peer errors based on specific language targets The speaking performances and PCF activities of the YLs were recorded for subsequent analysis of their PCF types Additionally, listeners were required to offer suggestions and corrections to their peers based on their understanding The researcher then gathered learners' attitudes through questionnaires, which were systematically analyzed to yield valuable and reliable findings.
The researcher manually summarized all responses and utilized both inductive and deductive approaches to analyze the data related to PCF, aimed at enhancing YLs' ESS According to Azungah (2018), these approaches are essential for analyzing qualitative data comprehensively The researcher engaged deeply with the data to understand its entirety Thomas (2006) noted that the inductive approach allows for reliable and valid findings through systematic procedures for qualitative analysis To ensure participant anonymity, pseudonyms were employed alongside reported and directed speeches Additionally, the researcher translated the original statements from Vietnamese, the YLs' L1, into English to maintain the integrity of the respondents' phrases and sentences.
Creswell (2012) outlined six interrelated steps for qualitative data analysis and interpretation, which include describing and theming the data, reporting findings, and validating their accuracy The researcher began by manually analyzing the data, categorizing questionnaire responses and learner feedback in Excel, and transcribing video recordings for observational data After multiple readings to grasp the overall context, she condensed the text and assigned codes to segments, facilitating the development of descriptions and themes related to the implementation of PCF for YLs in ESC The findings were visually represented through comparison tables and narrative discussions Interpretation of the results included the researcher’s insights, comparisons with existing literature, and acknowledgment of limitations Additionally, the significance of qualitative analysis was underscored by summarizing students' feelings and types of CF in tables and charts Finally, validation of the findings was achieved through triangulation and review by an external reviewer.
The research identified three primary themes: (1) Speaking skills, (2) Young Learners' (YLs) attitudes towards Pedagogical Content Framework (PCF) in English as a Second Language (ESC), and (3) common types of PCF utilized for YLs in ESC To facilitate data organization and analysis, these broad themes were further divided into sub-themes The sub-themes of PCF encompass six key types employed in the classroom, while students' attitudes towards PCF were classified into three categories: positive, neutral, and negative Notably, all main themes and sub-themes were systematically interconnected to illustrate their relationship in enhancing English Speaking Skills (ESS) for YLs, as depicted in Figure 3.2.
Figure 2.2 Thematic network of the research
Common types of PCF in ESC
PCF in English speaking classes
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings
Data from Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 of the action research clearly indicate the attitudes of young learners (YLs) and the prevalent types of pedagogical content frameworks (PCF) utilized by both students and teachers in the Educational Setting Context (ESC).
4.1.1 Implementation of PCF in ESC
Video recordings from two cycles captured all students' PCF, clearly showcasing both the teacher's implementation and the students' engagement with PCF.
In the P1 phase, specific criteria were established to facilitate the provision of PCF, while P2 focused on enhancing note-taking skills to support students in delivering PCF more effectively The categorization of teacher feedback into distinct types, following two cycles of this study, is presented in Table 4.6.
The teacher utilized various corrective feedback (CF) methods, including recast, explicit correction, clarification requests, and repetition, as shown in Table 4.6 Notably, clarification requests were the most frequently implemented type of CF, occurring 10 times in the first cycle and 17 times in the second cycle The teacher focused on helping students recognize their mistakes, while other types of CF received less attention, as the primary goal was student practice To align with the study's aim, the teacher identified clarification requests as the most effective method for promoting mistake recognition among learners Overall, the frequency of CF increased across the cycles, with 17 instances in the first cycle and 22 in the second.
Table 4.1 Number of the teacher’s CF
Types of CF No of CF
All of CF was based on the speaking evaluation criteria (summarized in Table 4.7) which used to train the students how to provide PCF in P1
Table 4.2 Speaking evaluation criteria Voice Content Interaction Expression
In a classroom observation focused on the topic of "Daily routines," the teacher facilitated a discussion where Bryan provided feedback on Ryan's expression and vocabulary usage To ensure correct pronunciation, the teacher posed two questions: “What do you say?” and “Wash a shower?” highlighted in Excerpt 4.1 The students then collectively responded with the accurate phrase “have a shower.”
Excerpt 4.1 From V2.2 (The CF are in bold form)
Bryan: Ryan was slow and not fluent He looks at the ceiling all the time He said “wash a shower” (speak timidly)
Teacher: OK Thank you So, what do you say? Wash a shower?
(The tone was raised at the end of the second question)
Students: (shake heads) No! No! No! Have a shower
The teacher provided explicit correction on intonation after Cindy's presentation, with Ariana offering feedback Dan raised a question regarding the absence of intonation, prompting the teacher to clarify through explicit correction, as illustrated in Excerpt 4.2.
Excerpt 4.2 From V1.1 (The CF is in bold form)
Ariana: There was no intonation in Cindy‟s talk as Dan did The opening was not developed
Dan: Ms Ms What does she mean with no intonation?
Teacher: It means you don't raise your voice up and down, up and down, up and down!
When students overlooked their Personal Communication Framework (PCF), the teacher implemented an explicit correction to redirect their attention, as demonstrated in Excerpt 4.3 Following the performance, Sans returned to his seat and engaged in conversation with his partner, neglecting his PCF In response, the teacher promptly inquired, “Can you hear?” and provided guidance to both Sans and the class.
Excerpt 4.3 From V1.1 (The CF is in bold)
Ariana: Bạn Sans đọc sai, vấp Sans đọc sai từ careful thành kafun Teacher: Yes Sans, can you hear? Sans should say careful /ˈkeə.fəl/ instead of /ˈkɑːfəl/
Continuously, the teacher tried to make the CF to help YLs practice the grammar point with explicit correction
Excerpt 4.4 From V1.1 (The CF is in bold)
Teacher: Remember to change the action verbs into the correct forms OK?
The teacher frequently employed clarification requests in her feedback For instance, during the discussion on "My birthday," Ariana identified numerous errors in both the voice and content She sought clarification on all mistakes for the benefit of the speaker and the entire class.
Excerpt 4.5 From V1.1 (The CFs are in bold)
Ariana: Dan read out loud!
Ariana: Dan was very confident
Ariana: Yes, but the content was not very clear to follow
Teacher: Ohhh, the content is not very clear!
Ariana: He was not very fluent
Ariana: Dan‟s closing was too short, not enough
Teacher: So what? What is long? If the closing was short, so what is the long?
Ariana: He can say “It‟s fun I love my party because it makes me interested Something like that.”
Ariana: It looks like the ending of a writing
Ariana: Also, Dans uses just some vocabulary
Ariana: The pronunciation was not very good Like some words …
Ariana: For example birthday /ˈbɜːθ.deɪ/ (Ariana pronounced incorrectly)
Ariana: Yes There was no /θ/
4.1.1.2 The students’ use of PCF
After completing the P1 and P2 training on specific criteria for peer feedback, students effectively practiced providing comments on their peers' speaking skills, as outlined in Table 4.7 Young learners demonstrated a professional use of peer correction feedback (PCF), particularly excelling in the recast technique, as illustrated in Table 4.8.
Table 4.3 Number of the students’ CF
Types of PCF No of PCF
Students effectively utilized recasts to enhance their peers' performances, demonstrating their foundational knowledge In total, recasts were employed 7 times in C1 and 25 times in C2, serving as the primary method for providing performance corrective feedback (PCF) This approach enabled students to identify essential components of a performance, including the opening, details, and closing For instance, during Cindy's presentation, her playful demeanor was met with Diana's suggestion to adopt a more serious tone and to incorporate facial and hand expressions.
Excerpt 4.6 From V1.1 (The CFs are in bold)
Cindy: Hello everyone! My name is Cindy (stress on each in the sentences, laugh a lot)
Diana: No gestures with hands and no face expression
Cindy: Let me try! Thank you!
Moreover, the students could use recast to figure out their peers‟ problems with the way of expression and the voice of the speaking
Excerpt 4.7 From V2.2 (The CF are in bold)
(Bell ring) Students: Time is up (look at Nina, some are smiling, some are laughing because she is shaky and her whole body is a lot shaky, too.)
T: It‟s time for you to give feedback, class! Who volunteers first? Kathy: Nina said I many times, Ms
Ryan: She said LISTEN wrongly She should say LISTEN
Rose: Nina looked at the ceilings many times She said TWENTY /ˈten.ti/ instead of /ˈtwen.ti/
Paul: Nina laughed a lot and looked at the floor while speaking
She said O’CLOCK /əˈklɒk/ was /ɜːˈklɒk/
Alice: Nina moved here and there, didn’t stand still, teacher Besides a lot of recasts, the students could use explicit correction 10 times,
In C1 and C2, students corrected their peers' mistakes five times each, highlighting their engagement in the learning process A notable instance is found in Excerpt 4.8, where students focused on correcting verb and noun forms during their speaking activities.
Excerpt 4.8 From V1.2 (The PCF is in bold)
Lucy: Wendy should say TURN RIGHT instead of NO
Mary: There are many BARS, but she say A BAR
Cindy: Ms We say RIGHT, but Wendy say RIGHTS
Lucy: Teacher, she said TURN /tʌn/ instead of the correct pronunciation, /tɜːn/
Diana: EVERYONE, Ariana said EVERYONES
In cycle 2, students effectively utilized explicit correction along with various paralanguage signals to assist their peers in recognizing errors in simple sentences and pronunciation, as demonstrated in Excerpt 4.9.
Excerpt 4.9 From V2.1 (The explicit correction is in bold; the paralanguage signals are in bold and italic)
Mary: You shouldn’t say “I'm a Mat” or “I'm a Mat John” Class: That‟s right! ( The students are nodding heads and smiling to show their agreement to Mary )
Mary: She should say I’m Mat or I’m Mat John
Sally: Kate, Diana, Wendy, and Daisy speak with no intonation
They should raise your tone at the end of the yes/no questions For example, What about mountain? ( tone raised at the end )
Students: Oh my god! ( show surprised faces with big smiles, big opened eyes because Sally has just made a perfect example )
One more noticeable type of PCF used by the students in ESC was clarification requests
Excerpt 4.10 From V1.1 (The explicit correction is in bold)
Students: Really? It‟s so fast and short
Teacher: Any other ideas, class?
Sans: What's "chien" in English, Ms.?
Sans: I don't know how to write it Can you help?
Teacher: It‟s F-R-Y (write on the board) Sans and classmates: Ahhhh FRY /frai/
The implementation of teacher-led clarification requests significantly enhanced student engagement in English speaking topics and peer interactions This approach encouraged students to actively participate, leading to a notable increase in their use of phonological correction forms (PCF), particularly recasts.
4.1.2 The students’ attitudes towards PCF
4.1.2.1 The students’ attitudes towards the teacher implementing PCF
Before speaking, most participants engaged positively with the teacher's activities The questionnaire's first question explored students' feelings about the teacher's preparations for their performances After two cycles, a majority reported familiarity with their preparation time Notably, one fourth expressed positive feelings in Cycle 1, while nearly 10% did so in Cycle 2 However, negative feelings persisted, with one fourth in Cycle 1 and 28.6% in Cycle 2 reporting such sentiments (refer to chart 4.1).
Chart 4.4 The students’ feelings towards teacher before speaking
More obviously, the feelings of the students were illustrated in the following table (please follow Table 4.4)
Table 4.4 The students' feeling towards the teacher’s activities before speaking Teacher’s activities The students’ feelings
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 give instructions revise learnt vocabulary and grammar give the students some time to prepare for the speech assist and observe the class ask the students to share individually listen to some short talks ask the students simple questions urge and set limited time record performances positive (40.9%) negative (18.2%) normal (40.9%) positive (27.3%) negative (27.3%) normal (45.5%)
Discussion
This action research aimed to investigate students' attitudes towards Peer Correction Feedback (PCF) and identify the common types of PCF used in teaching English speaking skills The primary research questions focused on the attitudes of young learners (YLs) towards PCF implementation and the prevalent types of PCF in English speaking classes (ESC) To delve deeper, two sub-questions were posed: the most common type of correction feedback implemented by teachers and the most frequently used type of PCF by YLs The study utilized questionnaires with guided questions and observations from video recordings to gather data The findings will be discussed in detail in the following sections.
The research indicates that young learners (YLs) exhibit a positive attitude towards peer correction feedback (PCF) in English as a Second Language (ESL) settings, supported by observations and assistance from teachers and peers Singleton and Pfenninger (2018) emphasize that ages 6 to 11 are optimal for developing a second language effectively YLs play a crucial role in feedback processes, aligning with the theories of Perera, Mohamadou, and Kaur (2010) and Getie (2020), which highlight the positive influence of social factors, such as peer interactions, on students' attitudes towards learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Students actively follow teacher guidelines, engage in discussions with partners or groups, and willingly present their work They also contribute to PCF sessions and demonstrate patience in listening for future improvement Notably, this approach has shown no negative effects on students' attitudes towards English language teachers, classrooms, or the overall learning environment, as corroborated by Getie (2020).
Students demonstrated enthusiasm and engagement in the ESC, highlighting the influence of peers and the learning environment on their attitudes (Arda and Doyran, 2017; İnal, Evin, and Saracaloğlu, 2006; Rich, 2014) This aligns with Cameron (2001) and Arda and Doyran (2017), who noted that young learners (YLs) are generally eager, relaxed, and collaborative Additionally, consistent with Deptolla (2019), students expressed satisfaction with the corrective feedback (CF) received and desired more, beyond just grammar and pronunciation However, an unexpected finding revealed that students were reluctant to present or provide peer corrective feedback (PCF), indicating a need to address their shyness and anxiety This contrasts with Motallebzadeh, Kondori, and Kazemi's (2020) findings that suggested peer feedback techniques significantly reduced anxiety Unlike Fauzan's (2016) research, which showed clear progress in fluency through debate and peer assessment, the current study found that while fluency improvements were not evident, students gained confidence in articulating their opinions and arguments during speaking activities Ultimately, effective use of PCF contributed to a positive classroom atmosphere (Sippel and Jackson, 2015) and supported Sato's (2013) assertion of the benefits of collaborative learning environments.
Numerous theories on feedback, including PF, CF, and PCF, have been proposed by prominent authors such as Sheen (2011), Ellis (2009), Perera, Mohamadou, Kaur (2010), Sippel & Jackson (2015), Sato (2017), and Sackstein (2017) These scholars unanimously agree on the essential role of feedback in language teaching and its positive impact on language learning To effectively implement PCF in ESC, the researcher drew upon the theories of Shaaban.
The implementation of non-threatening peer corrective feedback (PCF) in speaking activities, as suggested by Harmer (2007), allows students to receive feedback after their performances, enabling them to take careful notes and consider necessary corrections This approach fosters an interest in error correction, peer collaboration, and self-recognition among students In the English speaking context (ESC), students feel empowered to provide feedback based on established criteria, aligning with Faqeih's (2015) findings that learners prefer interactive activities and various types of corrective feedback Notably, students expressed positive emotions such as happiness and gratitude when engaging in PCF, echoing Unsal Sakiroglu's (2020) observation that learners appreciate corrections during speaking practice However, the study did not find significant mediation of language accuracy by learners' attitudes, nor could it confirm Sackstein's (2017) assertion that student-to-student feedback is often more positively received than teacher-to-student feedback Nonetheless, the findings suggest that peer feedback can offer valuable insights and constructive strategies for improvement.
Recent findings indicate that students can produce various types of Positive Corrective Feedback (PCF) in response to teachers' clarification requests, with recasts being the most prevalent This supports numerous previous studies in the field As highlighted in the literature review, feedback plays a crucial role in promoting language learning among both whole classes and small groups (Campbell-Mapplebeck and Dunlop, 2019; Alqassab, Strijbos, and Ufer).
In 2018, corrective feedback (CF) was classified into six main types: recasts, explicit correction, clarification requests, repetition, elicitation, and paralinguistic signals (Brown, 2014; Ellis and Shintani, 2013; Lyster and Ranta, 1997) Jimenez (2006) highlighted the effectiveness of combining multiple CF types in the classroom, with recasts being frequently utilized by both teachers and learners Research by ệztỹrk (2016) indicated that recasts and explicit correction were prevalent in English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts Additionally, Calsiyao (2015) found that learners favored explicit explanations over recasts Okyar and Ek ı (2019) demonstrated that recasts enhance EFL learners' grammatical competence, underscoring the significance of implementing various CF types, particularly recasts, in language learning Interestingly, this research revealed that teachers predominantly employed clarification requests as a primary method to enhance students' CF in ESL settings.
The study explores students' attitudes towards the most common types of phonetic correction feedback (PCF) used by teachers and students in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings It discusses findings in relation to theories presented in Chapter 2, focusing on the research questions However, the results should be interpreted cautiously and are not universally applicable The implementation of PCF is suggested as a practical strategy for EFL teachers to enhance teaching and learning quality Additionally, the findings highlight the importance of developing young learners' awareness of PCF Future research is necessary to further investigate this topic.