INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
Learning English at an early age is crucial due to its status as the global lingua franca, extensively used across various fields English proficiency is essential for effective communication in workplaces and social settings worldwide Recognizing its importance, parents and government leaders emphasize developing English productive skills to succeed in the global marketplace Over the past decade, the communicative approach has rapidly advanced in English language teaching (ELT), becoming a standard method in both public schools and private organizations to meet the growing demand for proficient speaking skills.
The current focus in English Language Teaching (ELT) emphasizes the importance of developing learners' communicative competence to ensure they can confidently use English in real-life situations Research by Rich (2014) highlights that many children, aged 5 to 10, are now engaging in English learning from an early age Significant efforts and financial investments are made to provide children with ample opportunities for English interaction, including early introduction in primary and pre-school education Incorporating English early in children's education helps them achieve higher language proficiency, making practical methods like the PCF (Processing Content Framework) essential for enhancing their communicative skills.
PCM is a vital technique for enhancing English speaking skills (ESS) in teaching and learning It promotes engaging communicative lessons and activities that incorporate learners' opinions to improve overall teaching quality As a practical form of participatory teaching, PCF has become increasingly common in English classrooms, contributing to more interactive and effective language learning experiences.
Aims of the study
Improving students’ English speaking skills (ESS) remains a significant challenge for English teachers, especially in ESL/EFL classes To make meaningful progress, students should spend 70% to 90% of class time actively speaking and practicing the language (Kostadinovska-Stojchevska & Popovikj, 2019) However, teachers often dominate classroom interactions by providing most of the language input, leaving limited opportunities for students to practice (Cardenas, 2013) Many students face difficulties practicing ESS in poorly interactive classrooms, resulting in very short utterances such as single words or phrases (Ellis and Shintani, 2013) Research indicates that students struggle to read, write, and speak fluently, confidently, and appropriately both inside and outside school (Goodwyn and Branson, 2005) Therefore, fostering confident and fluent English speakers is crucial, particularly for young learners who are eager to acquire new language skills and advance to higher levels of proficiency.
Peer corrective feedback (PCF) is an effective technique for teaching young learners English for Specific Situations (YLs ESS), as it encourages active communication and interaction Since young learners enjoy playing and talking with friends, PCF provides ample opportunities for them to use their language skills through pair work, group discussions, and class presentations, fostering a supportive learning environment By engaging in peer correction, students can improve their spoken English, build confidence, and enhance their understanding of various language aspects English teachers can incorporate PCF into classroom activities to promote meaningful practice with different partners, leading to more practical language use and better learning outcomes.
Although PCF offers notable benefits, concerns have been raised about the safety of its prolonged use with young learners (YLs) in English-speaking classrooms Many teachers lack the necessary training and strategies to implement PCF effectively for YLs, who are often too young to independently activate this technique Without proper classroom management skills and clear procedures, the use of PCF can lead to chaotic classroom environments Therefore, it is essential for the researcher to systematically integrate PCF into her current teaching practice to evaluate its impact and gather YLs’ insights through real classroom application.
Current research on Peer Feedback (PCF) has primarily focused on adolescents and adults, leaving a significant gap regarding its application with Young Learners (YLs) Conducting studies in authentic classroom settings is essential to better understand how PCF influences young students learning English speaking skills This research aims to explore YLs’ attitudes toward PCF and identify the most common types of feedback used during speaking activities Ultimately, the study expects that implementing PCF will help learners recognize its importance in enhancing their English speaking proficiency.
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 serves as a valuable academic reference for English language researchers and future scholars interested in related topics It offers insightful guidance on practical methodologies such as action research, deepening understanding of the Personal Construct Framework (PCF) in real teaching contexts Additionally, it provides meaningful implications for teaching young children, highlighting effective strategies for this specific learner group.
This research provides valuable insights for English language teachers, serving as practical guidance for enhancing teaching practices The study aims to help optimize Peer Correction Feedback (PCF) activities across diverse speaking contexts, making them more effective for student learning PCF is identified as a powerful technique for teachers to accurately assess learners’ abilities, enabling tailored instructional strategies By implementing PCF, teachers can select activities that strengthen students’ speaking skills, build their confidence, and develop essential sub-skills and affective factors, ultimately improving overall language proficiency.
Based on the research findings, it is expected that learners across various levels, including Young Learners (YLs), will become more active and engaged in learning English for Specific Purposes (ESP) through Peer Feedback (PCF) Peer feedback can enhance students' critical thinking and collaboration skills while fostering positive attitudes towards their peers’ errors During PCF sessions, learners develop their ability to provide constructive feedback and accept corrections, which improves their focus and learning outcomes Overall, peer feedback activities contribute to cultivating better attitudes toward language learning among young children.
Scope of the study
This study explores the implementation of Professional Communication Factors (PCF) in English-speaking contexts (ESC) for young learners (YLs) at a language center, focusing on enhancing students’ interactive and speaking time to improve their English Speaking Skills (ESS) The research aims to understand young learners’ attitudes toward PCF in ESC and identify common types of PCF used during learning Data collection includes classroom observations of learners’ speaking performances and feedback sessions, providing insights into how PCF activities influence student engagement and language development The study is conducted at a branch of a prominent language learning system, emphasizing practical applications for improving ESL learning outcomes.
A Chau English Centers provides extra English classes for young learners (YLs) to practice their English as a foreign language (EFL) During the research period, three YL classes were under the researcher’s supervision; however, only two classes, comprising 32 learners at A1 and pre-A2 levels, were selected to implement the Participatory Classroom Framework (PCF) The researcher served as the head teacher for these classes, overseeing the instructional process.
Organization of thesis chapters
This article is structured into five chapters, starting with an overall introduction to the thesis in Chapter 1 Chapter 2 explores the theoretical foundations of the research and reviews existing studies on PCF in English-speaking contexts In Chapter 3, the design of an action research is detailed, including participants, research context, tools, data collection methods, and analysis procedures The findings related to the research topic are presented and discussed in this chapter The final chapter offers key conclusions and practical recommendations for future implementation and research in this field.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Young learners (YLs)
Recent studies provide varying definitions of Young Learners (YLs) McKay (2006) describes YLs as children approximately between 3 and 14 years old, focusing on their cognitive development and language acquisition Conversely, Li, Han, and Gao (2018) define YLs as children up to 13 years old, emphasizing the importance of promoting interactive, communicative, and practical learning experiences Additionally, Benigno and Jong (2016) suggest that the age range for YLs can start from 6 years old, highlighting the importance of tailored teaching strategies for this developmental stage.
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) possess unique characteristics that offer significant advantages in acquiring a new language, including enthusiasm, relaxed moods, and eagerness to learn while enjoying social interaction (Arda & Doyran, 2017) Despite their typically short attention spans, YLs vary widely in physical, psychological, social, emotional, conceptual, and cognitive development (Kırkgüz, 2018), which necessitates providing them with extensive, meaningful, and enjoyable language exposure Engaging YLs through purposeful, real-life speaking tasks fosters better communication skills, while teachers must also be attentive to their basic physical and psychological needs to tailor instruction effectively (Nunan, 2003).
As children grow, teaching methods become more formal and analytical, reflecting their developing cognitive, emotional, and developmental needs (Benigno and Jong, 2016) Understanding these individual differences is crucial for effective classroom interaction and teachers' interactive practices (Rich, 2014) Moreover, children’s eagerness and active engagement positively influence their learning process, enhancing overall educational outcomes (Arda and Doyran, 2017).
2.1.3 Defining YLs’ attitudes towards language learning
Children’s attitudes play a crucial role in learning a foreign language, as early attitudes develop through influences from parents, peers, and the learning environment (Brown, 1994) Positive attitudes significantly influence students’ interest and motivation in language acquisition (Arda & Doyran, 2017), while attitudes are fundamentally connected to their feelings and behaviors towards learning (İnal, Evin, & Saracaloğlu, 2006) Research shows a strong correlation between students’ attitudes and their academic achievement in foreign languages, indicating that positive attitudes foster better learning outcomes Factors such as social influences—like interactions with native speakers, peer groups, and parent support—contribute to positive attitudes towards English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (Getie, 2020) Conversely, negative perceptions often stem from the educational context, including teaching quality, classroom conditions, and the physical learning environment To enhance learners’ attitudes, especially among young learners (YLs), Moon (2000) emphasizes the importance of creating a supportive learning atmosphere, engaging teaching activities, and suitable methods tailored to students’ age groups.
The concept of peer corrective feedback
Numerous studies highlight the crucial role of feedback in language teaching and learning, emphasizing its importance in guiding students toward expected performance goals (Perera, Mohamadou & Kaur, 2010) Sheen (2011) regards feedback as a vital classroom activity that enhances learning, while Ion, Barrera-Corominas & Tomàs-Folch (2016) identify it as a key component of assessment and reflective knowledge construction Additionally, Unsal Sakiroglu (2020) notes that feedback is an effective tool for boosting student motivation and ensuring linguistic accuracy, underscoring its significance in language education.
Positive feedback plays a crucial role in language classrooms by providing learners with insights into both the correctness of their utterances and the linguistic content, which effectively boosts motivation and supports ongoing learning (Ellis, 2009) It helps learners identify correct target language forms and encourages self-correction of errors, fostering independence in language acquisition (Ellis & Shintani, 2013) According to Perera, Mohamadou, and Kaur (2010), students benefit from feedback when it aligns with clear learning objectives, relevant performance indicators, and appropriate corrective actions Therefore, effective feedback in language education depends on teachers' efforts to make learners understand its significance, ensuring a positive impact on language development.
Numerous studies have explored different types of feedback to enhance learning, with Cameron (2001) identifying three key types: corrective feedback, evaluative feedback, and strategic feedback Corrective feedback focuses on accurately correcting language errors, while evaluative feedback provides judgments on student performance Strategic feedback offers practical guidance on how to improve Ellis and Shintani (2013) emphasize that feedback can be delivered through both verbal and non-verbal responses, highlighting its importance in promoting effective learning Additionally, teacher-led oral feedback has been recognized as one of the most effective methods, especially in whole-class and small-group settings (Campbell-Mapplebeck & Dunlop, 2019) Incorporating diverse feedback types is crucial for fostering student improvement and engagement.
Peer feedback plays a crucial role in second language learning alongside teacher feedback, as peers share similar age, social positions, or abilities, facilitating effective learning interactions (Cambridge Dictionary) Peers can share experiences, test ideas, and exchange practical knowledge, enriching the learning process (Hara, 2008) Research by Perera, Mohamadou, and Kaur (2010) highlights that students need evaluative skills similar to teachers to actively participate in feedback processes Additionally, Alqassab, Strijbos, and Ufer (2018) define peer feedback as a collaborative activity where individuals or small groups exchange and react to each other’s performance on specific learning tasks, either implicitly or explicitly, thus enhancing learning outcomes.
Student-to-student feedback is often more positively received than teacher-to-student feedback, fostering a supportive learning environment With basic instruction and ongoing support, students can develop into exceptional peer strategists, offering valuable insights into what resonates with an audience By providing thoughtful and constructive feedback, students learn to identify effective strategies and suggest meaningful improvements, enhancing overall learning and communication skills.
Effective learning requires providing students with more opportunities to share, practice, and deepen their understanding of new knowledge Social strategies, such as collaboration with peers to solve problems, exchange information, and seek feedback, play a vital role in this process (Hummel, 2014) Encouraging children’s natural tendency to help others and providing a friendly environment where they can confidently share and explain ideas fosters active participation and mutual support (Ching & Lin, 2018) Additionally, creating a supportive classroom culture that builds rapport, respect, clear routines, and well-defined learning goals significantly enhances peer feedback and promotes a positive, engaging learning atmosphere (Patchan & Schunn, 2015).
Peer feedback (PF) offers significant advantages in language classrooms by promoting student collaboration and engagement in learning tasks According to Alqassab, Strijbos, and Ufer (2018), PF is widely used to foster learner interaction and active participation, serving both as a form of formative assessment and collaborative learning (Ion, Barrera-Corominas & Tomàs-Folch, 2016) Rotsaert et al (2018) highlight that peer assessment involves critical skills such as identifying strengths and weaknesses, referring to work products, and providing constructive feedback for improvement Everhard et al (2015) emphasize that using assessment criteria encourages students to make judgments within a trusting, cooperative environment Additionally, PF helps learners monitor and regulate their own performance to achieve learning goals (Perera, Mohamadou, and Kaur, 2010) Implementing peer assessment in debate practice has been shown by Fauzan (2016) to improve students’ fluency, confidence, and overall progress, while fostering a positive classroom atmosphere.
2.2.3 Corrective feedback (CF) 2.2.3.1 Defining CF
The use of corrective feedback (CF) in communicative interactions has garnered significant attention from EFL theorists and researchers It is widely recognized that EFL learners often lack sufficient experience in effectively correcting each other's errors during interactive tasks, which can impact language development and communicative competence.
Confirmation Feedback (CF) serves as a positive response that informs learners about their errors across various language components like pronunciation, grammar, fluency, and accuracy, thereby supporting their language development (Unsal Sakiroglu, 2020) According to Ellis and Shintani (2013), CF involves skillful and sensitive responses to learner errors within a supportive and nurturing environment, fostering encouragement and motivation Coskun (2010) found that teachers almost immediately addressed errors during activities, with repetition being the most common method of correction used to facilitate learning.
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) offers comprehensive guidelines on Corrective Feedback (CF) to help language teachers determine its effectiveness in second language (L2) acquisition He addresses key questions such as which errors should be corrected and who should perform the correction—teachers, learners, or self-correction Ellis also discusses the most effective types of CF and the optimal timing—whether immediate or delayed—for providing feedback Additionally, Table 2.1 serves as a practical checklist to assist teachers in implementing CF effectively across different learning contexts, ensuring targeted and efficient language instruction.
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)
Experimenting with the timing of oral corrective feedback (immediate and delayed) is essential to optimize learning outcomes Creating space after the corrective move allows learners to process and internalize the correction effectively This approach addresses various cognitive and affective needs, enhancing overall language acquisition Proper timing and thoughtful feedback contribute to a more effective and supportive learning environment.
Enable learners to achieve full self-regulation by providing targeted error correction multiple times, enhancing their autonomous learning Monitor and manage learner anxiety during corrective feedback (CF) to ensure it fosters motivation and engagement, rather than impeding progress Effective self-regulation and anxiety control are vital for maximizing learning outcomes and promoting a positive, productive learning environment.
Recent research indicates that effective correction fosters language learning when multiple types of corrective feedback (CF) are combined According to Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) model, CF can be categorized into six distinct types, a view supported by Jimenez (2006) and Faqeih (2012) Brown (2014) specifically identified six oral error correction methods in the classroom: recast, explicit correction, elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic cue, and repetition Similarly, Sheen (2011) and Unsal Sakiroglu (2020) have consolidated these findings, presenting a comprehensive overview of common CF types as 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) in language learning Recasts involve reformulating all or part of a learner’s utterance by replacing errors with the correct form, promoting implicit correction Explicit correction directly indicates the mistake and provides the correct version, offering clear guidance Clarification requests signal misunderstanding or ill-formed utterances, often through questions that prompt the learner to reformulate their speech Elicitation encourages learners to complete their utterances by repeating the correct part with rising intonation to elicit the remaining content Repetition involves repeating the learner’s utterance, with or without emphasis on errors, to draw attention to mistakes Lastly, paralinguistic signals such as gestures or facial expressions are used by teachers to indicate errors without verbal correction, adding a non-verbal dimension to corrective feedback.
Toward CF types, there are a lot of arguments on the importance of types of
Research by Calsiyao (2015) indicates that learners prefer correction methods such as recasts, explicit feedback, and explanations for their spoken errors Jimenez (2006) found that although recasts are frequently used, their effectiveness as the most impactful feedback remains uncertain Conversely, Okyar and Ekı (2019) demonstrated that recasts can significantly enhance EFL learners' grammatical competence, particularly in understanding the simple past tense Teachers sometimes overlook oral errors due to factors like limited knowledge of the target language item, reluctance to interrupt the activity, fatigue from repeated corrections, or concerns about negatively affecting students (Êztȳrk, 2016) Additionally, Deptolla (2019) reported that most learners are generally satisfied with the corrective feedback they receive in classroom settings and prefer consistent feedback to support their language development.
(2019) clarified the importance of CF in accuracy and meaning-focused instruction focusing on vocabulary-learning and the communication of meaning
Speaking skills
The rapid development of speaking skills in second language learning over recent decades highlights the importance of contextual opportunities that influence language acquisition (Derakhshan et al., 2015; Hummel, 2014) Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has become a demanding yet effective methodology focused on enhancing learners' speaking abilities through meaningful interaction (Nunan, 2003) According to Chen and Wang (2014), successful language learning in the classroom should prioritize person-to-person communication, providing learners with sufficient time and space to decode, retrieve, and process information to develop their communication skills.
Speaking proficiency is a primary focus for both language teachers and learners, emphasizing the importance of effective communication (Zein, 2018) The main goal of teaching speaking skills is to enhance communicative competence while minimizing errors in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary (Bahrani & Soltani, 2012) Key elements of speaking include pronunciation, intonation, and turn-taking, which are essential for fluent interaction (Bashir & Azeem, 2011; Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003) Additionally, accurate use of vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and fluency are crucial for speaking success, although learners often experience anxiety and fear of losing face when speaking in a foreign language (Derakhshan et al., 2015).
Teaching English speaking skills remains one of the biggest challenges for educators, with issues such as encouraging students to speak, teaching pronunciation, and managing speaking activities Learning English for Specific Purposes (ESP) involves using the language to express meanings, ideas, and opinions effectively (Kırkgürüç, 2018) Unfortunately, many students receive limited or no dedicated speaking practice in their classes, which hampers their language development To be effective, teachers must consider learners’ interests and needs, ensuring that speaking activities are engaging and tailored to individual learner profiles.
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 skills, instructors should incorporate activities that combine language input and communicative output, such as role plays and discussions (Bahrani and Soltani, 2012) Effective classroom management—including organizing groups, seating arrangements, and sequencing tasks—is essential for supporting diverse speaking levels and facilitating communication (Zein, 2018; Nunan, 2003) Teachers are encouraged to provide opportunities for learners to explore language in various forms, fostering fluency and sensitivity as competent speakers (Goodwyn and Brandson, 2005) Promoting interactive teaching techniques and cultivating an English communication culture within schools are crucial strategies for developing speaking proficiency among YLs (Bashir and Azeem, 2011) Additionally, structured lesson plans that sequence no more than four key activities involving listening, speaking, reading, and writing can effectively guide student engagement and skill development (Haynes and Zacarian, 2010).
Brown (2007) and Derakhshan, Khalili, and Beheshti (2016) identified various types of speaking performances that enhance learners' speaking opportunities, including activities focused on phonological and grammatical features in conversations, information exchanges, and short speeches These techniques promote effective interaction among learners, peers, and classmates Additionally, methods such as role-play, using pictures, flashcards, graphs, chants, and interviews are effective in improving pronunciation, grammar, everyday speech, and real-world communication skills Incorporating these engaging activities can significantly boost learners' speaking confidence and fluency.
English teachers should prioritize students’ needs, interests, and the specific teaching context to effectively address speaking performance challenges (Brown, 2007) Providing targeted instruction and support is essential for developing various speaking skills Additionally, students often face low communicative competence and difficulties integrating classroom activities, which can hinder their progress in achieving speaking objectives.
According to 2015, it's essential to provide students with opportunities to practice authentic English language in real-world contexts, enhancing their communicative competence Teachers should incorporate diverse activities within lessons to better address the varied needs of learners, fostering a more engaging and effective learning environment Additionally, curricula should recognize and incorporate students’ cultural backgrounds to improve learning outcomes and promote cultural awareness.
Effective conversational activities are essential for helping young learners develop correct speech habits and maintain engagement Juhana (2014) emphasizes the important role teachers play by incorporating a variety of interesting activities, as children are more likely to stay motivated when given meaningful opportunities to make choices Harmer (2007) advocates maximizing students’ speaking time and minimizing teachers’ talk to create ample opportunities for rehearsal and feedback Cameron (2001) highlights student-centered teaching approaches that provide models of language use, frequent opportunities to speak or repeat, and well-structured activities that encourage children to practice large chunks of meaningful language Incorporating short, fun classroom activities like BINGO, "listen and take away," "find the odd one out," tennis games, "guess my animal" with yes/no questions or actions, and WH-questions can effectively stimulate young learners’ responses and enhance their speaking skills.
2.3.3 Assessment of YLs’ oral performances
As educational paradigms shift from traditional structural approaches to more communicative, humanistic, and learner-centered methods, Shaaban (2005) emphasizes the importance of incorporating varied alternative assessments, particularly informal and non-threatening techniques like peer assessment (PA), for young EFL/ESL learners Ioannou-Georgiou and Pavlou (2003) highlight that PA fosters a positive classroom environment by encouraging mutual respect, reducing competition, and promoting trust among students, while also helping learners recognize that they can benefit from peer feedback and develop greater responsibility in applying assessment criteria Green (2014) stresses the need to assess productive and interactive speaking skills by evaluating knowledge, skills, and task performance, with observation standing out as a valuable formative assessment technique that seamlessly integrates into everyday classroom activities without disruption (Cameron, 2001) Teachers can utilize observations to tailor instruction, provide targeted feedback on pronunciation or task performance, and gradually compile comprehensive summative reports that identify students’ strengths and weaknesses (McKay, 2006).
Previous studies on PCF
Despite extensive research on peer correction in language learning, few studies have focused on applying PCF techniques to young learners (YLs), as most research concentrates on adult learners For example, Sato (2013) examined L2 learners' beliefs about peer interaction and PCF, highlighting their positive attitudes and trust in peer feedback as valuable learning resources The study also showed that, after training, learners were confident in providing CF and fostering positive collaborative relationships Similarly, Sato and Lyster (2012) conducted a quasi-experimental study demonstrating that teaching learners to give CF led to improvements in L2 accuracy and fluency after one semester, indicating that learners can effectively monitor their language and assist peers through PCF during interactions.
Research by Ha and colleagues highlights key insights into oral corrective feedback (CF) in Vietnamese EFL classrooms Ha (2017) found that teachers' feedback patterns often deviate from standard expressions, providing valuable reflections for in-service teachers to improve their practices In a 2020 study, Ha and Murray showed that Vietnamese EFL teachers are aware of the benefits of CF, but tend to focus more on vocabulary errors with frequent use of recasts, despite some inaccuracies in their feedback Ha and Nguyen (2021) explored beliefs about CF in secondary EFL contexts, revealing that students are open to receiving feedback on all error types and prefer teacher correction, though they recognize the value of self and peer correction and desire more training, despite some teachers doubting their students’ ability to provide effective peer feedback These studies collectively offer important guidance for refining oral CF strategies in Vietnam.
While the importance of the Pedagogical Content Framework (PCF) in English Language Teaching (ELT) is widely acknowledged, there is limited evidence supporting that younger learners benefit more from corrective feedback (CF) than older learners (Lyster & Saito).
Research indicates that positive beliefs about the effectiveness and practical application of Peer Collaboration and Feedback (PCF) can be extended to younger learners (YLs) Given the benefits of collaborative and interactive classroom environments, it is essential to implement PCF strategies with YLs This study explores YLs’ attitudes towards PCF and identifies common types of peer feedback in English speaking classes to enhance their language learning experience.
Conceptual framework
Developing a robust conceptual framework is essential for applying theoretical perspectives effectively in research studies This framework integrates key concepts related to PCF, serving as a synthetic system to tailor these theories to specific situations explored in this study The implementation of this conceptual framework is visually represented in Figure 2.1, guiding the research process and ensuring coherence between theory and practice for improved outcomes.
The PCF (Prompting, Correcting, Feedback) technique is implemented by teachers as researchers within the research site to examine young learners’ (YLs) attitudes and practices Experiencing PCF in English for Specific Communication (ESC) helps YLs recognize its importance in enhancing their speaking skills The study also identifies prominent types of PCF used during various speaking activities, integrated into the teaching plan from the beginning to the end of each session, along with teachers’ feedback Moreover, teachers gain insights into students’ perceptions, which can inform future implementation of PCF to further improve YLs’ speaking abilities.
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
Recast s Explicit corrections Clarification requests Repetition
METHODOLOGY
Research questions
This study aims to explore young learners’ (YLs) attitudes towards phonological awareness and common types of phonological correction feedback (PCF) in English for Specific Communication (ESC) As outlined in chapter 1, the research questions focus on understanding YLs' perceptions of PCF strategies and their effectiveness in enhancing language acquisition.
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?
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach with an explanatory design within an action research framework, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the research problem According to Creswell (2012), mixed-methods research combines quantitative and qualitative data, making it more acceptable than purely qualitative studies The explanatory design begins with quantitative data collection and analysis, followed by qualitative methods to deepen understanding This approach enables researchers to explore and interpret qualitative findings more convincingly Additionally, action research is a valuable design for integrating mixed methods, facilitating practical and impactful insights.
Action Research (AR) is recognized as a valuable approach to classroom investigation, promoting critically reflective and exploratory teaching practices (Richards & Lockhart, 1996) It enables teachers to actively explore and choose their preferred teaching procedures, fostering professional growth Burns (2010) highlights that AR involves self-reflection and a systematic process aimed at identifying and addressing classroom challenges to improve teaching effectiveness The primary benefits of AR include encouraging teachers to reflect on their practice to drive meaningful change and empowering them to apply these improvements directly within their classrooms, with teachers functioning as researchers (Griffee, 2012; Creswell).
In 2012, Action Research (AR) was utilized to address specific practical issues in education, focusing on identifying problems, implementing solutions, and fostering student improvements The approach emphasizes applying theoretical concepts in real classroom contexts to enhance teaching and learning outcomes Recognizing the significance of AR and its potential to bring positive change, an AR study was conducted at the ESC on Professional Competence Framework (PCF), aiming to identify problematic situations and initiate classroom improvements.
This research was conducted at A Chau English Center in Ho Chi Minh City, a prominent language center dedicated to enhancing young learners' English skills The center provides opportunities for Young Learners (YLs) with limited practice time in their regular schools to develop their English speaking skills effectively Its primary goal is to successfully implement the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach, focusing on improving learners’ speaking proficiency.
Following the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), our center emphasizes developing speaking skills that align with Cambridge English Qualifications, including Starters, Movers, and Flyers These exams are designed to help children achieve internationally recognized English standards set by Cambridge Assessment English, part of the University of Cambridge The assessments correspond to CEFR levels Pre-A1, A1, and A2, ensuring a clear progression in language proficiency A detailed table illustrates the typical speaking abilities of young learners (YLs) at these levels, highlighting their development from basic to more confident communication skills.
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 ensure a qualified ESC, the young learners at the center participated in a variety of speaking activities, including self-introductions, storytelling, role plays, giving instructions, and describing their favorite and familiar objects.
Collaborative work in pairs or small groups enhances class dynamics by encouraging active participation and peer interaction Typically, students first engage in discussions based on the assigned tasks, fostering critical thinking and teamwork Following these discussions, students present their performances individually, in pairs, or in groups, promoting confidence and communication skills in the classroom setting.
The study utilized a convenience sampling method, selecting available participants due to limited time and resources, with all participant identities kept confidential through pseudonyms The participants, all students enrolled in a 20-week Family and Friends 3 course, were non-native English speakers who had generally passed the Starter tests and advanced to the Movers (A2) level, with some newcomers at the A1 level based on placement tests While most students demonstrated sufficient proficiency to progress, some showed weaker speaking skills, often due to limited practice opportunities at their previous schools or unfamiliarity with international language centers Participant numbers varied across different phases: 15 students in Pilot 1 (P1), 30 in Cycle 1 (C1), 15 in Pilot 2 (P2), and 33 in Cycle 2 (C2), 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 at the start of the project, the researcher invited students to participate in designated classes focused on PCF activities The majority of students expressed a strong willingness to engage in both giving and receiving PCF, highlighting their active involvement Participant information is detailed in the associated table.
AR is a small contextualized, evaluative and reflective research (Burns,
This research was conducted within two classes of children aged 8 to 11 at an English center, focusing on the issue of Emotional and Social Skills (ESS) in the teaching context Over a six-week period, the study included two pilot cycles of two weeks each and two main cycles of four weeks, as detailed in Figure 3.1 During the first pilot cycle (P1), the researcher observed and identified the specific research problem through speaking lessons on familiar topics aligned with the curriculum, supported by video recordings Speaking evaluation rubrics were introduced to participants with training on specific criteria for assessing speaking performance This process led into the first main cycle (C1), which aimed to further explore and address the identified issues.
In this cycle, the researcher implemented more detailed speaking lessons incorporating PCF emphasis, observed student attitudes, and identified common CF patterns to inform future improvements Following Cycle 1, minor adjustments were made to enhance the clarity and specificity of students' PCF provision, along with introducing more diversified activities beyond individual tasks The second pilot cycle focused on practicing quick note-taking skills aligned with evaluation rubrics familiar to participants, using a simple comment sheet to facilitate spontaneous feedback during class engagement.
Figure 3.1 Action research cycles 3.6 Methods of data collection
This study aimed to implement PCF for Young Learners (YLs) and explore their attitudes toward PCF, as well as identify common types of PCF used It involved two pilot cycles followed by two main cycles, with data collected through classroom observations, questionnaires, and personal documents such as speaking evaluation rubrics, note-taking records, and comment sheets Data were gathered from multiple sources at different times between July and November 2020 The research experienced a brief interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused fluctuations in participant numbers and required additional time to train new students, leading to a longer overall duration than initially planned.
Observation played a crucial role in this implementation, serving as an essential phase for collecting qualitative data through classroom observations This method provided valuable firsthand insights and open-ended information, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the educational environment and teaching practices.
This research involved four weeks of systematic observation at a research site, focusing on people and activities (Creswell, 2014) Observation was defined by Griffee (2012) as a purposeful and structured process of looking, recording, and analyzing behaviors for research purposes Throughout the study, the teacher acted as an observer, witnessing and documenting classroom PCF activities to answer the research question: "What are the common types of PCF in ESC?" Additionally, video recordings served as a vital observation tool, which were later transcribed into conversations to strengthen data analysis and ensure comprehensive insights.
Data collection procedure
To gather data for this study, the researcher first obtained permission from the center branch manager to conduct the research within specific classes Data collection was carried out in four distinct phases, starting with Pilot 1 (P1) and continuing through subsequent cycles, ensuring thorough and structured data acquisition.
In Phase 1, data collection was conducted according to the planned procedure aligned with a speaking activity designed using the PCF technique, as outlined in the lesson plans in Appendix B The data were successfully collected on two dates—July 16 and 18, 2020 (see Table 3.4) Videotapes served as a primary data source, capturing speaking performances and PCF sessions, with participants briefly informed about the activity's purpose and the importance of recordings for enhancing their English speaking skills (ESS) Throughout the recordings, the researcher ensured the camera was positioned optimally to obtain high-quality audio and visuals, facilitating effective data analysis.
To effectively engage participants in the activities, evaluation rubric forms were distributed to gather their opinions on peers' speeches After completing the ESS, participants filled out questionnaires to express their attitudes toward the classroom activity The study utilized initial evaluation rubrics and a total of eight comprehensive questionnaires to ensure thorough feedback Additionally, time was invested in explaining and instructing participants on how to accurately complete both the rubrics and questionnaires, ensuring reliable data collection.
Table 3.4 A description of of Pilot 1
In C1, data collection proceeded smoothly on July 21st and 24th, 2020, aided by P1 Participants eagerly completed evaluation rubrics and questionnaires, aiming to finish quickly while seeking help with challenging items The researcher consistently placed cameras to gather evidence, resulting in a total of 25 completed questionnaires and 25 corresponding papers despite some absences and sufficient provided information.
CYCLE 1 Methods of data collection
After reflecting on the initial procedure, the researcher identified some limitations and decided to enhance data collection by allowing participants to use their note-taking skills to comment on others' presentations The researcher provided the evaluation rubrics and instructed participants to take notes on the back of the paper, permitting them to write comments in their L1 to enrich the data Video recordings were utilized to capture participants' attention and engagement during the activity, enabling all fifteen participants to record their viewpoints on their peers' presentations Due to time constraints, the researcher collected 12 completed questionnaires and spent additional time processing audiovisual recordings of participants' speaking and evaluation skills Overall, the entire process took fifteen minutes, but it was time-consuming and challenging due to the variety of topics discussed.
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 observed compared to phase two, despite the ongoing use of questionnaires and videos However, learners demonstrated increasing ability to effectively share their thoughts through pre-designed comment sheets prior to the C2 phase Data collection took place immediately after each participant's short talk, with volunteers from classmates verbalizing their written notes on peers’ errors and faults in speaking performances The study collected a total of 30 comment sheets, 25 questionnaires, and 20 minutes of video recordings to analyze participants' progress and engagement.
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, PCF was frequently implemented during speaking activities in two classes of young learners (YLs), with C1 focusing on initial instruction on how to provide appropriate PCF, and C2 emphasizing peer correction based on targeted language focus Throughout these speaking sessions, learners’ speaking performances and PCF activities were recorded for subsequent analysis of their types of corrective feedback Peers were encouraged to suggest corrections based on their understanding, promoting active engagement Additionally, learners’ attitudes toward PCF were collected via questionnaires, and the responses were systematically analyzed to ensure reliable and meaningful insights into the effectiveness of the corrective feedback strategies.
The researcher manually summarized all responses and utilized both inductive and deductive approaches to analyze the collected data, aiming to enhance young learners' (YLs) English speaking skills (ESS) through Personal Construct Theory (PCF) According to Azungah (2018), these comprehensive approaches are essential for analyzing qualitative data effectively The researcher immersed herself in the data to understand the overall context, ensuring a thorough interpretation Thomas (2006) highlights that the inductive approach offers reliable and valid findings due to its systematic procedures To ensure participant anonymity, pseudonyms were used for reported and directed speeches, and original Vietnamese statements (YLs’ first language) were translated into English to preserve the authenticity of respondents' phrases and sentences.
Creswell (2012) outlined six interconnected steps in qualitative data analysis, including describing, coding, developing themes, reporting, and validating findings The researcher began by manually analyzing data, transcribing questionnaire responses and learner feedback into Excel categories, as well as video observation recordings She repeatedly read through the data to gain an overall understanding, then reduced and coded the text segments to facilitate the development of descriptions and themes related to the implementation of PCF for YLs in ESC These findings were organized into clear visual displays such as comparison tables and narrative discussions The researcher interpreted the results by integrating her perspectives, comparing them with existing literature, and identifying suggestions and limitations To emphasize the significance of the qualitative analysis, she manually quantified students’ feelings and types of CF, presenting this data in tables and charts Finally, she ensured the validity of her findings through triangulation and external review.
This study identified three main themes from the data: (1) Speaking skills, (2) Young learners’ (YLs) attitudes towards peer correction for form (PCF) in English as a Second Language (ESC), and (3) common types of PCF used with YLs in ESC To facilitate data analysis, each broad theme was divided into specific sub-themes, including six primary types of PCF employed in classroom settings Attitudes of YLs toward PCF were categorized into positive, neutral, and negative sub-themes All main themes and sub-themes were systematically interconnected to highlight their relationships and collectively aim to enhance English speaking skills (ESS) among YLs, as illustrated in Figure 3.2.
Figure 2.2 Thematic network of the research
Common types of PCF in ESC
PCF in English speaking classes
Clarification requests Repetition Elicitation Paralinguistic signals
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings
Based on data from Cycles 1 and 2 of the action research, clear insights emerged regarding YLs' attitudes and the prevalent types of PCF utilized by both students and teachers in ESC The study highlights observable trends in how young learners perceive and engage with PCF, as well as the most commonly employed strategies in the classroom setting These findings provide valuable guidance for optimizing teaching practices and enhancing student engagement through targeted PCF approaches.
4.1.1 Implementation of PCF in ESC
Analysis of video recordings across two cycles revealed that all students' Pedagogical Content Frameworks (PCF) were captured effectively The footage clearly demonstrated both the teacher's implementation of pedagogical strategies and students' active engagement with their PCF, highlighting successful instructional practices and meaningful student participation.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of criteria provided in P1 to support students in developing note-taking skills in P2, facilitating easier application of PCF The results, summarized in Table 4.6, show the number of teachers' CF categorized into specific types after two cycles, indicating notable improvements in teaching strategies aligned with the targeted criteria and student engagement.
The study found that the teacher primarily used clarification requests as the most effective type of corrective feedback (CF) to promote students’ mistake recognition, with 10 instances in the first cycle and 17 in the second Recast, explicit correction, clarification requests, and repetition were employed for CF, while elicitation and paralanguage signals were not observed The teacher focused more on identifying and helping students recognize errors, indicating that clarification requests were central to the intervention The frequency of CF increased across cycles, with 17 occurrences in the first and 22 in the second cycle, highlighting the growing emphasis on corrective strategies Overall, the teacher’s approach prioritized students' active engagement in correcting their mistakes through targeted CF methods.
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
Clear/ strong/ loud Intonation Pronunciation
The classroom observations provide specific insights into the teacher's implementation of instruction In one instance, during a speaking activity on "Daily routines," Ryan delivered his talk, prompting Bryan to comment on his expression and vocabulary usage The teacher then focused on pronunciation correction by asking two key questions: “What do you say?” and “Wash a shower?” (highlighted in Excerpt 4.1) Subsequently, students chorally responded with the correct phrase, “have a shower,” reinforcing accurate pronunciation and language use.
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, highlighting its importance in effective communication After Cindy finished her speech, Ariana offered specific feedback regarding her intonation, emphasizing areas for improvement When Dan inquired about the lack of intonation, the teacher responded with an explicit correction, similar to the example in Excerpt 4.2, to clarify the correct intonation pattern This approach ensures learners understand precise pronunciation and intonation cues to enhance their speaking skills.
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 neglected their PCF, the teacher provided explicit corrections to redirect their focus, as demonstrated in Excerpt 4.3 After the correction, Sans returned to his seat, engaged in conversation with his partner, and lost focus on his PCF Immediately, the teacher intervened by asking, “Can you hear?” to refocus Sans and the class, offering important guidance on maintaining attention during lessons.
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 effectively used numerous clarification requests in her feedback to enhance student understanding For instance, during the "My Birthday" topic, Ariana identified several mistakes in both her voice projection and content accuracy These clarification requests aimed to make errors clear for the speaker and the entire class, promoting better learning and communication skills.
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
Following the P1 and P2 training phases, students learn to provide targeted feedback on their peers' speaking skills, focusing on specific criteria outlined in Table 4.7 This structured approach enables Young Learners (YLs) to practice giving constructive feedback effectively The use of the Peer Feedback Checklist (PCF) becomes a vital tool, with students employing a variety of feedback types, notably recasts, as demonstrated in Table 4.8 Overall, students utilize the PCF professionally, enhancing their peer assessment skills and promoting active language development.
Table 4.3 Number of the students’ CF
Types of PCF No of PCF
Students primarily used recasts to correct their peers' performances based on their foundational knowledge, making recasts the most common type of Peer Corrective Feedback (PCF) In the study, recasts appeared 7 times in C1 and 25 times in C2, highlighting their significance in communication By using recasts, students could identify the essential components of effective performance, including opening remarks, detailed information, and closing statements For instance, during Cindy’s presentation, she spoke mischievously, prompting Diana to give corrective feedback by urging Cindy to adopt a more serious demeanor and to use facial expressions and gestures to enhance her presentation (as shown in Excerpt 4.6) Incorporating recasts as a feedback strategy facilitates students’ understanding of performance structure and promotes meaningful language development.
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,
This article highlights the frequent need for students toCorrect their peers' mistakes, particularly in language accuracy Specifically, students tend to correct errors five times in C1 and five times in C2, focusing on verb and noun forms A notable example is Excerpt 4.8, which demonstrates students' efforts to correct errors related to verb and noun usage during speaking activities These peer corrections play a vital role in improving language proficiency and ensuring grammatical accuracy in oral communication Incorporating peer correction strategies can enhance students' language learning experience and promote more accurate speaking skills.
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 techniques combined with paralanguage signals to assist their peers in identifying 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 clarification requests (PCF) by teachers played a significant role in enhancing student engagement in English speaking activities Teachers prioritized using recasts as the most common form of PCF in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) classrooms to stimulate students’ interest in speaking topics and encourage peer participation As a result, students became accustomed to producing a high volume of PCF, particularly recasts, which contributed to improved spoken performance and increased confidence in English communication.
4.1.2 The students’ attitudes towards PCF
4.1.2.1 The students’ attitudes towards the teacher implementing PCF
Most participants initially had positive perceptions of their teacher's activities before performances According to Question 1 of the questionnaire, students were asked about their feelings regarding what activities the teacher did prior to their performances After two practice cycles, the majority of students became more familiar with their preparation process Interestingly, about 25% of respondents reported positive feelings during the first cycle (C1), while nearly 10% felt positive during the second cycle (C2) Nonetheless, negative feelings persisted for approximately 25% of students in C1 and 28.6% in C2, indicating ongoing emotional challenges associated with performance preparation (see 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 explore students’ attitudes toward Peer Feedback (PCF) and identify the common types of PCF used in teaching and learning English speaking skills The study addressed two main questions: “What are the attitudes of young learners (YLs) towards PCF in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes?” and “What are the most common types of PCF implemented in ESC?” Additionally, it examined sub-questions regarding the most frequently used types of corrective feedback by teachers and young learners To answer these questions, the research utilized questionnaires with guided questions and observations based on video recordings The findings provide insights into students’ perceptions and the prevalent forms of PCF in the classroom, which are discussed in the subsequent sections.
The study found that Young Learners (YLs) generally hold a positive attitude towards Peer Corrective Feedback (PCF) in English for Specific Purposes (ESP), influenced by teacher and peer observation, assistance, and correction According to Singleton and Pfenninger (2018), children aged 6 to 11 are at a crucial stage for effective L2 development and language acquisition YLs play a significant role in feedback processes, aligning with theories by Perera, Mohamadou, and Kaur (2010) and Getie (2020), who emphasize the positive impact of social factors like peer interaction on EFL learning attitudes Students tend to follow teacher guidance, participate in group discussions, volunteer to present their work, and patiently listen to peer corrections for future language improvement Importantly, this approach has shown no negative effects on students’ attitudes towards English language teachers, classroom environment, or learning experiences, supporting findings by Getie (2020) regarding the positive impact of collaborative feedback on young learners.
Students demonstrated enthusiasm and engagement during the ESC, highlighting how peer influence and the learning environment positively impact learner attitudes (Arda & Doyran, 2017; İnal, Evin, & Saracaloğlu, 2006; Rich, 2014) This aligns with Cameron (2001) and Arda & Doyran (2017), who note that Young Learners (YLs) are typically enthusiastic, relaxed, eager to learn, and capable of collaborating effectively Additionally, findings suggest that learners appreciate corrective feedback (CF), particularly in areas beyond grammar and pronunciation, reflecting student satisfaction with feedback quantity and quality (Deptolla, 2019) However, an unexpected result was students’ reluctance to present or give peer corrective feedback (PCF), unless volunteering, indicating a need to address shyness and anxiety in ESC activities This contrasts with Motallebzadeh, Kondori, and Kazemi’s (2020) findings that peer feedback techniques can reduce anxiety While the current study showed no significant improvement in speaking fluency through debates and peer assessments like Fauzan's (2016), students did gain confidence—being able to express their opinions and develop arguments—suggesting PCF effectively fostered a positive classroom atmosphere (Sippel & Jackson, 2015) These results are supported by Sato’s (2013) research, which emphasizes the perceived benefits of collaborative learning environments.
Numerous theories from renowned scholars such as Sheen (2011), Ellis (2009), Perera, Mohamadou, and Kaur (2010), Sippel & Jackson (2015), Sato (2017), and Sackstein (2017) emphasize that feedback is essential for effective language teaching and promoting language learning These experts agree that integrating feedback mechanisms like PF, CF, and PCF plays a crucial role in enhancing learner outcomes To effectively implement PCF in English for Specific Communications (ESC), the researcher based their approach on Shaaban’s theoretical framework, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of feedback's impact on language acquisition.
Implementing non-threatening Peer Characterized Feedback (PCF) after speaking performances, as suggested by Green (2014) and Harmer (2007), allows students to take careful notes and offer quality peer feedback, fostering interest in error correction, peer collaboration, and self-recognition In the ESC, students feel free to produce feedback based on instructed criteria, aligning with Faqeih’s (2015) findings that learners prefer error correction and interactive activities Students reported feeling happy, thankful, and joyful when receiving and providing PCF, similar to Unsal Sakiroglu’s (2020) observation that most learners appreciate correction during speaking, though it did not significantly impact language accuracy as Faqeih (2015) suggested The study also found that student-to-student feedback is not necessarily more positively received than teacher feedback, aligning with Sackstein’s (2017) view that peer feedback offers valuable insights and constructive improvement strategies, even if it is not always more favorably perceived.
Recent research confirms that students can generate various types of Prompt Corrective Feedback (PCF), with recasts being the most frequently used, especially in response to teachers' clarification requests This finding aligns with existing studies emphasizing the significant role of feedback in promoting language learning within both whole-class and small-group settings Effective feedback strategies, such as recasts, are practical tools that enhance learners’ language development and reinforce understanding.
Research indicates that corrective feedback (CF) in language learning is categorized into six typical types: recasts, explicit correction, clarification requests, repetition, elicitation, and paralinguistic signals (Brown, 2014; Ellis & Shintani, 2013; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) Combining multiple CF types effectively enhances classroom learning outcomes, with recasts being particularly prevalent among teachers and learners (Jimenez, 2006) Studies show that recasts and explicit correction are widely used in English for Specific Purposes (ESP), with learners favoring explicit explanations alongside recasts (Ezteryk, 2016; Calsiyao, 2015) Additionally, recasts have been found to improve EFL learners' grammatical competence (Okyar & Eki, 2019) The importance of implementing various types of positive corrective feedback, especially recasts, is crucial for effective language acquisition Interestingly, this research reveals that teachers predominantly utilize clarification requests to promote students’ positive corrective feedback (PCF) in English for Special Purposes (ESP) classrooms.
This study examines students' attitudes and identifies the most common types of Peer Feedback and Correction (PCF) used by teachers and students in ESC The discussion relates the findings to existing theories and emphasizes that while the results offer valuable insights, they should be interpreted cautiously and are not universally applicable to all students The research suggests that implementing PCF can be a practical strategy for EFL teachers to enhance teaching and learning quality Additionally, the findings highlight the importance of raising Young Learners' (YLs) awareness of PCF’s nature, indicating that further research is necessary to deepen understanding of this area.