VIỆC SỬ DỤNG NHỮNG NHẬN XÉT PHẢN HỒI KHẮC PHỤC THÔNG QUA LỜI NÓI CỦA CÁC GIÁO SINH TRONG CÁC GIỜ NÓI TIẾNG ANH TẠI TRƯỜNG TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG PHAN ĐÌNH PHÙNG, HÀ NỘI

Over the last few years, corrective feedback, which is an indispensable part in foreign language teaching, has become a highly controversial issue. Many empirical studies in many countries have explored the impact of corrective feedback on second language acquisition. Nevertheless, not many topics relating corrective feedback have been studied in Vietnam. In addition, few studies provided the real situation in using oral corrective feedback of student teachers, who are teaching under the supervision of a certified teacher in order to qualify for a degree in education, in schools during practicum time. Thus, this study investigated the use of oral corrective feedback of student teachers in English Speaking lessons at Phan Đình Phùng high school, which hopes to fill the gap. The central aims of the current study are to find out the types of corrective feedback used by the student teachers, factors influencing their choice for different types of corrective feedback, types of corrective feedback leading to most uptake and repair for students and students’ preferences for different types of corrective feedback. To collect sufficient reliable and valid data for the study, questionnaires, stimulated recall interviews and observations were employed. 235 students and 25 student teachers were invited to answer the survey questionnaires. The researcher observed seven speaking periods of seven classes and conducted six stimulated recall interviews with six student teachers. The study found out that the student teachers used all six types of corrective feedback, among which they opted for repetition, recast, and explicit correction feedback type the most. The results of data analysis also revealed that the students’ error types, one of the internal factors, and time pressure, one of the external factors, guided the student teachers’ choice for different types of corrective feedback the most. Besides, other factors both external and internal such as students’ learning style, student’ inattention or the studentteachers’ desire also have some effect on the studentteacher’s choice of feedback type. Regarding the types of corrective feedback leading to most uptake and repair for students, data from classroom observations and questionnaires for the studentteachers showed that explicit correction, repetition and recast were the three most efficient types. Repetition, explicit correction, and elicitation were three most effective types according to students’ evaluation. Finally, most students preferred to receive explicit correction and repetition.

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION THESIS

STUDENT-TEACHERS’ USE OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN ENGLISH SPEAKING LESSONS AT PHAN DINH PHUNG HIGH SCHOOL, HANOI

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHOÁ LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

VIỆC SỬ DỤNG NHỮNG NHẬN XÉT PHẢN HỒI KHẮC PHỤC THÔNG QUA LỜI NÓI CỦA CÁC GIÁO SINH TRONG CÁC GIỜ NÓI TIẾNG ANH TẠI TRƯỜNG TRUNG HỌC PHỔ

THÔNG PHAN ĐÌNH PHÙNG, HÀ NỘI

I hereby state that I, Nguyễn Khánh Huyền, class: QH2010.F.1.E4, being acandidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of theUniversity relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited

in the library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in thelibrary should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance withthe normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction ofthe paper

Signature

Nguyễn Khánh HuyềnHanoi, May 5th, 2014

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude towards my supervisor,

Ms Lương Quỳnh Trang, for her valuable guidance and advice She has inspired megreatly to conduct this research I also would like to thank her for providing such anice support, constructive feedback, and suggested sources of useful materials

Secondly, I give my thanks to Ms Đoàn Thị Thu Trang for her detailedcomments for my research proposal and Mr Lục Đình Quang for his helpfulsuggestions for the first three chapters of this study

Thirdly, I wish to express my sincere thanks to 25 student- teachers and 235beloved students in seven classes including 10D1, 10D2, 10D5, 10Q1, 11D3, 12A2and 12A3 at Phan Đình Phùng high school, who spent time completing myquestionnaire in detail I would like to give special thanks to six student- teachers whowere willing to attend my stimulated recall interviews

Appreciation is also expressed to five main English teachers in seven classes atPhan Đình Phùng high school who allowed me to conduct classroom observations andsome other teachers who created chances for me to distribute the questionnaires to thestudents

Lastly, I heartily thank my family members, especially my mother, for theirencouragement that has helped me complete my thesis

ABSTRACT

Over the last few years, corrective feedback, which is an indispensablepart in foreign language teaching, has become a highly controversial issue.Many empirical studies in many countries have explored the impact ofcorrective feedback on second language acquisition.

Nevertheless, not many topics relating corrective feedback have beenstudied in Vietnam In addition, few studies provided the real situation in usingoral corrective feedback of student- teachers, who are teaching under thesupervision of a certified teacher in order to qualify for a degree in education, inschools during practicum time Thus, this study investigated the use of oralcorrective feedback of student- teachers in English Speaking lessons at PhanĐình Phùng high school, which hopes to fill the gap The central aims of thecurrent study are to find out the types of corrective feedback used by thestudent- teachers, factors influencing their choice for different types ofcorrective feedback, types of corrective feedback leading to most uptake andrepair for students and students’ preferences for different types of correctivefeedback

To collect sufficient reliable and valid data for the study, questionnaires,stimulated recall interviews and observations were employed 235 students and

25 student- teachers were invited to answer the survey questionnaires Theresearcher observed seven speaking periods of seven classes and conducted sixstimulated recall interviews with six student- teachers

The study found out that the student- teachers used all six types ofcorrective feedback, among which they opted for repetition, recast, and explicitcorrection feedback type the most The results of data analysis also revealedthat the students’ error types, one of the internal factors, and time pressure, one

of the external factors, guided the student- teachers’ choice for different types

of corrective feedback the most Besides, other factors both external andinternal such as students’ learning style, student’ inattention or the student-

teachers’ desire also have some effect on the student-teacher’s choice offeedback type Regarding the types of corrective feedback leading to mostuptake and repair for students, data from classroom observations andquestionnaires for the student-teachers showed that explicit correction,repetition and recast were the three most efficient types Repetition, explicitcorrection, and elicitation were three most effective types according to students’evaluation Finally, most students preferred to receive explicit correction andrepetition

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study

1.2 Aims and research questions of the study

1.3 Scope of the study

1.4 Methods of the study

1.4.1 Data collection methods

1.4.2 Data analysis methods

1.5 Significance of the study

1.6 Organization of the study

1-22-3333-44-555

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Key concepts

2.1.1 Corrective feedback2.1.1.1 Definition2.1.1.2 Types of corrective feedback 2.1.1.3 Factors influencing teachers’ choice for different types of corrective feedback

2.1.2 Students’ uptake 2.1.2.1 Definition of uptake 2.1.2.2 Types of student uptake

6666-99-10

101010-12

2.2 Overview of related studies 12-14

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 The setting of the study

3.2 Description of samples and sampling methods

3.3 Data collection instruments

3.3.1 Survey questionnaire3.3.2 Classroom observation3.3.3 Stimulated Recall

3.4 Data collection procedures

3.4.1 Survey questionnaire3.4.2 Classroom observation3.4.3 Stimulated Recall

3.5 Data analysis procedures

3.5.1 Survey questionnaire3.5.2 Classroom observation3.5.3 Stimulated recall

1515-161616-1717-18181818-191919-202020-212121

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Research question 1: What types of corrective feedback used

by the student- teachers in speaking lessons?

4.2 Research question 2: Which factors guide the

student-teachers’ choice for different types of corrective feedback in

Speaking lessons?

4.2.1 Survey questionnaire4.2.2 Stimulated recalls

4.3 Research question 3: Which types of corrective feedback do

the students and student-teachers think lead to most uptake and

repair?

4.3.1 Students’ opinions4.3.2 Student- teachers’ opinions4.3.3 Class observation

4.4 Research question 4: Which types of feedback do the students

prefer to get?

22-2525

25-2626-3232

32-3434-3636-3838-43

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary of findings

5.2 Pedagogical implications

5.3 Limitations of the study

5.4 Suggestions for further research

44-4545-4646-4747-48

REFERENCES

49-51

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: Survey questionnaire for student-teachers

APPENDIX 2 : Survey questionnaire for students

APPENDIX 3: Stimulated recall questions

APPENDIX 4: Stimulated recall coding

APPENDIX 5: Stimulated recall interviews transcript

I-VVI-XIIXIIIXIV- XXXXI- XXIX

APPENDIX 6: Observation schemes XXX- XLVII

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVATIONS

Table 2 Distribution of uptake and repair in relation to corrective

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Distribution of types of corrective feedback (according to

survey questionnaire for the student-teachers) 23

Figure 2 Distribution of types of corrective feedback (according to

Figure 3 Distribution of factors guiding the teacher- trainees'

choice for different types of corrective feedback 25

Figure 4 Distribution of the effectiveness of types of corrective

Figure 5 Distribution of the effectiveness of types of corrective

feedback (according to the student- teachers) 35

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

FELTE: Faculty of English Language Teacher EducationULIS: University of Languages and International StudiesVNU: Vietnam National University

PDP: Phan Đình Phùng

ELT: English Language Teaching

ESL: English as a Second Language

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the research problem and rationale for the study along with its aims, methodology, scope and significance The four research questions are particularly identified in this chapter to guide the whole research Finally, the organization of the paper is shown to direct the audience through the paper.

1.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study

There has been an increasing interest in researching corrective feedback insecond language learning in recent years It can be seen that learners’ errors playsignificant roles in the studying process for three different reasons First to the teacher,learner errors show him or her “how far towards the goal the learner has progressedand, consequently, what remains for him to learn” (Corder, 1967, p.25).Secondly, alearner’s errors provide the researcher with evidence of the way of the language beinglearned Thirdly, errors are inevitable to the learners themselves Errors are made,which helps learners study more It is also the way for learners to test their

“hypotheses about the nature of the language they are learning” (Corder, 1967, p.25).Moreover, feedback on those errors is very important and necessary, especially duringthe course of communication activities (Ellis, 1994)

Researchers have shown that teachers’ corrective feedback enables students tonotice the gap between their interlanguage and the target language Additionally,teachers’ corrective feedback also directs to the improvement of learners’metalinguistic awareness (Swain, 1995) Therefore, teachers’ corrective feedbackpromotes students’ repairs and enhances their motivation

For most students in high schools, speaking skill may be considered one of themost challenging ones When students speak English, they can make various errors,and if these errors are not corrected, students will mistake them for the correct form

Hence, the oral English will be easy to fossilize if teachers do not provide correctivefeedback

Nevertheless, the issue of corrective feedback is still a sophisticated one.Whereas some language acquisition theories and second language teachingmethodologies question the use of corrective feedback, there are others which favor itsuse and see it as beneficial “Teachers of foreign languages, however, sometimes areunaware of these issues and their view towards corrective feedback and, consequently,their practice in the classroom can be affected” (Mendez, Argulles, Castro,& Roo,

2010, p.255) Moreover, some students expect the teacher to give them feedback ontheir performance (Harmer, 2001)

The field of corrective feedback has been widely researched; however, notmany studies in the world and in Vietnam have been done concerning the factorsinfluencing teachers’ choice for different types of corrective feedback Besides,student- teachers, often used interchangeably with teacher-trainees, trainee- teachers orpre-service teachers, and students in high schools seem to receive less consideration inprevious studies Therefore, the researcher chose the student- teachers from FELTE,ULIS, VNU and students at PDP high school in Hanoi to be the research population Itcan be seen that the student- teachers have less teaching experience than the mainteachers and their employment of different corrective feedback types may be different

It is noted that most teacher- trainees will become main teachers in the near future.Therefore, the ways they give corrective feedback to students should be taken intoconsideration

All those reasons have inspired the researcher to conduct a study on the teachers’ use of oral corrective feedback in Speaking lessons at PDP high school in thehope that it will help fill the gaps in the literature

student-1.2 Aims and research questions of the study

The overall aim of the study was to investigate how the student-teachers employedcorrective feedback in speaking lessons during their teaching practice at PDP highschool Specifically, the aims of the study are as follows:

 To identify the types of corrective feedback used by the student- teachers in speakinglessons;

 To investigate factors which guide the teacher- trainees’ choice for different types ofcorrective feedback in speaking lessons;

 To identify the types of corrective feedback which lead to most uptake and repair forstudents; and

 To explore the students’ preferences for the types of student-teachers’ correctivefeedback

In particular, the research paper seeks the answers to the following researchquestions:

1 What types of corrective feedback used by the student- teachers in speaking lessons

at PDP high school?

2 Which factors guide the student- teachers’ choice for different types of corrective feedback?

3 Which types of corrective feedback do the students and student-teachers think lead

to most uptake and repair?

4 Which types of corrective feedback do the students prefer to get?

1.3 Scope of the study

The study focused on the teacher- trainees’ use of oral corrective feedback onstudents’ spoken errors in English speaking lessons for 10th graders, 11th graders and

12th graders at PDP high school in Hanoi Participants of the study were the teachers from FELTE, ULIS, VNU who conducted their 6-week practicum at PDPhigh school and 10th graders, 11th graders and 12th graders at this school The researcherchose this research site because she was one of these student-teachers, so it was easierfor her to access the research site and prospective participants

student-1.4 Methods of the study

1.4.1 Data collection methods

The researcher made use of both quantitative (survey questionnaires) andqualitative (classroom observations and stimulated recalls) methods to obtain data forthe study First of all, questionnaires were distributed to 25 teacher- trainees at PDPhigh school and students in the observed classes to explore the current situation.Specifically, the questionnaire helped the researcher to find out the types of correctivefeedback used by the student- teachers In addition, the questionnaire was chosen toinvestigate the student- teachers’ and students’ evaluation of the effectiveness ofdifferent types of corrective feedback and students’ preferences for the pre-serviceteachers’ corrective feedback Besides, the researcher conducted classroomobservations in seven classes to seek information about the types of oral correctivefeedback used as well as and their effects on the students’ uptake and repair Inaddition, stimulated recall was used to find out the factors influencing the pre-serviceteachers’ choice of corrective feedback The teacher- trainees in the classes where theresearcher conducted classroom observations were the participants

1.4.2 Data analysis methods

The general approach for data analysis was content analysis (Grbich, 2007).Relevant sections to the research questions were identified or underlined while eachpiece of data was evaluated The contents were then categorized based on the fourresearch questions

Particularly, the first question was answered by data gathered from the surveyquestionnaires for both the student- teachers and students The second question wasinvestigated by data collected from the stimulated recalls and questionnairesdistributed to the teacher- trainees The third question was found out by analysing thedata from the survey questionnaires for the student- teachers and students as well asthe classroom observations Data from the questionnaires for the students answered thelast question

To visualise the results, percentage and frequency counts were calculated andpresented in tables and charts Besides, ideas from stimulated recall method werecoded and highlighted for later use.

1.5 Significance of the study

The study is conducted to find out the oral feedback used by the teachers, the factors guiding their choices of feedback types, the effects of those types

student-on the students’ uptake and repair and the students’ preferences Once completed, thestudy is expected to provide English pre- service teachers a number of significantpedagogical implications in terms of using corrective feedback Moreover, it wouldpoint to them which types of corrective feedback to use in order to lead to the greatestamount of student uptake and repair This study may serve as a good reference forELT lecturers when they train the future teachers to exploit oral feedback in speakinglessons Lastly, this study is hoped to provide useful information for other researcherswho want to investigate this issue in the future

1.6 Organization of the study

Beside chapter 1, the Introduction, the rest of paper includes the four followingchapters:

Chapter 2 (Literature Review) provides the background of the study includingdefinitions of key concepts and discussions of related studies

Chapter 3 (Methodology) describes the setting of the study, participants, datacollection and data analysis methods and procedures

Chapter 4 (Results and Discussion) presents, analyzes and discusses thefindings based on the gathered data

Chapter 5 (Conclusion) summarises the main ideas, provides some pedagogicalimplications and points out the limitations of the research as well as shows somesuggestions for further studies Following this chapter are the References andAppendices

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the two key concepts that form the theoretical background of the study including ‘oral corrective feedback’ and ‘students’ uptake’ Finally, some related studies will be reviewed to show the gap and lay the foundation for this study.

In this paper, the teacher oral corrective feedback refers to the teachercorrection of and indication to learners’ errors

2.1.1.2 Types of corrective feedback

A lot of researchers in the field of English teaching have classified correctivefeedback into implicit or explicit one Lightbown and Spada (1999), for example, havestated that:

When a language learner says, ‘He go to school every day’, corrective feedbackcan be explicit, for example, ‘no, you should say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes

he goes to school every day’, and may or may not include metalinguistic

information, for example, ‘Don’t forget to make the verb agree with the subject(pp 171-172)

More recently, Fawbush (2010) has emphasized that “Of the various types ofcorrective feedback, each can be placed under the category of implicit or explicit.”Explicit feedback means feedback which points out an error having occurred within anutterance (Fawbush, 2010, p 16) However, implicit feedback allows the teacher togive the correct form out loud (Fawbush, 2010, p 16) like the example given byLightbown and Spada (1999) above

Lyster and Ranta (1997) in their work have agreed that corrective feedback can

be either implicit or explicit They have also further identified the sub-categories.Specifically, they have classified corrective feedback into six categories, including:explicit correction, recast, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, andclarification request Among these types of corrective feedback, explicit correction andmetalinguistic feedback are considered as the explicit ones whereas recast andclarification request are among the implicit types of corrective feedback These types

of corrective feedback are presented in detail as follows:

 Explicit correction: “Explicit correction refers to the explicit provision of thecorrect form As the teacher provides the correct form, he or she clearly indicatesthat what the student had said was incorrect” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.46)

For instance:

S: She has cat

T: not has cat Has a cat

 Recasts: The teacher does not indicate directly that the student made an error, butimplicitly reformulates the student’s error or provides the correction (Lyster &Ranta, 1997, p.46).

For example:

S: She has cat

T: She has a cat

S: Yes, she has a cat

 Clarification requests: The teacher indicates to the student that the utterance is notcorrect in some way and that the student needs to repeat or reformulate theutterance A clarification request includes some phrases such as "Excuse me?",

“Pardon me?” or "I don't understand” It may also include a repetition of the errorsuch as “What do you mean by X?”(Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.47)

For instance:

S: She has cat and feed it every day

T: Pardon me?

S: She has a cat and feeds it every day

 Metalinguistic feedback: The teacher asks questions, provides comments or givesinformation related to the formation of the student's utterance without providing thecorrect form (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.47)

For example:

S: She has a cat and feed it every day

T: Use the simple present consistently

S: She has a cat and feeds it every day

 Elicitation: Elicitation refers to some techniques that teachers employ to directlyelicit the correct form from the student.Firstly, teachers can elicit completion oftheir own utterance by strategically pausing to allow students to “fill in the blank”.Secondly, they can use questions such as “How do we say X in English?” to elicit

correct forms Thirdly, they can directly ask students to reformulate their utterance(Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.48).

For instance:

S: She has a cat and feed it every day

T: She has a cat and…

S: and feeds it every day

 Repetition: Teachers repeat the student’s incorrect utterance in isolation In mostcases, they change their intonation to highlight the error (Lyster & Ranta, 1997,p.48)

For example:

S: She feed her cat every day

T: She feed her cat every day? (question mark in the teacher voice)

S: She feeds her cat every day

The study has followed the classification of corrective feedback proposed byLyster and Ranta (1997) because it has been considered the most comprehensivetaxonomy of corrective feedback so far (Li, 2010; Taipale, 2012)

2.1.1.3 Factors influencing teachers’ choice for different types of corrective feedback

Some researchers have identified the factors affecting teachers’ choice fordifferent feedback types

Menti (2006) has stated that teachers opt for recasts because they want toprovide the correct from directly to avoid students’ embarrassment or demand Howmuch and what kind of assistance the teacher feels that the student needs at themoment of the corrective intervention are the factors influencing the teacher’ s use

of recasts Also, he has showed that the reasons teachers use elicitation feedback are

mostly related to “teachers’ certainty that the student being corrected has thelinguistic and emotional conditions to reformulate his/her utterance” (Menti, 2006,p.726) Besides, the metalinguistic feedback is also a choice of teachers in his study;

the teachers choose this kind due to “how much and what kind of assistance theteacher feels the student needs, and to the appropriate time to help the learner”(Menti, 2006, p.726) When choosing this kind, like when choosing recasts andelicitation, teachers base on the sociocultural concepts of assistance (Menti, 2006,p.726)

Gurzynski-Weiss in 2010 carried out a study which investigated the factorsinfluencing oral corrective feedback provision in the Spanish foreign languageclassroom by native and nonnative teachers with different teaching experiences Thestudy has shown that many internal and external factors were involved in the ways theteachers did or did not correct their students during class time Internal factorsincluded learner affective factors, prior knowledge, etc (Gurzynski-Weiss, 2010,p.177) External factors comprised timing in the class, number of turns already taken,linguistic target of lesson, course goals, and so on (Gurzynski-Weiss, 2010, p.177 ).Also, there were differences according to individual variables, and “teachers reportedmore external than internal factors, and the fewest factors reported overall were by themore experienced instructors” (Gurzynski-Weiss, 2010, p.199)

2.1.2 Students’ uptake

2.1.2.1 Definition of uptake

Learner uptake is related to the notions of attention (Logan, 1988) Logan(1998, p.511) stated that “attention to a stimulus is sufficient to cause the retrieval ofall of the information associated with the stimulus” It may be shown that uptake is oneway of identifying which items students have attended to in the preceding correctivefeedback

According to Lyster and Randa (1997, p.49) uptake is defined as “a student’sutterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that constitutes areaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of thestudent’s initial utterance”

2.1.2.2 Types of student uptake

Quite a few researchers in the field of language teaching have agreed that thetypes of student uptake proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997) has by far the mostsignificant and comprehensive (Panova and Lyster, 2002; Suzuki, 2005) According toLyster and Ranta (1997), there are two types of student uptake: repair and needs-repair.

 Repair

Lyster and Ranta (1997, p.49) has defined repair as “the correct reformulation

of an error as uttered in a single student turn and not to the sequence of turns resulting

in the correct reformulation; nor does it refer to initiated repair” Unprompted corrections were not analyzed Instead, they “analyzed repairs occurring only afterprompting—what Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977) have called “other-initiatedrepair” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.49)

self-There are four types of other-initiated repair in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study:

 Repetition refers to a student’s repetition of the teacher’s feedback when the latterincludes the correct form

 Incorporation refers to a student’s repetition of the correct form provided by theteacher, which is then incorporated into a longer utterance produced by thestudent.”

 Self-repair refers to a self-correction, produced by the student who made the initialerror, in response to the teacher’s feedback when the latter does not alreadyprovide the correct form

 Peer-repair refers to peer-correction provided by a student, other than the one whomade the initial error, in response to the teacher’s feedback.(p 50)

 Needs- repair

“Needs-repair” includes six types of utterances as follows:

 Acknowledgment generally refers to a simple “yes” on the part of the student inresponse to the teacher’s feedback, as if to say, “Yes, that is indeed what I meant

to say (but you’ve just said it much better!”) (see Calve´ , 1992) Acknowledgmentmay also include a “yes” or “no” on the part of the student in response to theteacher’s metalinguistic feedback

 Same error refers to uptake that includes a repetition of the student’s initial error

 Different error refers to a student’s uptake that is in response to the teacher’sfeedback but that neither corrects nor repeats the initial error; instead, a differenterror is made

 Off target refers to uptake that is clearly in response to the teacher’s feedback turnbut that circumvents the teacher’s linguistic focus altogether, without including

any further errors.

 Hesitation refers to a student’s hesitation in response to the teacher’s feedback

 Partial repair refers to uptake that includes a correction of only part of the initialerror.” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, pp.50-51)

2.2 Overview of related studies

Corrective feedback and student uptake have stimulated interest amongresearchers for many years

Firstly, Chaudron (1997) (as cited in Russel & Spanda, 2006) investigated thedifferent types of corrective feedback provided to French immersion students Hementioned that lots of teachers’ feedback went unnoticed Some types of correctivefeedback like repetition with emphasis led to more immediate students’ reformulationsthan others (e.g repetition without emphasis)

In addition, Doughty (1994) (as cited in Russel & Spanda, 2006), who studiedcorrective feedback given to learners of French as a foreign language, pointed that themost frequently used types of corrective feedback were clarification requests,repetition and recasts Learners responded most frequently to recasts

Another study by Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) investigated different types ofcorrective feedback comprising explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests,metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition The study showed that the mostfrequently used feedback type was the recast The recast accounted for just over half(55%); however, it is the least likely to lead to uptake of any kind: only 31% of therecast moves lead to learner uptake Instead, other types of corrective feedbackreceived more responses from learners The most successful technique for elicitinguptake is elicitation

Other studies such as Panova and Lyster (2002) and Lochtman (2000) (as cited

in Russel & Spanda, 2006) also showed the same result with the above study in regard

to the most frequently used type of corrective feedback being recasts Sheen (2004)also explored corrective feedback, learner uptake and repair, and the relationshipbetween various feedback and learner uptake at different instructional settings Similar

to above studies, this study’s final results showed that recasts were the most frequently

used feedback type Comparing across four different settings, in terms of learners’uptake to recasts, Canada immersion made the least uptake; however, the Koreansetting made the most uptake (70%).

In terms of factors guiding teachers’ choice for types of corrective feedback,Menti (2006, p 727) concluded that “although the five teachers studied have differentexperiences, length of teaching practice and educational background, theyconsider mainly the following factors when they decide to opt for types of feedback:how they think the student is feeling at the moment, how they consider the personality

of the student, and how they judge the linguistic knowledge and emotionalcapacity of the student.” Besides, in the study by Gurzynski- Weiss (2010), manyinternal factors, such as learner affective factors and prior knowledge, and externalfactors, such as timing in the class, number of turns already taken and linguistic target

of lesson, led to different teacher choices for types of corrective feedback

Regarding students’ preferences for types of corrective feedback, Yoshida(2008)’s study showed that the students preferred receiving feedback such asclarification or elicitation so as to self- correct their utterances than receiving correctforms immediately

In Vietnam, there have also been quite many studies researching this issue AsBui (2009) stated in her study entitled “Relationship between teachers’ corrective

feedback and students’ uptake and repair in first- year English speaking lessons” that

the most frequently used type of corrective feedback was recast However, it is evidentthat recast was not the most likely to lead to uptake This result is similar to thefindings of some studies in the world as mentioned above In terms of students’preferences for teachers’ corrective feedback, the study showed that almost all of thestudents wanted the teachers to correct their errors in speaking lessons And, theydesired to be given feedback immediately from the teachers during accuracy activities

In addition, with lexical and grammatical errors, first year students favored

metalinguistic feedback type Besides, they were interested in receiving explicitcorrection feedback type in accordance with phonological errors.

However, not many studies in Vietnam have examined the aspects guidingteachers’ choices for different types of corrective feedback and most studies focus onthe teachers and students at universities Such limitations have offered a gap for theresearcher to conduct a study on a different target population and attempt to examinethe factors leading the student- teachers’ choices for types of corrective feedback andlearners’ uptake and preferences in a more comprehensive way

Summary

So far in this chapter the two key concepts, i.e teacher oral corrective feedback and student uptake, have been presented in detail In addition, the review of some related studies has shown a research gap that the study can help fill in.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the methodology used to find the answers to the research questions will be described in detail The research setting, participants, data collection instruments as well as the procedure of data collection and analysis will be explained.

3.1 The setting of the study

Phan Dinh Phung high school is a big school in the centre of Hanoi Theresearcher chose PDP high school as it was the one she did practicum in Hence, it iseasier for her to get necessary data For many years, the school has hosted the fourth-year students from the FELTE, ULIS, VNU who come to conduct their teachingpracticum in the school for 6 weeks For the academic year 2013-2014, the practicumtook place from 10th February to 22nd March, 2014 The student-teachers were assigned

to teach students in 10th, 11th and 12th grade, using the standard English textbooks, i.e.Tieng Anh 10, Tieng Anh 11 and Tieng Anh 12 Because this study investigated theuse of oral corrective feedback by the student-teachers in the real classrooms, both thestudent-teachers and students in their classes were invited to be the participants

3.2 Description of samples and sampling methods

All the trainee-teachers from ULIS who did their teaching practice at PDP highschool were invited to answer the survey questionnaires However, due to theoverlapping timetable and the researcher possible workload, only seven of them wereobserved in seven speaking lessons Before going to the high school for theirpracticum, these students had completed four courses of English Language TeachingMethodology Particularly, in the second course named ESL/EFL ClassroomTechniques and Practices, they were provided with classroom management skills andtechniques to teach the four language skills including how to give oral feedback tostudents They also experienced Micro-teaching sessions, in which they taught theirclassmates

In addition, participants of the research were also all10th graders in four classesincluding 10D1, 10D2, 10D5 and 10Q1, all 11th graders in class 11 D3, and all 12thgraders in two classes: 12A2 and 12A3 They were the students who were taught bythe seven teachers chosen to be observed in speaking lessons above.

3.3 Data collection instruments

To collect valid and reliable data for the investigation, three data collectioninstruments, i.e survey questionnaire, classroom observation,and stimulated recall,were employed

3.3.1 Survey questionnaire

The researcher distributed the questionnaires to 25 student-teachers and 235students in seven observed classes Questionnaires for these teachers helped theresearcher find out the answers to research question 1, 2 and 3 Questionnaires for thestudents assisted the researcher to answer research question 1, 3 and 4 The researcherchose the questionnaire as one of the methods because of its following advantages It

is not difficult for the researchers to collect data from many people in a short amount

of time (Mackey & Gass, 2005) In addition, using questionnaire has costeffectiveness More specifically, the researcher chose to deliver the hard copies of thequestionnaire to the participants directly Besides, the questionnaire includes mainlyclose-ended questions, thus the answers were limited and standardized in the certainform; as a result, it was easier to collate and analyze the responses (Mackey & Gass,2005)

In particular, the survey questionnaire for the student-teachers comprises fourquestions The first two questions examine the real situation of using correctivefeedback of the student-teachers and types of corrective feedback used by them.Question 3 focuses on factors guiding their choice for types of corrective feedback.And the last question finds out the student-teachers’ evaluation of the effectiveness ofcorrective feedback types (see Appendix 1 for the student-teacher questionnaire)

There are ten questions in the questionnaire for students To investigate if thestudent-teachers gave corrective feedback or not and their options for types ofcorrective feedback, the researcher designed the first and second question The thirdquestion discovers the effectiveness of types of corrective feedback In order to answerthe research question four, the last seven questions were written in the questionnaire.Detailed questions in the student questionnaire are shown in Appendix 2

3.3.2 Classroom observation

The researcher used this instrument to answer the third research question Usingthis method can help the researcher get reliable data because “observations are usefulthat they provide the researcher with the opportunity to collect large amounts of richdate the participant’s behavior and actions within a particular context.” (Le, 2012,p.52) In addition, Mackey and Gass (2005, p.96) have claimed that answers toquestionnaires maybe inaccurate or incomplete in many cases This is the reason whyobservations might help the researcher gain “a deeper and more multilayeredunderstanding of participants and their content” (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.176)

Specifically, the researcher used this method to find out the feedback typesleading to most uptake and repair for students This method was applied in sevenclasses including 10D1, 10D2, 10D5, 10Q1, 11D3, 12A2 and 12A3

To aid this procedure, note-taking and video- recording were employed.Besides, an observation scheme was designed to help the researcher in taking notes

3.3.3 Stimulated Recall

The researcher chose stimulated recall to answer the second research question

in more detail Stimulated recall, as one method of introspection, “appeals toresearchers because it provides a useful tool that helps uncover cognitive processwhich might not be evident through simple observation” (Mackey& Gass, 2000, p.21).However, “data should be collected as soon as possible after the event which is thefocus of the recall” (Mackey& Gass, 2000, p 54) to ensure the reliability and validity

To aid this method, the researcher used the video-recordings obtained fromclassroom observation as a stimulus to recall

After the lesson finished, the researcher interviewed the teacher- trainees Someshort segments were extracted from the video recordings These segments were playedback for them to watch The researcher paused the video to discuss if necessary.Specific predetermined questions about the reasons why the teacher-trainees chosetypes of corrective feedback at those moments were posed The content of theinterviews were recorded

This method was conducted with six teacher- trainees who were called A, B, C,

D, E and F respectively, in six classes including 10D2,10D5,10Q1,11D3,12A2 and12A3 The video of class 10D1 had bad quality, so the researcher did not conduct thismethod with the teacher-trainee at this class All of the stimulated recall interviewswith the student- teachers were transcribed and kept in Vietnamese (see Appendix 3for the stimulated recall interview questions, and Appendix 4 for the stimulated recallcoding and Appendix 5 for the transcript)

3.4 Data collection procedures

3.4.1 Survey questionnaire

The survey questionnaire procedure is as follows:

Step 1: Preparation of the survey questionnaire

During this period, the researcher designed the questionnaire based on theconceptual framework established in the Literature Review After receiving the

feedback from the supervisor, the researcher made some changes and piloted thequestionnaires with some student-teachers and students from PDP high school to makesure that the language and content were clear to them The final versions of thequestionnaires were then photocopied

Step 2: Selecting time to collect data

The researcher chose a suitable time to distribute the questionnaires Shecontacted the monitors and student-teachers of the seven classes to know exactly theirtimetable

Step 3: Administering the questionnaire

At first, the researcher briefly explained the topic and purpose of the research aswell as asked them for cooperation Confirmation of confidentiality was also made sothat the participants would be more willing to state their opinions in the questionnaires.When the participants did not understand any questions, the researcher explainedimmediately Finally, in the data collection process, the researcher did not forget togive thanks to them

3.4.2 Classroom observation

The classroom observation was carried out in seven classes in seven speakinglessons Due to the strict timetable, syllabus and the fact that there were not manyspeaking lessons, each student-teacher was observed only once Before conductingobservation, the researcher introduced herself and the research topic and asked themain English teacher, the student-teachers as well as students for their permission torecord The focus was on students’ errors, teacher-trainees’ corrective feedback andstudents’ uptake At the same time, the researcher took notes in the preparedobservation scheme

3.4.3 Stimulated recall

After reviewing the videos and preparing the questions for the stimulated recallsession, the researcher conducted the following steps:

Step 1: The researcher invited six teacher-trainees in six classes to take part in the

interviews

Step 2: The researcher explained the topic and the purpose to the interviewees

Step 3: The researcher discussed the time and place with the interviewees The

stimulated recalls were carried out after classroom observations

Step 4: Some short segments from the videos were played back for the interviewees to

watch The researcher paused the videos to discuss

Step 5: Determined questions were posed by the researcher

Step 6: The teacher-trainees answered the questions The researcher recorded the

content of interviews

3.5 Data analysis procedures

The general approach for data analysis was content analysis (Grbich, 2007).Relevant sections to the research questions were identified or underlined while eachpiece of data was evaluated The contents were then categorised based on the fourresearch questions

The data analysis procedures were as follows:

3.5.1 Survey questionnaire

The data analysis procedure was divided into two steps

Step 1: Count and calculate

The researcher collected data from the returned questionnaire, then tallied thefrequency of each option of the questions Next, the researcher calculated thepercentage

Step 2: Analyze the data

After calculating, the researcher analyzed the data With responses from ended questions, statistic analysis was used The researcher put statistics into tables orcharts to have a clear illustration of the answers Then the results of the questionnaireswere evaluated and discussed

close-3.5.2 Classroom observation

Step 1: Watch the videos and take notes Categorize the data from these notes and

notes taken when being in the classes

Step 2: Highlight the relevant information

Step 3: Analyze and discuss the data

3.5.3 Stimulated recall

Step 1: Transcribe the recalled data including the audiotaped interviews.

Step 2: Code the relevant data

Step 3: Analyze and discuss the data

Summary

This chapter has justified the methodology used in this paper by describing the research setting and two groups of participants The reasons for choosing the data collection instruments as well as the data collection and analysis procedures have also been clarified.

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter will show and discuss the findings of the study These findings are presented in the form of the answers to the four research questions:

1 What types of corrective feedback used by the student- teachers in speaking lessons at PDP high school?

2 Which factors guide the student- teachers’ choice for different types of corrective feedback?

3 Which types of corrective feedback do the students and student-teachers think lead to most uptake and repair?

4 Which types of corrective feedback do the students prefer to get?

4.1 Research question 1: What types of corrective feedback used by the student- teachers in speaking lessons?

This research question is answered through data from question 2 in the surveyquestionnaires for the student- teachers and students There were 25 student- teachersincluding one male and 24 females who participated in answering the surveyquestionnaires 235 students in seven classes including 61 males and 174 femalesanswered the questionnaires for students The total number of students in seven classeswas 306 students, so the response rate was 76.8%

According to the teacher- trainees, corrective feedback in speaking lessons isnecessary for students In the survey questionnaires, the response rate is 100% and allthe teacher- trainees agreed that they gave oral corrective feedback in speakinglessons

Figure 1: Distribution of types of corrective feedback (according to survey

questionnaire for the student-teachers)

As shown in figure 1, a vast majority of the teacher- trainees (60%) usedrepetition as a choice for the type of corrective feedback More than half of themchose recast (56%) and explicit correction (52%) Besides, as the figure illustrates, thepercentage of the teacher- trainees choosing metalinguistic feedback, clarificationrequest and elicitation was32%, 20% and 16% respectively Only 8% of the pre-service teachers used other types of corrective feedback Specifically, one teacher-trainee chose the delayed correction, which means that she or he corrected students’mistakes after their performances Another student teacher used peer correctionthrough asking other students to correct the presenters’ errors

According to the survey questionnaires for students, in speaking lessons, 93.2%

of the students agreed that they were given corrective feedback from their teachers The rest 6.8% revealed that the student- teachers did not give correctivefeedback to students

est

Metaling

In conclusion, in speaking lessons, the student-teachers used all mentioned

types of corrective feedback, and opted for explicit correction, repetition and recast themost In Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study, recast was the most frequently used by allfour teachers The other feedback types were distributed in decreasing frequency asfollows: elicitation (14%), clarification request (11%), metalinguistic feedback (8%),explicit correction (7%), and repetition (5%) Similarly, in Yoshika’s (2008) study,two studied teachers also used recast most often (51%) Thus, it can be seen that asimilarity between the finding in these studies and this study is that recast feedback

type was one of the feedback types which the teachers chose most In this study,explicit correction and repetition were two types which also received high usage of thestudent- teachers In contrast, those two types were the least popular feedbacktechniques in Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study.

4.2 Research question 2: Which factors guide the student-teachers’ choice for different types of corrective feedback in speaking lessons?

The researcher found out the answer to this research question through data fromquestion 3 in the survey questionnaire for the teacher- trainees and six stimulatedrecalls conducted with six of them

Figure 3: Distribution of factors guiding the teacher- trainees' choice for

different types of corrective feedback

In question 3 of the survey questionnaire, five specific factors were listed andthe researcher added one option (others) for the participants to present other factors

guiding their choice It can be seen that the students’ error types which belong tointernal factors affected the teacher trainees’ choices of corrective feedback the most(76%) Based on their previous teaching experience, the student- teachers know thatcertain errors are more successfully learned with suitable types of feedback Students’learning styles were also very important to the student- teachers’ decisions forchoosing types of feedback, with 40% of them choosing this factor In addition, theabove chart shows that the third factors guiding teacher- trainees’ oral correctivefeedback were students’ feeling at that time, one of the internal factors, and timingwithin the lesson, an external factor, with each factor accounting for 36% The teacher-trainees seemed to take the students’ feeling at the time when they made errors intoconsideration to opt for suitable types of feedback Moreover, time pressure in thelessons was a prominent aspect leading to the fact that the student- teachers oftenchose the types of corrective feedback which needed a short time to give in order not

to interrupt the flow of the students’ performances Besides, approximately one third

of the student- teachers selected students’ personalities as the additional internal factorinfluencing their choices The pre- service teachers only had a short amount of time toteach students and it was difficult for them to know much about students’personalities, so the low percentage of pre- service teachers choosing that factor isquite understandable It can be seen that other factors, in this case student ability, hadthe lowest percentage Student ability was also an internal factor which two student-teachers mentioned beside the given factors Basing on the students’ ability to use thetarget language, the student-teachers could opt for the way to give correction explicitly

or create chances for the students to self- correct

4.2.2 Stimulated recalls

Data collected from stimulated recalls also helped the researcher answer morethoroughlythis research question.The researcher conducted stimulated recall interviewsafter she observed speaking lessons in sixclasses including 10D2, 10D5, 10Q1, 11D3,12A2 and 12A3.The quality of videos recorded in class 10D1 was bad because of the

bad quality of the recording instrument, the soft voice of the teacher- trainee and thenoise of the class Hence, the researcher did not apply this method with the teacher-trainee of class 10D1.

In these stimulated recall sessions, the six pre-service teachers mentioned manyfactors guiding their choices for types of corrective feedback They showed factorsinfluencing their choices of recast, explicit correction, repetition and ignorance ofcorrection Firstly, in terms of recast, both internal and external factors were revealed.Three pre-service teachers in class 10D2, 12A2 and 12A3 pointed out that timepressure made them choose this type of corrective feedback They gave the correctutterance explicitly in the lesson to save time For instance, the student- teacher inclass 10D2 shared that:

“I gave the correction immediately because of lack of time in class If I teach again the knowledge, it lacks lots of time Moreover, I think that other students master knowledge and discover the presenter’s error.” (Student-teacher A,

Beside external factors, the teacher- trainees chose recast because of someinternal aspects The first internal factor (students’ error types) was mentioned by theteacher- trainee in class 10D5 The next internal factor was students’ inattention,which was claimed in the stimulated recall with the student- teachers in class 11D3and 12A3 They said that they selected this type of corrective feedback because theyassumed that students did not pay attention to their utterances, and therefore, theyunintentionally made mistakes, not because of their lack of knowledge Other internalfactors which were listed in the stimulated recalls were students’ lack of knowledge of

the target language, students’ learning styles, students’ feelings at that time, students’characteristics and students’ studying level For instance, in terms of students’ feelings

at that time, C, the teacher- trainee in class 10Q1 affirmed that:

“I think my student knows that when the subject is the pronoun “he”, he must use “does not”; however, he may be influenced by psychological factors at that time So, he made grammatical mistake unintentionally (Teacher- trainee C,

stimulated recall 3)

Secondly, data from the stimulated recalls also provided the factors affectingstudent- teachers’ choice for explicit correction The teacher- trainees in class 10D2and 10Q1 used this type of corrective feedback in their recorded lessons Both of themshared that time in the lesson was one external factor influencing their choice Toillustrate, student- teacher A stated that:

“Each lesson lasts for only45 minutes So, I try not only to find the way to help students identify their mistakes but also save time If there is more time, I will create chances for the students to self- discover their errors.” (Student- teacher

Finally, in the stimulated recalls, the teacher-trainees in six classes alsomentioned why they ignored some of the students’ errors The first external factor wasthe goal of the activity The two student- teachers, A in class 10D2 and F in class

12A3, agreed that they ignored some of the students’ errors because they wanted tofocus on fluency rather than accuracy In addition, half of the student- teachersrecognized that the shortage of time in the lesson led to their ignoring the students’errors As D, the teacher- trainee in class 11D3, shared in the stimulated recall:

“I ignored the student’s error because of the shortage of time in the lesson There are only 45 minutes in each lesson; however, I had to teach both grammar and vocabulary before students practiced speaking in class.”

(Student- teacher D, stimulated recall 4)

The next external factor was the seriousness of the errors The pre- serviceteachers in class 10D2, 11D3,12A2 and 12A3 had the same opinion that they ignoredunimportant or minor errors They only focused on common and serious errors Otherexternal factors were the student-teachers’ desire listed in the stimulated recalls withthe pre-service teachers in class 10Q1 and 11D3, and the noise of the class mentioned

in the stimulated recall with the teacher- trainee in class 12A2 In terms of the teachers’ desire, specifically, C in class 10Q1 stated that she wanted to sum up theerrors at the end of the students’ performance, and D in class 11D3 shared that thestudents’ performance should not be interrupted Also, she showed that she ignoredsome of the students’ errors due to the fact that these errors were corrected in theprevious lessons and she did not want to repeat them As regards internal factors, thetwo teacher- trainees in two classes 10Q1 and 11D3 revealed that in some cases, theydid not correct the students’ errors because of the students’ soft voice What is more, A

student-in class 10D2 considered the students’ feelstudent-ings as one of the student-internal factors makstudent-ingher ignore the students’ errors She assumed that the students made errors because oftheir nervousness, not because of their knowledge Moreover, she worried that if shecorrected too many errors, students would be scared to speak English In addition,students’ inattention was also another internal feature It could be seen that thestudents in her class might imitate the given structures in the questions from thetextbook, so she gave answers with wrong grammar For example, when having to