Corrective feedback and uptake patterns in English University speaking lesson = Hành vi sửa lỗi của giáo viên và việc tiếp nhận của sinh viên trong giờ nói tiến

1.2 Aims of Study This research aims to:  Find out the patterns of teachers' corrective feedback and learners' uptake in English speaking lessons for second- year students in Hanoi Law

UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

NHẠC THANH HƯƠNG

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE PATTERNS

IN ENGLISH UNIVERSITY SPEAKING LESSONS (HÀNH VI SỬA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ VIỆC TIẾP NHẬN CỦA

SINH VIÊN TRONG GIỜ NÓI TIẾNG ANH)

M.A Combined Program Thesis

NHẠC THANH HƯƠNG

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND UPTAKE PATTERNS

IN ENGLISH UNIVERSITY SPEAKING LESSONS (HÀNH VI SỬA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ VIỆC TIẾP NHẬN CỦA

SINH VIÊN TRONG GIỜ NÓI TIẾNG ANH)

M.A Combined Program Thesis

English Methodology

Major code: 60 14 10 Supervisor: Lê Văn Canh, M.A

Hanoi - 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acceptance………

Acknowledgements………

Abstract………

Table of contents………

Lists of abbreviations………

Lists of tables and figures………

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………

1.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study………

1.2 Aims of the study………

1.3 Scope of the study………

1.4 Research questions………

1.5 Methods of the study………

1.6 Significances of the study………

1.7 Terminology used in the study………

1.8 Organization of the study………

Summary………

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………

2.1 Language errors………

2.1.1 Definition of language errors………

2.1.2 Classification of language errors………

2.1.3 Approaches to error correction………

2.2 Teachers‘ corrective feedback………

i

ii iii

v viii

ix

1

1

3

3

4

4

5

6

7

8

9

9

9

10

12

16

2.2.1 Definition of teachers‘ corrective feedback………

2.2.2 Types of teachers‘ corrective feedback………

2.3 Learners‘ uptake………

2.4 Issues in second language acquisition………

2.4 Studies on corrective feedback in second language acquisition…………

Summary………

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY………

3.1 Participants………

3.2 Data collection instruments………

3.3 Procedures………

3.3.1 Procedures of data collection………

3.3.2 Procedures of data analysis………

Summary………

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS………

4.1 An overview of students and teachers turns………

4.2 Two research questions………

4.2.1 What patterns of corrective feedback occur in English speaking lessons for second- year students in Hanoi Law University?

4.2.2 To what extent does that corrective feedback lead to students‘ uptake?

Summary………

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION………

Summary………

16

18

20

23

24

29

30

30

33

37

37

37

39

40

40

44

44

46

53

54

66

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION………

6.1 Brief summary of the findings………

6.2 Pedagogical Implications………

6.3 Limitation of the study………

6.4 Suggestions for further studies………

REFERENCES………

APPENDIX Appendix 1………

Appendix 2………

67

67

70

73

73

75

I

II

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

ESL English as second language ELT English Language Teaching EFL English as a Foreign Language

T1, 2, 3 Teacher 1, 2, 3

LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Frequency of Turns with Students Error, Teacher Feedback and Student Uptake in 6 English- speaking periods of Pre-intermediate level

Table 2: Frequency of Turns with Students Error, Teacher Feedback and Student Uptake in 6 English- speaking periods of Intermediate level

Table 3: Distribution of Total Corrective Feedback Types (of both pre-intermediate and intermediate level)

Table 4: Distribution of Corrective Feedback of Pre-intermediate classes

Table 5: Distribution of Corrective Feedback of Intermediate classes

Table 6: Uptake Moves following Different Types of Feedback of both intermediate and Intermediate levels

Pre-Table 7: Uptake Moves following Different types of Feedback (of Pre-intermediate level)

Table 8: Uptake Moves following Different types of Feedback (of Intermediate level)

Table 9: Number and Percentage of Feedback Turns leading to Repair

Table 10: Number and Percentage of Repair attributed to each Feedback Type Table 11: Distribution of Repairs across Feedback Types and Error Types

Figure 1: The Total for the entire Database of Pre- intermediate level

Figure 2: The Total for the entire Database of Intermediate level

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces the study It begins with the presentation of the statement of the problem and rationale for the study Next, it presents the aims and scopes of the study as well as the research questions to which the study seeks to find answers This is followed by a brief description of methodology used in the present study Finally, the chapter concludes with a description of the organization of the thesis

1.1 Statement of Problem and Rationale for the Study

The impact of corrective feedback on learners‘ L2 acquisition remains controversial

in the second language acquisition (SLA) literature In fact, there has been some polarization of thought regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback, leading

to different or even contradicting theories For example, DeKeyser (1993) states that corrective feedback is unnecessary to L2 learning In other words, corrective feedback does not lead to the acquisition of L2 However, scholars such as Brooks, Schraw, and Crippen (2002) and Mason and Bruning (2000), for example, disagree with DeKeyser, holding that feedback plays an important and crucial role in the language learning process

Recently, there has been increasing empirical evidence that corrective feedback provided by teachers at least enables students to notice the gap between their inter-language forms and the target language forms, thus helping them to restructure the inter-language grammar Additionally, corrective feedback from teachers also helps enhance students' meta- linguistic awareness (Panova and Lyster, 2002) Therefore, teachers' corrective feedback is of great importance in promoting student- generated repairs and in turn, language acquisition A literature review shows that researchers have been increasingly interested in examining the relationship between corrective feedback and uptake (Wai King Tsang, 2004) For example, negotiation of form has

explicit correction Also it has shown that different types of feedback moves tend to function differentially according to different types of errors

One issue related to corrective feedback, which has gained little agreement among researchers and scholars is which type of feedback, i.e., explicit or implicit, is more effective to learners‘ uptake For example, Carrol and Swain (1993) have suggested that learners would benefit more from direct, explicit corrective feedback, whereas other researchers, such as Lyster and Ranta (1997), Oliver (2000) and Oliver and Mackey (2003) suggest that learners learn better, when the feedback is more implicit It can be interpreted that while consensus has been reached regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback on students‘ L2 acquisition, whether explicit or implicit corrective feedback is more effective remains open This has led to confusion at the practical level As Lyster and Ranta (1997) points out that ―because

of so many different approaches to feedback, second language teachers have trouble finding research that addresses practical issues of corrective feedback‖ (p 38)

One of the research gaps regarding corrective feedback is that the majority of research on feedback on second language classrooms has been conducted either in the context of immersion programs (Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) or in English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms (Fanselow, 1977; Lyster & Panova, 2002) Unfortunately, few of any studies have been conducted at the University level In other words, little has been known about how adolescent EFL learners respond to different kinds of teachers‘ corrective feedback The situation is similar in Vietnam, where this research avenue seems to be unattractive to researchers Despite the efforts made by the researcher of this study, she was unable

to identify any documented study on the relationship between teachers‘ corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake which is conducted on Vietnamese university EFL students This motivates the researcher to carry out the present study, which is an expansion of the one she conducted previously in a high school context The study

focused on the correlation between teachers‘ corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake in speaking lessons The number of participants was rather small as it focused only one level: elementary level, thus, the results, to some extent, could not reflect the behavior of a larger population at different levels

For all those reasons, this study is a modest attempt to contribute to the common knowledge of the impact of corrective feedback on learners‘ L2 acquisition It also attempts to narrow the research gap in this area

1.2 Aims of Study

This research aims to:

 Find out the patterns of teachers' corrective feedback and learners' uptake in English speaking lessons for second- year students in Hanoi Law University

 Examine the relationship between different kinds of teachers' corrective feedback and learners' uptake, so as to inform teachers of English in the context of Vietnamese university classrooms of how to enhance the effect of their corrective feedback

 Identify the same and differences in the use of corrective feedback at two different levels

1.3 Scopes of the Study

This study limits itself to the exploration of the types of corrective feedback that were commonly used by the teachers in the study and the relationship between different corrective feedback types on students' oral errors Thus, teachers' feedback

on students' written errors is beyond the scope of this study

Given the scope of the study, data for this study were collected from the observations of English speaking lessons taught to the second year students of pre-

1.4 Research Questions

This study focused on (a) subsequent language teacher feedback to student errors and (b) learner uptake patterns (learner responses to feedback) at University level Comprehensive observations of corrective feedback to students and the students‘ subsequent uptake in English language classroom were conducted to determine answers to the two following research questions:

 What patterns of corrective feedback are observed in English speaking lessons for second- year students taught by the teachers in an EFL context of Hanoi Law University?

 To what extent does that corrective feedback lead to students‘ uptake? And one sub- research question

 What are the differences in the use corrective feedback in English speaking classes of two levels: pre- intermediate and intermediate

1.5 Methods of the Study

This is a quantitative study Classroom observation was employed as the sole instrument of data collection Data were then analyzed by means of descriptive statistics to identify the patterns of corrective feedback employed by the observed teachers

Participants in this study are four teachers Two of them were teaching English at pre- intermediate classes and the other two were teaching at intermediate classes from Hanoi Law University were selected for observation Each teacher was observed in three periods

1.6 Significance of the Study

Feedback is a necessary part of every learning process Feedback provides students with the information on their performance and learning progress Therefore, it is very important to know the feedback types that lead to more effective learning, especially in the secondary foreign language classroom The literature review demonstrated that there are many contradictory views on the issue of feedback provision As a result, there is still no agreement between researchers on which type language feedback is more effective in terms of language learning Moreover, there

is also no information regarding feedback effectiveness in relationship to students‘ language development The study was conducted to find out whether there was a correspondence between and the extent to which teachers‘ oral corrective feedback led to students‘ uptake depending on types of errors that students made This information should be useful to foreign language teachers as they develop practical feedback classroom strategies because Lyster and Ranta (1997) noted that ―because

of so many different approaches to feedback, second language teachers have trouble finding research that addresses practical issues of corrective feedback‖ (p 38) Particularly, it offers teachers of English a number of important pedagogical implications in terms of error treatment Specifically, teachers can be informed about the effects of different corrective feedback patterns, based on which they can choose the ones that suit their students‘ levels and work for the types of errors that these students make

1.7 Terminology Used in the Study

1 Foreign Language (FL) (language that is learned by a student who speaks

other languages everyday)

2 Second Language (L2) (language that is learned by a student which is

different from the first language)

3 Second Language Acquisition (SLA)—―acquisition of another language

within one of the regions where the language is commonly spoken‖ (Shrum

& Glisan, 2000, p 2)

4 Target language—―language of instruction in a foreign language classroom‖

(Shrum & Glisan, 2000, p 2) or language that is learned by a student

5 Turn—one piece of a student-teacher dialogue that contains an error/s or

feedback

6 Corrective feedback: " any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms,

disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner utterance" (Claudron, 1977:31)

7 Explicit correction: By explicit correction, the teacher clearly indicates that

the student's utterance is incorrect, and then, he/ she provides the correct form (Lyster and Ranta, 1997: 47)

8 Recast is an implicit corrective feedback move that reformulates or expands

an ill- formed or incomplete utterance in an obtrusive way, similar to the type of recasts provided by primary caregivers in child L1 acquisition (Long, 1996)

9 Clarification request: is one kind of teacher's corrective feedback in which

teacher uses phrases like " Excuse me?" or " I don't understand", she/ he indicates that the message has not been understood or that the student's utterance contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or a reformation is required (Lyster and Ranta, 1997)

10 Meta-linguistic feedback: refers to either comments, information, or

questions related to well- formedness of the student utterance, without explicitly providing the correct answer (Lyster and Ranta, 1997:46)

11 Clarification request is a corrective technique that prompts the learner to

self- correct (Lyster and Ranta, 1997)

12 Repetition The teacher repeats the students' errors and adjusts intonation to

draw student's attention to it

13 Elicitation: is a corrective technique that prompts the learner to self- correct

(Lyster and Ranta, 1997)

14 Uptake is defined as "a student's utterance that immediately follows the

teachers' feedback and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teachers' intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student's initial utterance" (Lyster and Ranta, 1997:49)

15 Repair is defined as the correct reformulation of an error as uttered in a

single student turn (Lyster and Ranta, 1997:49)

16 Needs Repair—A learner‘s actions as a reaction to corrective feedback on

his/her eroneous turn that failed to result in correction of an error/s

17 Pushed output is the output that reflects what learners can produce when they

are pushed to use the target language accurately and concisely (Swain, 1985)

18 Immersion Language Program—an intense language learning process,

whereby students not only study the target language, but use the language exclusively in other classes, as well as in daily activities

1.8 Organization of the Study

The thesis is composed of 6 chapters The first chapter presents the research focus and provides the rationale for it as well as its aims, scopes, method, research questions and the significance of the study Chapter 2 reviews the literature on students‘ errors, teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ uptake as well as on the relationship between teachers‘ corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake in order to identify a research gap where the present study fits Chapter 3, the Methodology, presents the methodology employed to carry out the present study This includes a discussion of the participants, the data collection instruments and the procedures for data collection and analysis Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study with reference to the patterns of teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ uptake and also their relationship It should be noted that in this chapter data collected from

intermediate level to see clearly the same and differences between the patterns of teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ uptake Chapter discusses the findings, which are presented in Chapter 4, with reference to the literature review, focusing

on the relationship between teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ uptake Chapter 6, the Conclusion, gives a brief summary of the main findings, from which pedagogical implications are derived This chapter also acknowledges the limitations of the present study and provides suggestions for further studies

Summary

This chapter presents the rationale of the study, which is aimed to examine the

patterns of corrective feedback and its impact on learners‘ uptake In order to

achieve that aim, observation was used as the sole instrument of data collection All

observational data were analyzed quantitatively in terms of the percentage The researcher believes this approach to data analysis was appropriate to find out the common patterns of teachers‘ corrective feedback as well as the extent to which teachers‘ corrective feedback led to students‘ uptake Next chapter reviews the relevant literature

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on the relationship between teacher's error corrections, in a broader sense, teacher's corrective feedback and learners' uptake This chapter starts with an overview of language errors, and approaches to error correction Secondly, literature on teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ uptake are reviewed Finally, a number of studies on corrective feedback in second language acquisition are discussed in terms of differences and similarities

2.1 Language Errors

2.1.1 Definition of Language Errors

The definition of language errors is rather complex as different authors have different ways of defining it In order to provide the most appropriate definition of error, it is necessary to consider some related issues

Brown (1994: 205) claims that "a mistake is a performance error that is either a random guess, or a "slip" in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly" According to this definition, a native speaker could make a mistake in his native language Errors, on the other hand, are problems that a native speaker could not have Brown (1994: 205) defines an error as "noticeable deviation from adult grammar of a native speaker, which reflects the inter-language competence of the learner" The above definitions suggest that as someone learns a foreign language, the errors he/ she makes indicate his/her level of proficiency Obviously, the errors

of a beginner are different from the errors of an advanced learner Moreover, according to that definition, errors can become mistakes when the learner achieves a near-native speaker‘s competence At this time, what he makes are mistakes, not errors

For Snow (1977), the distinction between errors and mistakes depends on whether a L2 learner knows that he/she does something wrong and can fix it or not In his point of view, there are three stages of progression in the language learning process The first stage is noted when the learner does something wrong without knowing it;

in the second stage he/she may know he/she is doing it wrong but does not know how to put it right; and the last stage comes when he/she can correct his/her wrong version With this process, Snow asserts that errors occur in the first two stages and

the last stage is for mistakes Understandably, a mistake occurs when students know

the correct language but incorrectly retrieve it from memory whereas an error occurs when student have incorrectly learnt or do not yet know the correct language

In sum, there are various ways of defining a language error Each definition is

undoubtedly useful to language learning and teaching In this study, an error is

defined according to Snow (1977) who assumes that errors are what occurs when the learner does something wrong without knowing it, or he may know he is doing

it wrong but does not know how to put it right

It is also noted that speaking errors are the focus of this study Speaking errors, like errors in general, occur when the learner does something wrong without knowing it

or he/she may know he/she is doing it wrong but does not know how to put it right Also, as speaking errors are a kind of spoken language, they can be understood as

"faults made by speakers during the production of sounds, words and sentences" (Richard Platt, and Platt, 1992:344)

2.1.2 Classification of Language Errors

Errors can be classified in different ways depending on the nature of such classification and the purpose of the author In this thesis, the researcher only provides some typical ways of error classification

Errors are categorized into overt errors which are obviously ungrammatical or of wrong pronunciation and covert errors, which are superficially well formed but not interpretable (Brown (1994:208)) For example, an overt error is found in the sentence ―Last Saturday, I go to Cuc Phuong National Park‖ in the form of incorrect grammar Whereas a covert error appears in the sentence ―The monitor makes an example for the whole class‖ This sentence is superficially well formed but

―makes‖ cannot be used as native speakers use ―set an example for…‖ as an unchangeable phrase

Concerning the effect of errors, Bartram & Rechards (2001: 89) divided errors into

global and local ones A global error is an error in the use of a major element of

sentence structure, which makes a sentence or utterance difficult or impossible to understand (Richard et al, 1992:157) Understandably, global errors are often to do with wrong word order or wrong use of conjunction, and thus involve the " overall structure of the sentence" and often lead to the misunderstanding of the meaning of the sentence For example: I will go out unless it does not rain This may be contrasted with a local error, which is an error in the use of an element of sentence structure, does not cause problems of comprehension (Richard et al, 1992: 157) Thus, local errors are considered to be minor An example of a local error is:―If I heard from him, I will let you know‖

Referring to the causes, Richards et al (1992) classified errors into "inter-lingual

errors" and "intra-lingual errors" An inter-lingual error refers to the one, which

results from language transfer For example, the incorrect French sentence " J'aime

of English, instead of the correct French sentence " Je t' aime" An intra-lingual error is the one, which results from faulty or partial learning of the target language, rather than from language transfer Intra-lingual errors may be caused by the influence of one target language item upon another For instance, a learner may generate" He is comes" based on a blend of the English structures" He is coming and he comes"

In fact, it is hard to distinguish intra-lingual and inter- lingual errors in practice Therefore, errors caused by language transfer are not included in this study Instead, the researcher uses the way of classifying errors, which categorizes them into various levels of linguistic form (Edge, 1989:11): phonological, grammatical, and lexical

2.1.3 Approaches to Error Correction

There are a large number of differences in attitudes towards errors and error correction between traditional and modern methods of language teaching In traditional language classes, errors were not allowed Errors were seen as evidence

of ineffective learning or even laziness Also, teachers paid little attention to how to correct errors effectively If they corrected an error, it would be giving the student the correct model and getting him/ her to repeat it However, Van Lier (1988) noted that in the late sixties and early seventies, teachers began to comprehend that errors might be more an indication of learner efforts to form a new linguistic system rather than linguistic failure Specifically, in the light of communicative language teaching, errors are seen as positive steps towards learning The teacher‘s attitude towards correction is positive and correction techniques are used to encourage students, not to put them down or make them feel stupid For these teachers, a perfect lesson is full of students' errors, in which teachers' correction is an integral part

Error correction now is seen as a technique to get students to speak right out what they want to say Error correction not only helps a learner correct his/her errors but also helps him/her to develop his/her language competence without distracting communication purposes It means that in language classes, when error correction is carried out, the negotiation of meaning and negotiation of form, at the same time are

of equal value Thus, error treatment in second language acquisition classroom has been investigated in a larger scale and in a larger sense These studies have all

borrowed the framing questions of the issue of error correction in the classroom used by Hendrickson (1978) Those questions mentioned what, when, how and who should do the error correction

Should learners' errors be corrected?

When should learners' errors be corrected?

Which errors should be corrected?

How should errors be corrected?

Who should do the correcting?

The issue of whether errors should be corrected has been rather controversial On

the one hand, Truscott (1999, 1996) claims that correction in both oral and written work does not work as teachers correct inconsistently, sometimes wrongly; and correction may interfere with fluency On the other hand, Gass (1991: 136) stated that: ―nothing in the target language is available for intake into a language learner‘s existing system unless it is consciously noticed‖ One quasi- experimental study carried out by DeKeyser (1993) found that error correction did not have an overall effect on students' proficiency in the L2 but it did interact with each learner differently Thus, learners with high extrinsic motivation were affected in a way that was not the same as those with low extrinsic motivation For example, learners with low extrinsic motivation did better on oral tasks after error correction whereas those with high extrinsic motivation did better on oral task without error correction

necessary to find out their preferences and attitudes, as well as how sensitive or resilient they are towards correction and feedback (Hugh, 2000)

Having agreed with the principles of correction, the next question to ask is “Which

errors should be corrected?‖ According to Hugh (2000), errors, which are regularly

repeated by one or more students or are considered to be the most serious, should be treated In order to do that, firstly, types of errors should be differentiated (Hugh, 2000) The distinction can be made between global errors and local errors In general, global errors, which hinder or interfere with communication of the speaker‘s message are more serious and thus should be corrected so that learners can carry out clear communication (Mac Donald, 2000) Another distinction can be made between competence errors, which occur because the learner does not yet know how to perform a skill and performance errors, which are often ―slips of tongue‖ or ―slips of pen‖ (Mac Donald, 2000) If the mistakes are competence errors, then feedback should be provided Another important point is the frequency

of an error If an error is repeated several times insistently, it needs to be corrected (Hugh, 2000)

There is no absolute ―rule‖ about when to or not to correct students’ errors Perhaps

we should not correct when a learner is focusing on communicating because it is non-communicative, inauthentic, and inappropriate to the aims of the task (Ur, 2006) However, Harmer (2005) claims that learners want to be corrected at the moment they make the mistake Both ideas seem plausible, nonetheless Thus, which is more important? ―Preserving the fluent process and communicative nature

of the interaction?‖ or ―providing corrective feedback where it is needed to help learners improve their accuracy?‖ The decision will involve a lot of different considerations specific to the learner: the importance of encouraging fluency, the importance of encouraging accuracy, the confidence and self-image of the learner, and the sheer number of mistakes (Ur, 2006)

Concerning the question posed by Hendrickson (1978) “how to correct‖, a number

of studies have been carried out Teachers and learners tend to have different preference for correction patterns according to the types of errors For example, for grammatical errors, students may prefer a model of incorrect/ correct, while teachers may prefer marking the errors only and then let students self- correct; yet, for pronunciation errors both teachers and students may prefer a simple model of

correct forms (Cathcart and Olsen, 1976) In communicative language lessons,

corrective feedback, which does not provide the target form, proves to be more valued than those, which provide the target form Different researchers have different ideas regarding how to provide corrective feedback In Oliver's study (1995), advanced learners were said to be more sensitive towards recasts Young learners, in contrast, did not tend to notice recasts in communicative classrooms (Lyster, 1998) However, recasts may be ambiguous as the learner, in fact, cannot determine whether it is the model of the correct version or a different way of saying the same thing (Long 1996; Lyster 1998) On some occasions, teachers might tend

to elicit uptake, or engage students to correct their errors when they use recasts On other occasions, although students may not commit errors, teachers might just aim

to expose learners to or emphasize target-like form, while still encouraging learners

to continue with the topic and maintain the interaction, not expecting uptake from students Thus, it seems that more explicit focus than recasts alone might help to draw learners' attention to errors more clearly (Doughty and Varela, 1998)

The question of ―who should do the correcting‖ also raises a large number of ideas

―A self- discovery approach‖ (Hugh, 2000) may reduce the likelihood of learners becoming dependent on teacher assistance At the beginning, learners require teacher support to become aware of, and correct their errors However, gradually, teacher intervention should be reduced and learners should be encouraged to recognize their own errors (Mac Donald, 2000) Bailey (1991) also advocates the

repair Others, such as Calve (1992), recommend both self- repair and peer- repair, which are also known as student- generated repairs (Lyster and Ranta 1997), with teachers' clues rather than recast However, Gass and Varonis (1994) do not share the same view with Calve (1992) when he advocates more teachers‘ direct and overt corrective feedback in order to avoid misleading learners into believing that linguistic errors are acceptable

In conclusion, error correction has been investigated from the early times of communicative language teaching Those studies, in some ways, all imply the relationship between teachers' error correction and learners' responses after being corrected In the scope of this study, the researcher only examined a case study in one university to confirm conclusions drawn from earlier research In this study, corrective feedback is to be investigated

2.2 Teachers' Corrective Feedback

2.2.1 Definition of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback

One of the main roles of the language teacher is to give feedback to students' work

In Lumetta‘s (2005) view, effective feedbacks are those which not only need to be specific (precise and specific examples or behaviors), frequent (giving feedback as frequently as possible), timely (delivering as close in time to the incident if applicable), but also contain both positive (reinforcing)/ negative (corrective)

feedback In this study, the researcher only focuses on negative feedback, which

often takes the form of error correction in English speaking lessons Error correction, in the view of Edge (1989:20) is "a way of reminding students of the forms of Standard English It should not be a kind of criticism or punishment" Long‘s (1996) view of feedback in general is more comprehensive It suggests that environmental input can be thought of in terms of two categories that are provided

to the learners about the target language: positive evidence and negative evidence Long defines positive evidence as providing the learners with models of what is

grammatical and acceptable in the target language; and negative evidence as providing the learners with direct or indirect information about what is unacceptable

James (1998:256-257) offers another way of understanding error correction According to him, correction can be understood in "three senses" In the first sense, correction can be understood as feedback, which informs learners that there is an error, and leaves them to diagnose and repair it themselves In the second sense, it refers to proper correction in which learners are not only informed about the error but also shown how to repair it, or even given an alternative The third sense of error correction is remediation, which means carrying out error analysis that explains why an error is committed with the view to preventing its recurrence In this research, error correction is one kind of teacher's feedback and it can be used interchangeably with term "corrective feedback"

Chaudron (1998) holds that the term corrective feedback incorporates different layers of meaning In Chaudron‘s view, treatment of error may simply refer to: ―any teacher behavior following an error that minimally attempts to inform the learner of the fact of error‖

Lightbown and Spada (1999) define corrective feedback as: any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect This includes various responses that the learners receive When a language learner says, ―she clean the room everyday‖, corrective feedback can be explicit, for example, ―no, you should say cleans, not clean‖ or implicit ―yes, she cleans the room everyday‖, and may or may not include meta-linguistic information, for example, ―Don‘t forget to make the verb agree with the subject‖

Thus, teachers' corrective feedback, to some extent, is the teacher's correction and can be defined as teachers' indication to learners' errors, which takes the forms of implicit or explicit correction The researcher of this study agrees with Lightbrown and Spada‘s (1999) definition above, but adopts the following definition by Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006) that

Corrective feedback takes the form of teacher‘s responses to learner utterances that contain an error The responses can consist of (a) and indication that an error has been committed; (b) the provision of the correct target language form; or (c) metalinguistic information about the nature of the error; or any combination of these (p.340)

2.2.2 Types of Teachers' Corrective Feedback

Lyster and Ranta (1997) observed a variety of lessons and yielded six different types

of corrective feedback

Explicit correction: By explicit correction, the teacher clearly indicates that the

student's utterance is incorrect, and then, he/ she provides the correct form (Lyster and Ranta, 1997:47)

 For example:

S: The day… tomorrow (lexical error)

T: Yes, no The day before yesterday (explicit correction)

Recast: is an implicit corrective feedback move that reformulates or expands an

ill formed or incomplete utterance in an obtrusive way, similar to the type of recasts provided by primary caregivers in child L1 acquisition (Long, 1996)

 For example:

S: He asked you why didn't want to speak with him He said that you are rude to him (grammatical error)

T: Good You were (recast)

S: You were rude to him

Clarification request: is one kind of teacher's corrective feedback in which

teacher uses phrases like " Excuse me?" or " I don't understand" to indicate that the message has not been understood or that the student's utterance contained some kind

of mistake and that a repetition or a reformation is required (Lyster and Ranta, 1997)

 For example:

S: I want practice today (grammatical error)

T: Excuse-me? (Clarification question)

Meta-linguistic feedback: refers to either comments, information, or questions

related to well- formedness of the student utterance, without explicitly providing the correct answer (Lyster and Ranta, 1997: 46)

 For example:

S: Prices were being increase (Grammatical error)

T: Do we say it in English: ―Prices were being increase‖? (Meta-linguistic feedback)

S: had increased

Elicitation: is a corrective technique that prompts the learner to self- correct

Lyster and Ranta (1997) identified three ways of eliciting the correct form from students: (a) when the teacher pauses and lets students complete the utterance, (b) when the teacher asks an open question, and (c) when the teacher requests a reformation of the ill- formed utterance Elicitation questions differ from questions that are defined as meta-linguistic clues in that they require more than a Yes/ No response

 For example:

T: In a fast-food restaurant, how much do you tip?

S: No much (Lexical error)

T: What's the word? (Elicitation)

S: Not much…

Repetition The teacher repeats the students' errors and adjusts intonation to

draw student's attention to it (Lyster and Ranta, 1997)

 For example:

S: Do you got any suggestions? (Grammatical error)

T: Do you got? (Repetition)

S: Do you have?

T: Go on

It also should be noted that the researcher combines recast and explicit correction with feedback in the form of "correction" Recast, which, in some way, takes the form of negotiation of meaning, allows learners to focus- on- form and to infer negative evidence in ways that may facilitate language development (Long, 1996) Other types of feedback moves including elicitation, clarification request, meta-linguistic feedback and repetition, which do not provide the target language form,

are combined into" negotiation of form"

2.3 Learners' Uptake

In communicative language teaching, students' utterance after teacher's correction or feedback, namely "Uptake", is noticed and emphasized Uptake has been investigated by researchers for a long time, including studies by Chaudron (1977), Oliver (2000), Lyster and Ranta (1997), and Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001), Chaudron (1977) was one of the first researchers to refer to the term

―uptake.‖ Chaudron (1977) suggested evaluating the effectiveness of feedback in language classrooms based on the number of times students respond to feedback with correct responses Uptake has been used with two different meanings Slimani (1992) defined uptake as what learners claim to have learned from a particular lesson Lyster and Ranta (1997), however, used ―uptake‖ to refer to learners‘ responses to the teacher‘s corrective feedback on the error they make According to these researchers,

A student' s utterance that immediately follows the teachers' feedback and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teachers' intention to draw

attention to some aspect of the student's initial utterance" (Lyster & Ranta,

1997:49)

This definition is adopted in the present study because it fits the purpose of the study and it describes comprehensively the nature of uptake as well as the relationship between teachers‘ corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake Uptake may or may not appear after teacher's feedback Uptake serves as an indicator of the effectiveness of corrective feedback (Claudron, 1977)

There are two circumstances in which uptake does not have chance to occur This happens, firstly, when feedback is followed by teacher-initiated topic continuation, which offers students no opportunity to respond to feedback, or to correct their own errors Secondly, feedback is followed by student- initiated topic continuance Instead of correcting errors, students continue speaking without noticing or understanding teacher's feedback (Panova and Lyster, 2002)

Lyster and Ranta (1997) also expanded Chaudron‘s definition by dividing learners

uptake into two categories: Uptake can be either responses with ―repair‖ and ―needs

repair‖ The term repair as defined by Lyster and Ranta (1997), indicates a successful correction of the wrong utterance in response to teacher‘s feedback The term needs repair, on the other hand, indicate unsuccessful student reaction to the teacher‘s feedback in terms of correcting the wrong utterance (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) Needs Repair can lead to the provision of additional feedback to facilitate successful student repair (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) It is important to mention the difference between the terms ―repair‖ and ―correction‖ as defined by Van Lier (1988) Correction can be viewed as one of the types of repair (Van Lier, 1988) Van Lier (1988) noted that repair is a much broader term that includes a specific

type of repair which is referred to as correction, a replacement of a wrong utterance made by a student with the correct one

Lyster and Ranta (1997) went further in their classification of repair and classified it further into two categories: self-initiated and other-initiated repair Other-initiated repair is usually prompted by provision of some sort of feedback to the learner The feedback can be provided by either a teacher or other students (peer feedback) in response to an error ―Other – initiated repair‖ is distinguished into four types: repetition, incorporation, self- repair, and peer- repair

 Repetition refers to a student‘s repetition of the teacher‘s feedback when the

latter includes the correct form

 Incorporation refers to a student‘s repetition of the correct form provided by

the teacher, which is then incorporated into a longer utterance produced by the student

 Self- repair refers to self- correction, produced by the student who made the

initial error, in response to the teacher‘s feedback when the latter does not already provide the correct form, thus, engages the student committing the error to self- correct

 Peer repair refers to peer- correction provided by a student, other than the

one who made the initial error, in response to the teacher‘s feedback

The category of ―needs- repair‖ includes the following six types of utterance (Lyster and Ranta, 1997)

 Acknowledgement generally refers to a simple ―yes‖ on the part of the

student in response to the teacher‘s feedback Acknowledgement may also include a ― yes‖ or ― no‖ on the part of the student in response to the teacher‘

s meta-linguistic 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‘s

feedback but that neither corrects nor repeats the initial error; instead, a different error is made

 Off target refers to uptake that is clearly in response to the teacher‘s feedback

turn but that avoids the teacher‘s linguistic focus altogether, without including any further errors

 Hesitation refers to a student‘s hesitation in response to the teacher‘s

2.4 Issues in second Language Acquisition

Little has been known about how people acquire or learn the second language There have been many theories which try to explain the process, but none has so far been widely accepted However, two most influential SLA theories related to the relationship between teachers‘ corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake are Krashen‘s (1982) natural order of acquisition hypothesis and Pienemann‘s (1981) teachability hypothesis According to Krashen, learning or formal instruction (including corrective feedback) has very limited influence on the learners‘ L2 acquisition In his view, L2 is acquired according to a natural order and therefore

that the once the learners are exposed to ‗comprehensible input‘, which he defines

as ―i+1‖, that is the input which is a little beyond the learner‘s current level of proficiency, acquisition, i.e., uptake, will occur According to Krashen the child can understand the crucial new linguistic items from i+1 by the aid of context From this perspective, Krashen concludes that formal instruction can influence L2 acquisition only if it contains comprehensible input

Pienemann‘s (1981) teachability hypothesis postulates that a given linguistic structure (e.g., grammar structure) cannot be added through formal instruction (i.e., classroom teaching) to the learner‘s interlanguage at any desired point in time in his/her avquisitional career Rather the influence of formal instruction is constrained

in a specific way: a given linguistic structure cannot be learned by any means without prior learning/acquisition of the developmental earlier structure The teachability hypothesis is based on the processing prerequisites for the structure which has to be learned From this perspective we can decide whether the learner of

a certain interlanguage is prepared for the learning of a given structure or not In this study, this hypothesis will be used to explain the effectiveness of the teacher‘s corrective feedback on learner‘s uptake

2.5 Studies on Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition

There has been much research conducted regarding the provision of language feedback, including student uptake (Carroll& Swaine, 1993;Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) In order to better understand the research that has been done in the last ten years, this part of the literature review discusses language feedback and immediate uptake in terms of the differences and similarities

White (1991) and Carrol and Swain (1993) examined the issue of feedback provision in language acquisition versus no feedback White (1991) conducted a study with 11- and 12-year-old ESL students who were taught adverb placement The main hypothesis for this study stated that positive input accompanied by

negative evidence (information about grammatically incorrect structures) is more effective than positive input alone The students were pre- and post-tested, which also included delayed testing The results of the immediate post-test indicated that the group that was provided with positive input along with negative feedback scored higher than the group that was given only positive input However delayed post-testing did not show any difference in long-term retention between the two test groups (White, 1991)

Carroll and Swain (1993) examined the effects of different types of ―negative feedback‖ on the acquisition of English dative alternation by 100 adult Spanish-speaking ELL learners They found that groups receiving negative feedback performed significantly better than the control group, which received no feedback They also found that groups that received explicit rule explanation performed significantly better compared to other groups One possible explanation that the authors provided was that adult language learners require more explicit explanation because of their previous learning preferences

The results of these studies suggest that feedback is an important part of the language learning process However, it appears that there is still not definite agreement on whether the age of learners or type of input impacts the retention of language structures

Lyster and Ranta (1997) continued to study the patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake in four beginning level French immersion classrooms The purpose

of this study was to analyze the distribution of six types of corrective feedback (explicit correction, Recast, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, elicitation) in the immersion language classroom and the learner uptake (response) following these six types of corrective feedback techniques They also investigated the question of

when teachers did not provide learners with the ready correct answers, but rather, provided them with clues directing them towards the place and the type of the error This study reported the level of uptake at 55%, which was lower than the uptake level reported in study by Loewen (2004)

Lyster and Ranta (1997) also found that an overwhelming propensity for teachers was to utilize recast (55%) They showed that recast, although used extensively in the studied classrooms, was least likely to lead to successful student uptake They also found that other types of corrective feedback, such as elicitation, clarification request and metalinguistic feedback resulted in more negotiation of form between a teacher and the learner and therefore resulted in more cases of student initiated successful uptake turns

Lyster (1998) in a follow up study focused more on recast because as it was discovered in the previous study, this corrective strategy was used almost extensively by the teachers in the language immersion programs Lyster used the same database of classroom observations that he used for his previous study The findings of the previous study made him believe that teachers need to implement other feedback techniques such as meta-linguistic, elicitation and clarification request, to provide students with corrective feedback regarding their output The author compared teacher use of Recast in comparison with various types of non-corrective repetition and positive feedback as approval moves (p 56) Approval moves are the positive reinforcement phrases that teachers use to reinforce successful uptake Lyster suggested that the effectiveness of Recast can be further reduced by the signs of approval, such as good job, great, etc that teachers might use along with this corrective technique Lyster also suggested that the possible reason for Recast to be used extensively by teachers in immersion programs is this type of feedback permits them to provide learners with feedback on their performance without interrupting the course of the classroom interaction He also

suggested that Recast does not allow much negotiation of form between the teacher and the learner and therefore, this corrective technique does not permit the learner a chance to process information at a deeper level and incorporate the correct utterance

in their language performance

During the same year, MacKey and Philp (1998) explored the relationship between Recast in conversational settings and short-term second language retention The main focus of this study was recast as a corrective feedback technique and learners‘ reactions to Recast The researchers compared two different groups of learners (adult ESL students) The first group received ―interactionally modified input‖ (such as paraphrasing, synonyms) and the second group received intensive Recast feedback while learning certain syntactic structures (MacKey & Philp, 1998) The researchers (MacKey & Philp, 1998) suggested that recast could be more effective for adult learners in relationship to production of more complex structures in comparison with communication without recasts They also reported that over 67%

of recasts were not noticed by students as they proceeded with topic continuation This result is similar to results from Lyster and Ranta‘s (1997) study that reported that only 27% of feedback turns were followed by successful repair

Unlike previous studies, Ellis et al (2001) examined the issue of feedback provision

in relationship to learner uptake in ESL classrooms and reported much higher uptake in response to teacher feedback The data was analyzed based on classroom observations, including focus on form episodes (when there was some attention to linguistic form), treatments (including Recast, request for clarification, repetition, elicitation of solution) and learner uptake (which was defined as recognition, application, and needs for application) (Ellis et al., 2001) The findings indicated that the general level of uptake was much higher in this study, compared to studies

by Lyster (1998) and Lyster and Ranta (1997) who conducted their studies in

students identified language problems by themselves, the uptake was higher and more successful (Ellis et al., 2001) The researchers, unlike others, suggested that teachers shouldn‘t avoid recast as a corrective feedback technique (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) as in other studies (Ellis et al., 2001) However they cautioned that the results of this study can only be applied to adult ESL learners

Previously, the researcher herself did carry out a case study on Patterns of teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ uptake of 10th graders at English elementary level

In that research, she observed 5 periods of English speaking lessons of 5 different classes to find out types of teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ responses to those corrective feedback types From that, it also revealed the close relationship between different kinds of corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake and learners For example, recast was the most commonly used, but the least effective in terms of students‘ uptake and repair Other types of feedback such as meta-linguistic, clarification request, although, were used at a lower rate, were the most successful

in engaging students‘ generated repair The result of this study also offered teachers

of English a number of important pedagogical implications in terms of error treatment Specifically, teachers were informed about the effects of different corrective feedback patterns, based on which they can choose the ones that suit their students‘ levels and work for the types of errors that these students make

All studies that examined the issue of provision of corrective feedback were either conducted in immersion or ESL classrooms It also appears that recast tends to be the most frequently used corrective technique by teachers in response to student errors in the above described studies However, there have been no observational studies of L2 levels of students conducted in university, which appears to be a gap

in our understanding of teacher practices at this level

Summary

This chapter presents a brief understanding of learners‘ errors, teachers‘ corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake Also, it presents the issues in second language acquisition in the view of two most influential SLA theories related to the relationship between teachers‘ corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake are Krashen‘s (1982) natural order of acquisition hypothesis and Pienemann‘s (1981) teachability hypothesis This chapter discusses language feedback and immediate uptake in terms of the differences and similarities in the last ten years As the literature review shows corrective feedback is a very important part of the learning and instructional processes, it provides a learner with essential information on his/her performance There has been much research conducted in the area of corrective feedback in different areas, including the area of foreign language acquisition (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Morris & Tarone, 2003) However, researchers still debate the question of which feedback type is the most effective for learners The question is especially important in the area of foreign language acquisition, where errors are part of a daily classroom Therefore, it is important for teachers to have as much information as possible on the issue of corrective feedback provision and its effectiveness in terms of student learning To achieve this aim, the researcher carried out a study to examine the patterns of teachers‘ corrective feedback and its relationship to learners‘ uptake The next chapter gives a detailed description of the methodology, namely observation tool, to carry out the present study

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the details of the methodology employed to carry out the present study It includes a discussion of the participants, the data collection instruments and the procedures for data collection and analysis

3.1 Participant

The study was carried out with the participation of:

(1) four classes of second- year students which includes two classes of intermediate and two classes of intermediate level of Hanoi Law University for observation

pre-(2) four teachers of English taught at four above classes at the same university

The research was a study on the patterns of teacher‘s corrective feedback and learners‘ uptake, and also its relationship at one university, thus the choice of which university was not important The researcher chose Ha Noi Law University, as it was the one where she was teaching English Thus, it was much easier for her to get data

Moreover, the researcher chose students of both pre-intermediate and intermediate levels to observe so that she could compare the findings to see whether there were any differences in the use of corrective feedback and its relationship with learners‘ uptake in English speaking lessons of pre- intermediate and intermediate levels From this, the most objective results would be produced

 The characteristics of pre- intermediate and intermediate level students Students of Hanoi Law University start studying English when they enter the second year, and they study English for 1 year only Because of the restricted time

for studying English at University, students take this chance as a useful one and try

to learn as much as possible This fact deeply affects Hanoi Law University students‘ inspirations of learning English, which is shown clearly in their active participation in English speaking lessons In other words, they try to engage themselves in practicing speaking at any time they could

It should be noted that students of Hanoi Law University are categorised according

to their levels which base on their marks of Toeic Test at the beginning of the new academic year To be more specific, students of Hanoi Law University before studying English have to do an TOEIC test Based on this result, students will be divided into 3 levels: elementary, pre- intermediate or intermediate level For students, who get less than 300, will be put in elementary classes For those who get between 300 and 450 will be in pre- intermediate level For those who get above

450 will be in intermediate level The researcher chose students at pre- intermediate and intermediate level as the participants of the study because she saw that students

at two above levels engaged themselves in speaking much more ones elementary levels Thus, errors committed in the process of speaking were seen more often, leading to teachers‘ higher chances of giving corrective feedback in their lessons Also, the relationship between teachers‘ corrective techniques and learners‘ uptake would be revealed more clearly

The number of students in each class range from 15 to 20 students, which is suitable for an English class, therefore, is easier for the researcher to get data

The course books of English used in Hanoi Law University are series of Market Leader (Cotton, Falvey &Kent, 2005) In details, for pre-intermediate level, the course book is Market Leader, Pre-intermediate Business English, New Edition The course book for intermediate level is Market Leader, Intermediate Business English, New Edition

One more note is that this is the first time, Hanoi Law University categorises students based on the mark of Toeic test and the course book Market Leader is used instead of the course book New Headway used for a long time This change has had positive effects on students‘ attitude to learning English It is clearly shown in their English periods, in which they actively and fully participate in speaking As a result, the researcher finds it more convenient to get data for her study

In addition, the course book Market Leader provides much more chance for students

to practice speaking skill The topics focus on economic matters, which attract students‘ interests, especially students of Economic Law Department It may be due

to the fact that those students, to some extent, see that those matters are closely related to their major subject, thus, to their later career Moreover, this study focuses on teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ uptake and their relationships in English speaking periods Hence, the choice of students also plays

an important part In speaking lessons, students‘ errors are only seen when students speak out In other words, speaking lessons in which students engage themselves actively in speaking, errors will be seen, teachers‘ corrective techniques will be shown As a result, the researcher, from the beginning of this study, had an intention

of choosing students of Economic Law and International Law Department as the participants This choice is based on the fact that students of two above Department seemed to be encouraged to study English much more than students of other Departments at Hanoi Law University Actually, this choice proved to be useful in the process of getting data and carrying out the research

 The characteristics of 4 teachers of English teaching at 4 classes above

Although the teaching staff of English Division of Hanoi Law University is not so young and the majority of them used to be teachers of Russia before becoming the teachers of English, the researcher had the purpose of choosing 4 teachers who have been trained on new methods of teaching and learning profoundly through the

course of Methodology at University Especially, there was a whole section about error correction in the syllabus of Methodology when they studied at University Thus, they have had a basic knowledge of the importance of teachers‘ correction or corrective feedback and its relationship with students‘ uptake Also, 4 teachers of English being observed have had at least 5 years of teaching English In general, these teachers have been equipped sufficiently about teaching English, and they are not called ―traditional teachers‖ any more

Thus, the researcher believed that the choice of observing 4 teachers could produce the most effective results, which helps herself improve her teaching speaking skill for the long term

Each teacher was observed in three periods of English, each of which lasts in 90 minutes Therefore, there were twelve periods of English to be transcribed and analyzed in total

3.2 Data Collection Instruments

This study employed class-room observation as the sole instrument to examine the patterns of teachers' corrective feedback and learners' uptake;

The research focuses on teachers' corrective feedback and its impact on students' uptake, a kind of teacher- student interaction; classroom observation proves to be the most helpful method of data collection because according to Nunan (1989) there

is no substitute for direct observation as a way of finding out about language classroom Moreover, objectives for this study are particularly suitable for this type

of study because observational research is a systematic process used for examining the effectiveness of various teaching methods in diverse classrooms (Waxman, Tharp, & Hilberg, 2004) In addition, according to the definition found in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research, structured observation research