Oral corrective feedback in EFL communication classes teachers beliefs and students preferences a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of arts in TESOL

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN EFL COMMUNICATION CLASSES: TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES A thesis submitted

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN EFL COMMUNICATION CLASSES: TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Arts in TESOL

Submitted by LE THI MINH SANG

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr NGUYEN THANH TUNG

Ho Chi Minh City December 2017

I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text

of the thesis This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution

Ho Chi Minh City, 2017

Le Thi Minh Sang

of this thesis I have truly learned from the excellence of his skills and from his wide experience in research; no words are adequate to describe the extent of my gratitude

I am also sincerely grateful to all lecturers of the Open University in Ho Chi Minh City for providing me with invaluable sources of intellectual knowledge during my study there This knowledge was very useful when I conducted this research

I owe a great debt of gratitude to the anonymous participants who contributed data to this thesis Without them the data collection for this study could not properly been carried out

Last but not least, I would like to express my particular gratitude to my beloved husband for his unconditional love, understanding, encouragement, and financial and spiritual support over time and distance

iii

ABSTRACT

Corrective feedback is significantly important for students at all levels as it can help them enhance their foreign language acquisition after making errors or mistakes in class However, if there are any mismatches between teachers and students, the effectiveness of corrective feedback definitely weakens This study, therefore, aimed

at investigating of teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback particularly concerning whether, when, which, how, and by whom errors should be corrected in English for Communication classes

To achieve this purpose, relevant literature on oral corrective feedback including types, timing, sources and error types of oral corrective feedback as well as teachers’ belief and students’ preferences were reviewed in the theory chapter to shape the theoretical framework of the study

Based on this conceptual framework, the study was conducted at Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in Ho Chi Minh City University of Education with the participation of 82 students and 20 teachers Data collection was carried out during the two weeks of 6th-13th March, 2017 Data were collected through the tools of a questionnaire and interviewing for both teachers and students, and then analyzed with version 22.0 of the SPSS software

The findings of the study indicate that both of the teachers and learners have positive attitudes towards oral corrective feedback Regarding the similarities, they hold the same opinion on general perceptions and types of errors to be corrected on oral corrective feedback On the contrary, there are some disparities between the two groups related to timing, providers and strategies of oral corrective feedback

Based on the research findings, the paper concluded with some pedagogical implications and a recommendation for further study in the line of research on oral corrective feedback

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Statement of the problem 3

1.3 The purpose and research questions of the study 3

1.4 Significance of the study 4

1.5 Thesis outline 5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Definitions of feedback 7

2.2 Strategies and contents 8

2.3 Concept of corrective feedback 11

2.3.1 Corrective feedback types 12

2.3.2 The timing of corrective feedback 16

2.3.3 Corrective feedback providers 16

2.3.3.1 Teacher correction 16

2.3.3.2 Self-correction 17

2.3.3.3 Peer correction 17

2.3.4 Error types 18

2.3.5 The contribution of corrective feedback to communication acquisition 19

2.4 Teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences 19

2.4.1 Teachers’ beliefs 19

v

2.4.1.1 Definitions 20

2.4.1.2 Importance 20

2.4.2 Students’ preferences 20

2.5 Previous studies and research gap 22

2.6 Summary 25

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 26

3.1 Research site 26

3.2 Participants 27

3.2.1 Students 28

3.2.2 Teachers 29

3.3 Methodology 30

3.3.1 Overall approach 30

3.3.2 Research instruments 31

3.3.2.1 Questionnaires for teachers and learners 31

3.3.2.2 Interviews for teachers and learners 35

3.4 Analytical framework 36

3.4.1 Quantitative analysis for questionnaires 36

3.4.1 Qualitative analysis for interview 37

3.5 Reliability and validity 38

3.5.1 Questionnaires 38

3.5.2 Interviews 40

3.6 Summary 41

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 42

4.1 Questionnaire analysis 42

4.1.1 Teacher questionnaires 42

4.1.1.1 Teacher questionnaire themes 42

4.1.1.1.1 General beliefs 42

4.1.1.1.2 Timing 43

vi

4.1.1.1.3 Types of oral corrective feedback 44

4.1.1.1.4 Providers 46

4.1.1.1.5 Types of errors to be corrected 46

4.1.2 Student questionnaires 47

4.1.2.1 Student questionnaire themes 47

4.1.2.1.1 General preferences 47

4.1.2.1.2 Timing 49

4.1.2.1.3 Types of oral corrective feedback 50

4.1.2.1.4 Providers 51

4.1.2.1.5 Types of errors to be corrected 52

4.2 Interview analysis 53

4.2.1 Teacher interviews 53

4.2.2 Student interviews 57

4.3 The comparisons between the EFL teachers’ beliefs and the EFL students’ preferences 62

4.3.1 Questionnaire analysis 62

4.3.1.1 General beliefs 63

4.3.1.2 Timing 66

4.3.1.3 Strategies 68

4.3.1.4 Providers 72

4.3.1.5 Errors to be corrected 73

4.3.2 Interview analysis 74

4.4 Summary 76

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 77

5.1 EFL teachers’ beliefs about providing oral corrective feedback 77

5.2 EFL students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in their communication classes 79

5.3 The comparisons between the teachers’ beliefs about and the EFL students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in communication classes 80

5.4 Summary 82

vii

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83

6.1 Summary of key findings 83

6.2 Evaluation of methodology 84

6.2.1 Strengths 85

6.2.2 Weaknesses 85

6.3 Recommendations for teachers and students 85

6.4 Suggestions for further research 87

6.5 Summary 87

REFERENCES 88

APPENDICES 96

Appendix 1: The questionnaire on oral corrective feedback (student version) 96

Appendix 2: The questionnaire on oral corrective feedback (teacher version) 99

Appendix 3: Teacher interview prompts 102

Appendix 4: Student interview prompts 103

Appendix 5: The questionnaire on oral corrective feedback for students (Vietnamese version) 104

Appendix 6: The questionnaire on oral corrective feedback for teachers (Vietnamese version) 107

Appendix 7: Teacher interview prompts (Vietnamese version) 110

Appendix 8: Student interview prompts (Vietnamese version) 111

Appendix 9: Consent form (Vietnamese version) 112

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Taxonomy of corrective feedback strategies (adapted from Lysteret al., 2010; Milla & Mayo, 2014) 15

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Corrective feedback strategies (adapted from Lyster & Ranta 1997) 13

Table 2-2 Error types (adapted from Chauron, 1977; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) 18

Table 3-1 Demographic characteristics of learner participants 29

Table 3-2 Demographic characteristics of teacher participants 30

Table 3-3 Description of questionnaires for teachers and learners 32

Table 3-4 Data collection techniques from questionnaires for teachers and learners 34

Table 3-5 Reliability analysis of teacher questionnaire (Cronbach’s Alpha) 39

Table 3-6 Reliability analysis of student questionnaire (Cronbach’s Alpha) 40

Table 4-1 Teachers’ general beliefs about giving oral corrective feedback 42

Table 4-2 Teachers’ beliefs about timing of oral corrective feedback 43

Table 4-3 Teachers’ beliefs about strategies of oral corrective feedback 44

Table 4-4 Teachers’ beliefs about providers of oral corrective feedback 46

Table 4-5 Teachers’ beliefs about types of errors to be corrected 47

Table 4-6 Students’ general preferences for oral corrective feedback 48

Table 4-7 Students’ preferences for timing of oral corrective feedback 49

Table 4-8 Students’ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback 51

Table 4-9 Students’ preferences for providers 52

Table 4-10 Students’ preferences for types of errors to be corrected 52

Table 4-11 Results from teacher interviews 54

Table 4-12 Results from student interviews 58

Table 4-13 Chi-square results of some general perceptions 63

Table 4-14 Chi-square result of the importance of oral corrective feedback 64

Table 4-15 Chi-square result of correcting all errors 64

Table 4-16 Chi-square result of correcting some severe errors 65

Table 4-17 Chi-square result of considering accuracy when correcting 65

Table 4-18 Chi-square result of considering fluency when correcting 65

x

Table 4-19 Chi-square results of timing 66

Table 4-20 Chi-square result of correcting immediately 67

Table 4-21 Chi-square result of correcting after speaking turns 67

Table 4-22 Chi-square result of correcting at the end of speaking activities 67

Table 4-23 Chi-square result of correcting at the end of class 68

Table 4-24 Chi-square results of strategies 69

Table 4-25 Chi-square result of explicit correction 69

Table 4-26 Chi-square result of metalinguistic feedback 70

Table 4-27 Chi-square result of elicitation 70

Table 4-28 Chi-square result of recasts 71

Table 4-29 Chi-square result of repetition 71

Table 4-30 Chi-square result of clarification check 71

Table 4-31 Chi-square results of providers 72

Table 4-32 Chi-square result of teacher correction 72

Table 4-33 Chi-square result of self-correction 73

Table 4-34 Chi-square result of peer correction 73

Table 4-35 Chi-square of types of errors to be corrected 74

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

For the Vietnamese students who have been mostly exposed to the Grammar Translation Method at secondary and high schools, speaking is always the most challenging task Making phonological, grammatical, lexical, and discursive errors is inevitable during their English oral productions Therefore, an important principle of teaching speaking is that in addition to providing opportunities for practice, it is not only productive but also critical to give learners appropriate feedback so that they can learn from their mistakes and have “good models of speaking and interaction” (Goh,

2012, p 23) In that way, being a feedback provider is considered one of the significant roles that a teacher needs to fulfill during his/her instructional practices However, teachers’ responses to learners’ errors still rely heavily on their intuition rather than any prescribed principles (Ellis, 2009)

All teachers, in some time of their career, may agonize about whether, when and how to give oral corrective feedback effectively to different types of learners in different pedagogical contexts; in other words, “whether and how to correct errors usually depends upon the methodological perspective to which a teacher ascribes” (Russell, 2009, p 163) Therefore, it becomes necessary to discover what teachers believe and what they actually do in the realm of oral corrective feedback provision This necessity originates from that fact that “there is a relation between teachers’ beliefs and their teaching practices in which teachers make decisions regarding classroom practice in accordance with their beliefs, so beliefs lay a direct effect on the performance of both teachers and learners” (Berry, 2006, p 42)

Individual learner differences such as age, gender, learning styles, or language learning aptitudes have been acknowledged to be among contributory factors mediating the effectiveness of corrective feedback (Rezaei, Mozaffari & Hatef,

2

2011) Particularly, students’ age is attributed to the pedagogical effectiveness of oral corrective feedback (Lyster & Saito, 2010) Given that corrective feedback is provided for the benefit of students, it is worthwhile that teachers are well aware of how and when students at different ages would prefer to be corrected In Vietnam the number of adults studying nonacademic English as a foreign language represents a significant segment of learners in adult education programs Corrective feedback, especially for adult students, is not a simple task since it requires considerable tact as well as sensible decisions on the part of a teacher right after an error in an utterance has been noticed Thus, teachers’ instructional practices of corrective feedback tend

to rely on their pedagogical perspectives (Russell, 2009), as well as their past classroom learning and teaching experiences (Agudo, 2014), while students enter the classroom with a variety of beliefs and expectations (Ellis, 1994) which might clash with those of their teachers Therefore, discovering students’ attitudes towards and preferences for error correction is an essential effort to resolve this dilemma

One of the important study realms on corrective feedback is the exploration of learners’ and teachers’ perceptions which can make significant contributions and improvement to pedagogical practices Han (2002) posited that in communicative language teaching, corrective feedback may significantly enhance the learning process only when the teacher can bridge the gap “between a teacher’s intention and

a student’s interpretation” (p 72), and “between a teacher’s correction and a student’s readiness for it” (p 117) However, the amount of research to date on this respect is surprisingly limited, which creates a serious literature gap needed to be filled (Russell, 2009) The current study, therefore, is motivated by the lack of empirical research comparing the learners’ and teachers’ preferences for English oral corrective feedback in a Vietnamese context

While corrective feedback clearly involves both oral and written discourse, this study mainly focuses on the oral aspect which has been considered to be more challenging for both researchers and teachers in the process of error correction (Ok

3

& Ustaci, 2013) Compared to written one, oral corrective feedback serves a more significant role in providing explanation or clarification for learners to take better notice of their errors, especially in speaking classrooms Oral corrective feedback, for this reason, is well worth investigating in different English contexts so that pedagogical suggestions can be invoked for effective treatment of oral errors

1.2 Statement of the problem

In the context of English teaching and learning at Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in Ho Chi Minh City University of Education with a number of English Communication classes focusing on the four macro-skills, especially speaking ability, oral corrective feedback has played an important role during the process of teaching and learning In a classroom, the teacher is often, if not always, the one guiding students and giving them instructions Students, on the other hand, are also responsible for their own learning However, guidance and feedback are always necessary for students to improve their knowledge and learn further whenever they make oral mistakes or errors Therefore, whether, when, which, how, and by whom errors should be corrected, addressed from the perspectives of both teachers and students in English for Communication classes have been concerned by various educators There still exists a question about whether there is a mismatch between teacher’s beliefs about and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback Therefore, the researcher decided to conduct this study focusing on the teachers’ and students’ perspectives of different ways of giving feedback in the classroom

1.3 The purpose and research questions of the study

The purpose of this study is to investigate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ beliefs about and practices on effective provision of oral corrective feedback This study also aims to investigate the EFL students’ perceptions of effective oral corrective feedback A comparison of what the teacher actually does and what EFL students prefer in connection to the provision of oral corrective error feedback will be also consequently made

4

In order to fulfill the purpose stated above, three research questions are addressed as follows:

1 What are EFL teachers’ beliefs about providing oral corrective feedback in

their communication class?

2 What are EFL students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in their

communication class?

3 Are there any differences between the teachers’ beliefs about and the EFL

students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in communication class?

1.4 Significance of the study

Oral corrective feedback has not applied popularly in teaching and learning English in general and in a communication class specifically in the context of Vietnam and there are a limited number of research studies on teachers’ beliefs about and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback Therefore, if this study is conducted successfully, it is hoped to have a significant contribution to both theoretical and practical aspects

Theoretically, the current research provides both teachers and students of communication classes with an overview about teachers’ beliefs about and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback By reviewing relevant literature, it shapes a theoretical framework including some theoretical stances that advocate oral corrective feedback and an overview of teachers’ beliefs about and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback As a result, it helps both teachers and students reckon the importance of oral corrective feedback as well as shed light on teachers’ beliefs about and students’ preferences for this field

Practically, based on the results of the study, EFL teachers can benefit by taking time to reflect on their experience of oral corrective feedback It is expected that this study can encourage language teachers to become more aware of their own current practices so that they can figure out their own effective ways to give oral

5

corrective feedback Furthermore, the study helps students acknowledge the value of oral corrective feedback in their study As a result, they can be confident in receiving oral feedback from their teacher, peers and even themselves

1.5 Thesis outline

The current chapter, Introduction, presents the general background of the study, the research objectives, research questions, scope, and significance of the study

Chapter 2, Literature Review, provides the theoretical background to this

research by reviewing the areas of interest to the study In specific, a general picture

of types of oral corrective feedback, timing for oral corrective feedback, sources of oral corrective feedback, and error types are depicted in a necessarily detailed way Following that, what related to teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences is vitally mentioned In addition, the chapter provides previous related studies, which play a pivotal role in seeking research gaps to situate the study

The design and method of this study are presented in Chapter 3, Methodology

In specific, this chapter presents the context and population, methodology of data collection, and analytical framework, in addition to other methodological concerns such as the reliability and validity of the instruments Also, the chapter describes how the data will be collected and which tools will be used in the analysis process, and how the data will be presented

Chapters 4 and 5, Data Analysis and Discussion of Findings, provide a comprehensive presentation of data analysis and discussion of the findings of the study obtained from the two tools of questionnaires and interviews

In Chapter 6, Conclusion, and Recommendations, the main findings of the study are precisely summarized Besides, the last chapter evaluates the strengths and

6

weakness of the methodology of the study, reveals the recommendations for teachers and students of English, and offers suggestions for further research

in which the rationale behind a number of decisions made in this study is discussed, thus providing the reader with a bridge into the subsequent chapter

2.1 Definitions of feedback

Feedback is generally accepted as an activity of evaluating others’ performances, which greatly contributes to language education In reality, it is often received when students fulfill their academic tasks, such as assignment, class task, presentation, and essay Academically, it is defined as a process of sharing observations, concerns and suggestions among teachers and students with a purpose

of improving students’ own language performance As what Collines (2013) quoted,

“feedback is a process in which the factors that produce a result are themselves modified, corrected, strengthened, etc by that result” (p 520) or “a response, as one that sets such a process in motion” (Mahdi & Saadany, 2013, p 9) Otherwise, there

is no doubt that feedback is a vital element in language classrooms, in which learners

to get feedback from their teacher; at the same time, a teacher has a responsibility to provide meaningful and effective feedback in the classroom

Among several benefits, feedback is foremost believed to motivate language learners to engage in their learning To put it differently, according to Hattie and

8

Timperly (2007), feedback helps learners to reduce the gap between what is evident currently and what could be the case, which they called “empathy gap” (p 103) From that, language learners improve their skill gradually and their mistakes can be limited

to minimum Also, feedback is a means of facilitating the relationship between teachers and students in the process of teaching and learning It is inferred that feedback is a visible and comprehensible thinking of a teacher on student’s activities

In other words, “strong ripples bouncing in towards the center can in due course bring the whole ripple system into being, and ideally cause learning-by-doing and even create some motivation” (Race, 2001, p 78)

2.2 Strategies and contents

In order to grasp the effectiveness of feedback provision, teachers should take some feedback strategies into consideration Among well-known theorists, Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001) render several dimensions of feedback strategies as follows:

Timing: This dimension illustrates how often and when feedback is given

Feedback would work effectively when it is provided in the appropriate point of time This is an inconclusive question, depending on particular situations For example, Brookhart (2008) pointed that delay feedback was not more comprehensive and did not help learners to enhance their thinking process

Amount: The amount of feedback implies that how much feedback is given

and how many errors are focused on by the teacher on each point Moreover, enough amount of feedback need to be provided for students to help them recognize their errors and know what to do next

Mode: The mode refers to the kind of feedback that is being used (e.g written,

oral or non-verbal) when providing feedback It indicates that feedback should be given in an appropriate way to ensure students’ understanding, usually based on their

9

level For example, for those students who do not read well, oral feedback assists them in understanding better

Audience: This dimension indicates that giving feedback depends on kinds of

learners, such as group learners or individual learner or whole class For example, individual feedback must be more specific for a small group or individual learners but when the whole class seemed to miss the lessons, group feedback is the best choice

Beside the aforementioned dimensions of feedback strategies, contents of feedback are the most important factors which help teachers to decide what should

be said through the given feedback Thus, the teacher must be aware of contents while giving feedback Feedback contents include such features as focus, comparison, function, valence, clarity, specificity and the tone of feedback (Brookhart, 2008; Moss & Brookhart, 2009), specifically:

Focus: The purposes of the focus of feedback are to describe the qualities of

work in target learning, observe learning processes, avoid comments of personal and draw the students’ self-regulation The teacher should only focus on those things which are very important for student learning rather than all things

Comparison: The content of comparison compares students’ task with the

specific criteria and their own past performance

Function: Feedback function is important for student achievement It gives

description and avoids evaluation or judgment on students’ work To give an example, the teacher can identify students’ strengths and weaknesses and also express

the task of students

Valence: The target of feedback valence points out that feedback may be

positive or negative comments

10

Clarity: Feedback must be clear and understandable to the students; it is called

clarity of feedback Teachers should use those words and concepts which are more

understandable to the students; as a result, they can realize what will do for improving themselves and their task

Teachers’ tone or voice: It is an important for teachers to select the appropriate

words when providing feedback for their students Teachers need to consider all the above contents when giving feedback for different purposes It is also noted that students respect the teachers whose feedback is positive and fair

There are several types of feedback commonly used in classroom such as oral feedback and written feedback By definition, verbal feedback can be “oral remarks

of teacher about the adequacy or the correctness of student statements solicited or initiated in the development of subject knowledge” (Zahorik, 1970, p 105) It is recognized that oral feedback is a powerful tool for the students, in which they will listen and reflect on what has been said In fact, teachers usually use some questions and dialogues as keys to make feedback more effective Consequently, students can find out what they already know, identify gaps of knowledge and their learning goal Also, students get comfortable to pose questions and make requests to the teachers through oral feedback With regard to oral feedback types, Noor, Aman, Mustaffa, and Seong (2010) have demystified some types of oral feedback as follows:

Evaluative feedback: This type describes a form of evaluation which includes

typical signals, such as “good”, “very good”, “yes”, “correct”, and “ok”, on the learner’s performance

Repetition: Repetition can serve as a positive way for the teacher to express

agreement, appreciation and understanding It is also considered as negative feedback when oral errors are corrected

11

Interactive feedback: This type is used to modify or elaborate a student’s

answer For example, praises like “yes” and “very good” in interactive feedback are purported to encourage and assist the students so that they do not feel reluctant with the responses

Corrective feedback: Corrective feedback is one kind of negative feedback,

which only occurs when students produce an erroneous utterance

2.3 Concept of corrective feedback

Feedback, as suggested by Lynch (1996), generally entails cognitive feedback which comments on the comprehensibility or accuracy of learner utterances and affective feedback in which the teacher expresses approval or disapproval for what the learner has said Corrective feedback is the term concerning “how competent speakers react to learners’ language errors” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p 38) In classroom settings, corrective feedback is specifically defined as the teacher’s response to a learner utterance which contains language errors so that those errors can

be noticed and corrected Corrective feedback can be provided either in a written or oral form, explicitly or implicitly

Throughout the annals of pedagogical theory, how the teacher responds to student errors has been repeatedly reviewed among principles in various teaching methods In the Grammar-Translation Method, the teacher is directly responsible for giving learners explicit correction The Direct Method, on the other hand, appreciates self-correction and, therefore, the teacher is expected to get students to self-correct

by any means possible In the Audio-Lingual Method, student errors are avoided at all costs and thus, immediate corrective feedback is essential whenever errors occur Errors are most tolerated from the perspective of the Communicative Approach Consequently, there is a general consensus among Communicative Language Teaching practitioners that tolerance of errors should be emphasized in fluency-based

2.3.1 Corrective feedback types

In Lyster and Ranta’s study (1997), six types of feedback employed by the teacher participants were distinguished and discussed in detail They are explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition However, teachers could provide seven types of corrective in senior middle school and university EFL classrooms: Explicit correction, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, and nonverbal signals (Shanshan, 2012) These classifications have been categorized into two categories of reformulations and prompts Recasts and explicit correction belong to reformulation because both of them focus the correct way of saying a certain word or

a sentence whereas prompts refers to a variety of signals Elicitation, meta-linguistic cue, clarification requests and repetition are included in prompts (Mahdi & Saadany, 2013) Table 2.1 below is the description and given examples of the most common strategies of corrective feedback

13

Table 2-1 Corrective feedback strategies (adapted from Lyster & Ranta 1997)

Explicit

correction

The learner is directly informed that his or her answer was incorrect, and then the correct form is provided by the teacher

L: On May

T: Not on May, in May We say, “It will start in May.”

Metalinguistic

feedback

This type of corrective feedback is further subcategorized into metalinguistic comment, information, and questions

L: Yesterday rained T: Yesterday it rained You need to include the pronoun

“it” before the verb

In English we need

“it” before this type

of verb related to weather

Elicitation

Another strategy to provide corrective feedback is elicitation which prompts the learners to self-repair The teacher indicates the learner’s error without explicitly providing the correct form

L: I’ll come if it will not rain

T: I’ll come if it….?

Recasts

The teacher reformulates a part or whole of the learner’s utterance when including the correct form in his/her response Learners are likely to be unaware that they have committed errors nor that their errors are being corrected

L: I went there two times

L: I eated a sandwich T: I EATED a

“Pardon?” or questions including a repetition of the error as in “What do you mean by X?”

L: How many years

do you have? T: Could you say that again?

In order to identify the types of oral corrective feedback which the participants perceive to be effective in language learning, the continuum of corrective feedback

14

types in order of explicitness below will be employed due largely to its rich variety

of corrective feedback strategies, its simplicity and comprehensibility in terms of coding and classification According to this categorization, reformulations including recasts and explicit correction are readily distinguishable from prompts (i.e clarification requests, repetition, elicitation, and metalinguistic clues) by their revelation of correction Some corrective feedback strategies automatically place the burden of correction on the learner, for example, signaling an error by means of a clarification request or by simply repeating the erroneous utterance (Ellis, 2009)

Corrective feedback can also be classified along with the distinction between implicit and explicit types In explicit feedback, the teacher overtly indicates that an error has occurred while in implicit feedback, there is no straightforward indication that what the learner said was incorrect Sheen (2010) taxonomy distinguishes between explicit corrective feedback that provides correct forms (i.e didactic recasts and explicit correction with/without metalinguistic explanation) and explicit corrective feedback that withholds correct forms (i.e metalinguistic clues and elicitation) Figure 2.1 on the next page illustrates corrective feedback types along a continuum that ranges from implicit to explicit, according to the dichotomous distinction between reformulations and prompts

Among the six types of corrective feedback mentioned above, it is evident that the recast is the most common means of oral correction provided to learners, and in fact, is overused by teachers (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) What remains inconclusive is its efficacy compared to other types of feedback The extent to which learners gain benefits in terms of oral accuracy from prompts has been proved to be greater than from recasts (Darabad, 2013) According to Ellis (2009), teacher educators have been understandably reluctant to prescribe or proscribe the strategies that teachers should use In part this is because they are uncertain as to which strategies are the effective

15

Figure 2.1 Taxonomy of corrective feedback strategies (adapted from

Lysteret al., 2010; Milla & Mayo, 2014)

ones But it also almost certainly reflects their recognition that the process of correcting errors is a complex one involving a number of competing factors

To evaluate the effectiveness of a feedback type, according to Lyster and Ranta (1997), learner uptake should be taken into account However, it has been noted lately that uptake is not a reliable indicator with its own constraints The absence of learner immediate uptake in response to the teacher’s feedback might lie behind

“conversational constraints” in teacher-learner interaction (Razaei, Mozaffari & Hatef, 2011) Despite this controversy surrounding the validity of uptake in evaluating corrective feedback efficacy, it is undeniably credible as a signal of learner’s noticing and a good predictor of subsequent learning (Lyster & Mori, 2006)

According to the guidelines for corrective feedback practices proposed by Ellis (2009), it is advisable to prioritize the implicit form of correction so that the learner can try self-correcting before being explicitly corrected by the teacher Moreover, it should be noted that as the level goes up, learners seem to prefer more implicit correction (Genç, 2014) For oral corrective feedback to be effective, learners need to consciously notice that a corrective move is being delivered to them This proposition is corroborated by a recent research (Ok & Ustaci, 2013) which found

Elicitation Repetition

Clarification request

PROMTS

Metalinguistic feedback

REFORMULATIONS

16

that most ELT students preferred their oral grammar errors to be realized and corrected by themselves

2.3.2 The timing of corrective feedback

Instructors must also decide the specific moment for error treatment In other words, they have to decide if errors are to be treated immediately after they are made,

or at the end of the interaction, when the student has already finished expressing his/her ideas The main distinction many instructors make is between fluency and accuracy or, to put it another way, if the activity involves negotiation of meaning or negotiation of form Instructors who practice a focus on meaning instruction and encourage fluency in their classrooms prefer to delay corrective feedback (Mendez

& Cruz, 2012) In the case of delaying the correction until later, there is a further possibility that either corrective feedback is given in front of class after an activity finishes or it is provided for the student individually at the end of class Even though

no general conclusion has been made about the efficacy of immediate and delayed corrective feedback, there exists a strong consensus among many teacher educators

in favor of immediate corrective feedback in accuracy-oriented activities rather than

in fluency-oriented ones (Ellis, 2009)

2.3.3 Corrective feedback providers

Teacher correction is not the one and only source of corrective feedback In fact, oral corrective feedback is not merely confined to teacher responses but it may involve constructive feedback from peers on students’ L2 production and their self-correction as well The three possibilities concerning corrective feedback providers

in the classroom setting are as follows

2.3.3.1 Teacher correction

“The teacher” seem like the most intuitive and obvious answer to the question

“Who should correct learner errors?” Nevertheless, teacher correction is not much

17

advisable in learner-centered classrooms, as learners should be encouraged to correct or provide oral corrective feedback on their peers’ speaking (Ellis, 2009) He favored the two sources of corrective feedback below when emphasizing the learner autonomy

2.3.3.3 Peer correction

Peer correction is possible when learners can give corrective feedback on errors committed by their classmates Méndez and Cruz (2012) pointed out some significant benefits of peer correction, learners are actively involved in the process of error treatment; in such a way, learners become more independent from their teachers

in their language learning; also, peer correction can be seen as indicative of learners acquired linguistic knowledge However, corrective feedback from peers does not attract much interest from learners due to its potential unreliability when compared

to teacher correction In a large-scale investigation involving EFL learners at several Japanese universities to explore their perceptions towards classroom oral error correction, Katayama (2007) found a strong learner preference for teacher correction over peer correction

18

2.3.4 Error types

Errors have been categorized into different types by a number of educators in teaching and learning a second or foreign language Different types of errors have been classified in lexical (word choice), phonological (pronunciation), semantic (meaning), syntactic (grammar), and pragmatic (discourse) errors Chaudron (1977) proposed three categories of errors: firstly, linguistic errors which consist of phonological, morphological, and syntactic errors, secondly, content errors which refer to errors on fact or knowledge, and finally, classroom interaction and discourse errors including speaking in incomplete sentences The third category also complements one of the aspects produced by native speakers of their own language

in which the occurrence of incomplete sentences is normal (Brown & Yule, 1983)

On the contrary, Lyster and Ranta (1997) only emphasized errors made by students in the linguistic category Although errors were classified into only one group, there are numerous aspects of language employed including gender, the use of first language, phonological, syntactic, and lexical errors

Table 2-2 Error types (adapted from Chauron, 1977; Lyster & Ranta, 1997)

Lexical errors Lexical errors involve the wrong word choice in

combination with other words

Discourse errors Discourse errors are used to refer to the incoherence of an

utterance within a certain communicative context

19

2.3.5 The contribution of corrective feedback to communication acquisition

A marked characteristic of oral corrective feedback is that it may or may not

be noticed by the learner There exists more research confirming the facilitative role

of corrective feedback on language accuracy than fluency, and on written errors than oral ones The practice of oral corrective feedback in the teaching of language speaking in communication has generated several studies with contrasting views: those that consider it to be beneficial and those that see it as discouraging and thus, potentially detrimental Most existing research literature so far has advocated the pedagogical effectiveness of corrective feedback in various instructional contexts

A recent study by Sato and Lyster (2012) yielded conflicting findings, suggesting that corrective feedback does not impede, but may have contributed to learners’ fluency development The lack of appropriate feedback is identified as one

of the reasons which accounts for the low motivation on the part of students to take part in classroom tasks involving speaking (Nunan, 1999) Due to the fact that corrective feedback is of paramount importance in learners’ approaching “native-like” competence (Troike, 2006), it should, therefore, become a crucial component

of second language learning pedagogy

2.4 Teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences

2.4.1 Teachers’ beliefs

Over the past thirty years, research has significantly contributed to the study

of teachers’ beliefs, and the interplay between teachers’ beliefs and practices, which

is important to both pre-service and in-service teacher education (Shinde & Karekatti, 2012; Zheng, 2009) Teacher belief is a complicated phenomenon involving various aspects (Khanalizadeh & Allami, 2012); thus, this section makes it clear in terms of its definition and importance on teachers’ instructional choices

20

2.4.1.1 Definitions

Regarding the mainstream education, Yang, Chao and Huang (2014) state that

“teacher beliefs are referred to as a teachers’ knowledge system with respect to language teaching and learning and a network that teacher would tap into when it comes to decision making instruction” (p 71) This definition reflects the relationship between beliefs and practices and posits the need to study teachers’ beliefs in connection to practices Due to the fact that the definition of teacher belief is shady

in the education literature, numerous terms have been employed to conceptualize the term “teacher belief” Borg (2003) names the term “teacher belief” as “teacher cognition” and conceptualizes it by sixteen terms: “knowledge, theories, attitudes, images, assumptions, metaphors, conceptions, perspective about teaching, teachers, learning, students, subject matter, curricula, materials, instructional activities, and self” (p 103) In a nutshell, teacher beliefs are cognitive tools that powerfully affect

or control a teacher’ behaviors, instructional choices, material development, etc

2.4.1.2 Importance

“If learners’ beliefs about language learning are considered important, the beliefs of their teachers about language teaching should also be considered as equally important”, as confirmed by Shinde and Karekatti (2012) White (1999 as cited in Shinde & Karekatti, 2012) claims the role of teacher beliefs on teaching practices by stating that “Beliefs have an adaptive function to help individuals define and understand themselves; beliefs are instrumental in defining tasks and behaviors and teachers’ belief systems are considered a basic source of teachers’ classroom practices” (p 72)

2.4.2 Students’ preferences

As explained by McKenzie (2010), owing to their stability and steadiness, preferences can be identified and measured Preferences contain affective reactions,

21

and can be expressed through verbal and non-verbal processes (Baker, 1992) According to both behaviorist and cognitivist theories, individuals are not born with attitudes; rather, they are learned as a result of socialization (McKenzie, 2010)

From a cognitive perspective, when preferences are stimulated, the responses

of an individual will be affected (McKenzie, 2010) Because attitudes are developed through exposure, they can be stimulated through experience (Good & Brophy, 1990) Furthermore, preferences can have an effect on the psychological needs of individuals McKenzie (2010) explains that, in the language of social psychology, evaluated entities are recognized as attitudinal objects, and include attitudes towards abstract ideas, organizations, events, objects, and other individuals Perloff (2003) claims that some of the examples of attitudes found in the context of language are preferences to variations in a language, preferences within a language and preferences

in learning other languages; thus, according to Bohner & Wanke (2002) preferences can act as factors that determine behavior and that consequently may result in the formation of behavioral routines

Preferences and the learning of a foreign language have a reciprocal relationship In fact, Kara (2009) suggests that preferences are highly influential over language learners For example, Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) and Dörnyei, Csizéz and Németh (2006) explain that preferences towards the target language play a central role in influencing learners’ level of proficiency while Burden (2004) states that learning goals can be achieved through a combination of positive preferences and efforts High achievers tend to develop positive preferences during the process of learning a language, whereas low achievers may become disappointed, and the rate

of their progress in learning may decrease

According to Long (1999), there are three predicaments teachers may face if they fail to consider their students’ preferences First, students may provide insufficient feedback on their learning to their teachers; as a consequence, teachers may not understand the problems faced by their students Second, students may

22

continue learning while continuing to hold negative preferences towards certain practices which may affect their performance, self-esteem and/or future goals Finally, teachers may become incapable of finding appropriate material to fulfill their students’ needs

Oppenheim (1992) explains that an intensely positive preference can produce enthusiasm for particular stimuli in the environment For instance, students who learn foreign languages can have different levels of preference intensity With those who maintain strongly positive preferences towards the target language, it is very likely that we will observe more effort being made to learn the language Such preferences are likely to continue steering the learner’s behavior, have an effect on judgments, and be resilient to change (Perloff, 2003) In this regard, Saracaloglu and Varol (2007) found that there is a significant relationship between foreign language achievement and a preference, in that the more positive the preferences are the greater the achievement is likely to be

2.5 Previous studies and research gap

As mentioned above, there are a plenty of descriptive and empirical studies asserting the significance of corrective feedback to learners’ improvement (Lyster et al., 2010) Nevertheless, a limited proportion of literature has been devoted to comparing learners’ preference for receiving corrective feedback and teachers’ perceptions of providing feedback on oral errors (Russel, 2009) In the preference literature, a majority of research studies have revealed a mismatch between learners’ wish to receive corrective feedback and teachers’ views on providing corrective feedback (Lyster et al., 2013; Sarab et al., 2013); that is to say, the general tendency for learners to value corrective feedback and thus, prefer being corrected is actually greater than most teachers assume

Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) conducted a study which involved eleven undergraduate students and ten experienced EFL teachers to explore and compare

of different correction strategies

Genç (2014) conducted a study whose results indicated that EFL learners at both low and high levels of proficiency opted to be given feedback on their spoken errors With adult EFL learners in the Iranian context of private institutes, Sarab and Naeim (2013) found that learners, in comparison with teachers, held more positive attitudes towards error correction Teachers’ hesitations about providing correction have been attributed to their concerns about the negative effects of corrective feedback on learners’ confidence and motivation

In her investigation on error correction in oral communicative activities, Hoang Thi Phuong Thao (2009) elicited the viewpoints of both teachers and students via questionnaires administered at Youth Foreign Language School She then noticed the conflict between students’ preferences and teachers’ beliefs in three dimensions regarding students’ attitudes towards making errors, the proper timing of error correction, and the choice of correctors However, her study did not cover nor mention a wide range of corrective feedback types

Pursuing similar research objectives, Tomczyk (2013) investigated the distinctions between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of oral corrective feedback using questionnaires and classroom observation Compared to the earlier study by Hoang Thi Phuong Thao, the one conducted by Tomczyk included more options concerning various ways of providing corrective feedback Nonetheless, those techniques were not thoroughly distinguished and comprehensibly presented Hence

24

more research accompanied with a comprehensive coverage of corrective feedback types is needed in this area to help the participants determine which techniques are best to select for oral error correction

Jean and Simard (2011) recently attempted to gather data with high school students and teachers on their beliefs and perceptions about grammar instruction to which corrective feedback was specifically related The answers from the 2321 students together with 45 teachers indicated that ESL students expressed more willingness to have all errors corrected than their teachers did Teachers reported having more inclination to correct oral errors which may affect comprehension negatively or errors related to some essential grammar points However, this was not the study entirely devoted to corrective feedback issues and thus, the inquiry about this field was just confined to learners’ grammatical errors and the frequency of oral corrective feedback which teachers employed in response to those errors

The body of literature representing the related works in the field of teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences in oral corrective feedback has disclosed some inadequacies

In term of research subjects and contexts, very few studies investigating teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences in giving oral corrective feedback have been undertaken in the Vietnamese context This study is, essentially, conducted to extend on the research already completed in the realm of oral corrective feedback provision, particularly in a Vietnamese tertiary context (e.g., Hoang Thi Phuong Thao’s (2009) study)

In reviewing the previous studies, it is noticed that the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their students’ preferences is still open to debate Hence, this kind of relationship should be further studied in other educational contexts, like in Vietnam

25

In term of oral corrective feedback focus, it is a positive sign that most of all studies have taken some aspects such as error types and corrective feedback providers into account However, few studies explored teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences regarding provision of oral corrective feedback in a systematic and somehow adequate way Therefore, when tracing teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences in the area of oral corrective feedback provision, the researcher found it important to take categories of teachers’ belief system into account, including general perceptions, the time, the types, and the providers

as well as ethical issues of the research area

3.1 Research site

This study was conducted at Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in the

Ho Chi Minh City University of Education This branch is located in District 6 Most

of the students here attend different classes ranging from TOEIC, IELTS, TOEFL to communication classes depending on their needs Like other language centers, Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in the Ho Chi Minh City University of Education is well equipped with innovative teaching and learning facilities such as projectors and qualified speakers The center often updates teaching materials as well

as encourages teachers to participate in conferences held by some educational organizations or experts in the field of teaching and learning English in order to help them catch up with the development of teaching and learning approaches At the beginning of each course, a placement test is given to students so that they can attend the class with a right level The final test is also conducted seriously in order to measure learners’ achievement

There are a great number of programs with different purposes at Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in the Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, consisting of English for Communication, English of levels A, B, and C, TOIEC, and

27

IELTS courses The learners who attend the English for Communication course are divided into 3 levels: Elementary, Pre-intermediate, and Intermediate The classes meet three times a week from 5:40 PM to 7:10 PM or 7:20 P.M to 8:50 P.M on Monday, Wednesday and Friday or Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday The teachers in charge of the classes major in English with a BA or MA degree and have at least two- year experience in teaching English for Communication

During the time of data collection, there were about 21 classes of English for Communication with 7 elementary classes, 10 pre-intermediate classes and 4 intermediate classes The pre-intermediate classes of English for Communication course were chosen to participate in this study The first reason for this choice was due to the course objectives which were to help students enhance their communication skills, so the interaction between teacher and students and students and students was paid more attention and oral corrective feedback tended to be more popular in this case The second reason is that the students at this level could use English to communicate in common situations Last but not least, they were also familiar with some common error concepts so they could understand their teachers’

or friends’ correction directly

3.2 Participants

The research sample and target population were identified by using convenience sampling The reason behind utilizing this sampling method by most researchers is that the “participants are willing and available to be studied” (Creswell,

2012, p 67) and that members of the target population meet certain practical criteria like easy accessibility, geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or the willingness to participate (Etikan, Musa & Alkassim 2016)

In connection to this study, six communication classes at Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in the Ho Chi Minh City University of Education were recruited through convenience sampling for the following reasons Firstly, regarding

28

easy accessibility, the researcher is an English teacher in the selected language center Therefore, she could get permission from the Board of Directors to gather data with ease In terms of the willingness and time availability to participate, the one-week duration of completing copies of questionnaire for the teachers and 20 minutes for students made participants willing to answer without any time pressure About geographical condition, as the researcher had been teaching at Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in the Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, she could select the participants of the study in the center for spatial convenience

3.2.1 Students

Data were collected from 82 EFL students who enrolled in 6 classes at intermediate level of English for Communication courses at Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in the Ho Chi Minh City University of Education Each class lasted for 48 periods and met three times a week with the aim to equip learners with essential skills to communicate more efficiently in an international environment Although their central focus was on speaking and listening improvement, learners spent some time on grammar, reading and writing The learner subjects were generally at pre-intermediate level, as determined by entrance and class examinations Thus, those learners chosen as the target participants were supposed to be homogeneous in terms

29

Table 3-1 Demographic characteristics of learner participants

Learner participants’ characteristics Quantity Percentage

As regards learning experience, the striking thing to note from the table was that most

of the learners had studied English for a long time, specifically 68.3% for 5-10 years and 15.9% for over 10 years

3.2.2 Teachers

Contributing to the response community was the participation of 20 teachers

at Branch 4 of the Foreign Language Centre in the Ho Chi Minh City University of Education whose prior language teaching experiences were expected to be at least 2 years Teachers’ responses were of paramount importance as they played a directive role in the feedback practices Their demographic information is summarized in Table 3.2 on the next page

The age profile of the teacher participants ranged from 24 to 48 A majority of the teachers were female (63%) with a large proportion from late twenties to late thirties (average age was 31) At the extremes, one teacher had 2 years of prior language teaching experience, while another teacher had over 16 years All of the