Matches and mismatches between EFL teachers’ and students’ preferences for corrective feedback in english speaking classes a study at a vietnamese university

ABSTRACT This study aimed at examining teachers‟ and students‟ preferences regarding different types of corrective feedback in EFL English as a foreign language speaking classrooms at H

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

Nghiên cứu ở một trường đại học Việt Nam)

M.A COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS (TYPE II)

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

Nghiên cứu ở một trường đại học Việt Nam)

M.A COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS (TYPE II)

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01

Supervisor: Prof Dr Hoàng Văn Vân

DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP

I declare that this thesis and the work in it are my own and has been generated

by me as the result of my own original research entitled “Matches and mismatches between EFL teachers’ and students’ preferences for corrective feedback in English speaking classes: A study at a Vietnamese university.”

4 I have acknowledged all main sources of help;

5 Either none of this work has been published before submission

Hà Nội, 2019

Lưu Thị Hương

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank my thesis supervisor Professor Vân Văn Hoàng of the Centre of Language Education Research, Linguistics and International Studies, VNU University of Languages and International Studies The door to Prof Hoang house was always open whenever I had a question

about my research or writing He consistently allowed this paper to be my own

work and offered me valuable feedback and suggestions

I thank all of teachers and students in Faculty of Foreign Languages, Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 for their contribution to this study

I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents for providing

me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years

of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis This accomplishment would not have been completed without them

Author

Lưu Thị Hương

ABSTRACT

This study aimed at examining teachers‟ and students‟ preferences regarding different types of corrective feedback in EFL (English as a foreign language) speaking classrooms at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2, Vietnam The matches

or mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback are the emphases for this investigation For these purposes, observations, two parallel questionnaires adapted from Katayama (2007) and Smith (2010) and in-depth follow-up interviews were used to gather quantitative and qualitative data from teachers and students Multiple findings pertaining to each research question were revealed Overall, results indicated that while there were some areas of agreement between teachers and students, important mismatches in their opinions did occur Pedagogical implications of the study are discussed

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale of the study 1

1.2 Significance of the study 2

1.3 Scope of the study 3

1.4 Purpose of the study 3

1.5 Method of the study 4

1.6 Key terms and definitions 4

1.7 Structure of the thesis 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Theoretical background 7

2.1.1 Language errors 7

2.1.2 Corrective feedback 12

2.1.3 Oral corrective feedback 15

2.2 Literature review of related studies 19

2.2.1 The studies on teachers and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback 20

2.2.2 The studies on the relationship between teachers‟ practices and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback 24

2.3 Summary 27

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 28

3.1 Conceptual framework 28

3.2 Research method 29

3.2.1 Research design 29

3.2.2 Research setting 30

3.2.3 Research sample 31

3.3 Research instruments 35

3.3.1 Class observation 35

3.3.2 Questionnaires for teachers and students 36

3.3.2 Semi-structured interview with students and teachers 37

3.4 Procedure 38

3.5 Data analysis 40

3.5.1 Quantitative data analysis 40

3.5.2 Qualitative data analysis 41

3.6 Summary 42

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 43

4.1 Findings 43

4.1.1 Oral corrective feedback strategies used by teachers in actual classrooms 43

4.1.2 Students‟ and teachers‟ preferred types of corrective feedback in EFL speaking classrooms 45

4.1.3 Matches and mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback 48

4.1.4 Reasons why students and teachers prefer certain types of corrective feedback 51

4.1.5 Other findings 58

4.2 Discussion 59

4.3 Summary 62

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 63

5.1 Recapitulation of the main ideas 63

5.2 Pedagogical implications for teaching and learning process 64

5.3 Limitations of the study 66

5.4 Recommendations for further work 67

REFERENCES 68 APPENDICES I

APPENDIX A: I APPENDIX B III APPENDIX C IX APPENDIX D XV APPENDIX E XVIII

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES

Table 1 Teachers‟ information and schedules 32

Table 2 Backgrounds of the interviewed students 34

Table 3 Oral corrective feedback codes and item position in the questionnaires 40

Table 4 Frequency of oral corrective feedback in actual class hours 43

Table 5 Teacher‟s preferences for types of oral corrective feedback 45

Table 6 Students‟ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback 47

Table 7 Students‟ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback (SPSS result) 47

Table 8 Students‟ and teachers‟ preferences for corrective feedback 49

FIGURES Figure 1 Qualitative data analysis procedure 41

Figure 2 Students’ and teachers’ preferences for oral corrective feedback 50

No corrective feedback Repetition

Explicit feedback Elicitation

Clarification request Metalinguistic feedback Recast

Paralinguistic signal

1.1 Rationale of the study

In learning and teaching foreign languages context, making errors is an indispensable part of the learning process Coder (1967) argues that errors truly reveal the learner‟s underlying knowledge of the language and at a certain stage they reflect the learners‟ transitional competence Undoubtedly, finely appropriate corrective feedback assists teachers to hamper their learners‟ errors from getting fossilized and help them get progress along their interlanguage continuum The correction of learners‟ errors, hence, has also been a crucial part of language acquisition

A number of empirical studies have been carried out to find out the effectiveness of giving feedback to students Rydahl (2005) conducted a study

to investigate if and how teachers in upper secondary schools use oral feedback

as an important tool to help students achieve higher proficiency in a second and foreign language Gass and Selinker (2008) suggested that “in any learning situation, not all humans are equally motivated to learn languages, nor are they equally motivated to learn a specific language.” (p 165) Thus, teachers should

be sensitive to students‟ attitudes to language, particularly to error correction although it might be argued that learners‟ preferences may not be what is actually best for acquisition (Truscott, 1996) Moreover, teachers need to know learners‟ opinions because a mismatch between students‟ expectations and realities in the classroom can hinder improvement in language acquisition

However, in reality, for most language teachers, there is a controversy with respect to the best ways to deal with students‟ errors There are language teachers who attempt to correct all of their students‟ errors while others only focus on correcting errors that are directly related to the topic being addressed

in a particular lesson, or errors that inhibit communication Others might ignore students‟ mistakes because they think correcting could interrupt the flow of the class From my personal experiences and observations, the author has recently realized that the teachers seem not to pay attention to what students actually think and want about error correction in the teaching and learning process Students themselves might want to be heard from teachers to build a friendly, comfortable and cooperative learning environment Besides, the teacher-centered approach seems to be dominated in which teaching techniques seem

to follow the one size fits all patterns As a result, students‟ learning progress has been affected, especially in speaking domain Thus, the author is motivated

to carry out a study on teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback at a Vietnamese university

1.2 Significance of the study

It cannot be denied that error correction is a crucial part of getting progress in learning Without acknowledging mistakes finely, students may repeat the wrong patterns and build a bad habit that might not be fixed in the future This might lead to long-term effects As stated in the research, this study is targeting all the parties involved in the process of giving and receiving corrective feedback It would offer a general view of teachers‟ corrective feedback preferences given to students‟ speaking performances and students‟ corrective feedback preferences By comparing students‟ preferences with teachers‟, teachers are encouraged to find out their own ways of delivering oral corrective feedback to their learners

1.3 Scope of the study

It is clear that corrective feedback consists of two forms, written and oral ones, though it is impossible to cover these two forms Moreover, it is challenging to cover corrective feedback on students‟ four skills performances Therefore, this study narrows down only to oral corrective feedback on students‟ speaking performances Given the scope of the study, the data are only collected from 138 students and 5 lecturers through observations of English lessons, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews in regard to the limit of time and unavailability

1.4 Purpose of the study

The author carries out this study to aim at examining teachers‟ and students‟ preferences regarding different types of corrective feedback in EFL speaking classrooms at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 (HPU2), Vietnam In order to figure out results, the researcher observed 5 classes to identify the currently implemented corrective feedback strategies that are preferred by HPU2‟s teachers Additionally, the study examines the students‟ and teachers‟ differences in preferences regarding corrective feedback strategies The matches or mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral

corrective feedback are the emphases for this investigation

This study was conducted in an attempt to find answers for the following questions:

1 What oral corrective feedback do teachers actually give on students‟ speaking in EFL speaking classrooms?

2 What types of corrective feedback do students and teachers in EFL speaking classrooms prefer?

3 To what extent do the teachers‟ oral corrective feedback match the students‟ preferences?

1.5 Method of the study

This study employed a mixed methods design Classroom observation, questionnaire, and interview were employed as the instruments of data collection Data were then analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively by means

of descriptive statistics to identify the patterns of corrective feedback exploited

by the observed teachers as well as teachers and students‟ preferences towards certain types of corrective feedback The reasons for their preferences were also discussed

1.6 Key terms and definitions

Preferences

Hausman (2005, p 33-35; 2012, p 1-3) convincingly argues that preferences are not to be defined in terms of (1) self-interest or expected advantage, (2) desires, likings or enjoyment comparisons or (3) actual or hypothetical choices Instead, preferences – as most economists use the term – are best defined as total comparative evaluations and hence as rankings of alternative choice options in terms of all considerations that the person finds relevant (Hausman, 2005, p 37-38; 2012, p 3-4)

Practice

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2000), practice is the habitual doing or carrying out of something; usual or customary action of performance; action as opposed to profession, theory, knowledge, etc

Scribner and Cole (1981) define practice as “a recurrent goal-directed sequence of activities using a particular technology and particular systems of knowledge.” (as cited in Miller & Goodnow, 1995, p 235)

In sum, practices are actions that are repeated, shared with others in a social group, and invested with normative expectations and with meanings or significances that go beyond the immediate goals of the action

Error

George (1972) proposed that errors are “unwanted forms by the teacher

or course designer,” (p 2) or “negative influences in the process of learning”

(Ringbom 1986, p 71) An error is a linguistic form that is different from the

nature of current norms or facts

Feedback

Hattie and Timperly (2007) define feedback as “information provided by agent regarding aspects of one‟s performance or understanding.” (p 81) Therefore, it is an indispensable tool for improving the teaching and learning of speaking, by providing information to students on oral performances

Corrective feedback

Yang and Lyster (2010) defined corrective feedback as “a reactive type

of form-focused instruction which is considered to be effective in promoting noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning.” (p 237)

Oral corrective feedback

Oral corrective feedback focuses on corrective feedback on students‟ speech with an indication of error committed

1.7 Structure of the thesis

The study has been organised around five chapters as follows

Chapter 1 – Introduction, examines the rationale, objectives, scope, methods, the research questions, and structure of the study aiming at appealing the readers to the thesis

Chapter 2, Literature review, begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research and looks at definitions of several key terms and important previous studies related to the current research

Chapter 3, Methodology, describes the subjects, research instruments, employed methods, data collection procedures, and data analysis applied to conduct this study

Chapter 4, Findings and discussion, provides answers to the research questions raised at the beginning and some discussions about the collected results

Chapter 5 – Conclusion, recapitulates the main findings of the research along with major pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the literature on the current research will be discussed in regard to the theoretical background and related studies It begins with the key concepts of errors and oral corrective feedback which guides and plays as the foundation for this research thesis to base on in the process of conducting the whole research Then an overview of related studies will serve to reveal the research gap and justifying the aims of the present paper

2.1 Theoretical background

2.1.1 Language errors

2.1.1.1 Definitions of language errors

To start with, the term „error‟ will be defined from different points of view in order to be able to distinguish it from mistakes

Regarding the field of English Teaching Methodology, various definitions of errors can be found According to Brookes, errors are “Like sin, error is to be avoided as its influence overcome.” (quoted from Ellis, 1985, p.22) George (1972) proposed that errors are “unwanted forms by the teacher

or course designer,” (p 2) or “negative influences in the process of learning” (Ringbom 1986, p 71) One of the most notable definitions of error is the one created by Lennon (1991), who included the native speaker norm into the definition He proposed that an error is “a linguistic form or combination of forms which in the same context and under similar conditions of production would, in all likelihood, not be produced by the speakers‟ native speakers counterparts.” In language teaching and learning scope, error has always been regarded as something negative which must be avoided As a consequence, teachers have always adopted a repressive attitude towards it However, it was considered to be a sign of inadequacy of the teaching techniques and on the other hand, it was seen as a natural result of the fact that since by nature we

cannot avoid making errors, we should accept the reality and try to deal with them This is supported by Corder (1967) cited by Ellis (2008) as he defines an error as a deviation in learner language which results from a lack of knowledge

of the correct rules Corder shows how information about errors could be helpful to the teachers, researchers, and students and errors are now seen as reflections of a learner‟s stage of „interlanguage‟ development It is also an indicator of the natural progress of learning the second language Similarly, Chaudron (1986, quoted by Allwright and Bailey, 1991, p 86) suggested that

an error is:

1) “linguistic forms or content that differ from native speaker norms or facts, and

2) any other behaviour signaled by the teacher as needing improvement.”

Similarly, Brown (1980, p 165) says that errors refer to a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, which reflects the inter-language communication of the learners Learners usually do not recognize it, and cannot correct it

It is interesting to note that these definitions are proposed mostly based

on the native speaker language norms However, it is apparent that the definitions created in such a way might be no promising for the current teaching and learning state Obviously, English is so widely spoken and it has often been referred to as a “world language” or “World Englishes.” However, most of English educators are not native speakers of English This means that students are permanently exposed to the nonnative language model, so the language used in the classrooms might be different from the native speaker norms

Clearly, mistake and error are often misunderstood then it is important to differentiate mistake and error Mistake and error have different meanings though they both exist in the learning process Mistakes are performance phenomena, and are of course regular features for the native speaker‟s speech, reflecting processing failures that arise as a result of competing plans, memory limitations, and lack of automaticity (Richards, 1974, p 47) Sharing the same ides, Hornby (1989) refers a mistake to a performance error that is either random on a slip of the tongue in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly (Brown, 1980, p 134) The students cannot correct their mistakes by themselves According to Ellis, errors reflect gaps in learners‟ knowledge They occur because the learner does not know what is correct While mistakes reflect occasional lapses in performance, they occur because the learner is unable to perform what he or she knows (Ellis, 1997, p 17) The definition above shows that mistake is a fault that is made by the learner, and they can make a correction Meanwhile, an error is a fault that is made by the learner, and he or she is unable to make a correction

In short, an error is a linguistic form that is different from the nature of current norms or facts It has been found that while acquiring the first language; people produce numerous errors, which are accepted as a natural and necessary part of language development Foreign language learning is more or less similar to first language learning Thus, errors need to be studied with great importance

2.1.1.2 Classifications of language errors

In reference to the typology of errors, there are several propositions Touchie (1986) mentioned two types of errors: performance errors and competence errors Performance errors are those made by learners when they are tired or hurried Normally, this type of error is not serious and can be

overcome with little effort by the learner Competence errors, on the other hand, are more serious than performance errors since competence errors reflect inadequate learning

Other researchers (cf Burt and Kiparsky 1974) distinguish between local and global errors Local errors do not hinder communication and understanding the meaning of an utterance Global errors, on the other hand, are more serious than local errors because global errors interfere with communication and disrupt the meaning of utterances Local errors involve noun and verb inflections, and the use of articles, prepositions, and auxiliaries Global errors, for example, involve wrong word order in a sentence

Lyster & Ranta (1997) pointed out three main types of errors: grammatical, phonological and lexical errors The first type of error includes non-target use of closed classes such as determiners, prepositions and pronouns, grammatical gender, tense, verb morphology, auxiliaries, subject-verb agreement, pluralisation, negation, question formation, relativisation, and word order Phonological errors are the inaccurate pronunciation of words that often lead to difficulty in comprehension of the target words Lexical ones include inaccurate, imprecise or inappropriate choices of lexical items in open classes (nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives), non-target derivations of nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives involving incorrect use of prefixes and suffixes

2.1.1.3 Sources of language errors

There are two sources of errors namely inter-lingual errors and lingual errors Richards (1974, p 35) states that inter-lingual errors are errors caused by the interference of the learner‟s mother tongue Errors of this nature are frequent, regardless of the learner‟s language background Therefore, interlingual errors are caused by interference from the native language to the target language that they learn Before someone masters the concept of the

intra-target language they will always use the concept of their native language This kind of error is called inter-lingual errors The other kind of error is intra-lingual errors According to James (1998, p 183), the less the learner knows about the target language, the more he is forced to draw upon any other prior knowledge he possesses It is mostly because the learners do not know much about the target language

Intra-lingual errors can be classified into four categories:

1) Overgeneralisation

Overgeneralisation addresses items that are constructed in the grammar

of the language It leads to an overindulgence of one member of a set of forms,

and the underuse of others in the set, for example, “he is walks quickly” instead

of “he walks quickly.”

2) Ignorance of rule restriction

In this case, the learner fails to recognize the restriction of existing

structures, for instance, “I enjoy to learn about English language.” It is better

to change „to learn about‟ with the word „learning.‟

3) Incomplete application of rules

In this kind of intra-lingual error, we may note the occurrence of structures whose deviancy represents the degree of development of the rules

required to produce acceptable utterances It can be seen in this example: “He

opening the door.” The verb ending “-ing” cannot stand by itself It needs „to

be‟ to be changed in order to make the sentence acceptable

4) False concept hypothesized

This intra-lingual error is sometimes called a semantic error It is the incorrect comprehension of distinction in the target language These particular errors are usually the result of poor gradation of teaching

in this way a teacher can direct the learner‟s attention which can help him to improve Hattie and Timperly (2007) define feedback as “information provided

by agent regarding aspects of one‟s performance or understanding.” (p 81) Therefore, it is an indispensable tool for improving the teaching and learning of speaking, by providing information to students on oral performances Sheen (2011, p 32) argues that feedback should be provided regardless of whether the learner‟s response is correct or incorrect An example of positive feedback

is a teacher saying “Good job!” on a learner‟s speaking performances

Hence, feedback refers to advice or information about how good or useful something or somebody‟s work is People making errors base on feedback to try to fix or correct themselves Regarding English Language Teaching, feedback may be defined as a teacher‟s response to the learners‟ utterances and does not necessarily have to be negative

2.1.2.2 Definition of corrective feedback

Different definitions of corrective feedback have been provided According to Chaudron (1977), error correction is simply defined as “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to or demands improvement of the learner‟s utterance.” Whether systematic, consistent or effective the teacher‟s reaction is to errors, corrective feedback has been widely defined as: “…The teacher‟s response to a student error.” (Dekeyser, 1993) Along this line of thought, Lightbown and Spada (1999, p 171) define corrective feedback as “any indication to the learners that their use

of the target language is incorrect.” Sharing the same ideas with Chaudron (1977) and Lightbown and Spada (1999), Ellis et al (2006) have defined it as

“responses to learner‟s utterances containing an error.” Long states that corrective feedback provides evidence that cannot be found in the output and that learners highly benefit from it (as cited in Kim, 2004) Corrective feedback refers to “responses to a learner‟s non-target-like L2 production” (Li, 2010, p 309) Yang and Lyster (2010) defined corrective feedback as “a reactive type

of form-focused instruction which is considered to be effective in promoting noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning.” (p 237) Therefore, corrective feedback is the reaction of the teacher or peers to the erroneous utterance of the learner, when this reaction involves attention to language forms and a corrective intention When the learners‟ output contains an error, the teacher uses a variety of corrective feedback moves to respond to these errors, focusing

on form in this incidental way

In short, corrective feedback is an indication to the learner that his or her use of the target language is incorrect and his or her error should be corrected

2.1.2.3 The role of corrective feedback

When it comes to error correction, it specifies correcting both oral and written errors This study, though, is particularly concerned with the correction

of oral errors

The role of corrective feedback has become a controversial issue among many linguists, language educators and researchers Traditionally, researchers insisted on the limited function of corrective feedback Some authors imply that teachers should not correct students‟ errors Research has also revealed the benefits of corrective feedback in oral interaction: learners‟ noticing of problematic forms and restructuring IL (Gass, 1997; Schmidt & Frota, 1986); opportunity to modify output and test hypotheses, “automatization of existing knowledge, as well as syntactic processing (Swain, 1985, 1995) Truscott (1996) provides an in-depth investigation against giving oral correction on grammatical points He lists some difficulties teachers and students face including the ability to identify errors with ambiguity, to evaluate intended meaning accurately, and to deal with error within the context in an appropriate way The advocates of this argument include Allwright (1975) and Fanselow (1977) However, Lyster (1997), Lightbrown and Spada (1999) disapprove of Truscott‟s debate They claim strong support for the provision of oral corrective feedback It is important to note that although some authors tried to discourage teachers from correcting oral and written errors, recent literature has shown that it is not only positive but even necessary to provide learners with negative evidence after an oral error

It can be said that, in EFL classrooms, error correction is an integral aid for teachers to help students correct their errors to hinder incorrect forms from becoming fixed Corrective feedback can have both positive and negative impacts The positive impact will appear if the corrective feedback is given

correctly by the lecturer and negative impact will appear if corrective feedback

is given incorrectly by the instructors Corrective feedback can increase students‟ motivation in learning English if teachers give it in an appropriate way Sometimes when teachers correct students‟ errors excessively it will decrease students‟ motivation in learning To avoid that, teachers need to know learners‟ preferences toward oral error corrective feedback, in order to reach the objectives in teaching English

In summary, the crucial role of oral corrective feedback in the language teaching and learning process cannot be denied

2.1.3 Oral corrective feedback

2.1.3.1 Definition of oral corrective feedback

Regarding the definitions of oral corrective feedback, there are several propositions

Mackey, Gass and McDonough (2000); Nishita (2004) cited by Yoshida (2008) have classified errors for corrective feedback such as morphosyntactic (word order, tense, conjugation, and articles are used incorrectly), phonological errors (mispronounced words), lexical errors (inappropriate use of vocabularies) and semantic and pragmatic errors (misunderstanding a learner‟s utterance) Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) state that oral corrective feedback

“takes the form of responses to learner utterances that contain error(s) The responses can consist of (a) an indication that an error has been committed, (b) provision of the correct target language form, or (c) metalinguistic information about the nature of the error, or any combination of there.” (as cited in Méndez

& Cruz, 2012, p 64) This definition is in agreement with Lyster et al (2013,

p 1) as they described oral corrective feedback as the teachers‟ responses to learners‟ erroneous utterances On the other hand, corrective feedback indicates only correction of errors (Fungula, 2013, p 3) Therefore, oral corrective

feedback is believed to play an important role in developing the accuracy of student‟s speech

In general, oral corrective feedback focuses on corrective feedback on students‟ speech with an indication of error committed

2.1.3.2 Types of oral corrective feedback

While a variety of classifications of the oral corrective feedback have been suggested, classification suggested by Lyster and Ranta who classified it into six kinds can be seen as preeminent They are:

- Repetition This kind of corrective feedback requires a change in the

lecturer‟s intonation with a repetition of the students‟ error to draw student‟s attention to indicate that there is a problem This technique is demonstrated in the following example

Example 1:

S: On Tet holiday,I often visiting my relatives

T: Visiting?

S: Visit

- Elicitation This correction technique prompts learners to self-correct It

involves eliciting the correct form from the student by asking question(s) There are at least three techniques that lecturer uses to directly elicit the correct form from the student: (a) lecturer uses open questions to elicit correct forms

“What do we say to someone who helps us?” (b) “elicit completion,” lecturer pauses to allow the students to complete lecturer‟s utterance and (c) lecturer asks students to reformulate the utterance Examples 2, 3, 4 clarify each subcategory respectively

Example 2:

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

S: No money

T: What‟s the word?

Some S: Five… Four

T: What‟s the word… in a fast food restaurant?

S: I‟ll go out if it will not rain

T: Can you say that again?

- Clarification request Lyster and Ranta (1997) referred this technique as feedback from the teacher trying to ask what the speaker meant by the error

or What did you say?” It is indicated if student‟s utterance has been misunderstood by the lecturer or instructor

- Recast This technique has been referred to as the most common in teachers‟

correction It is generally implicit because in this case, it does not show

expressions like “Oh, you mean .”, “You should say .” However, recast is more salient than others in that they may focus on one word only Recast is when the lecturer repeats the utterance and replaces the error with the correct form without directly pointing out that the student‟s utterance was incorrect Example 6:

S: She win the one prize

T: Yeah, she did She won the first prize in this contest

As we can see in this example, recast consists of the repetition of the erroneous utterance but repairing the error, this is, providing the target form This is by far the most frequently used corrective feedback type, not only in classrooms but also in natural settings as it occurs in conversations among non-native speakers and native speakers or with other of the language (Long,1983)

- Metalinguistic feedback Like recast and clarification request, no explicit

correct forms are provided in this corrective practice It contains comments, information, or question-related to the correct form of student‟s utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form

Example 7:

S: There are an apple on the table

T: There are is used for the plural noun

S: There is an apple on the table

According to Lyster & Ranta (1997:47), metalinguistic comments generally indicate that there is an error somewhere Sharing the same idea, Nassaji & Fotos (2011) stated: “Metalinguistic cues can be related to the nature or the location of the error.”

- Explicit correction refers to the explicit provision of the correct form As the

lecturer provides the correct form, he or she indicates that what the student had

said was incorrect (e.g “Oh, you mean .”, “You should say .”) Attached with a correction is an indication of the mistake the students have made

The researcher combined Lyster & Ranta‟s model (1997) (i.e.: explicit correction, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition), and Yao in Méndez et al (2010) (i.e.: body language) for collecting data on types of corrective feedback that students and teachers prefer Of course, the characteristics of students and the class were the main consideration for choosing the types of correction that put in questionnaires, interview guides, and observation guides For that reason, the author referred to seven types of error correction to be investigated in this research They are 1) Repetition, 2) Explicit correction, 3) Elicitation, 4) Clarification request, 5) Metalinguistic feedback, 6) Recast, 7) Paralinguistic signal Moreover, since the previous findings were done in different settings of research, there was a chance that this research revealed other types of error correction besides those seven types They are considered as findings and the reasons need investigating

as well

To sum up, there are several types of corrective feedback that teachers might use However, it is likely that not all of them are used in all contexts; some of them are frequently employed while others rarely appear The frequency of each type of feedback can be seen in chapter 4

2.2 Literature review of related studies

Thanks to undeniable influence on successful language acquisition, oral corrective feedback, hence, have gained a great deal of attention from instructors and researchers worldwide A large body of research papers, thesis, and articles concerning oral corrective feedback practice and preferences has been introduced The following section sheds a light on studies worldwide as well as one in Vietnam

2.2.1 The studies on teachers and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback

2.2.1.1 Studies on teachers’ oral corrective feedback strategies

A number of studies have been carried out to find out teachers‟ preferences of giving oral corrective feedback

Ahangari & Amirzadeh (2011) uses a database of 360 corrective feedback moves which two EFL teachers provided to their learners at three levels of proficiency (elementary, intermediate and advanced) The results indicated that recast was the most frequently used type of corrective feedback

by the teachers at all three levels of proficiency This finding corroborates Nhạc‟s (2011) one who carried out a case study which makes use of classroom observation as the main method of data collection with a view to finding out the patterns of teachers‟ corrective feedback and their impact on students‟ uptake in English speaking lessons of legal English major students at Hanoi Law University She found out that recast was the most commonly used feedback type while the most successful feedback, namely meta-linguistic feedback, clarification request and elicitation, which led to students‟ generated repair, were used at a much lower rate by teachers Méndez & Cruz (2012) use

a semi-structured interview and a questionnaire to identify the perceptions of instructors of English as a foreign language about corrective feedback and its actual practice in their classrooms Clearly, the results show that unfocused oral corrective feedback and implicit strategies are predominant in practice Đinh (2013) conducted a study to reveal teachers‟ practice in giving feedback She uses observations, questionnaire and semi-structured interviews to collect data The participants were four teachers and they tended to use recast, repetition and metalinguistic feedback in their actual classrooms The main limitation of her study is that she did not take teachers‟ preferences into

account Nguyễn (2014) aimed to help students to overcome some pronunciation problems so she examines the effects of teachers‟ use of explicit feedback She claimed profound assistance of explicit feedback However, this study fails to address why teachers prefer to use explicit feedback on students‟ performances Motlagh (2015) explores Iranian EFL teachers‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback A questionnaire was distributed to 62 EFL Iranian teachers and 43 teachers used the same type of corrective feedback for all error types, and that they preferred implicit types of corrective feedback over the explicit ones These findings are in line with Méndez & Cruz‟s (2012) outcomes In order to discover the real practice of language instructors in their language classrooms, Saliana Sawaluddin and Tajuddin (2017) observed 16 hours of class As the results revealed, even the language teachers frequently used explicit correction and recast in providing corrective feedback, they also tend to vary their types of corrective feedback to the students In Amin‟s (2017) study, 42 Iranian EFL teachers from some private language institutes and 39 Iranian EFL teachers from different schools in Shiraz, Iran participated The results revealed that the school teachers preferred the repetition approach most frequently followed by clarification request, elicitation, explicit correction, and recast

It can be said that most of the aforementioned studies focus on teachers‟ preferences toward oral corrective feedback, however, they did not state the reasons why teachers choose certain ways of giving feedback

2.2.1.2 Studies on students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback

Students‟ preferences for particular types of oral corrective feedback have been broadly discussed

Learners demonstrated strong preferences for recast and metalinguistic corrective feedback in the study of Kaivanpanah et al (2012) In contrast, in

Lee‟s (2013) study, certain learners linked clarification request with their teachers‟ lack of attention; others disliked metalinguistic corrective feedback, regarding it as beyond their proficiency Therefore, they expressed that these corrective feedback disagreements may cause classroom embarrassment and discouragement for their further conversations in class The student respondents most preferred to receive explicit and immediate corrections in the middle of their conversations and during teacher-student interactions The authors assumed the results of the latter study were accounted for by the dominant position of teachers in Iranian classrooms and learners‟ familiarity with each other In Faqeih‟s (2015) study, learners‟ preferences for error correction, the interactional activities, and the different types of corrective feedback were clearly indicated The recast turned out to be the most preferred type The results also suggested the significant role of learners‟ attitudes in mediating language accuracy Aranguiz & Espinoza (2016) find out that Chilean teachers use corrective feedback strategies to correct pronunciation, vocabulary, grammatical and content errors Also, there is a tendency of Chilean teachers to use explicit correction as the most frequent strategy In terms of effectiveness, most of the corrective feedback provided followed repair from the learner Among the most effective corrective feedback strategies, they could find repetition, elicitation, clarification request and metalinguistic feedback The detailed analysis of around 128 hours of classroom interactions in Shirkhani & Tajeddin‟s (2016) study showed that explicit correction was the most frequent corrective feedback type, accounting for 48.5 percent of all corrective feedback types provided, and recast was the second most frequently used corrective feedback type, constituting 29.5 percent of all corrective feedback types The study suggests that teachers prefer explicit corrective strategies over implicit ones and that they provide corrective

feedback mainly to correct pronunciation errors They also suggest that there is

a need for change in the types of corrective feedback teachers use and the relative attention they assign to different linguistic error types they treat through corrective feedback Ölmezer-Öztürk & Öztürk (2016) examined the perceptions and preferences of EFL learners regarding the types and timings of oral corrective feedback They concluded that learners perceived recast and clarification request as ambiguous whereas they thought that metalinguistic feedback was anxiety-provoking and difficult to comprehend However, students perceive explicit correction quite positively, and they think that explicit correction, as a feedback strategy provided by the teacher, not only shows the erroneous parts clearly but also presents a good explanation regarding the error Ananda et al (2017) carried a study to find out kinds of oral error corrective feedback which students prefer and the results reveal that repetition becomes the most wanted kind of oral error corrective feedback which students prefer Along with this line, Dea et al (2017) use a qualitative approach and the subjects of this research are 76 students of English Department of Lambung Mangkurat University in batch 2015 By using total sampling technique, the subjects are given a questionnaire to conduct the data The result shows repetition becomes the most wanted kind of oral error corrective feedback which students prefer

By far, few studies have taken students‟ opinions into account though student-centered interaction is being emphasized in the current teaching and learning process

2.2.2 The studies on the relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback

Reported by the studies comparing students‟ and teachers‟ corrective feedback preferences, there have been considerable discrepancies and mismatches between the views of the two groups

Han & Jung (2007) conducted a study to explore patterns of corrective feedback and repair according to students‟ English proficiency level, consistencies and discrepancies in preferences by students and teachers The combination of student and teacher preferences for error correction reveals interesting discrepancies However, the authors offer no explanation for the distinction between student and teacher preferences Yoshida (2008) uses audio recordings of the classes and a stimulated recall interview with each participant

to explore teachers‟ choice and learners‟ preference for corrective feedback types in Japanese as a foreign language classroom through The findings indicated that teachers chose recast because of the time limitation of classes and their awareness of learners‟ cognitive styles They also chose corrective feedback types such as elicitation or metalinguistic feedback when they regarded the learners who made erroneous utterances as being able to work out correct forms on their own Most of the learners preferred to have an opportunity to think about their errors and the correct forms before receiving correct forms by recast Another study investigates the patterns of corrective feedback and learner repair present in advanced-level adult EFL classrooms and examines both teacher and student preferences regarding that feedback (Lee, 2013) The results reveal that the most frequent type of corrective feedback was recast, which generated 92.09% learner repair Moreover, in-depth follow-up interviews with students indicate the discrepancies between their preferences and the actual classroom feedback given These findings

corroborated Saeb‟s (2017) findings He explores Iranian EFL teachers‟ and students‟ perceptions and preferences for different amounts and types of oral corrective feedback The author uses two parallel questionnaires to gather quantitative and qualitative data from 28 teachers and 68 of their students Results revealed significant differences between teachers‟ and students‟ perceptions about the amounts and types of corrective feedback and also about different types of errors to be corrected One of the limitations of this study is that it does not explain why teachers and students prefer certain types of corrective feedback Therefore, there was a gap between teachers‟ use of corrective feedback and learners‟ expectations

Obviously, extensive research has been carried out on oral corrective feedback However, these results were based upon data from over 10 years ago and it is unclear if these discrepancies still persist It can be noted that the research to date has tended to focus on teachers‟ opinions and preferences However, few writers have been able to draw on any structured research into the opinions and preferences of students Another gap is that most studies in the field of oral corrective feedback have been based on classroom observations, no significant differences between what teachers do in the classroom to handle errors and what they believe they prefer have been clearly highlighted Given the limited knowledge regarding errors and error correction, there is a likelihood that teachers themselves are unaware of how they deal with students‟ errors or about the most effective and appropriate techniques to address students‟ errors Moreover, there certainly seems to be a gap between what students and teachers believe to constitute effective and useful types of corrective feedback Such conflict of ideas may cause problems for the process

of language learning and teaching As Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) stated, if the type or amount of feedback provided for the students does not match what

they prefer and expect, it may not be useful to them Clearly, a finely tuned corrective feedback, therefore, can help both teachers and students better obtain the process of language learning and teaching Another important research gap regarding corrective feedback is that the majority of research on feedback on second language classrooms has been conducted in the context of English as a Second Language classrooms (Lyster & Panova, 2002) Unfortunately, few studies have been conducted about how tertiary EFL learners respond to different kinds of teachers‟ corrective feedback The situation is similar in Vietnam where this research branch seems to be unattractive to researchers It has been difficult to identify documented studies

on the relationship between teachers‟ and learners‟ preferences for corrective feedback which is conducted on Vietnamese university EFL English major students

Such aforementioned gaps have been the motivation for the researcher to bridge with her current paper She desires to explore and compare Vietnamese students‟ and teachers‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback in EFL speaking classroom context in the present study Importantly, how errors are dealt with in EFL classrooms is focused It is assumed here, as suggested in Corder (1967), that error correction is not only significant but also necessary in foreign language acquisition This study looks at techniques used by EFL teachers to correct different errors Through questionnaires, the teachers‟ and students‟ preferences towards corrective feedback are shown The study additionally tries to examine the reasons for choosing certain ways in which teachers address their students‟ errors and the students‟ reasons for preferring certain types of oral corrective feedback

2.3 Summary

This chapter provides a brief understanding of language errors, feedback, and oral corrective feedback It also indicates the discussions of teachers‟ practice in giving oral corrective feedback and students‟ and teachers‟ preferred types There have been many works conducted in the area

of corrective feedback in EFL classrooms; however, researchers still debate the questions of the matches and mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferred types of oral corrective feedback From the light of the above mentioned theoretical background of corrective feedback in general and oral corrective feedback in specific, the research concerning particular students‟ and teachers‟ preferred types of oral corrective feedback will be described and analyzed specifically in the next chapters

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter is designed with a view to mapping out the ways to conduct the whole study It comprises of following parts: (1) conceptual framework, (2) research methods, (3) research instruments, (4) procedure and (5) data analysis

3.1 Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is linked with the concepts, empirical research and important theories used in promoting and systemizing the knowledge espoused by the researcher (Peshkin, 1993) Miles and Huberman (1994:18) opine that conceptual frameworks can be „graphical or in a narrative form

showing the key variables or constructs to be studied and the presumed

relationships between them.‟ It presents an integrated way of looking at a problem under study (Liehr & Smith, 1999) Thus, it will give the author the right track to trace the answers to a problem under investigation A conceptual framework is a structure which the researcher believes can best explain the natural progression of the phenomenon to be studied (Camp, 2001) It is the researcher‟s explanation of how the research problem would be explored In a statistical perspective, the conceptual framework describes the relationship between the main concepts of a study Interestingly, it provides a common worldview or lens from which to support one‟s thinking about the problem and analysis of data (Grant & Osanloo, 2014) Thus, the framework makes it easier for the researcher to easily specify and define the concepts within the problem

of the study

As acknowledging the importance of a conceptual framework, the author tried to build it for my own study It is an attempt to identify the nature and purpose of this study

As the diagram reveals, the author will try to find out teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback in English speaking classrooms It‟s a proposal of the researcher‟s answer to the research problem she has defined There must be some matches and mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback From these similarities and discrepancies, the author will suggest some implications for the teaching and learning process

3.2 Research method

3.2.1 Research design

In the present study, based on the students‟ and teachers‟ views, the complete corrective feedback strategies that are preferred by HPU2‟s learners and teachers, and the matches or mismatches between their preferences were analyzed Following Tashakkori & Teddlie‟s (1998) guideline, the present study employed a mixed methods design which involved the collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of

Teachers‟

preferences for oral

corrective feedback

Students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback

Pedagogical implications for teaching

and learning

Matche

s or Mismat ches

qualitative data

The study data were obtained by using a quantitative research approach that involved analyzing the quantitative data obtained via questionnaires that offer a general perspective of the students‟ views of the textbook The quantitative approach was chosen because clear documentation can be provided regarding the content and application of the survey instruments so that other researchers can assess the validity of the findings Moreover, study findings can be generalized to the population about which information is required However, it is true that quantitative study is expensive and time-consuming, and even the preliminary results are usually not available for a long

period of time

According to Pope & Mays (1995), qualitative research is the

“development of concepts which help us to understand social phenomena in natural (rather than experimental) settings, giving due emphasis to the meanings, experiences, and views of the participants.” This approach generally aims to understand the experiences and attitudes of participants in the study, then the researchers avoid making generalisation about the study In this study,

an observation method and a semi-structured interview were exploited to attain qualitative data

3.2.2 Research setting

This study was conducted in five English speaking classes in the Faculty

of Foreign Languages (FFL), HPU2 where the medium of instruction was English There are two languages being taught here: English and Chinese Korean is being on its way to be a major in this faculty With respect to English, students are training with two majors: English Language Teaching and English Linguistics Those who belong to the first group are supposed to