An investigation into the application of teachers’ feedback strategies for the second- year students’ speaking errors at People’s Police college I

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES    CHU THỊ THANH HUYỀN AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE APPLICATION OF

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

  

CHU THỊ THANH HUYỀN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE APPLICATION OF TEACHERS’ FEEDBACK STRATEGIES FOR THE SECOND- YEAR STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ERRORS AT

PEOPLE’S POLICE COLLEGE I

(Nghiên cứu về việc áp dụng các chiến lược sửa lỗi của giảng viên đối với các lỗi nói của sinh viên năm thứ hai

tại trường Cao Đẳng Cảnh Sát Nhân Dân I)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

Hanoi, 2014

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

  

CHU THỊ THANH HUYỀN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE APPLICATION OF TEACHERS’ FEEDBACK STRATEGIES FOR THE SECOND- YEAR STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ERRORS AT

PEOPLE’S POLICE COLLEGE I

(Nghiên cứu về việc áp dụng các chiến lược sửa lỗi của giảng viên đối với các lỗi nói của sinh viên năm thứ hai

tại trường Cao Đẳng Cảnh Sát Nhân Dân I)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

Supervisor: Dương Thu Mai , Ph.D

Hanoi, 2014

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this thesis is entirely my own work I have provided fully documented references to the others’ work The material in this thesis has not been submitted for assessment in any other formal course I also accept all the requirements of university relating to the retention and use of M.A Graduation Thesis deposited in the library

Hanoi, September 2014

Student’s signature

Chu Thị Thanh Huyền

I also wish to thank all the professors for enriching my knowledge about English teaching methodology and research methodology My great thanks are also sent to all the staff members of the faculty of Post graduate studies who gave

me the best environment to fulfill my thesis

I would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation to my colleagues

at People’s Police College I (PPC I) for their great supports and constructive suggestions in completing this research

Last but not least, my thanks are extended to the second-years students at PPC I who took part in this study, for it was their hard work that provided the useful raw data

ABSTRACT

English is regarded as a basic and important subject at People’s Police College I (PPC I) and students here are expected to achieve the pre-intermediate level in English as well as the ability to communicate in English in normal contexts after graduation However, their speaking skills still have many limitations and need much more instruction from their teachers

The study aims at exploring teachers’ feedback strategies for the year students’ speaking errors at PPC I

second-Three instruments, including questionnaire for teachers and students, structured interviews with teachers, and class observations were employed to achieve the purposes of the study The subjects involved in this study were 16 teachers, including 15 females and 1 male, who have at least 3 years experience

semi-in teachsemi-ing English at PPC I and second- year students semi-in four classes They were invited to participate in the survey questionnaire, interviews and class observation Other participants are the 256 students in four classes which were observed during eight speaking lessons Among them, 38 students who received individual feedback and another 40 representative students who received feedback for the whole class were asked to evaluate their teachers’ feedback through questionnaire for students

It was induced in the study that most teachers of English at PPC I used a variety of feedback strategies towards their students’ speaking errors and the way they applied those strategies was varied As regards the students, they showed a strong need for teachers’ feedback as well as general satisfaction with the feedback they received

The findings suggest some suitable and effective ways for teachers in applying feedback strategies to make certain positive changes in their teaching methodology as well as to help students improve their English competence

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii

LIST OF FIGURE, TABLES AND CHARTS viii

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale of the study 1

2 Aims of the study 3

3 Research questions 3

4 Scope of the study 3

5 Methods of the study 4

6 Significance of the study 4

7 Design of the study 5

Summary 5

PART B – DEVELOPMENT 6

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

1.1 Communicative language competence and second language acquisition 6 1.1.1 Communicative language competence 6

1.1.2 Second language acquisition 8

1.2 Language errors 10

1.2.1 Definitions of language errors 10

1.2.2 The role of errors in SLA 11

1.2.3 Classification of errors 13

1.3 Overview of feedback strategies 14

1.3.1 Definitions of feedback 14

1.3.2 The importance of feedback 16

1.3.3 Teachers’ beliefs about feedback 17

1.3.4 Students’ attitudes towards feedback 18

1.4 Speaking errors 19

1.4.1 The definition of speaking errors 19

1.4.2 The classification of speaking errors 19

1.5 Feedback strategies for speaking errors 20

1.5.1 Types of feedback strategies for speaking errors 20

1.5.2 Theselection of errors to give feedback 22

1.5.3 The selection of people who give correction 24

1.5.3.1 Teacher- correction 24

1.5.3.2 Peer- correction 24

1.5.3.3 Self- correction 25

1.6 Review of the previous studies on feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors 25

Summary 27

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 28

2.1 Setting of the study 28

2.2 Research Design 28

2.3 Participants 29

2.4 Data collection instruments 30

2.4.1 Questionnaire 30

2.4.1.1 Questionnaire for the teachers 30

2.4.1.2 Questionnaire for the students 31

2.4.2 Semi-structured interviews with teachers 31

2.4.3 Class observation 32

2.5 Data collection and analysis procedures 32

2.5.1 Data collection procedures 32

2.5.2 Data analysis procedures 34

Summary 34

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 36

3.1 Research question 1: Second- year students’ most frequent speaking errors 36

3.1.1 Findings from Teachers’ questionnaire 36

3.1.2 Findings from Teachers’ interviews 36

3.1.3 Findings from class observation 37

3.2 Research question 2: Teachers’ beliefs and application of feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors 38

3.2.1 Teachers’ beliefs in feedback 38

3.2.1.1 Findings from Teachers’ questionnaire 38

3.2.2 Teachers’ application of feedback strategies 40

3.2.2.1 Findings from Teachers’ questionnaire 40

3.2.2.2 Findings from Teachers’ interviews 46

3.2.2.3 Findings from class observation 48

3.3 Research question 3: Students’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of feedback strategies for their speaking errors 50

3.3.1 Findings from Students’ questionnaire 50

Summary 53

PART C: CONCLUSION 55

1 Conclusions 55

2 Pedagogical implications 56

3 Limitations and suggestions for further research 58

REFERENCES 59 APPENDIX A I APPENDIX B IV APPENDIX C V APPENDIX D VI APPENDIX E VII APPENDIX F IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PPC I: People’s Police College I

L2: Second Language

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

ESL: English as Second Language

EFL: English as Foreign Language

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

LIST OF FIGURE, TABLES AND CHARTS Chart 3.1 Students’ most frequent speaking errors from teachers’ questionnaire

34

Chart 3.2 Students’ speaking errors from class observation 35

Table 3.1 Teachers’ beliefs about feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors 36

Chart 3.3 Comparison of types of errors teachers give feedback for individuals and for the whole class 38

Chart 3.4 Characteristics of errors for teachers to base on to give feedback 39

Chart 3.5 Teachers’ frequency of giving feedback 40

Chart 3.6 Time of giving feedback for individual and the whole class 41

Chart 3.7 Types of feedback from Teachers’ questionnaire 42

Chart 3.8 Error corrector for individual and the whole class 43

Chart 3.9 Time of giving feedback from class observation 46

Chart 3.10 Teachers’ use of feedback types from class observation 46

Chart 3.11 The selection of correctors from class observation 47

Table 3.2 Questionaire for students receiving individual feedback 48

Table 3.3 Questionaire for students receiving feedback for the whole class 49-50 Table 3.4 Illustration of 8 class observations of students’ speaking errors and teachers’ feedback ix

PART A: INTRODUCTION This part presents the rationale of the study, the aims, the research questions, the scope, the methods, the significance, and the design of the study

1 Rationale of the study

Theoretically, many researches and journals about language learning and teaching reveal that students’ errors in general and speaking errors in particular are commonly seen in any English class, including such non- native contexts as in Vietnam Numerous researchers in linguistic field have shown their viewpoints about errors in language learning process Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982, p.138) state that “people cannot learn language without first systematically committing errors” Also, Edge (1989, p.14) points out that learner errors are “learning steps” Similarly, some researchers such as Bartram and Walton (1991), and Widdowson (1990) affirm that errors are evidence of how much learners achieve their goals in the target language From these points, it can be said that language errors play an important role in language learning and in assessing learners’ performance The issue of language errors is closely related to teacher’s feedback in English class because feedback “has the properties of informing, regulating, strengthening, sustaining, and error eliminating” (Han, 2001, p 6) Although students’ speaking errors are inevitable and the feedback for their errors is not required explicitly in any book, it is crucial that students’ speaking errors should be paid attention carefully and seriously by the teachers of English It is believed that teachers’ application of feedback will have certain effects on students’ progress However,

it can have both negative and positive effects on students’ learning Consequently,

it is worth doing research on teachers’ feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors in order to enhance students’learning success and achievement

Practically, numerable studies have been conducted on language errors or written error correction and some on oral correction in classroom environments After all the studies, the application of feedback strategies for speaking errors has still been a controversial issue for many researchers Some reseachers show negative viewpoints on error corrections: Pienemann (1985, p37) states that “The teachability hypothesis predicts that instruction can only promote language

acquisition if the interlanguage is close to the point when the structure to be taught

is acquired in the natural setting”, which means that if teachers point out and correct the errors that the learners are not yet ready to learn, this error correction has little value Similarly, Clampitt (2001) asserts that no matter how many times

a certain grammatical structure is corrected, until the learners are ready to learn and internalise the structure, they will not be able to use it properly on a regular basis Furthermore, in terms of effect of error correction, Truscott (1996) insists that grammar correction has negative and harmful effects, because it discourages and demotivates learners However, it is felt that the negative standpoints on error correction do not come from itself, but the unexpected consequences are resulted from the way correction or feedback is delivered Meanwhile, the supporters of feedback or error correction prove their viewpoints persuasively The results of Carroll and Swain’s study (1993) claim that various types of feedback, including explicit and implicit corrections are helpful for L2 learners to acquire abstract linguistic generalisations They assert that negative feedback can help the learners

“narrow the range of possible hypotheses that can account for the data” (p.358) Moreover, Nunan and Lamb (1996, p.68) assert that making errors and subsequent teacher corrections “can provide the learners with valuable information in the target language”

Specifically, at People’s Police College I, English is taught as one of the compulsory subjects like other colleges or universities in Vietnam The aim of the English course in this college is to provide students with basic knowledge of English language and the ability to communicate in English However, it is a matter of fact that students at PPC I have a lot of difficulties in speaking skill because of some reasons: lack of vocabulary, low motivation, large- scale class, and fear of speaking errors Consequently, students here make many speaking errors and find it hard to express their ideas in English These errors were commonly and repeatedly seen in all classes The real situation leads to a hypothesis that the way teachers of English at PPC I deal with students’ speaking errors may have great effect on students’ speaking ability

To conclude, the study proceeds from three main reasons, the first of which

relates to the theoretical concern about the importance of teachers’ feedback for students’ errors in their learning success and achievement The second impetus is the existing controversies regarding the effects of feedback among reseachers The last ground is the practical hypothesis at PPC I that the application of teachers’ feedback strategies affects students’ speaking competence to some extent

2 Aims of the study

The study is aimed at:

- Finding out the most frequent speaking errors that the second- year students make in speaking class at PPC I

- Exploring teachers’ beliefs and use of feedback strategies for their second- year students’ speaking errors

- Investigating the second- year students’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of feedback strategies for their speaking errors so as to propose some suggestions for teachers to make use of feedback strategies to enhance students’ speaking performance

3 The research questions

With the given aims, the study was conducted to answer the three following questions:

1/ What are the most frequent speaking errors made by the second-year students at PPC I?

2/ What are teachers’ beliefs and application of feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors at PPC I?

3/ What are the second-year students’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of feedback strategies for their speaking errors?

4 Scope of the study

The study was conducted at People’s Police College I, Ha Noi It mainly focused on investigating the second-year students’ most frequent speaking errors, teachers’ feedback strategies for speaking errors, and students’ attitudes towards

teachers’ feedback Thus, students’ uptake or progress from feedback is beyond the scope of this study

Given the scope of the study, data for this study were collected from questionnaire for teachers and students, semi-structures interviews with teachers and eight observations of English speaking lessons taught to the second-year students at PPC I

5 Methods of the study

This study employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to get a more detailed and comprehensive picture about what is investigated

First, quantitative data were collected from closed questions in questionnaire for both teachers and students as well as class observation This sourse of data helped investigate second-year students’ most frequent speaking errors, teachers’ application of feedback strategies for students’ errors as well as students’ attitudes towards teachers’ feedback

Second, qualitative data were drawn out from six semi-structured interviews with teachers for more specific information and explanation about teachers’ use of feedback strategies in their classrooms as well as an open question in student questionnaire about their own further evaluation on teachers’ feedback

6 Significance of the study

The study has been conducted with the expectation that the findings will help teachers of English at PPC I acknowledge the significance of giving feedback for students’ speaking errors, students’ most frequent speaking errors as well as have a deeper look at the feedback strategies used in both viewpoints and practices Moreover, the study will help teachers be aware of students’ attitudes after they receive feedback Particularly, it will provide teachers of English with a number of useful pedagogical implications in terms of feedback, which encourages them to apply feedback strategies for each specific class effectively so that teachers’ feedback can help enhance students’ speaking performance

7 Design of the study

The study consists of three main parts:

Part A – Introduction - presents the rationale of the study, the aims, the research questions, the scope, the methods, the significance and the design of the study

Part B - Development includes three chapters:

Chapter 1 - Literature Review - reviews the theories on communicative language competence, second language acquisition, errors and feedback strategies

for students’ speaking errors

Chapter 2 – Methodology - describes the settings of the study, research design and the participants Moreover, this chapter shows how the researcher applied the

data collection instruments and the procedure of conducting the study

Chapter 3 - Findings and discussions- presents and discusses the findings of second- year students’ most frequent speaking errors, teachers’ beliefs and use of

feedback strategies as well as students’ attitudes towards teachers’ feedback

Part C- Conclusion summarizes all findings explored and brings out useful suggestions for the teachers’ selection of feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors An overall picture of what has been done in this study and

suggestions for further studies are also included in this part

Summary

This chapter presents the rationale of the study, which is aimed to examine second- year students’ speaking errors, teachers’ beliefs and use of feedback strategies and students’ evaluation on teachers’ feedback In order to achieve those aims, teacher and student questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and class observation were used as the instruments of data collection To bring about the support for the study, the next chapter reviews the relevant literature

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature that is closely related

to students’ speaking errors and teachers’ feedback strategies This chapter consists of six sections The first section is about communicative language competence and second language acquisition The next two sections present an overview of general language errors and feedback strategies The fourth and fifth sections discuss issues in speaking errors and feedback strategies for speaking errors The last section reviews studies on feedback in second language acquisition in terms of similarities and differences

1.1 Communicative language competence and second language acquisition 1.1.1 Communicative language competence

As globalization has gained its momentum and the world has become more closely connected, learning English as a second or foreign language has been a prominent part of our daily lives It seems that one of the highest goals in learning English towards English learners nowadays is to achieve “communicative competence” in English Now that almost all education systems, including the ones in non-native countries, have launched a major initiative to improve English language teaching and learning in favor of Communicative Language Teaching approach, this goal has become more suitable than ever before The notion of communicative competence has drawn much attention from numerous language researchers and educators for such a long time The idea of communicative competence was originally introduced by Chomsky in his research in 1965 He made a distinction between competence and performance Chomsky supposed that competence is the linguistic knowledge of the idealized native speaker, and performance is the actual use of language in concrete situations However, the viewpoints of Chomsky were challenged when Hymes (1966) pointed out that Chomsky’s linguistic competence lacks consideration of the most important linguistic ability of being able to produce and comprehend utterances which are appropriate to the various contexts in which they are made In other words, Hymes

found that Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance too narrow as well as too idealized to describe actual language behavior as a whole

Canale and Swain (1980) continued to examine communicative competence

in language learning and teaching but with intensive viewpoints Communicative competence is defined as the ability to interpret and enact appropriate social behaviors, and it requires the active involvement of the learner in the production

of the target language (Canale and Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia et al., 1995; Hymes, 1972) As Canale & Swain (1980) denote, communicative competence “is composed minimally” of the three competences which made up their 1980 framework (p.27), those are grammatical, sociolinguistic and strategic competence Then sociolinguistic competence was further divided by Canale (1983) into two separate components: sociolinguistic and discourse competence

He defined communicative competence as “the underlying systems of knowledge and skill required for communication” (Canale, 1983: 5) The four areas of communicative competence they identified are clearly understood as follows:

Grammatical competence means the acquisition of phonological rules,

morphological rules, syntactic rules, semantic rules and lexical items Today it is

usually called linguistic competence Sociolinguistic competence refers to the

learning of pragmatic aspect of various speech acts, namely, the cultural values,

norms, and other socio-cultural conventions in social contexts Discourse

competence is the knowledge of rules regarding the cohesion (grammatical links)

and coherence (appropriate combination of communicative functions) of various

types of discourse Strategic competence is to do with the knowledge of verbal

and nonverbal strategies to compensate for breakdowns such as self-correction and at the same time to enhance the effectiveness of communication

To help students achieve communicative competence, CLT has been made full use of in various contexts with some main features: it focuses on meaning rather on form, communicative competence is the desired goal, learner-centered is emphasized, fluency is given priority over accuracy, students are expected to interact with other people, either in oral practice, through pair and group work, or

in their writing, intrinsic motivation will spring from an interest in what is being communicated by the language, and task-based is made use of

Because CLT focuses on fluency rather than accuracy, students’ errors are not corrected explicitly because this may divert them away from the main concern

of the expression and negotiation of meanings It is a common belief that errors will disappear as they get more input along the course However, that involves the risk of the ‘fossilisation’ of students’ errors (Candlin: 1988) Teachers cannot rule out the possibility that some of the language errors might become permanently incorporated into their language Therefore, when applying CLT in their teaching, teachers are advised to select suitable techniques and tasks flexibly The choice of techniques and learning tasks in CLT is not an arbitrary decision, but is firmly grounded in principles of learning as they are motivated by research in second language acquisition (SLA) and educational psychology Learning what constitutes effective ways of learning and teaching initially requires intensive training and staying in touch with current SLA research findings, which will be discussed in the next part

1.1.2 Second language acquisition

In the era that the need for learning a second or foreign language has become so great, second language acquisition is the field that is always of great interest to many language researchers and teachers Krashen (1983) is among scholars that singled out the differences between acquisition and learning by explaining that acquisition supposedly is a subconscious process that results in fluency while learning is conscious process that involves learning rules and structures Krashen indicate that there are three internal elements involved in second language acquisition, which are a “filter”, an “organizer” and a “monitor” Specifically, the “filter” deals with how the learner is influenced in a social context and how he reacts in various social environments The “organizer” determines the arrangement of the learners’ language system The “monitor” operates the conscious learning part where the learners correct their speech according to their age It can be drawn some main points in Krashen’s, which are: SLA is the process that learners’ cares are the meanings of language but not

language form, SLA can happen in various social environment besides classrooms, students can make errors in their acquisition process, and it also involves students’ error correction

Another commonly- accepted theory about SLA comes from Ellis’ works According to Ellis (1997, p3), SLA can be defined as “the way in which people learn a language other their mother tongue, inside or outside of a classroom” This means that SLA process can occur in various contexts such as in classrooms, in native or non- native target language environment Ellis also demontrated two main goals of SLA in his research One of the goals is description of L2 acquisition, which means how language acquisition proceeds Another goal is the explanation of SLA process, which involves identifying the external and internal factors that account for why learners acquire a L2 in the way they do and why some learners seem to be better at it than others To give persuasive illustrations for the above goals of SLA, Ellis presented two case studies of L2 learners: one is

of an adult learner learning English in surroundings where it serves as a means of communication ( studied by Richard Schmidt at the University of Hawaii), and the other of two children learning English in a classroom ( studied by Ellis) After analysing and comparing two studies, Ellis drawed some noticeable issues related

to SLA As regards the issues in the description of language learner, he found in two studies that learners made errors of different kinds in their acquisition such as grammatical errors and errors of omission and overuse ( adult learner) and grammatical and sociolinguistic errors ( child learners) Besides, he also pointed out that L2 learners in these studies “acquire a large number of formulaic chunks, which they use to perform communicative functions that are important to them and which contribute to the fluency of their unplanned speech.” Another finding is that learners acquire the language systematically

In conclusion, second language acquisition is a very broad field that includes a variety of issues when L2 acquisition proceeds and it can be affected by many factors both external and internal Among the issues raised by Krashen and Ellis, one of the most noticeable and common components in SLA process is learners’ language errors Besides, in recent years language errors are not only

dealt with alone, but they are also studied together with teachers’ feedback strategies towards the errors (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Chaudron, 1988; Lyster and Ranta (1997); Surakka (2007); Park (2010); and Nguyen (2012) Hence, the next part of the study will discuss these two issues critically

1.2 Language errors

1.2.1 Definitions of language errors

The definition of language errors is varied because different authors have different ways of seeing it in the process of language learning Hendrickson (1978), defines error with reference to error correction and teachers: “an utterance, form or structure that a particular language teacher deems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence in real- life discourse” (p 387) It can be seen that this definition is highly subjective because the teacher is the only one who decides whether the language students create is right or wrong However, each teacher with different views and in different contexts is likely to have various decisions about the unacceptability of students’ performance Another definition

of error provided by James (1998, p 1) considers error “an unsuccessful bit of language” This definition is, nevertheless, too broad and not sufficient in language teaching and learning fields

In addition to defining error, many linguists find it necessary to make a clear distinction between “mistake” and “error” in language Brown (1994, p.205) quoted by Ancker (2000, p.21), claim: “a mistake is a performance error that is either a random guess or a slip; it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly

An error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learner”

Edge (1989, p.37) suggests dividing mistakes into three categories: slips, errors and attempts “Slips” are mistakes that students can correct themselves;

“errors” are mistakes which students cannot correct themselves; “attempts” are student’s intentions of using the language without knowing the right way However, it is felt that the two terms “mistake” and “error” are used interchangeably by many teachers in their real teaching

According to Snow (1977), the distintion between errors and mistakes depends on whether a second language (L2) learner knows that he/ she does something wrong and can fix it or not He points out that there are three stages that L2 learners have to experience in language learning The first stage is when the learner does something wrong without knowing it; in the second stage, he may know he is doing it wrong but does not know how to put it right; and the last stage

is when he can correct his wrong version For him, errors occur in the first two stages while mistakes belong to the last stage Partly sharing the views with Snow, Shastri (2010) points out, it is crucial to stress that an error is not corrigible by the learner him/herself and suggested certain lack of linguistic competence

In conclusion, there are many ways of defining an error Each way has its own reasonable aspects and certain contributions to language teaching and learning However, this study takes the definition of Snow (1977) as the basis to define “a speaking error” in the next part because it helps make clear about error

in second language learning process and it is aslo suitable for the research purposes

1.2.2 The role of errors in SLA

Language learning, like any kind of human learning, involves committing errors In the process of learning, the learner of English as a second language may be unaware of the existence of the particular system or rule in English language In the past, language teachers considered errors committed by their students as something undesirable which they diligently sought to prevent from occurring During the past fifteen years, however, researchers in the field of applied linguistics came to view errors as evidence for a creative process in language learning in which learners employ hypothesis testing and various strategies in learning a second language Far from being a nuisance to be eradicated, errors are, as Selinker (1969) indicates, significant in three respects: (1) errors are important for the language teacher because they indicate the learner's progress in language learning; (2) errors are also important for the language researcher as they provide insights into how language is learnt; and (3) finally, errors are significant to the language learner himself/herself as he/she gets

involved in hypothesis testing Therefore, it can be felt that error shows its positive effects on many aspects such as teaching, researching and learning

In addition, recently, many studies of second language acquisition have tended to focus on learners' errors since they allow for prediction of the difficulties involved in acquiring a second language In this way, teachers can be made aware of the difficult areas to be encountered by their students and devote special care and emphasis to them Richards et al (1992) mention the study of errors are used in order to (1) identify strategies which learners use in language teaching, (2) identify the causes of learners’ errors, and finally (3) obtain information on common difficulties in language learning as an aid to teaching or

in development of teaching materials( cited in Khansir 2008) Analysis of second language learner’s errors can help identify learner’s linguistic difficulties and needs at a particular stage of language learning

To support the important role of errors in second language acquisition process more clearly, Spratt et al (2010, p 143) highly value errors because they are clear- cut signs of the fact that “learning is taking place and that learners are taking risks with the language” With this view, it can be understood that errors are not considered the failure of learning process but the experiment with language To put it differently, if students only produce language correctly or imitate exactly what they have been taught by teachers previously, the second language acquisition process seems to be meaningless There will be also no progress made unless students are allowed to create their own new products in language Errors, hence, can be seen as the useful indicators of learners’ advacement in learning

From the above-mentioned roles of errors in second language acquisition, it

is advisable that students be given the chances to make guesses and experiment their language learned In order to provide students with space for creativeness, teachers are recommended to follow what Bartram and Walton (1991) claim that students “have to have the opportunity to make [errors]” (p 14) Moreover, it is also necessary that teachers help students understand that errors are a natural part

of language learning process and they are encouraged to create with their

language To do so, Bartram and Walton (1991) suggest that it might be useful for teachers to praise the good, successful tries, rather than criticise errors Once teachers can supply students with sufficient freedom and encouragement to try new pieces of language, both teaching and learning processes can make use of the potential and wonderful benefits from errors

1.2.3 Classification of errors

Researchers have categorized errors in various ways Burt (1975) classifies

errors into two categories: global errors and local errors Global errors refer to

errors that significantly hinder communication and “those that affect overall sentence organization, such as wrong word order, missing, wrong, or misplaced sentence connectors” (p 56) For example: the wrong use of the conjuntion

“because” in the sentence It is raining because I stay at home instead of the

conjunction “so” can lead to the misunderstanding of the meaning of the sentence

On the other hand, “local errors affect single elements in a sentence but do not usually hinder communication significantly such as errors in noun and verb inflections, articles, and auxiliaries” (p.57) For instance, many learners misuse the past form of be “was” with the subject “you” Burt also points out that correction of one global error clarifies the intended message more than the correction of several local errors Furthermore, Burt argues that high-frequency errors should be the first errors teachers should correct

Another general classification of errors comes from Corder (1981), who

distinguishes between overt and covert error According to him, a covert error

occurs when a learner’s utterance is superficially correct, but is nevertheless erroneous This case is clearly explained by Bartram and Walton (1991) that it happens when learners say “something right by accident” (p 21) In contrast, an overt error appears in cases of superficially ill-formed utterances and when an utterance is clearly erroneous Although this distinction between the two kinds of errors deals with correctness and erroneousness, they are both serious if they cause failure in communication

Edge (1989: 11) lists three categories of errors from linguistic aspect: phonological, grammatical and lexical This way of classification is also partly

shared by Choděra (2006) when he considers linguistic competence in second language

Considering how errors differ from the L2 structures, Dulay, Burt and

Krashen (1982) classify errors into five types : omission (where some element is

omitted that should actually be present) , addition (where some element is present though it should not be there) , misordering (where the items presented are

selected correctly, but placed in a wrong order), misformation (where a wrong form was selected in place of the right one), and blends (where two alternative

grammatical forms are combined to produce an ungrammatical one) Although this type of classification is considered easy to recognized by teachers (James, 1998), it shows the high risk of being too superficial and general

It can be shown that there is no absolute agreement on the classifications of errors The classifications range from the general level (global or local errors), the errorness level, and linguistic level to the surface surface-structure level (such as errors of omission, addition, etc.) Each model of classification complement on each other and helps to show broad views on the various types of errors which language learners can possibly make However, in this study the classification of errors by Edge would be used as one of bases for classifying speaking errors in the next part

1.3 Overview of feedback strategies

1.3.1 Definition of feedback

Researchers have used various operationalized definitions of feedback, and they use different terms to refer to the similar practices such as error correction, error treatment, corrective feedback and feedback Among these, feedback is considered the most general term because it implies the whole process of all other terms Schegloff et al (1977) define the term correction as “the replacement of error or mistake by what is correct” (p 363) Chaudron (1977) defines correction

as “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to

or demands improvement of the learner’s utterance” (p.31), which is the most common conception employed by researchers These two definitions of correction

show that correction is just a part in teachers’ reaction to what students produce, which will be discussed as feedback in the following views

Lalande (1982) terms ‘feedback’ as any kinds of procedure used to inform whether a learner’s response is correct or wrong Sharing the same stance, Lightbown and Spada (1999) define corrective feedback as “any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect” (p.171) However, these two general definitions seem to lack teacher’s activity in the teaching process It is because if teachers only inform learners about their errors, the feedback process will be considered insufficient The above definitions of feedback can be supported by Wajnryb’s views (1992) when he recognises ‘feedback’ more specifically as the teacher’s responses given to what learners produce in the classroom Corrective feedback includes both explicit and implicit feedback Teachers can provide corrective feedback either without interrupting the flow of conversation (implicit feedback) or overtly with an emphasis on the ill-formed utterance (explicit feedback)

To make the term feedback more comprehensible, Ellis (2009) distinguishes between positive and negative feedback on the most general level

He states:

“Positive feedback affirms that a learner response to an activity is correct

It may signal the veracity of the content of a learner utterance or the linguistic correctness of the utterance In pedagogical theory positive feedback is viewed as important because it provides affective support to the learner and fosters motivation to continue learning.” (p 3)

As for negative feedback, he shows that it has been paid a lot of attention

by language teachers and L2 theorists because it is very necessary in second language learning and teaching He claims that negative feedback signals that the learner’s utterance is linguistically deviant or lacks enough veracity To illustrate, Ellis takes error correction as a type of negative feedback because it “takes the form of a response to a learner utterance containing a linguistic error” (p 3)

1.3.2 The importance of feedback

Feedback has been used in language teaching/ learning for a long time, but its benefit has been questioned by some language teachers Currently, feedback seems to undergo a revival stage as a useful teaching device The evidence that feedback or error correction can be helpful in L2 learning has been clearly shown Results of classroom research, such as Lightbown & Spada (1990), show that

“when teachers corrected learners' errors during communicative lessons, the frequency of at least some errors […] was reduced” (Ellis, 1998, p 53) Similarly, Meyer (1986) points out “feedback after wrong responses may have the greatest positive effect on student learning” (p 228) It can be said that such teachers’ correction or feedback is proved to contribute to learners’ language development effectively through previous research In addition, Tomasello and Herron’s (1989) study found that learners who were first allowed to make mistakes and were then corrected improved their target language performance more than learners who were given language rules in advance Therefore, it is thought that feedback can help develop students’ language skills: learning grammar, developing oral communication and improving writing skills However, it should be made clear that the feedback strategies themselves do not help students enhance their language competence, but to what extent of appropriateness they are applied in the real teaching and learning really works Hence, the feedback strategies are only of great importance only when the process of teachers’ giving feedback to students should be taken much notice of and considered thoroughly

Another important point in the role of feedback is that teachers do not only use feedback to affect the one who receives it, but they also make use of feedback

on the groups of students or the whole class Giving explanations to this kind positive effect of feedback, Allwright & Bailey (1991) emphasize that the output

of one learner may serve as input of the other learners It means that when a learner makes an error, the way teachers deal with it – whether to correct it or not and how to correct it- is likely to affect more people at the same time As Allwright & Bailey (1991) explain, “If a teacher chooses not to treat an error in

one learner's utterance, the other learners may assume that the form or function was correct as it stood” (p 102)

1.3.3 Teachers’ beliefs about feedback

In its general meaning, a belief is seen as “mental state which has as its content a proposition that is accepted as true by the individual holding it, although the individual may recognize that alternative beliefs may be held by others.” (Borg, 2001) In language teaching field, teachers’ beliefs are used to refer to teachers’ pedagogic beliefs, or those beliefs of relevance to an individual teaching (Calderhead, 1995) The areas most commonly explored are teachers’ beliefs about teaching, learning, learners, and subject matters

Research on teachers' beliefs has demonstrated that beliefs have an important impact on teachers' practice (Borg, 2003; Tsui, 2003) Moreover, both

of teachers’ beliefs and practices “have a direct bearing on the teaching and learning process” (Griffiths 2007, cited in Lee, 2008) From this perspective, teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to feedback are central to its implementation and efficacy in English speaking classes and will decide whether students have the opportunity to engage in and benefit from feedback activities Therefore, EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to feedback strategies are worth exploring to fill this research gap and enable teachers to enhance students’ speaking competence

Research on the beliefs of language teachers has shown that their beliefs are shaped by a range of factors including their experience as teachers, as learners and

as participants in teacher educational programs Specifically, Phipps and Borg (2009) found that teachers’ experiences helped shape their deep-rooted belief in the importance of fulfilling students’ expectations If teachers had successful teaching experiences in using feedback for students’ errors, they preferred to use it

in their later teaching Moreover, teachers’ experience as learners has also been found to influence their beliefs For instance, Numrich (1996) found that novice participant-teachers decided to abandon error correction and grammar teaching because these techniques had been used by their language teachers and had inhibited them from speaking Finally, teacher education programs seem to be

another factor shaping teachers’ beliefs Research on teacher beliefs, knowledge, and cognition has revealed that both novice and experienced teachers can shape their beliefs about language learning through teacher education (Borg, 2003)

1.3.4 Students’ attitudes towards feedback

Attitudes towards language learning are one of issues of great concern to many researchers and language teachers There are different ways of seeing this term Gardner (1980, p.267) defines attitude as "the sum total of a man's instinctions and feelings, prejudice or bias, preconceived notions, fears, threats, and convictions about any specified topic" Ajzan (1988, p.4) considers attitudes

as “a disposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to an object, person, institution, or event”

The relationship between language learning and students’ attitudes have been discussed and investigated by many researchers According to Gardner (1980), there is an undeniable mutual relationship between attitudes and motivation in language learning Similarly, Starks & Paltridge(1996) suppose that learning a language is closely related to the attitudes towards the languages Karahan (2007, p.84) avers that “positive language attitudes let learner have positive orientation towards learning English” As such, attitudes may play a very crucial role in language learning as they would appear to influence students’ success or failure in their learning Based on the important role of attitudes, students’ attitudes towards teachers’ application of feedback are considered in this study Despite the fact that most students find feedback helpful and, subsequently, need and wish to be corrected regularly in class (Schulz, 2001; Havranek, 2002), the fact is that many of them also find corrections embarrassing to varying degrees In addition, many students neither notice nor understand all evidence of corrective feedback until they are explained in a direct way by the teachers themselves (Ferris, 1995; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) The fact is that a great deal of teacher feedback is unnoticed on the part of students What really matters is that students are aware of being corrected and understand the nature of the correction as well (Roberts, 1995) Accordingly, the real challenge for

teachers is to make sure that their corrective feedbacks are actually noticed and understood on the part of learners

1.4 Speaking errors

1.4.1 The definition of speaking errors:

Based on the definition of error by Snow (1977) mentioned in the previous part, it can be drawn out that a speaking error is an error which occurs in the process of speaking and the speaker is not conscious of his doing wrong or he may know he is doing wrong but he doesn’t know how to correct it This way of thinking helps make the formation of speaking errors clear Besides, according to Jack et al (1992, p344), speaking errors are “faults made by speakers during the production of sounds, words, and sentences”, which means that speaking errors have some specific forms such as errors in the sound making, the use of words and sentences in the utterances This definition will be the basis for the classification

of speaking errors in this study

1.4.2 The classification of speaking errors

In this research, based on the definition of speaking error, Edge’s classification of errors, and communicative competence theory, speaking errors will be classified into several main categories as followed:

a Phonological errors: These are the errors related to pronunciation, intonation or

stress E.g in a word like ‘river’ the last ‘r’ should not be pronounced fully If this

is done, it’s a phonological error Or when a yes- no question is said with level tune, it’s another speaking error

b Lexical errors: These are the errors related to words For example, inaccurate

use of prefixes such as “unexpensive” or “incomfortable” may happen whereas the correct forms must be “inexpensive” and “uncomfortable” These are considered lexical errors

c Grammatical errors: These are errors due to problems with syntax It is related

to the sentence structure such as inappropriate use of Subject- verb agreement in the sentence: “She get up at 6”

d Discourse errors: Because of the typical characteristics of speaking, it is

possible for English speakers to have speaking errors in their process of making a

speech such as cohesion, coherence, or style For instance, when taking the role of

a shop assitant in a speaking activitiy, students are expected to use formal English

e Sociolinguistic errors: These types of errors are the ones violating some English

sociolinguistic norm or socially inappropriate Many cases of sociolinguistic errors can be shown in addressing someone you know in a professional capacity without a required honorific, using casual, informal or colloquial diction in formal settings, using slangs between generations

f Strategic errors: These types of errors are made when students cannot use

verbal and nonverbal means to communicate in a specific situation For example, students cannot use synonyms to substitute for words they cannot recall or have not yet learned, resort to physical gestures to convey meaning, ask for clarification from the listener, raise their voice in order to be heard, and feign comprehension

in order to listen for context clues

1.5 Feedback strategies for speaking errors

1.5.1 Types of feedback strategies for speaking errors

However important feedback strategies for speaking errors are, the selection

of feedback for each certain error is complicated as Allwright and Bailey (1991) claim that error correction is varied There are several ways of classifying feedback strategies One of the most common classifications is that feedback is classified into explicit correction and implicit correction Hendrickson (1980) states that “Explicit correction is detailed direct correction indicating that teachers provide learners with exact forms or structures of their erroneous utterances” Explicit may be benificial in that when teachers give learners the correct answers, they will not be confused They can also directly recognize their errors However, Norrish (1983) supposes that explicit correction of errors not only hinders the improvement of the communicative competence but aslo produces negative consequences in learners As for implicit correction, Ferris and Hedgcock (1998) defines that “implicit correction is indirect correction, which teachers indicate the presence of an error or provide some clues and leave the students to diagnose and correct it” It means that after showing the error and giving hints to correct, the teachers let the students initiate a self-correction or ask for peer assistance In

other words, learners have to discover the right answers by themselves This might

be better for learners to improve their linguistic competence However, it is sometimes not easy to separate the explicitness and the implicitness and teachers may confuse in using each type of correction

A clear-cut classification of feedback was developed by Lyster & Ranta (1997) They distinguish six types of corrective feedback used by teachers in response to learner errors:

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

teacher provides the correct form, he or she clearly indicates that what the student said is incorrect (e.g., “Oh, you mean,” “You should say”)

Eg: S: He goes to school yesterday

T: Oh, you should say he went, he went to school yesterday

Recasts involve the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance,

minus the error

Eg: S: She enjoys listen to music

T: She enjoys listening to music

Clarification requests indicate to students either that their utterance has not been

understood by the teacher or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way and that

a repetition or a reformulation is required A clarification request includes phrases such as “Pardon me?”

Eg: S: He catch the bus to school everyday

T: Pardon me?

Metalinguistic feedback contains comments, information, or questions related to

the well-formedness of the student’s utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form (e.g., “Can you find your error?”)

Eg: S: He work in a bank

T: Do we say he work?

T: How do we say when it forms the third person singular form?

Elicitation refers to a technique that teachers use to directly elicit the correct form

from the student Teachers elicit completion of their own utterance by strategically pausing to allow students to “fill in the blank.”

Eg: S: He catch the bus to school everyday

T: He

T: How do we form the third person singular form in English?

T: Can you correct that?

S: He catches the bus to school everyday

Repetition refers to the teacher’s repetition, in isolation, of the student’s erroneous

utterance In most cases, teachers adjust their intonation so as to highlight the error

Eg: S: They visit Paris last year

T: They visit? (rising tone)

With all the six feeback types mentioned above for speaking errors, language teachers are likely to have a variety of selection of strategies to treat students’ errors However, this also raises some issues about which type of feedback strategy teachers should apply to a certain type of speaking errors, whether teachers have several options for one type of error and if one type of feedback strategy does not work well with a specific error in a certain situation, teacher should try another type or giving up the feedback process According to Harmer (2007),“the way we give feedback and correct such [errors] will be heavily influenced by which type [of error] we think the students are making” (p.96) It is felt that when dealing with errors and deciding on error treatment, types of error thus play a crucial part in the teacher’s decisions and the provided feedback In this current study, teachers are supposed to apply the feedback types

of Lyster & Ranta when dealing with their students’ speaking errors

1.5.2 The selection of errors to give feedback

In the process of language learning, students are believed to make a wide range of speaking errors Therefore, it would be impossible for teachers to give feedback and correct every single error made by students because of many causes: the limited time, teachers’ recognition of students’ errors, the aims of the lesson and so on This requires teachers to make a decision whether to correct a certain error or not As for global and errors, Brown (2007) states: “local errors usually need not be corrected since the message is clear and correction might interrupt a

learner in the flow of productive communication Global errors need to be treated

in some way since the message may otherwise remain garbled.” (p 347) In his opinion, when students’ utterances can make communication proceed, their local errors can be ignored On the contrary, when students make global errors which interfere with communication, this kind of errors should be given priority in correction.It seems that Brown’s statement is more suitable for speaking errors which are closely related to communication

Another way to decide which errors to correct is recommended by Hendrickson (1978) that errors causing the most unfavourable reactions, since they are the most stigmatised, should also become high candidates for correction

He also adds that errors which occur most frequently should also be seen as needing correction the most Hendrickson’s views, indeed, give teachers useful advice to decide the kinds of errors to correct so that teachers’ feedback can not only help students avoid serious mistakes but also have good effects on more than one single student For instance, a lot of students have common phonological error with “-ed” sound in English because they do not deeply understand the mechanism of pronouncing this sound Not few students take it for granted that all verbs ending with “-ed” will be pronounced with /-id/ wrongly

As regards communicative language teaching, the selection of errors to correct is seen from the perspective of communication It means that if errors cause a breakdown of communication, they are highly expected to receive feedback or correction, or else they may not need much treatment from teachers

As Seidlhofer (2004) states : “ typical "errors" that most English teachers would consider in urgent need of correction and remediation, and that consequently often get allotted a great deal of time and effort in English lessons, appear to be generally unproblematic and no obstacle to communicative success (p 220)” By saying this, Seidlhofer would like to indicate that many errors typically regarded

by teachers as gravest do not in fact cause much communicative trouble In other words, in the light of communicative language teaching, feedback should be relavant with the communicative goals of learners

1.5.3 The selection of people who give correction

As stated from the definition part of feedback, the feeback process includes teachers’ use of feedback strategies and error correction after that Errors should

be corrected so that students’ gap in knowledge can be fully repaired This raises

an issue that teachers should choose the ones who give students correction to get that goal of feedback A study of Richards & Renandya (2002) shows that teachers’ correction is the most common type that teachers use However, Broughton et al (2003) point out correction may also come from other people than the teacher –from the learner as self-correction or other learners in the classroom The three types of error correction will be discussed as follows with consideration to each type’s strengths and weaknesses

1.5.3.1 Teacher- correction

Hendrickson (1978, p.387) supports the point of correcting communicative errors rather than linguistic errors As far as teacher correction is concerned, teachers should correct students’ errors in an interactive way This correction is necessary because it is not only a means of teaching, but it also a way of interacting between teachers and students However, Maicusi et al (1999) claim that teachers’ frequent correction of feedback actually makes the learner dependent on correction by others, especially by their teachers

1.5.3.2 Peer- correction

Cohen (1975) suggests that peer correction may improve the learners’ ability to recognize errors Bruton and Samuda (1980) observed that ESL adult learners were correcting each other successfully in group work A finding of this study validated the popularly believed notion that peer correction is very beneficial in the language classroom As Edge (1989) claims, “The more the students are involved in correction, the more they have to think about the language used in the classroom” (p 27) Since thinking about language supports the learning process, it is necessary to give such opportunities to learners The advantage of peer correction is that it helps learners cooperate and involve actively in the process of learning However, the decision of leaving the correction tasks for other students should be considered carefully by teachers

1.5.3.3 Self- correction

According to Hendrickson (1978), self- correction “is the correction of

one’s own errors” It is very important to language learners because it helps them

have a chance to look at their errors carefully and improve themselves Kulič (1971) also stresses preference for independent self-correction, especially in cases

of higher, more complicated learning processes, since self-correction not only corrects the result, but also the process which led to such result, and increases active participation of the learner in this phase of learning, too According to Edge (1989), self-correction is also the best form of correction because he thinks that people usually prefer to sort out their errors themselves rather than being corrected

by someone else – which is true not for language learning only Therefore, correction is a valuable help in the development of students’ progress and should

self-be given enough space in classrooms

In this research, the three sources of error correction will be applied in both theory and practice The selection of error corrector is also an important part in feedback process

1.6 Review of the previous studies on feedback strategies for students’ speaking errors

The problem of teachers’ feedback strategies have been studied by many language researchers and teachers in various contexts

A well-known study on the relationship between corrective feedback and learner uptake is by Lyster and Ranta (1997) who studied second language learners in immersion classrooms in Canada They examined six corrective feedback types in terms of their frequency and distribution, as well as their effects on learner uptake Lyster and Ranta (1997) discovered that the teachers had a strong tendency (55%) to use recasts as the strategy for corrective feedback (p.53), even though it was the least likely strategy to elicit student-generated repair (31%) They concluded that of the six feedback types, elicitation, repetition, clarification requests and metalinguistic feedback were the more successful in evoking student-generated feedback (p.56) In their data, the teachers provided corrective feedback on 62% of the students’

erroneous utterances on average, and the researchers concluded that more frequent corrections would probably be undesirable, but that teachers should more actively apply the different corrective techniques and not only recasts

In Finland, similar findings about the frequency and effectiveness of the different error correction strategies have been made in EFL classrooms by Surakka (2007) In her fairly recent study, she discovered that recast was the corrective feedback strategy that was used most often by the teachers (p.57) Additionally, she concluded that recasts and explicit were not successful strategies

in terms of learner uptake (p.60) In contrast, in her study elicitation and metalinguistic feedback led to learner repair in nearly all cases (98% and 96%, respectively) (p.61)

Park (2010) investigated teachers’ and students’ preferences for spoken error correction at two language institutes at Northern California universities The study involved the participation of 160 adult ESL students and 18 native English speaking teachers The findings showed that both the teachers and students agreed that student errors should be treated, but students wanted more correction than their teachers thought A discrepancy was found between the teachers and students regarding the timing of error correction Unlike the teachers, the students regarded immediate error correction that can interrupt the flow of conversation as an effective way of feedback Both the teachers and students believed that serious and frequent errors should be treated, but the students wanted to receive more error treatment Repetition, explicit feedback, and elicitation were the three most favored types of feedback among the teachers, whereas elicitation, explicit feedback, and implicit feedback were the most favored types of corrective feedback among the students Teachers were the most popular source of feedback among both the teachers and students

In Vietnamese context, the issue of feedback for speaking errors is of interest to some language teachers Nguyen (2012) conducted an investigation into the tenth grade students’ attitudes towards teachers’ error correction in classroom oral activities at Do Son Boarding High school, Hai Phong By delivering questionnaire to students, observing some classes and interviewing a small group

of students, the researcher concluded that most of the students were aware of the usefulness of oral errors and showed positive attitudes towards teachers’ correction However, it seems that the researcher asked tenth grade students to evaluate their teachers’ practices is above students’ ability Maybe students did not understand teachers’ intention and underestimate its value in their learning

In short, the above- mentioned studies have examined various aspects of feedback towards speaking errors such as the provision of teachers’ feedback, teachers’ and students’ preferences as well as attitudes towards feedback In general, the types of feedback strategies were made use of in the real teaching and they led to different effects However, it is not easy to evaluate the effect of feedback strategies on students’ performance in a short period of time or through some class- observation hours What matters in the feedback issue is that to what extent teachers’feedback strategies are sucessful from students’ perspectives Nevertheless, there has been no clear research into this issue, which appears to be

a gap in language teaching practices

Summary

This chapter presents an informative and theoretical understanding of communicative competencies, language learners’ errors in SLA, and teachers’ feedback, which support the current study There has been much research conducted in the area of feedback in both foreign and Vietnamese contexts However, besides feedback strategies acknowledged, researchers still discuss the question of to what extent teachers’ feedback is applied successfully from the perspective of students The next chapter gives a fully detailed description of the methodology to carry out the present study

Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY This part presents the settings of the study, research design, participants, data collection instruments of the study Especially, data collection and data analysis procedures would be demonstrated in detail

2.1 Settings of the study

This study was conducted at People’s Police College I, which consists of about 3.400 students of eight main majors: administrative police (C1), traffic police (C2), criminal police (C3), economic police (C4) , anti-drug crime police (C5), environmental police (C6) , techical criminal police (C7) and communal administrative police (C8) English has been taught as a compulsory subject in PPC I since 2001 The current textbook chosen for the course here is Lifelines Pre-intermediate by Oxford University Press It includes 14 units with a variety of popular topics in everyday life Each unit is presented with four main parts: Grammar, Vocabulary and Reading, Listening and Speaking, and Extension English subject is divided into two terms: one is taught in the first year and the other in the second year After passing an English final exmination designed in multiple choice form, students at PPC I have to sit for an Toeic Test with an expected result at 381 points

“answer questions that have been raised, to solve problems that have been posed

or observed, to assess needs and goals, to determine whether or not specific objectives have been met, to establish baselines again which future comparisons can be made, to analyse trends across time, and generally, to describe what exists,

in what amount, and in what context.” ( Issac and Michael, 1997: 136)

A survey research was applied in this study This kind of research is very suitable for this study for some reasons First, this study aims at investigating the

most common speaking errors made by the second- year students at PPC I through direct study of four classes in this college Secondly, this study was carried out at

a particular period in time (4 weeks) to explore teachers’ beliefs about feedback and describe teachers’ classroom practice which is their application of feedback Third, students’ attitudes towards teachers’ feedback for their speaking errors were also examined in this study Last, survey research is very valuable tool for achieving the aims of the study because of time- saving possibility, easy accessible information and easy generalization possibility

2.3 Participants

The participants are sixteen teachers at English Department, who range from 27 to 38 years old with at least three- year experience in teaching at PPC I

given individual feedback in eight lessons

Among sixteen teachers of English at PPC I, there are fifteen female teachers and only one male Seven of sixteen teachers already have an M.A in Applied linguistics, two of them are in the process of carrying their M.A thesis, and the rest has B.A in Applied linguistics Although graduating from some different universities in Vietnam, all of them have received courses of teacher training hold by Hanoi University of Education This ensures that all teachers have basic knowledge of teaching methodology Moreover, most teachers in the English department are quite devoted and enthusiatic in their career They are also willing to enhance their knowledge and self-study so that they continuously improve their teaching quality as well as help students have a certain level of English competence after graduation

As for the students who participated in the study, four classes of different majors in the college (traffic police class, economic police class, administrative police class and criminal police class) were chosen The decision of second-year students of the researcher helps to ensure that those students have certain knowledge in English that they have learnt in the first year and they have already been accustomed to the learning environment in the college There are some typical features of students at People’s Police College I in comparison with other

colleges: firstly, the students here are mostly male because our college only recruits 1% female students each year; secondly, their ages vary from 18 to 30 because some of them are sent to college after working as a policemen for several years; thirdly, because of the great difference in ages, the students’ English levels also vary a lot Many students have not learnt or used English for a long time Considering these features of the students, teachers are supposed to try their best

to select suitable teaching methods to ensure certain output for students

2.4 Data collection instruments

The present study was carried out as an action research with three instruments to be applied: (1) questionnaire for teachers and students, (2) semi-structured interviews with teachers, (3) and class observation

2.4.1 Questionnaire

2.4.1.1 Questionnaire for the teachers

With the aim to answer the first two research questions of the study, a questionnaire for teachers was designed to find out students’ most frequent speaking errors and teachers’ beliefs and application of feedback strategies Prior

to the present study, this questionnaire was applied to one teacher of English, also

an MA student as part of a pilot study to detect and discard any possible misleading and unclear questions or misunderstandings Thanks to the pilot, absolutely right statements in teachers’ beliefs were changed and ambiguous options in teachers’ application of feedback were replaced The finalized questionnaire was completed with three main parts: part I with 3- item demographic information about teachers, part II with 6 statements about teachers’ beliefs about feedback strategies (ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” which were assigned numerical values ranging from 1 to 5, respectively) and part III with questions about students’ speaking errors and teachers’ application of feedback strategies towards these errors Specifically, the main part

of the questionnaire – part III is divided into 6 themes: (1) students’ most frequent speaking errors (question 7); (2) errors that receive feedback from teachers (questions 8- 10); (3) the frequency of feedback (questions 11- 12); (4) the time of giving feedback (question 13-14); (5) the types of feeback (question 15) ; and (6)