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, HANOIUNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES       CHU THỊ THANH HUYỀN AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE APPLICATI

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 MethodologyCode: 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 MethodologyCode: 60140111

Supervisor: Dương Thu Mai , Ph.D

Hanoi, 2014

I hereby certify that this thesis is entirely my own work I have providedfully documented references to the others’ work The material in this thesis has notbeen submitted for assessment in any other formal course I also accept all therequirements of university relating to the retention and use of M.A GraduationThesis deposited in the library

Hanoi, September 2014Student’s signature

Chu Thị Thanh Huyền

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

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

The study aims at exploring teachers’ feedback strategies for the second-yearstudents’ speaking errors at PPC I

Three instruments, including questionnaire for teachers and students, structured interviews with teachers, and class observations were employed toachieve the purposes of the study The subjects involved in this study were 16teachers, including 15 females and 1 male, who have at least 3 years experience inteaching English at PPC I and second- year students in four classes They wereinvited to participate in the survey questionnaire, interviews and class observation.Other participants are the 256 students in four classes which were observed duringeight speaking lessons Among them, 38 students who received individual feedbackand another 40 representative students who received feedback for the whole classwere asked to evaluate their teachers’ feedback through questionnaire for students

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

The findings suggest some suitable and effective ways for teachers inapplying feedback strategies to make certain positive changes in their teachingmethodology 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 The selection 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: INTRODUCTIONThis 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 andteaching reveal that students’ errors in general and speaking errors in particular arecommonly seen in any English class, including such non- native contexts as inVietnam Numerous researchers in linguistic field have shown their viewpointsabout errors in language learning process Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982, p.138)state that “people cannot learn language without first systematically committingerrors” 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 inthe target language From these points, it can be said that language errors play animportant role in language learning and in assessing learners’ performance Theissue of language errors is closely related to teacher’s feedback in English classbecause feedback “has the properties of informing, regulating, strengthening,sustaining, and error eliminating” (Han, 2001, p 6) Although students’ speakingerrors are inevitable and the feedback for their errors is not required explicitly inany book, it is crucial that students’ speaking errors should be paid attentioncarefully and seriously by the teachers of English It is believed that teachers’application of feedback will have certain effects on students’ progress However, itcan have both negative and positive effects on students’ learning Consequently, it

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

Practically, numerable studies have been conducted on language errors orwritten error correction and some on oral correction in classroom environments.After all the studies, the application of feedback strategies for speaking errors hasstill been a controversial issue for many researchers Some reseachers shownegative viewpoints on error corrections: Pienemann (1985, p37) states that “Theteachability 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 andcorrect the errors that the learners are not yet ready to learn, this error correctionhas little value Similarly, Clampitt (2001) asserts that no matter how many times acertain grammatical structure is corrected, until the learners are ready to learn andinternalise 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 thatgrammar correction has negative and harmful effects, because it discourages anddemotivates learners However, it is felt that the negative standpoints on errorcorrection do not come from itself, but the unexpected consequences are resultedfrom the way correction or feedback is delivered Meanwhile, the supporters offeedback or error correction prove their viewpoints persuasively The results ofCarroll and Swain’s study (1993) claim that various types of feedback, includingexplicit and implicit corrections are helpful for L2 learners to acquire abstractlinguistic 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 subsequentteacher corrections “can provide the learners with valuable information in the targetlanguage”

Specifically, at People’s Police College I, English is taught as one of thecompulsory subjects like other colleges or universities in Vietnam The aim of theEnglish course in this college is to provide students with basic knowledge ofEnglish 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 ofsome reasons: lack of vocabulary, low motivation, large- scale class, and fear ofspeaking errors Consequently, students here make many speaking errors and find ithard to express their ideas in English These errors were commonly and repeatedlyseen in all classes The real situation leads to a hypothesis that the way teachers ofEnglish at PPC I deal with students’ speaking errors may have great effect onstudents’ 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 forstudents’ errors in their learning success and achievement The second impetus isthe existing controversies regarding the effects of feedback among reseachers Thelast 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 year students’ speaking errors

second Investigating the second- year students’ attitudes towards teachers’ use offeedback strategies for their speaking errors so as to propose some suggestions forteachers 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 followingquestions:

1/ What are the most frequent speaking errors made by the second-year students atPPC 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 feedbackstrategies for their speaking errors?

4 Scope of the study

The study was conducted at People’s Police College I, Ha Noi It mainlyfocused 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 thescope of this study.

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

5 Methods of the study

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

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

Second, qualitative data were drawn out from six semi-structured interviewswith teachers for more specific information and explanation about teachers’ use offeedback strategies in their classrooms as well as an open question in studentquestionnaire 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 helpteachers of English at PPC I acknowledge the significance of giving feedback forstudents’ speaking errors, students’ most frequent speaking errors as well as have adeeper look at the feedback strategies used in both viewpoints and practices.Moreover, the study will help teachers be aware of students’ attitudes after theyreceive feedback Particularly, it will provide teachers of English with a number ofuseful pedagogical implications in terms of feedback, which encourages them toapply 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 researchquestions, 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 languagecompetence, second language acquisition, errors and feedback strategies forstudents’ speaking errors

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

Chapter 3 - Findings and discussions- presents and discusses the findings ofsecond- year students’ most frequent speaking errors, teachers’ beliefs and use offeedback strategies as well as students’ attitudes towards teachers’ feedback

Part C- Conclusion summarizes all findings explored and brings out usefulsuggestions for the teachers’ selection of feedback strategies for students’ speakingerrors An overall picture of what has been done in this study and suggestions forfurther studies are also included in this part

Summary

This chapter presents the rationale of the study, which is aimed to examinesecond- year students’ speaking errors, teachers’ beliefs and use of feedbackstrategies and students’ evaluation on teachers’ feedback In order to achieve thoseaims, teacher and student questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and classobservation were used as the instruments of data collection To bring about thesupport for the study, the next chapter reviews the relevant literature

PART B: DEVELOPMENTCHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature that is closely related tostudents’ speaking errors and teachers’ feedback strategies This chapter consists ofsix sections The first section is about communicative language competence andsecond language acquisition The next two sections present an overview of generallanguage errors and feedback strategies The fourth and fifth sections discuss issues

in speaking errors and feedback strategies for speaking errors The last sectionreviews studies on feedback in second language acquisition in terms of similaritiesand 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 moreclosely connected, learning English as a second or foreign language has been aprominent part of our daily lives It seems that one of the highest goals in learningEnglish towards English learners nowadays is to achieve “communicativecompetence” in English Now that almost all education systems, including the ones

in non-native countries, have launched a major initiative to improve Englishlanguage teaching and learning in favor of Communicative Language Teachingapproach, this goal has become more suitable than ever before The notion ofcommunicative competence has drawn much attention from numerous languageresearchers and educators for such a long time The idea of communicativecompetence was originally introduced by Chomsky in his research in 1965 Hemade a distinction between competence and performance Chomsky supposed thatcompetence is the linguistic knowledge of the idealized native speaker, andperformance is the actual use of language in concrete situations However, theviewpoints of Chomsky were challenged when Hymes (1966) pointed out thatChomsky’s linguistic competence lacks consideration of the most importantlinguistic ability of being able to produce and comprehend utterances which areappropriate to the various contexts in which they are made In other words, Hymes

found that Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance toonarrow 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 Communicativecompetence is defined as the ability to interpret and enact appropriate socialbehaviors, and it requires the active involvement of the learner in the production ofthe target language (Canale and Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia et al., 1995; Hymes,1972) As Canale & Swain (1980) denote, communicative competence “iscomposed minimally” of the three competences which made up their 1980framework (p.27), those are grammatical, sociolinguistic and strategic competence.Then sociolinguistic competence was further divided by Canale (1983) into twoseparate components: sociolinguistic and discourse competence He definedcommunicative competence as “the underlying systems of knowledge and skillrequired 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 enhancethe effectiveness of communication

To help students achieve communicative competence, CLT has been madefull use of in various contexts with some main features: it focuses on meaningrather on form, communicative competence is the desired goal, learner-centered isemphasized, fluency is given priority over accuracy, students are expected tointeract 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 beingcommunicated by the language, and task-based is made use of.

Because CLT focuses on fluency rather than accuracy, students’ errors arenot 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 errorswill disappear as they get more input along the course However, that involves therisk of the ‘fossilisation’ of students’ errors (Candlin: 1988) Teachers cannot ruleout the possibility that some of the language errors might become permanentlyincorporated into their language Therefore, when applying CLT in their teaching,teachers are advised to select suitable techniques and tasks flexibly The choice oftechniques and learning tasks in CLT is not an arbitrary decision, but is firmlygrounded in principles of learning as they are motivated by research in secondlanguage acquisition (SLA) and educational psychology Learning what constituteseffective ways of learning and teaching initially requires intensive training andstaying in touch with current SLA research findings, which will be discussed in thenext 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 tomany language researchers and teachers Krashen (1983) is among scholars thatsingled out the differences between acquisition and learning by explaining thatacquisition supposedly is a subconscious process that results in fluency whilelearning is conscious process that involves learning rules and structures Krashenindicate that there are three internal elements involved in second languageacquisition, 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 hereacts in various social environments The “organizer” determines the arrangement

of the learners’ language system The “monitor” operates the conscious learningpart where the learners correct their speech according to their age It can be drawnsome main points in Krashen’s, which are: SLA is the process that learners’ caresare 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 peoplelearn a language other their mother tongue, inside or outside of a classroom” Thismeans that SLA process can occur in various contexts such as in classrooms, innative or non- native target language environment Ellis also demontrated two maingoals 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 thataccount for why learners acquire a L2 in the way they do and why some learnersseem to be better at it than others To give persuasive illustrations for the abovegoals of SLA, Ellis presented two case studies of L2 learners: one is of an adultlearner learning English in surroundings where it serves as a means ofcommunication ( studied by Richard Schmidt at the University of Hawaii), and theother of two children learning English in a classroom ( studied by Ellis) Afteranalysing and comparing two studies, Ellis drawed some noticeable issues related

to SLA As regards the issues in the description of language learner, he found intwo studies that learners made errors of different kinds in their acquisition such asgrammatical errors and errors of omission and overuse ( adult learner) andgrammatical and sociolinguistic errors ( child learners) Besides, he also pointedout 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 andwhich contribute to the fluency of their unplanned speech.” Another finding is thatlearners 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 manyfactors 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’ feedbackstrategies towards the errors (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Chaudron, 1988; Lysterand Ranta (1997); Surakka (2007); Park (2010); and Nguyen (2012) Hence, thenext 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 havedifferent ways of seeing it in the process of language learning Hendrickson (1978),defines error with reference to error correction and teachers: “an utterance, form orstructure that a particular language teacher deems unacceptable because of itsinappropriate use or its absence in real- life discourse” (p 387) It can be seen thatthis definition is highly subjective because the teacher is the only one who decideswhether the language students create is right or wrong However, each teacher withdifferent views and in different contexts is likely to have various decisions aboutthe unacceptability of students’ performance Another definition of error provided

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

In addition to defining error, many linguists find it necessary to make a cleardistinction between “mistake” and “error” in language Brown (1994, p.205)quoted by Ancker (2000, p.21), claim: “a mistake is a performance error that iseither 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” arestudent’s intentions of using the language without knowing the right way.However, it is felt that the two terms “mistake” and “error” are usedinterchangeably by many teachers in their real teaching

According to Snow (1977), the distintion between errors and mistakesdepends on whether a second language (L2) learner knows that he/ she doessomething wrong and can fix it or not He points out that there are three stages thatL2 learners have to experience in language learning The first stage is when thelearner does something wrong without knowing it; in the second stage, he mayknow 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 twostages 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 thelearner him/herself and suggested certain lack of linguistic competence

In conclusion, there are many ways of defining an error Each way has itsown reasonable aspects and certain contributions to language teaching andlearning However, this study takes the definition of Snow (1977) as the basis todefine “a speaking error” in the next part because it helps make clear about error insecond 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 committingerrors 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 Inthe past, language teachers considered errors committed by their students assomething undesirable which they diligently sought to prevent from occurring.During the past fifteen years, however, researchers in the field of applied linguisticscame to view errors as evidence for a creative process in language learning inwhich learners employ hypothesis testing and various strategies in learning asecond 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'sprogress in language learning; (2) errors are also important for the language researcher asthey provide insights into how language is learnt; and (3) finally, errors are significant tothe language learner himself/herself as he/she gets

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

In addition, recently, many studies of second language acquisition havetended to focus on learners' errors since they allow for prediction of the difficultiesinvolved 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 andemphasis to them Richards et al (1992) mention the study of errors are used inorder to (1) identify strategies which learners use in language teaching, (2) identifythe causes of learners’ errors, and finally (3) obtain information on commondifficulties in language learning as an aid to teaching or in development of teachingmaterials( cited in Khansir 2008) Analysis of second language learner’s errors canhelp identify learner’s linguistic difficulties and needs at a particular stage oflanguage learning

To support the important role of errors in second language acquisitionprocess more clearly, Spratt et al (2010, p 143) highly value errors because theyare clear- cut signs of the fact that “learning is taking place and that learners aretaking risks with the language” With this view, it can be understood that errors arenot considered the failure of learning process but the experiment with language Toput it differently, if students only produce language correctly or imitate exactlywhat they have been taught by teachers previously, the second language acquisitionprocess seems to be meaningless There will be also no progress made unlessstudents 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 experimenttheir language learned In order to provide students with space for creativeness,teachers are recommended to follow what Bartram and Walton (1991) claim thatstudents “have to have the opportunity to make [errors]” (p 14) Moreover, it isalso 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 forteachers to praise the good, successful tries, rather than criticise errors Onceteachers can supply students with sufficient freedom and encouragement to try newpieces of language, both teaching and learning processes can make use of thepotential 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 overallsentence organization, such as wrong word order, missing, wrong, or misplacedsentence 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 notusually hinder communication significantly such as errors in noun and verbinflections, articles, and auxiliaries” (p.57) For instance, many learners misuse thepast form of be “was” with the subject “you” Burt also points out that correction ofone global error clarifies the intended message more than the correction of severallocal errors Furthermore, Burt argues that high-frequency errors should be the firsterrors 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 neverthelesserroneous This case is clearly explained by Bartram and Walton (1991) that ithappens when learners say “something right by accident” (p 21) In contrast, anovert error appears in cases of superficially ill-formed utterances and when anutterance is clearly erroneous Although this distinction between the two kinds oferrors deals with correctness and erroneousness, they are both serious if they causefailure 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 secondlanguage.

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 ofclassification is considered easy to recognized by teachers (James, 1998), it showsthe high risk of being too superficial and general

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

1.3 Overview of feedback strategies

1.3.1 Definition of feedback

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

“any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to ordemands improvement of the learner’s utterance” (p.31), which is the mostcommon 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 informwhether a learner’s response is correct or wrong Sharing the same stance,Lightbown and Spada (1999) define corrective feedback as “any indication to thelearners that their use of the target language is incorrect” (p.171) However, thesetwo general definitions seem to lack teacher’s activity in the teaching process It isbecause if teachers only inform learners about their errors, the feedback processwill be considered insufficient The above definitions of feedback can be supported

by Wajnryb’s views (1992) when he recognises ‘feedback’ more specifically as theteacher’s responses given to what learners produce in the classroom Correctivefeedback includes both explicit and implicit feedback Teachers can providecorrective feedback either without interrupting the flow of conversation (implicitfeedback) or overtly with an emphasis on the ill-formed utterance (explicitfeedback)

To make the term feedback more comprehensible, Ellis (2009) distinguishesbetween 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 bylanguage teachers and L2 theorists because it is very necessary in second languagelearning and teaching He claims that negative feedback signals that the learner’sutterance is linguistically deviant or lacks enough veracity To illustrate, Ellis takeserror correction as a type of negative feedback because it “takes the form of aresponse 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, butits benefit has been questioned by some language teachers Currently, feedbackseems to undergo a revival stage as a useful teaching device The evidence thatfeedback 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, thefrequency of at least some errors […] was reduced” (Ellis, 1998, p 53) Similarly,Meyer (1986) points out “feedback after wrong responses may have the greatestpositive effect on student learning” (p 228) It can be said that such teachers’correction or feedback is proved to contribute to learners’ language developmenteffectively through previous research In addition, Tomasello and Herron’s (1989)study found that learners who were first allowed to make mistakes and were thencorrected improved their target language performance more than learners who weregiven language rules in advance Therefore, it is thought that feedback can helpdevelop students’ language skills: learning grammar, developing oralcommunication and improving writing skills However, it should be made clear thatthe feedback strategies themselves do not help students enhance their languagecompetence, but to what extent of appropriateness they are applied in the realteaching and learning really works Hence, the feedback strategies are only of greatimportance 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 onlyuse 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 kindpositive effect of feedback, Allwright & Bailey (1991) emphasize that the output ofone learner may serve as input of the other learners It means that when a learnermakes 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 wascorrect 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 itscontent a proposition that is accepted as true by the individual holding it, althoughthe 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 aboutteaching, learning, learners, and subject matters

Research on teachers' beliefs has demonstrated that beliefs have an importantimpact 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 andpractices with regard to feedback are central to its implementation and efficacy inEnglish speaking classes and will decide whether students have the opportunity toengage in and benefit from feedback activities Therefore, EFL teachers’ beliefsand practices with regard to feedback strategies are worth exploring to fill thisresearch gap and enable teachers to enhance students’ speaking competence

Research on the beliefs of language teachers has shown that their beliefs areshaped 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 theimportance of fulfilling students’ expectations If teachers had successful teachingexperiences in using feedback for students’ errors, they preferred to use it in theirlater teaching Moreover, teachers’ experience as learners has also been found toinfluence their beliefs For instance, Numrich (1996) found that novice participant-teachers decided to abandon error correction and grammar teaching because thesetechniques had been used by their language teachers and had inhibited them fromspeaking 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 shapetheir 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 tomany researchers and language teachers There are different ways of seeing thisterm Gardner (1980, p.267) defines attitude as "the sum total of a man'sinstinctions and feelings, prejudice or bias, preconceived notions, fears, threats, andconvictions about any specified topic" Ajzan (1988, p.4) considers attitudes as “adisposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to an object, person, institution,

or event”

The relationship between language learning and students’ attitudes havebeen 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 alanguage is closely related to the attitudes towards the languages Karahan (2007,p.84) avers that “positive language attitudes let learner have positive orientationtowards learning English” As such, attitudes may play a very crucial role inlanguage learning as they would appear to influence students’ success or failure intheir learning Based on the important role of attitudes, students’ attitudes towardsteachers’ application of feedback are considered in this study Despite the fact thatmost students find feedback helpful and, subsequently, need and wish to becorrected regularly in class (Schulz, 2001; Havranek, 2002), the fact is that many ofthem also find corrections embarrassing to varying degrees In addition, manystudents neither notice nor understand all evidence of corrective feedback until theyare 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 thepart of students What really matters is that students are aware of being correctedand 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 andunderstood 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 previouspart, it can be drawn out that a speaking error is an error which occurs in theprocess of speaking and the speaker is not conscious of his doing wrong or he mayknow he is doing wrong but he doesn’t know how to correct it This way ofthinking helps make the formation of speaking errors clear Besides, according toJack et al (1992, p344), speaking errors are “faults made by speakers during theproduction of sounds, words, and sentences”, which means that speaking errorshave some specific forms such as errors in the sound making, the use of words andsentences in the utterances This definition will be the basis for the classification ofspeaking errors in this study

1.4.2 The classification of speaking errors

In this research, based on the definition of speaking error, Edge’sclassification of errors, and communicative competence theory, speaking errorswill 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 leveltune, 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 thecorrect forms must be “inexpensive” and “uncomfortable” These are consideredlexical 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 inthe 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 errorscan be shown in addressing someone you know in a professional capacity without arequired 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, studentscannot use synonyms to substitute for words they cannot recall or have not yetlearned, resort to physical gestures to convey meaning, ask for clarification fromthe 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 feedbackstrategies One of the most common classifications is that feedback is classifiedinto explicit correction and implicit correction Hendrickson (1980) states that

“Explicit correction is detailed direct correction indicating that teachers providelearners 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 inlearners 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” Itmeans that after showing the error and giving hints to correct, the teachers let thestudents 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 issometimes not easy to separate the explicitness and the implicitness and teachersmay 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 inresponse 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 arepetition or a reformulation is required A clarification request includes phrasessuch 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 strategicallypausing 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 treatstudents’ errors However, this also raises some issues about which type offeedback 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 offeedback 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 toHarmer (2007),“the way we give feedback and correct such [errors] will be heavilyinfluenced by which type [of error] we think the students are making” (p.96). It isfelt that when dealing with errors and deciding on error treatment, types of errorthus play a crucial part in the teacher’s decisions and the provided feedback In thiscurrent study, teachers are supposed to apply the feedback types of Lyster & Rantawhen 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 widerange of speaking errors Therefore, it would be impossible for teachers to givefeedback and correct every single error made by students because of many causes:the limited time, teachers’ recognition of students’ errors, the aims of the lessonand so on This requires teachers to make a decision whether to correct a certainerror or not As for global and errors, Brown (2007) states: “local errors usuallyneed 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 hisopinion, when students’ utterances can make communication proceed, their localerrors can be ignored On the contrary, when students make global errors whichinterfere with communication, this kind of errors should be given priority incorrection.It seems that Brown’s statement is more suitable for speaking errorswhich are closely related to communication

Another way to decide which errors to correct is recommended byHendrickson (1978) that errors causing the most unfavourable reactions, since theyare the most stigmatised, should also become high candidates for correction Healso adds that errors which occur most frequently should also be seen as needingcorrection the most Hendrickson’s views, indeed, give teachers useful advice todecide the kinds of errors to correct so that teachers’ feedback can not only helpstudents avoid serious mistakes but also have good effects on more than one singlestudent For instance, a lot of students have common phonological error with “-ed”sound in English because they do not deeply understand the mechanism ofpronouncing this sound Not few students take it for granted that all verbs endingwith “-ed” will be pronounced with /-id/ wrongly

As regards communicative language teaching, the selection of errors tocorrect is seen from the perspective of communication It means that if errors cause

a breakdown of communication, they are highly expected to receive feedback orcorrection, or else they may not need much treatment from teachers As Seidlhofer(2004) states : “ typical "errors" that most English teachers would consider inurgent need of correction and remediation, and that consequently often get allotted

a great deal of time and effort in English lessons, appear to be generallyunproblematic and no obstacle to communicative success (p 220)” By saying this,Seidlhofer would like to indicate that many errors typically regarded by teachers asgravest do not in fact cause much communicative trouble In other words, in thelight of communicative language teaching, feedback should be relavant with thecommunicative goals of learners

1.5.3 The selection of people who give correction

As stated from the definition part of feedback, the feeback process includesteachers’ use of feedback strategies and error correction after that Errors should becorrected so that students’ gap in knowledge can be fully repaired This raises anissue that teachers should choose the ones who give students correction to get thatgoal 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 threetypes of error correction will be discussed as follows with consideration to eachtype’s strengths and weaknesses

1.5.3.1 Teacher- correction

Hendrickson (1978, p.387) supports the point of correcting communicativeerrors rather than linguistic errors As far as teacher correction is concerned,teachers should correct students’ errors in an interactive way This correction isnecessary because it is not only a means of teaching, but it also a way of interactingbetween 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 learnerswere correcting each other successfully in group work A finding of this studyvalidated the popularly believed notion that peer correction is very beneficial in thelanguage classroom As Edge (1989) claims, “The more the students are involved

in correction, the more they have to think about the language used in theclassroom” (p 27) Since thinking about language supports the learning process, it

is necessary to give such opportunities to learners The advantage of peercorrection is that it helps learners cooperate and involve actively in the process oflearning However, the decision of leaving the correction tasks for other studentsshould 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) alsostresses preference for independent self-correction, especially in cases of higher,more complicated learning processes, since self-correction not only corrects theresult, but also the process which led to such result, and increases activeparticipation 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 peopleusually prefer to sort out their errors themselves rather than being corrected bysomeone else – which is true not for language learning only Therefore, self-correction is a valuable help in the development of students’ progress and should

be given enough space in classrooms

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

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

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

A well-known study on the relationship between corrective feedback andlearner 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 learneruptake 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 itwas the least likely strategy to elicit student-generated repair (31%) Theyconcluded that of the six feedback types, elicitation, repetition, clarificationrequests 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 frequentcorrections would probably be undesirable, but that teachers should more activelyapply the different corrective techniques and not only recasts.

In Finland, similar findings about the frequency and effectiveness of thedifferent error correction strategies have been made in EFL classrooms by Surakka(2007) In her fairly recent study, she discovered that recast was the correctivefeedback strategy that was used most often by the teachers (p.57) Additionally, sheconcluded that recasts and explicit were not successful strategies in terms of learneruptake (p.60) In contrast, in her study elicitation and metalinguistic feedback led tolearner repair in nearly all cases (98% and 96%, respectively) (p.61)

Park (2010) investigated teachers’ and students’ preferences for spoken errorcorrection at two language institutes at Northern California universities The studyinvolved the participation of 160 adult ESL students and 18 native Englishspeaking teachers The findings showed that both the teachers and students agreedthat student errors should be treated, but students wanted more correction than theirteachers thought A discrepancy was found between the teachers and studentsregarding the timing of error correction Unlike the teachers, the students regardedimmediate error correction that can interrupt the flow of conversation as aneffective way of feedback Both the teachers and students believed that serious andfrequent errors should be treated, but the students wanted to receive more errortreatment Repetition, explicit feedback, and elicitation were the three most favoredtypes of feedback among the teachers, whereas elicitation, explicit feedback, andimplicit feedback were the most favored types of corrective feedback among thestudents Teachers were the most popular source of feedback among both theteachers 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 thetenth grade students’ attitudes towards teachers’ error correction in classroom oralactivities 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 theusefulness of oral errors and showed positive attitudes towards teachers’ correction.However, it seems that the researcher asked tenth grade students to evaluate theirteachers’ practices is above students’ ability Maybe students did not understandteachers’ intention and underestimate its value in their learning.

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

Summary

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

Chapter 2: METHODOLOGYThis part presents the settings of the study, research design, participants, datacollection instruments of the study Especially, data collection and data analysisprocedures would be demonstrated in detail.

2.1 Settings of the study

This study was conducted at People’s Police College I, which consists ofabout 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 communaladministrative 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 intermediate by Oxford University Press It includes 14 units with a variety ofpopular 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 theother in the second year After passing an English final exmination designed inmultiple choice form, students at PPC I have to sit for an Toeic Test with anexpected result at 381 points

“answer questions that have been raised, to solve problems that have been posed orobserved, to assess needs and goals, to determine whether or not specific objectiveshave been met, to establish baselines again which future comparisons can be made,

to analyse trends across time, and generally, to describe what exists, in whatamount, and in what context.” ( Issac and Michael, 1997: 136)

A survey research was applied in this study This kind of research is verysuitable 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 throughdirect study of four classes in this college Secondly, this study was carried out at aparticular period in time (4 weeks) to explore teachers’ beliefs about feedback anddescribe teachers’ classroom practice which is their application of feedback Third,students’ attitudes towards teachers’ feedback for their speaking errors were alsoexamined in this study Last, survey research is very valuable tool for achieving theaims of the study because of time- saving possibility, easy accessible informationand 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 and 256

second-year students in 4 classes observed, in which 38 students were givenindividual feedback in eight lessons

Among sixteen teachers of English at PPC I, there are fifteen female teachersand only one male Seven of sixteen teachers already have an M.A in Appliedlinguistics, two of them are in the process of carrying their M.A thesis, and the resthas B.A in Applied linguistics Although graduating from some differentuniversities in Vietnam, all of them have received courses of teacher training hold

by Hanoi University of Education This ensures that all teachers have basicknowledge of teaching methodology Moreover, most teachers in the Englishdepartment are quite devoted and enthusiatic in their career They are also willing

to enhance their knowledge and self-study so that they continuously improve theirteaching quality as well as help students have a certain level of English competenceafter graduation

As for the students who participated in the study, four classes of differentmajors in the college (traffic police class, economic police class, administrativepolice class and criminal police class) were chosen The decision of second-yearstudents of the researcher helps to ensure that those students have certainknowledge in English that they have learnt in the first year and they have alreadybeen accustomed to the learning environment in the college There are some typicalfeatures of students at People’s Police College I in comparison with other

colleges: firstly, the students here are mostly male because our college only recruits1% female students each year; secondly, their ages vary from 18 to 30 becausesome 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 alsovary 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 toselect 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 threeinstruments 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, aquestionnaire for teachers was designed to find out students’ most frequentspeaking errors and teachers’ beliefs and application of feedback strategies Prior tothe 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 misleadingand unclear questions or misunderstandings Thanks to the pilot, absolutely rightstatements in teachers’ beliefs were changed and ambiguous options in teachers’application of feedback were replaced The finalized questionnaire was completedwith three main parts: part I with 3- item demographic information about teachers,part II with 6 statements about teachers’ beliefs about feedback strategies (rangingfrom “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” which were assigned numerical valuesranging from 1 to 5, respectively) and part III with questions about students’speaking errors and teachers’ application of feedback strategies towards theseerrors Specifically, the main part of the questionnaire – part III is divided into 6themes: (1) students’ most frequent speaking errors (question 7); (2) errors thatreceive 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)