Students use and perceptions of feedback in a paired collaborative speaking task a case study at tri viet tre english center

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Learners' awareness of error making...46 Table 4.2 Examples of global and local errors made by the students ...48 Table 4.3 The students' confusion when listeni

STUDENTS’ USE AND PERCEPTIONS OF FEEDBACK

IN A PAIRED COLLABORATIVE SPEAKING TASK: A CASE STUDY AT TRI VIET TRE ENGLISH CENTER

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By

NGUYEN XUAN NGUYET TRUC

Supervised by

Bui Thi Thuc Quyen, Dr

(all course instructors)

HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2019

In conformance to University regulations, I hereby declare that:

1 this thesis has been composed solely by me;

2 this thesis is entirely my own work, and

3 this thesis has not been submitted in part or whole for any other degree or professional qualification

Signed………

Date………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my immense gratitude to all those people who have given their invaluable support and assistance

In particular, I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Dr Bui Thi Thuc Quyen, who gave

me insightful advice, encouragement, criticism and suggestion Her constant encouragement has helped me complete this thesis

I would also like to thank all lecturers of Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature of

Ho Chi Minh University of Social Sciences and Humanities for the guidance, support, and knowledge that they have given to me They helped me to improve my English ability, broadened my viewpoints and importantly, inspired me to pursuit my educational career

I am grateful to Ms Nguyen Thi Hong Thao, a helpful and thoughtful colleague who took her precious time to support my thesis

Many thanks to all the research participants, who were always willing to join my recording process as well as my colleagues who helped organized the field work for me And finally, my sincere thanks go to my family I believe I could not have completed this thesis without their greatest love, concern and support

LIST OF TABLES i

LIST OF FIGURES i

LIST OF ACRONYMS ii

ABSTRACT iii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Aims of the study 2

1.3 Research Questions 3

1.4 Significance of the study 3

1.5 Scope of the study 4

1.6 Outline of the thesis 4

1.7 Chapter summary 5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Peer interaction in paired collaborative speaking task 6

2.1.1 Definition 6

2.1.2 Benefits and drawbacks 7

2.2 Feedback 9

2.2.1 Definition 9

2.2.2 Types of feedback 10

2.2.3 The role of feedback in Second Language Acquisition Theories and Socio-cultural Theories 19

2.2.4 The role of peer feedback during a communicative task 21

2.3 Global and local errors 25

2.3.1 Definition 25

2.3.2 Distinction between errors and mistakes 26

2.3.3 Which errors should be corrected? 28

2.4.2 Learner-generated feedback in speaking task 33

2.5 Conceptual framework 35

2.6 Chapter summary 36

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 37

3.1 Research design 37

3.2 Participants 37

3.3 Research tools 38

3.3.1 Observation 38

3.3.2 Interview 39

3.4 Task type 39

3.5 Procedure 41

3.6 Data analysis 41

3.6.1 Analysis of the recordings in the observation 41

3.6.2 Analysis of the interviews 42

3.7 Reliability, validity and limitation 43

3.8 Chapter summary 45

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 46

5.1 Results 46

5.2 Discussion 68

Research Question 1: What are the students‘ perceptions of feedback? 68

Research Question 2: What are the most common types of errors and feedback student initiated? 71

Research Question 3: What factors, if any, affect the students‘ practice of peer feedback? 76

5.3 Chapter summary 77

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 78

5.4 Chapter summary 83

REFERENCES 84

APPENDIX A 92

COLLABORATIVE SPEAKING TASKS 92

Appendix A1 – Speaking task 1 92

Appendix A2 – Speaking task 2 93

APPENDIX B 94

CODING SCHEME 94

APPENDIX C 95

SEMI-STRUCTURE INTERVIEW 95

Appendix C1 - Semi-structured interview (English version) 95

Appendix C2 - Semi-structured interview (Vietnamese version) 98

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Learners' awareness of error making 46

Table 4.2 Examples of global and local errors made by the students 48

Table 4.3 The students' confusion when listening to their partners' ideas 54

Table 4.4 Students' perception on the benefits of feedback 61

Table 4.5 Students' willingness to get peer feedback 63

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Feedback types classified by Loewen and Nabei (2007, p.326) 11

Figure 2.2 A taxonomy of corrective feedback strategies (Ellis, 2009, p.8) 13

Figure 4.1 Frequency of correction reported by the students 46

Figure 4.2 The comparison between the number of student-generated errors and that of student-led feedback 47

Figure 4.3 Most-concerned types of errors reported by the students 49

Figure 4.4 Students' feedback on global or local errors in the observation 50

Figure 4.5 The students' reactions to their peers' local errors 51

Figure 4.6 Students' reactions to meaning confusion 55

Figure 4.7 Students' preference of feedback use (interview data) 57

Figure 4.8 Students' preference of feedback use (observation data) 60

Second Language Acquisition Teacher

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Zone of Proximal Development

Peer feedback is one of the effective ways to promote student talking time and collaborative learning in a communicative language teaching (CLT) environment However, not every student can make use of the advantages of peer feedback In order

to investigate how student-led feedback was given in a paired speaking task, this study examined 28 intermediate students in a language center, namely Tri Viet Tre language center Using both quantitative and qualitative methods by employing observation and semi-structure interview, ―recast‖ and ―translation‖ are found to be the most frequently-used feedback types by the students Also in this study, the researcher found some noteworthy mismatches between students‘ perceptions and their actual practices

in exchanging peer feedback Besides, the study revealed some key points related to what factors affect the student-generated feedback as well as what kind of errors was commonly committed by the students

Keywords: Peer feedback, Collaborative learning, Mismatch, Feedback Strategies,

Errors, Perceptions

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

The practice of English learning and teaching pedagogy in Vietnam has continuously been updated and oriented to the latest approach Following the modern language teaching method is the application of interactional and small group activities As Richards (2006) claims, during their learning process, learners are expected to work independently or corporately in pairs or groups to discuss issues of interest, participate

in learning tasks, correct misunderstandings and negotiate meaning to avoid communication breakdowns This is crucial because it represents a shift from traditional teacher-centeredness to learner-centeredness Learners should no longer be

as passive recipients of information provided by teachers Instead, they may take an active role in assisting their own learning and that of their peers by exchanging feedback Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) It has been proved to be extremely important

to promote learners‘ uptake in language learning (Ellis & Shintani, 2013; Hall, 2016; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013) and it is the main focus of this study

Because of its influences on students‘ learning, investigating different angles of feedback have been a fruitful topic for many years such as corrective feedback and the use of it from both teachers‘ and students‘ perspectives (Lyster & Ranta, 1997), teacher‘s methods of using feedback, and the role of the teacher (Harmer, 2006; Iwashita & Li, 2012) or corrective feedback and written feedback (Deirdre, 2010; Hyland & Hyland, 2006a, 2006b) Even in the case of speaking, one of the essential skills in English learning, recent studies have proved that students can also provide each other with feedback (Fujii & Mackey, 2009; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007) and

student-student interaction can result in more uptake than teacher-student dialogue (Ellis, 2009; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) In spite of these benefits, only a humble number of classroom studies have investigated student-generated feedback, especially when they were working in pairs for a collaborative speaking task Thus, it is essential to draw attention to student use of oral feedback, and find out more about their perceptions on the topic That is why oral feedback in speaking task was the focus of this current study, in particular, this study explored the practice of oral feedback in an English language center, which is considered as the one of the most preferable and common English learning destinations in Vietnam context Therefore, it was hoped to bring forward important insights not only for the areas of feedback research, but especially for Vietnamese teachers of English and researchers

1.2 Aims of the study

This study aimed at investigating several issues related to student-generated feedback during their paired speaking task First, this study was conducted to check whether students actually gave feedback on their partners‘ utterances and how frequently their feedback was given Second, it also investigated whether there were any specific factors having influential roles on peer feedback Third, this study examined the total number as well as the most frequent type of errors students made during their task and what percentage of these errors was given feedback by their partners Finally, the purpose of the study was to further explore the students‘ perspectives on giving feedback To be specific, the researcher aims to find out the students‘ awareness of the advantages and benefits of feedback, their purposes while exchanging feedback as well

as their favorite feedback types

1.3 Research Questions

In order to achieve the goals mentioned, there are four main questions this study needs

to answer:

1/ What are the students‘ perceptions of feedback?

2/ What are the most common types of errors and feedback initiated by the students?

3/ What factors, if any, affect the students‘ practice of peer feedback?

1.4 Significance of the study

As mentioned above, giving and receiving feedback is an indispensable part to promote learner uptake Although it is a common fact that teacher feedback is greatly necessary, with the blossom of CLT in teaching and learning English, student feedback is also of great importance However, has student feedback been employed effectively? Or does

it still remain unnoticed in the classroom? This research made a major contribution to explore this issue by demonstrating an empirical study to objectively examine and evaluate the way learners generate feedback outside the teacher controlled settings, particularly, during their paired collaborative speaking task Furthermore, this research offers some more benefits First, once the aims of this study are accomplished, in terms

of theory, it is expected to make several noteworthy contributions to a new perspective

of oral student-led feedback during a paired speaking task about which recent studies, particularly in Vietnam, are still humble and limited Second, it is hoped to greatly contribute to the elimination of communicative drawbacks among students and their peers in their speaking task in order to further enhance the implementation and effectiveness of CLT in the classroom Practically, it is useful for teachers of English and managers of educational organizations to apply the observation scheme of this

study into their teaching practices in order to examine the current teaching drawbacks and promote interactive teaching and learning in communicative classroom environment

1.5 Scope of the study

This study was conducted at an English language center in Go Vap District in Ho Chi Minh City, namely Intelligent Vietnamese Youth (IVY) center It is a small-scale center with about 600 students in different levels and 30 teachers This language center was chosen to conduct the research because of several reasons First, this is where the researcher is currently working, therefore it is a convenient place to communicate and set up plans with teachers and students to carry out the study Second, as one of the teachers of IVY center, the researcher recognized several problems in the practice of teaching and learning English that needs some adjustments and mediations Specifically, during speaking sessions, the learners excessively depend on their teacher‘s instruction and correction and hardly provide each other with effective feedback The lack of feedback exchanging inhibits mutual learning among learners and strengthen teacher-dominant environment in the classroom In other words, the researcher has found a need for a case study in order to justify possible problems as well as recommend some practical modifications to improve the practice of English learning and teaching at this center

1.6 Outline of the thesis

Following Chapter 1 which is to provide the background as well as the general characterizations of this study, Chapter 2 reviews some related studies and introduce the conceptual framework – the backbone of this study Then, a detailed description of

methodology of this study is discussed in Chapter 3 Chapter 4 provides readers with reports and summary of the research results obtained through the methodology After that, the findings were discussed in relation to the research questions and objectives as well as the literature reviewed The last Chapter drew conclusions about the implications and directions for future research as well

1.7 Chapter summary

In this chapter, I have discussed the English teaching and learning context in Vietnam and illustrated the need for an investigation of the student‘s use and perceptions of peer feedback I have also given a brief overview of each chapter in the study In the following two chapters, I will review theoretical and empirical evidence in the relevant literature.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Peer interaction in paired collaborative speaking task

2.1.1 Definition

In the Second Language Acquisition (SLA) literature, peer interaction can be defined

as ―any communicative activity carried out between learners, where there is minimal or

no participation from the teacher‖ (Philp, Adams, & Iwashita, 2013, p 3) Since second and foreign language teachers are increasingly embracing "communicative" and "task-based" methods, paired activities are widely used in context of second language teaching Peer interaction may involve two or more participants, and when engaged in such activities, participants work collaboratively toward a common learning goal Activities requiring the work of participants can differ in nature For example, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, peer tutoring and peer modeling are the most common ones in language classrooms Philip, Adams and Iwashita (2014) explain that collaborative learning ―involves a strong sense of mutuality and joint effort‖ (p 3) That is, only if students depend on each other can the task at hand be completed Cooperative learning and collaborative learning are sometimes used interchangeably However, Philip et al (2014) explain that cooperative learning ―does not always involve mutuality to the same degree‖ (p 3) As for peer tutoring, it occurs when one participant – often having more proficiency – assists another of lower proficiency in achieving a desired goal

2.1.2 Benefits and drawbacks

First, it is believed that learner-learner interactions in the form of pair work and group work presents learners more opportunity to actually use the target language than teacher-fronted activities (McDonough, 2004) Learners provide each other with learning opportunities during pair and group activities Second language acquisition researchers have approached the study of peer interaction and learning from both interactionist and sociocultural perspectives; and sometimes from a combination of both, as in Sato and Ballinger (2012) According to the pedagogical arguments, pair work activities provide learners with more time to speak the target language, promote learner autonomy, and give teachers opportunities to work with individual learners (Brown, 2001; Harmer, 2001; M Long & Porter, 1985) Furthermore, there are several classroom-based and laboratory-based studies that generally show that peer interaction decreases anxiety and is felt to be less stressful than teacher-led interaction in using a second language, and the feedback from her/his peers is said to improve second language acquisition (Bitchener, 2004; Crookes & Chaudron, 2001; Dobao, 2014; Douglas & Frazier, 2001; McDonough, 2004; Philp, Walter, & Basturkmen, 2010; Pica, 2002)

From a sociocultural perspective, peer interaction has been analyzed as an opportunity for learners to scaffold each other and to collaborate to find out solution of their language-related problems Sociocultural researchers argue that, as a result of no 2 learners sharing equivalent weaknesses and strengths, once they operate alongside each other, they act as novices and consultants, providing mutual scaffolding assistance (Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2001)

Research based on sociocultural theory has shown that when learners at the same level work together to pool their individual knowledge and resources, they are often able to

solve each other's problems and build new language knowledge together (Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000, 2001; Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998) Besides, Kohn and Vajda (1975) argue that cluster interaction will make it easier for learners to create a positive atmosphere that can facilitate them overcome their ―feelings of inferiority‖ and develop a ―more positive self-image and identity‖ (p 381)

Researchers adopting an interactionist approach have targeted on the instances of negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback that occur during interaction For example, Philp et al (2013) notice that active language production may push learners

to pay more attention to language form Kohn and Vajda (1975) adds that group interaction also allows students to govern and modify language to understand each other By using ―greater self-expression [and] real self-expression‖ (Kohn & Vajda,

1975, p 381) to achieve meaning, learners, therefore, enhance their language acquisition in spite of being different in their proficiency

Generally, peer interaction has been admitted as beneficial for language learners; however, several studies still discover some negative aspects resulting from this kind of activity In a study conducted with young adults from Europe and the Far East, Hyde (1993) notes that although pair work is helpful at forcing silent students to speak, it was considered the least preferred of all types of work done in a classroom (i.e, individual, pair, group and teacher with whole class) It is because one student might dominant and want to take over all the work, whilst another student just do nothing This phenomenon is popular and might be resulted from different personalities Also according to Hyde (1993), students feel that the English spoken amongst students is

―mistake-ridden‖ (p.28) and not worth taking note of This implies that this specific group of students prefer teacher-centered classes In another study by Shrestha (2013) young learners might also find pair and group work ―mechanical‖ (p 156) and boring since they were asked to repeat the same question/answer multiple times in pairs

However, in Hyde‘s (1993) study, learners enjoyed pair and group work, some found it interesting, and others enjoyed the fact that each individual had to participate and express their views with others

It is obvious that peer interaction is beneficial for learners and exchanging feedback is one of its crucial components It is the critical process for learner uptake to take place and it is also the main focus of this study Therefore, the following part reviews the role as well as several main features of student feedback

2.2 Feedback

There are various terms which refer to teachers‘ responses to learners‘ unsuccessful or successful utterances: error correction, positive and negative/corrective feedback as well as positive and negative evidence According to Leeman (2007), researchers often use these terms interchangeably, despite each of the terms (correction, feedback, and evidence) being associated with different theoretical frameworks and having slightly different meanings from one another In the following paragraphs, each ofthe various terms used in the SLA literature will be explored

2.2.1 Definition

According to Łęska (2008) feedback is information concerning the comprehension and reception of the speaker‘s message given by the listener Askew and Lodge (2000) add that feedback is simply ―a judgment about the performance of another‖ (p.6) and the purpose of giving and receiving feedback is to adjust the subsequences performances

of the recipient Generally, the definition of feedback is a process of sharing observations, concerns and suggestions between persons or divisions of the organization with an intention of improving both personal and organizational performance

In this study, feedback is conceptualized as information provided by a learner regarding aspects of ―one's performance or understanding‖ (Hattie & Timperley, 2007,

p 81) In addition, feedback is supposed to be considered as a combination of peer

feedback and peer correction By peer feedback, the researcher means ―a

communication process through which learners enter into dialogues related to

performance and standards‖ (Liu & Carless, 2006) Peer correction occurs when one

learner helps another learner to correct his/her (another learner) mistakes (Hernández Méndez, Cruz, & del Rosario, 2012)

2.2.2 Types of feedback

Three kinds of feedback classification were respectively developed by M Long (1996), Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Loewen and Nabei (2007) Long (1996) classified teacher feedback types into explicit and implicit feedback The former refers to direct, straightforward and noticeable teacher feedback, whereas the latter refers to teacher feedback that is indirect, subtle and may go unnoticed by learners In order to take the classification further, Lyster and Ranta (1997) summarised six feedback types: 1) recasts, 2) elicitation, 3) metalinguistic feedback, 4) clarification requests, 5) repetition and 6) explicit correction Loewen and Nabei (2007) regrouped the six feedback types into ‗self-repair‘ and ‗other repair‘ (see Figure 2.1) Self-repair feedback types require learners to reformulate problematic utterances after receiving teachers‘ feedback, which includes the whole range from explicit to implicit: metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition and clarification requests Other-repair, which includes recasts and explicit correction, refers to a feedback type that provides learners with correct forms in either an explicit or implicit way (Loewen & Nabei, 2007, p 326)

Figure 2.1 Feedback types classified by Loewen and Nabei (2007, p.326)

Using Long‘s (1996) classification, several studies (Carroll & Swain, 1993; Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006) generated empirical evidence showing that groups with explicit correction outperformed those with implicit correction One reason for this may be that implicit correction involves too much ambiguity and guessing for learners

to fathom what has gone wrong with their output (Seedhouse, 1997)

M Long (1996) has stated about negative and positive feedback: negative points of feedback are related to the students that their utterances are faulty in some way, and all feedbacks that are not negative are positive Positive feedback is used to reaffirm and encourage learners‘ successful behavior, while negative feedback serves as a gatekeeper that prevents bad habit formation (Skinner, 1959as cited in Chu, 2013)

2.2.2.1 Positive feedback

Positive feedback affirms the correctness of the content and linguistic form of a learner utterance It may ―signal the veracity of the content of a learner utterance or the linguistic correctness of the utterance‖ (Ellis, 2009, p 3) by giving praises or complements such as ―Good‖, ―Yes‖, ―Alright‖, ―Yes, an excellent answer‖ (Richards

& Lockhart, 1994) Ellis (2009) also states that positive feedback provides affective support to the learners and enhances their motivation (Ellis, 2009; Wheldall & Merrett, 1984) Additionally, Nunan (1991), Askew and Lodge (2000), and Lewis (2002) agree that positive oral feedback could be very beneficial due to its two functions: to draw students‘ attention that they have done well and to motivate them to work harder and produce more correctness However, positive feedback has received little attention, partly because ―discourse analytical studies of classroom interaction have shown that the teacher‘s positive feedback move is frequently ambiguous‖ (Ellis, 2009, p 3), for instance, ―Good‖ or ―Yes‖ do not always indicate the learner‘s incorrectness, for they may merely preface a subsequent correction or modification of the student‘s utterance This may be attributed to be the fact that little research has drawn on the students‘ use

of positive feedback Due to its complexity and ambiguity to analyze, positive feedback was also excluded from this study and the focal point of this study was on

negative feedback discussed below

2.2.2.2 Negative feedback (Corrective feedback)

Negative feedback, or corrective feedback (CF) in order words, is defined as

―responses to learner utterances containing an error‖ (Lyster et al., 2013, p 2) Similarly, Russell and Spada (2006, p 134) put that corrective feedback refers to ―any feedback provide to a learner, from any source, that contains evidence of learner error

of language form‖

Negative feedback signals the lack of veracity and linguistic deviance in the learner‘s utterance Jack C Richards and Schmidt (2010) explain that corrective feedback includes some strategies a teacher or a more advanced learner use to correct errors in a learner‘s speech directly (i.e teacher provides the correct form) or indirectly (i.e teacher points out the problem, then the learner tries to correct it if possible) Ellis,

Loewen, and Erlam (2006) classify corrective feedback in different terms which are implicit or explicit feedback In the former, there is no overt indicator that students have committed an error, while in the latter, there is

Ellis and Sheen (2011, p.593) encapsulate a cohesive taxonomy of corrective feedback

as follows

Figure 2.2 A taxonomy of corrective feedback strategies (Ellis, 2009, p.8)

According to Ellis (2009), there are six types of CF which were classified into two CF categories: input-providing and output-prompting The former includes recast and explicit correction because both these sorts of CF provide learners with the correct way

of saying any lexis or a sentence On the other hand, output-prompting consists of elicitation, metalinguistic explanation, clarification request, repetition and paralinguistic signal (which will not be mentioned in this study as it is a nonverbal behavior)

In terms of distinguishing implicit and explicit feedback, Lightbown and Spada (2013) explained that teachers can provide corrective feedback without interrupting the flow

of conversation (implicit feedback) or overtly with an emphasis on the ill-formed utterance (explicit feedback) In accordance with Figure 2.2, elicitation and metalinguistic explanation are explicit since they direct learners into the right form by asking questions and giving signals (Lyster et al., 2013) On the other hand,

clarification requests and repetition are identified as implicit Clarification requests contain questions as in metalinguistic explanation and elicitation but are not as noticeable and explicit as them Instead, the feedback providers use phrases such as

―excuse me?‖ or ―I don‘t understand‖ to indicate that the message has not been getting across or that students‘ utterances contained an error needed to be repeated or reformulated (Tedick & De Gortari, 1998) Regarding repetitions, the CF provider repeats what the students said with a certain intonation in order signal an error and indicate the need for correction (Lyster et al., 2013)

The following section elaborates on each of feedback type Regarding implicit feedback, according to many scholars, there are four types: recast, translation, repetition, and clarification request

 Recast

Recast is a common type of CF that has been well-researched since it is proved to be the most preferred CF by teachers (Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001; Fujii & Mackey, 2009; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Lyster & Mori, 2006) By using recasts, the teacher implicitly reformulates the students‘ errors by making only necessary changes

to produce a correct utterance without changing the meaning as well as indicating that the students‘ utterances was incorrect (Fujii & Mackey, 2009; Tedick & De Gortari, 1998) Lyster and Ranta (1997, p 46) define recast as ‗teacher‘s reformulation of all or part of a student‘s utterance, minus the error‘

For example

S: I went there two times

T: You‘ve been You‘ve been there twice as a group?

(Ellis, 2009, p 9)

Spada and Fröhlich (1995) also term this technique as ―paraphrase‖ Lyster and Ranta (1997) point out that this technique is generally implicit as is not introduced by phrases such as ―You mean,‖ ―Use this word,‖ and ―You should say‖ As a result, there is a risk that young learners may leave recasts unnoticed (Loewen & Philp, 2006) As Lyster (1998a) and numerous researchers point out (Ellis, Loewen, & Basturkmen, 2006; Lyster, 2004; Mackey & Oliver, 2002; Morris, 2005) recasts may not be beneficial due

to the fact that they do not require immediate modification and tend to lead to less or even least ―uptake‖ or immediate responses than other types of feedback Lyster and Ranta (1997, p 538) add that ―because they are implicit, recasts are unlikely to benefit learners who may experience difficulty in differentiating positive and negative feedback‖ Consequently, it is suggested that feedback should take on a more explicit form (Lyster, 1998a)

However, some current studies suggest that the effectiveness of feedback probably has nothing to do with feedback types Adopting Long‘s (1996) classification in their study, Kim and Mathes (2001) reported no significant difference between explicit and implicit correction Besides, there are numerous recent research works on this issue provided evidence for the positive impact of recasts on L2 learning Specifically learners who received corrective recasts outperformed in both oral and written measure (Braidi, 2002; Han, 2002; Iwashita, 2001) These empirical studies imply that the impacts of different feedback types on interlanguage development may be similar Hence, there are probably other, more complex, factors intertwined within the interactional feedback dialogue contributing to the effectiveness of feedback

 Translation

Translation can be seen as a feedback move when it follows a student‘s unsolicited uses of the L1 Lyster and Ranta (1997) found very few of these moves in their

database and so considered it as a subcategory of recasts—due to their similar function

of containing the target-like reformulation of the learner's error and they both lack overt indicators that an error has been produced There is nevertheless a relevant difference between a recast (a response to an ill-formed utterance in the L2) and a translation (a response to a well-formed utterance in the L1) Because of the high number of such translations occurring in the present database, the researcher coded these as a separate feedback category

For example

T: All right, now, which place is near the water?

S: Non, j‘ai pas fini (L1)

T: You haven‘t finished? Okay, Bernard, have you finished? (translation)

(Panova & Lyster, 2002, p 583)

The translation type of corrective feedback was also referred to as multiple feedback (Sheen, 2004) Thus, according to Sheen, the translation corrective feedback type was employed when the teacher combined different feedback types to the learners

 Repetition

Another approach to provide corrective feedback is repetition which is less communicatively intrusive in comparison to explicit error correction or metalinguistic feedback and hence falls at the implicit extreme on the continuum of corrective feedback This feedback is simply the teachers or interlocutors‘ repetition "of the ill-formed part of the student's utterance, usually with a change in intonation" (Panova & Lyster, 2002, p 584)

S: I will showed you

T: I will SHOWED you

S: I‘ll show you

(Ellis, 2009, p 9)

 Clarification Requests

Clarification requests are feedback that carries questions indicating that the utterance has been ill-formed or misunderstood and that requires a reformulation or a repetition This kind of feedback encapsulates ―problems in either comprehension, accuracy, or both‖.(Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p 47)

– T: How often do you wash the dishes

– S: Fourteen

– T: Excuse me (Clarification Request)

– S: Fourteen

– T: Fourteen what? (Clarification Request)

– S: *Fourteen for a week

– T: Fourteen times a week? (Interrogative Recast)

– S: Yes Lunch and dinner

(Ellis, 2009, p 9)

Clarification requests, unlike explicit error correction, recasts, and translations, can be more consistently relied upon to generate modified output from learners since it might not supply the learners with any information concerning the type or location of the error

Besides implicit feedback, there are three types of explicit feedback, namely explicit correction, metalinguistic correction and elicitation as shown below

 Explicit correction

As the name suggests, explicit feedback falls at the explicit end of corrective feedback

spectrum This kind of error correction therefore, is characterized by an overt and clear indication of the existence of an error and the provision of the target-like reformulation and can take two forms, i.e explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006) In explicit correction, the teacher provides both positive and negative evidence by clearly saying that what the learner has produced is erroneous, while in metalinguistic feedback he or she only provides students with ―comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness‖ of their utterances (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p 47) However, in providing the target-like reformulation, explicit error correction reduces the need for the learner to produce a modified response

or commentary regarding the non-target-like nature of the learner's utterance is considered as the defining feature

S: Nouvelle Ecosse (L1)

T: Oh, but that‘s in French (metalinguistic feedback)

(Panova & Lyster, 2002, p 584)

 Elicitation

Elicitation is a correction technique that prompts the learner to self-correct (Panova & Lyster, 2002) and may be accomplished in one of three following ways during face-to-face interaction: request for reformulations of an ill-formed utterance, the use of open questions, is the use of strategic pauses to allow a learner to complete an utterance Each of which varies in their degree of implicitness or explicitness The last strategy (i.e strategic pauses) is the least communicatively intrusive and hence the most implicit

S: I‘ll come if it will not rain

T: I‘ll come if it ……?

(Ellis, 2009, p 9)

Therefore, elicitation falls in the middle of explicit and implicit continuum of corrective feedback Other feedback types do not usually accompany this kind of corrective feedback

Corrective feedback—whether oral or written—is an integral part of teaching It occurs frequently in most classrooms Studies that have investigated different types of corrective feedback and their effectiveness in SLA report conflicting results

2.2.3 The role of feedback in Second Language Acquisition Theories and

Socio-cultural Theories

2.2.3.1 Feedback in interaction hypothesis

Long‘s (1996) interaction hypothesis argues that interaction provides opportunities for

a few things to take place: receiving comprehensible input and corrective feedback, testing hypotheses, triggering noticing, and pushing modified output Of these, feedback is arguably the most important element in the process of interaction, because

all the above-mentioned reactions are closely associated with feedback According to R Schmidt and Frota (1986), corrective feedback (e.g recasts) offers another source of comprehensible input Corrective feedback also enables learners to realize that a particular hypothesis they are testing is unsuccessful and makes their interlanguage salient That is, this feedback makes them notice their own non-target like usages These suggestions imply that corrective feedback may play a significant role in interaction-driven learning Along the same lines as the interaction hypothesis,

Long (1991) proposed focus-on form to describe teachers‘ corrective feedback

provided during communicative activities in an attempt to draw learners‘ attention to particular forms This sort of feedback serves as a time-out in the process of meaning-focused conversation and offers opportunities for learners to enhance accuracy in

linguistic forms As such, Long (1991, 2000) argues that focus-on-form instruction is

an eclectic approach to complement the drawbacks of focus-on-formS driven) and focus-on-meaning (communication-driven) approaches in language classrooms In other words, feedback based on Long‘s (1991) focus-on-form once

(accuracy-again appears to be beneficial to language development by linking input, learner capacity, selective attention and output

2.2.3.2 Feedback in socio-cultural theories

Working from a socio-cultural perspective, researchers (e.g Lantolf, 2000; Pica, 1996) have argued that language learning is not only a cognitive but also a social interaction When the interaction involves the provision of feedback, especially from a more advanced interlocutor to a less advanced learner, the learner is given opportunities to develop not only linguistic skills, but also his or her cognitive and social abilities (Lantolf, 2000) According to Lantolf‘s (2000) interpretation of Vygotsky‘s (1978) ZPD, in any learning processes, there are domains which learners cannot reach if no assistance is available ZPD refers to domains that separate what learners can do with

and without help from others (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994) As such, corrective feedback, from a socio-cultural perspective, can be seen as a form of support or scaffolding, which enables learners to accomplish something slightly beyond their present ability

In sum, corrective feedback is believed to benefit the L2 comprehension and acquisition process by linking input, processing, noticing, scaffolding, and output In this regard, corrective feedback is not just an error-reduction technique but a facilitator

of L2 development In order to further scrutinise this theoretical perspective, the next section will discuss empirical evidence of various aspects of corrective feedback

2.2.4 The role of peer feedback during a communicative task

2.1 The benefits

With the emergence of learner-centered beliefs in language teaching, the practice of peer feedback has become considerably more frequent in language classrooms As a correction technique, peer feedback has been supported by many theories of language teaching, such as Humanism, Communicative Language Teaching and Learner-

centered Teaching According to Vygotsky, ―learning is best understood in light of others within an individual‘s world‖ (as cited in Jones et al., 2000) As a result, giving peer feedback enhances the learning of both the student that explains, and the student that receives the explanation (Smith, 2009)

For instance, Rollinson (2005) suggests that there are some the principles operating behind applying this technique First, peer feedback is less threatening than teacher feedback as students are more comfortable with their classmates and therefore, getting corrected by their own friends evokes less anxiety Second, teacher feedback reinforces their authority in classroom since in a traditional language class, the teacher is the

authoritative figure and is considered the sole source of knowledge, whilst students play the role of just a passive receiver of information However, through the practice of peer feedback, the classroom becomes less dominated by the teacher, and the focus then shifts from the teacher to the learners Third, the involvement of peers in the correction process makes the classroom atmosphere more supportive and friendlier Especially, Lynch (2007) found empirical evidence of peer feedback being more effective than teacher feedback in developing learners‘ speaking performance Lynch concluded that learner-initiated feedback provokes more talk among learners about language, as well as greater, deeper cognitive processing activities, which may benefit learners more than teacher-initiated feedback does in such tasks

Finally, one significant component of peer feedback is peer correction Students‘ involvement in providing correction and feedback is now acknowledged by most of the practitioners as an effective way to better learning because students‘ engagement indeed increases when they give feedback to each other‘s performances (Gower, Phillips, & Walters, 2005) Since peer correction offers opportunities to the students to

be responsible for their own learning, it is also advocated by the practitioners who believe in learner autonomy To be specific, as the ownership of learning is placed in the hands of the students, they need to draw and reformulate their knowledge in order

to facilitate and regulate their own and their peers‘ learning (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004; Tsang, 2004) Students, who actively involved in giving feedback, at the same time, build on confidence in constructing their own knowledge and eventually sharing what they think (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002; Reynolds, 2009) This leads to the enhancement in their efficacy to perform (Harlen, 2006; Rubin, 2006)

as students do the self-repair first, instead of waiting for the teacher to correct their mistakes (Tsang, 2004) Students also make vital decision to accept or reject the

feedback given, as they assess and validate the multiple feedbacks given to achieve their assessment goals (Kaufman & Schunn, 2011)

In sum, peer feedback process provides a strong contribution to learners‘ language output, motivation and performance as well

2.2 Concerns about peer feedback

Though peer feedback is largely welcomed for its cognitive, social and affective value, many of the teachers as well as students still doubt its benefits and have difficulties employing it in classroom activities First, some students might feel reluctant to correct their friends‘ errors because it might harm their relationship Carson and Nelson (1996) found that Chinese withheld negative comments or criticism in order not to show a degree of authority and disrupt class harmony In a study by Koh, Lim, and Habib (2010), Asian teachers deem using peer feedback would lead to negative influence on their students‘ learning In typical Asian culture, it is a sturdy belief to preserve social harmony and disagreement or confrontation should be avoided at any cost to ―save face‖ (Wang & Wu, 2008) As a result, Asian students tend not to embarrass their peers with negative comments (Carson & Nelson, 1996) They also mentioned that this concept of ‗losing face‘ or losing the respect of others could be socially detrimental as it affects one‘s dignity and credibility Hence, such a deep-seated etiquette has put a great impact on the practice of teaching and learning and that Asian teachers often question the rationality of using peer feedback leads to the lack of active peer feedback participation among students (Nelson & Carson, 2006; Roskams, 1999; Ting & Qian, 2010)

Another possible problem with peer correction has been raised by Harmer (2008) is the students‘ fear of being claimed as inferior to their peers after getting corrected In such cases, students prefer to be corrected by the teacher gently instead of exposing their

errors to their peers Additionally, during fluency-based tasks, many students are reluctant to offer or receive feedback since they prefer being corrected by their teacher, the traditional authority they usually depend on (Ku & Lohr, 2003; Roskams, 1999) The learners also believe that teachers are concerned about the students‘ capability to provide accurate, appropriate and meaningful feedback (Ho & Savignon, 2007; Kaufman & Schunn, 2011; Roskams, 1999) Hence, peer feedback is probably less attended to than feedback that comes from a teacher (Lyster et al., 2013) However, as mentioned above, several studies argue that students often pay more attention to peer feedback due to its social dimension Perhaps they feel less threatened by their peers than by teacher experts (Falchikov, 2013; Rollinson, 2005)

Last but not least, in fluency-based activity, Skehan has argued that ―a student‘s attentional resources during a speaking activity are limited‖ (Skehan, 1998a, p 73) They cannot give equal attention to the fulfilling demands of both fluency, which means using varied and meaningful language, and accuracy Attempting to do so may lead some students to experience ―cognitive overload‖ (Goh & Burns, 2012, p 246) and the anxiety that will result Even when this does not happen, there is a risk that corrective feedback will break up the flow of communication and encourage students to focus on accuracy at the expense of fluency and complexity (Pili-Moss, 2014)

To sum up, for peer feedback to be fruitful, both teachers and students must be convinced of its value and potential towards learning success (Topping, 2009) Likewise, there is a need to redefine the students‘ learning and social responsibility where greater ownership in learning is given to them (Gielen, Peeters, Dochy, Onghena, & Struyven, 2010; Roskams, 1999) As many students will feel uneasy to take full responsibility of their learning, there is a need to constantly assure the students that peer feedback is not a replacement of teachers‘ feedback but to complement it (Brinko, 1993; Rubin, 2006; Topping, 2009)

The concerns mentioned above remarkably affect the practice and efficacy of peer feedback but it is worth noticing that the majority of these issues discussed above are in the case of peer feedback in writing There are still humble researches on oral peer feedback Therefore, this research is needed to investigate further students‘ perceptions and actual use of oral peer feedback, specifically to identify and develop strategies for its successful implementation in the classroom

2.3 Global and local errors

2.3.1 Definition

According to Dulay and Burt (1974) and Brown (2000) , local errors do not significantly hinder comprehension and prevent the message from being heard, usually because there is only a minor violation of one segment of a sentence, allowing the hearer/reader to make an accurate guess about the intended meaning Local errors only affect single elements in a sentence (for example, errors in morphology or grammatical functions) (Burt, 1975) Some of the causes are misuse and omission of prepositions, lack of subject-verb agreement, misspelled words, and faulty lexical choice (Hendrickson, 1976)

On the other hand, global errors hinder communication; they prevent the hearer from comprehending some aspects of the message and alter the intended meaning of the speakers in a substantial way Burt (1975) reveals that global errors affect overall sentence organization and commonly result from wrong word order, missing or wrongly placed sentence connectors, misuse of prepositions and pronouns, and seriously misspelled lexical items and syntactic overgeneralizations

Valdman( 1975) (as cited in Hamdan Salim Shahin, 2003) provided the same division

as Burt and said that in the case of global error the communication between the

student and teacher will be blocked and the student requires correction but in the case

of local error, communication between the teacher and the student will not be blocked and it is up to the teacher to require the correction of the error, or let the error passes Regarding the error corrections, there are two issues that should be kept in mind (1) which specific errors should be corrected and (2) when to provide corrective feedback

2.3.2 Distinction between errors and mistakes

According to Brown (2007), in order to analyze a learner language, it is important to understand the distinction between errors and mistakes A mistake refers to a performance error that is either a random guess or a slip, seeing as a failure to use a known system correctly Mistakes can happen in both native and second language are the result of some sort of temporary breakdown, hesitations, slip of the tongue, random ungrammaticalities, or imperfection in the process of producing speech and can be recognized and corrected by native speakers However errors are idiosyncrasies in the language of the learner They are actually deviation from adult grammar of a native speaker It shows the competence of the learner Then mistakes are referred to performance errors in which the learner knows the system but fails to use it while errors are the result of one‘s systematic competence It means that the learner‘s system

is incorrect

According to James (as cited in Brown, 2007) the learner is not able to self-correct the errors while mistakes if called, can be corrected by the learner Then error correction can be used as a means for identification of errors and mistakes However, Brown (2007) noted that making a distinction between errors and mistakes is difficult because

if no such error correction occurs, we are not able to distinguish those

Keshavarz (1994) also noted that there is a distinction between errors and mistakes Errors are rule governed, systematic in nature, internally principled and free from arbitrariness They show learner‘s underlying knowledge of the target language that is his transitional competence In contrast to errors, mistakes are random deviations and unrelated to any system They are related to performance of the learner and might occur in the speech and writing like slip of the tongue, slip of the ear, slip of the pen, and false start According to Keshavarz (2008), mistakes are due to non-linguistic factors such as fatigue, strong feeling, memory limitations, and lack of concentration and so on These kinds of mistakes can be corrected by the learner if brought to his attention

He considered that distinguishing between learner‘s errors and mistakes has always been problematic for teachers and researchers as Corder (1967) and Brown (1987) (cited in Keshavarz, 2008) maintained this problem too Nevertheless most error analyst use a general criterion for distinguishing between errors and mistakes‖ the frequency of occurrence‖ that is: errors which are low frequent are considered as mistakes or performance errors and those which are high frequent are systematic errors However this criterion alone is not enough for distinguishing between errors and mistakes because low frequency of certain error may due to the low frequency of grammatical patterns or avoidance strategy that a learner uses Then error analyst should consider casual factors of learner‘s deviant structures as a means of distinguishing between errors and mistakes

According to Corder (1997) (as cited in Park, 2010) errors refer to learners‘ underlying knowledge of the language and mistakes refer to incorrect forms caused by memory lapses, slips of the tongue and other instances of performance errors He considered that learners can correct their own mistakes but they cannot correct their errors because they do not have enough knowledge to distinguish their own utterance and that of the

native speaker He also pointed out two explanations with regard to learner errors First, ―the occurrence of errors is merely a sign of the present inadequacy of the teaching techniques‖ (Corder, 1997, as cited in Park, 2010, p.163) That is, if it were possible for teachers to achieve a perfect teaching method, there would be no occurrence of student errors in the target language The second explanation is that despite teachers‘ best efforts, the occurrence of errors is inevitable because errors occur for many reasons The reasons can be: interference from L1, overgeneralization, an incomplete knowledge of the target language, the complexity of the target language, and fossilization Therefore, teachers should be more concerned with how to deal with students‘ errors than the simple identification of them For this study, I will use the terms ―errors‖ and ―mistakes‖ interchangeably because sometimes it is difficult to distinguish students‘ errors from mistakes

2.3.3 Which errors should be corrected?

Various proposals have been advanced concerning which errors to correct Corder (1967) distinguished ―errors‖ and ―mistakes.‖ An error takes place as a result of lack

of knowledge (i.e., it represents a gap in competence) A mistake is a performance phenomenon, reflecting processing failures that arise as a result of competing plans, memory limitations, and lack of automaticity Similarly Penny (1996) made a difference between these terms Errors are consistent and based on ―mis-learned‖ generalizations meanwhile mistakes are occasional, inconsistent slips According to Brown (2000) an error reflects the competence of the learner while mistakes can be

self-corrected an error cannot be self-corrected

Burt (1975) suggested that teachers should focus on ―global‖ rather than ―local errors‖ Ferris (1999) similarly suggested that written corrective feedback be directed at

―treatable errors‖ (i.e., errors relating to features that occur in ―a patterned,

rule-governed way‖ (p 6) Ellis and Shintani (2013) believed that CF should be directed at marked grammatical features or features that learners have shown they have problems

with

In fact, none of these proposals are easy to implement in practice since it is not always feasible to distinct an error and a mistake The gravity of an error is to a very considerable extent a matter of personal opinion (Ellis, 2009) Vann, Meyer, and Lorenz (1984), for example, found that some teachers were inclined to view all errors

as equally serious—―an error is an error.‖ There is no widely accepted theory of grammatical complexity to help teachers (or researchers) decide which rules are simple and portable or to determine which features are marked Hard-pressed teachers often do not have the time to ascertain which features are problematic Even if the careful selection of errors to target were possible in written correction, it would be well-nigh impossible in on-line oral correction Methodologists generally advise teachers to focus attention on a few error types rather than try to address all the errors learners make (Harmer, 2007; Ur, 1996)

Hanzeli (1975, as cited in Hendrickson (1978) agrees that errors that interfere with the meaning of a message should be corrected more promptly and systematically than any other

2.3.4 When to give correction

Determining the right time to give corrective feedback has been analyzed by researchers of language, yet it still remains a controversial issue Gómez Martínez (2006) indicates that teacher interruptions during their students‘ performances or before they have finished speaking could ―break the flow of their speech‖, thus demoralizing the student and ―lowering the motivation of the student‖ (p 3) Kavaliauskienė, Anusienė, and Kaminskienė (2009) find that postponement of

corrective feedback until the end of the exchange or interaction could be a good idea They stress that during communication activities, teachers should not interrupt students just to give error correction because interruption may raise stress levels and hinder communication Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) support that constant correction may inhabit communication and expressed a preference for focused corrective feedback on errors (as cited in Lyster et al., 2013, p 7-9)

Some SLA researchers, however, present theoretical arguments for immediate correction even in fluency activities Doughty (2001, as cited in Ellis, 2009), for example, argued that in order for corrective feedback to induce change in a learner‘s interlanguage, it needs to be provided in a ―window of opportunity‖ to attract learners while their focal attention remains on meaning In this way, corrective feedback helps the learner to construct a ―form-meaning mapping‖, which is essential for true acquisition to occur (p.11)

It is not possible to arrive at any general conclusion regarding the relative efficacy of immediate and delayed corrective feedback The claim that immediate corrective feedback inevitably disrupts fluency work is probably not justified, as Ellis et al (2001) have shown In Ellis‘ study (2009), immediate corrective feedback (along with pre-emptive attention to form) did not appear to disrupt the overall communicative flow of the lessons Hendrickson (1978) emphasizes that the question of when to correct student errors is closely related to which errors to correct Many educators propose that some errors have higher priorities for correction than other errors, such as errors that seriously impair communication, errors that have stigmatizing effects upon the listener or reader, and errors that students produce frequently Thus, one of the main arguments for delaying correction would seem to be invalid Also, there is no evidence to show that immediate correction is any more effective than delayed

The literature has shown peer feedback to have value in language learning development Peer feedback has been demonstrated to trigger noticing and to promote modified output and, in turn, language enhancement The exploratory studies have generated classifications for feedback types in classroom settings and made suggestions as to why certain feedback types appear to occur more frequently in communicative interaction The literature also reviewed two types of learners‘ errors as well as their impacts on language learning However, most of the reviewed studies dealt with adult learners and focused on the impacts of teacher feedback on L2 learning

or peer feedback in writing There can be little confidence in the relevance for interactional feedback between intermediate adolescent learners in communicative activity and their perceptions of feedback as well Educators (such as Green, 1993; Schulz, 2001) have stressed the importance of understanding learners‘ minds, as their beliefs play an influential role in motivation and their learning in general Additionally, more effort is required to explore the learners‘ common errors in speaking and how peer-led feedback is given to each type of errors These subjects are still under investigation and the findings of this study are expected to reveal the answers for those questions

2.4 Previous study

2.4.1 Learners’ perceptions on peer feedback

Philp et al (2010) carried out their research in a university undergraduate class of 30 students enrolled in a course on ‗French for Business‘ which involved four hourly classes in French per week over 12 weeks The data comprised classroom observation, transcriptions of all classroom interaction, and transcriptions of primed interview sessions Retrospective interview data indicated that the learners felt less anxious during peer interaction compared to when interacting with the instructor, meanwhile