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

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

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

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts in TESOL

Submitted by LE THI MINH SANG

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. NGUYEN THANH TUNG

Ho Chi Minh City
December 2017


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I certify that this thesis entitled “Oral corrective feedback in EFL communication
classes: Teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences” is my own work.
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis does not contain
material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which
I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.
No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text
of the thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or
diploma in any other tertiary institution.
Ho Chi Minh City, 2017

Le Thi Minh Sang

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Master of Arts in TESOL thesis is the result of a fruitful collaboration of all the
people who have kindly contributed with an enormous commitment and enthusiasm
in my research. Without the help of those who supported me at all times and in all
possible ways, it would not have been feasible for me to complete my M.A. thesis.
First of all, I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Thanh
Tung, from Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, whose compassion,
encouragement and guidance throughout the research have helped in the completion
of this thesis. I have truly learned from the excellence of his skills and from his wide
experience in research; no words are adequate to describe the extent of my gratitude.
I am also sincerely grateful to all lecturers of the Open University in Ho Chi Minh
City for providing me with invaluable sources of intellectual knowledge during my
study there. This knowledge was very useful when I conducted this research.
I owe a great debt of gratitude to the anonymous participants who contributed data to
this thesis. Without them the data collection for this study could not properly been
carried out.
Last but not least, I would like to express my particular gratitude to my beloved
husband for his unconditional love, understanding, encouragement, and financial and
spiritual support over time and distance.

ii


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

at investigating of teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences for oral corrective
feedback particularly concerning whether, when, which, how, and by whom errors
should be corrected in English for Communication classes.
To achieve this purpose, relevant literature on oral corrective feedback including
types, timing, sources and error types of oral corrective feedback as well as teachers’
belief and students’ preferences were reviewed in the theory chapter to shape the
theoretical framework of the study.
Based on this conceptual framework, the study was conducted at Branch 4 of the
Foreign Language Centre in Ho Chi Minh City University of Education with the
participation of 82 students and 20 teachers. Data collection was carried out during
the two weeks of 6th-13th March, 2017. Data were collected through the tools of a
questionnaire and interviewing for both teachers and students, and then analyzed with
version 22.0 of the SPSS software.
The findings of the study indicate that both of the teachers and learners have positive
attitudes towards oral corrective feedback. Regarding the similarities, they hold the
same opinion on general perceptions and types of errors to be corrected on oral
corrective feedback. On the contrary, there are some disparities between the two
groups related to timing, providers and strategies of oral corrective feedback.
Based on the research findings, the paper concluded with some pedagogical
implications and a recommendation for further study in the line of research on oral
corrective feedback.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background to the study .......................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the problem ........................................................................................ 3
1.3. The purpose and research questions of the study .................................................... 3
1.4. Significance of the study ......................................................................................... 4
1.5. Thesis outline .......................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 7
2.1. Definitions of feedback ........................................................................................... 7
2.2. Strategies and contents ............................................................................................ 8
2.3. Concept of corrective feedback ............................................................................. 11
2.3.1. Corrective feedback types .............................................................................. 12
2.3.2. The timing of corrective feedback ................................................................. 16
2.3.3. Corrective feedback providers ....................................................................... 16
2.3.3.1 Teacher correction .................................................................................. 16
2.3.3.2 Self-correction ........................................................................................ 17
2.3.3.3 Peer correction ....................................................................................... 17
2.3.4. Error types ...................................................................................................... 18
2.3.5. The contribution of corrective feedback to communication acquisition ........ 19
2.4. Teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences .......................................................... 19
2.4.1. Teachers’ beliefs ............................................................................................ 19

iv


2.4.1.1 Definitions .............................................................................................. 20
2.4.1.2 Importance.............................................................................................. 20
2.4.2. Students’ preferences ..................................................................................... 20
2.5. Previous studies and research gap ......................................................................... 22

2.6. Summary ............................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 26
3.1. Research site .......................................................................................................... 26
3.2. Participants ............................................................................................................ 27
3.2.1. Students .......................................................................................................... 28
3.2.2. Teachers ......................................................................................................... 29
3.3. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 30
3.3.1. Overall approach ............................................................................................ 30
3.3.2. Research instruments...................................................................................... 31
3.3.2.1 Questionnaires for teachers and learners................................................ 31
3.3.2.2 Interviews for teachers and learners ....................................................... 35
3.4. Analytical framework ............................................................................................ 36
3.4.1. Quantitative analysis for questionnaires ........................................................ 36
3.4.1. Qualitative analysis for interview .................................................................. 37
3.5. Reliability and validity .......................................................................................... 38
3.5.1. Questionnaires ................................................................................................ 38
3.5.2. Interviews ....................................................................................................... 40
3.6. Summary ............................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................... 42
4.1. Questionnaire analysis ........................................................................................... 42
4.1.1. Teacher questionnaires ................................................................................... 42
4.1.1.1 Teacher questionnaire themes ................................................................ 42
4.1.1.1.1 General beliefs ................................................................................. 42
4.1.1.1.2 Timing ............................................................................................. 43

v


4.1.1.1.3 Types of oral corrective feedback ................................................... 44
4.1.1.1.4 Providers .......................................................................................... 46

4.1.1.1.5 Types of errors to be corrected ........................................................ 46
4.1.2. Student questionnaires.................................................................................... 47
4.1.2.1 Student questionnaire themes ................................................................. 47
4.1.2.1.1 General preferences ......................................................................... 47
4.1.2.1.2 Timing ............................................................................................. 49
4.1.2.1.3 Types of oral corrective feedback ................................................... 50
4.1.2.1.4 Providers .......................................................................................... 51
4.1.2.1.5 Types of errors to be corrected ........................................................ 52
4.2. Interview analysis .................................................................................................. 53
4.2.1. Teacher interviews ......................................................................................... 53
4.2.2. Student interviews .......................................................................................... 57
4.3. The comparisons between the EFL teachers’ beliefs and the EFL students’
preferences ........................................................................................................... 62
4.3.1. Questionnaire analysis.................................................................................... 62
4.3.1.1 General beliefs ....................................................................................... 63
4.3.1.2 Timing .................................................................................................... 66
4.3.1.3 Strategies ................................................................................................ 68
4.3.1.4 Providers ................................................................................................ 72
4.3.1.5 Errors to be corrected ............................................................................. 73
4.3.2. Interview analysis ........................................................................................... 74
4.4. Summary ............................................................................................................... 76
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ............................................................. 77
5.1. EFL teachers’ beliefs about providing oral corrective feedback ........................... 77
5.2. EFL students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in their communication
classes................................................................................................................... 79
5.3. The comparisons between the teachers’ beliefs about and the EFL students’
preferences for oral corrective feedback in communication classes .................... 80
5.4. Summary ............................................................................................................... 82

vi

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 83
6.1. Summary of key findings ...................................................................................... 83
6.2. Evaluation of methodology ................................................................................... 84
6.2.1. Strengths ......................................................................................................... 85
6.2.2. Weaknesses .................................................................................................... 85
6.3. Recommendations for teachers and students ......................................................... 85
6.4. Suggestions for further research ............................................................................ 87
6.5. Summary ............................................................................................................... 87
REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 88
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 96
Appendix 1: The questionnaire on oral corrective feedback (student version) ............ 96
Appendix 2: The questionnaire on oral corrective feedback (teacher version) ............ 99
Appendix 3: Teacher interview prompts .................................................................... 102
Appendix 4: Student interview prompts ..................................................................... 103
Appendix 5: The questionnaire on oral corrective feedback for students (Vietnamese
version)............................................................................................................... 104
Appendix 6: The questionnaire on oral corrective feedback for teachers (Vietnamese
version)............................................................................................................... 107
Appendix 7: Teacher interview prompts (Vietnamese version) ................................. 110
Appendix 8: Student interview prompts (Vietnamese version) ................................. 111
Appendix 9: Consent form (Vietnamese version) ...................................................... 112

vii


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

viii


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Corrective feedback strategies (adapted from Lyster & Ranta 1997) ........... 13
Table 2-2. Error types (adapted from Chauron, 1977; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) ............... 18
Table 3-1. Demographic characteristics of learner participants ..................................... 29
Table 3-2. Demographic characteristics of teacher participants ..................................... 30
Table 3-3. Description of questionnaires for teachers and learners ................................ 32
Table 3-4. Data collection techniques from questionnaires for teachers and learners .... 34
Table 3-5. Reliability analysis of teacher questionnaire (Cronbach’s Alpha) ................ 39
Table 3-6. Reliability analysis of student questionnaire (Cronbach’s Alpha) ................ 40
Table 4-1. Teachers’ general beliefs about giving oral corrective feedback .................. 42
Table 4-2. Teachers’ beliefs about timing of oral corrective feedback .......................... 43
Table 4-3. Teachers’ beliefs about strategies of oral corrective feedback ...................... 44
Table 4-4. Teachers’ beliefs about providers of oral corrective feedback ...................... 46
Table 4-5. Teachers’ beliefs about types of errors to be corrected ................................ 47
Table 4-6. Students’ general preferences for oral corrective feedback........................... 48
Table 4-7. Students’ preferences for timing of oral corrective feedback ........................ 49
Table 4-8. Students’ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback .......................... 51
Table 4-9. Students’ preferences for providers ............................................................... 52
Table 4-10. Students’ preferences for types of errors to be corrected ............................ 52
Table 4-11. Results from teacher interviews .................................................................. 54
Table 4-12. Results from student interviews .................................................................. 58
Table 4-13. Chi-square results of some general perceptions .......................................... 63
Table 4-14. Chi-square result of the importance of oral corrective feedback................. 64
Table 4-15. Chi-square result of correcting all errors ..................................................... 64
Table 4-16. Chi-square result of correcting some severe errors ..................................... 65
Table 4-17. Chi-square result of considering accuracy when correcting ........................ 65

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

ix


Table 4-19. Chi-square results of timing ........................................................................ 66
Table 4-20. Chi-square result of correcting immediately ............................................... 67
Table 4-21. Chi-square result of correcting after speaking turns .................................... 67
Table 4-22. Chi-square result of correcting at the end of speaking activities ................. 67
Table 4-23. Chi-square result of correcting at the end of class....................................... 68
Table 4-24. Chi-square results of strategies .................................................................... 69
Table 4-25. Chi-square result of explicit correction ....................................................... 69
Table 4-26. Chi-square result of metalinguistic feedback ............................................. 70
Table 4-27. Chi-square result of elicitation .................................................................... 70
Table 4-28. Chi-square result of recasts.......................................................................... 71
Table 4-29. Chi-square result of repetition ..................................................................... 71
Table 4-30. Chi-square result of clarification check ....................................................... 71
Table 4-31. Chi-square results of providers .................................................................... 72
Table 4-32. Chi-square result of teacher correction ........................................................ 72
Table 4-33. Chi-square result of self-correction ............................................................. 73
Table 4-34. Chi-square result of peer correction ............................................................ 73
Table 4-35. Chi-square of types of errors to be corrected .............................................. 74

x


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the study
For the Vietnamese students who have been mostly exposed to the Grammar

Translation Method at secondary and high schools, speaking is always the most
challenging task. Making phonological, grammatical, lexical, and discursive errors is
inevitable during their English oral productions. Therefore, an important principle of
teaching speaking is that in addition to providing opportunities for practice, it is not
only productive but also critical to give learners appropriate feedback so that they can
learn from their mistakes and have “good models of speaking and interaction” (Goh,
2012, p. 23). In that way, being a feedback provider is considered one of the
significant roles that a teacher needs to fulfill during his/her instructional practices.
However, teachers’ responses to learners’ errors still rely heavily on their intuition
rather than any prescribed principles (Ellis, 2009).
All teachers, in some time of their career, may agonize about whether, when
and how to give oral corrective feedback effectively to different types of learners in
different pedagogical contexts; in other words, “whether and how to correct errors
usually depends upon the methodological perspective to which a teacher ascribes”
(Russell, 2009, p. 163). Therefore, it becomes necessary to discover what teachers
believe and what they actually do in the realm of oral corrective feedback provision.
This necessity originates from that fact that “there is a relation between teachers’
beliefs and their teaching practices in which teachers make decisions regarding
classroom practice in accordance with their beliefs, so beliefs lay a direct effect on
the performance of both teachers and learners” (Berry, 2006, p. 42).
Individual learner differences such as age, gender, learning styles, or language
learning aptitudes have been acknowledged to be among contributory factors
mediating the effectiveness of corrective feedback (Rezaei, Mozaffari & Hatef,
1


2011). Particularly, students’ age is attributed to the pedagogical effectiveness of oral
corrective feedback (Lyster & Saito, 2010). Given that corrective feedback is
provided for the benefit of students, it is worthwhile that teachers are well aware of
how and when students at different ages would prefer to be corrected. In Vietnam the

number of adults studying nonacademic English as a foreign language represents a
significant segment of learners in adult education programs. Corrective feedback,
especially for adult students, is not a simple task since it requires considerable tact as
well as sensible decisions on the part of a teacher right after an error in an utterance
has been noticed. Thus, teachers’ instructional practices of corrective feedback tend
to rely on their pedagogical perspectives (Russell, 2009), as well as their past
classroom learning and teaching experiences (Agudo, 2014), while students enter the
classroom with a variety of beliefs and expectations (Ellis, 1994) which might clash
with those of their teachers. Therefore, discovering students’ attitudes towards and
preferences for error correction is an essential effort to resolve this dilemma.
One of the important study realms on corrective feedback is the exploration of
learners’ and teachers’ perceptions which can make significant contributions and
improvement to pedagogical practices. Han (2002) posited that in communicative
language teaching, corrective feedback may significantly enhance the learning
process only when the teacher can bridge the gap “between a teacher’s intention and
a student’s interpretation” (p. 72), and “between a teacher’s correction and a student’s
readiness for it” (p. 117). However, the amount of research to date on this respect is
surprisingly limited, which creates a serious literature gap needed to be filled
(Russell, 2009). The current study, therefore, is motivated by the lack of empirical
research comparing the learners’ and teachers’ preferences for English oral corrective
feedback in a Vietnamese context.
While corrective feedback clearly involves both oral and written discourse,
this study mainly focuses on the oral aspect which has been considered to be more
challenging for both researchers and teachers in the process of error correction (Ok
2


& Ustaci, 2013). Compared to written one, oral corrective feedback serves a more
significant role in providing explanation or clarification for learners to take better
notice of their errors, especially in speaking classrooms. Oral corrective feedback, for

this reason, is well worth investigating in different English contexts so that
pedagogical suggestions can be invoked for effective treatment of oral errors.
1.2. Statement of the problem
In the context of English teaching and learning at Branch 4 of the Foreign
Language Centre in Ho Chi Minh City University of Education with a number of
English Communication classes focusing on the four macro-skills, especially
speaking ability, oral corrective feedback has played an important role during the
process of teaching and learning. In a classroom, the teacher is often, if not always,
the one guiding students and giving them instructions. Students, on the other hand,
are also responsible for their own learning. However, guidance and feedback are
always necessary for students to improve their knowledge and learn further whenever
they make oral mistakes or errors. Therefore, whether, when, which, how, and by
whom errors should be corrected, addressed from the perspectives of both teachers
and students in English for Communication classes have been concerned by various
educators. There still exists a question about whether there is a mismatch between
teacher’s beliefs about and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback.
Therefore, the researcher decided to conduct this study focusing on the teachers’ and
students’ perspectives of different ways of giving feedback in the classroom.
1.3. The purpose and research questions of the study
The purpose of this study is to investigate English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) teachers’ beliefs about and practices on effective provision of oral corrective
feedback. This study also aims to investigate the EFL students’ perceptions of
effective oral corrective feedback. A comparison of what the teacher actually does
and what EFL students prefer in connection to the provision of oral corrective error
feedback will be also consequently made.
3


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

1. What are EFL teachers’ beliefs about providing oral corrective feedback in
their communication class?
2. What are EFL students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in their
communication class?
3. Are there any differences between the teachers’ beliefs about and the EFL
students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in communication class?
1.4. Significance of the study
Oral corrective feedback has not applied popularly in teaching and learning
English in general and in a communication class specifically in the context of
Vietnam and there are a limited number of research studies on teachers’ beliefs about
and students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback. Therefore, if this study is
conducted successfully, it is hoped to have a significant contribution to both
theoretical and practical aspects.
Theoretically, the current research provides both teachers and students of
communication classes with an overview about teachers’ beliefs about and students’
preferences for oral corrective feedback. By reviewing relevant literature, it shapes a
theoretical framework including some theoretical stances that advocate oral
corrective feedback and an overview of teachers’ beliefs about and students’
preferences for oral corrective feedback. As a result, it helps both teachers and
students reckon the importance of oral corrective feedback as well as shed light on
teachers’ beliefs about and students’ preferences for this field.
Practically, based on the results of the study, EFL teachers can benefit by
taking time to reflect on their experience of oral corrective feedback. It is expected
that this study can encourage language teachers to become more aware of their own
current practices so that they can figure out their own effective ways to give oral
4


corrective feedback. Furthermore, the study helps students acknowledge the value of
oral corrective feedback in their study. As a result, they can be confident in receiving

oral feedback from their teacher, peers and even themselves.
1.5. Thesis outline
The current chapter, Introduction, presents the general background of the
study, the research objectives, research questions, scope, and significance of the
study.
Chapter 2, Literature Review, provides the theoretical background to this
research by reviewing the areas of interest to the study. In specific, a general picture
of types of oral corrective feedback, timing for oral corrective feedback, sources of
oral corrective feedback, and error types are depicted in a necessarily detailed way.
Following that, what related to teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences is vitally
mentioned. In addition, the chapter provides previous related studies, which play a
pivotal role in seeking research gaps to situate the study.
The design and method of this study are presented in Chapter 3, Methodology.
In specific, this chapter presents the context and population, methodology of data
collection, and analytical framework, in addition to other methodological concerns
such as the reliability and validity of the instruments. Also, the chapter describes how
the data will be collected and which tools will be used in the analysis process, and
how the data will be presented.
Chapters 4 and 5, Data Analysis and Discussion of Findings, provide a
comprehensive presentation of data analysis and discussion of the findings of the
study obtained from the two tools of questionnaires and interviews.
In Chapter 6, Conclusion, and Recommendations, the main findings of the
study are precisely summarized. Besides, the last chapter evaluates the strengths and

5


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

6


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The aim of this chapter is to present the theoretical background that will be
used to underpin this study. The chapter starts with a review of the literature on
feedback and its roles in learning in an EFL context. The components of oral
corrective feedback are then scrutinized, consisting of corrective feedback strategies,
corrective feedback providers, corrective feedback timing and types of errors to be
corrected. Afterwards, the chapter moves on to review some related empirical studies
which have examined teachers’ beliefs and/or students’ preferences in the realm of
corrective feedback for EFL oral productions. The chapter concludes with a section
in which the rationale behind a number of decisions made in this study is discussed,
thus providing the reader with a bridge into the subsequent chapter.
2.1. Definitions of feedback
Feedback is generally accepted as an activity of evaluating others’
performances, which greatly contributes to language education. In reality, it is often
received when students fulfill their academic tasks, such as assignment, class task,
presentation, and essay. Academically, it is defined as a process of sharing
observations, concerns and suggestions among teachers and students with a purpose
of improving students’ own language performance. As what Collines (2013) quoted,
“feedback is a process in which the factors that produce a result are themselves
modified, corrected, strengthened, etc. by that result” (p. 520) or “a response, as one
that sets such a process in motion” (Mahdi & Saadany, 2013, p. 9). Otherwise, there
is no doubt that feedback is a vital element in language classrooms, in which learners
to get feedback from their teacher; at the same time, a teacher has a responsibility to
provide meaningful and effective feedback in the classroom.
Among several benefits, feedback is foremost believed to motivate language
learners to engage in their learning. To put it differently, according to Hattie and

7


Timperly (2007), feedback helps learners to reduce the gap between what is evident
currently and what could be the case, which they called “empathy gap” (p. 103). From
that, language learners improve their skill gradually and their mistakes can be limited
to minimum. Also, feedback is a means of facilitating the relationship between
teachers and students in the process of teaching and learning. It is inferred that
feedback is a visible and comprehensible thinking of a teacher on student’s activities.
In other words, “strong ripples bouncing in towards the center can in due course bring
the whole ripple system into being, and ideally cause learning-by-doing and even
create some motivation” (Race, 2001, p. 78).
2.2. Strategies and contents
In order to grasp the effectiveness of feedback provision, teachers should take
some feedback strategies into consideration. Among well-known theorists, Marzano,
Pickering and Pollock (2001) render several dimensions of feedback strategies as
follows:
Timing: This dimension illustrates how often and when feedback is given.
Feedback would work effectively when it is provided in the appropriate point of time.
This is an inconclusive question, depending on particular situations. For example,
Brookhart (2008) pointed that delay feedback was not more comprehensive and did
not help learners to enhance their thinking process.
Amount: The amount of feedback implies that how much feedback is given
and how many errors are focused on by the teacher on each point. Moreover, enough
amount of feedback need to be provided for students to help them recognize their
errors and know what to do next.
Mode: The mode refers to the kind of feedback that is being used (e.g. written,
oral or non-verbal) when providing feedback. It indicates that feedback should be
given in an appropriate way to ensure students’ understanding, usually based on their

8


level. For example, for those students who do not read well, oral feedback assists
them in understanding better.
Audience: This dimension indicates that giving feedback depends on kinds of
learners, such as group learners or individual learner or whole class. For example,
individual feedback must be more specific for a small group or individual learners
but when the whole class seemed to miss the lessons, group feedback is the best
choice.
Beside the aforementioned dimensions of feedback strategies, contents of
feedback are the most important factors which help teachers to decide what should
be said through the given feedback. Thus, the teacher must be aware of contents while
giving feedback. Feedback contents include such features as focus, comparison,
function, valence, clarity, specificity and the tone of feedback (Brookhart, 2008;
Moss & Brookhart, 2009), specifically:
Focus: The purposes of the focus of feedback are to describe the qualities of
work in target learning, observe learning processes, avoid comments of personal and
draw the students’ self-regulation. The teacher should only focus on those things
which are very important for student learning rather than all things.
Comparison: The content of comparison compares students’ task with the
specific criteria and their own past performance.
Function: Feedback function is important for student achievement. It gives
description and avoids evaluation or judgment on students’ work. To give an
example, the teacher can identify students’ strengths and weaknesses and also express
the task of students.
Valence: The target of feedback valence points out that feedback may be
positive or negative comments.

9

Clarity: Feedback must be clear and understandable to the students; it is called
clarity of feedback. Teachers should use those words and concepts which are more
understandable to the students; as a result, they can realize what will do for improving
themselves and their task.
Teachers’ tone or voice: It is an important for teachers to select the appropriate
words when providing feedback for their students. Teachers need to consider all the
above contents when giving feedback for different purposes. It is also noted that
students respect the teachers whose feedback is positive and fair.
There are several types of feedback commonly used in classroom such as oral
feedback and written feedback. By definition, verbal feedback can be “oral remarks
of teacher about the adequacy or the correctness of student statements solicited or
initiated in the development of subject knowledge” (Zahorik, 1970, p. 105). It is
recognized that oral feedback is a powerful tool for the students, in which they will
listen and reflect on what has been said. In fact, teachers usually use some questions
and dialogues as keys to make feedback more effective. Consequently, students can
find out what they already know, identify gaps of knowledge and their learning goal.
Also, students get comfortable to pose questions and make requests to the teachers
through oral feedback. With regard to oral feedback types, Noor, Aman, Mustaffa,
and Seong (2010) have demystified some types of oral feedback as follows:
Evaluative feedback: This type describes a form of evaluation which includes
typical signals, such as “good”, “very good”, “yes”, “correct”, and “ok”, on the
learner’s performance.
Repetition: Repetition can serve as a positive way for the teacher to express
agreement, appreciation and understanding. It is also considered as negative feedback
when oral errors are corrected.

10

Interactive feedback: This type is used to modify or elaborate a student’s
answer. For example, praises like “yes” and “very good” in interactive feedback are
purported to encourage and assist the students so that they do not feel reluctant with
the responses.
Corrective feedback: Corrective feedback is one kind of negative feedback,
which only occurs when students produce an erroneous utterance.
2.3. Concept of corrective feedback
Feedback, as suggested by Lynch (1996), generally entails cognitive feedback
which comments on the comprehensibility or accuracy of learner utterances and
affective feedback in which the teacher expresses approval or disapproval for what
the learner has said. Corrective feedback is the term concerning “how competent
speakers react to learners’ language errors” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 38). In
classroom settings, corrective feedback is specifically defined as the teacher’s
response to a learner utterance which contains language errors so that those errors can
be noticed and corrected. Corrective feedback can be provided either in a written or
oral form, explicitly or implicitly.
Throughout the annals of pedagogical theory, how the teacher responds to
student errors has been repeatedly reviewed among principles in various teaching
methods. In the Grammar-Translation Method, the teacher is directly responsible for
giving learners explicit correction. The Direct Method, on the other hand, appreciates
self-correction and, therefore, the teacher is expected to get students to self-correct
by any means possible. In the Audio-Lingual Method, student errors are avoided at
all costs and thus, immediate corrective feedback is essential whenever errors occur.
Errors are most tolerated from the perspective of the Communicative Approach.
Consequently, there is a general consensus among Communicative Language
Teaching practitioners that tolerance of errors should be emphasized in fluency-based

11

sessions and noticed later with an accuracy-based activity (Larsen-Freeman &
Anderson, 2011).
In the extensive literature on the area of corrective feedback, there have been
various attempts in search for relevant answers to the below issues: the efficacy of
different corrective feedback types, the timing of corrective feedback, the choice of
corrective feedback providers, the choice of errors to correct, and the contribution of
corrective feedback to L2 learning / acquisition. These issues have become the
framing questions for a majority of research studies on error correction in a foreign
language classroom since they were first raised by Hendrickson in 1978. However,
over the past three decades it is fair to say that there has been no single agreement
upon none of those matters. One of the reasons for the lack of consensus on the
corrective feedback research is attributed to the numerous variables which are
claimed to mediate its effectiveness.
2.3.1. Corrective feedback types
In Lyster and Ranta’s study (1997), six types of feedback employed by the
teacher participants were distinguished and discussed in detail. They are explicit
correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and
repetition. However, teachers could provide seven types of corrective in senior
middle school and university EFL classrooms: Explicit correction, recast,
clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, and nonverbal
signals (Shanshan, 2012). These classifications have been categorized into two
categories of reformulations and prompts. Recasts and explicit correction belong to
reformulation because both of them focus the correct way of saying a certain word or
a sentence whereas prompts refers to a variety of signals. Elicitation, meta-linguistic
cue, clarification requests and repetition are included in prompts (Mahdi & Saadany,
2013). Table 2.1 below is the description and given examples of the most common
strategies of corrective feedback.

12

Table 2-1. Corrective feedback strategies (adapted from Lyster & Ranta 1997)
Type
Explicit
correction

Description
The learner is directly informed that
his or her answer was incorrect, and then
the correct form is provided by the teacher.
This type of corrective feedback is
further subcategorized into metalinguistic
comment, information, and questions.

Metalinguistic
feedback

Elicitation

Recasts

Repetition

Clarification
requests

Another strategy to provide corrective
feedback is elicitation which prompts the
learners to self-repair. The teacher

indicates the learner’s error without
explicitly providing the correct form.
The teacher reformulates a part or
whole of the learner’s utterance when
including the correct form in his/her
response. Learners are likely to be unaware
that they have committed errors nor that
their errors are being corrected.
The teacher repeats a part or whole of
the learner’s utterance with different
intonation patterns to make errors
noticeable.
The feedback indicating that what the
learner has produced is erroneous comes
under the form of phrases such as
“Pardon?” or questions including a
repetition of the error as in “What do you
mean by X?”

Example
L: On May.
T: Not on May, in
May. We say, “It
will start in May.”
L: Yesterday rained.
T: Yesterday it
rained. You need to
include the pronoun
“it” before the verb.
In English we need

“it” before this type
of verb related to
weather.
L: I’ll come if it will
not rain.
T: I’ll come if it….?

L: I went there two
times.
T: You’ve been.
You’ve been there
twice as a group?
L: I eated a sandwich.
T: I EATED a
sandwich?
L: How many years
do you have?
T: Could you say that
again?

In order to identify the types of oral corrective feedback which the participants
perceive to be effective in language learning, the continuum of corrective feedback
13


types in order of explicitness below will be employed due largely to its rich variety
of corrective feedback strategies, its simplicity and comprehensibility in terms of
coding and classification. According to this categorization, reformulations including
recasts and explicit correction are readily distinguishable from prompts (i.e.
clarification requests, repetition, elicitation, and metalinguistic clues) by their

revelation of correction. Some corrective feedback strategies automatically place the
burden of correction on the learner, for example, signaling an error by means of a
clarification request or by simply repeating the erroneous utterance (Ellis, 2009).
Corrective feedback can also be classified along with the distinction between
implicit and explicit types. In explicit feedback, the teacher overtly indicates that an
error has occurred while in implicit feedback, there is no straightforward indication
that what the learner said was incorrect. Sheen (2010) taxonomy distinguishes
between explicit corrective feedback that provides correct forms (i.e. didactic recasts
and explicit correction with/without metalinguistic explanation) and explicit
corrective feedback that withholds correct forms (i.e. metalinguistic clues and
elicitation). Figure 2.1 on the next page illustrates corrective feedback types along a
continuum that ranges from implicit to explicit, according to the dichotomous
distinction between reformulations and prompts.
Among the six types of corrective feedback mentioned above, it is evident that
the recast is the most common means of oral correction provided to learners, and in
fact, is overused by teachers (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). What remains inconclusive is
its efficacy compared to other types of feedback. The extent to which learners gain
benefits in terms of oral accuracy from prompts has been proved to be greater than
from recasts (Darabad, 2013). According to Ellis (2009), teacher educators have been
understandably reluctant to prescribe or proscribe the strategies that teachers should
use. In part this is because they are uncertain as to which strategies are the effective

14