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

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

LƢU THỊ HƢƠNG

MATCHES AND MISMATCHES BETWEEN EFL TEACHERS’
AND STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES FOR CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASSES: A STUDY AT A VIETNAMESE
UNIVERSITY
(Những sự phù hợp và không phù hợp giữa những sở thích đối với phản
hồi sửa lỗi của giáo viên và sinh viên Tiếng Anh nhƣ là một ngoại ngữ:
Nghiên cứu ở một trƣờng đại học Việt Nam)

M.A. COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS (TYPE II)
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01

Hanoi – 2019


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

LƢU THỊ HƢƠNG

MATCHES AND MISMATCHES BETWEEN EFL TEACHERS’
AND STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES FOR CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASSES: A STUDY AT A VIETNAMESE
UNIVERSITY
(Những sự phù hợp và không phù hợp giữa những sở thích đối với phản
hồi sửa lỗi của giáo viên và sinh viên Tiếng Anh nhƣ là một ngoại ngữ:
Nghiên cứu ở một trƣờng đại học Việt Nam)

M.A. COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS (TYPE II)
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hoàng Văn Vân

Hanoi – 2019


DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
I declare that this thesis and the work in it are my own and has been generated
by me as the result of my own original research entitled “Matches and
mismatches between EFL teachers’ and students’ preferences for
corrective feedback in English speaking classes: A study at a Vietnamese
university.”
I confirm that:
1. This work was done mainly while in candidature for a research degree at
this university;
2. Where I have consulted the published work of others, this is always clearly
attributed;
3. Where I have quoted from the work of others, the source is always given.
With the exception of such quotations, this thesis is entirely my own work;
4. I have acknowledged all main sources of help;
5. Either none of this work has been published before submission.

Hà Nội, 2019

Lưu Thị Hương

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank my thesis supervisor Professor Vân Văn
Hoàng of the Centre of Language Education Research, Linguistics and
International Studies, VNU University of Languages and International Studies.
The door to Prof. Hoang house was always open whenever I had a question
about my research or writing. He consistently allowed this paper to be my own
work and offered me valuable feedback and suggestions.
I thank all of teachers and students in Faculty of Foreign Languages,
Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 for their contribution to this study.
I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents for providing
me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years
of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This
accomplishment would not have been completed without them.
Author
Lưu Thị Hương

ii


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

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

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP ............................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .............................................................. vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................ viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
1.1. Rationale of the study ............................................................................. 1
1.2. Significance of the study ......................................................................... 2
1.3. Scope of the study ................................................................................... 3
1.4. Purpose of the study ............................................................................... 3
1.5. Method of the study ................................................................................ 4
1.6. Key terms and definitions ...................................................................... 4
1.7. Structure of the thesis ............................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 7
2.1. Theoretical background ......................................................................... 7

2.1.1. Language errors .................................................................................. 7
2.1.2. Corrective feedback.......................................................................... 12
2.1.3. Oral corrective feedback .................................................................. 15
2.2. Literature review of related studies .................................................... 19
2.2.1. The studies on teachers and students‟ preferences for oral corrective
feedback...................................................................................................... 20
2.2.2. The studies on the relationship between teachers‟ practices and
students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback.................................... 24

iv


2.3. Summary................................................................................................ 27
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 28
3.1. Conceptual framework ......................................................................... 28
3.2. Research method ................................................................................... 29
3.2.1. Research design ................................................................................ 29
3.2.2. Research setting................................................................................ 30
3.2.3. Research sample ............................................................................... 31
3.3. Research instruments ........................................................................... 35
3.3.1. Class observation.............................................................................. 35
3.3.2. Questionnaires for teachers and students ......................................... 36
3.3.2. Semi-structured interview with students and teachers ..................... 37
3.4. Procedure............................................................................................... 38
3.5. Data analysis .......................................................................................... 40
3.5.1. Quantitative data analysis................................................................. 40
3.5.2. Qualitative data analysis................................................................... 41
3.6. Summary............................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................... 43
4.1. Findings.................................................................................................. 43

4.1.1. Oral corrective feedback strategies used by teachers in actual
classrooms .................................................................................................. 43
4.1.2. Students‟ and teachers‟ preferred types of corrective feedback in
EFL speaking classrooms ........................................................................... 45
4.1.3. Matches and mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟
preferences for oral corrective feedback .................................................... 48
4.1.4. Reasons why students and teachers prefer certain types of corrective
feedback...................................................................................................... 51
4.1.5. Other findings ................................................................................... 58

v


4.2. Discussion .............................................................................................. 59
4.3. Summary................................................................................................ 62
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 63
5.1. Recapitulation of the main ideas ......................................................... 63
5.2. Pedagogical implications for teaching and learning process ............ 64
5.3. Limitations of the study........................................................................ 66
5.4. Recommendations for further work ................................................... 67
REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 68
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................I
APPENDIX A: ................................................................................................ I
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................... III
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................... IX
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................. XV
APPENDIX E .......................................................................................... XVIII

vi

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1. Teachers‟ information and schedules.................................................. 32
Table 2. Backgrounds of the interviewed students ........................................... 34
Table 3. Oral corrective feedback codes and item position in the questionnaires..... 40
Table 4. Frequency of oral corrective feedback in actual class hours .............. 43
Table 5. Teacher‟s preferences for types of oral corrective feedback .............. 45
Table 6. Students‟ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback ............... 47
Table 7. Students‟ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback (SPSS
result) ................................................................................................................. 47
Table 8. Students‟ and teachers‟ preferences for corrective feedback ............. 49

FIGURES
Figure 1. Qualitative data analysis procedure ............................................. 41
Figure 2. Students’ and teachers’ preferences for oral corrective feedback ..... 50

vii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EFL

English as a Foreign Language

FFL

Faculty of Foreign Languages

HPU2

Hanoi Pedagogical University 2

ELT

English Language Teaching

EL

English Linguistics

NCF

No corrective feedback

REP

Repetition

EF

Explicit feedback

EL

Elicitation

CR

Clarification request

MF

Metalinguistic feedback

RC

Recast

PS

Paralinguistic signal

viii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This initial chapter serves to state the rationale for the study as well as
the significance, aims, scope, and structure of the whole paper. Above all, it is
in this chapter that research questions are identified to work as clear guidelines
for the whole research.
1.1. Rationale of the study
In learning and teaching foreign languages context, making errors is an
indispensable part of the learning process. Coder (1967) argues that errors truly
reveal the learner‟s underlying knowledge of the language and at a certain
stage they reflect the learners‟ transitional competence. Undoubtedly, finely
appropriate corrective feedback assists teachers to hamper their learners‟ errors
from getting fossilized and help them get progress along their interlanguage
continuum. The correction of learners‟ errors, hence, has also been a crucial
part of language acquisition.

A number of empirical studies have been carried out to find out the
effectiveness of giving feedback to students. Rydahl (2005) conducted a study
to investigate if and how teachers in upper secondary schools use oral feedback
as an important tool to help students achieve higher proficiency in a second and
foreign language. Gass and Selinker (2008) suggested that “in any learning
situation, not all humans are equally motivated to learn languages, nor are they
equally motivated to learn a specific language.” (p. 165). Thus, teachers should
be sensitive to students‟ attitudes to language, particularly to error correction
although it might be argued that learners‟ preferences may not be what is
actually best for acquisition (Truscott, 1996). Moreover, teachers need to know
learners‟ opinions because a mismatch between students‟ expectations and
realities in the classroom can hinder improvement in language acquisition.

1


However, in reality, for most language teachers, there is a controversy
with respect to the best ways to deal with students‟ errors. There are language
teachers who attempt to correct all of their students‟ errors while others only
focus on correcting errors that are directly related to the topic being addressed
in a particular lesson, or errors that inhibit communication. Others might ignore
students‟ mistakes because they think correcting could interrupt the flow of the
class. From my personal experiences and observations, the author has recently
realized that the teachers seem not to pay attention to what students actually
think and want about error correction in the teaching and learning process.
Students themselves might want to be heard from teachers to build a friendly,
comfortable and cooperative learning environment. Besides, the teachercentered approach seems to be dominated in which teaching techniques seem
to follow the one size fits all patterns. As a result, students‟ learning progress
has been affected, especially in speaking domain. Thus, the author is motivated
to carry out a study on teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective

feedback at a Vietnamese university.
1.2. Significance of the study
It cannot be denied that error correction is a crucial part of getting
progress in learning. Without acknowledging mistakes finely, students may
repeat the wrong patterns and build a bad habit that might not be fixed in the
future. This might lead to long-term effects. As stated in the research, this
study is targeting all the parties involved in the process of giving and receiving
corrective feedback. It would offer a general view of teachers‟ corrective
feedback preferences given to students‟ speaking performances and students‟
corrective feedback preferences. By comparing students‟ preferences with
teachers‟, teachers are encouraged to find out their own ways of delivering oral
corrective feedback to their learners.
2


1.3. Scope of the study
It is clear that corrective feedback consists of two forms, written and oral
ones, though it is impossible to cover these two forms. Moreover, it is
challenging to cover corrective feedback on students‟ four skills performances.
Therefore, this study narrows down only to oral corrective feedback on
students‟ speaking performances. Given the scope of the study, the data are
only collected from 138 students and 5 lecturers through observations of
English lessons, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews in regard to the
limit of time and unavailability.
1.4. Purpose of the study
The author carries out this study to aim at examining teachers‟ and
students‟ preferences regarding different types of corrective feedback in EFL
speaking classrooms at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 (HPU2), Vietnam. In
order to figure out results, the researcher observed 5 classes to identify the
currently implemented corrective feedback strategies that are preferred by

HPU2‟s teachers. Additionally, the study examines the students‟ and teachers‟
differences in preferences regarding corrective feedback strategies. The
matches or mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral
corrective feedback are the emphases for this investigation.
This study was conducted in an attempt to find answers for the following
questions:
1. What oral corrective feedback do teachers actually give on students‟
speaking in EFL speaking classrooms?
2. What types of corrective feedback do students and teachers in EFL speaking
classrooms prefer?
3. To what extent do the teachers‟ oral corrective feedback match the students‟
preferences?
3


1.5. Method of the study
This study employed a mixed methods design. Classroom observation,
questionnaire, and interview were employed as the instruments of data
collection. Data were then analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively by means
of descriptive statistics to identify the patterns of corrective feedback exploited
by the observed teachers as well as teachers and students‟ preferences towards
certain types of corrective feedback. The reasons for their preferences were
also discussed.
1.6. Key terms and definitions
Preferences
Hausman (2005, p. 33-35; 2012, p. 1-3) convincingly argues that
preferences are not to be defined in terms of (1) self-interest or expected
advantage, (2) desires, likings or enjoyment comparisons or (3) actual or
hypothetical choices. Instead, preferences – as most economists use the term –
are best defined as total comparative evaluations and hence as rankings of

alternative choice options in terms of all considerations that the person finds
relevant (Hausman, 2005, p. 37-38; 2012, p. 3-4).
Practice
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2000), practice is the
habitual doing or carrying out of something; usual or customary action of
performance; action as opposed to profession, theory, knowledge, etc.
Scribner and Cole (1981) define practice as “a recurrent goal-directed
sequence of activities using a particular technology and particular systems of
knowledge.” (as cited in Miller & Goodnow, 1995, p. 235).
In sum, practices are actions that are repeated, shared with others in a
social group, and invested with normative expectations and with meanings or
significances that go beyond the immediate goals of the action.
4


Error
George (1972) proposed that errors are “unwanted forms by the teacher
or course designer,” (p. 2) or “negative influences in the process of learning”
(Ringbom 1986, p. 71). An error is a linguistic form that is different from the
nature of current norms or facts.
Feedback
Hattie and Timperly (2007) define feedback as “information provided by
agent regarding aspects of one‟s performance or understanding.” (p. 81)
Therefore, it is an indispensable tool for improving the teaching and learning of
speaking, by providing information to students on oral performances
Corrective feedback
Yang and Lyster (2010) defined corrective feedback as “a reactive type
of form-focused instruction which is considered to be effective in promoting
noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning.” (p. 237).
Oral corrective feedback

Oral corrective feedback focuses on corrective feedback on students‟
speech with an indication of error committed.
1.7. Structure of the thesis
The study has been organised around five chapters as follows.
Chapter 1 – Introduction, examines the rationale, objectives, scope, methods,
the research questions, and structure of the study aiming at appealing the
readers to the thesis.
Chapter 2, Literature review, begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of
the research and looks at definitions of several key terms and important
previous studies related to the current research.

5


Chapter 3, Methodology, describes the subjects, research instruments,
employed methods, data collection procedures, and data analysis applied to
conduct this study.
Chapter 4, Findings and discussion, provides answers to the research questions
raised at the beginning and some discussions about the collected results.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion, recapitulates the main findings of the research along
with major pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies.

6


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, the literature on the current research will be discussed in
regard to the theoretical background and related studies. It begins with the key
concepts of errors and oral corrective feedback which guides and plays as the
foundation for this research thesis to base on in the process of conducting the

whole research. Then an overview of related studies will serve to reveal the
research gap and justifying the aims of the present paper.
2.1. Theoretical background
2.1.1. Language errors
2.1.1.1. Definitions of language errors
To start with, the term „error‟ will be defined from different points of
view in order to be able to distinguish it from mistakes.
Regarding the field of English Teaching Methodology, various
definitions of errors can be found. According to Brookes, errors are “Like sin,
error is to be avoided as its influence overcome.” (quoted from Ellis, 1985,
p.22). George (1972) proposed that errors are “unwanted forms by the teacher
or course designer,” (p. 2) or “negative influences in the process of learning”
(Ringbom 1986, p. 71). One of the most notable definitions of error is the one
created by Lennon (1991), who included the native speaker norm into the
definition. He proposed that an error is “a linguistic form or combination of
forms which in the same context and under similar conditions of production
would, in all likelihood, not be produced by the speakers‟ native speakers
counterparts.” In language teaching and learning scope, error has always been
regarded as something negative which must be avoided. As a consequence,
teachers have always adopted a repressive attitude towards it. However, it was
considered to be a sign of inadequacy of the teaching techniques and on the
other hand, it was seen as a natural result of the fact that since by nature we
7


cannot avoid making errors, we should accept the reality and try to deal with
them. This is supported by Corder (1967) cited by Ellis (2008) as he defines an
error as a deviation in learner language which results from a lack of knowledge
of the correct rules. Corder shows how information about errors could be
helpful to the teachers, researchers, and students and errors are now seen as

reflections of a learner‟s stage of „interlanguage‟ development. It is also an
indicator of the natural progress of learning the second language. Similarly,
Chaudron (1986, quoted by Allwright and Bailey, 1991, p. 86) suggested that
an error is:
1) “linguistic forms or content that differ from native speaker norms or
facts, and
2) any other behaviour signaled by the teacher as needing improvement.”
Similarly, Brown (1980, p. 165) says that errors refer to a noticeable deviation
from the adult grammar of a native speaker, which reflects the inter-language
communication of the learners. Learners usually do not recognize it, and
cannot correct it.
It is interesting to note that these definitions are proposed mostly based
on the native speaker language norms. However, it is apparent that the
definitions created in such a way might be no promising for the current
teaching and learning state. Obviously, English is so widely spoken and it has
often been referred to as a “world language” or “World Englishes.” However,
most of English educators are not native speakers of English. This means that
students are permanently exposed to the nonnative language model, so the
language used in the classrooms might be different from the native speaker
norms.

8


Clearly, mistake and error are often misunderstood then it is important to
differentiate mistake and error. Mistake and error have different meanings
though they both exist in the learning process. Mistakes are performance
phenomena, and are of course regular features for the native speaker‟s speech,
reflecting processing failures that arise as a result of competing plans, memory
limitations, and lack of automaticity (Richards, 1974, p. 47). Sharing the same

ides, Hornby (1989) refers a mistake to a performance error that is either
random on a slip of the tongue in that it is a failure to utilize a known system
correctly (Brown, 1980, p. 134). The students cannot correct their mistakes by
themselves. According to Ellis, errors reflect gaps in learners‟ knowledge.
They occur because the learner does not know what is correct. While mistakes
reflect occasional lapses in performance, they occur because the learner is
unable to perform what he or she knows (Ellis, 1997, p. 17). The definition
above shows that mistake is a fault that is made by the learner, and they can
make a correction. Meanwhile, an error is a fault that is made by the learner,
and he or she is unable to make a correction.
In short, an error is a linguistic form that is different from the nature of
current norms or facts. It has been found that while acquiring the first
language; people produce numerous errors, which are accepted as a natural and
necessary part of language development. Foreign language learning is more or
less similar to first language learning. Thus, errors need to be studied with
great importance.
2.1.1.2. Classifications of language errors
In reference to the typology of errors, there are several propositions.
Touchie (1986) mentioned two types of errors: performance errors and
competence errors. Performance errors are those made by learners when they
are tired or hurried. Normally, this type of error is not serious and can be

9


overcome with little effort by the learner. Competence errors, on the other
hand, are more serious than performance errors since competence errors reflect
inadequate learning.
Other researchers (cf. Burt and Kiparsky 1974) distinguish between local
and global errors. Local errors do not hinder communication and understanding

the meaning of an utterance. Global errors, on the other hand, are more serious
than local errors because global errors interfere with communication and
disrupt the meaning of utterances. Local errors involve noun and verb
inflections, and the use of articles, prepositions, and auxiliaries. Global errors,
for example, involve wrong word order in a sentence.
Lyster & Ranta (1997) pointed out three main types of errors:
grammatical, phonological and lexical errors. The first type of error includes
non-target use of closed classes such as determiners, prepositions and
pronouns, grammatical gender, tense, verb morphology, auxiliaries, subjectverb agreement, pluralisation, negation, question formation, relativisation, and
word order. Phonological errors are the inaccurate pronunciation of words that
often lead to difficulty in comprehension of the target words. Lexical ones
include inaccurate, imprecise or inappropriate choices of lexical items in open
classes (nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives), non-target derivations of nouns,
verbs, adverbs, and adjectives involving incorrect use of prefixes and suffixes.
2.1.1.3. Sources of language errors
There are two sources of errors namely inter-lingual errors and intralingual errors. Richards (1974, p. 35) states that inter-lingual errors are errors
caused by the interference of the learner‟s mother tongue. Errors of this nature
are frequent, regardless of the learner‟s language background. Therefore,
interlingual errors are caused by interference from the native language to the
target language that they learn. Before someone masters the concept of the

10


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

1) Overgeneralisation
Overgeneralisation addresses items that are constructed in the grammar
of the language. It leads to an overindulgence of one member of a set of forms,
and the underuse of others in the set, for example, “he is walks quickly” instead
of “he walks quickly.”
2) Ignorance of rule restriction
In this case, the learner fails to recognize the restriction of existing
structures, for instance, “I enjoy to learn about English language.” It is better
to change „to learn about‟ with the word „learning.‟
3) Incomplete application of rules
In this kind of intra-lingual error, we may note the occurrence of
structures whose deviancy represents the degree of development of the rules
required to produce acceptable utterances. It can be seen in this example: “He
opening the door.” The verb ending “-ing” cannot stand by itself. It needs „to
be‟ to be changed in order to make the sentence acceptable.
4) False concept hypothesized
This intra-lingual error is sometimes called a semantic error. It is the
incorrect comprehension of distinction in the target language. These particular
errors are usually the result of poor gradation of teaching.

11


2.1.2. Corrective feedback
2.1.2.1. Definition of feedback
With respect to the field of language teaching, various definitions of
feedback are found.
Gipps (1995) says that “feedback is a crucial feature of teaching and
learning processes and it is one element in a repertoire of connected strategies
to support learning.” (cited in Naeini, 2008). Naeini points out that feedback is

the indication of consciousness-raising. “Feedback is information that is given
to the learners about his or her performance of a learning task, usually with the
objective of improving performance.” (Ur, 1996; cited in Khan, 2002). Long
and Robinson (1998) also emphasized on consciousness-raising activities.
They explained that „flagging‟ target items such as highlighting, underlining,
and rule-giving can be some examples of consciousness-raising activities and
in this way a teacher can direct the learner‟s attention which can help him to
improve. Hattie and Timperly (2007) define feedback as “information provided
by agent regarding aspects of one‟s performance or understanding.” (p. 81)
Therefore, it is an indispensable tool for improving the teaching and learning of
speaking, by providing information to students on oral performances. Sheen
(2011, p. 32) argues that feedback should be provided regardless of whether
the learner‟s response is correct or incorrect. An example of positive feedback
is a teacher saying “Good job!” on a learner‟s speaking performances.
Hence, feedback refers to advice or information about how good or
useful something or somebody‟s work is. People making errors base on
feedback to try to fix or correct themselves. Regarding English Language
Teaching, feedback may be defined as a teacher‟s response to the learners‟
utterances and does not necessarily have to be negative.

12


2.1.2.2. Definition of corrective feedback
Different definitions of corrective feedback have been provided.
According to Chaudron (1977), error correction is simply defined as “any
reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to or
demands improvement of the learner‟s utterance.” Whether systematic,
consistent or effective the teacher‟s reaction is to errors, corrective feedback
has been widely defined as: “…The teacher‟s response to a student error.”

(Dekeyser, 1993). Along this line of thought, Lightbown and Spada (1999, p.
171) define corrective feedback as “any indication to the learners that their use
of the target language is incorrect.” Sharing the same ideas with Chaudron
(1977) and Lightbown and Spada (1999), Ellis et al. (2006) have defined it as
“responses to learner‟s utterances containing an error.” Long states that
corrective feedback provides evidence that cannot be found in the output and
that learners highly benefit from it (as cited in Kim, 2004). Corrective feedback
refers to “responses to a learner‟s non-target-like L2 production” (Li, 2010, p.
309). Yang and Lyster (2010) defined corrective feedback as “a reactive type
of form-focused instruction which is considered to be effective in promoting
noticing and thus conducive to L2 learning.” (p. 237). Therefore, corrective
feedback is the reaction of the teacher or peers to the erroneous utterance of the
learner, when this reaction involves attention to language forms and a
corrective intention. When the learners‟ output contains an error, the teacher
uses a variety of corrective feedback moves to respond to these errors, focusing
on form in this incidental way.
In short, corrective feedback is an indication to the learner that his or her
use of the target language is incorrect and his or her error should be corrected.

13


2.1.2.3. The role of corrective feedback
When it comes to error correction, it specifies correcting both oral and
written errors. This study, though, is particularly concerned with the correction
of oral errors.
The role of corrective feedback has become a controversial issue among
many linguists, language educators and researchers. Traditionally, researchers
insisted on the limited function of corrective feedback. Some authors imply
that teachers should not correct students‟ errors. Research has also revealed the

benefits of corrective feedback in oral interaction: learners‟ noticing of
problematic forms and restructuring IL (Gass, 1997; Schmidt & Frota, 1986);
opportunity to modify output and test hypotheses, “automatization of existing
knowledge, as well as syntactic processing (Swain, 1985, 1995). Truscott
(1996) provides an in-depth investigation against giving oral correction on
grammatical points. He lists some difficulties teachers and students face
including the ability to identify errors with ambiguity, to evaluate intended
meaning accurately, and to deal with error within the context in an appropriate
way. The advocates of this argument include Allwright (1975) and Fanselow
(1977). However, Lyster (1997), Lightbrown and Spada (1999) disapprove of
Truscott‟s debate. They claim strong support for the provision of oral
corrective feedback. It is important to note that although some authors tried to
discourage teachers from correcting oral and written errors, recent literature
has shown that it is not only positive but even necessary to provide learners
with negative evidence after an oral error.
It can be said that, in EFL classrooms, error correction is an integral aid
for teachers to help students correct their errors to hinder incorrect forms from
becoming fixed. Corrective feedback can have both positive and negative
impacts. The positive impact will appear if the corrective feedback is given

14


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

In summary, the crucial role of oral corrective feedback in the language
teaching and learning process cannot be denied.
2.1.3. Oral corrective feedback
2.1.3.1. Definition of oral corrective feedback
Regarding the definitions of oral corrective feedback, there are several
propositions.
Mackey, Gass and McDonough (2000); Nishita (2004) cited by Yoshida
(2008) have classified errors for corrective feedback such as morphosyntactic
(word order, tense, conjugation, and articles are used incorrectly), phonological
errors

(mispronounced

words),

lexical

errors

(inappropriate

use

of

vocabularies) and semantic and pragmatic errors (misunderstanding a learner‟s
utterance). Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) state that oral corrective feedback
“takes the form of responses to learner utterances that contain error(s). The
responses can consist of (a) an indication that an error has been committed, (b)
provision of the correct target language form, or (c) metalinguistic information

about the nature of the error, or any combination of there.” (as cited in Méndez
& Cruz, 2012, p. 64). This definition is in agreement with Lyster et al. (2013,
p. 1) as they described oral corrective feedback as the teachers‟ responses to
learners‟ erroneous utterances. On the other hand, corrective feedback indicates
only correction of errors (Fungula, 2013, p. 3). Therefore, oral corrective
15