An investigation into teachers’ attitudes towards and practices of corrective feedback on students’ oral mistakes at hanoi national university of education

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
-------------***-------------

ĐINH THỊ HƯƠNG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS
AND PRACTICES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON
STUDENTS’ ORAL MISTAKES AT HANOI NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
(NGHIÊN CỨU THÁI ĐỘ VÀ THỰC TIỄN VIỆC SỬA LỖI CỦA GIÁO
VIÊN TRONG KỸ NĂNG NÓI CHO SINH VIÊN TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI
HỌC SƯ PHẠM HÀ NỘI)

M.A. Minor Programme Thesis
Major

: English Language Teaching Methodology

Code

: 60 14 10

Hanoi, 2013


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
-------------***-------------

ĐINH THỊ HƯƠNG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS
AND PRACTICES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON
STUDENTS’ ORAL MISTAKES AT HANOI NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
(NGHIÊN CỨU THÁI ĐỘ VÀ THỰC TIỄN VIỆC SỬA LỖI CỦA GIÁO
VIÊN TRONG KỸ NĂNG NÓI CHO SINH VIÊN TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI
HỌC SƯ PHẠM HÀ NỘI)

M.A. Minor Programme Thesis
Major

: English Language Teaching Methodology

Code

: 60 14 10

Supervisor : Dr. Đỗ Thị Thanh Hà

Hanoi, 2013


i

DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled
“AN INVESTIG ATION INTO TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS AND

PRACTICES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ ORAL
MISTAKES AT HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION”
is the result of my own research for the Degree of Master of Arts at College of Foreign
Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi and that this thesis has not been
submitted for any degree at any other university or tertiary institution.

Signature:

Date:


ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A number of people have influenced the completion of this M.A thesis and have
changed a matter of personal responsibility into something much more like real
collaboration- whether directly or indirectly.
I would like to register my profound gratitude to Dr. Do Thi Thanh Ha, my supervisor,
for her enthusiastic instruction throughout the process, her outstandingly valuable
comments for every minor detail. I fully understand how busy she is with all
responsibilities as a lecturer as well as Dean of a faculty, and I since rely appreciate this
support.
I am obliged to the thirty responding teachers of English, especially the three
participants in the later stages of the study for their whole-hearted assistance
throughout the whole process, from classroom observations to personal interviews. My
special gratitude is to be expressed to them for their enthusiasm in completing the
survey questionnaire after a short time.
Along the way, I have been incredibly fortunate to be supported and encouraged by my
beloved family and friends.
To all these people I offer my great appreciation. I only hope that they will like the way

it has turned out!


iii

ABSTRACT
This minor research investigated the relationship between the attitudes and teaching
practices of corrective feedback among a number of teachers of English. Participants
were those who were teaching English as a foreign language in Hanoi National
University of Education with certain years of teaching experience. The method to be
employed was a survey questionnaire which involved 30 lecturers. This was followed
by the researcher’s classroom observation of 12 lessons by three teachers chosen from
the participants from the survey. They were teaching speaking skill for English majors
in the same faculty at the university. T1 was in charge of a class with 37 sophomores,
T1 with 28 juniors and T3 with 32 seniors. Finally, one-to-one informal interviews
were administered in a semi-structured format with these three teachers. Accordingly,
the data were collected both quantitatively and qualitatively through a procedure of
note-taking, then combining with the results from informal interviews. The process of
data collection was carried out during the first four weeks of the first semester,
academic year 2012-2013. The findings revealed both differences and similarities
between participants’ attitudes towards error treatment and their practical application in
their speaking classroom settings.


iv

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENT .......................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................vi
PART I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
1. Rationale ..................................................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the study ......................................................................................... 1
3. Scope of the study ........................................................................................ 2
4. Methods of the study .................................................................................... 2
5. Overview of the study................................................................................... 2
PART II: DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................. 3
1. Definition of terms: Corrective feedback ....................................................... 3
2. Types of corrective feedback ........................................................................ 4
3. The importance of corrective feedback ........................................................ 11
4. Who should do the correcting?.................................................................... 13
5. Which types of corrective feedback are the most effective? .......................... 13
6. What is the best timing for corrective feedback? .......................................... 14
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 15
1. Participants ................................................................................................ 15
2. Data collection instruments and procedure .................................................. 16
2.1. Teacher questionnaire .......................................................................... 16
2.2. Classroom observation ......................................................................... 17
2.3. One-to-one interview ........................................................................... 17


v

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.................................................. 18
1. Quantitative analysis and discussion ........................................................... 18
1.1. Collected database from survey questionnaire ....................................... 18
1.2. Collected database from classroom observation .................................... 23

1.3. Summary of quantitative data ............................................................... 26
2. Qualitative analysis and discussion ............................................................. 27
2.1. Collected database from interviews ...................................................... 27
2.2. Summary............................................................................................. 38
PART III: CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 39
1. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 39
2. Pedagogical implications ............................................................................ 42
3. Limitations and suggestion for further research ........................................... 43
REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 45
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................vii


vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1

Schedule of the classes

Table 2

Questionnaire themes

Table 3

Distribution of source of feedback

Table 4

Distribution of time of feedback

Table 5

Distribution of form of feedback

Table 6

Distribution of feedback strategy


1

PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
It is widely approved that errors are unavoidable in language learning, especially in
speaking. The issue of how teachers respond to students’ language errors, i.e.
corrective feedback, has been investigated over the last decades. Having been widely
known under a number of terms, such as “negative evidence”, “repair” and “negative
feedback” (Lyster and Ranta, 1997), corrective feedback is commonly referred to by
second language teachers. As a result of their in-depth studies, corrective feedback has
been defined and classified into different types. Also, there have been investigations
into the relationship between teacher’s corrective feedback and learner uptake on an
international scale. However, few research findings show how language teachers
themselves know and feel about corrective feedback, as well as how far it is involved
in their practical teaching. This has inspired the author to come up with the idea of
exploring that relationship so that further improvement can be made to promote
learners’ language competence.
2. Aims of the study
This study examines teachers’ attitudes towards the correction of spoken errors through
one-to-one interviews and a belief questionnaire. It also investigates the relationship

between those standpoints and their teaching practice in classroom context and
accordingly suggests more effective ways to deal with students’ spoken errors. For
convenience, the two terms “error” and “mistake” are used interchangeably in this
study.
To fulfill these purposes, this research intends to answer the following questions:
1. What are teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback?

2. How do these attitudes affect and relate to their teaching practice within their
classroom settings?


2

3. Scope of the study
This study focuses on how corrective feedback of spoken errors is perceived and
applied by teachers at Hanoi National University of Education. Within this scope, the
research aims to explore the connection between teachers’ perception and practice, and
thereby propose efficient approaches to the treatment of students’ oral mistakes.
4. Methods of the study
The researcher administered a survey questionnaire on teachers to collect quantitative
data on their perspectives of corrective feedback. Further data were then accumulated
both quantitatively and qualitatively through an observing process of twelve lessons by
three out of the thirty participants in the survey. Finally, qualitative data were drawn
out from three semi-structured personal interviews for more specific information about
the use of corrective feedback inside their classrooms.
5. Overview of the study
This study consists of three major parts: Introduction, Development, and Conclusion;
references, and appendices.
Part I: Introduction – This part presents the rationale, the aims, scope, methods, and
the organization of the study.

Part II: Development – This part is divided into the following three chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical background – presents the theoretical framework of corrective
feedback, including its definition, classification, importance, participants, and timings
Chapter 2: Methodology – gives details on the participants, data collection
instruments, and procedure.
Chapter 3: Findings and discussion – analyzes and discusses the results.
Part III: Conclusion – This part summarizes the research and presents pedagogical
implications. Limitations as well as suggestions for further study are also included.
Finally, references and appendices are provided.


3

PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1. Definition of terms: Corrective feedback
1.1. Positive and negative evidence
With regard to input, the two terms “positive evidence” and “negative evidence” have
been employed very often in a large number of research papers investigating error
correction. (e.g. Kim, 2004; Gladday, 2012; Gass, 2005). Gass (2005) defined positive
evidence as “the set of well-formed sentences to which learners are exposed”. It
provides learners with what is grammatical and acceptable in the target language.
Negative evidence, on the other hand, is the provision of information, either directly or
indirectly, which is targeted at the incorrectness of an utterance made by learners.
Gladday (2012: 31) emphasized the function of positive evidence in facilitating
learner’s comprehension as it is typical of an “authentic native speaker discourse in a
simplified and elaborate format”. Negative evidence conversely deals with the
erroneous production by second language learners by providing information as to what
is unacceptable in a certain language.
With reference to teacher’s response to student’s errors, there are a number of terms,

the most common of which are corrective feedback, negative evidence, and negative
feedback. Ellis (2009: 3) affirmed that negative feedback signals in some way that the
learner’s utterance lacks correctness and therefore this reaction is corrective in nature.
As a response to a learner’s erroneous utterance, corrective feedback is one type of
negative feedback and is called an “other-initiated repair”. According to Kim (2004),
however, these three terms are used interchangeably in SLA (second language
acquisition) literature with subtle differences. While negative evidence contains usable
information from the learner’s perspective, both negative feedback and corrective
feedback include information from feedback providers. Therefore, it is the learners
who decide whether or not corrective feedback and negative feedback can be used as


4

negative evidence. For the sake of convenience and consistency, this paper mainly uses
the term corrective feedback.
1.2. Corrective feedback
Researchers have defined corrective feedback in a variety of ways with different terms
used for similar practices.
At its simplest meaning, Schegloff et al. (1977: 363) stated that correction is “the
replacement of error or mistake by what is correct”. As the treatment of error,
corrective feedback indicates the learners that their use of the target language contains
errors. This indication can be in a certain numbers of forms. For example, a response
from the teacher to the erroneous sentence “I go shopping with Mum yesterday” can be
as explicit as “No, you should say went, not go” or an implicit feedback by a mere
repetition of the error “Go?” Regarding corrective feedback as comprised of both
negative and positive evidence, Lyster & Ranta (1997) described corrective feedback
as “the provision of negative evidence or positive evidence upon erroneous utterances,
which encourages learners’ repair involving accuracy and precision, and not merely
comprehensibility”.

2. Types of corrective feedback
Although each researcher finds their own way to classify, on the basis of whether the
correct form is directly or indirectly provided, there are explicit and implicit types of
feedback. The former, on the one hand, is offered with a clear interference in the
utterance overtly emphasizing the erroneous part. It refers to an explicit provision of
the correct form from the teacher, with a clear indication that an error exists. This
signal is then followed by the provision of the target-like reformulation (Rezaei et al.,
2011:23). The later, on the other hand, does not interrupt the flow of the conver sation
but include such strategies as recasts, repetition, clarification requests, or even body
language, all of which are meant to indirectly correct learner’s errors ((Médez et al.,
2010:263). Explicit feedback focuses on form whereas implicit feedback f ocuses on


5

meaning (Fawbush, 2010). Similarly, Park (2010) claimed that implicit feedback does
not affect the flow of conversation while explicit feedback overtly interrupts the course
with an emphasis on the ill-formed utterances. For these distinctive characteristics,
Bower and Kawaguchi (2011) affirmed the positive effect of implicit feedback in
encouraging learners to modify their input without a direct indication that a mistake has
been made. Meanwhile, explicit feedback is constructive in Kim (2004)’s standpoint in
that it can prompt learners to notice the gap by attending to the incorrect form they
have made.
On the basis of the participant in the process of correction, there can be three
possibilities of corrective feedback interaction:
(1) Self-correction. This is the procedure in which students are aware of the mistakes
they have just made and able to provide the timely correct form. According to the five
teacher interviewees in Médez et al. (2010) research, self-correction was supposed to
be “the set of strategies learners use to get rid of their errors by themselves, not at the
moment of making the error, but as a subsequent step outside the classroom, and after

having noticed the error”. They confirmed that this kind of correction was their
learners’ preference because of being “face-saving”, i.e. avoiding the loss of selfesteem and confidence. Let’s take the following situation as an example. In response to
the question “What do you often do in your free time?” a student might say “I spend a
lot of time to watch…watching television.” In his answer, the student was going to
commit an error when he revisited the model structure and was able to provide a
correct utterance in a timely manner.
(2) Peer correction. This may take place when students are working together as pairs
or groups, in which one or two students correct each other’s production in a secure peer
atmosphere. Therefore, peer correction can effectively help protect learners’ self -image
and at the same time improve their self-confidence as well as their independence.
However, instructors should use peers as correction givers cautiously as this technique


6

is fundamentally determined by such factors as learners’ personalities, age, self-esteem,
and their mutual relationship. It is then advisable that teachers get to know their
students very well prior to the application of correction by peers.
Coming back to the example in self-correction, if the student cannot find the problem
by himself and says “I spend a lot of time to watch television”, the other student in the
pair, or a peer in his group may react by simply saying “watching”. A less intimate
alternative of this technique would be a student, as requested by the teacher, coming in
front of the class to find and correct a peer’s mistakes after a series of utterances.
(3) Teacher correction. Finally, instead of students correcting their own mistakes or
their peers’, it is the teacher who corrects them with an explanation clear and detailed
enough to make them understand the matter. As teacher is supposed to be highly
proficient, this is the most trustworthy way to provide the correct form, especially in
difficult cases. However, the teacher should pay particular attention to the “affective
dimension” and the “face-threatening nature” of corrective feedback. The question as
how to make error correction in speaking in the most polite way is worth considering,

as some shy students may feel embarrassed to be corrected publicly (Vasquez and
Haley, 2010).
Example 1 represents a case of teacher correction. In a role-play where one student is a
tourist who wants to go to the National stadium and another is a passer-by.
Example 1:
S: Show me the way to the National stadium.
T: (interrupting and correcting the student’s utterance) When you ask someone you
don’t know for help, you need to use the magic word “please” or “Could you” to show
your politeness.
S: Could you show me the way to the National stadium, please?
Considering how teachers respond to student errors, Lyster & Ranta (1997: 46),
developed a six-type framework of corrective feedback, which has been considered as


7

a preliminary theoretical background in certain research papers. Those six types of
corrective feedback are as follows:
(1) Explicit correction. As the name reveals itself, explicit correction is the “explicit
provision of the correct form” with explicit signals to the students that the previously
utterance is erroneous. Such signals can be used hereby as “oh, you mean…”, or “you
should say…” Attached with a correction is an indication of the mistake the student has
just made. This may be the reason for which it is thought of as effectively eliminating
ambiguity but not being able to generate student repair. Example 1 illustrates this
concept.
Example 2:
S: The day . . . tomorrow.
T: Yes. No, the day before yesterday. (explicit correction)
(Panova & Lyster, 2002: 584)
(2) Recasts. This type of corrective feedback has been controversially referred to as the

most common in a teacher’s correction. A recast takes place when the teacher “re peats
a learner’s incorrect utterance, but replaces the error with the correct form” (Russell,
2009). It involves a reformation of the utterance (either completely or partly) made by
the students. As a result, the error can be minimized without any change in the
meaning, nor with a reminder like “you mean” or “you should say”. Example 2 is an
illustration for this error treatment technique.
Example 3:
L: I went there two times.
T: You’ve been. You’ve been there twice as a group? (recasts)
(Ellis, 2009: 9)
(3) Clarification request. Lyster & Ranta (1997) and Rezaei et al. (2011) referred to
this technique as a feedback from the teacher trying to signal that student’s utterance is


8

misunderstood by the teacher, or it is ill-formed in some way and that a reformulation
or a repetition is needed. A demonstration is in Example 3.
Example 4:
L: What do you spend with your wife?
T: What? (clarification request)
(Ellis, 2009: 9)
Some other examples of teacher’s responses would be “sorry”, “what did you say?” or
“what do you mean?”
(4) Metalinguistic feedback. Similar to recast and clarification request, no explicit
correct forms are provided in this corrective practice. Instead, there are comments,
information or questions related to the well-formedness of students’ utterance.
However, Rezaei et al. (2011: 23) argued that metalinguistic feedback “falls at the
explicit end of the corrective feedback spectrum” as it directs the focus of the
conversation towards linguistic features of the target language. Example 4 sho ws how

it works.
Example 5:
S: There are influence person who

T: Influential is an adjective. (metalinguistic feedback)
S: Influential person (unintelligible) because of his power.
(Sheen, 2004: 278)
By reminding students of the adjective form of the noun “influence” did make the
student aware of their own error and correct the sentence themselves.
(5) Elicitation. This correction technique “prompts the learner to self-correct” (Panova
& Lyster, 2002: 584). Elicitation can be carried out in one of the follo wing ways during
a face-to-face interaction with each being various in their degree of implicitness and
explicitness: (a) Eliciting correct forms by asking open questions, (b) pausing to allow


9

learners to complete the teacher’s sentence, or (c) asking learners to reformulate
utterances. Example 5, 6, and 7 clarify each respective subcategory.
Example 6:
T: In a fast food restaurant, how much do you tip?
S: No money. (lexical error)
T: What’s the word? (elicitation)
SmS: Five . . . four . . . (needs repair)
T: What’s the word . . . in a fast food restaurant? (elicitation)
DifS: Nothing (repair)
T: Nothing, yeah. Okay, what tip should you leave for the following . . . . (topic
continuation)
(Panova & Lyster, 2002: 584)
Example 7:
S: New Ecosse. (L1)

T: New Ecosse. I like that. I’m sure they’d love that. Nova . . .? (elicitation)
SmS: Nova Scotia. (repair)
(Panova & Lyster, 2002: 584)
Example 8:
S: I’ll go out if it will not rain.
T: Can you correct that? (elicitation)
(6) Repetition. This type of corrective feedback requires a change in the teacher’s
tone, together with a repetition of the student’s errors so that their attention can be
drawn, which facilitates a self-correction process. Example 6 exemplifies how the
correction takes place.
Example 9:
S: Oh my God, it is too expensive, I pay only 10 dollars.
T: I pay? (repetition)


10

S2: okay let’s go.
(Sheen, 2004: 279)
Apart from this six-category division, Lyster and Ranta (1997) added translation as a
subtype of recasts. Although both implicit indicators that an error has been made,
translation is different from recasts in the way that the former is “generated in response
to a learner’s ill-formed utterance in the target language” whereas the latter is
“generated in response to a learner’s ill-formed utterance in a language rather than the
target language.”
A little different list of oral error treatment techniques proposed by Ellis (2009)
replaces metalinguistic feedback with paralinguistic signal or paralinguistic sign
(Gladday, 2012: 35), body language (Mendez et al., 2010) in which the corrector, i.e.
the teacher, uses a gesture or facial expression to indicate that there is something wrong
with the speaker’s utterance. An example of this can go like this:

Example 10:
L: Yesterday I go cinema.
T: (gestures with right forefinger over left shoulder to indicate past)
(Ellis, 2009: 9)
Gladday (2012) grouped explicit correction, metalinguistic feedback, and elicitation as
explicit corrective feedback while the others, namely recasts, clarification request,
repetition, translation, and paralinguistic sign as implicit corrective feedback. Which
technique among these major reaction techniques to learners’ spoken errors is the most
effective and preferable? This question has been a controversial issue. A compariso n
between explicit and implicit corrective feedback by Kim (2004) discussed both sides
of the same coin. According to him, “corrective feedback needs to be explicit enough
for learners to notice it as correction without any ambiguities” but it may “interrupt
learners’ form-meaning mapping”. In terms of implicit corrective feedback, recasts can
provide the targetlike form immediately after an error but give learners no chance to


11

reformulate their ill-formed utterances. The other subtypes (clarification requests,
elicitations) are the opposite. Kim also listed some factors that can affect the
effectiveness of implicit corrective feedback, such as learners’ level of proficiency,
readiness for certain linguistic features or the context where feedback is provided.
Strongly supporting the use of implicit types of corrective feedback, Rassaei et al.
(2012) asserted that these types do not provide any explicit warning of learners’ errors
and thus do not disrupt the flow of communication. Nonetheless, an explicit warning
raised by explicit corrective feedback may overtly demand learners to attend to their
incorrect output and then break the flow of communication.
Although implicit corrective feedback may entail such positive effects, there are a
number of researchers who are against the use of implicit corrective feedback. Lyster
& Ranta (1997), based on their observation of the feedback behavior of four teachers

and the subsequent learner uptake in French immersion classrooms, pointed out the
problem of ambiguity caused by implicit corrective feedback in the form of recasts.
They reported that recasts were most frequently provided (55%) by the teachers but
elicited the least learner uptake (31%) and only led to 18% of repair. Likewise, Panova
and Lyster (2002) found very similar results in their observational study on student and
teacher interactions in adult ESL classrooms.
3. The importance of corrective feedback
With regard to the role of corrective feedback, there have existed controversial
standpoints claimed by SLA researchers and language educators. Traditionally, SLA
researchers insisted on the limited function of corrective feedback. Among those is
Krashen, who referred to error correction as “a serious mistake” and supported the
claim with two reasons. Firstly, error correction immediately affects students by
leading them to being on the defensive and trying to avoid mistakes by employing only
simple structures. The second reason is that error correction only facilitates the


12

development of “learned knowledge” and does not function in “acquired knowledge”
(Krashen, 1982).
Standing on the opposite side are advocates of corrective feedback who argue that
corrective feedback, are facilitative and even fundamental to SLA. Park (2010) pointed
out from his survey result with 160 adult ESL students and 18 native speaking teachers
that the majority of both the students (94%) and teachers (88%) agreed that students’
spoken errors need to be corrected. Ellis (2009) confirmed “corrective feedback –
whether oral or written – is an integral part of teaching”, which is frequently used in
classrooms and appears in all popular handbooks for teachers. Based on their result
from personal interviews with five language instructors at the Universida de Qunintana
Roo, Médez et al. (2010) reported that as long as certain factors such as students’
attitudes, personalities or emotions are taken into account, all the participating teachers

agreed that corrective feedback should be used at the beginning of the learning process
because beginners are more willing to correction and therefore fossilization can be
more likely to be prevented. Similar data were found in Schulz (2001) when 95% of
student interviewees in his study supported the teacher’s correction of their errors in
class. Likewise, Campillo (2004) claimed “feedback may serve the function of making
learners notice the mismatch between the input they are exposed to and their output”
either implicitly or explicitly. It also helps “increase the proficiency of a learner in a
target language” (Gladday, 2012). Apart from the discussion on how important
corrective feedback is, those recent studies have adjusted their focus on a wider
perspective and therefore investigated a number of factors related to corrective
feedback: who should do the correcting, which type of corrective feedback is the most
effective, and which timing is the best. These factors will be addressed in light of the
viewpoints from the participants.


13

4. Who should do the correcting?
It is advisable that teachers give students the opportunity to self-correct, as this can
help them get rid of their own trouble, which is supposed to facilitate the acquisition of
the target language. In case that fails, teachers can invite other students to perform the
correction, i.e. peer-correction. Apart from student’s automatic correction of their own
mistakes, some corrective feedback strategies may include teachers’ initial help (e.g.
clarification request, repetition). However, Ellis (2009) acknowledged a number of
problems in self-correction of learner’s errors. First, learners typically prefer teacher
correction to the correction of their own problematic utterances. This may result from
the fact that, as in Park (2010)’s claim, teachers are experts and therefore the most
popular source of feedback in classrooms. Second and more urgently, learners can only
self-correct provided that they have acquired the necessary knowledge of the language
matter.

5. Which types of corrective feedback are the most effective?
A question to be discussed is “which strategies are the most effective?” Park (2010:23)
confirmed that there are a great number of studies considering how effective different
strategies of corrective feedback are to second language acquisition. Traditionally, they
have not been viewed as equally helpful. A closer look at the studies reveals that
techniques that require reformulation, i.e. the provision of the new corrected form, such
as clarification requests, and comprehension checks, have been more efficient than
those which do not, for instance, recasts (Tatawy, 2012:13). This appears contrasting
with the findings in studies by Ajideh and FareedAghdam (2012), Panova and Lyster
(2002), Sheen (2004) and Suzuki (2004) where they reported that recasts were the most
frequent feedback type.
Despite those contradictory points of view, it has been generally agreed among
researchers of second language acquisition that recasts are the most common form of


14

oral error correction used by teachers in second and foreign language classroom.
Furthermore, Park (2010) affirmed in her study that it is approved that there is no one
method that can be effective for all language learners. Therefore, in order to promote
language development, the teacher needs to provide various types of corrective
feedback.
6. What is the best timing for corrective feedback?
There is an issue of whether oral corrective feedback should be held immediately or
with delay. While the former requires an instant response to learner’s mistake, the latter
may take place after a series of erroneous utterances have been made. Most teacher
participants (88%) in Park (2010) agreed that spoken errors should be corrected after
students have finished speaking as the most appropriate time. This result may be due to
the teachers’ concern that their immediate correction might disrupt or even discourage
students from finishing their speaking or participating in classroom activities. Another

possible reason could be their beliefs that students can benefit more from delayed
feedback as it allows them to finish the message they are trying to convey. Yet, it is
still impossible to decide if one type would overweigh the other. There is no evidence
to prove that immediate correction is any more effective than delayed one.
In response to the dilemma all error correction aspects, it can be assured that students’
oral errors should not be left untouched or else their ill-formed utterances will be
fossilized. Therefore, corrective feedback can be used as an effective way to eliminate
possible erroneous utterances among learners. In order for corrective feedback to
facilitate L2 development, Tatawy (2002) listed six different conditions to be met. In
general, the corrective techniques used should provide time as well as opportunity for
students do self- and peer-repair. Furthermore, it should be “fine-tuned” in terms of a
close match between “teacher’s intention, the targeted error, and the learner’s
perception of the given feedback.”


15

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOG Y
1. Participants
The researcher first involved 30 teachers of English at a university in Hanoi into a
survey via emails. They are all Vietnamese and speak Vietnamese as the mother tongue
with a certain number of years teaching oral skill in the same faculty. They are active
female teachers and always willing to adapt to new challenges and changes, therefore
willing to participate in the research.
For a better focus on the scope being investigated, three out of the 30 teacher
participants in the first step were approached in the next stages. The reason for the
researcher to choose these three teachers were that their schedules were different from
one another and from mine as a teacher, hence facilitated the data collection process.
Another factor was that they differed in teaching experiences and were working with
students in various semesters, which contributed to the objectivity of the data. Table 1

summarizes some basic information from which the data for this study were drawn.
Table 1. Schedule of the classes
Teachers Semesters

Dates

Time

Number of
students

T1

3

Wednesday

7.00 - 9.00

37

T2

5

Friday

8.00 - 10.00

28

T3

7

Tuesday

8.00 - 10.00

32

Textbook
Innovations.
Intermediate
Innovations.
Upper intermediate
Innovations.
Advanced

For the fulfillment of this research, the other group of participants includes 97 English
majors who are studying at the same faculty and allocated with roughly equal number
into three classes, consisting of 37 students in semester 3, 28 students in semester 5,
and 32 in semester 7. All student participants are EFL (English as a Foreign Language)
learners whose nationality is Vietnamese and ages range from 20 to 23. Their English


16

proficiency levels varies from intermediate to advanced, which were tested and
assessed by the end-of-term tests conducted at the end of the previous semester. The

tests included all the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and
were all designed by a group of assessors from the same faculty. The reason for the
researcher to exclude freshmen in the faculty was that during the data collection
process, first-year students had not begun the school term yet. All of these were
completely unconscious of being passive participants into a study.
2. Data collection instruments and procedure
The present study was carried out ethnographically with three instruments to be
applied: (1) questionnaire survey via email, (2) classroom observation, and (3) one -toone interviews.
2.1. Teacher questionnaire
As a major instrument adapted from Anderson (2010) a questionnaire was designed by
the researcher and administered via email to 35 teachers in order to investigate their
beliefs as well as points of view in some aspects of corrective feedback. A clear note
informing the deadline of submission and asking for permission for classroom
observation during the first three weeks were written in the email. Prior to the present
study, this questionnaire was applied to one teacher of English in the university as part
of a pilot study to detect and discard any possible misleading questions or
misunderstandings so that timely modification could be made. The finalized 27 -item
questionnaire is based on 6 major themes investigating the participating teachers’
perceptions towards corrective feedback on students’ spoken errors. These themes are:
(1) Demographic information – questions 1, 2 and 3; (2) participants in feedback
process – questions 4, 5 and 6; (3) feedback techniques – questions 7-15 and 24; (4) the
timings of corrective feedback – questions 16-20 and 26; (5) the forms of corrective
feedback – questions 21-23 and 25; (6) the basis for views on corrective feedback –
question 27. 30 out of the 35 teachers who were emailed completed the questionnaire.


17

2.2. Classroom observation
For the second stage, the schedule for observation was then registered and approved.

Before coming to each class, the researcher brought along her voice reco rder, a pen,
and a notebook. The interaction between three chosen participants and their students in
speaking lessons was observed during the first four weeks of the school term. Neither
the teacher nor the student participants were conscious of the purpose of the
observation. The amount of time recorded was 12 fifty-minute classes (with 4 classes
per teacher). To supplement the transcription, notes were primarily taken, with a focus
on students’ erroneous utterances followed by teacher’s corrective reaction. The data
were then classified into four different categories prior to being tallied: (1) sources of
feedback, (2) timings of feedback, (3) forms of feedback, and (4) feedback strategies.
2.3. One-to-one interview
After the classroom observations were all conducted, the three teacher participants
were, in turn, asked to join a personal interview as reinforcement to the previously
collected data. Held a week subsequent the observed classes, each post-observation
interview was conducted in a teacher room within the campus and audio-taped. The
data were then transcribed into a word processor for comparing and contrasting
purposes. The four main themes were identical to those in the survey questionnaire for
easier collation of data, and all the participants’ responses closely reflected the data
gained from classroom observations and were compared among one another. All the
interviews were performed in English and lasted for approximately ten minutes each. It
should also be noted that although they were semi-structured, the whole interaction
between the researcher and the interviewees was strongly based on the four previously
constructed major themes. However, lively and informative interview sessions were
guaranteed. The set of six guiding questions for interviewing can be found in Appendix
C.