MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
QUY NHON UNIVERSITY
NGUYEN THI HOAI AN
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION
ON TEACHER’S USE OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
IN SPEAKING CLASSES IN QUY NHON UNIVERSITY
Field: Theory and Methodology of English Language Teaching
Code: 8140111
Supervisor:
o P of D Ng
ễn Thị Th Hiền
BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
TRƢỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN
NGUYỄN THỊ HOÀI AN
NHẬN THỨC CỦA HỌC SINH
VỀ HÌNH THỨC PHẢN HỒI LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN
TRONG LỚP HỌC NÓI
TẠI TRƢỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN
Chuyên ngành: Lý Luận và Phƣơng Pháp dạy học bộ môn Tiếng Anh
Mã số: 8140111
Ngƣời hƣớng dẫn PGS TS Ng
ễn Thị Th Hiền
i
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON
TEACHER’S USE OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN
SPEAKING CLASSES IN QUY NHON UNIVERSITY” is the result of
my research for the Degree of Master of Art. This thesis has not been
submitted for any degree at any other university or tertiary institution. To the
best of my knowledge, the thesis contains no material previously published or
written by other people except where the references are made in the thesis
itself.
Author’s signature
Nguyễn Thị Hoài An
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would not have taken its final shape without significant
support and efforts from many people who worked diligently to assist me,
believed in me and encouraged me to pursue the final goal. I would like to
take this opportunity to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to all those
concerned.
My wholehearted appreciation goes to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Nguyen Thi Thu Hien for her patience, invaluable guidance, support and
sincere advice throughout the years of academic work. Her thorough and
immediate feedback, profound insights, professional support, dedication and
devotion have given me admiration and motivation to complete my research.
I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to teachers, lecturers
and professors of Quy Nhon University for patiently and wholeheartedly
providing me with precious knowledge and guiding me through the process
required to complete my program of study.
I also gratefully acknowledge participant teachers and students at Quy
Nhon university for their helpful contribution and co-operation in this study.
A special mention goes to my best friends and colleagues whose
understanding, sympathy, and support were invaluable spiritual strength for
me during the process of completing this work.
Last but not least, I owe a great debt to my parents who give me advice,
unconditional love and support that have providing me with encouragement to
further my learning and fulfil my dual responsibility throughout my walks of
life.
iii
ABSTRACT
Oral corrective feedback (OCF) which is one of the central themes in
second language (L2) pedagogy and research in applied linguistics and L2
acquisition has received growing interest for the past two decades. However,
little research has been done with respect to students’ perception and teachers’
practice of providing OCF in the context of English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) teaching and learning in Vietnam. The current study extends this line
of research by investigating the tertiary Vietnamese EFL students’ perception
concerning the importance, types, timing and target of OCF and exploring
how the teachers practice giving OCF in speaking classes. The data consisted
of questionnaires with 127 students, interviews with 15 of those who
completed the questionnaires, and 17 classroom observations of 3 EFL
teachers at a university in Vietnam. The findings disclosed that students
endorsed the benefit of OCF and desire to be corrected when making errors.
Regarding feedback timing, the students preferred feedback delayed until they
finish speaking. In addition, frequency and seriousness are two factors that
need to be considered to decide which error should be treated. Explicit
feedback was the most favored technique, while paralinguistic was not highly
valued. With regard to teachers’ practice, explicit feedback was also the most
frequently used, followed by recast. Hopefully, the findings of the study have
provided an insightful understanding of how OCF is perceived by students
and teachers’ actual practices in the tertiary settings in Vietnam. From these
empirical findings, relevant implications are suggested for better OCF
provision to improve students’ speaking skill.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................... 3
1.2.1. Aims ................................................................................................ 3
1.2.2. Objectives........................................................................................ 3
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS.................................................................... 3
1.4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................... 4
1.5. METHOD OF THE STUDY ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY....................................................... 4
1.7. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY .................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 6
2.1. STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION................................................................. 6
2.2. LANGUAGE ERRORS ......................................................................... 7
2.3. OVERVIEW OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ........................ 9
2.3.1. Definition of feedback .................................................................... 9
2.3.2. Oral corrective feedback ............................................................... 10
2.4. PREVIOUS STUDIES RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT STUDY .. 19
2.4.1. Studies on teachers’ practice of oral corrective feedback ............ 19
2.4.2. Studies on students’ perception of oral corrective feedback ........ 21
2.5. CHAPTER SUMMARY ...................................................................... 25
v
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 27
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................... 27
3.2. RESEARCH SETTING ....................................................................... 28
3.3. RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS ........................................................... 29
3.4. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ............................................................ 30
3.4.1. Observation ................................................................................... 31
3.4.2. Questionnaire ................................................................................ 32
3.4.3. Semi-structured interview ............................................................. 33
3.5. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE................................................ 34
3.6. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ..................................................... 36
3.7. RESEARCH RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ................................. 37
3.8. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 37
3.9. CHAPTER SUMMARY ...................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................ 39
4.1. FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 39
4.1.1. Teachers’ uses of oral corrective feedback ................................... 39
4.1.2. Students’ perception of oral corrective feedback ......................... 44
4.2. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 60
4.2.1. Teachers’ uses of oral corrective feedback ................................... 60
4.2.2. Students’ perception of oral corrective feedback ......................... 63
4.3. SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 68
5.1. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ...................................................... 68
5.2.PEDAGOGICAL
IMPLICATIONS
FOR
TEACHING
AND
LEARNING PROCESS .............................................................................. 70
5.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY....................................................... 70
5.4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK............................ 71
REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 73
APPENDICES
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CF
Corrective Feedback
EFL
English as a Foreign Language
L2
Second Language
OCF
Oral Corrective Feedback
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Classifications of OCF ( Ranta and Lyster, 2007) ......................... 14
Table 2.2. A taxonomy of OCF strategies (Sheen and Ellis, 2001, p. 594).... 18
Table 4.1. Number of observed OCF moves .................................................. 40
Table 4.2. Frequency of OCF types ................................................................ 40
Table 4.3. Students’ perception of the role of OCF ........................................ 45
Table 4.4. Students’ preferences for OCF timing ........................................... 48
Table 4.5. Preferences for the Frequency of Correction for Different Types of
Spoken Errors.................................................................................... 52
Table 4.6. Students’ preferences for types of OCF ........................................ 54
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The present chapter provides the rationale of the study and describes
the major components of the thesis. At the beginning, the main reasons for
conducting the study are presented. The aims of the thesis then are stated, and
clarified by the research questions. The chapter also discusses the scope and
significance of the current study. It ends with a description of the organization
of the thesis.
1.1. RATIONALE
It is undeniable that speaking is a fundamental skill that needs to be
mastered for effective communication when studying a foreign language.
However, the ability of speaking fluently is not a gift that everyone was born
with. In fact, it is sharpened through the long process of instruction and
practice in which committing errors is a common and unavoidable part. The
past few decades have witnessed a polarization of thought in respect of
learners' errors. Some scholars and researchers regard errors as something
negative that need to be eradicated at any cost. For example, Touchie (1986)
considers errors committed by students to be “something undesirable which
they diligently sought to prevent from occurring” (p.75). In contrast, some
hold a positive attitude toward learners’ errors. According to Yule (2010), an
error is “not something which hinders a learner's progress, but is probably a
clue to the active learning progress behind made by a learner as he or she
tries out ways of communicating in the new language”(p. 191). By the same
token, Corder (1967) asserted that the errors committed by the language
learners are of great importance because “they provide to the researcher
evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or
2
procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language” (as
cited in Phuket and Othman, 2015, p. 1).
Alongside the considerable attention paid to errors, there has been a wave
of research interest surrounding the provision of corrective feedback (CF) in
classrooms. The last twenty years have observed an increasing number of
findings which support the effectiveness of CF. For example, scholars such as
Brooks, Schraw, and Crippen (2005) and Manson and Bruning (2000) hold the
view that feedback plays a beneficial role in L2 learner’s linguistic development.
Yet despite the widely accepted importance of CF and its vital part in EFL
learning, it is suggested that the effectiveness of CF in language learning is
influenced by an essential variable which is teachers and students’ perception
(Chen et al., 2016; Evans et al., 2010). As proposed by Chen et al. (2016), there
are two possible reasons why the perception of teachers and learners become an
important factor influencing CF's role. First, discrepancies in how students and
teachers perceive this strategy may hamper learning effectiveness. On the other
hand, students’ positive attitudes regarding teachers’ CF practice can advise
teachers about “instructional best practices” (Chen et al., 2016, p. 2). In addition,
many language teachers and researchers agree on the fact that mismatch between
student evaluations of instructional effectiveness and teachers’ perception may
debilitate learning (Green, 1993; Mc Cargar, 1993, Schulz, 2001). Accordingly,
it seems worthwhile to have an investigation into students’ perception
concerning teachers’ practice of giving CF. Such investigation can help teachers
realize to what extent their practice matches students’ preference, which, in turn,
enhances the efficacy of their CF provision. While the research on students'
beliefs about CF in EFL contexts has gained prominence in foreign countries
(Oladejo, 1993; Plonsky & Mills, 2006; Brown, 2009; Jean and Simard, 2011;
Kaivanpanah, Alavi, & Sepehrinia, 2015), there is a paucity of research on this
topic in Vietnam (Huong, 2020; Ha et al, 2021).
3
Moreover, drawing from classroom observations and personal
experience, the author of this paper realize the fact that teachers tend to pay
little attention to students’ thoughts and preferences when it comes to giving
CF in the teaching and learning process. On that note, teacher-centered
approach seems to be dominant with teaching techniques that appear to follow
one-size-fits-all patterns (Mpho, 2018). As a matter of fact, students' learning
progress has been hampered, particularly in the domain of speaking.
Based on the necessity for teachers to understand their students’
perception, the current gap of knowledge in the research area as well as the
problem existing in my context, the researcher would like to conduct an
investigation to delve into how students perceive their teachers’ practice of
providing oral corrective feedback (OCF) in speaking classes.
1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1.2.1. Aims
The overall aim of this study is to investigate the use of OCF in speaking
classes, including how teachers tend to provide feedback on students’ oral errors
in speaking classes and the students’ perception of the OCF.
1.2.2. Objectives
In order to achieve this aim, the researcher tried to fulfil the following
objectives:
1. To examine types of OCF usually given by teachers in speaking
classes.
2. To find out the perception of students toward the role of OCF
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to reach the above aims, the study sought to answers for the
following research questions:
4
1. What types of OCF do the teachers usually give on students’
speaking in EFL speaking classrooms?
2. What are the students’ perceptions of OCF given by the teachers?
1.4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Due to the limits of time, ability and availability of the data, this study
narrows down only to discover the current practice of giving OCF in speaking
lessons at Quy Nhon University and students’ perception of this practice. The
respondents of this study are limited to second-year English majors of the
Foreign Languages Department; therefore, their opinions might not be
representative of all students at Quy Nhon University in particular and all
students learning English nationwide in general.
1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
While there have been numerous researchers carrying out studies on
OCF, there are few studies taking student’s perception of this issue into
consideration. The research, thus, is conducted with the hope that its results
will be useful for both EFL students and teachers. Based on these findings,
teachers can adjust their ways of providing feedback to make the learning and
teaching process more effective. As for students, the research is expected to
raise awareness of the importance of teachers’ CF in enhancing learners’
language competence. Acknowledging the role of OCF, students can make the
most use of it in learning English. Finally, this can help lay the foundations
for other studies in the same field, especially in the context of EFL
Vietnamese education.
1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The thesis consists of five chapters: Introduction, Literature Review,
Research Method, Results, Discussion and Conclusion.
Chapter 1 provides the rationale for the study, the aim and objectives of the
5
study and research questions, the scope of the study, the significance of the
study, and the organization of the study.
Chapter 2 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, followed by an indication of the research gap
that the present study aims to bridge.
Chapter 3 describes the subjects, research instruments, employed methods,
data collection procedures, and data analysis applied to conduct this study.
Chapter 4 gives a detailed presentation and analysis of collected data to
answer the research questions. The qualitative analysis of the observation
checklist addresses the first question on the teachers’ actual practice. The
quantitative analyses of the questionnaire and the qualitative analyses of the
descriptive transcripts yields the evidence of the second question concerning
students’ perception.
Chapter 5 presents the summary of the findings and some pedagogical
suggestions for the way teachers deliver OCF in classroom. The limitations of
the study and some recommendations for further research are also discussed
in this part.
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to lay the theoretical background for the
thesis by critically reviewing relevant authoritative studies. This chapter starts
by providing working definitions of the key terms and then major
perspectives regarding the OCF are presented. The following are description
and illustration of some common OCF techniques. Finally, the chapter
reviews previous studies in relation to this thesis to define the research gap to
be achieved.
2.1. STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION
There is a plethora of thoughts regarding the definition of perception.
Perception is viewed as a sequence of actions involving awareness,
organization, and analysis of input data. As believed by Rao and Narayana
(1998), perception refers to the process “whereby people select, organize, and
interpret sensory stimulations” (p.329). Bodenhausen and Hugenberg (2009),
based on social cognition, define perception as “essentially the interface
between the outer and inner worlds” (p.2). McShane and Von Glinow (2010)
clearly show that “perception is the process of receiving information about
and making sense of the world around us” (p.68). Similarly, according to
Carbon (2014), perception is the process of using the senses to construct an
internal model of the external world and then manipulating that internal
model. In essence, perception refers to a person’s interpretation and
understanding of the real world shaped from information through the five
physical senses.
Learners’ perception is considered as important issue for both educators
and learners themselves investigated by various language researchers.
7
According Van Lier (1996), investigating learner’s perception regarding their
own learning can help develop their strengths and improve their weaknesses
in learning (as cited in Jacobs and Farrel, 2001, p.5). On the contrary, if
learners hold erroneous beliefs, they may employ ineffective language
learning strategies and fail to achieve success in their language learning. As a
consequence, acknowledging students’ perception of teaching and learning
issues is necessary for educators to be able to support their students and refine
their teaching practice.
2.2. LANGUAGE ERRORS
There have been a great amount of attempts in defining error in the field
of language learning and teaching. Hendrickson (1978) views error as “an
utterance, form or structure that a particular language teacher deems
unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence in reading
discourse” (as cited in Jamil, Majoka & Kamran, 2016, p. 56). Chun et al
(1982), on the other hand, describe an error based on the user’s linguistic
fluency. They defined an error as “the use of a linguistic item in a way, which
according to fluent users of the language indicated faulty or incomplete
learning” (as cited in Lennon, 1991, p. 182). A more flexible description of
error is proposed by Lennon (1991), who includes the native speaker norm
into the definition. Under his view, 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” (p. 182). Allwright and Bailey (1991), holding the
same stance, consider an error as the production of a linguistic form which
differs from the correct form.
However, such a description of error on the basis of the linguistic
fluency of its user or its native-speaker as a basic standard may present some
8
problems. According to James (1998), native-speaker's linguistic fluency
cannot be taken as a measurement or standard criterion for error-free
language. Native speakers have proved very often not to speak or judge their
mother tongue appropriately. And that most English teachers are not native
speakers of English.
It is obvious that defining error is a complicated matter facing applied
linguists, researchers and teachers. As a result, Chaudron (1986b) concludes
that “the determination of errors is clearly a difficult process that depends on
the immediate context of the utterance in question as well as on an
understanding of the content of the lesson, the intent of the teacher or student,
and at times, the prior learning of the students” (as cited in Allwright and
Bailey, 1991, p. 86).
Another point needed to clarify is the difference between error and
mistake in order to avoid possible misunderstanding. According to Ellis (Ellis,
1997), errors reflect gaps in learners’ knowledge. They occur because the
learner does not know what is correct. Corder (1967) indicates the erroneous
performance is a result of “memory lapses, physical states such as tiredness
and psychological conditions such as strong emotion” (as cited in Hamilton,
2001, p. 76). He claims that mistakes are not important to the language
learning process and they can be self-corrected by the learners if attention is
called. Whereas, errors are hardly corrected by the learners themselves and it
is therefore necessary for the teacher to help the learners reconstruct their
defective knowledge of the language.
All things considered, the researcher decided to adopt the error
definition suggested by Hendrickson (1978) because it fits the purpose of the
study, which discovers teachers’ use of OCF in response to students’ error.
When the teacher find the students’ language inappropriate, they may
consider it as an error and provide OCF.
9
2.3. OVERVIEW OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
2.3.1. Definition of feedback
Feedback is a widely used concept in the field of language teaching and
learning. The term “feedback” is defined in various ways by many scholars,
each of whom has his or her own perspectives on it. A broader perspective is
adopted by Askew and Lodge (2000) who view feedback as “all dialogue to
support learning in both formal and informal situations”(p. 1). More
specifically, Ramaprasad (1983) states that feedback is “information about
the gap between the actual level and the reference level of a system parameter
which is used to alter the gap in some way” (p. 4). In the same vein, Hattie
and Timperley (2007) term feedback as “information provided by an agent
(e.g. teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one‟s
performance and understanding” (p. 81) and its purpose is to reduce the
discrepancy between current understandings and performance and a desired
goal. From the perspective of Ur (1996), feedback is viewed as the indication
of how well or poorly learners performed. Its main goal is to identify the
potential areas where improvement could be made as well as to accelerate
students’ learning.
Despite the fact that there are a variety of definitions for the term
feedback, what are common to all above definitions is that they concentrate
on three main elements: the information content, the aim, and the provider of
feedback. The goal or intention of feedback is highlighted among them. It is
to modify students' thoughts or behavior for the purpose of enhancing not
hampering their learning.
Additionally, it is based on the responses from the part of the learners
that feedback can be classified into: positive and negative. Positive feedback
occurs when teachers reward students for providing correct answers. This can
10
assist them in developing self-confidence. Negative feedback, on the other
hand, is used to assist learners in understanding what should be changed in an
utterance or sentence to avoid an error.
2.3.2. Oral corrective feedback
Different definitions of CF have been employed by researchers. Sheen
and Ellis (2011) stress that there is a basic difference to define CF. That is to
say, feedback is delivered whether the response is right or wrong, whereas CF
entails the presence of error. Chaudron (1988) defines CF as “any teacher
behavior following an error that minimally attempts to inform the learner of
the fact of error” (as cited in El Tatawy, 2002, p. 1). Li (2010) suggests that
CF refers to “responses to a learners non-target-like L2 production” (p. 309).
Along the same line, Lightbrown and Spada defines CF as
Any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is
incorrect. This includes various responses that the learners receive. When a
language learner says, „she play the piano everyday‟, CF can be explicit, for
example, „no, you should say goes, not go‟ or implicit „yes she plays the piano
every day‟, and may or may not include metalinguistic information, for
example, „Don‟t forget to make the verb agree with the subject. ( p. 171-172)
More recently, Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006) hold the view that CF
is one form of negative feedback that aims to provide the learner who has
committed a linguistic error with a corrective response. They further indicated
that: “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
these” (p. 340).
Apart from its varied definitions, there have been various terminologies
used to define and operationalize “CF”. The most popular ones are negative
11
evidence, negative feedback and error correction. These terms, according to
Schachter (1991), can be used respectively and interchangeably by
researchers.
Considering the definitions of CF mentioned above, it can be deduced
that CF refers to responses to learner utterances that contain an error in hope
of helping them improve their accuracy. In addition, CF can be classified as
written CF which is a response to linguistic errors learners make in their
written production and OCF which refers to comments on errors that occur in
learners’ speech production. In this study, only OCF is focused upon.
2.3.2.1 The role of OCF
Although CF is considered a significant aspect of L2 pedagogy, its role
in L2 learning has spawned a controversial topic among many linguists,
language educators and researchers. From a theoretical perspective, those
who support the nativist theory believe that language acquisition is made
possible by Universal Grammar (Chomsky, 1975), “the system of principles,
conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human language”
(as cited in Kim, 2004, p. 2). According to this perspective, exposure to
language data that could activate internal processing mechanisms or
supportive evidence that merely instructs the learners on what is appropriate
in the target language is necessary for language development. In contrast, the
role of negative evidence which provides learners with information of what is
inappropriate in the L2 is downplayed because if learners have access to
Universal Grammar, CF hardly played a role (Schwartz, 1993; White, 1991).
Krashen (1982, 1985), in his Input Hypothesis, also opposes the role of CF in
language learning. Krashen (1982) suggests that the language acquisition of
students happens through an unconscious process when learners are exposed
to sufficiently rich comprehensible input. Along this line of thought, he
- Xem thêm -
.PDF 
111 
1 
98 
