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
-------------***-------------

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

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


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

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,

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

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

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)

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

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.

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


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

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.