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. COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS (TYPE II) Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01 Hanoi – 2019 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com 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. COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS (TYPE II) Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231. Hoàng Văn Vân Hanoi – 2019 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com 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.
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 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com 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 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com 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 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS. iv LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES. vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.
Rationale of the study. Significance of the study. Scope of the study. Purpose of the study.
Method of the study. Key terms and definitions. Structure of the thesis. 5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.
Oral corrective feedback. Literature review of related studies. The studies on teachers and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback. The studies on the relationship between teachers‟ practices and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback.
24 iv LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail. Questionnaires for teachers and students. Semi-structured interview with students and teachers. Quantitative data analysis.
Qualitative data analysis. 42 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION. Oral corrective feedback strategies used by teachers in actual classrooms. Students‟ and teachers‟ preferred types of corrective feedback in EFL speaking classrooms.
Matches and mismatches between teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for oral corrective feedback. Reasons why students and teachers prefer certain types of corrective feedback. 58 v LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail. Recapitulation of the main ideas.
Pedagogical implications for teaching and learning process. Limitations of the study. Recommendations for further work. XVIII vi LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES Table 1.
Teachers‟ information and schedules. Backgrounds of the interviewed students. Oral corrective feedback codes and item position in the questionnaires. Frequency of oral corrective feedback in actual class hours.
Teacher‟s preferences for types of oral corrective feedback. Students‟ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback. Students‟ preferences for types of oral corrective feedback (SPSS result). Students‟ and teachers‟ preferences for corrective feedback.
Qualitative data analysis procedure. Students’ and teachers’ preferences for oral corrective feedback. 50 vii LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com 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 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com 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.
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. 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 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com 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 teacher- centered 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. 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 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.
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.
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 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.
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.
Key terms and definitions Preferences Hausman (2005, 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.